Saturating the Media

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.


4 Responses to “Saturating the Media”

  1. Rose Says:

    “The site did not specify how the nicotine was ingested. Was it via smoking or chewing tobacco?”

    It’s in your food.

    Dietary nicotine: a source of urinary cotinine – 1991

    “Foods, principally from plants in the family Solanaceae, and a number of teas were examined for the presence of nicotine.
    Dietary nicotine would give rise to cotinine in urine and compromise estimates of exposure to tobacco smoke that depend on urinary cotinine.

    All foods were homogenized, extracted and analysed for nicotine and cotinine by gas chromatography with nitrogen-sensitive detection (GC) and/or GC/MS (mass spectrometry). Weak acid and aqueous extracts of the teas were analysed in a similar manner. Nicotine was not detected (less than 1 ng/ml of extract) in egg plant or green pepper.
    The average values for nicotine in tomato and potato were 7.3 ng/g wet weight and 15 ng/g wet weight, respectively.
    Black teas, including regular and decaffeinated brands, had nicotine contents ranging from non-detectable to greater than 100 ng/g wet weight. Instant teas yielded the highest nicotine contents observed (up to 285 ng/g wet weight).
    The possible sources of nicotine in these foods are discussed.

    A range of potential values for urinary cotinine concentrations (0.6 to 6.2 ng/ml) was calculated based upon estimated average and maximal consumptions of these foods and beverages. Because of the potential for exposure to nicotine by way of these routes, the use of urinary cotinine as a biomarker of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke may be compromised.

    Society for Risk Analysis 1995
    Dietary Contributions to Nicotine Body Burden

    “Recent USDA food intake surveys are used to perform a probabilistic analysis of dietary intake of nicotine. Using limited data on nicotine content of foodstuffs (tea, tomato, potato, green pepper, and eggplant) and the 198991 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSDII), the absorbed dose of nicotine is shown to be significant compared to present day environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) nicotine exposures.

    CSDII contains 3day dietary intake data for 11,912 individuals and weighting factors for extrapolation to the entire US population. Using tea as an example, the tea consumption cumulative distribution function for adults (>18 years) shows an average tea consumption of 142 g/d, noting that 62.7% of the US population has no tea intake.
    The average for those who drink tea is about 1.6 cup/day (using 250 g/cup).

    Using the available data for nicotine in 10 brands of brewed tea (2 instant and 8 leaves) tea nicotine concentration is modeled as a lognormal distribution (with a mean of 68.9 ng of nicotine per gram of brewed tea and a standard deviation of 75 ng/g). Oral nicotine bioavailability is modeled as a triangular distribution. Using a study of the oral nicotine bioavailability for a group of 10 male subjects, the most likely absorption factor was 44% with a range of 24% to 59%.
    The dietary tea dose was calculated using the daily tea intake, the concentration of nicotine in tea, and the absorption factor. Using @RISK simulation for 25,000 trials the average absorbed nicotine dose for those who drink tea is 12.5 mg/d. The median is about 5 mg/d. The 95th percentile for the entire US population aged 18 years and older is 22 mg/d.

    The dietary contributions of absorbed nicotine dose are significant when compared to present ETS exposures. A recent study of workplace ETS exposure results in mean and median absorbed nicotine doses of 11 and 3 mg/d, respectively. Thus, ETS exposure analysis based on total nicotine absorption needs to consider dietary intake. This includes the use of cotinine (a major metabolite of nicotine) which has been a widely used biomarker.”

    And that’s been known for longer than I have been alive, I found it in my Mum’s old gardening books.

    • junican Says:

      Thank you, Rose, but I think that the authors of that piece were not talking about eating tomatoes, etc. They were scoring a point which helped their study be published. The words ‘Nicotine’ and ‘Tobacco’ are flashing lights which draw the attention of editors.

  2. Roberto Says:

    Yes, there is saturation on the media on printing/displaying or commenting on anything (literally ANYTHING) that can be bad, not only on smoking, but on nicotine or even on vaping. At the same time, there is a lot of censorship (or worse of all, self-censorship) in the media on anything (literally ANYTHING) that may even mildly put this “anti” dogma into questioning. I am a regular viewer of the BBC world service. Covering of any issue related to “smoking” or “nicotine” is shown with the purpose to emphasize their ills and evils, even to the point of ridicule. In particular, one of the anchors (I think his name is Nawaz Awad or something like that) is the type of former smoker turned fanatic anti-smoker that never misses a chance to patronize/moralize on anything vaguely related to smoking. I spent recently a week in NYC and asked many bar owners and waiters what they think of the strict smoking bans: all said it was a load of puritanical crap. If somebody made a decent professional poll revealing this opinion, it would simply not be published by any medical journal, not even by newspapers and would be denied coverage by all TV news outlets. It would be dismissed as propaganda from the devil infidels (Big Tobacco). It is not much different from challenging religious dogma in a theocracy.

    • junican Says:

      Your observations are accurate. But, ‘what goes around comes around’ – eventually. The trouble is that it takes a long time for ‘what goes around comes around’ to have an effect.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: