People might have read either Dick P’s or VGIF’s take on the Aussie fruit-cake’s response to Senator David Leyonhjelm’s speech: “Thank you, Smokers, for your substantial contribution, over and above what is required, to the revenues of the Australian State. What would we do without you?”

The ‘Fruit-cake’ in question is Simon Chapman (fake professor). He was given the opportunity to respond to  Senator David Leyonhjelm’s speech by an Australian news media named ‘ABC’ (?). What Chapman did was pretend to address the subject matter of the Senator’s speech by headlining his ‘op-ed’:

“Introducing Big Tobacco’s confused new errand boy”

The reality, however, was that Chapman did not address any of the matters which the Senator raised. In fact, Chapman merely took the opportunity to blaggard tobacco companies once again, despite the Senator’s speech having nothing to do with the practices or profits of tobacco companies. Disgraceful and unfair taxation of products which people enjoy, especially as these taxes hit the poorest people the hardest, is what the Senator’s speech was about.

Chapman DISHONESTLY implied that he was responding to the Senator’s speech, but he was not. He was taking the opportunity to, once again, claim that tobacco companies are devils. That is all.

Whether TCs are devils or not is immaterial as regards the Senator’s speech. It is clear that Chapman’s op-ed has been devised to deflect attention from the substance of the Senator’s speech, which is about the unfair taxes levied upon people who enjoy tobacco. Note well that Chapman does not defend the unfair taxes.


This DISHONESTY is everywhere in Tobacco Control from top to bottom. It is especially evident in the TV adverts that TC produces. Who can forget the advert which showed a ‘tumour’ growing on a cigarette, of blood in veins turning from red to black? That is not ‘hard hitting’ discouragement of smoking. It is blatant dishonesty.

“Advertising Techniques” ought not to play any part whatsoever in Public Health. Only truth  and actual facts matter. It is really weird that there has never been one occasion where death from lung cancer has been PROVEN to be the result of smoking. Not one. But it ought to be that, when a person dies from LC, the cause of the LC should be evident from microscopic examination of the tumour cells. If that examination does not provide evidence that tobacco smoke caused the tumour, but the Zealots still claim that tobacco smoke caused the tumour, then the Zealots are claiming precisely the same ’cause and effect’ as ‘scientists’ in a bygone age who claimed that ‘miasmas’ from swamps caused malaria.

Erm… That was a long sentence. To simplify, what I mean is that without specific evidence that it is tobacco smoke, and tobacco smoke alone, that causes LC, then the claims of Zealots are no better than ‘miasmas’.


You cannot treat HEALTH in a human being as a ‘one size fits all’ commodity. Some babies are born with abnormalities. Some of these abnormalities are evident, such as cleft lip. Others are not so evident, such as dwarfism.

Charlatans such as Chapman know nothing about these things, but they pretend to. It is for that reason (pretending to know) that they should be tried as common criminals.


3 Responses to “Dishonesty”

  1. brainyfurball Says:

    You say..“Advertising Techniques” ought not to play any part whatsoever in Public Health. Only truth and actual facts matter.”

    You are correct. I refer to this topic in my own blog (A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing) where I say, “A very large proportion of the psychology of fear appeals, and communications, and attitude change are written for the advertising industry. This includes the health advocates who use this particular advertising to create the effect they desire. …
    I choose to think it is deliberate. Tobacco Control is expert at marketing. It, I believe, knows the psychology involved inside and out. Whole university departments give ‘expert’ advice on a continuous level. Why, even one prominent Tobacco Control advocate has a PhD in the subject.I wonder how many millions have been spent by the various Tobacco Control groups looking into this very topic.”

    Chapman is the above (not-named) sociologist whose PhD examined the semiotics of cigarette advertising.

    • junican Says:

      I totally agree – it has all been absolutely deliberate without a doubt. And I mean that even the demonisation of smokERS has been deliberate. In the UK, Prof Harding is the creature who devised the persecution of smokers by the use of advertising techniques.
      It is an absolute disgrace.

      • junican Says:

        Further, I also believe that the anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol creed was present when the WHO was set up, shortly after WW2. Bearing in mind that Prohibition was only ended in 1933, for economic reasons, the eugenicists were still very active. The mindset was very much still alive. It was continued by the Nazis up to WW2, and continued by Doll after the war, and into the WHO.
        There is no conspiracy theory in this. It is a pattern of events.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: