A Diminution of Blog Views

I must admit to being a bit chuffed when, for whatever reason, the ‘views’ of this blog rise substantially from time to time. The last substantial increase was a doubling or more due to Australians wanting to know about the law in OZ regarding growing tobacco plants.

I’m not going to give the exact numbers because it would be stupid to feed TC with information which they could use to their advantage. But we do not need exact numbers – differences will suffice.

So I may say that views have fallen by some 25% over the last couple of weeks.

There may be all sorts of reasons. I suppose that summer encourages people to get out and about, and that they read blogs less, and they go on holiday. But what bothers me is the possibility that it is the content which is not up to scratch.

That is a reasonable statement, since there is only so much that you can say about the machinations of the Tobacco Control Industry. Even if you discover some significant facts, those facts go unreported and unconsidered and forgotten over the course of a couple of days. All the effort that you make to discover the facts is a waste of time – the information that you have discovered is just lost in a plethora of words about this and that. For example, I sought and found the stats about lung cancer deaths since around 1950 as a percentage of total deaths. They have dropped, but not as much as smoking has dropped. There are, of course, all sorts of ‘confounders’, such as early discovery of ‘masses’ (lumps) in the lung. Treatment can reduce those ‘masses’, even if they do not cure. So it may be that people who develop LC live much longer than they would otherwise. Also, city pollution has been much reduced, so there is likely to be less ‘environmental smoke (not tobacco)’ than in previous decades. Those two factors alone could account for a reduced rate of deaths from LC in any given year. You would think that Tobacco Companies would be interested in such differences, even if their ‘studies’ were not accepted on the grounds of ideology, but why should not a Tobacco Company produce its own ‘Medical Publication’? The TCI could scream about bias until it is blue in the face, but facts are still facts.

I was interested in delving further into the stats from 1950 to the present day, but it is not easy. What I had in mind was that, if LC deaths and similar, which are supposed to be caused by smoking, had not fallen at the same rate as smoking as fallen, and taking into account age at death, then a case could be made that smoking is not as important a factor as is claimed via the medical porn on cig packets. But why should I go to all that trouble when TobComs could do it far more accurately than I could? Why bother? The only reason for me to do it is for fun – because it interests me. But even if I discovered some enormously important anachronism, it would never be taken up. We have seen just a few days ago, a study which found that SHS DOES NOT produce heart disease and LC, but the ‘proper’ statisticians might just have well not have bothered.

Is there a conspiracy? I don’t mean a deliberate conspiracy. Put it this way: is there a political advantage to raising cig taxes, and thus punishing and persecuting smokers? What would that political advantage be? It would be balancing the accounts. It is as simple as that. An extra billion pounds via tobacco taxes balances the accounts nicely. I had to laugh a few days ago when the Chancellor announced a sugar levy. That levy is supposed to reduce the level of sugar in foods and drinks, but he still expected to receive millions of pounds from that tax. If his calculations were correct, then the levy would be neutral tax-wise. The same is true of tobacco taxes. The supposed intention of the ‘sin taxes’ is to drive usage down, and yet the Chancellor still expects a huge ‘tax bonus’.

The dishonesty is mind-blowing. But that is how the TCI works. It tempts politicians with the promise of much gold. In other words, the TCI does not expect its recommendations regarding taxation and smoking cessation to work.


If all the efforts of the TCI had been successful, you would have expected that LC and heart problem deaths to have fallen massively over the last decades. They might have done so, in the sense of postponement. You would also expect the TCI to be bragging about the success of their efforts in reducing mortality and morbidity. But they do not. They brag only about their success in getting bans and increased taxes. Bans and increased taxes. All the stuff about ‘help’ is a diversion.


For me, the TCI has transcended national boundaries. It is has done so via the UN and the WHO and the EU. The importance of Brexit is to bring the TCI back into our national control. WE will control the TCI, and not vice versa. Things might get worse before they get better, but at least we will be able to dismiss the decision makers.

I have no doubt that Cameron and Osborn are clever. My problem with them is that they have adopted a position where they are far, far out of their intellectual depth. I saw a snippet of ‘Lord’ Sugar, the multimillionaire, pronouncing upon how good for him the EU is. I also caught a snippet, in the pub on the news, from physicist Hawkins, that, in his opinion, ‘scientific’ cooperation would cease to exist. He above anyone should know that ‘proper’ science has no boundaries, and never has had among nations free to exchange information.

Despite what you might think, the majority of people in this country work in small businesses. There are masses and masses of them. Golf clubs, tennis clubs, athletics clubs, pubs, cafes, shops, hairdressers, taxis, handimen, plumbers, electricians,  etc, etc, are the backbone of industry in this country. Big Car is not.  Big Retail is not.


So, back to the beginning. I suppose that readers have better things to do.



19 Responses to “A Diminution of Blog Views”

  1. Smoking Lamp Says:

    Well, I for one enjoy your essays, analysis, and the periodic statistics you produce. Bit by bit the tobacco control cult is unravelling. In the interim, we need to keep dissent alive. I also think most blogs lose traffic in the summer…

    • junican Says:

      ‘Keeping dissent alive’ is probably the most important thing. Maybe, even more importantly, is to keep the SHS danger fraud at the forefront.

  2. Roberto Says:

    Junican, I also enjoy reading your stuff. Keep it up. I guess all blogs have high and low periods. There could be some low ebb periods when you (as a reader) feel that practically everything that could have been said has been said. As readers we see all the time the dishonesty, the lies and the junk science of tobacco controllers being exposed in various blogs (by people with more capacity than ourselves and with good arguments). And then, what? nothing happens, the controllers simply ignore the critics, they keep lying and keep churning junk science, they keep getting more and more funds and more power, and we smokers (and now vapers) keep getting more sin taxes, more stupid (and failed) regulations, more bans that lack medical justification, more stigma, more demagoguery on the “gateway” non-issue and on “..the children” theme. It seemed that the endorsement of vaping by the more lucid Public Health folks would be the beginning of something, a sort of Gorbachov moment, but things are not so clear anymore. What can we simple smokers and vapers do? Continue enjoying our smoking or vaping (or both) and continue reading blogs like yours. Perhaps something may shake up things in the future. Perhaps a slow awakening of honest and humane non-smokers that will repudiate healthist fanaticism, perhaps a big “WHO-gate” or “ASH-gate” scandal. Big Frankenstein monsters sometimes collapse by their own excessive weight.

    • junican Says:

      “It seemed that the endorsement of vaping by the more lucid Public Health folks would be the beginning of something, a sort of Gorbachov moment, but things are not so clear anymore.”

      The TCI, in so far as it has grudgingly accepted ecigs, sees them only and totally as much the same thing as patches and gum – a means to their end, which is the destruction of the tobacco industry. Some more ‘principled’ zealots see ecigs as a way to reduce smoking, but others, like Glantz, see them as perpetuating the existence of tobacco companies. That is the cause of the rift in the TCI.
      How can that rift be exploited? It makes sense for people like Glantz to be ridiculed and sidelined, but they somehow seem to have control of the FDA in the USA, and most of the important fake charities.
      Sooner or later, the TCI will have nothing to eat, at which point it will eat itself.

  3. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    Re the views: I think it partly *is* the summer and that people may not be as much in the mood to write responses even if they’re reading. HOWEVER… there’s a feedback loop there. I know that my email notifications contain your entire blog entries. I’ll usually read your blog in my email and only click the button to come over here if there’s a particular point on which I want to comment!

    Keep on writin’ Junican! You may not see me peeking in the window but I’m usually there!


    • junican Says:

      Evening Mike. It isn’t comments, although they are welcome of course. In a way, in this post, I am wondering about ‘spread’. I don’t know if that is the right word. For example, I get loads and loads of readers of my quite-old-now post on the Law in Australia Re Growing Tobacco Plants, and that post features well in Google Search. There is a link on that post to this blog, but readership of this blog has not increased via that link. Or rather, as far as I can see, interest in that law has not cultivated interest in defiance of the TCI. That disinterest bothers me. So it is not merely the temporary diminution of readers which bothers me. It is more the lack of build up of ‘The Resistance’.

  4. Rose Says:

    views have fallen by some 25% over the last couple of weeks

    I’m not a bit surprised. The amount of skullduggery going on before the Referendum has kept me wonderfully distracted.
    The bent statistics, fear mongering and threats of catastrophic consequences make TC look like amateurs.
    I mean, TC haven’t warned us about causing World War 3 or the end of Western civilisation if we don’t stop smoking, have they now?
    And that’s only in the last couple of weeks.

    • michaeljmcfadden Says:

      It will be VERY interesting to see if the government accepts a close Brexit vote. If Brexit wins overwhelmingly they may feel they have no choice, but one that was close might give them the confidence to think they could get away with finding a loophole — “Oh! The fine print actually says a vote like this simply demands that the government RECONSIDER its decision.” or “Under EU Rules, this voting decision now has to go to the EU Council for approval, and they have the right to call for a new vote held under international supervision.” etc.

      • junican Says:

        I am sure that you are right, Rose. Given only so much time, most people will read stuff that is in the forefront of their minds, such as ‘The Battle on the Thames’.
        I don’t think that is how it will go, MJM – too much publicity. I do not see ‘Remain’ having a huge majority, but ‘Leave’ could have a huge majority, a small majority, or a small minority. If that turns out to be true, which ever way it goes, then Cameron et al are done for. Only if ‘Remain’ has a huge majority will C et al be safe. C et al are on the horns of a dilemma. This is not a case of ‘the majority has decided so carry on’. Everything that the EU does is under a microscope. First up, for example, is the massive waste of taxpayers money in moving loads and loads of boxes of documents, and hundreds of MEPs, from Brussels to Strasbourg every month merely for voting purposes.Imagine that it the UK. Imagine that Parliament held all its discussions in London and then carried all the MPs and all their documents, which no one ever looks at, to a multi-million pound edifice in Manchester just to take a few votes on what had been discussed in Parliament? No one would believe it to be true.

        Which ever way it goes, everything must change. The first thing to change must be ‘refusal to comply’.

  5. smokingscot Says:

    Now let’s just take a shuftie at what you have Junican.

    A means to reach a worldwide audience.

    The alternative is a sandwich board on some street corner and – trust me on this – that’s a once only affair.

    However you have to do your bit as well Junican. Yes you waffle on once in a while and you are inclined to digress from what you sate are your blog’s objectives.

    So rule number one my beloved septuagenarian is this:

    Help the search engines as much as you can. Posted in: “uncategorized” is not at all helpful.

    Search engine’s are not psychic, they really like to be able to index a post and bring it up when someone is searching that topic. (It also helps you clarify what some of your post are all about).

    You’ve got that, so stonking well use it.

    And as one person commented today on Frank’s place:

    It is not how many readers you have, it is who the readers are that (matters).

    • junican Says:

      Good advice, SS. Thanks. I’ll have to look at the ‘categories’. That is something that I have never thought about.
      Most of us know that a fraud has been perpetrated, which is the danger of SHS. Frank Davis’s excellent blog has ‘banging on about the smoking ban’ as its motivation. Perhaps ‘banging on about SHS fraud’ would be more fruitful, for the SHS fraud is the reason for the smoking bans.

  6. petersoakellartsok Says:

    url = uniform resource locator – just found that out today,{I might be a closet geek}!

  7. Darryl Says:

    Is there a conspiracy? There is a school of thought that says lung cancer only became a major concern after atmospheric atomic bomb testing started in 1945 and that the blame for LC on smoking is a way of the governments concerned to deflect responsibility. Blame the victim. How true this is I don’t know, it’s not my theory but it does sound plausible. What I do know is that between October 1953 and October 1957 12 atomic bombs were detonated in Australia by the UK government. Something called The Minor Trials, 30 in all, continued untill 1963. What these minor trials involved is hard to find out, the security around them is tighter than for the bomb tests. Australia has high rates of LC despite falling smoking rates. Skin and breast cancer are also amongst the worlds highest.
    Is there a conspiracy? Maybe.

    • nisakiman Says:

      I don’t know if you’ve ever seen this, but apparently one only has to inhale a minute amount of radioactive fallout to significantly increase the risk of lung cancer. And there’s been a lot of nuclear bombs exploded in the world.

      Personally, I’m more inclined to see diesel particulates as a major factor in LC, although I’m sure fallout in the atmosphere is a contributory factor. Dr Kitty Little was also of the opinion that diesels were / are a major factor in LC.

      Junican, you have a somewhat different approach than many others to blogging, but what you write is invariably thoughtful, and often painstakingly researched. Your summary of the McTear case is masterful. Your posts on growing tobacco I rarely read, as I have no intention of ever growing my own. But then I don’t pay the ludicrously high taxes that pertain in the UK.

      Do carry on. We need as many bloggers as possible exposing the lies.

      • Darryl Says:

        I hadn’t seen the time-lapse thing before, it’s excellent. And on top of the bomb tests you can now add the dust from Depleted Uranium ammunition that’s blowing around.
        I have read about diesel particulates before and would agree that they seem to be major factor. Diesel engines were originally designed to run on vegetable oil such as hemp seed oil and peanut oil. The particulate problem is because they are using the wrong oil as fuel.
        Junican, just because I don’t comment often doesn’t mean I’m not out here reading. I read all your posts. You’re a truth seeker in a world of lies. Keep it up.

      • junican Says:

        I’ve seen that video before more than once. An interesting question would be ‘what did the mushroom clouds consist of’? Were they radioactive dust or radioactive water vapour? It is hard to believe that Governments did not measure the amount of radioactive dust and water vapour in the air after the tests. The international agreement that such tests should be underground suggests that it was well-known that there was plenty of radioactive dust in the air.
        Further, not only diesel fumes proliferated, but there was also massive air pollution from factories.
        The question that arises in my mind is just how much collusion occurred to hide the possible causes of illnesses of all kinds from the combination of atomic bomb tests, pollution, smoking, genetics, age, poverty, etc.

  8. junican Says:

    Thanks to all for the kind remarks. There is no way that I shall stop and I never had an intention to do so. For me, smoking is a pleasure. I don’t care if others say that I am ‘addicted’. What do they know about me? I have no diminution of the pleasure of eating tasty food, or drinking tea, water, beer, wine, whiskey. When someone says that stopping smoking has ‘revived’ his appetite, I ask why was it that his appetite was diminished by the enjoyment of tobacco. In any case, what does the word ‘appetite’ mean?

    • michaeljmcfadden Says:

      “When someone says that stopping smoking has ‘revived’ his appetite, I ask why was it that his appetite was diminished by the enjoyment of tobacco.”

      The appetite/taste excuse is likely largely just an unconscious substitution. Most non-chain-smokers view smoking as, at some level, a “treat” that gives them some enjoyment. When the smoking is removed they are sad and look for a substitute… and lo ‘n behold, there sits FOOD! (Even better… there sits ***CHOCOLATE!!!***)

      And if they start putting on weight and feel a bit guilty about it when queried, what better excuse to use than “Well it all tastes so GOOD now that I’ve stopped smoking!”

      A bit over 15 years ago I had a major operation after a bicycle accident and I didn’t smoke for several weeks. I never noticed a change in either the taste of food or sensitivity to odors (Well, other than smoke scent — which *did* stand out more than when I was smoking.)

      – MJM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: