When we think of Science in the medical sphere, we might think of Pasteur who pioneered pasteurisation of milk in order to rid it of harmful microbes, or we might think of Fleming, who discovered penicillin. We might ask ourselves if those people were scientists or epidemiologists. I think that we would certainly opt to describe them as scientists because they actually made scientific discoveries about the way in which nature works, and what can be done to protect against and defeat diseases which have plagued mankind since time immemorial. They did not say that the cure for malaria was not to go to places where malaria was endemic.
In my opinion, Tobacco Control has been saying just that for decades: “The cure for lung cancer, etc, is not to enjoy tobacco”. That is not science; it is superstition. It follows also that most of epidemiology is superstition. We see this sort of situation: We search for disabled people who find it difficult to walk. We ask them questions about their history. We find that many of them worked in manual industries which required lots of effort with the legs. When we compare those people with office workers, we find that fewer office workers suffered from that condition. Therefore, we conclude that it was the hard physical labour which ’caused’ the problems with the limbs. That is superstition and not science. Why? Because no physical link between the hard work and the disability has been established; only a superstitious link has been established.
The importance of the above is that ‘Superstition’ is the only reasonable reason that the trade in snus has been banned, by the elite in the EU, other than in Sweden. Figures from Sweden show a much reduced incidence of lung cancer in the population, which has been attributed to the use of snus rather than smoking tobacco. (NB. That too is a superstition)
If these superstitions are what drives policy, ought it not to be the case that the use of snus is positively encouraged throughout the EU? Why not? That would be the logical thing to do.
The same applies to ecigs. No tobacco, no combustion. Why are they not encouraged? Why, like snus, are they being hounded into extinction?
I think that we can say that the reasons are entirely and totally political. How long has the trade in snus been banned in the EU? A decade? More? And how many smokers, who might have swapped to snus, pegged out as a result of that ban? How many smokers will peg out prematurely, after becoming disabled for many years and having cost the NHS a fortune, simply because they were denied snus and ecigs?
That is how the superstition, disguised as science, reveals itself, and how the superstition is very profitable to lots of people. It is no accident that the zealots plan to eradicate smoking (and the tobacco industry) by 2035. As at 2015, that is 20 years of profitable witch-hunting – and it might not end there. It could go on for decades and decades, always based upon the same platform of emotional superstition. Also, the loss of tobacco tax revenues needs time to be transferred elsewhere. It does not matter how many people peg out in the meantime, directly as a result of TC delays.
There is also the matter of smokers being hounded to only smoke approved, taxed cigs or other tobacco. I really mean hounded – again via the superstition. You are not permitted to be self-sufficient.
The result of the superstition is that EU MPs vote without thinking and pass a law which virtually bans ecigs. UK MPs pass a law which destroys individual tobacco products of their identity, destroys intellectual property – all based upon the superstition that ‘children’ don’t like the colour dark green or brown. Chocolate is brown. Grapes are green. Some grapes are even black. Blackberries are black. They start off green, change to red, and then to black. Only when they are black do they taste nice.
It strikes me that MPs are unduly superstitious. I wonder if they tend to consult astrologers?