Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Tobacco Control is a Symptom of Grave Illness in Society

05/07/2018

My daughter has applied for a job (the details are irrelevant). One of her ‘virtues’ is that strives (as a teacher of little children) to bring the children together as a group so that they can learn together and be enthusiastic about what they are learning. Some ideas are her own, but most originate from studies about how children learn. There are ‘systems’ which originate from ‘best practice’, but ‘horses for courses’ and all that – her school has lots of children from immigrant families, so the ‘system’ must allow for that.

I mention the above only in the context of the difference between ‘learning’ and being ‘told’ and, further, ‘being forced’. You might think that ‘being forced’ is the same as ‘being told’, but it is not so. For example, it is far easier for children to learn that ‘2 + 2 = 4’  if they are ‘told’ so, and shown why that is so. But ‘learning’ involves the recognition that ‘2 + 2 = 4’ is ALWAYS correct. That is how children learn logic.

‘Being forced’ involves accepting non-logical beliefs. But that does not involve the teaching that God exists. For it is ‘logical’ to believe that the Universe cannot have created itself. Either it has always existed eternally and will continue so, or it was created. If it is eternal, then it is a form of God.

‘Being forced’ means being brainwashed. It means accepting that it matters that a risk of 2 in a million as compared with 1 in a million matters. Is not 2 in a million twice as much as 1 in a million? Suppose that we extend that to 15 in a billion compared with 1 in a billion. The ‘incidence’ of the risk is 15 times more. It must therefore be very dangerous.

Have we thought about the danger of Ebola in those terms? What is the incidence of Ebola per million? Obviously, I am not saying that Ebola is not important. I am saying that ‘The Elite’ can decide to brainwash people by emphasising tiny dangers and exploding them.

The ‘grave illness’ in Society is mental. Not physical, but in the mind. For decades, TobCON has adulterated minds. But the worst offenders are Prime Ministers, Presidents, Ministers, all the way down the scale. They permitted the ‘Grave Illness’.

Advertisements

More About ‘Independence’

04/07/2018

Vaguely continuing the last post, about Tom Paine’s pamphlet promoting an Independent America, one of the things that Paine complained about in the idea of having a ‘special relationship’ with the King of England was the idea that England would protect America. He pointed out that it would take two months for the King to find out that there was a problem, and two months for him to do anything about it. The Atlantic had to be crossed both ways. How much better to be Independent and get cracking on building a navy? He had a number of similar arguments, one of which was ‘divide et impera’. Well, sort of. If America allowed the King ultimate authority over it, he could take as long as he liked to gradually reimpose absolute control.

I see Brexit in a similar light. For some strange reason, over the last several decades, UK politicians gradually surrendered its independence. But who gained sovereignty? It was not just the EU; it was also the UN, WHO, IPCC, etc. They are all linked. It is no accident that smoking bans have spread all over the world. Thus, it is not unexpected that the World Trade Org has ruled in favour of Australia’s Plain Packaging law. Needless the say, the Zealots are wetting themselves with glee. What now happens to alcohol trademarks or any other trademarks which one State deems to be ‘unhealthy’?

Could that decision be overturned? Absolutely not, unless States became ‘independent’ again. In that case, to protect their manufacturers from future onerous demands, and with their agreement, they could refuse to supply Australia, in which case the Oz Gov would have to become the manufacturer of its own detested, disfigured and medical-porno-covered packets of cigs. What is even more fun to contemplate is that it could no long collect ‘duty’ on tobacco products, since the sale price of the products would be simply that – the sale price. Oh, and there would be no competition possible. There would be only one type of cig costing $50 for twenty. Let’s call the product “Death Sticks”, and warnings would say, “Contains arsenic”, because the State would add arsenic to prove that it was so.

You see, that is the problem when a State surrenders its autonomy. It puts itself at the mercy of whatever crackpot happens to be in charge of the Bureaucracy. He is the King. No dissent is possible because the King has filled all positions, especially propaganda positions, with his favourites.

I wonder if all the emphasis on ‘trade deals’ is not a red herring – ‘fake news’, if you like. I can understand that our exporters to Europe and importers from Europe are worried both by tariffs and border controls, but why meddle with the status quo? A friend of mine once said to me, about a car problem, “Let it develop”. With something as complex as disentangling the UK from the EU, the only solution is to ‘let problems develop’ and sort them out as they arise.

The really important thing is that we become independent from the UN, WHO, IPCC, etc. Join with Trump to defeat those infidels. Defund them and spend the money saved on the armed forces. Do not pay the EU apparatus a penny. Expect a rent for the use of our share of the costs of EU buildings. It is ridiculous that the People of the UK voted for a clean break from the EU. That break should have happened months ago. There was no need to involve Article 50 at all because The People had decided. The day after the referendum, Cameron should have spoken in the House and declared that the UK was no longer in the EU. All EMPs, bureaucrats, members of committees, should have been recalled. Not doing so created the mess which we are now in.

There is no immediate solution to the mess. It can only be cleared up AFTER ‘Independence’.

Reading Thomas Paine’s Pamphlet (1776) About American Independence

03/07/2018

For a ‘pamphlet’, it is quite long – 36 pages. It took me a couple of hours to read it earlier this evening. I understand that Tom Paine was born in the UK but went to America. I was quite fascinated and amused by it because it was so un-politically-correct.

https://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/revolution/docs/Common_Sense.pdf

Clearly, I cannot research the facts of the time, but, as I understand it, after the Yanks had given the English army a bloody nose, lots of people in America were lobbying for ‘an understanding’ with ‘the home country’ – England. As I understand it from the pamphlet, the ‘understanding’ would have been that the Americans would have ‘home rule’, but that the King of England would be able to reject proposed laws. It seems pretty certain that the reason that lots of people were lobbying for this ‘solution’ was fear of other major powers of the time – Spain and France – invading certain parts of America. The idea of accepting the King of England as overlord was for protection.

What was wonderful about reading that pamphlet was that there was no mincing of words. Paine called the King of England the descendent of tribal war lords, principally William the Conqueror. He castigated the idea of heredity mercilessly, and especially the idea of ‘God-given’ rights. But he was religious. He said that the idea that the King of England was ‘God’s representative’ was ridiculous, since King after King had been cruel and nasty. ‘No’, he said, ‘Only God himself can be King’. The People have to elect a ruler.

He made a big thing about America having an independent navy, which the King of England would never allow. He advocated that America should get started right away on building such a navy. It had the skills; it had the materials aplenty.

Read it, and marvel at the clear language, and remember that what you are reading was written in 1776.

A lot of his vituperative could easily be transferred to the EU. People like Junker act like The King of England, but who are they? Where did they get any power at all from? How DARE they propose to punish the people of the UK? They have no more rights over the people of the UK than did the King of England have over America.

It makes no sense to talk about ‘a deal’. The matters involved in the divorce are far, far, far too messy. When the UK departs the EU, the simple matter is that all the treaties lapse. There are no ‘deals’ involved. That does not mean that most things cannot continue as they are at present. The simple thing would be for the UK not to impose tariffs on EU goods, and vice versa. UK passport holders can holiday in Spain as they have always done, long before the EU existed. People from all over Europe have worked in the UK long before the EU, and vice-versa. The only critical thing was that they were capable and known. What has never been countenanced has been an invasion.

Goods can move effortlessly, but that does not mean acquiescence to EU rules other than agreed quality. But it works both ways. EU countries must abide by OUR rules on quality.

What is absolutely crazy is that the UK pays billions in a ‘divorce settlement’. The split is not ‘a divorce’ at all. The UK never committed to be husband or wife.

And what is the value of the UK’s assets in the EU, such as the ALL the EU buildings which we contributed to? Should not EU countries pay us some rent?

Trade is not the problem. Things like the rent on our partial ownership of buildings are. But no one talks about it.

The similarity between the so-called ‘negotiations’ with the EU and ‘negotiations’ with TobCON are similar. They only go one way. TobCON ALWAYS wins.

But why should that be so?

More tomorrow, perhaps.

Herding

02/07/2018

I read something today about a discussion between Chris Snowden and the CEO of the ‘Nudge Unit’. It would take too long to identify the site at this time of night.

It appears that the Nudge Unit employs some 150 people. If the average salary is £50,000, then the basic cost of the Unit is about £7,500,000. But that is before any costs which might be provoked by the work that 150 people do. Who know what those additional costs might be?

Irrespective of costs, the question arises as to the limits of ‘nudging’. I had to renew my road tax recently, and somehow I clicked on ‘organ donation’. I do not remember how I did it, but I did. I got a letter, by post, thanking me. Why anyone should want the organs of a 79 year old person defies my imagination. I can only think that it is a matter of statistics. “A MILLION PEOPLE HAVE AGREED TO DONATE THEIR ORGANS!!!” Success.

It is interesting to note that the letter did not say how I could revoke my permission. Thus, it is clear that ‘nudging’ only works one way. It is ALWAYS puritanical. It is ALWAYS anti-pleasure. It ALWAYS directs citizens to be fearful. It ALWAYS has nothing positive about it. Does it reduce NHS costs? Of course not! People who live too long are a massive cost the the NHS.

It is sad to have to state the facts so bluntly, but it is true. Where is the ‘research’ about the cost of very old people to the NHS? Who would fund such research? National Statistics are OK, but they are only part of the evidence available. They do not account for the cost of district nurses and ambulances, etc. Only an in depth investigation in multiple locations would reveal the facts. Who will fund such research?

We are into a very serious and dangerous area. Should the deaths of very old people be postponed at great expense?

I have frequently said that all that TobCON actually does is advocate postponement of death. ‘Years of life lost’ is precisely that equation. But why does the postponement of the death of a pensioner decrease production?

Economists are in turmoil. But I see no evidence that statistician are in turmoil. Perhaps they are keeping the heads down to protect their jobs.

When the Gov ‘approves’ something like TobCON, truth goes out of the window.

The ‘Nudge Unit’ has no other purpose than to use propaganda to gradually conform. Anyone who does not conform will be persecuted. It is trying to herd us all.

 

Why Is The Irish Government Rationing Water?

01/07/2018

I hear from my correspondent in Southern Ireland that water is being rationed. Hosepipe bans are around the corner if not actually active.

If ever there was a country which should not suffer shortages of water, it must be Ireland. For most of the year, it is deluged in water. The reason is that it is on the edge of the Atlantic ocean, so clouds full of water vapour, coming off the Atlantic, hit Ireland first, and empty their contents there to a large extent.

I suspect that the Irish Gov has done what the Irish have always done, to their honour. Live today and don’t worry about tomorrow.

Well, yes, but there are problems with that idea. You get water shortages because the people who were supposed to provide for future water supplies did not exist. That deficiency is a POLITICAL deficiency.

So while the Irish Gov was spending time and money persecuting smokers, it was not spending money building reservoirs. What do the Irish want? Reservoirs or smokeless parks?

Thus, any public opinion survey should have a choice – smokeless parks or reservoirs; smokeless parks or more doctors. The reason that the alternative is reasonable is on the grounds of ongoing costs. Building a reservoir is a one off cost, for all intents, but smokelessness has to be policed. The Zealots rely upon swingeing and ‘hung for a sheep’ penalties. How they did not come up against MASSIVE opposition from the pub trade bewilders me. “You have been forced to force people to obey”. Perhaps the vast majority of publicans did not know.

So we come back to the Irish water problem. It seems that the the Irish Gov have been trying to privatise water. But lots of Irish people are saying, “This country is awash with water for most of the year. Why should we pay profiteers?”

Perhaps they should ask why they elect politicians who are profiteers.

Spreading The Word

30/06/2018

A short post tonight since I must to bed.

If we think about ‘propaganda’, it seems true that ‘lies spread so fast that they are everywhere before the truth has got its boots on’ – or words to that effect.

It follows therefore that ‘the truth’ will not be recognised until far after the lies have been accepted as ‘the truth’. It also follows that there will be a significant time-lag between the truth becoming known and the lies refuted.

Many commenters here have mentioned, at one time or another, that SHS danger has never been proven. I would go further. I would say that Doll’s Doctors Study, along with many others, have proven beyond doubt that SHS is NOT dangerous to the vast majority of people, simply because the time-frames are too long. People would die from old age long before SHS could affect them.

The reasoning is simple. If a smoker drags on a cig and inhales the smoke, he inhales a ‘packet’ of tobacco smoke. Just for fun, let us call that ‘packet’ 1 gram, even though it is nowhere near that weight. He then blows the smoke out of his mouth. Does all the smoke emerge? Probably not. Some smoke ‘sticks’ to the lung surfaces and the ‘tubes’.

But when he blows the smoke out, it immediately/very rapidly disperses. The ‘1 gram’ spreads out throughout the volume of air in that place. But there is a complicating factor – our noses are very, very sensitive. They can detect extremely small quantities, on first detection. But the ‘sensors’ in our noses soon ‘fill up’, and we cease to smell that fragrance. That means that detection by smell is meaningless.

So non-smokers who go to bars, assuming that those bars are ‘average’, will inhale only a tiny fraction of what a smoker inhales. Remember that smokers also inhale the SHS in the bar.

So if it takes 30 years for a smoker to die, for one reason or another, due to smoking, how much longer will a person who inhales a tiny fraction of what a smoker inhales, take to die from the effects? It must be hundreds of years.

What is important is that not a shred of evidence has every been produced that shows that SHS is dangerous in any meaningful sense. It would be lovely if we smokers could light upon a study which shows that SHS is not at all dangerous. The favourite would be Enstrom and Kabat’s study of hundreds of thousands of smoker spouses – people who lived with smokers. That study showed that there was no difference in mortality or morbidity between spouses of smokers and spouses of non-smokers. The Zealots persecuted Enstrom and Kabat. Why? Because their ‘principle’ of SHS harm had to be defended at all costs. Truth was irrelevant.

So it seems to me that we smokers must find a way to spread ‘the truth’ far and wide, if we can. But we need ‘one truth’. That ‘one truth’ must be that SHS has never killed or incapacitated anyone. Any ‘incident’ is anecdotal, such as an asthmatic.

How can it be done? How imaginative can we be individually? What I feel individually is that, like cannabis, it is going to be a slow process. My cogitations about the time delay in possible SHS harm need to be structured so that they are a potent weapon. Only thus will pubs be allowed to have smoking rooms.

Why Did Trump Win?

29/06/2018

I read somewhere today that Trump’s use of Twitter made a big difference. I knew that there was something fishy about that claim as soon as I read it, but the reason for the fishiness eluded me. That was because the claim was buried in a mass of verbiage. EG, ‘Trump’s use of Twitter was novel and it won him the election’. That was not the statement – it was much more convoluted – but amounted to the same thing. ‘Novel’ won.

It was only later that the ridiculous nature of the claim sunk in. Sure, by tweeting, Trump bypassed the MSM, but what was not taken into account was that only those people who were receptive to his tweets would agree. Those who were not receptive would have disagreed: they would have been even more inclined to vote for Clinton.

In other words, Trump’s tweets would have reinforced an already existing preference. They would not have created a preference. In fact, you could deduce that, for all the bluster of the MSM, support for Trump was actually higher, and that his tweets put some supporters off him.

So why did Trump win? His campaign spent far less that Clinton and even many influential Republicans were against him (hoping that Clinton would win?). It was because, in their innocent and simplistic way, they saw that he would ‘break the mould’. They voted for an unknown, risky alternative to the known, horrible certainty of Clinton and the swamp.

Economists are outraged by Trump’s imposition of tariffs. They claim that the overall effect would be higher prices and thus poorer people. I do not disagree – in the short run. But I suspect that Trump is has other ideas in mind. I suspect that he is ‘shaking things up’. He is opposing complacency.

For is not ‘complacency’ the root of all things to do with the UN, IPCC, WHO, FCTC, etc? Do they not think that they have everything sewn up? Well, Trump has told them that they do not have everything sewn up. ‘Put America First’ and ‘Make America Great Again’ do not mean protectionism and divorce from the rest of the world. They mean only the end of taking Americans for suckers. EG, many EU Nations have taken for granted the protection of the USA, without paying a penny in contributions to the cost. NATO did not include places like East Germany, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Estonia, the Chech Republic, etc. EU Nations must pay their fair share.

But I would like to see Trump go much, much further. He has already signalled his displeasure with Global Warming. Why should the USA shoulder the costs whilst China is absolved? But it goes further than that. ‘Carbon Trading’ is founded upon the idea that carbon dioxide is dangerous. And yet real scientific evidence shows that global warming preceded the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But that does not necessarily mean that global warming millions of year ago caused increasing carbon dioxide. It may have done so if loads of CO2 was trapped in the oceans and was released as a result of more evaporation. The only question there is whether or not CO2 escapes from the oceans with water vapour. I do not know. Nobody has said either way.

But what I would like to see is Trump evict the UN and all its prohibitions, from US soil. It is now a dinosaur with no purpose other than to cause trouble. At the very least, it is not enough to say that it does no harm. That is not the point. The fact is that, just like the EU, the UN costs billions of pounds, and there is no justification for that expenditure. It is ridiculous that the Gov wails about the cost of the NHS whilst spending billions upon the UN and its projects, including foreign aid.

It is absolute nonsense.

I fear that the reason for fear of Brexit is because of the weight of previous legislation. How many EU theories have been enacted into law, with little possibility of repeal, due to ignorance?

I hope that Trump eviscerates ALL the drains on US beneficence. There is nothing, in itself, ‘worthy’ by having the UN on US soil. There might have been in the past, but not in this age of mass communication.

There are many places which might host the UN such as Somalia, Bangladesh, Ethiopia or Azerbaijan. The best place for the FCTC Org to be situated is China where nobody gives a shit about it. But not in a civilised place. Somewhere in the ‘outback’. Somewhere were they can be persecuted just as they persecute smokers in the West.

So what do we observe? It is that orgs such as TobCON can only thrive if they are centred in protected places. It would be interesting to see what Arnott would do if she was told that ASH England would only receive funding if it relocated to the Outer Hebrides.

I am not joking. The fact is that many such orgs would not exist if the ‘officers’ had to live in uncomfortable places.

I think that university courses such as ‘tobacco research’ ONLY exist because of the persecution of smokers. It is like the idea that the murder of millions of Jews might promote uni ‘research’ into the iniquities of Jews.

It seems as though our current political leaders have learnt nothing from the devastation caused by ideology throughout history. Today, the devastation caused by the FCTC and its out of control world-wide disruption of society, is seen, not as persecution, but as a beneficial remedy.

The culprits have to be identified. Who were the members of Blair’s cabinet who approved the smoking ban? Which individual voted in favour?

WE NEED TO KNOW!

Here is an interesting topic which worth exploring. It is a roundabout way of measuring approval of the smoking ban. You would stand outside the pub having a fag, and you would ask other smokers the following question: “If you could smoke indoors in the pub across the road, which pub would you frequent?”

The answer would depend upon how brainwashed the individual had become.

Are ‘Medics’ Ammoral?

28/06/2018

It is necessary to define the word ‘ammoral’ (which word, by the way, does not exist in the computer’s dictionary).

It is not easy to define ‘ammoral’, and perhaps that is the reason that it does not appear in the dictionary. Perhaps that also is a consequence of the difficulty in defining the word ‘moral’.

Instead, medics prefer the word ‘ethical’.

Readers should be able to see the difference right away. ‘Morality’ has connotations of ‘good and evil’, whereas ‘ethics’ has no such connotation. We should remind ourselves of the medical principle: “First, do no harm”. That is not ‘moral’ – it is physical. So ‘do no harm’, physically, replaces ‘good and evil’. It is easy to see how the word ‘harm’  can be interpreted in many different ways. For example, and much in the news because of the Gosport revelations (not to accuse the doctor in question of doing anything evil), it is easy to see how a person who is at death’s door, but is suffering pain, can be administered drugs to kill the pain which might also kill him/her. The main word there is ‘might’. The problem is that the decision to administer such drugs to kill the pain, which might also kill the patient, is not based upon morality. It is merely a question of living in pain or dying, especially if a person is terminally ill.

The problem is that this attitude, once it has been established, can be extended to any number of situations. Replace the word ‘pain’ with ‘addiction’ and and ‘painkillers’ with ‘prohibition/persecution’ and there is very little difference ‘in principle’.

So let us contemplate Doll’s Doctors Study. In it, he claimed that smokers, pro-rata, died from LC about 15 times more often than non-smokers. 15 times is BIG. It really is. But it is simplistic. To get a sort of picture, you have to imagine 100 smokers walking down a street, and 15 of them dropping down dead. You must then compare that with 100 non-smokers walking down a street and only 1 of them dropping down dead. That ‘proves’ that smoking caused the excess 14 drop-down deaths. Therefore, if the powers-that-be prohibit smoking, 14 of the smoking group would NOT have dropped down dead. The ‘non sequitur’ lies in the fact that there is no way to know what other factors were involved beside smoking.

That, I think, was Fisher’s objection. Smoking + genetics, smoking + air pollution,  smoking + alcohol, smoking + alcohol + genetics + air pollution, in any combination. Thus, smoking might well be a minor contribution and not the main cause. There have been studies which show that LC is more prevalent in cities than in the countryside, even amongst equivalent smoking habits, and Kitty Little in South Africa showed that LC was less prevalent in the windy cities on the coast than in interior cities.

But Medics would say that smoking is not ‘necessary’, and, if it was prohibited, there would be less LC deaths.

There we see the predominance of ‘medical ethics’ over ‘morality’.

“Freedom” is a moral issue. It is about right and wrong. It is evil to persecute people. ‘Medical ethics’ is a perversion of truth. Medics are ammoral.

My Take on Brexit

27/06/2018

I voted for Brexit in the full knowledge that it might mean Zealots banning the import of tobacco products in any significant volume. They might permit one carton, or, as I believe is the case in Oz, just one packet of 20. I was fully aware of that possibility. But I am getting on and I have three daughters, all of whom are now ‘middle-aged’, even though, to me, they are still little girls. None of them smoke. So I made my decision upon how I foresaw the future under the EU.

I did not see trade, travel, space exploration, education, etc, as any sort of problem. The problem that I saw in the EU was totalitarianism. It seems pretty obvious to me that the EU favours Big Business. Big Business is easy to control, and there are ample opportunities for ‘collaboration’. The Big Banks can compete in various ways, but still be a monopoly in other ways.

But that is not trade. Trade is the exchange of goods. Note well that it does not include ‘financial services’. They are not trade.

So I could see no reason that trade, travel, etc, could not continue as before, even if that meant agreements with individual EU States. What really got up my nose about the EU was ‘consensus’. Further, once the ‘consensus’ is arrived at, it cannot be changed. It is written in stone. Has the EU every backtracked and repealed some ‘directive’?

It all becomes very confusing because the EU has created multiple departments which overlap. There is no clarity. I think the turning point came when Blair or whoever agreed to majority voting. Before that, any individual State could veto the Commission in its own interests. After that, (two thirds in favour), individual States lost autonomy. But remember that ‘two thirds in favour’ depended upon ‘voting power’. A small number of States, such as France, Germany and Italy, with big populations, could determine the rules for all 27 States, if they colluded. You can see the effects in the attitude of small States to immigration. The small States are digging their heels in and shouting, “NO!!!!”

But, most of all, it is perfectly obvious that the EU is wide open to corruption. The EU Parliament is a farce. So all the ‘Remoaners’ favour corruption, even our current PM.

The WHO, IPCC, UN and all its departments are utterly corrupt. The UK’s ambassador to the UN is utterly corrupt. Who is that person, by the way?

Karen Pierce, the Foreign Office (FCO) political director, has been appointed UK ambassador to the United Nations, the first woman to be given the most prestigious post in the British diplomatic service since the UN’s formation in 1945″. [November 2017]

Did any reader know that? I doubt it. We have no idea what is going on, and neither do most MPs. If it were not so serious, it would be laughable.

So I personally see Brexit as divorcing from the swamp of political malfeasance. I doubt that May and the whole Cabinet know how deeply we are sunk in corruption. The case for ending ALL contributions to the EU is to force political corruption out into the open.

But above all is personal freedom in your own life. The smoking ban was ‘unethical’ in every possible way. It forbade smokers from setting up a ‘smokes’ bar’, staffed and frequented by smokers.  Freedom does NOT require that every single person must be catered for. In fact, the opposite is true. Freedom requires that individuals can band together, as they wish, and exclude others. Of what value would a Tory party have which included Labour Party members? It makes no sense. It is a contradiction.

Trade is not personal. It is a ‘thing’. Smoking bans are personal. The nicotine content of vaping liquid is personal in that a person can decide what is best for them. The size of bottles is the same. No intelligent adult would argue otherwise. Denying those obvious facts is corruption.

For smokers, the main thing is persecution, but in politics, the main thing is corruption. Certainly, the latest ‘brain-fart’ from the Health Sec about ‘protecting’ children from ‘Big Confectionery’ bears all the hallmarks of corrupt obeisance. It is not that long ago that shops could not open on Sundays because of the power of ‘The Sunday Observance Society’. TobCON is just another SOS.

Post Brexit, which WILL happen, the political structure of the UK MUST change. Freedom is paramount. The Smoking Ban was based upon corrupt science, if you can call epidemiology science at all. I have my doubts. It is obvious that the reason that Vesuvius erupted in 79 AD was because The Gods were angry.

And so we have today an EU which is just as superstitious as were the ancient Romans. It is as though the Enlightenment never happened. Global Warming is a superstition, and so is Tobacco Harm. Epidemiology, in the wrong hands, is superstition.

And that is why I suggest that all epidemiological studies should be subjected to strict, expert (!?) statistical scrutiny by statisticians, preferably those who are either recently retired or close to retirement. That is because of the corruption which might cause anyone who disagreed with TobCON to get sacked.

The fight in the modern world is between the corrupt and the rest of us, which Trump has amply shown.

Exposing the Statistical Lies of Tobacco Control

26/06/2018

 

It all starts with Richard Doll and Bradford Hill, and then Richard Peto joined the team in 1971. Between them, they researched the connection between smoking and lung cancer amongst other ailments.

My personal, not very detailed, readings of the studies originated by that team have been far from erudite. How can it be otherwise? But some ideas came to mind which seem sensible.

It is known that Doll went to Germany and became acquainted with anti-smoking ‘science’ there. That was pre-WW2. It appears that Doll served in the war in some capacity as a doctor. WW2 ended in 1945.

What I find odd is that Doll’s ‘Hospital Study’ started immediately after the end of WW2. I quote: “The present investigation was planned in 1947, to be carried out on a sufficiently large scale to deter …”

“Was planned in 1947”. I rather suspect that the investigation was ‘planned’ long before 1947 but the war intervened. In 1947, the whole of Europe was in ruins. Why on Earth were people like Doll be ‘planning’ investigations into smoking? And who funded those silly investigations when the whole of Europe was in ruins? Nothing is certain because funding was channelled through a variety of organisations. What is sure is that the ‘School of Tropical Medicine’ was involved.

Do you think that ‘School of Tropical Medicine’ is a bit antiquated? It is still alive and kicking. Look a this:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=School+of+tropical+medicine&rlz=1C1CHFX_enGB530GB532&oq=School+of+tropical+medicine&aqs=chrome..69i57.4609j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

To me, it is obvious that everything was planned way in advance. Years before the actuality. I vaguely guess that the origin was Prohibition in the US. Remember that many US States also prohibited the sale of tobacco as well as booze.

I have said before and I shall say it again, that the Hospital Study was a ‘proof of concept’ study. That the Doctors Study was already planned. The idea of the Hospital Study was to justify the cost of the Doctors Study. It is therefore no surprise that the Hospital Study revealed a connection between LC cases and smoking.

But I have only just been reminded of the ‘Whitehall study’. Civil Servants were invited to take part in a study which lasted for ten years. The results were disappointing for Zealots – there was no appreciable difference between death and disease in civil servant smokers compared with non-smokers.

It is true that funding, especially taxpayer funding via Gov, ALWAYS gravitates to alarmists. But, occasionally, funding intended to show positive links turns out to show negative links or no links. Much gnashing of teeth.

It used to be the case that Propaganda was quite obvious. In Moscow, during the reign of Emperor Stalin, huge portraits of the Emperor were exhibited, and vast numbers of troops marched past the Palace where Stalin stood waving. Some attendees were later ‘airbrushed’ out of the picture when they became ‘non-persons’, aka, dead persons. Today, such persons are simply vilified. There is no reason to actually kill them.

The more time that passes, the more the connection between smoking and LC diminishes. It has always been true that there are ‘unknowns’. Rather than taking the Doctors Study as settled truth, it should have been seen as ‘possible’, but it would also have to find a reason for the lack of such evidence in communities living far away from cities.

More people die from falling off ladders than people who do not climb ladders. People who do not climb ladders would therefore conclude that climbing ladders should be banned.

Sillier and sillier.