New Study says: “Coffee intake linked to reduced risk of MS”

Many readers will be aware that my wife suffers from MS (Multiple Sclerosis). She was first diagnosed at around the age of 35. She is now 73.

The first indications that something was wrong were a slight dragging of her feet when walking, tingling sensations in her legs and a little squiffiness in her eyesight. The progress of the ‘disease’ (I prefer to call it a ‘condition’) was slow but definite, despite various attempts to arrest it, such as pills and potions and physiotherapy. After a while, urination became more difficult also.

No need to go into detail, but the problems of walking and even just standing up got worse and worse until she finished up in a wheelchair. She self-catheterised for the urination problem. The eyesight problem does not seem to have worsened  over the years much. (Actually, apart from focusing on near objects, her distance vision is magnificent; her hearing is perfect her other senses seem to be unaffected).

Oddly enough, no one seems to have much idea why some people get MS but the vast majority do not. At one time, there seemed to be epidemiological evidence that contracting the disease mumps, had something to do with it, but I believe that idea has been discounted. the fact is that no one knows. Oddly enough, the condition is much more prevalent in European white people than in other peoples, especially black races. One can’t help but think that it is genetic, and yet it does not seem to be passed down through the generations. Perhaps it has something to do with the genes which are common to all white Europeans, where some ‘fault’ is ‘activated’ by any number of possible causes. For example, not an awful long time before the symptoms showed, she had an awfully traumatic experience (which I do not propose to detail).

The above indicates why I was interested in this article:

“Coffee intake linked to reduced risk of MS”

Because of my personal experiences, I am more that sceptical about the findings. The chief finding is:

“From the US study, the team also found that participants who did not drink coffee in the year prior to symptom onset were approximately 1.5 times more likely to develop MS, compared with those who consumed at least four cups of coffee a day.”

First, those of us who have been trying to fathom out the statistics about smoking will hopefully note that “1.5 times”, from an epidemiological point of view, is hardly worth bothering about. Anything less than ‘2 times’ at minimum would be considered ‘not statistically significant’. There is too much of a chance that luck, or bad luck, has played the biggest part.

But there is more to be concerned about than that in this study.

First, we note that the two studies which were used to collect data were from Sweden and the USA. I do not know what the incidence of MS is in Sweden or the USA, but I know that, in the UK, it is about 120 per 100,000. Keep that in mind.

In the Swedish study, there were 1,629 people with MS and 2,807 healthy controls. In the USA study there were 1,159 people with MS and 1,172 healthy controls. The researchers asked these people about their recollection of their coffee drinking habits 1, 5 and 10 years before the symptoms appeared. The ‘healthy’ group’ drank coffee, while the ‘unhealthy’ (MS sufferers) did not.

Why is this study bullshit?

OK. Go back to the incidence of MS in the population – about 120 per 100,000. So what is the likely incidence per 1000? It is 0.12%. So, in the Swedish study, with 2800 ‘healthy’ members, the likelihood of members of that control group getting MS was, in total, roughly 4 individuals. In the USA study, with 1172 ‘healthy’ members, the likely number of controls who got MS would have been 1 individual. But why should the 4 in the Swedish study and the 1 in the USA just happen to be in those  ‘healthy’ control groups? Or, to put it another way, suppose that the two ‘healthy’ control groups had had more than 4 and more that 1 (which could very easily been the case due to the high randomness of MS)? Would that have proven that drinking coffee causes MS?

Here is another twist – the beneficial effects of coffee do not rely upon the caffeine  – they are just as apparent in decaf coffee. Well, so they say. And yet they say:

Caffeine has neuroprotective properties and seems to suppress the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, which may be mechanisms that explain the observed association.”

So decaf coffee works just as well but caffeine is the active ingredient? BULLSHIT I CRY!


Is it any wonder that so many of us are sceptical about ‘smoking/tobacco related diseases’? As Garyk has pointed out again and again, according to Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’, 85% of smokers die from ‘smoking related diseases’ – and so do 84% of non-smokers. If smoking, and only smoking, causes these ‘smoking related diseases’, why do 84% of non-smokers also die from these diseases?

There can only be one answer, which is that these diseases are NOT caused by smoking. Smoking may very well increase the chances of contracting these diseases, but it does not cause them. One might consider the writings of Florence Nightingale. In the Crimean War (?), more soldiers died from contagious diseases than from fighting. What caused the diseases? Who knows? An insect bite? A dog bite? Who knows? What caused the spread of the diseases? It was the hygiene situation mostly and crowding. Disgusting, filthy, stinking Soldiers of the Crown. Let us not forget that these disgusting, filthy, stinking Soldier of the Crown were mostly smokers, both in WW1 and WW2.

What actually causes lung cancer? In the same way that no one knows what actually causes MS, nor does anyone know what causes lung cancer or any other cancer. However, there is no doubt at all that the incidence of cancers of all sorts increases exponentially with age (exponentially means ‘multiplying’, for lack of a better word – thus, 1 goes to 2, 2 goes to 4, 4 goes to 8, 8 goes to 16, 16 goes to 32, etc. And that does not include ‘squaring’ – 2 x 2 =4, 4 x 4 = 16, 16 x 16 = 256) Does old age cause cancers? I doubt it. It is more likely that the body’s repair mechanism deteriorates and fails to clear out the detritus from dead cells and, at the same time, replaces them with crap new cells because of the failing bone marrow. Even worse if the bone marrow itself becomes cancerous.

Of course, the above is extremely simplistic, but the fact is that no amount of jargon can hide the fact that CRUK (Cancer research UK) has failed totally in its objective. It has now become just another arm of tobacco control. And yet people keep leaving thousands of pounds to that fake charity in their wills. There is a MS Society. It is utterly useless. My wife went to a meeting of the local MS Society. She only went once. All that happened was that members moaned about this and that.


Here is an interesting question.

If a million people smoke, and, say, 4% of them get lung cancer, that is 40,000 cases of LC. That also means that 960,000 did not get LC. If there are 100,000 non-smokers, and zero LCs (where there really ought to be, statistically, 4,000 LCs, if smoking was not the factor), does that mean that smoking caused the LCs in the smokers?

For that is what Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’ claimed essentially.

But, as we have seen in the coffee study, the fact is that, in the Doctors Study, there were not enough non-smokers for the incidence of LC to show in that population as significant. It comes down to this:

Zero times 10 = zero. Zero times 1000 = zero. Thus, if in a group of 1000 smokers there is an incidence of 10 LCs, the probability is that there will be zero LCs in a group of 100 non-smokers. If we multiply the smokers by 10, then the probability will become 100 LCs, but the probability in non-smokers will still be zero (10 x 0 = 0). The point is that, mathematically, there must be some incidence among non-smokers mathematical comparisons to be useful. Otherwise, we might as well compare the incidence of LC in Aliens as compared with Humans.

The above is too ‘numerical’, I know, since non-smokers, and even children as young as one year old, have been known to die from ‘carcinoma of the bronchi’. Tiny numbers, but real numbers, and these tiny numbers, though still tiny, increase exponentially as time goes by.  The numbers never go less.


Multiple Sclerosis is a very odd condition. Rare, but not very, very rare. As we have seen, it hits very roughly 1 per 1000 for no apparent reason. But here is the crux – THERE MUST BE A REASON! Just as there must be a reason for ‘dwarfism’ and ‘mongolism’. There must be a reason.

Thus, the idea that smoking causes LC and all the other ill-health consequences that it supposed to cause, depends upon knowing what is the cause of multiple sclerosis and similar conditions. If the snake-oil doctors and snake-oil professors of Public Health cannot come to a conclusion as to what is the cause AND CURE of MS, then they are charlatans if they lobby for taxpayers money to find a cure which does not exist.


Has anyone noticed that there have been no ‘studies’ of population-wide (I mean the 500,000 aged people who die every year) to discuss the causes of death? If you look at National Statistics, everyone dies.

Thus, all the blather about ‘premature death’ makes no sense unless there is an ‘ideal’ moment when a person might die. What is that ‘ideal’ moment? There IS no ideal moment, and therefore there is no ‘premature’. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PREMATURE DEATH.

The more that you think about it, the less convincing the idea of ‘premature’ death becomes. Essentially, ‘premature death’ is impossible, since there is no way back from death. It is possible to cure ‘premature ejaculation’, but not possible to cure ‘premature death’.


Am I right? I believe that the vast majority of humans just want to be safe in the sense of having water, food, warmth and shelter. Given those attributes. then they can, depending upon resources, branch out into more esoteric things, like palaces, armies, parliaments, going to the moon, climate control, the UN, the WHO, the EU, the FCTC, and any number of prohibitions and directives.

A friend of mine, who worked in the chemical industry, said ‘Let it develop’. I think that he meant that it is better to let ‘the opposition’ go too far before fighting back.


That is how it seems to me. Tobacco Control chose a very extreme position to begin with. I do not know why the Associations of publicans and Trade Unions went along with it, although I understand why Pubcos did so – the so-called ‘level playing field’. Even with Pubcos, I do not understand why they agreed that their bar staff should become enforcers (unpaid policemen, for all intents). Did they do a deal? They may have, vaguely, but the decline cannot be hidden.


I am not the only one who has drawn attention to the exponential waste of taxpayers money. Note the word ‘exponential’. More and more taxpayers money is being confiscated to support quasi-politicians, but the really important thing is that, even after they have stolen our money, they continue to persecute us.

What is the answer?



10 Responses to “New Study says: “Coffee intake linked to reduced risk of MS””

  1. Rose Says:

    So decaf coffee works just as well but caffeine is the active ingredient? BULLSHIT I CRY

    You have to remember that the important chemical that keeps people doing things was originally set by prohibitionists who had a very low opinion of their subjects and nobody seems to have bothered to look any further.

    Nicotine and caffeine are plant pesticides so if they kill tiny bugs then naturally they must eventually kill those annoying smokers and coffee drinkers.

    Being an enthusiastic smoker and coffee drinker, I have already done a little research so that I can argue with the prohibitionists when the time comes.

    Parkinson’s protection without caffeine or nicotine

    “Decaf coffee and nicotine-free tobacco aren’t just for the health-conscious. Giving them to flies with a form of Parkinson’s disease has revealed that although coffee and cigarettes protect the brain, caffeine and nicotine aren’t responsible for the benefit.

    If the compounds that put up this brain defence can be identified, they may offer a preventive Parkinson’s treatment where none currently exists, says Leo Pallanck, a neuroscientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, whose team led the new study.

    “We think that there’s something else in coffee and tobacco that’s really important,” he says.”

    Well yes there is, both nicotine and trigonelline the pyridine alkaloids in tobacco and coffee turn to nicotinic acid when burnt or roasted.

    A tiny amount in tobacco but a large amount in coffee.

    So maybe that might be it.

    A quick search on Niacin – Multiple Sclerosis yields quite a few results, but they are talking about tablets rather than relatively small amounts on demand in a cup of coffee.

    They probably don’t even know it’s in coffee as everyone thinks Coffee = Caffeine

    ” Niacin is formed during the roasting process, and coffee can contain 10-40mg of niacin per 100g, depending on the extent of roasting, thus making a significant contribution to average intakes of niacin”

    http: //

    Basic Chemical Reactions Occurring in the Roasting Process
    “The best cup characteristic are produced when the ratio of the degradation of trigonelline to the derivation of Nicotinic Acid remains linear. The control model of this reaction ratio is a time/temperature/energy relationship. The environment temperature (ET) establishes the pyrolysis region for the desired chemical reactions while the energy value (BTU) and system transfer efficiency (STE) determines the rate of reaction propagation and linearity of Nicotinic Acid derivation to degradation of trigonelline”

    http: //

    Trigonelline is an alkaloid with chemical formula C7H7NO2.
    Pyridine group: piperine, coniine, trigonelline, arecoline, arecaidine, guvacine, cytisine, lobeline, nicotine, anabasine, sparteine, pelletierine.

    My friend had MS and was an inveterate tea drinker but smoked like a chimney.

    Carbon monoxide, now known to be a natural antinflammatory in very small doses.

    Carbon monoxide may protect against MS symptoms

    “At the end of the trial, the mice that had breathed CO showed much greater mobility than their control counterparts. While the experimental mice had limp tails, the control mice suffered complete hind limb paralysis.”

    “Pharmaceutical companies are currently working on developing drugs that can deliver carbon monoxide locally within the nervous system, the researchers say. They stress that MS patients should under no circumstances try inhaling carbon monoxide – the gas can be lethal.”

    Perhaps some MS patients are already doing it unwittingly every time they light a cigarette.

    Unfortunately Roses’s Garden has been out of action for months so I am relying on memory.

    I’ll see what else comes back to me on the subject.

    • The Last Furlong Says:

      Fascinating stuff Rose and Junican – thank you for posting. Interesting following it.

    • junican Says:

      I shall have to think. Am I right in thinking that when nicotine is heated sufficiently, as in the burning of tobacco in a cigarette or pipe or cigar, the nicotine reacts with oxygen in the air and becomes niacin?
      If that were true, then we smokers would not be inhaling nicotine but would be inhaling niacin.
      That would also mean that vapers are not inhaling the same stuff as smokers. They are inhaling actual nicotine and not niacin.

      Let me read your links.

      • Rose Says:

        That would depend on the temperature, Junican and as yet I have been unable to find out if vaping does the trick.

    • Tony Says:

      Hi Rose,

      Unfortunately Roses’s Garden has been out of action for months so I am relying on memory.

      Some years ago, I took a copy of your Rose’s Garden posts and I still have them. I can email them to you if you wish.

      @Junican, can you pass my email to Rose so she can contact me?

      • Rose Says:

        Thank you Tony, I believe you’ve helped me out before.
        The trouble is since Forces Tavern went down, I’ve nowhere to put them for people doing their own research to find.

        Luckily, I have a very good memory for text and am using several blogs including Junican’s as an archive for the links, much as I did before many very kind people created a forum on Forces to store them.

  2. garyk30 Says:

    “For example, not an awful long time before the symptoms showed, she had an awfully traumatic experience (which I do not propose to detail).”

    Was that her marriage to an ‘Eccentric English Bloke’? 🙂

    Have become rather curious as to why smokers let TC get away with only speaking about the risks of getting various doiseases and not confronted them with the comparative risks of ‘not’ getting those diseases.

    For instance, in Doll’s Doc Study, we find that smokers have 99.8% of a never-smokers chance of ‘not’ dying from lung cancer.

    That is, never-smokers are only 1.002 times more likely to ‘not’ die from lung cancer than a current smoker.

    Smokers and never-smokers have the same probability of ‘not’ dying from lung cancer.

  3. garyk30 Says:

    A little more of the same stuff.

    The table on page 3 shows this:
    Lung cancer deaths per year.
    heavy smokers(25+/day) = 4.17/1,000 = 995.83 did not die.

    never-smokers = 0.17/1,000 = 999.83 did not die.

    999.83 divided by 995.83 = 1.004.

    Never-smokers are only 1.004 times more likely than heavy smokers, to not die from lung cancer!!!

    When you have to go to 3 decimal places to find a difference, that difference is, for all practicality, non-existent.

    Other results:
    mouth/throat cancers = 1.001 times more likely to not die.

    all other cancers = 1.002 times.

    COPD = 1.002 times.

    other respiratory = 1.002 times.

    heart attack = 1.005 times.

    stroke = 1.002 times.

    other vascular = 1.003 times.

    • junican Says:

      That is essentially what I have been saying. The actual incident rate is too small for smoking to ’cause’ lung cancer, despite the fact that heavy smokers might get lung cancer much more often than non-smokers. For example, suppose that the incidence of a disease was 20 times more prevalent in people who eat eggs than in people who do not. Does that prove that eating eggs caused that disease? Well, of course not, and no one would claim that to be so. But the claims of those who accepted the claim that eating eggs causes that disease would be made much, much worse if it turned out that only 50 people per 100,000 egg-eaters were affected.
      Of course, it may well be that those 50 people did indeed become infected via eggs, but that does not mean that all egg-eating must be prohibited. And what we have been seeing over the last several years has been the gradual prohibition of smoking, based upon greatly exaggerated danger which studies do not warrant.
      What your calculations (about ‘NOT’ dying) show is precisely that the actual incidence of these diseases does not justify the draconian measures which are being enacted throughout the world.

  4. junican Says:

    “On exposure to ultraviolet light or various oxidizing agents, nicotine is converted to nicotine oxide, nicotinic acid (vitamin B3), and methylamine”

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: