For certain reasons unimportant, I was checking via the net, how long it takes for food and drink to pass through the stomach and into the intestines. It turns out to be between six and eight hours, not that it matters. Of course, there were several ‘conditionals’ expressed which could either speed up the process or slow it down. For example, meat takes longer and fruit takes shorter. That is not surprising. But I must admit to being quite surprised when the site said that ingesting nicotine has an effect. The site did not specify how the nicotine was ingested. Was it via smoking or chewing tobacco?
It is strange, is it not, that even the simple process of digestion of food in the stomach, with all the acids and stuff present there, is singled out for a dig at nicotine. We are talking about the movement of stuff and not danger. What does it matter if nicotine is present either in the bloodstream or in the contents of the stomach? In terms of volume and nature, any nicotine involved must be many orders of magnitude less than the food and drink. Suppose that I have a splendid meal of sirloin etc, and then I have a cig and a glass of whiskey. To what extent will the cig affect the movement of the food and drink through the stomach?
Utter rot of course, but these people cannot help it.
I think that it is a prime example of ‘publication bias’. It is easier to get your article published if you can get nicotine or tobacco mentioned therein, no matter how tenuous the connection. I would go so far as to say that there is no real connection at all, and that the connection is ‘theorised’.
The above is an extreme example of using tobacco/nicotine to score publication points. How much more likely is it that ‘publication bias’ is present in greater proportions when smoking is being studied? If nicotine consumption can creep into the acidic processes in the stomach, where the effects must be minuscule, how much more likely is it that it’s effects will be exaggerated in the context of breathing?
The Powers-That-Be tried every trick in the book to exaggerate the possible bad effects of Brexit, but The People saw through their prophesies of doom and voted for ‘Leave’. No wonder that Cameron resigned and Osborne was sacked. Both those events were bound to happen, since the slate of deception had to be wiped clean. Odd, though, that BoJo got the Foreign Office job. Was he not tainted by deception? Perhaps Theresa May recognised that BoJo did not deceive.
Are things changing in the UK? Dick Puddlecote describes a meeting of the Royal Society of Medicine, where the subject matter was ‘the regulation of pleasure’. DP was surprised that the medical types who attended were not happy about the regulation of pleasure.
I know that Public Health tries to weigh up ‘costs and benefits’. For example, some drugs have side-effects in some people, but, on the whole, those side-effects are small and confined to only a few people. Thus, on the whole, there might be great benefits to the vast majority, even though some people are ‘discomforted’. But rarely if ever does ‘pleasure’ figure in the ‘costs and benefits’ ratio. Some more enlightened academics have tried hard to get ‘pleasure’ recognised as a ‘benefit’, but with little effect. That is sad but inevitable.I forget the details, but in the USA, a document was produced which gave weight to pleasure as a benefit. That document was ignored. It is easy to see why. The fact is that ‘pleasure’ cannot be quantified. Do I enjoy smoking? Yes. Erm… How can that pleasure be counted? Did I enjoy sex? Yes. Erm…. How can that physical pleasure be quantified? It cannot, because it is subjective in every case and at every event.
Thus, ideas of pleasure are anathema to everyone in Public Health. The word ‘pleasure’ has been replaced by the word ‘addiction’.
So we get saturation in the media of quantifiable ill-effects, which might not occur for hundreds of years, such as the ill effects of SHS. Sure, someone somewhere will cough and splutter and be found to have lung cancer. It will happen, some time, somewhere to someone. What is sure is that most studies of the effect of SHS have shown neutral results. The ‘harm’ from SHS does not really exist.
Some academics are definitely starting to contradict themselves in a big way, but they will not admit it. They promoted SHS danger for ideological reasons. “Tobacco smoke is dangerous in all circumstances”, but they knew that that was a lie, unless you include very remote possibilities, such as person with severe heart problems who is walking down a street, and simultaneously breaths a smidgen of tobacco smoke at the same time as suffering a heart attack. That is how they get away with the lies. They take an extreme, individual case and draw universal conclusions which are not justified. AND THEY KNOW THAT!
‘Silly Sally’, Chief Medical Officer of the UK, knows very well that we derive much pleasure from alcoholic beverages. A great deal of pleasure. An enormous amount of pleasure both directly and indirectly. But she says that we should worry about slight cancer risks every time that we have a glass of wine.
But it does not matter how stupid the Chief Medical Officer is for us observers. The only thing that matters to these people is that the get quoted in the MSM. They lie and cheat and exaggerate, secure in the knowledge that what they say might just possibly get someone to reduce their alcohol consumption from 10 pints a week to nine pints. Thus, little by little, the alcohol Industry will be destroyed.
It is Prohibition again. Despite the apparent attack on smokers, the reality is that the attack is on Production. It is just the same as Prohibition of alcohol and tobacco in the USA 100 years ago. It is exactly the same thing. The surface measures might seem to be anti-smoking, aka the persecution of smokers, but the real objective is to demolish tobacco companies and the growing of tobacco plants.
Thus, the vilification of ecigs is about ‘tobacco plant control’ on a world-wide basis. Eventually, as seen by TC, only Big Pharma will grow tobacco plants.
The flooding of the media with anti-tobacco sentiments is not accidental. It is deliberate. The anti-ecig hysteria is deliberate. It is designed to remove the growing of tobacco plants from the control of tobacco companies, and to transfer that control to Big Pharma.
The problem is that the anti-smoking Health Zealots will lose their ‘power’ to get MSM coverage. At some point, it will not be worthwhile to continue with the persecution of smokers.
That is the point where smokers can make a difference. That opportunity will appear when the MSM gets fed up with the Health Zealots.