Delusion, Disinformation and Deception (2)

In the comments to my post about a Prime Minister’s difficulties in being responsible for EVEYTHING, ‘Some French Bloke’ gave me a link about the comparison of cancer deaths between rural dwellers and urban dwellers.

http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442454565

I read the link. The report compared cancer deaths among five different groups of people, depending upon how ‘remote’ their habitats were, ranging from ‘MC’ (Major City) to ‘VR’ (Very remote). Silly Simon Chapman used that report to claim that lung cancer deaths were greater among rural dwellers than city dwellers.

But, right at the beginning of the report there come this statement:

“Similarly the average annual numbers of excess cancer cases by region have been calculated by comparing the actual number with the number expected if each region had the same age-standardised rates for Major City areas.”

Now, the method implied by that statement suggest to me that some fiddling of the figures has taken place. I say that because their are intelligent epidemiologists here and there, and if they see a larger incidence of lung cancer in cities as compared with in the country, then they will have compared deaths in similar age groups and deaths overall as a percentage of the total population, along with deaths as a proportion of all deaths in those geographical areas. It is not the least bit difficult. EG:

Deaths from LC City: 100 per 100,000 population: 100 per 1000 deaths: Ages – 10 deaths between 0 and 50, 30 between 51 and 70, 60 over 70.

Deaths from LC Country: 50 per 100,000 population: 50 per 1000 deaths: Ages – 1 death between 0 and 50, 9 between 51 and 70, 40 over 70.

Those figures are my inventions, but you could clearly say that LC deaths are more frequent in urban situations than country situations. In fact, many studies have show something similar to be correct.

“But wait!”, you will cry, and correctly. “What about the prevalence of smoking?” And that is where the report cited gets weird. It claims that the prevalence of smoking may be greater in remote areas than in urban areas. But I then cry, “But wait! The tables in the report do not reflect ‘deaths per thousand’. They only talk about ‘expected’ numbers”.

Who decides what is ‘the expected’ number? The report does not say how that ‘expectation’ was arrived at. Was air pollution excluded as a factor? How do we know if nothing is said about how ‘the expected occurrence’ of LC was calculated?

Which brings me to my point.

I watched a TV programme tonight about a mistress of King Edward VII before he became King. Edward was a randy sod, and temptation in the salons of Paris abounded. He ‘clicked’ with a pretty, young prostitute for a few years, but only in the nicest possible way – she had a nicely appointed apartment in the best area of Paris, paid for by her many rich clients. Some time after Edward ceased the association, she married a very wealth Egyptian Prince. She fell out with him and shot him dead. She was tried for murder.

A weird legal thing at the time was that, if one side brings up ‘the character’ of of the deceased or that of the accused, then the other side can also do so. BUT the judge can decide TO WHAT EXTENT character assassination can go. In this case, the Judge decided that nothing of the behaviour of before her marriage to the Prince was admissible. Thus, her association with Edward could be hidden.

The evidence in the case was clear – she killed the Prince. But she got off because she claimed that he treated her awfully.

I add, from my own viewpoint, to what extent was the jury ‘got at’ if the Judge could be ‘got at’?

Once it came to light that tobacco smoking could be dangerous, then various attempts were made to limit the danger. I remember very well TV adverts telling us to leave a long tip. That was before filter tips were common. The reasoning, obviously, was that the further that you smoke an untipped cig down, the more that tar accumulates in the unburnt part of the cig. And then filter tips were aggressively marketed, and so we almost all swapped to filter tipped cigs. That was during the 1960s. And here is the interesting thing. The Canadian Government conspired with Tobacco Companies to create a variety of tobacco plant which produced much, much less tar. That was achieved, and tobacco companies called cigs produced from such plants ‘light’.

You cannot but laugh at the utter stupidity of tobacco companies. You can almost see the scene. “What shall we call these safer cigs”. “How about ‘Reduced tar?” “Erm…. if we do that, we open ourselves to accusations of selling ‘high tar'”. “OK. Let’s call then ‘Lights'” “Great idea! Who can complain about the word ‘Lights’?”

And it was precisely that thinking which buggered up TobComs. TobCon accused Tobcoms of misleading the public by calling the reduced tar cigs ‘lights’. There was a court case in Canada where a person said that he was misled by the word ‘lights’, and Tobcoms tried to say that the Canadian Gov was involved in the creation of lower tar plants. But the Court in Canada said that the Gov was protected and could not be brought into the case. Does that not remind you a bit about Edward?

It will be extremely interesting to see what the Supreme Judges of the UK decide regarding Brexit. The thing is that, in the UK, generally speaking, relations with foreign States has always been the prerogative of The Crown. What that means is that the current Government can enter into treaties with other States without Parliament being involved. The reasoning was that Parliament was about the laws of England (Ireland, Scotland and Wales). It were not about the laws of other States. Thus, a treaty could be made with another State which does not involve the laws of England. If the laws of England were affected, then Parliament would be involved, but not otherwise. Thus,  as a stupid example, the import of bananas, as far as duty is concerned, could be balanced by the export of cars. In that example, the laws of England are not involved. Only trade is involved.

We are slowly arriving at a crucial point. I don’t think that many people are seeing it yet. The point is whether or not to go along with almost motionless discussions in the EU or break free. It is a simple matter of fact that it is FAR easier to ban something than to free it. Is that not almost always why wars occur?

Free movement among the people of Europe has always been the case. What the EU Zealots have done is make it harder for that free movement to be unrestricted. I know that that idea seems to be counter intuitive, but what it comes down to is the rights of citizens. Thus, if I go to Spain and like life there, and I can afford to rent or buy a property there, then I can live there – provided that I can afford to take care of myself. Or I could take out insurance. But what if I cannot afford to take care of myself?

There is the rub, and it is that which causing the ‘catch 22’. I went cycling around the north of France and into Belgium in 1957 youth hosteling. I had little money, and no insurance. What would have happened if I had come a cropper? I do not know. But what I suspect would have happened is that HUMAN KINDNESS would have come into play. That certainly happened during one stage of my journey to Brussels when I was thoroughly soaked by rain and sitting miserably by the roadside. An American serviceman with a big car stopped and offered help. We put my bike in the boot and he gave me a lift to my next destination. Not only that but his wife had some food and gave me some.

What do you understand from the above?

It is that Tobacco Control is inhuman and always has been. Bans are inhuman. According to the TobCom Zealots, there is no reason that ANY behaviour, such as eating black peas at a fair, should be permitted.

Thus we come to the conclusion that only PERMITTED behaviours are legal.

Is that where we are going? I think so.

The crazy thing is that the Zealots, who demand blanket smoking bans all over Europe, are bringing on the very revolution which they they did not expect!

For some incredible reason, the Check Republic has decided to ban smoking in bars etc. It is beyond my imagining that the Elected Representatives of the People of the Check Republic could have opted for such a regulation. It must therefore have imposed from outside. Thus are Governments of regions dictated to. But why do they not rebel? They DO rebel, but the MSM is not interested.

 

 

 

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Delusion, Disinformation and Deception (2)”

  1. narbanor Says:

    Who decides what ‘the expected’ number is? The report does not say how that ‘expectation’ was arrived at.

    The answer to these two (the ‘Who’ and ‘How’?) would lead to a further question: why the heck did they first ‘age-standardise’ the rates in Major Cities versus the Countryside and remote areas anyway? IF the new, adjusted figures were supposed to help us better understand the differences between various sets of raw data, the latter should figure prominently in the report. Instead, their absence, combined with the presence of unexplained and non-justified (i.e. probably unjustifiable) calculations seem designed to obfuscate the comparisons, while providing a pretext to confine the actual results to the file drawer. Whole swathes of real numbers seldom, if ever, make their way into the published versions of these types of population-wide reports and surveys: I have yet to come across a report using raw data on e.g. the Mormons’s morbidity rates as compared with other populations (such as Utahns in general or U.S. citizens at large). Could that be because divulging such sensible information would make it less easy for TobCon to use the notoriously non-smoking members of this Church as ‘poster children’?
    A final (rhetorical) question: would real science so readily resort to ‘adjustments’, ‘standardisation’, and so eagerly defer to ‘expectations’?

    • junican Says:

      I like your thinking, especially “would real science so readily resort to ‘adjustments’, ‘standardisation’”. I have said again and again that epidemiology is not ‘science’. It is counting. The ‘science’ can only become real if the counting reveals an anomaly which is worth investigating. The epidemiology is not the important thing.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: