“Asthmatising” (2)

It is fairly obvious what the point of this new farcical study is.

It is to negate the obvious statistical fact that, as smoking has decreased over the past several decades, so has the incidence of childhood asthma increased in step. Thus, it is highly improbable that smoking causes childhood asthma, which TC has previously claimed to be the case.

How can that obvious correlation (decrease/increase) be overturned? Well, this study is an attempt to do just that. Clever buggers!

The trick is to claim that past smoking, while a man is young, alters his genetic production of ‘healthy’ sperm. The longer he smoked, especially if he began in his teens, the worse the effect on his ‘biological sperm production line’. Thus, the decline in smoking as a result of quitting, is not a reason to expect a reduction of childhood asthma. But that argument is faulty because, although it might excuse a continuation of childhood asthma incidence, it does not explain the increase in childhood asthma.

At a meeting of the European Respiratory Society, this paper was read. As a result, it was able to be quoted. But no one can see the actual paper. It is hidden from view – deliberately.


But the point of the fuss about this study is clearly indicated by the quote that I showed last night:

The findings add to growing evidence which suggests that poor health can be recorded in a father’s sperm or a mother’s eggs.”

Growing evidence“.

In other words, several studies can be put together into a ‘meta-study’, and forced to produce the ‘right’ result.


What THE PEOPLE fail to understand, when they read these Mail-on-line articles,  is that they describe RISK. What is THE RISK? Clearly, in a thunderstorm, the risk of being struck by lightning when you are inside your home is negligible, but it is also true that going for a walk in thunderstorm is also negligible. HOWEVER, it is probable that incidences of people being struck by lightning outside, as compared with inside, are INFINITELY greater. Forget your 10 times more risky, or 1oo times more risky, or 1,000,000 times more risky. We are talking INFINITELY.


I can reverse my tobacco plant illustration. Rather than simply observing the plots 1 and 2, and trying to explain the differences in plant growth, I can begin with a THEORY. I can say that I believe that the sunniness is important, and I can watch what happens to the growth of the plants with that in mind. I can do measurements about the sunniness, and I can do measurements about the plant growth, and, if my theory is correct, the shadier plants will not do as well as the sunnier plants. And I can produce copious figures and calculations, and graphs to ‘prove’ it. I can state a TRUTH: SUNNINESS OF SITE IS THE PRIME REQUIREMENT FOR GOOD PLANT GROWTH. Erm…. My measurements prove nothing of the sort. In fact, they prove nothing at all. They are just mathematical calculations. Thus, a tweaking of the supply of nutrients could easily cause the plants in the shadier part to outgrow the plants in the sunnier parts. But the ‘expert’ epidemiologists would say, “Ah but we kept the ‘external influences’ like nutrients steady (aka allowing for confounders)”. I always ask myself how they did that, and how accurate were their ‘controls’. Perhaps this ‘control over confounders’ is the trick which permits them to produce idiotic ideas such as ‘wish-think’ instant evolution

For that is what the Zealots have proposed. Smoking causes instant evolution. 


The reason that these people can get away with such nonsense is that there are absolutely no controls whatsoever over Academia. None at all. I mean also what the Zealots in academia are telling/teaching their students. Also, I mean what infants in kindergarten are being brainwashed with.

There is an extremely simple ‘principle’ which ‘Education Ministers’ should adopt. That is that only FACTS should be taught in the early years. Absolutely no ‘politically correct’ theory. At a later stage, students might study alternative views of some curiosity, and be asked to THINK. For example, they might be shown lots of TV adverts, and be asked to look for the use of GOLDEN WORDS, like ‘harvest’, ‘platinum’, ‘gold standard’, 99%, ‘flawless’, etc, etc. And the ‘dross’ words, like ‘disgusting, filthy, stinking’.

The ‘Iron Triangle’ of Academia, Big Pharma plus the Foundations, and Bureaucrats in our Government and in World-wide Gangs like the World Bank will not MELT until someone, with sufficient support, demands it.

But, as its name indicates, the IRON TRIANGLE has enormous strength. That is why studies indicating ‘Vast Evolution Acceleration’ can be seriously given the light of day.


Finally, in the comments on the last post, I was given a list of all the contributors to the WHO and the amounts contributed around 2010/11. Vast sums of money are involved. Tonight, I have had enough.


4 Responses to ““Asthmatising” (2)”

  1. nisakiman Says:

    That is that only FACTS should be taught in the early years. Absolutely no ‘politically correct’ theory.

    I had a client a few years ago who was a recently retired doctor, a GP. I had several conversations with him about smoking, as he was a smoker (roll-ups) himself, but quietly wracked with guilt about it. I sent him several links debunking some of the stuff he had come out with, and one of the things he said (after saying how much better he felt about smoking, having read the links) was that in med school (and I’m guessing he was there in the late 60s), they were constantly brainwashed about the dire consequences of smoking. So it’s not really surprising that the medical profession is so antipathetic towards smoking if they were at it back then. And I can only imagine that the temperature of the rhetoric has been ramped up since then.

    • Junican Says:

      In the McTear Case, McTear’s GP admitted that the only ‘knowledge’ that she had about smoking harm came from medical school. I suppose that, in the past, the causal theory about the disease known as ‘malaria’ was declared in medical schools at the time, to be ‘bad air’ from swamps.
      But what is really odd is that the ‘teachers’ who claimed that malaria was a result of ‘bad air from swamps’ were never castigated and persecuted. Is this not the case now? The Charlatans in “Public Health” can get away with murder (literally) without the possibility of chastisement. That is a situation which needs to be addressed.

  2. artbylisabelle Says:

    Reblogged this on artbylisabelle.

  3. The Arrogant Agenda. | underdogs bite upwards Says:

    […] takes apart the new asthma nonsense (part 1 and part 2) in which ‘scientists’ take the theory of inherited traits right back to pre-Mendelian […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: