A Rant Against Force

It’s midnight, and I am about to write a post to while away a couple of hours until bedtime. But I have no idea what to write about. Let’s just see what comes into my mind. No title for this post as yet.

I mentioned the Lords debate in committee about e-cigs in my last post. I read a transcript first, but I watched a video of the proceedings this evening. It was a little over an hour long. Two or three of the Lords said that they had themselves stopped smoking cigs via ecigs when other methods had not worked. What struck me, as I watched, was that these two or three peers were silver haired old men. How had they survived smoking tobacco for so long? None of them seemed to be ailing in any way. To what do they put down their survival into old age when the should have been killed off by smoking years ago?

One peer actually had the temerity to question the ill-treatment of smokers. I’m surprised that he was not booed.

One peer mentioned Subry MP and her belief that ecigs had been dropped from the TPD. The interesting thing is that she had already signed the UK up for it. Think about that. At the moment that she signed, she committed the UK to enacting a law which she knew nothing about. If she did not know about Article 20, it is reasonable to assume that she did not know anything about the rest of it either, apart perhaps from some generalised info which Black gave her. Why didn’t the PM say, “This will not do!” and recall Soubry’s vote and demand a fresh meeting of that EU committee? Why is Black still employed by the Health Dept?

How is it possible for such a mess of a directive to be bludgeoned through and enacted into law on the say-so of a junior minister who signed a document which she had not read?

The Lords Minister who responded in the debate trotted out the same arguments that ASH has just done – ‘the TPD Article 20 is not so bad really. It bans TV advertising of ecigs, but doesn’t stop vape shops or the internet from talking about vape products. We have to think about non-smokers and children being persuaded to start vaping’ and such drivel. The committee had a good giggle when the Minister said that enforcement would be ‘Italian style rather than British style’. Yes, if you say so, Minster.

=====

What is missing from all these discussions is time-scales. One of the first things that come into my mind when some mentions ‘long term harm’ is: “What length of time are you talking about? Thirty years? Fifty years? One hundred years? Five hundred years?”  It is implicit in the College of Physicians’ and Public Health England’s statements that ecig vaping is 95% less dangerous than smoking tobacco that any harm of significance will take around 100 times longer to appear than smoking harm does. Thus, if it takes 30 years for smoking harm to appear, it will take 3,000 years for vaping harm to appear in an individual person.

I do not apologise for showing the graph once again:

img002.jpg

That graph is my expanded version of Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’ graph. I don’t want to go into length explanations. The original was a ‘survival’ graph, but I turned it upside down and converted it into a ‘non-survival’ graph. What is important to bear in mind is that the figures used to draw the graph were AVERAGES.

According to Doll, the doctors, ON AVERAGE started smoking at age 19-ish. So you can see that 2o years AT LEAST passed before any of the smoking doctors started to die for whatever reason. At age 45, some non-smoking doctors started to die for whatever reason. After some 40 years of smoking (at age 60), some 20% of heavy smoking doctors had died and some 10% of non-smoking doctors had died.

Now, let us substitute vaping for smoking. How would that graph look? Would there be ‘heavy’ vapers, ‘moderate’ vapers, ‘light’ vapers and non-vapers? How could we work out what might happen?

The evidence is already there for all to see. In cigarettes, there are thousands of chemicals of which many are toxic. According to Tobacco Control Zealots, the ‘dose’ of those toxins in cigs is enough to kill people after some 40 years of exposure, but the effect depends upon how much has been smoked over that 40 years.

What are the toxins in ecig vapour? Those that have been discovered are few and in tiny amounts, so the ‘doses’ are also tiny. How much longer then would a vaper have to vape before damage became evident?

That is crucial, but no one ever mentions it. Not one single word, in that Lords debate, mentioned time-scales. Will a person who vapes die ten years prematurely when he is 300 or 3000 years old?

It is not acceptable that the “Experts”, who know this very well, can get away with misinformation about possible dangers in vaping. “We do not know” is a deliberate lie, since the toxicology measurements of ecig liquid and vapour indicate the almost total absence of toxins.

===

What are we to conclude from all these lies being promulgated by the UN, WHO, EU and our own Government? It MUST be that the UN etc have a motive which they do not want to reveal. I mentioned this only a couple of weeks ago. It is all about ‘SUSTAINABILITY’. The FCTC is a product of sustainability. The millions of hectares devoted to growing tobacco plants must be destroyed. It is not acceptable that those millions of hectares should continue to be used to grow tobacco plants to feed the ecig liquid industry with nicotine. So, The Very Top Elite, in the UN, dictate to the WHO what must be done (destroy tobacco companies) to release those millions of hectares. The same applies to sugar plantations, vine plantations, hop plantations. All must be destroyed. The way to do it is through HEALTH.

Do Obama, Cameron, Merkel, Clinton, Trump, etc understand to what extent they are being manipulated? Or are they very much ‘in the know’ and part of the manipulation? I’ll never forget how Cameron came from nowhere, strutted about on stage at the Tory Conference, and became leader of the Tory party from nowhere. At least Corbin has been an MP for a long time.

The same time-scale problem applies to SHS. If actual smoking takes some 40 years to have any significant effect, what is the time-scale for SHS? There is none because no one had dared the work it out. Where were the tobacco companies in this respect? There was the Enstrom and Kabat study. It was initially funded by the USA equivalent of CRUK, but when the results were not favourable to that organisation, it withdrew funding. Where else could E and K get funding to finish the study other than from tobacco companies? Who has the money? Who is prepared to pay? Would ASH be prepared to pay?

The support from Cameron and The Elite Establishment for the EU stinks to high heaven of Empire building. From a physical defence point of view, NATO is sufficient. Not much else matters. Greece, Italy, Turkey can protect their borders. It is very simple. Whoever arrives can be transported back where they came from. The boats of the transporters can be dragged out to sea and sunk. It is so, so simple. Perhaps women and children could be accepted as refugees, but not young men. Such refugees must accept what they are given, be thankful and wait until they can return to their homeland. There is plenty of history about how people fled from war-zones, but little about how they returned after the war was over.

===

Meanwhile, in the USA, Trump goes from strength to strength. The political strangle-hold is being broken. When will people in the UK understand that the division into Labour and Tory is deliberate? That the Ruling Class has devised it to be so? At least Corbin has bucked the Ruling Class. If only he would buck the accepted right of the ruling class to dictate how people decide what pleasures they wish to enjoy, then he would get my interest.

These people are such dummies! There are proper statisticians who can investigate the claims of epidemiologists. Epidemiologists are not very good statisticians. ASH ET AL are even worse. For example, ASH ET AL commissioned a survey asking vapers what strength of nicotine they used. The AVERAGE was less than 20 mg/ml. So what? It is the heaviest smokers who require higher levels of nicotine, and not light smokers. Also, those smokers who have been smoking ‘heavily’ for a long time are the people who are most at risk, as Doll’s Study showed. So why did ASH support the TPD?

You have to think around the subject to understand. ASH is nothing. It is a publicity stunt. If it disappeared tomorrow, no one would notice. Its purpose is just to promote publicity stunts. That is all it exists for. I do not understand why anyone takes any notice of ASH at all. ASH has no substance. It does no research; it does no science about tobacco or ecigs or anything; it is just verbal. It talks. Who pays for it? Ah! The National Lottery gave ASH £500,000 not long ago.

Corruption is rife, but most especially in the UN, WHO, EU. Our Government, here in the UK, should put an end to the corruption. That idea is PARAMOUNT, even it the vote is ‘to remain’. Such a vote enables Cameron et al to rip the EU apart.

But has Cameron either the nerve or intent to rip the EU apart? He would have to stop paying for the corruption. He would have to stop the lobbying.

===

Oddly enough, smokers cannot be any worse off whichever way Brexit goes. For us, it doesn’t matter that much. I shall vote LEAVE, simply because I hate FORCE being used to direct our lives. FORCE comes in many forms. Taxation of tobacco products is FORCE.

 

 

Advertisements

8 Responses to “A Rant Against Force”

  1. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    Yes i’m voting leave too Junican. For me its all about sovereignty. As a smoker it will have very little effect on me.

    • junican Says:

      The tories have already gold-plated the TPD before it is even legislated. For me, that shows that we, the people, need even more to be able to throw them out. Brexit!

  2. garyk30 Says:

    “I do not apologise for showing the graph once again”

    You have no need to do so.
    It is a very well drawn and informative chart.

    Data on chart would be from 2000, when the average age of death(US) was about 77 years of age.

    Easily discerned, with a straight edge, are the facts that 40% of the moderate smokers died over that median age as did 60% of the never-smokers.

    Thus, 40% of the never-smokers died under that median age, as did 60% of the moderate smokers.

    Conclusions:
    1. 40% of the ‘preventable, pre-mature deaths caused by smoking’ occurred over the median age of death and are NOT pre-mature.

    2. Smokers have almost 70% of the never-smokers’ chances of not dying prematurally.

    3. Never-smokers have almost 70% of the moderate smokers chances of dying pre-naturally.

    Also, the chart shows that the average age of death for never-smokers was 82 years and the average age of death for moderate smokers was 74 years.

    Conclusion:
    Report claims that smokers die 10 years younger than ex-smokers; but, chart shows that moderate smokers die only 8 years younger than never-smokers.

    How strange!!!

    As previously stated, a very nice chart.

    • junican Says:

      Thanks.
      Yes, a ruler (straight edge) quickly reveals the percentages. What I have pointed out from time to time is that, after the initial ‘blip’ at between 50 and 60, the lines are almost parallel. If smoking alone is the cause of the ‘premature’ deaths, then that should not be so. What should happen is that the lines should continue to diverge. There just seems to be something wrong. What you ought to expect is not so much divergence at around 50 to 60, but a gradual opening up of the lines. More of a sort of ‘V’ shape.
      The question then come to mind: “What other bad habits did smokers have which none smokers did not have? And where did they live and practice? What genetic susceptibilities did they have? What were their war experiences? The mind boggles at the number and intensity of confounders which might have contributed to that ‘blip’ at around 50 to 60.

  3. garyk30 Says:

    As for Vapers, most of them are ex-smokers and would have the same time line as do ex-smokers.

    Doll’s Doc Study showed that ex-smokers have the same 85% probability of dying from a smoking ’caused’ disease as do current smokers.

    Vapers will not be different.

    • junican Says:

      In the Lords debate, the peers who had given up smoking using ecigs had done so in the last couple of years. Since they were old men, the damage already done by smoking should way outweigh the take up of ecigs. That should go for any ex-smoker who is old when he/she takes up ecigs.
      There is a sort of contradiction (wrong word, but it will do) in the Doll study which concerns survival rates of people who stop smoking. According to the study, the less a person has smoked before he gives up, and the sooner he gives up, the more likely he is to survive. The study said that it takes about 10 years or more for the risk of death of an ex-smoker and a non-smoker to become about the same. But the evidence for that must be dependent upon survival. That is, a smoker who stops smoking must survive when he should not! Crazy. Why did no one spot the obvious faults? Well, The statistician, Fisher, did spot the faults, but he was already ‘out of the loop’.

  4. Ed Says:

    Too true, regarding Cameron rising without a trace! You might need to go back to when he was just a CEO at Carlton tv to get an idea.

    Try putting Cameron, Carlton tv and the Cooke Report in a search engine to glean some of the rumours. Either that or try Kengate.

    Not sure how true it all is, but it makes for an interesting read.

    • junican Says:

      I’ve read some of your link. The ‘conspiracy’ sounds rather far-fetched.
      His job at Carlton was ‘Director of Corporate Affairs’. What on earth does that mean? He was already big behind the scenes in the Tory Party, so maybe ‘Corporate Affairs’ might mean lobbying.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: