Is Scepticism Beginning to Dawn?

I saw a report today. It concerned cooking with oil. It reckoned that certain oils became chemically transformed when heated up. Among the worst was sunflower oil. When heated, the oxidisation of the oil produces loads of aldehyde, whatever that may be. Aldehyde is carcinogenic, it seems. I use sunflower oil to fry eggs. I have my own method. What I do is fry the eggs with the oil at a low temperature. It takes longer, but I don’t like the eggs to burn at the bottom before all the white is fried. When the white is fully cooked, I then turn up the heat for about 30 seconds. I do that because I do not like the taste of the oil. Heating it thins it, so, when I take the eggs out, the oil drains almost completely off the eggs. So, even if the oil contains lots of aldehyde, I do not actually consume it.

But what is the worst thing is what these so called ‘scientists’ leave out. This is something that I have pointed out umpteen times – they never say what period of time would be needed for a person to suffer serious ill affects as a result of consuming aldehyde.

In Doll’s Doctors Study, the average age at which the doctors started to smoke was nineteen and a half. No variation in mortality showed until around the age of 50, when a few doctors died from lung cancer. More of them were smokers than non-smokers, but there were very few cases. At that point, on average, smokers had been smoking for 30 years and non-smokers had not been smoking for 30 years. If smoking was indeed the cause of the smoker LC, then 30 years had elapses between starting smoking and dying from LC. In fact, the average interval was much higher, since, at 50, only a tiny number of doctors died from LC. Let’s say, on average, the interval was 40 years.

If that is so for full-on smoking, what interval must exist for passive smoking?

It must that the omission of timescales in ALL of the scare junk science is deliberate. Absolutely nobody, but nobody, talks about it. And yet it is essential, if the statistics are to have any meaning. It is not sufficient to say that there are carcinogens in stuff, whether it is tobacco smoke which is inhaled, by a smoker, as a packet of smoke, or diluted tobacco smoke in the atmosphere, or carcinogens in over-heated sunflower oil, or carcinogens in the air due to bacon being grilled in the kitchen. What is absolutely of the greatest importance is whether or not the carcinogens will cause cancer in a normal, healthy human being within a normal lifespan. If there was one thing that the Doctors Study showed truthfully, it is that there are timescales involved. Even inhaling concentrated packages of tobacco smoke, as a smoker does, may or may not cause LC, and if it does, it takes an awful long time.

—-

The report I mentioned also said that frying with butter or lard is much better because those substances do not produce aldehyde in the same quantities as does sunflower oil. And yet the NHS is still recommending not to use lard or butter, but to use sunflower oil.

====

And this is where the propaganda comes in. It seems that the affects of heat on sunflower oil has been known of decades. This new report is nothing new. It seems to me that Tobacco Control and all the rest, STOP researching when it suits their agenda. They will repeat the same studies over and over to establish a ‘consensus’, but STOP the research at a given point where their arguments are supported by the research.

It is doubtful that the MSM will bite the bullet and call out these charlatans, but there are signs that the worm is turning. More and more scepticism is appearing. And yet STILL no one comments on the timescales involved. The human body has been dealing with carcinogens, whether inhaled of ingested, since time immemorial. It has evolved to do so. It has also evolved to dissolve mumicron sized particles in the lungs. It must be so since, otherwise, no child would survive childhood.

Few true gasses have a smell. When you smell something, it is particles that you smell. When you eat a tasty meal, or even just a snack, you are inhaling particles. That is what the nice taste is. The senses of smell and taste are intertwined. When a vaper takes into his mouth a packet of ecig vapour, he is TASTING the vapour. I, as a bystander, SMELL the vapour. The reality, however, is that both of us both SMELL and TASTE the vapour. For the vaper, TASTE predominates, but for a bystander, SMELL predominates.

===

To finish.

I detect a shift in perception. More and more people are seeing that the doom-mongering is false. They see the violent vacillations of the healthists from ‘X is good’ to ‘X is bad’, and vice versa. It is a slow process, but it is happening. What we usually see with such processes is that they gather pace, which tobacco control has used to its advantage, but when the rot sets in, as it always does, the swing away also gathers pace. What seems to be the hardest nut to crack is politicians. They seem to be the cleverest people of earth when it comes to bans, but the stupidest people when it comes to repealing those bans. For example, there is HUGE evidence that Swedish snus is harmless, and yet the politicians in the EU have banned it. It is like allowing whiskey but banning shandy. [For American readers, shandy is a drink which is half lemonade and half beer]

I think that that ban typifies the EU. It is not only physically corrupt, but it is also intellectually corrupt. In the USA, Swedish Match has gained permission for six snus products to be marketed. In the EU, snus is banned, and there is no way that that ban can be rescinded other than by a wholesale repudiation of tobacco control junk science.

What is obvious to me is that the UK, along with other important States, must INVADE the EU. The supremacy of Germany, and the fourth Reich, must be fought against NOW.

Unless Cameron et al are part of it.

Advertisements

12 Responses to “Is Scepticism Beginning to Dawn?”

  1. prog Says:

    ‘the UK, along with other important States, must INVADE the EU’

    We’d have to join the queue – The EU, particularly Germany, is already being invaded…

    • junican Says:

      I mean “MAKE DEMANDS” when I say ‘invade the EU’. I do not mean ‘negotiate’. If our Nation wishes to survive as a Nation, then the only way is to ‘demand’ changes.

  2. Ritathomas Says:

    When I was a very young woman I saw a cartoon. It showed an old gentleman being pushed in a wheelchair into a room full of old folk long past enjoying anything. The old boy says to his attendant”And to think if I hadn’ given up smoking ,drinking,and women I might have missed all this” . That was when I became a sceptic

  3. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Very few people in Sweden die through using Snus.

    • junican Says:

      Yes they do. They all die through using snus. Only snus-free persons live for ever. Reality is not involved. Anyone who has no involvement with tobacco will live for ever – unless they are fat.

  4. garyk30 Says:

    The median age for a diagnosis of lung cancer is 72, according to the most recent statistics collected between 2004 and 2008.

    The number of years smokers have smoked has no bearing on the age at which they are diagnosed with lung cancer;because:

    Smokers and never smokers are diagnosed with lung cancer at about the same age!!

    http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/25/5/472
    RESULTS
    Although never smokers were slightly older at lung cancer diagnosis than current smokers in two population-based cohorts (MEC and NHEFS), this difference was not observed in the majority of cohorts evaluated (NHS, HPFS, CTS, and U/OLCR; Table 2).

    Median age of diagnosis = 72

    96% of all deaths occur after the age of 35 and the CDC lists no smoking caused deaths before the age of 35.

    If a smoker starts a pack a day habit at age 18:

    1. That smoker would smoke 124,100 cigs with out dying from a smoking ’caused’ disease.
    (pack a day =7,300/year X 17 = 124,100)

    2. If that smoker gets lung cancer, they will smoke an average of 394,200 cigs before diagnosis.

    The ‘No safe level’ mantra is stupid and you could smoke almost 400,000 cigs and still not get lung cancer!

    • Some French Bloke Says:

      Late German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt had a 60-a-day habit. If he started smoking in 1935, at age 17, that translates to 21,900 cigs per year for 80 years = 1,752,000 cigs… and no LC.

    • junican Says:

      Averages are what epidemiology is all about. It tells us nothing about ‘more’ or ‘less’. In the Doll ‘Doctors Study’, smokers were ‘averaged’ into groups – heavy smokers, moderate smokers and light smokers. Then their deaths were ‘averaged’ into groups by ten year age groupings, then they were averaged according to the cause of death. No account was taken of the possibility of other causes. Thus, ONLY smoking caused the deaths of heavy smokers. Both the Hospital Study and the Doctors Study were designed to implicate smoking. There is no doubt.

  5. nisakiman Says:

    It is doubtful that the MSM will bite the bullet and call out these charlatans, but there are signs that the worm is turning.

    Not where tobacco is concerned, Junican.

    It was a masterstroke from TC getting tobacco advertising banned, as the MSM, which had hitherto relied heavily on the full page ads for Silk Cut, B&H etc etc for their income were then relying on the full page ads from the various TC outlets, telling smokers that they stink etc.

    You don’t bite the hand that feeds you. If cigarettes were still being advertised in the MSM, we wouldn’t be where we are today, because the press would feel free to question the outrageous claims from TC. As it is, they have to toe the line so as to keep the revenue coming in via TC propaganda ads.

    • junican Says:

      I don’t think that it is as clear as that. Better to say that the MSM have no incentive to deny the hysteria of TC. Hysteria produces sales. In the UK, we do not know if TC pays for press released to be published.
      But you are right about advertising. Even if a ‘cancer-risk-free’ cig was produced, there would be no way to advertise such a product. What does that mean? It means that we cannot chose; we cannot know; we cannot avoid dictatorship.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: