The Ethical Misconduct of Public Health

Dick Puddlecote has been talking again about Dame Silly Sally, Chief Medical Officer:

Silly Sally claimed in a TV interview that the butterscotch flavouring for ecig juice was banned/withdrawn “because people got chronic lung disease.” DP has brought the matter up again because an MP asked the DoH:

Mark Pawsey, Conservative, Rugby.
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many cases of chronic lung disease are recorded as being linked to (a) butterscotch flavoured e-liquid and (b) electronic cigarettes in general.
Jane Ellison, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health
The Department does not hold the requested information.”

Personally, I think that Pawsey’s question could have been better phrased. At least, he could have used the word ‘or’ rather than ‘and’ regarding his a) and his b). Linking the a) and b) with the word ‘and’ means that both conditions must be present.

Personally, I would have phrased the question thus:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what records he has knowledge of which confirm that there are cases of chronic lung diseases which have been caused by:

A) use of electronic cigarettes in general,


B) use of butterscotch flavoured e-liquid in particular”

I vaguely remember reading about the butterscotch flavour business, and I seem to remember that the problem was not that anyone had suffered, but that the flavouring itself contained some carcinogenic substance.


The question that arises is whether or not Silly Sally just ‘mis-spoke’. That could be true. But there is a history of ‘mis-speaks’ is there not? Remember Nathanson and her claim that smoke in cars was 23 times worse than a smoky pub, and that there was evidence that it was so? There was no such evidence. None of these people ever apologise for their ‘mis-speaks’, do they?

Frankly, I don’t think that any of them give a damn. You might wish to watch this load of cods-wallop:

Tobacco industry whistleblower Dr. Jeffrey Wigand discusses with FBN’s Neil Cavuto why he supports a ban of e-cigarettes

Another wally who is ‘mis-speaking’.


The question which then arises is: “At what point does ‘mis-speaking’ become deliberate and becomes fraud?”

You see, I happen to hold the view that Health is not a subject to play fast and loss with the truth and with facts. I saw another new anti-smoking advert a couple of days ago. It showed a sleeping baby purportedly being covered by a cloud of tobacco smoke. Justified exaggeration? Absolutely not. Imagine an advert which showed a chap having one pint of beer and then going home and battering his wife and children. Would that exaggeration be tolerated? Suppose a health advert showed a person pushing a pram along a street and the pram being enveloped in clouds of diesel fumes smoke. Would that be tolerated?

The Tobacco Control Industry has been getting away with what amounts to fraudulent exaggeration for a couple of decades. There are no ‘mis-speaks’, it is all deliberate. Silly Sally is not that silly – she is a fraudster, just like Nathanson. When she said, “because people got chronic lung disease”, she knew exactly what she was saying, and she knew that she was lying.

She is at the very top of Public Health, and she blatantly lies.

There are so many questions:

Why does she do it?

How does she know that she will get away with it?

Who else is involved in the fraud?

What are their motives?

How much money is involved?


If you think that the above is far-fetched, I would urge you to take the time to watch this video:

It lasts for three quarters of an hour, but is well worth watching. It describes how the Government of the day in the 1960s, decided to build huge quantities of ‘housing’ in the form of huge blocks of flats, using prefabricated, reinforced-concrete panels. The whole thing was a complete disaster. The panels were supposed to have been engineered with accuracy, so that they could be easily bolted together. They were not accurately made. As a result, many of the bolts and ties were not done. Their absence was invisible because they were internal and covered with concrete. Water seeped into the cavities and rusted the steel of the reinforced concrete, which caused the metal to expand and crack the concrete.

What has this to do with Public Health?

Well, the same indecent haste, the same monopolistic Government structures, the same charlatan activities, the same political imperatives, the same powerless oversight, were all in place at that time.

That is the situation which exists NOW in Public Health. Charlatans abound; lies come from the mouths of the highest in the land; the House of Commons is denied a debate about PP on the grounds of some procedural trickery; the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Sec of State for Health say nothing. It seems obvious to me that the three main parties have unconstitutionally agreed to permit pogrom on people who enjoy tobacco.

But there are consequences. When you progressively criminalise 20% of the adult population for wishing to smoke in a ‘public place’ which would permit smoking, if it could, such as a ‘smokers bar’, it is obvious that such people will, eventually, accept that they are criminals. They are criminals for wishing to smoke in a bar.

That is an important idea which has not really been considered. Smoking in pubs is banned, therefore wishing to smoke in a pub is ‘immoral’, and similar to the biblical idea that thinking about committing adultery was as bad as actually doing so.

Those of us smokers who wish to smoke in pubs are immoral. Therefore, as sinners, we might as well go the whole hog and source our supplies from white-van-man, if we know such a person. We are immoral, and thus have a moral duty to buy from white-van-man if we can.

Sadly, I do not know such people, and I am too old to search for them. But there are other ways…


But there is another consequence. Persecuted smokers do not accept ANY laws as legitimate laws. If the likes of Silly Sally and others can lie and cheat, so can smokers.

The lying and cheating of The Tobacco Control Industry has taught us all that there is no such thing as ‘civic duty’. It is every man for himself.

There was a time when there existed ‘civic pride’. For example, in my vicinity, a new bypass road was built about twenty years ago. The mayor and coterie walked the length of the road and then performed an opening ceremony. That was ‘civic pride’. The important thing is that the ‘civic pride’ was real twenty years ago. Now, despite whatever glitzy propaganda surrounds such events, they are artificial. No one gives a damn. There is no ‘civic pride’.


As far as I can see, there is no ‘National Pride’ either, unless you see football, cricket and tennis as the backbone of the nation.

What attributes of our Nation should constitute ‘National Pride’? In a simplistic way, should the electrical discoveries of Michael Faraday take pride of place, or should the lies of Tobacco Control take pride of place? Who is more to be admired, Isaac Newton or Richard Doll? Newton’s ideas produced space travel, Doll’s ideas produced persecution. You decide.


2,000 years ago, in Pompeii, there was much political aggravation. See this site:

Gosh! That is a long link!

But it does not matter. What is important is that people cared.

No one actually cares any more. Everything is mechanistic and managerial. It is COMMUNISM.


%d bloggers like this: