Are Charities Like CRUK ‘Fit For Purpose’?

I have often wondered what CRUK (Cancer Research UK) is for. I understand that CRUK and similar organisations get loads-a-money from wills, which I suspect are the major source of their funding. But what do they do with the money? I should imagine that they used to a fund actual physical research, and I suppose that they still do, but time and again we see their major efforts going into behavioural control. Is that because they have been unable to find out the true causes of cancer? Without looking anything up at this time of night, I can tell the reader that,say, lung cancer, causes the deaths of very young people – infants and children. Very rare, but it happens nevertheless.

My point is that we have been inundated with claims that smoking causes LC to such an extent that smoking is the ONLY cause of LC. So the question is: “What causes of LC has CRUK discovered via its researches?” It seems to have discovered no causes other than smoking.

I was reading a link (forget where) which said that the Japanese Finance Minister has cast doubt on the meme that smoking causes LC. He said [words to the effect] that there are now more LCs than ever. I assume that he was talking about ‘per capita’ and that smoking in Japan has fallen over the years.

There are so many mini scandals appearing one after the other. The Chief Medical Officer of England, silly Sally, arbitrarily reduced the ‘safe level’ of alcohol consumption for men to the same level as women. The ‘safe level’ for men was reduced from 21 units per week to 14 – the same as women. Her silliness is compounded by her statement that she thinks about breast cancer whenever she has a glass of wine. The SS has nothing on SS. (Nice one, doncha think?)

‘Vaping is ‘a one way bridge’ to smoking’, said a recent ‘study’. That claim was based upon the fact that 4 ‘kids’ out of several hundred tried an ecig and went on to smoke two cigs in a year.

The latest mini scandal is that the MSM reported that only half a pint of beer per week could cause hardening of the arteries because half a pint per week was ‘heavy drinking’. The MSM reporters apparently drastically failed the ‘common sense’ test. It seems not to have occurred to them that ‘half a pint of beer per week’ is a minuscule amount. It seems not to have occurred to them to check the facts.

It turns out that the ‘half a pint per week’ is just a typo. Here is what Chris Snowdon has to say:

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/a-beer-day-keeps-doctor-away.html

A quote:

‘Consistent long-term, heavy drinking was defined in this UK study as more than 112 grams (3.9 ounces) of ethanol per week (roughly equivalent to one serving of alcoholic spirit, half a pint of beer, or half a glass of wine); consistent moderate drinking was 1-112 grams of ethanol per week.’

That quote appears to have come from the press release, but I am not sure. What is odd about it is the middle bit:

‘…more than 112 grams (3.9 ounces) of ethanol per week (roughly equivalent to one serving of alcoholic spirit, half a pint of beer, or half a glass of wine)…’

The problem is that we (including journalists) have problems when it comes to differentiating between weights and volumes. I have just done a little experiment. I took a wine glass and weighed it: 200 grams. I then half-filled it with water: 294 grams. So the weight of the water was 94 grams. So, if the water was wine, it would have to be pure ethanol, or even super-strength ethanol, for the above statement to be correct.

Snowdon suspects that a couple of words were omitted from the above. The statement would have been correct had it said:

‘…more than 112 grams (3.9 ounces) of ethanol per week (eight grams of ethanol is roughly equivalent to one serving of alcoholic spirit, half a pint of beer, or half a glass of wine)….’

But none of the journalists checked. Instead, they defied common sense and chose to create headlines such as:

Just half a pint of beer a week increases risk of heart disease – new study. (Telegraph)

The only other explanation is that they saw the nonsense but chose to cynically exploit the typo.

And, of course, there is the Tobacco Control Journal demanding that THE FAITHFUL ignore criticism of its junk science and HAVE FAITH in the HONESTY AND INTEGRITY of the propaganda put out by that ‘fan mag’. For what is the difference between the TC Journal and Fulham Football Club’s matchday programme which: “….provides 84 pages of up-to-the-minute news, views and interviews, covering everything from the Club’s colourful …”.

I think that I would place more trust in the Fulham ‘fan mag’ that TC’s journal.

One cannot prove it, of course, but I think that the semi-religious demagogy could be traced back to the founding of the League of Nations after WW1. As far as I understand, its objective was to provide a structure which could help nations to discuss their disagreements and solve those problems without war. It failed to stop WW2.

Immediately after WW2, the United Nations was set up. Don’t tell me that the decision to set up the UN was an after-thought. It was deliberate and had already been well thought-out during the war years. But this time, it was different. This time, the UN had teeth. Those teeth were provided by the USA. But the teeth were not just military. They also included economic sanctions.

Over a period of time, reasonably powerful Special Interest Groups got a toe-hold in the UN, and, since the UN is a monopoly, there was not opposition. I mean, how could any State not agree to control tobacco since studies had shown that, for all intents, only smoking cause lung cancer? We refer to Doll’s Doctors Study and find that LC hardly caused any deaths at all among non-smokers, and that heavy smokers were about 25 times more likely to die from LC. It did not matter that prevalence of deaths from LC were only about 7% of doctors’ deaths. Only the difference mattered.

Tobacco Control started long, long before the FCTC. It was the product of puritanical ‘prohibition’ in the USA.

Speeding up to the present day, as far as the UN is concerned, it no longer has a function to stop world wars. The potential for atomic devastation is just to great for anyone to contemplate. And it has been so since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The atomic bomb, together with NATO, put an end to wars in Europe. It had nothing to do with the UN per se, or the EU. In fact, there was no serious ‘trouble’ in Western Europe until the EU appeared.

One may applaud the idea of a ‘United States of Europe’, and there is no reason that eventually it might be so. The important word is eventually. 

When I voted to exit the EU, I meant ‘EXIT THE POLITICAL UNION’. Free trade and a common passport is fine by me. I could see the Euro as a common currency, provided that it was a ‘reserve’ or ‘bank’ currency. Thus, tourists could spend Euros in shops etc in the UK. In Magalluf, there are plenty shops which accept pound notes, and use an exchange mechanism to convert pounds into euros. No one thinks that it is odd. I assume that the banks in Magalluf accept pound notes at a given rate of exchange.

It seems silly to me for the UK and Europe to disengage in matters of trade. What needs to be done is to sideline the likes of Junker et al. They have become Emperors and it will not do.

But who are the Emperors in the UN, FCTC, WHO, IPCC? We do not know. We only know a little about the ‘spokespersons’, like Chan. We know nothing about how she became boss of the WHO. We know even less about the person who was appointed by whoever to be Secretary General of the UN.

Who decided whom the ‘appropriate’ nominee would be?  In fact, as I have said before, who decided to let Cameron be a candidate for the Tory leadership? Who decided that he was a ‘fit and proper’ person?

Those are the secret cabals.

We know that Trump is aware of these secret cabals, and he is not happy. But he might not be bothered about those cabals provided that they do not hurt the USA. I could see him de-funding the IPCC, in which case it would almost certainly disappear. The trouble is that I cannot see him de-funding TC. But the USA has not funded TC, as far as I know. It may have surreptitiously.

In my mind, THERE IS NO DOUBT that prosperity equals using the resources available to us in the Earth. Those resources might become more and more difficult to access if you need to go deeper and deeper. It ought be that safe ways to exploit the vast ‘energy’ from the Sun and from the atoms and molecules of ordinary matter, can be exploited.

It is important to understand (and this idea is just an imagination) that the Earth is an isolated ‘being’, and that all energy is preserved. We convert Mass to  Energy, but that Energy, eventually, reverts to Mass. The system self-balances.

So problems due to scarcity of petrol will only surface when oil becomes scarce. Maybe then some sort of anti-gravity power, other than rockets, will be discovered. But don’t count on it in the next decade, millennium or epoch. But you never know.

An interesting thing is that it was not the Newtons and Einsteins who changed the world. It was the quite scientists, like Michael Faraday, who worked out how to create electrical force.

Charities like CRUK are turning into monsters – the opposite of their ‘charitable’ origins. They have turned away from finding cures to illnesses and, instead, spend vast sums, not their own, on lobbying Government using fake studies and fake truth and propaganda.

What is even more worrying is that Government is engaged in exactly the same thing.

That is what I like about Trump. As far as I can see, he is not the slightest bit interested in propaganda. He may be wrong, but he says it as he sees it.

I headed this post with the question: “Are Charities Like CRUK Fit For Purpose?”. I would say that they have NO legitimate purpose. They are Ponzi schemes.

Advertisements

7 Responses to “Are Charities Like CRUK ‘Fit For Purpose’?”

  1. cherie79 Says:

    I give up on any charity as so on as they become political. No longer to Oxfam, RSPCA, and of course CRUK despite having had cancer. One local cat charity is all I give to now. Anyway I am already forced to contribute via my taxes and strongly object to that.

  2. Rose Says:

    “But what do they do with the money?”

    Pay for endless adverts on day time tv asking for more money.

  3. Lollylulubes Says:

    You might be interested in this:

    How governments from the late 50s onwards deliberately downplayed the huge threat to public health caused by air pollution, and sought to shift the blame firmly onto cigarette smoking instead.
    http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/pressoffice/press_releases/2002/smogpollution.html

    Toxicologic and Epidemiologic Clues from the Characterization of the 1952 London Smog Fine Particulate Matter in Archival Autopsy Lung Tissues
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241576/pdf/ehp0111-001209.pdf

    • junican Says:

      Thanks. I am familiar with the political panic at that time. The problem is that we shall never know the truth.

  4. Vapers Digest 24th Feb | Convicted Vapour Says:

    […] Are Charities Like CRUK ‘Fit For Purpose’? […]

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: