‘Plain Packaging’ of Everything

‘Velvet Glove, Iron Fist’ has an interesting report today. See:

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/plain-packaging-for-soft-drinks.html

A university has spent money repeating the tobacco PP research – showing impressionable youths pictures of normal cans of coke and such and then showing them cans of coke with medical porn plastered all over them. The youths thought that the original cans were pretty than the medical porn ones, or, alternatively, that the medical porn cans were nastier than the original cans.

I don’t know why they bothered. A pool of sick on the pavement is not as nice as a pool of water.

I wonder of there is something worth exploring in my statement:

A pool of sick on the pavement is not as nice as a pool of water.

The thing is that a pool of water on the pavement might be a nuisance if you inadvertently step into it, or if it is so extensive that it is difficult to walk around. Other than that, the pool of water is ‘neutral’. It is not as though people say, “Oh, here is a pool of water on the pavement. How wonderful! I can kneel down and quench my thirst!”

What the Zealots did was almost precisely that.

Smokers do not look at the packet of cigs which they have bought in any detail. They generally know what their favourite brands look like and pay no further attention to them. That is, there is no particular attraction from the packet. Was it the extra posh cigs known as ‘San Morritz’, or something similar, which had yucky green packets?  I think that it was ‘Players Navy Cut’ which had a predominantly white packet. But I may be wrong, which shows how little I was influenced by colours. And, although I cannot remember the brand, I am sure that one brand packet was predominantly yucky brown.

We eat meals daily which are predominantly yucky coloured. Herself and I like brown bread. We have brown, shit coloured slices of meat inside our sandwiches. We often have sickly coloured greens and yellows, in lettuce and cauliflower and corn cobs, and such. And we like to smother our brownish baby potatoes with yellow butter. All those colours are typical of a pool of sick.

I trust that I am not destroying the pleasure of someone’s evening meal!

Red wine is much the same colour as blood. White wine is similar in colour to weak urine, if it is a good class white wine. Would a youth recognise which piece of bread is covered with pate as compared with another which is covered with shit?

===

I am wondering when the penny will drop. I think that it is beginning to do so. It seems that a Local Hospital somewhere has decreed that it will postpone operations upon fatties and smokers, but the Dept of Health has stepped in and told them to shut the fuck up, and re-think, aka forget it.

But it isn’t as simple as that. Those proposals should never have been made in the first place. Who made them, and who decided to make them? Who precisely was involved? Who were those people, and what organisation did the come from?

We cannot do anything about it, but it is clear that people who are appointed to hospital boards MUST be vetted in some way. That is a very hard thing to do, since no one knows what ideology a person, no matter how eminent, might have.

Is that not the major problem in the UN, FCTC, IPCC, EU, etc? Is it not true that the eminent can have the same animalistic, emotional reactions to alcohol, tobacco, sugar and such, so that they want those substances to be banned? A person who it utterly rational about running a City might be utterly irrational about drinking.

===

So, the Zealots want everything that might pose any sort of risk to be labelled as such. I have a packet of pills before my eyes which would kill a person if taken all at once. It is coloured red and white, mostly white.

===

In summary, going back to my original point, if colours are to be important, then there must be coordinated, international decisions made. For example, the colour ‘Red’ could indicate danger. Thus, cig packets must be coloured red. Safe stuff packets must be coloured Green. Similarly, fattening foods could be packaged in red packets, or even dyed red, even if they are red already, like red meat.

Is it not extremely simple? Everything healthy could be coloured green, and everything unhealthy could be coloured red. Red and Green. Black and White. Oopst! Racist alert!

===

I wonder sometimes if politicians, and especially people like the former PM, Cameron, have any understanding of what is going on in the minds of ‘experts’ in the General Population. I wonder if people such as Cameron have this ‘lower sorts’ idea. The common herd has no ‘expertise’ and can be manipulated. The, AND HIS CRONIES, obviously thought so.

There is an important phrase there, is there not? ‘AND HIS CRONIES’. How do we know that Theresa May was NOT one of his cronies? Who WERE his cronies? Who influenced him to implement ‘Project Fear’, as compared with describing the actual benefits of being in the EU? It is hard to avoid the idea that the reason was that there are no benefits in being in the EU. Had there been so, they would have been trumpeted.

===

‘Plain Packaging’ is the same thing as ‘Project Fear’. It has no substance, but sounds good and will frighten some people. But it will have no continuing effect. After a while, people get used to colours, and take no notice of them. If I might speculate – there is no such thing as an ugly colour. The idea, put about by Tobacco Control, that some colours are lovely and some are ugly, is a total lie, and should be denounced as such. There is no such thing as an ugly colour.

So why did the Cameron Government enact the legislation? Mostly, the reason is simple. Mostly, it is because taxpayers have been paying for Zealots to produce the legislation. Producing legislation is extremely expensive. Laws and regulations do not write themselves. The intricacies have to be verbalised precisely.   When all that cost has been expended, it is hard not to go through with it. How, otherwise, would you justify the cost? It happens all the time. The cost justifies the implementation.

In our normal lives, it does not work like that. We get FREE estimates of costs of works that we plan. But, in those FREE estimates is the cost of plans and planing permissions. Government does not seem to work that way at all. It pays millions for FREE estimates.

I cannot say that I admire Trump in the USA, but I CAN say that I despise Cameron. When he became PM, I had high hopes that he might have ‘gumption’, but he did not. He was a cipher, a cyborg, a Chamberlain, a baby-faced calculator. I do not for a minute think that he was actually in favour of the EU. I think that he had no opinion, personally, at all. He calculated.

But who has the right to say that he was wrong? His attitude might have been perfectly correct from a political point of view.

But those massively important decisions do not detract from the stupidity of PP. How on Earth did that stupidity get Parliamentary time? Who engineered it? Why did the Cabinet allow that time? Surely, there ought to have been more important things?

It is hard not to assume that the Medical Mafia is in control. It is hard also not to assume that the Medical Mafia has some information which could seriously worry both Labour and Tory. Such a thing might be the playing-down of the effects of the  sulphurous smogs in the 1950s and 1960s. The Clean Air Acts were expensive, but no one contested them. Why were they not introduced decades before?

It was precisely around that time that Doll started his Hospital Study and his Doctors Study about the effect of smoking. I have read the reports that he produced, and at no point was air pollution taken account of.

The smogs were at their worst around 1955. Did they cause immediate lung cancers and further, longer term LCs? No one knows, because all the epidemiology was directed as smoking.

The fact is that PP with regard to tobacco products is so weak that the idea works contrary to normal rationality. In tobacco control, failure is success.

I is late, and I must to bed. ‘Failure is Success’ needs more exploration. It could explain a lot of weird events.

Advertisements

9 Responses to “‘Plain Packaging’ of Everything”

  1. robert innes Says:

    I think I can go some way to answering the question of who thought of the idea of disgusting images on cigarette packs. It is just a guess but would it be someone who is qualified in the art of “fear in advertising.” There is one gntleman in Tobacco Control who features heavily in anti-smoking propoganda and who actually has a PHd in the relationship between cigarette smoke and advertising… Oh! It was you! https://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/author/junican/

    But not only this TC are bound to know that a large body of academic thought supports the view that horrific images might actually encourage some smokers to keep smoking, and, some non-smokers to take up the habit, and failing that, the images might be ignored altogether.

    It is simple – as far back as 1953, it was known that ”… when individuals are presented with threatening information will be motivated to search for responses that reduce the threat. When a response reduces fear, it is reinforced and becomes part of one’s permanent response repertory. This therefore suggests that higher fear should result in more persuasion, but only if the recommended action is perceived as effective in averting danger.”

    Please note the final comment – the only action recommended is ‘quit,’ hardly effective and so other mechanisms (dealt with in the article) kick in.

    There is a great deal more to this than my comment here, but the short of it is, TC know exactly what they are doing and the aim is to 1) justify their existence while, 2) keeping people smoking.

    My full blog on the topic which compliments this article…
    https://brainyfurball.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/tobacco-control-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/

    • junican Says:

      I had a giggle at your second comment. I think that tobacco control is stuffed with advertising ‘experts’ – after all, that is what ASH exists for – to publicise terror as forcefully and widely as possible.
      I have read your post. I would interpret events slightly differently. TC wants smoking to reduce at a given rate. They have implied so. When the say ‘Smokefree Scotland by, say, 2035, they indicate a percentage reduction per an. And they mean it. It is not in their interests, or the Government’s, for smoking to collapse very rapidly. If that happened, then other taxes would have to be increased to make up for duty, VAT, income tax for workers rendered unemployed, and such. Further, TC employees would have no jobs. Also, the university course of many academics would have no students.
      The psychology of response to fear-mongering is interesting. I suppose that the initial response of a person to fear-mongering is to accept it. For example, if there was a report of someone crossing a road and being knocked down and killed, other than at a pedestrian crossing, and it was recommended NEVER to cross a road other than at a pedestrian crossing, many people would obey. But, after a while, they would look to left and right and see no traffic, and would consider crossing the road NOT at a pedestrian crossing. Further, they notice that, provided they look in both directions carefully, they are NEVER in danger of being knocked down and killed. Further, as a result of those experiences, they learn to disregard ALL such warnings. Thus, if there are too many such warnings, people begin to disregard IMPORTANT warnings.

  2. robert innes Says:

    Apologies my link to you just takes you back to this post. Not to worry I am sure you can find it. Lol.

  3. Rose Says:

    The smogs were at their worst around 1955. Did they cause immediate lung cancers and further, longer term LCs? No one knows, because all the epidemiology was directed as smoking

    The answer you seek is in –

    Mortality in the London Boroughs, 1950—52, with Special Reference to Respiratory Disease

    “The greatest proportionate departure from expectation occurred in the respiratory section of the I.C.D.”

    “Thus bronchitis and pneumonia produced well over 4,000 excess deaths in London during 1950-52.
    But this was by no means the whole of the excess attributed to diseases of the respiratory system, for more than half of the excess deaths in the malignant section of the I.C.D. were caused by cancer of the trachea, bronchus, and lung.
    In addition there was an excess of more than 500 deaths from respiratory tuberculosis.

    Taken together these four diseases of the respiratory system yielded 6,513 more deaths than would have occurred at the rates ruling in England and Wales generally, an excess of 37.3 percent.”

    “It is interesting to note the parallel between these figures and those of a recent study of cancer among British immigrants in New Zealand ( Eastcott, 1956)

    Compared with the native born population, British immigrants had an excessive risk of death from cancer of the lung (but no other site),and this excess was sufficiently greater for persons who had lived in Britain until they were 30 years old than for those who migrated at an earlier age.

    Thus emerges from both studies a consistent relationship between duration of exposure to the putatively noxious environment and risk of later death from respiratory disease.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1058618/?page=4

    • junican Says:

      Breathing an acid will actually destroy lung tissue. I wonder if forensic evidence of smog damage actually revealed such physical damage? Was there such evidence, and was it hushed up or even destroyed?
      So it is not so much ‘disease’ as physical damage, similar to a broken leg.

      • Rose Says:

        They kept samples and many years later, someone finally got around to examining them

        Toxicologic and epidemiologic clues from the characterization of the 1952 London smog fine particulate matter in archival autopsy lung tissues.

        “During the catastrophic PM exposure episode in London in December 1952, some 4,000 excess deaths occurred at the height of the event. The extreme mortality during that episode and the preservation of archival autopsy tissues allow us the unique opportunity to report on the form and composition of December 1952 London PM in situ in tissues from persons known to have died from the smog exposure.”

        “Taking a lung compartment (airway, airspace, interstitium, and lymph node) approach, we differentiated exposures contemporary with death from those of earlier origin. Electron microscopic analyses revealed the dominance of retained soot and a surfeit of other particle types. A variety of metal-bearing particle types were found in all compartments, but Pb, Zn, and SnZn types appeared the least biopersistent. The results support the acute toxicologic importance of ultrafine carbonaceous and metal PM.”
        “During the first week of December 1952, a slow-moving high-pressure system became stationary over London and persisted for several days. Particulate emissions from domestic fires and industrial processes provided condensation nuclei for the moist air to form dense smog. With little atmospheric dispersion, as the event progressed the SO2 and smoke levels climbed to peak values of 3.83 and 4.46 mg m-3 respectively. The typical winter situation of high pollutant levels was exacerbated by increased emissions from domestic heat sources and power plants because of atypically low temperatures (daily mean temperatures were below the 80-year average). Besides releases from the combustion of coal, oil, and coke, plus products from various industrial activities, the London atmosphere was also burdened with unprecedented levels of diesel emissions. This was a consequence of the introduction of thousands of diesel-powered buses as replacements for electric trams phased out in London by July 1952.”

        “We consider it unlikely that London residents were exposed to some new PM source during the smog event; rather, they were subject to an increased dose of the typical exposure aerosol.”

        https://web.archive.org/web/20111029145037/http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.6114

        Which takes us back to –

        Mortality in the London Boroughs, 1950—52, with Special Reference to Respiratory Disease

        When our government wants to cover something up, they do it very thoroughly.

        “Thirdly and much more importantly, a change was made in 1953 in the official definition of of the “usual residence” of deceased persons.
        As a result all deaths in hospital for the chronic sick and in mental and mental deficiency hospitals have been assigned, from 1953 onwards, to the area of the hospital, whether or not the patient had been originally admitted from that area.
        This change has had a serious effect on the statistics for London, most of which is served by chronic and mental hospitals outside the county boundary.

        Important features of local mortality have been obliterated by the change and new anomolies have appeared.
        Unless there is a reversion to the practice …, general studies of local mortality must come to an end in 1952″
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1058618/?page=1

        Doll would not have been able to do his London Hospital study after 1953.

      • junican Says:

        But the results of the study did not actually pinpoint the causes of the deaths. They showed the presence of various materials, like carbon, and metals. Did the presence of those materials actually cause the deaths? Or was the cause something which was NOT visible, even with an electron microscope? Gases, for example, might do an awful lot of damage, but disappear during the process of dying.

      • Rose Says:

        I take your point, for that we would need measurements of sulphur dioxide, I think the cattle at Smithfield market might give a clue, as they were unused to the background levels of air pollution in the city.

        “At the Smithfield Show at Earls Court, where the fog had seeped into the prize cattle’s quarters, many animals were taken sick, just as they had in the great fog of 1873.

        Thirteen had to be destroyed, and autopsies later showed that the animals had suffered from severe inflammation of the airways in their lungs.”
        http://www.staffs.ac.uk/schools/sciences/environment/GreatFog/fog6.html

        The closest I can get to an actual measurement of the sulphur dioxide is from our local paper.

        1962
        “In the Kirkstall Road area of Leeds, the sulphur dioxide concentration was greater than that registered in London in 1952. At 5,185 microgrammes per cubic metre it was the highest ever registered in the city”.
        http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/the-great-smog-s-deadly-toll-1-2551929

        I have previously read that the air in London during the smog had the PH of lemon juice.

      • Rose Says:

        Inflammation starts as the body protecting itself.

        “During inflammation, enhanced ROS/RNS production may induce recurring DNA damage, inhibition of apoptosis, and activation of proto-oncogenes by initiating signal transduction pathways. Therefore, it is conceivable that chronic inflammation-induced production of ROS/RNS in the lung may predispose individuals to lung cancer. This review describes the complex relationship between lung inflammation and carcinogenesis, and highlights the role of ROS/RNS in cancer development.”
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18176884

        I have always been intrigued by the fact that the worse the air pollution the more cigarettes people seem to smoke.

        Harvard and U. Pittsburgh researchers explain carbon monoxide’s anti-inflammatory effects
        2007

        “Inflammation is a normal defense mechanism used by the body to ward off infection, but over time, severe or chronic inflammation can damage tissues. In some cases, such as in organ transplantation, the body’s inflammatory response over the short-term also can cause more harm than good. Current approaches to controlling inflammation are not always successful, making the need for new approaches urgent. In particular, inhaled medical grade carbon monoxide has been shown to be useful in animal models for organ transplantation, vascular injury, inflammatory bowel disease, organ injury resulting from severe blood loss, as well as experimental hepatitis and experimental pulmonary hypertension.”
        http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/foas-hau031307.php

        Therapeutic Role of Nitric Oxide in Respiratory Disease

        “In recent years, inhaled nitric oxide (NO) has been subject to widespread investigation. It was first discovered in 1987 as the factor responsible for the biological properties of endothelium-derived relaxing factor.[1] Since then, our understanding of this unique molecule has grown exponentially. Inhaled NO therapy is commonly used in intensive care units to treat patients with adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and it appears that inhaled NO is effective in treating conditions that result in pulmonary hypertension, such as, persistent pulmonary hypertension of the neonate (PPHN), and in diseases characterized by disturbances in gas exchange, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).”
        http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408754

        Perhaps it was some kind of balancing act.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: