Has ‘Action on Smoking and Health’ Dropped the Words ‘and Health’ from its title?

For it might as well. You can read the most recent abomination at Guido Fawkes place:


It appears that the document involved was leaked. I wonder who leaked it? Do we have mole inside ASH? Would that not be nice!

Dick Puddlecote picked up on it:


Dick does not mince his words.

I really do not have much more to offer than do Guido and Dick, except that I noticed as strange anomaly.

There was report in the New York Times dated Nov 2009 which reported upon a study intended to measure the effect of tobacco smoke in various outdoor settings. The volunteer subjects were non-smoking students. Over a period of six weeks, the volunteers went and spent six hours sitting in outdoor smoking places when they were busy. One place was the open area of a campus (the ‘control group’) , another was a restaurant and the last was a bar. The cotinine levels of the students were measured before and after each event.

Here is the curious anomaly:

The researchers deliberately conducted the experiments on nights when sporting events would draw big crowds to the bars and restaurants. They found that, in keeping with the research highlighted by Saletan, students sitting in an open-air part of campus experienced negligible levels of tobacco exposure, while those seated in the more confined spaces at bars and restaurants, experienced significant increases in cotinine concentrations. Levels rose by 162% among students hanging out at the bar, 102% among those at a restaurant, and 16% in the control setting. Yet, in spite of the shocking statistics, overall levels of exposure for all three areas remained relatively low, and would be classified as “background” level, according to measures established by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.”

Does anyone see the anomaly?

The students were non-smokers. What would be the level of cotinine in their saliva before each event? It would clearly be minute, depending upon what they had eaten which might have contained nicotine. Now read this excerpt again:

Yet, in spite of the shocking statistics…..”

And what were the shocking statistics?

“Levels rose by 162% among students hanging out at the bar, 102% among those at a restaurant, and 16% in the control setting.”

So, a student in a bar (the worst scenario), who had an utterly minuscule amount of cotinine in his sputum, found that the cotinine level had increased by 1½ times from utterly minuscule to utterly minuscule. That was the ‘shocking’ statistic. How often do we have to say:

0.000000000001 multiplied by 100 (100 times ‘worse’) equals 0.0000000001.

Such is the nature of fraudulent science. It is not fraudulent as far as the measurements are concerned. It is fraudulent in the scientific use of those measurements.


And so we pick up on ASH’s fraudulent scientific use of measurements:

Amanda Sandford, from the anti-smoking charity Action on Smoking and Health (Ash), said:
“Although more research needs to be done to verify the findings of this initial study, it shows that further restrictions on smoking outdoors, such as smoke-free cordons around doorways, may be necessary to protect employees who are required to work in places where people are smoking.”

Surely, after the passage of six years, the clear evidence from that study that even sitting in close proximity to large groups of smokers outdoors had negligible effect the absorption of nicotine by the students, would have been noticed?

When ASH calls for outdoor bans, where there is no health risk at all, it has ceased to be “Action on Smoking and Health”. It has simply become “Action of Smoking”.

What else can “Action on Smoking” be but a call for Prohibition? It is the only logical raison d’etre. Calling for ‘action to reduce smoking prevalence from 20% to 5%’ can only make sense in prohibition for groups of people a few at a time. It is well-known that the extermination of Jews, homosexuals and gypsies by the Nazis was organised in groups on a ‘production line’ basis – a constant flow of victims to the concentration camps.

That is not dissimilar to AoS (Action on Smoking)’s gradual extension of bans and persecution.

Why do politicians keep their eyes and ears firmly closed?


2 Responses to “Has ‘Action on Smoking and Health’ Dropped the Words ‘and Health’ from its title?”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    Should be ‘Action on Smoking and Safety’.

    ASS’s is what they are!!

    • junican Says:

      Actually, there is more to your suggestion than you think. In the UK, we have the Health and Safety at Work Act. Would you not think that second hand smoke would come under that Act as regards work places? No, a deliberate trick was employed to avoid that Act because the ’emissions’ would never have stood up to the H & S scrutiny. The bans had to be brought in via a Health Act which was mainly about other matters.
      All very carefully planned, of course.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: