Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

The Verification Of My Whimsy Of Last Night

14/04/2018

I must apologise for my silly observations last night. I got a bit carried away with the idea that TC et al can ‘prove facts’ on the basis of ‘public opinion polls’. But we should be aware that such tactics are not new.

It is hard for most of us the understand how politicians think. We imagine that they are people just like us, and perhaps most of them start off with good intentions. But I suspect that most give up after a while since they find that they have no power, unless they are part of the ruling elite.

That is true, but, sometimes, a Zealot will sound off with an utterly stupid idea. In this case, it was a demand that cig prices should be increased by 50% (or ‘doubled’, depending upon the words) to deter smokers.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/945288/smoking-cigarettes-cost-20-pack-smokers-study

Dr Prabhat Jha, from St Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, who authored the study alongside Patricio Marquez, said: “Our study debunks the current narrative that higher cigarette prices would negatively impact the poorest among us.

“This analysis shows the opposite – a higher price would encourage cessation, lead to better health, and save money much more strongly for the poor than the rich.”

What does it say essentially? It says:

Lead to better health, and save money….” 

No, it would not ‘lead to’ better health. It would attempt to FORCE better health, and the FORCE would apply to the poorest people more cruelly as compared with the wealthiest people.

I fail to understand how these equivalents of Dr Mengele can get away with it. I really mean that comparison. Both regard human beings as machines without volition.

Massive taxation, applied to the pleasures of ordinary people, is not all that different from concentration camps and gas chambers. It is merely a question of degree.

I really mean that. It is only a question of degree.

 

Advertisements

The Depressing Recognition That Tobacco Control Et Al Have Studies Which ‘Prove’ That The Earth Is Flat

13/04/2018

It seems that, no matter how many times TobCON’s ‘studies’ are shot down in flames, they always come up smelling of roses and not excrement. I mean, it is obvious, innit, that when you look at celestial objects, they are flat discs? Everybody knows that, and you can do a survey asking if people see discs or spheres when they look at celestial objects with their naked eyes. No one in their right mind would say that they can see spheres, other than the contemptibles, who are addicts. It follows therefore that the Earth must also be a flat disc.

What is depressing about it, rather than comical, is that politicians, whom one would think were not beyond questioning the usefulness of naked eye observations of celestial objects, actually accept them as ‘the truth’. Perhaps the reason is that is is easier to do so rather than contest those ideas. I mean, what does it matter if the Earth is a disc or a sphere? Aircraft will still fly from A to B and the Russians will still try to assassinate old-aged ex-spies, and Middle East despots will still take the stupidest possible course of action by gassing children, just after the US President said that he does not want to have US troops in Syria.

I use the ‘flat Earth’ hypothesis merely as an example of ALL the fake ‘science’ which TobCON et al have produced down the decades. My own favourite example of fake science is SHS danger.

Doll’s Doctors Study purported to show that heavy smokers (25 + per day) were 15 times more likely to develop lung cancer than non-smokers. That is a huge difference, let it be said. Other studies, around the same time, showed similar results. But it was not that simple. There were time lags. It took 30 years of smoking to have an effect, on average.

Most people do not see the relevance of the time-lag. They see “Smoking causes LC”. For that reason, they do not see the time-lag of SHS danger. If heavy smoking takes 30 years to cause LC, how much longer will SHS exposure take to cause LC? Thus, you cannot say that SHS is 5% as dangerous without also extending the period of time needed for the effects to occur. That time period might be hundreds of years.

SHS danger is fraudulent for that reason. A huge study by Enstrom and Kabat showed that spouses of smokers fared no differently, health-wise, than spouses of non-smokers. Both groups, very big groups in the study, involving hundreds of thousands, suffered much the same ailments.

Enstrom and Kabat were persecuted mercilessly.

But what annoys me most of all is that professional statisticians avoid commenting on the fraudulent claims of TobCON. You would think that a professional statistician, just retired, would have a lot to say about the fraud of SHS danger.

For fraud it is and always has been. But even if a recognised ‘expert’ statistician debunked the finding of a study, there is no way that the originators of the study would find themselves in court, subject to fines or imprisonment. Such fraudulent studies can be used to influence politicians with total impunity.

Is it not weird that billionaires ALWAYS fund organisations which demand that people conform to the billionaire’s expectations.

I do not know what the answer is, but we are gradually getting closer. Brexit and Trump are minor steps along the way. What is important is is destroying the control of ‘The Elite’ over the WHO in particular and the UN in general.

Who decides and promotes the candidates for UN Secretary General and the WHO Sec Gen? Those are important questions which are obscure.

Back To The Grind

12/04/2018

While I was away, I was mercifully ‘propaganda free’. I am back now, and subject to all sorts if subversive suggestions which try to make me miserable.

But first let me say that herself was perfectly well and well cared for while I was away. I was, of course, in continuous contact with my daughters. From what I can gather, the ladies had a lot of fun while I was away. Is that the meaning of ‘feminism’? It makes as much sense as all the other bluster. I read tonight an amusing anecdote. It seems that a woman was on a train and a drunken guy tried to chat her up. The ‘feminist’ sitting next to her, who told the story, tried to shut the drunk up. He would not and became even more horrible (accordingly to the story-teller). The ‘feminist’ then complained that the carriage was full of MEN, who just sat there and did not intervene.

You cannot help but giggle, can you? If ever there was an example of ‘cognitive dissonance’, that is it.

For some reason or other, the ‘cognitive dissonance’, which has been wide-spread throughout ‘Government’ for some time now, goes unobserved in the MSM. I watched an interesting video this evening about how Muslims are allowed to have prayer meetings in a Royal Park, against the regulations applying to Royal Parks, and the police refused to intervene. The video is here:

http://gatesofvienna.net/2018/04/enforcement-of-sharia-by-the-metropolitan-police-it-doesnt-get-any-more-blatant-than-this/

Put as simply as the video shows, a small group of Muslims got out their prayer mats and, as a group, knelt, bent down and kissed their mats. I suppose that they were facing towards Mecca, but I do not know. Royal Park Regulations forbid such ‘organised’ religious events. I do not know what the status of one individual would be who got out his prayer mat, or what the status would be if a Christian recited The Lord’s Prayer’ out loud on his own.

Watch the video, because the woman who created it had masses of courage.

At one point, she was surrounded by shouting, male Muslims, but she held her ground. Her ground was that THERE IS NO EXCUSE for the police refusing to apply the law in favour of one group over another.

She made one acute observation that I recall clearly. It was that the Muslims were asserting domination.

Equality is only equality when there are no exceptions. That is where the ‘cognitive dissonance’ arises.

I am still knackered and my eyes are closing as I write. But, sometimes, you have an insight.

Tobacco Control pretends that ‘the war on smoking’ is NOT a war on smokers. But a war on smoking cannot help but have millions of smokers as casualties, since you cannot fight smoking as such. You can only fight smokers. Attacking the providers of cigs etc is attacking smokers. Massive taxes are attacks on smokers and not smoking.

For years, Government has attacked smokers. But there is a ‘cognitive dissonance’ which it ignores and which will be its undoing. It is that when voters stop voting in a General Election, so that the popular vote falls below 50% of eligible voters, the Government Elect will become a tyrant.

Taking A Break

03/04/2018

This site will be silent for a few days.

It has been a slog since last October, when I had my last break. Our three daughters will look after herself while I am away. Since herself came home last Thursday, she has been happy and perfectly normal in every way. I would obviously not be taking a break if I was not perfectly confident that all is well. But I need a rest. I need to relax. I intend to sleep a lot.

What better time to take a break than when we are confident that she is not suffering from any infection, that her blood salts and oxygen are fine and she is content?

So I shall sign off for now.

Banning Trade in Ivory Artefacts Made Pre 1947

02/04/2018

I have no idea how may elephants existed in Africa before 1947 or any earlier or later date. I can only suppose that the year 1947 was plucked out of the air as a date before which there was very little deliberate killing of elephants for their tusks.

Our wonderful Minister of the Crown, Gove, is proposing to ban the sale and purchase of ivory products no matter how old they are. It seems that the objective of this proposal is to deter the killing of elephants NOW. Somehow or other, Gove believes that he can stop elephants being killed by banning the trade in ivory products in the UK which are very old. So, what can a person do with a knife with an ivory handle which he inherited?

But Gove was an instigator of Brexit. How can you trust such a person who equates Brexit with protecting elephants in Africa, over which he has no control at all? How can you trust a person who lives in such a dream world? How can you believe a word he says about anything at all?

Perhaps the EU Commission is the sane body and our own political body is the one that is insane.

What I do not understand is why Gove did not say, “Now is not the time to talk about preserving elephants”.

The attack on snus is very similar. Many years ago, flies were a terrible problem. They were everywhere in great numbers. My parents hung sticky, hanging strips from the ceiling which attracted the flies and trapped them. No one has recently studied flies and their effects upon health. You might equate snus with those hanging, sticky strips. Snus is an easy way to absorb nicotine, which is a beneficial substance, much like caffeine. Nicotine is beneficial in that sharpens perception. Perhaps politicians want us all to be dull.

Nests Of Vipers

01/04/2018

If you were a member of a committee, and you wanted to get some proposal through the committee, how would you go about it?

The simple way would be to put the matter on the agenda of a meeting of the committee and explain what your proposal is and why it is a good idea. You might be astonished when the Chairman calls for a vote and everyone but you is opposed. Later, you might ask a friend on the committee why he/she voted against. He/she might say, “Well, your idea seemed brilliant to me, but there might be consequences which have not been thought through. It may be a good idea to try again, but discuss it with individual members of the committee in advance”.

I am sure that readers will get my drift. Alcohol prohibition in the USA in the early 1900s was imposed by dictat, but the dictat produced unexpected and unforeseen consequences. But we must not forget that many States in the US also prohibited tobacco at around the same time, with similar consequences.

Both prohibitions failed and had to be repealed.

There are two great differences between then and now. Then, the prohibitionist were at least basing their arguments upon real beliefs, based upon religious beliefs. It is wicked to spend money on liquor when that money should be spent upon bettering your family’s conditions. QED.

But at least they were honest, even though political corruption abounded.

Modern day prohibitionists have a different attitude altogether. I am sure that there are some who really believe that far too much agricultural land is used to grow tobacco crops, and that that land would be better utilised to grow cabbages or something. If they believe that to be true, then they should say so.

But that is where the ‘Nest of Vipers’ comes in. The Vipers move the goalposts. They claim ‘better public health’ as their objective. Which came first – the WHO or Public Health England? Is the area of land, worldwide, devoted to tobacco crops a WHO concern? Maybe, if people were starving and getting ill because of lack of land to grow cabbages. But there does not seem to be any evidence of such a problem.

But what is worse is that the ‘Nest of Vipers’ has expanded to such an extent that it is biting and poisoning the body politic to such an extent that the body politic is going crazy. Meanwhile, the Nest of Vipers gets bigger and fatter, feeding on the puss produced by the wounds that it inflicts.

Herself Back Home And In Good Fettle

30/03/2018

I must admit that I left home this afternoon to go the hospital in some trepidation. I really, really thought that the pessimists there would have found some new way to object to herself’s discharge. But all was well. The staff had prepared her with a good wash and she was ready to go… That was 2 pm. A nurse told me around 3 pm that her transport had been booked, but it might be half to three hours before anything happened. At 5 pm, my daughter relieve my watch and I went home to ensured that all was ready. At 8 pm, she was still there. I got a text message around 8.30 pm that she was finally on her way. She arrived around 9 pm.

I am not complaining about that because I realise that there are higher priorities than just bringing an ex-patient home.

Anyway, I now find that her list of medications has more than doubled! I have had to make a chart showing what meds are due ‘morning, noon and night’  – once per day in some and three times per day in others. Keeping track of stocks, and reordering, of each medicine is going to be a bugger. And there are urine collection bags – leg bags and night bags – to keep tally of. I shall have to create a ‘system’.

The good news is that she is very bright, eating well, disease free, stable in terms of blood salts, and very possibly in much better condition than she has been in for ages.

And yet…..

There seems to be something artificial and forced in communications with doctors and others, such as occupational therapists. They seem to talk in riddles deliberately to get you to agree with their suggestions, without stating clearly what those suggestions are. For example, according to the discharge letter to our GP, I refused ‘neq equipment and POC’. Search as I might on the net, I could not find out what I was supposed to have refused. I cannot help but feel that they believe that they are skating on thin ice – trying to comply with multiple ‘directives’ from above which they know are a waste of time and effort, and explaining the blather to patients and carers without upsetting them. “Well, we are not quite sure that your intentions are SAFE. There is a safer way”. “And what is that?” “Well, the problem is that what you have been doing might have been OK before this event, but things have changed. We are not sure that your methods will be safe”.

And so on. It seems as though their preferred methods are akin to scrapping your much loved old car, just in case it is ‘defective’ in some way, and replacing it with a tractor.

Can anyone see how much of the Gov’s intentions about plastic, like reverting to ‘bottle deposits and refunds’, are like reverting from a modern car to a Ford T?

I never cease to be astonished at the naivety of politicians.

More About ‘Peering Into The Minds Of ‘Experts’

29/03/2018

The wife’s sojourn in hospital has revealed many things to me, things which would have gone unnoticed in the past.

The document which I referred to in my last post, about the discharge of patients, was intended to speed up discharge so as to avoid ‘bed blocking’. The idea was that patients would only be actually in hospital for the shortest period of time necessary, after which they would be moved elsewhere. ‘Elsewhere’ might be home or some convalescence place. I suppose that the idea was that hospital stays are massively expensive, and they are. Home or convalescence is far cheaper, even if there are support costs.

But that idea struggles when the question arises as to who will decide when the time is right to move a patient out of hospital. What happened, roughly, is that it was decided to create a committee to make that decision. Thus, even though a patient with an infection has been cured, if there was any possibility of future requirements, ‘multidisciplinary’ bodies had to be assembled. But we all know what happens. Every body needs to protect itself against accusations of neglect, and so the committee becomes a collection of self-protecting virtue signallers. They take ages and ages to decide because each body has to have its protection written down.

Today, the ‘occupational therapists’ had their turn. I shall not recount the details. Suffice to say that they tried their best make me fail to use a ‘stand assist’ hoist correctly. They provided a belt which was the wrong size. I suspect that they wanted me to go ahead anyway so that I would fail, but I refused. They MUST HAVE KNOWN that belts come in different sizes depending upon the waist measurement of the patient. They wanted me to fail so as to justify their objections. THEY failed.

But the shit really hit the fan when they tried to renege on an agreement made yesterday with the main man, the consultant. The agreement was that I would have a chat with Social Services about her future needs, and then she would come home on Thursday regardless. I demanded to speak to Dr Kallat, but he was not in.

Anyway, a couple of Social Service people arrived and, cutting things short, she WILL be discharged tomorrow.

But can you see how we plebs are the ones who suffer all the time? The OTs will go home or to the pub and have fun. We are the ones who suffer from their mental persecution.

This sort of thing must be happening all over the land. And yet the answer is to call a spade a spade. I have several times had to be brutal, which is not something that I am used to. Somehow or other, over the past few years, my thinking has changed. “Face the facts” is now my call-sign. In resuscitation, a doctor said that the wife’s breathing was not good and she was weak. “Are you saying that she is dying?” I brutally asked.

There are times when you must cut through the blather. Say it as it is. It is not easy to do so.

The reality is that most of the ‘experts’ in any chain of ‘experts’ are nothing of the sort. They have a limited knowledge of their subject. They are not ‘experts’ at all.

Peering Into The Minds Of ‘Experts’

28/03/2018

I had the strange experience of having discussions with a couple of ‘experts’ today. The discussions were about the discharge of my wife from hospital. One was the consultant and the other was a physiotherapist. There is no clinical reason that she should not come home. The hospital has cleared up the chest infection and restored her salt balance. She is eating well and feeding herself. She is bright and lively. But the physio was concerned about ‘the safety’ of both of us at home when she is discharged. Both were anxious to bring in Social Services to ‘assess’ the ‘safety’ at home. But I pointed out that a person from the SS had visited our house about six months ago and ‘assessed’ what I do to get her out of bed etc and found no fault. The consultant suggested a compromise. Have a talk with a representative of the SS to arrange ongoing support and then the wife could be discharged. We agreed that such a talk would take place Wednesday and she would be discharged Thursday regardless.

When I got home, I decided to research how discharge from the hospital worked. Would I need to take her clothes so that she could be dressed? How would she be transported home? I struggled to remember what happened two and a half years ago.

By accident, I happened upon a document which described in detail the hospital’s ‘policy’ about the discharge of patients. Very, very briefly, a person who is in hospital due to some incident which has no future effect can be discharged without much formality. But a person for whom there might be future effects cannot be discharged so easily. Social Services MUST be called in. MUST is the operative word.

But there is a complication. A patient can discharge himself. He cannot be denied that right except for ‘mental health’ reasons. The wife could insist upon discharging herself. The matter becomes even more interesting when I reveal that I have a ‘General Power of Attorney’, which means that I could ‘discharge myself’ on her behalf – cause her to be discharged as though I was her. I can make that decision. That terrifies them.

So you can see why the two ‘experts’ were so worried. They HAD TO involve Social Services, but I was not happy. They had to persuade me to let the SS in so that they could not be blamed if anything went wrong as a consequence of ‘future needs’.

I agreed to have a talk with a SS rep, provided that the wife will be definitely discharged Thursday.  They were both very happy with that. It means that the consultant can sign the discharge papers. Once he has done so, there is no going back. The SS is irrelevant as regards the wife coming home since it is only involved in FUTURE problems.

My story relates to the ambivalence of ‘experts’. They have more than one iron in the fire. It is perfectly possible for an ‘expert’ to argue for a particular policy whilst having a good idea that it would not work. It all depends upon what his boss tells him to do, and how much he values his job.

Tobacco Control will disintegrate when its ‘experts’ desert it for pastures new and better rewards, and when Gov realises that it is a costly pain in the butt. Actually, it will be more ‘pain in the butt’ than cost.

What seems to us to be a small victory in Austria is actually a very big deal indeed. The victory came from votes for a political party, and not from the advice of ‘experts’.

It would be a foolish party which ignored the ‘smoker voter’. I SHALL NOT vote for either Labour or Tory until there is a difference between them about persecuting smokers.

I have in mind to email candidates and ask them how and when they propose to reverse the persecution of smokers. I would not expect a reply. The idea would be simply to put the idea into their minds that smokers are being persecuted. We have a local election vote shortly, but I do not know why at this moment. Maybe I should try to find out. But should not the candidates be pestering me? Perhaps they will nearer polling day.

Finally, I saw this evening how ‘experts’ are subject to ‘control’. The Consultant could not ‘authorise’ the wife’s discharge unless he had engaged Social Services.

Is it not wonderful to be retired and not subject to work dictats? We retired people have more power than we realise.

How The Authorities Break You

27/03/2018

Herself has been in hospital. I have mentioned it before. Cutting a long story short, she has MS. An acute chest infection knocked her over quite suddenly, and an ambulance had to be called. Antibiotics have cleared the chest infection and she is now chipper and wants to come home. She is eating well and feeding herself. We do crosswords, and she chips in when she knows the answer – with some prompting. Obviously, no nursing in the world will make her ‘better’, in the sense that she will be ‘fit as a fiddle’ – that cannot happen.

So preparations are being made to discharge her.

Today, when I visited, a couple of physiotherapists came round. Their ‘remit’ seems to be to ensure that, when she comes home, she will be ‘safe’. That is, the equipment that we have is up to the job.  My assurances that the equipment was adequate, after some twelve year of experience of using a ‘stand assist’ hoist to get her out of and into bed, wheelchair, or whatever, were not enough. They want to be sure that she/we are ‘safe’.

I have no doubt that they mean well, but it annoys me that they assume some sort of ‘authority’ to decide what is safe and what is not safe. It is a bit like, “I am from the Government and I am here to help”. The problem with such assumed authority is that it degenerates into covering themselves against accusations of failure.

The pressure to give in is almost overwhelming. Who are you to go against the instructions of white-coated experts? You should do as you are told. Right. But once they have got their way, they disappear, never to be seen again. It is YOU who has to do the work and act as though you were an employee of the NHS.

Erm…… No! It is not going to happen.

And is that not precisely how smokers have been broken over the last several decades? There are millions and millions of us, and we have been bashed and battered since around 1900 or so. We have been gassed and bombarded and shot at just like in the trenches of WW1. For what purpose? Apparently, it is to make us live longer, and that is all.

For what did Doll’s Doctors Study appear to show? It was that smokers, especially heavy smokers of tobacco as it existed in the early decades of the 20th century, without taking into account the wars and deprivations of the times, tended to die earlier than non-smokers. THAT IS ALL IT SHOWED! It did not show ’cause’.

So, the Authorities tax us into penury  and force us to deprive our kids of wholesome food, sending them to the chippy with some pocket money to buy junk food, and they get fat as a result of not eating enough.

The Powers-that-be break us with straw men. One such is the conflation of ‘overweight or obese’. That phrase is a massive straw man, and should be denounced at every opportunity. I do not know how they get away with it. That phrase is ‘hate speech’.

Sooner or later, someone will find a way to take the purveyors of inaccuracies like ‘overweight or obese’ to ‘the court of public opinion’. It will happen sooner or later. It always does.

And the whole edifice will come tumbling down. Austria is showing the way. It has ditched smoking bans in bars and restaurants. I am wondering when Austria will start to complain about financially supporting the WHO branch of TobCON in the EU, and when financially hard-pressed countries in the East of the EU will do the same. They surely cannot allow themselves to be broken and milked forever?