‘Truth Decay’

Yes, you read that correctly – not ‘tooth decay’.

I came across that phrase via Dick P’s twitter feed. It is here:


Do you not think that it is a wonderful phrase? I love it. Zealots of all flavours have been using ‘tooth decay’ as a bludgeon with which to batter parents into abject surrender. The phrase suggests that parents are responsible for harming their children by allowing them the occasional treat of a few sweets. Or rather, by allowing them any sort of sugary treat at all – ice cream, chocolate, cake, etc. In fact, I wonder if parents allow their kids to have any sort of dessert at all, even if they are eating out.

My hotel in Mallorca was very busy this time. There were loads and loads of families. It was particularly noticeable how many grandparents and grandchildren there were. Easter hols, I suppose. It may have been especially busy because so many of the hotels in the town were still closed. I doubt that the the kids were refused their desserts with their meals. The Barbados hotel does a really tempting line in the desserts field – everything from whole fruits like apples and oranges through chocolate soaked sponges and bowls of multi-coloured sweets. What more could a child expect? And their parents and grandparents.

My experiences in Magalluf reinforced my belief that hardly any of the propaganda put out by The Elite is true. There were dozens and dozens of kids but I did not see a single fat one. Not one. But there was also another observation. It was that most young men were not tall and most young women were rather small. You can observe these things leisurely when you have time to do so, such as when you are sitting outside a disco at 2 am playing chess on an electronic chess set. You also get to observe that most of the young men were typical Caucasian physical types – some rather skinny and some somewhat chunky, but mostly around 5′ 7″ or thereabouts. The girls were not the sylph-like figures of TV programmes and adverts. They were mostly around 5’4″ or thereabouts and a bit ‘hippy’ (a bit wide in the hips). But they were all lovely of course.

The trouble with ‘Truth Decay’ is that, once the propagandists have painted the false dichotomy by constant repetition for a sufficient period of time, it is bloody hard to reassert the true ‘Truth’.

But supposing that one determined to seek the true Truth by selecting a few primary schools and attending those schools and standing outside videoing the children leaving the schools at 3.30 pm or so. How else could you collect real, ‘true’ evidence of child obesity? It would not be five minutes before one or more parents approached you belligerently asking what you thought you were doing! Imagine what would happen if you said, “I’m doing research on child obesity”. You would very quickly be told to f off and do your research elsewhere. So what happens is that the propagandists actually get inside the schools and surreptitiously take readings and adjust the readings as they wish. Head Teachers are powerless to stop them. The ‘Faceless Elite’ then tell Head Teachers to send letters to parents.

Where are the teaching Unions!!!!! They should be playing merry hell with the Local Authorities. Those Unions sold their souls when the sided with Tobacco Control.

Only if you go back to the original research can you get a glimmer of the real Truth. I have the Doll reports from the Hospital Study and the Doctors Study in detail. I must re-read them. As I recall, without looking anything up, out of some 30,000 doctors, in the Doctors Study, who were mostly smokers at the beginning of the study, only about 1000 died from LC. Pro rata, the smokers were 15 times more likely to die from LC. Right. But, in view of the fact that the vast majority were smokers, why did so few smokers die from LC? Why did not some 15,000 die from LC? What was wrong with those doctors who did not die from LC? There must have been something wrong with them. They must have been ill, not to die from LC.

There was another titbit of info in the Doctors Study which is often overlooked. Smokers were ‘only’ twice as likely to die from heart attacks than non-smokers. Statistically, twice as likely means nothing since far too many other factors come into the equation. Doll glossed over that difficulty.

And another thing. The study was ended prematurely. When the study was ended, there were still about 6000 doctors alive. There was no reason for the study to end until all the doctors were dead, give or take a few. I suspect that Doll et al did not want everyone to know that all the doctors died eventually because their hearts stopped.

‘Truth Decay’ has been evident throughout the nerve agent poisoning episode. I do not know why May and Johnson have targeted Russia. No doubt they have their reasons. But the ridiculous attempt to assassinate an old fart and his daughter in such a stupid way speaks volumes. No assassin would make such a botch of it, even using a ‘nerve agent’. And what precisely is a ‘nerve agent’? What is wrong with a couple of bullets?

Can smokers use ‘Truth Decay’ themselves?

It is possible. For example, suppose that I said that only 10 doctors out of 30,000 died from LC, as reported by Doll? Would anyone correct my figures?  Suppose that all us smokers shouted that SHS is not dangerous?

But how could we do it?

I tried to create a ‘Constituency Group’ meaning at least one person in every constituency in the UK. My idea was that we could bombard our MPs with the FACTS. I really believe that it is possible to do so. It is especially important in this era of ‘Truth Decay’.

The only problem is, ‘Who decides what to bombard MPs with?’ Perhaps that task is what FOREST should have been doing for the last 20 years.

But we have to start somewhere and somehow. I am too old and have too may responsibilities with my wife suffering from MS and recently out of hospital. I cannot do it. We need a multi-millionaire to side with us. Why do all the rich bastards side with puritans in the healthy, wealthy West, rather than attacking poverty in Africa and such places?

It can be done. Smokers can be defended, if only by making raw tobacco available at a cheap price. That should suit TC, since it would damage Tobcoms.

Only rigid TC Zealots stand in the way of compromise. It is sad that politicians cannot see that rigidity.

FOREST should be the prime mover, but it is chicken. It has no courage. I do not know why FOREST lacks courage. It should have organised the battering of MPs in every constituency years ago. Perhaps it was complacent, or was just going through the motions.

Battering MP is our best option. For too long, they have been insulated against smoker anger.

Time for a change.


10 Responses to “‘Truth Decay’”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    “There was another titbit of info in the Doctors Study which is often overlooked. Smokers were ‘only’ twice as likely to die from heart attacks than non-smokers.”

    That is only ‘true’ if you do not look at what it has actually said.

    That would be ‘true’ if; and only if, smokers’ heart attack deaths were twice the percentage of total deaths.

    IE; 20% of smokers’ deaths were from heart attack and only 10% of non-smokers’ deaths were from heart attacks.

    Doll’s doc study shows that non-smokers(per 1000 people) suffered 6.19 heart attack deaths out of a total of 19.38 deaths.]
    That is 32%
    Current smokers suffered 10.01 heart attack deaths out of a total of 35.4 deaths.
    That is 28.3%

    A higher incidence rate is not the same as being more likely.
    More likely being a % of total deaths.

    In their math, 3/6th is bigger than 2/4ths; because, 3 is bigger than 2.

    They are very comfortable with half-truths.

    • garyk30 Says:

      32% vs 28.3% = non-smokers are 13% more likely to die from a heart attack than smokers

    • junican Says:

      Hi Gary.

      There are all sorts of difficulties. For example, 30,000 might seem to be an awfully big number, but it is isn’t when you break it up. First, when Doll recruited his 30,000 doctors, he would have needed to break them up into age groups. Let us say five year groups by age – 25 -30, 30 – 35, etc. Say eight groups from 25 to 70. That would mean 3750 per group. Each group would have to be broken up by smoking status (heavy, etc). If the groups had equal numbers, then there would be about 1000 per group.
      But they did not have anything near equal numbers. The number of non-smokers in each group would have been quite small. So you are starting off with quite a small control group (the non-smokers) in each age group.
      Further, as time passed, each age group would move up a notch because no further doctors could be added. The 25 – 30s would become 30 to 35s and the 25 – 30s would disappear. At the other end, the numbers in the 65 – 70s would start to fall drastically. It is those doctors who would be providing the majority of the death certificates. How many doctors in the 30,000 would have been in that cohort? How many at that age would have been life-long non-smokers?
      No wonder Fisher was rather scathing about the study.

  2. garyk30 Says:

    “There was another titbit of info in the Doctors Study which is often overlooked. Smokers were ‘only’ twice as likely to die from heart attacks than non-smokers.”

    Let’s play with this idea some more, using simple basic maths.

    Heart attack deaths at 7,268 were 30% of the total deaths. By far, the largest single cause of death.

    The study chart shows that non smokers death rate per 1,000 was 6.19 and smokers rate was 10.01 per 1,000 per year.

    Since 6.19 is 62% of 10.01; it shows, there is a 62% probability a smoker’s heart attack death was caused by something other than smoking.

    Yup, if a smoker dies from a heart attack, it is more likely than not that smoking was not the cause.

    • garyk30 Says:

      Now, let’s look at the relative chances of NOT dying from a heart attack.
      Non-smokers = 993.81 per 1,000 per year

      Smokers = 989.99 per 1,000 per year

      989.11/993.81 = 99.6%
      A smoker has almost exactly the same chance of not dying from a heart attack in any given year.

      993.81/989.99 = 1.004
      A non-smoker is ONLY 1.004 times more likely to not die from a heart attack in any given year.

      When you have to go beyond 2 decimal places to find a difference, that difference is said to be not significant.

    • garyk30 Says:

      Now, let’s look at strokes which are the 2nd largest single cause of death.
      Non-smokers = 2.75 per 1,000 deaths
      Smokers = 4.32 per 1,000 deaths

      When a smokers dies from a stroke, there is a 64% probability something other than smoking caused the stroke.

      Smokers have 99.8% of a non-smoker’s chance of not dying from a stroke.

      A non-smoker is only 1.002 times more likely to not die from a stroke.

      • garyk30 Says:

        Heart attacks and strokes make up 51% of the deaths claimed to be ‘caused’ by smoking in Doll’s doc study.

  3. Philip Neal Says:

    Burch had some interesting observations on the Doctors Study which bear repeating.

    During the first 20 years of the study, male doctors reduced their smoking rates to a third of what they had been in 1951, but by one measure their lung cancer rates remained static and by another they actually rose. In their report, Doll and Hill neatly disguised this fact by publishing lung cancer rates in doctors relative to everybody else (Burch derived the absolute figures by reverse engineering them from the data in the report).

    Burch also noted that Doll and Peto were cagey about lung cancer rates in old age, which ought to rise indefintely on Doll’s theory but in fact do not. This may have a bearing on the closure of the study at the 50 year mark, when many of the original sample were still alive but all were well into their seventies.

    • junican Says:

      One thing that struck me as odd is that you would expect a sort of fan distribution of smoker deaths compared with non-smoker deaths. That is, you would expect more and more and more smokers to die as they get older as compared with the non-smokers. That did not happen in Doll’s study. After the initial divergence (heavy smokers started to die earlier than moderate smokers, moderates before lights, lights before nons), the rate of deaths amongst ALL FOUR groups was pretty constant.

      • Philip Neal Says:

        This is another aspect of the same thing. On Doll’s theory risk ratios (rates in smokers divided by rates in non-smokers) should rise continually into old age, but in fact they fall. See, for instance, Peto’s misleading pair of tables here (towards the end). 100-year-old smokers are often dismissed as a curiosity, but in fact they are important.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: