Is the Creation of ‘Misery’ the Objective of the Iron Triangle?

For new readers, the ‘Iron Triangle’ is the loop between ‘Bureaucrats, Special Interest Groups and Politicians’, but, in the case of Tobacco Control, replace ‘politicians’ with ‘academics’. Thus, the triangle is “Bureaucrats (in the UK, they are resident in the Health Dept), Special Interest Groups (being Big Pharma and Foundations/Charities), and Academics”. Given the obvious lack of any control whatsoever by politicians over the bureaucrats, the Iron Triangle is incredibly strong. It is self-perpetuating, self-financing and self-serving. Only really high heat will melt the Iron Triangle.

During Prohibition days in the USA, RELIGION occupied the ‘academics’ spot. After the failure of prohibition, the ‘eugenicists’ did not evaporate. They changed their approach. Instead of religion, ‘SCIENCE’ became the justification, especially epidemiology. I am sure that readers are aware of my opinion that epidemiology is not ‘science’; it is mathematics. It merely ‘counts’. If the counting indicates some relationship within the numbers, then ‘Proper Science’ takes over and discovers the actual, physical events which give rise to the numerical relationships. What we have been seeing over the last couple of decades has been the elevation of ‘counting’ to the status of ’cause and effect’.

As those reader who have read my synopsis of the McTear Case will know, even fairly recently (2005), Tobacco Control and the whole Medical Establishment were unwilling or unable to submit their evidence that smoking causes lung cancer to the scrutiny of the Scottish Supreme Court. They, literally, tried to ‘con’ the Court by quoting excerpts from the Surgeon General’s report, but could or would not provide actual scientific evidence. Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!


One could go further with the artificiality of the Tobacco Control Industry template. One could say that, since it is not scientific, then it has some purpose which is not scientific.

What could that purpose be? It is too facile to say that the purpose is to eliminate tobacco. After all, a simple Legislative Act could banish tobacco overnight (officially).


Big Pharma must have ulterior motives. Certain calculations must have take place. The link as ‘partners’ with the Tobacco Control Dept of the WHO must have been considered to be advantageous to Big Pharma.

Is it ‘way out’ to think that forcing people to ‘quit’ smoking will produce MISERY? And is it ‘way out’ to think that the ‘misery’ produced by smoking bans, especially in people’s homes, will produce a demand for ‘tranquillisers’? I use that word deliberately, although it seems to have been long superseded. But, essentially, that word is the correct word. Doctor: “I see that you are miserable and upset. I cannot help you to resolve the problems which are causing this misery, but I can give you a prescription which will alleviate the misery. You will feel tranquil, and be able to assess your problem without getting upset”.


It seems that, a few months ago, the Scottish People were unlikely to vote for independence. Now, suddenly, as a result of a poll by The Times newspaper, it seems that the Scottish People have suddenly changed their minds. Immediately, after the Times survey, ALL OF WESTMINSTER swung into action. Could I be forgiven for thinking that the Times Survey was a put up job? Is there any way to check whether or not it was or was not?


But there always seems to be a specific objective of ALL advertising, which is to exploit the worries that people have, and if they have no worries, then worries need to be created.  Is it not true that the objective of Tobacco Control has been almost totally to create fear and worries?

That is certain, and it is also certain that the creation of ‘fears and worries’ has always been deliberate. Only if ‘fears and worries’ can be created can legislative action ensue.


In the title of this post appears the word ‘MISERY’, and that is the important word. I cannot recall anything that ‘Government’ has done for decades which promotes the opposite of MISERY. What is the opposite of MISERY? You might suggest the word WELL-BEING. But ‘well-being’ requires forcing people to stop enjoying what they enjoy, to ensure their ‘well-being’, which is a contradiction.


The whole FCTC Treaty promotes MISERY, and not health. Smoking bans promote MISERY, and not health. E-cig bans promote MISERY and not health. Alcohol minimum prices promote MISERY and not health. In fact, it would be reasonable to say that the whole UK Public Health Gang has, as its principle objective, to make everyone as MISERABLE as possible.


So why are our elected representatives permitting this abomination?

In the McTear Case, the Medical Establishment ‘tried it on’. They tried to get a favourable verdict on the basis of epidemiology and rumour. They failed.

I fail to understand why Tobacco Companies have not supported the consumers of their products to the hilt. I would have thought that such a defence of their customers would be a prime objective. If I was head of a group which supported smokers, I would brag about the financial support I received from tobacco companies. I would say that ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) refused to finance me. That situation arose in the case of the Enstrom and Kabat Study. When the results of the study failed to show that spouses of smokers suffered more ‘ill-health’ than spouses of non-smokers, the Cancer Society pulled the funding. Thus, E & K had not the funds to finish the study. They turned to the only other ‘interested party’, being tobacco companies, and finished the study. The study showed that there was little difference between the fates of smoking spouses and non-smoking spouses.


It has yet to be computed whether or not the wholesale attack on pleasurable activities will produce revolution. It ought to. But, by ‘revolution’, I do not mean tumbrils and guillotines. Disgrace will suffice. Perhaps we should compile a list of academics who should be disgraced. It would be easy, and we could tell our MPs who they are. The disgraced academics would be relieved of their titles of ‘Professor’, ‘Doctor’ and ‘Sir’. Perhaps we could start with “Professor John Ashton”. Perhaps he should be re-titled as “Know-all drunkard” John Ashton. But Chapman and Glantz are just the same.

Why? Because they have enjoyed decades of secret funding and the protection of the ‘Iron Triangle’.


The answer is simple. All that is needed is for politicians to ask the Zealots, “Are you sure?”




One Response to “Is the Creation of ‘Misery’ the Objective of the Iron Triangle?”

  1. Rose Says:

    In fact, it would be reasonable to say that the whole UK Public Health Gang has, as its principle objective, to make everyone as MISERABLE as possible

    I would think it was more about causing confusion.
    Everything you thought you knew is now wrong.
    When people can no longer trust their own judgement they become not only miserable but also dependent.

    Misery is merely a by product.

    Think of all those poor people who have been religiously buying low fat products for years and now find they have been filling them selves up with all manner of nasties.

    Much the same happened to tobacco, with the push to reduce nicotine and tobacco smoke condensate (tar) in the 60’s and 70’s.

    Products just don’t sell if they taste of nothing.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: