A Different Vision

Enough of one kind of cancer for the time being. H/T Harley for this about another:

UK Could Be A ‘No Smoking Nation’ By 2032

Senior doctors and anti-smoking campaigners have told Sky News they are working towards making the UK a no smoking nation within the next 20 years.

Leading specialist Professor John Britton has called on the Government to back the goal, describing it as entirely realistic.

“Andrew Lansley could make himself a legacy greater than that of almost any other Health Secretary in history,” Professor Britton, who chairs the Royal College of Physicians Tobacco Advisory Group, said.

“I think it will be entirely realistic for all practical purposes to eradicate smoking within 20 years…”

“Our vision is to make smoking history for our children in the next 20 years and we know there are millions out there that back this,” Ailsa Rutter, the organisation’s chief executive, said…

“We really can push further,” she said. “We can make smoking history, and I do truly believe that it’s the right thing to do.”

It’s when I read stuff like this that I see civil war coming. Because ‘eradicating smoking’ also means eradicating smokers. Not content with stacking the law against smokers as much as they already have, they want to “push” even harder. Things cannot go on like this forever, pressing down harder and harder on a minority of the population: sooner or later there will be an explosion of anger.

And how arrogant it is of these people, that they feel able to impose their “vision” of the future on everyone else.

Much as I detest people like Deborah Arnott and Stanton Glantz, it must be said in their favour that neither of them are doctors, and neither have ever sworn a hippocratic oath. Both could claim that they were only ever in it for the money. But Dr John Britton is a doctor, like Sir Charles George and Sir Liam Donaldson and my own Dr W, all of whom may have been expected to have sworn that oath, or something like it. Here’s the modern version of it:

AT THE TIME OF BEING ADMITTED AS A MEMBER OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSION:

  • I SOLEMNLY PLEDGE to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
  • I WILL GIVE to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;
  • I WILL PRACTISE my profession with conscience and dignity;
  • THE HEALTH OF MY PATIENT will be my first consideration;
  • I WILL RESPECT the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
  • I WILL MAINTAIN by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
  • MY COLLEAGUES will be my sisters and brothers;
  • I WILL NOT PERMIT considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
  • I WILL MAINTAIN the utmost respect for human life;
  • I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
  • I MAKE THESE PROMISES solemnly, freely and upon my honour.

What respect did any of these antismoking doctors have for smokers? None whatsoever. 

What respect did they have for their rights and civil liberties? None whatsoever. They violate them continually.

These doctors have demonised and excluded millions of smokers. They have shattered communities and divided friends. In some cases they have even caused their deaths. They – who are supposed to be working in the service of humanity – have instead declared war on a quarter of it.

Doctors! Doctors are doing this!

Their crime has not been to believe that smoking causes cancer. People are entitled to believe whatever they like about that. Nor was their crime to advocate smoking cessation. After all, if they think smoking is so dangerous, they’re bound to advocate giving up smoking. No, their crime was to invoke the full force of the law against smokers, in order to force smokers to quit smoking whether they wanted to or not. They have set out to make smoking a crime, and smokers into criminals. That’s their crime.

And for this they can never be forgiven.

I have my own vision of the future, and it’s not like theirs at all.

In my vision of the future, Tobacco Control will have been completely destroyed by 2032, if not long beforehand. Maybe “eradicated” would be a better description for the fate of this social cancer.

And Professor John Britton will have been struck off the medical register, and stripped of all his titles and honours, along with all his antismoking colleagues.

And quite likely the Royal College of Physicians will have been disbanded as well.

And Britain and the rest of the world will be as smoky as it ever was. In fact, most likely far smokier than ever.

Let’s see, over the coming years, just whose vision is realised.

About these ads

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to A Different Vision

  1. legiron says:

    “Andrew Lansley could make himself a legacy greater than that of almost any other Health Secretary in history,”

    Yeah. Historically he could be bigger than Hitler. He’s certainly heading that way.

    I can’t see my vision of the future. It’s too smoky.

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    Leggy have a drink on me!

    Ive the feeling the tide has turned against TC, There starting to feel the push back making the most outrageous cliams imaginable.

    When headlines like the one above and now this here in the states,something is up I just FEEL IT!

    Shocker: Tax Hike On Tobacco Creates Black Market Served By Gangs

    Sep 1, 2012
    4:53pm

    Forget guns and drugs, the hot new commodity being shuttled across America’s southern border with Mexico is bootlegged cigarettes, demand for which has spiked in Mexico thanks to tax hikes on the product.

    A Mexican industrial group said Tuesday an increase in tax on cigarettes that went into effect in 2011 has led to a proliferation of contraband, and that illegal cigarettes now account for nearly 17% of the cigarettes sold in the country.

    The Confederation of Industrial Chambers, or Concamin, said tobacco consumption hasn’t declined in the year-and-a-half since the higher tobacco tax took effect, although the sale of illegal cigarettes has reached record levels.

    Congress approved the higher tax on cigarettes in late 2010 despite protests from the country’s cigarette manufacturers.

    Prohibitionist policies, whether they be outright bans or prohibitive taxes/regulations, create black markets served by criminals. Put another way, these sort of prohibitionist policies cause more problems than they solve.

    We’ve seen the same phenomena in the United States. In New York, which imposed big new taxes on tobaccos, estimates pin black market’s share of cigarettes at 42%. Indian reservations, too, have been beneficiaries of taxes and restrictions on tobacco in the states that surround them.

    Laws are static. Markets are dynamic. Where there is demand there will be supply, whatever the government may try to do to stop it.

    http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/shocker-tax-hike-on-tobacco-creates-black-market-served-by-gangs/?utm_source=Say%20Anything%20Email%20List&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=d9c49b3483-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN

    Im telling ya I FEEL IT COMMING!!!

  3. Pingback: March of the Righteous. | underdogs bite upwards

  4. harleyrider1978 says:

    Heres a new mode of attack on the E-CIGS if you can call it a study!

    This is Fresh off the Press:
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-09/elf-ewt083112.php
    Experts warn that e-cigarettes can damage the lungs
    Vienna, Austria: New research has shown that despite electronic cigarettes being marketed as a potentially safer alternative to normal cigarettes, they are still causing harm to the lungs.

    A new study, presented today (Sunday 2 September 2012) at the European Respiratory Society’s Annual Congress in Vienna, has added new evidence to the debate over the safety of alternative nicotine-delivery products.

    Electronic cigarettes are devices that deliver nicotine through a vapour, rather than smoke. There is no combustion involved but the nicotine in the device is still derived from tobacco. There has been much debate over the safety and efficiency of the products, but little scientific evidence to support either claim.

    Researchers from the University of Athens in Greece aimed to investigate the short-term effects of using e-cigarettes on different people, including people without any known health problems and smokers with and without existing lung conditions.

    The study included 8 people who had never smoked and 24 smokers, 11 with normal lung function and 13 people with either chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or asthma.

    Each person used an electronic cigarette for 10 minutes. The researchers then measured their airway resistance using a number of tests, including a spirometry test.

    The results showed that for all people included in the study, the e-cigarette caused an immediate increase in airway resistance, lasting for 10 minutes. In healthy subjects (never smokers) there was a statistically significant increase in airway resistance from a mean average of 182% to 206%.

    In smokers with normal spirometry there was a statistically significant increase from a mean average of 176% to 220%. In COPD and asthma patients the use of one e-cigarette seemed to have no immediate effect to airway resistance.

    Professor Christina Gratziou, one of the authors and Chair of the ERS Tobacco Control Committee, said: “We do not yet know whether unapproved nicotine delivery products, such as e-cigarettes, are safer than normal cigarettes, despite marketing claims that they are less harmful. This research helps us to understand how these products could be potentially harmful.

    “We found an immediate rise in airway resistance in our group of participants, which suggests e-cigarettes can cause immediate harm after smoking the device. More research is needed to understand whether this harm also has lasting effects in the long-term.

    “The ERS recommends following effective smoking cessation treatment guidelines based on clinical evidence which do not advocate the use of such products.”

    • west2 says:

      e-cigarettes can cause immediate harm after smoking the device
      Tips, hints and advice on smoking your e-cig:
      Health and Safety tip: Putting an e-cig on a BBQ could be harmful, do not try this at home.
      Helpful hint: Making a roll up from an e-cig might be difficult to light.
      Safety advice: Do not grind up your e-cig and put it in a pipe. buy an e-pipe and vape instead.

      exits stage…….

      • legiron says:

        E-rollups… well, technically not rollups but you could extract your own nicotine from the plant and mix it with vaping stuff. No idea of concentration but if it;s too strong, dilute it. No problem.

        Nicotine is water-soluble and extracting it is easy. You’d get no tobacco flavour but a lot of vapers use other flavours anyway.

        I tried roast chicken flavour in an Electrofag a long time ago. Damn, it really did taste like roast chicken!

        I wonder if the tobacco flowers would impart that lovely floral scent…

        • Ross says:

          “Nicotine is water-soluble and extracting it is easy.”

          I think “easy” is relative, even for somewhat experienced chemists…

          Have a good read of all 5 pages of
          http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=3404

          They’re starting to get somewhere around page 4… & it doesn’t sound “easy”, especially for a novice with no chemistry experience, or perhaps only distant school-day memories!
          Especially, more to the point, at home, rather than on an industrial scale.

          (Interesting comment in the initial post too re many of the patents being unworkable!)

          Regards,
          Ross

  5. magnetic01 says:

    The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) has been anti-smoking/tobacco from way back.
    For example, from 1962:
    http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hcc81b00

    Dying for a Cigarette
    January 12, 1971, Tuesday
    Once again the Royal College of Physicians has taken the lead in the anti-cigarette smoking campaign with a frightening new warning, plus practical alternatives for tobacco addicts. What the prestigious British medical society says should be heeded on this side of the Atlantic, too, for there is nothing nationalistic about lung cancer, heart disease and other disabling ailments.

    http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F5061FF6345C107B93C0A8178AD85F458785F9&scp=61&sq=anti-cigarette&st=p

    Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is a creation of RCP.
    How’s this for a laugh –
    Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) was established in 1971 (20 January) by the Royal College of Physicians. It is a campaigning public health charity that works to eliminate the harm caused by tobacco. We do not attack smokers or condemn smoking. The organisation is headed by the Chief Executive, Deborah Arnott, and governed by a Board of Trustees. The Duke of Gloucester is our patron.
    http://www.ash.org.uk/about-ash

    Concerning Britton and the 2032 “endgame”, it’s a recycled story. One of the roles of advocates/activists is to keep a high media profile (aided by a compliant, unquestioning media). This involves recycling stories a few years apart and making them appear “fresh”. They are a constant daring of politicians to be “brave” and “bold”, to institute more draconian measures to eradicate smoking. The current drivel is a rehash of a 2008 story where the RCP was advocating an end to tobacco smoking by 2025:

    End tobacco smoking by 2025
    A new report issued today by the Royal College of Physicians says that if the Government was prepared to take far more radical measures to combat smoking, we could practically eradicate smoking in Britain by 2025.

    Professor John Britton, Chair of the RCP Tobacco Advisory Group, said:
    “Smoking is still the biggest public health problem in the UK, and a problem of this magnitude and importance demands radical and effective action to prevent any further avoidable loss of life. Our governments have shown themselves more than willing to react decisively to other public health problems, but despite the progress of the past 10 years, still do not seem willing to take all the actions in their power to prevent children from starting to smoke, or encourage existing smokers to quit. The UK has led the world in many areas of public health in the past; here is our opportunity show the world that tobacco smoking can be driven out of our society.”

    Professor Ian Gilmore, President of the Royal College of Physicians, said:
    “As a country, we have a real opportunity to build on previous steps, and I believe the public are ready for strong action. They would support bold government in resolute steps to attack what remains the number one threat to the nation’s health, smoking.”

    http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/news/news.asp?PR_id=416

    • magnetic01 says:

      True to form, the RCP has removed from its site the 2008 article. Fortunately, the article is still available here:
      http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/royal-college-of-physicians/article/royal-college-of-physicians-ending-tobacco-smoking-by-2025

      • beobrigitte says:

        The bits about “medicinal nicotine products” are interesting and explain why in Germany rabid anti-smokers demand that e-cigarettes are only to be sold at a pharmacists (?on prescription – I am not up-to-date on all this).
        So far they court decided against this – but one politician, in typical anti-smoker fashion, appears to ignore the court’s decision and has extended her hate campaign to e- cigarette manufacturers.

    • Rose says:

      I found the original disturbing, like a mask beginning to slip.
      The highlighting is theirs.

      Smoked tobacco: Make smoking and smoked tobacco products as unappealing, unattractive, unaffordable and unavailable as possible, as quickly as possible.

      Existing medicinal nicotine products: To make this product group as available and attractive to smokers as possible, and to encourage smokers to switch as completely as possible to use of medicinal nicotine instead of smoking:”

      Encourage sale of low cost single day nicotine packs,available from any retail outlet
      Encourage and promote commercial competition to make medicinal nicotine attractive and affordable
      Permanently exempt medicinal nicotine from VAT

      New medicinal nicotine products: Encourage development and marketing of new medicinal nicotine products that are more acceptable and satisfying alternatives to smoking than current products:

      Encourage development of products that deliver doses of nicotine as quickly as cigarettes
      Remove unnecessary restrictions and regulations that currently inhibit development of new, more effective cigarette substitutes
      Make these products widely available to smokers at competitive prices
      http://pressrelease.rcplondon.ac.uk/Archive/2008/End-tobacco-smoking-by-2025

      available and attractive

      acceptable and satisfying

      From the very language used you can almost see the woman draped over the motorcycle can’t you? And here she is.

      Lose the Smoke Keep The Fire – Nicotinell
      http: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrnvEQ0uVO8

      “Remove unnecessary restrictions and regulations that currently inhibit development of new, more effective cigarette substitutes
      Make these products widely available to smokers at competitive prices”

      That sounds more like the wish list of a manufacturer.

      When you read the press release it seems less about giving up nicotine completely , more about switching to different brand.

      “Provide free medicinal nicotine for all smokers on the NHS, not just those on a smoking cessation programme”
      Smoking and the sea change in public health, 1945-2007

      “Today’s alliance between doctors and the government to influence individual lifestyles is a relatively recent phenomenon.
      First, it required the medical profession to abandon its culture of secrecy, based on patient confidentiality: this began with the use of television in the late 1950s.

      Second, it required the introduction into public policy of studies linking lifestyles and health risks: this began with a change in leadership at the Royal College of Physicians in the early 1960s.

      Third, it required a shift in the nature of public health from local information giving to central publicity campaigning: this began with the Cohen Report on health education in 1964, advocating a rethinking of the profession of health educators as persuaders, even salesmen.”
      http: //www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-59.html

      From that “attractive” and “satisfying” marketing strategy/press release from the RCP in 2008 they seem to have taken the “persuaders, even salesmen” bit to heart.

  6. waltc says:

    I suppose any test that tried to be reasonable would also test the before and after of a) smoking a real cigarette and b) sitting at a table with a burning candle c) using any household cleaning product d) walking a block in summer traffic and e) leaving a warm house for a freezing sidewalk. It would also state forthrightly the clinical meaning, if any, of the results. And list the confounders since emotions (including ohmygod, what did the ecig just DO to me?) strongly affect respiration.

    As for the aftermath of Prohibition, I assume it’d be the same as the aftermath of any Prohibition. Black market. Gang crime. Adulterated product. Violations of property rights and civil liberties. A lot of people jailed. Can we stop it– or rather Them? I dunno. Liquor and drug prohibitions weren’t stopped and more people (as a proportion of the population) drank in 1919 than smoke today. And in the interim they’ve gotten a lot more skilled at social engineering and mind manipulation.

    Frank–
    check your email. The online ISIS form once again dissed me so I sent you the first in a series of pdfs.

  7. magnetic01 says:

    Frank, I think my comment has been spamified/spamackled/spamrookered/spamarated.

  8. smokingscot says:

    Professor John Britton works out of the Univeristy of Nottingham. You’ll note the gentleman in question has produced very few papers by himself, preferring to co-author (ie sign off on the work of others) dozens more (to see that you’ll have to expand his papers section).

    http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/chs/divisions/eph/people/staff/j.britton

    You’ll note that JB is also the chief honcho of ALL the Centres for Tobacco Control – and they’re financed by CRUK, so lets take a look at what CRUK have to say about Jon Boy.

    http://science.cancerresearchuk.org/research/who-and-what-we-fund/browse-by-location/nottingham/university-of-nottingham/john-britton-1512

    Yup, they pay his salary. In fact CRUK pay for the entire department – and they pay for every centre for tobacco control in the UK.

    Now we know that CRUK is a major financial backer of ASH… and yes, here he pops up again. This time as one of their trustees.

    http://www.ash.org.uk/about-ash/ash-board-of-trustees

    Do check out some of the names; you’ll see a tie in with the House of Lords and, those of you who follow that thread will see a tie in with Common Purpose.

    Britton’s no Doctor. He’s a mouthpiece – a very well paid mouthpiece… for CRUK.

    And Lansley’s very aware that the coalition’s at stalemate. He’s not interested in a legacy or going down in history. He’s interested in keeping his job after the shake up that Cameron’s working on.

    I note the press junket was for the benefit of Sky. Interesting because they usually launder this through the BBC.

    Both he Jon Boy are wonderfully described by another blogger.

    http://tompride.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/public-backs-plans-to-remove-branding-from-party-candidates/

    • Frank Davis says:

      Britton’s no Doctor.

      Isn’t he? He’s described as ‘doctor’ John Britton in a few places. If he’s not, what’s he doing in the RCP?

      • Dunno about Britton, but don’t forget about Stanton Glantz: a doctor of mechanical engineering who got himself named a Professor of Medicine.

        – MJM

      • smokingscot says:

        This is taken from the Nottingham Uni site.

        “JOHN BRITTON

        Professor of Epidemiology; HoD for Epidemiology and Public Health; Director, UKCTCS, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences”

        (by the by UKCTCS = Centres for Tobacco Control Studies)

        Within the context of your post Frank, the guy may well be described as a Doctor, presumably because he’s got a doctorate in epidemiology, But he’s not a hands on doctor and thus is not bound by their oath.

        He’s an academic, he teaches – and once in a while he fronts up on behalf of ASH and CRUK.

        He’s also a cadaverous predator. Photogenic he ain’t and, like his counterpart in California, he’s a legend in his own mind. Whispers tell me he’s an arse to work with and very much worse to work for.

  9. Rose says:

    Blue Print For Success – Countdown 2000 – Ten Years to a Tobacco Free America
    (Sept. 11, 1990)

    “The document is an action plan for achieving consistent nationwide policy in states and localities. It provides guidelines to address the following three major tobacco issues: 1) marketing targeted at special populations, 2) tobacco excise taxes and 3) restrictions on smoking in public places. This draft will eventually form the basis for achieving the goals we share for the year 2000.”

    “Restrictions on smoking in public places remain a keystone in the overall challenge to achieve a tobacco-free society. To accomplish the public health goals inherent in this arena, TFA recommends that a series of provisions be adopted to provide uniform protections for the nonsmoker. Priority emphasis should be placed on achieving restrictions that provide protection for children and the adult workforce.”

    P 30-31; Any comprehensive Clean Indoor Air statute must not contain provisions that provide civil rights protection for smokers against employment discrimination.

    “Hundreds of smoking-control laws across the country stipulate that in cases of dispute between a smoker and nonsmoker, the nonsmokers wishes prevail.
    Anti-discrimination laws would serve to negate such stipulations.
    In addition, an anti-discrimination law would give a smoker the power to bring suit against both the employer and the nonsmoker with whom there is a grievance.”
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/507619094-9127.html

    The WHO/Pharma FCTC seems to be closely modeled on the American Blueprint For Success but with an added drugs provision written into the Convention.

    WHO LAUNCHES PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY TO HELP SMOKERS QUIT
    http: //www.who.int/inf-pr-1999/en/pr99-04.html

    “In an effort to reduce tobacco use, the EU and its Member States have signed up to the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).3 The FCTC’s Article 14, through its recently adopted guidelines, demands action to promote cessation of tobacco use and provide adequate treatment for tobacco dependence. Countries who have signed up to the FCTC therefore have a legal obligation to implement the recommendations of Article 14.”
    http: //www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/219321.php

    Guidelines Article 14
    http://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop4/FCTC_COP4_8-en.pdf

  10. Marie says:

    There is a major flaw in all of this anti tobacco hyperbole and they know it. If they succeed in getting rid of tobacco smoking they will regret it for ever and after. Why? Because none of the diseases and conditions they have enthusiastically attributed to tobacco use will disappear. In fact many of them will become more prevalent because many of them are more strongly related to age than to any other factor or combination of factors. Their success would be the death of them.

    • Margo says:

      They will ALL become more prevalent – because the REAL causes of them will continue unabated and become more and more widespread. Even if TC manages to eliminate most smokers, the blame for these diseases will have been shifted onto other ‘lifestyle’ (ie ‘your own fault’) choices, a process that’s already underway.

      • Mr A says:

        Yes, but by that time smoking will have been reduced to minimal levels (as hash and other drugs prove, there will always be smokers, but their numbers will be vastly reduced) and no-one in power, absolutely no-one, will turn around and say, “Hey, look! We got it wrong! it wasn’t tobacco at all! Let’s re-legalise it.”

        Plus, Big Pharma (these idiots’ paymasters) will have 100% control of the legal nicotine industry. So we may be able to go, “See, we were right!,” but that will be cold comfort. Let’s face it, we’ve ALWAYS been right, from the non-existence of the dangers of secondhand smoke to smoking bans being a deathblow to pubs to anti-science being junk science. Doesn’t do us a lot of good when the MSM and MPs are all sewed up and the antis have billions at their disposal.

        • Mr A says:

          And as Margo points out, they will simply move on to some other convenient scape goat which can hide the truth whilst also satisfying their aims of continued funding, prohibition and increased opportunities for Big Pharma.

        • Marie says:

          Please try to have a little more respect for the man and woman in the street than your opponents do. They are not going to forget what they have been told and the promises they have been made, particularly when the trumpeted results do not materialise.

  11. Rose says:

    New study helps parents to protect children from cigarette smoke in the home

    “The REFRESH study showed that while parents will naturally want to protect their children, many are not clear about how tobacco smoke affects them”
    http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/media/news-releases/new-study-helps-parents-to-protect-children-from-cigarette-smoke-in-the-home.aspx

    “With secondhand smoke, the main concerns are exposure to levels of carbon monoxide and respirable particulate matter.
    While air nicotine metabolised as cotinine provides a marker for measuring exposure to tobacco smoke, the nicotine is not present in such quantities as to present health concerns”

    http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/files/non-tobaccosmokingmaterials.doc

    Click on 22nd of December for you own copy of the document.
    Let’s see how fast this tax payer funded document disappears again.

    http: //www.ashscotland.org.uk/ash/files/non-tobaccosmokingmaterials.doc
    “Unfortunately the page you requested was not found.”

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    Every movement in history meets its Zenith/top moment after it gets its legislation passed. From then on its a fight to keep the movement alive and running……..ASH knows its end is near as do most of these groups. Unless they can keep the game alive with outlandish claims of success and then turn around and claim more has to be done their movement is dead. But these claims and artful media hype have reached the YAWN moment to most of us. Its like a skipping record that never ends. But it will end,keep hammering these BASTERDS!

    • jaxthefirst says:

      Harley,

      Spot on. Pretty much all of the new “claims” made by Tobacco Control and pretty much all of the new “goals” announced have a very real ring of desperation about them. And the less the MSM take notice of them (who in the UK, for example, has heard so much as a squeak about this latest new “objective” on the radio or TV news, or seen it splashed across the paper headlines?), the more desperate their latest wheezes become (pun entirely intended, of course!).

      Having failed dismally to shoehorn third-hand smoke into the public consciousness (my non-smoking OH, when asked, didn’t even know what it was), or to relate obesity to smoking (because there are limits as to what the public can be made to believe when it flies in the face of the evidence of their own eyes), or to convince the public that “bans are good for business” when three of their local hostelries have closed, they’ve now gone for the “total abolition” story. Which, when you think about it, really has to be a last-ditch move for them, for the simple reason that if successful it would put them all out of business. This attempt to whip anti-smoking hysteria back into the frenzy of its glory days is real make-or-break stuff – and that’s the kind of risk that only an organisation which knows its days are numbered without a miracle coming along will take.

      So it’s gratifying to me that this is the first I’ve heard of it, because it indicates that – desperation or no desperation – the media have “moved on” from all things anti-smoking. It’s old hat now. Now that we have our ban there are richer and easier pickings to be found in the newer territory of anti-alcohol or anti-junk food than in the old, worn-out patch of anti-smoking – more bans to be campaigned for, more individuals to be “blamed,” more Big Corporations to be pointed at, more targets for the bullies to turn their attentions to. Smoking? Pah! That’s yesterday’s news!

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    But hell what will we do when its over,weve become accustomed to fighting nannyism everyday!

    Oh rebuild old friendships and start new ones then tell old anti-tobacco war stories! Sounds good to me ehh!

    • Rose says:

      I always intended to travel round the country, just weekends seeing places I’d heard of but never seen, visiting ancient monuments, pretty villages, beautiful landscapes, revisiting places only dimly remembered.

      Simply put, until this breach is completely dealt with, I have nowhere to stay.

      • Rose says:

        Let’s face it, there are not many places you can be sure of a welcome now the Government has financed a campaign to tell people you are an evil smelling, mass murder whose very breath can cause injury.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Rose I got a question here maybe you can answer

          Researchers ID chemical in cigarette smoke linked to lowered levels of ‘good’ cholesterol
          August 31, 2012 in Medical research

          (Medical Xpress)—Cigarette smoking’s association with heart disease has been known for decades, but researchers are still not certain what chemicals or molecular processes in the body form the basis of that link. Now University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville researchers have unlocked some of the specifics, finding that a toxic compound in cigarette smoke called benzo(a)pyrene slows the production of “good” cholesterol, also known as high-density lipoprotein, or HDL.

          http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-08-id-chemical-cigarette-linked-lowered.html

          Heres the actual study: AS USUAL I SMELL A RAT

          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024320512002974

          They ran thru a series of chemcials doping with and they started using benzo=a=pyrene
          My question is how much concentrated Benzo did they apply to the substrate to get a reading they were satisfied with. Then they talk about something else they did that removed the effect of the benzo on the test.

          Like I say I have the feeling they doped 100s or thousands of equivalent amounts of benzo per ciggy to get what they were after!

        • Rose says:

          That’s a new spin on an old theory, Harley.

          1957

          “However, even this estimate is heavily biased by the arbitrary assumption that the benzpyrene content present allegedly in cigarette smoke was about 12 times as effective in eliciting cancers as benzpyrene demonstrated in atmospheric air.
          Only when such a “corrective” coefficient is applied was it possible to obtain proportional correlations between the total exposure to benzpyrene from both cigarette smoking and air pollutants and the relative incidence rates of lung cancer found in the industrialized metropolitan Liverpool area, an intermediary urban-rural region, and the rural area of North Wales”
          http: //tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/503243231-3367.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=91

          Scientist Comments on Benzpirene Report [Discounts the Role of Benzpyrene] – 1957

          Dr E.L.Wynder of Sloan-Kettering University, a leading proponent of the cigarette theory of lung cancer, reported only this year that “The benzpyrene content of tobacco tar is not more than 2 parts per million which, according to our experiments, is not sufficient to produce the type of activity noted in our animals painted with tobacco tar”
          http://tobaccodocuments.org/ctr/CTRMN043191-3193.html

          So now they’ve used it for something else?

          Close encounters

          “Even some of most familiar and seemingly harmless items in your home are laced with chemicals, says Alok Jha.”

          Toasters

          “Not the machine itself, but what you do with it. If you like your toast extra-crunchy, be aware that you might be increasing your risk of cancer.
          Burnt toast (and, for that matter, barbecued or smoked meats) contains increased levels of a known carcinogen, benzopyrene.

          The yellow, crystalline chemical is found in coal tar and cigarette smoke and is produced when organic matter is inefficiently burnt.

          It can also be made when cooking food in an oven encrusted with burnt-on food. Benzopyrene is one of a group of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that have been shown to cause cancer in animals.

          Indeed, benzopyrene is sometimes used in laboratory experiments to induce a range of cancers in mice. The chemical is thought to damage DNA by attaching itself to particular sites on the molecule. The DNA does repair itself, but just one damaged area could lead to mutations when body cells subsequently divide and, ultimately, to cancer.”
          http://www.guardian.co.uk/chemicalworld/story/0,,1219603,00.html

          Would we even notice 2 parts per million?

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          The corrective co-efficient lmao!

          The lab rats and mice that are genetically altered to get cancer to start with. Regardless of what they coat the poor lil things with.

        • legiron says:

          Some of quite enjoy being regarded as Monster.

        • legiron says:

          (sigh) Some of _us_

        • Rose says:

          Yes LI, but even Monsters need the occasional day off, to relax and go incognito.

      • Margo says:

        Me too. And to sit in a train, gazing out at the rolling countryside, smoking a fag. Bliss.

  14. harleyrider1978 says:

    This needs to be debunked as the rabid nazis are already preaching it!

  15. harleyrider1978 says:

    Fig. 5. The effect of the AhR antagonist CAY10464 on apo A-I protein secretion. HepG2 cells were treated with 100 nM BaP, 100 nM CAY10464, or BaP + CAY10464 (100 nM each) for 24-hours and apo A-I was measured in the conditioned medium. A representative blot is shown in panel A while panel B contains the results of several determinations. While BaP suppressed apo A-I secretion, CAY10464 had no effect. However, CAY10464 prevented BaP from inhibiting apo A-I protein secretion. n = 6; *, p < 0.05, treated relative to control.

    100 nM BaP

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The emerging evidence for vitamin D-mediated regulation of apolipoprotein A-I synthesis.
      Nutr Res Nov 2011
      Sarada Jaimungal, Kent Wehmeier, Arshag D Mooradian, Michael J Haas
      Ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular ischemia are leading causes of mortality in industrialized countries. The pathogenesis of these diseases involves the formation of atherosclerotic plaques with eventual rupture and superimposed thrombosis. This process is inhibited by high-density lipoprotein (HDL), the main protein component of which is apolipoprotein A-I (apo A-I). Vitamin D3 is a hormone produced by sun-exposed skin but is acquired also in the diet. The Framingham Offspring Study and the Third National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey showed a link between vitamin D3 intake and cardiovascular risk factors. The link between 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 and HDL cholesterol (HDLc) and apo A-I is not as clear. Studies in vitamin D receptor knockout mice demonstrated higher HDLc and hepatic apo A-I messenger RNA expression relative to wild type. Experiments in cultured hepatocytes supported these observations. Human studies evaluating the relationship between vitamin D3 and apo A-I and HDLc have yielded conflicting results, but most suggest a positive link between increasing vitamin D3 levels and plasma apo A-I and HDLc. The purpose of this review is to examine the evidence linking vitamin D status and cardiovascular disease, to determine if there is a relationship between vitamin D levels and development of an atherogenic lipid profile. Our objectives are to determine if plasma vitamin D levels correlate with plasma HDLc and apo A-I and, if so, offer speculation as to how apo A-I in the context of high vitamin D levels provides enhanced atheroprotection.

      Then are old friend Nicotonic acid arrives on the scene

      ——————————————————————————–
      Nicotinic acid induces apolipoprotein A-I gene expression in HepG2 and Caco-2 cell lines.
      Metab. Clin. Exp. Dec 2011
      Michael J Haas, Abdul-Razzak Alamir, Senan Sultan, Joe M Chehade, Norman C N Wong, Arshag D Mooradian
      The objective was to test the effect of nicotinic acid on apolipoprotein A-I (apo A-I) gene expression in hepatic (HepG2) and intestinal (Caco-2) cell lines. HepG2 and Caco-2 cells were treated with 0.1, 0.3, 1.0, 3.0, and 10 mmol/L of nicotinic acid; and apo A-I concentrations in conditioned media were measured with Western blots. Relative apo A-I messenger RNA (mRNA) levels, normalized to glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase mRNA, were measured with quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction method. The nicotinic acid response element in the apo A-I promoter was identified using a series of apo A-I reporter plasmids containing deletion constructs of the promoter. In other experiments, HepG2 cells were also transfected with the apo A-I reporter plasmid and the hepatocyte nuclear factors 3α and β expression plasmids. The apo A-I levels in conditioned media from HepG2 cells, apo A-I mRNA levels, and apo A-I promoter activity increased significantly following treatment with 1.0, 3.0, and 10 mmol/L nicotinic acid. Nicotinic acid-induced promoter activity required a region of the apo A-I gene located between -170 and -186 base pairs. Exogenous overexpression of the hepatocyte nuclear factors 3α and β had no additive effect on apo A-I promoter. Apolipoprotein A-I concentrations in conditioned media and the apo A-I promoter activity were also significantly increased in Caco-2 intestinal cells. Nicotinic acid may increase apo A-I protein synthesis in the liver and small intestine. Induction of apo A-I gene by nicotinic acid requires a nicotinic acid responsive element in the apo A-I promoter.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Rose note who one of the study authors are in each of thos studies the same as the one who did the Heart disease smoking study above!

        http://www.abstractboard.com/author/Mooradian+A+D/A-D-Mooradian.html

        Somebody got some TC grant money and is paying it back in kind ehh!

      • Rose says:

        Harley, frankly I can’t understand a word of that.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Its ok Miss Rose its slowly starting to shed lite. The guy did a study basically on what was already thought to happen. It was old news,point is he simply did it in a petri dish doping up higher and higher amounts of BAP til he got the reaction he already knew he would get. The guys testing every single chemcial he can find to try and connect something to it and smoking.

          As he states they already tried Nicotine and that was the study I posted earlier on nicontic acid he did. Its not to unlike the 3rd hand smoke study where they kept upping the HONO levels til it showed a tsna detectable level,only this guy went way beyond that and just kept on pumping and pumping until he got a picture totally affected by BAP! At least what I can figure fron after nearly a whole day on it.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Also from what I can gather about nM NANO METERS to lite as a reference for BAP itself,if you were to take the human body and then divide that petri dish by our weight to figure dose amounts to cigs smoked to get those levels used in the study its hundreds for sure if not thousands of times more.

          Yet they can barely detect a level in smokers to start with…………not very real world is it!

  16. cherie79 says:

    I wonder how many contributers to CRUK know where there money is going? I have/had cancer and would never give them a penny and when asked I have no hesitation of telling them why. As soon as any ‘charity’ becomes a lobbying organisation that’s me finished, RSPCA is another example when they became political over the fox hunting issue, about which I have no strong feelings, but that is not why I used to give to them, it was to help animals in distress.

  17. harleyrider1978 says:

    Heres a study on benzene levels in smokers Rose It kept freezing me up and I couldnt read it all but it speaks volumes

    Figure.III.11 Correlation between 1-ohpg and BaPT levels in smokers

    The one point with High [1-OHPG] value and BaPT levels seemed to undulyinfluence the fit to show correlation.More over,analysis performed after elimination of that one point resulted in a highly NON-SIGNIFICANTlinerar relationship [p=0.7219

    http://wvuscholar.wvu.edu:8881//exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/L2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM18xL2FwYWNoZV9tZWRpYS8xMjY1NQ==.pdf

  18. harleyrider1978 says:

    BTW our good doctor and researcher above doing that study from floriduh,The university pulled all links to any of his funding on their EDU site! 404 error code. I looked further and found this guy had belonged to a click back in 2005 against the FDA panel where Big pharma had its lobbiest dealing with pushing drug approvals. Id assume the guy jumped ship since 2005 and is now doing junk science for Tobacco Control. and Big Pharma.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Look at this shit after looking around all day! This doc as I figured was doing something already KNOWN or at least suspected!

      NOTE: POTENTIAL ATHEROSCLEROSIS
      Hardening of the arteries (Atherosclerosis)www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
      Hardening of the arteries, also called atherosclerosis, is a common disorder. It occurs when fat, cholesterol, and other substances build up in the walls of arteries and form hard structures called plaques.

      This docs a real gem ehh

      OSHA website

      Health Effects: Probable human carcinogen; potential photocarcinogen (HE2); Chronic toxicity—potential atherosclerosis (HE3); Genotoxicity—potential reproductive and developmental hazards (HE5).

      Category 2b possible human carcinogen…

      There is no specific OSHA PEL for Benzo[a]pyrene. Benzo[a]pyrene is characteristic of cold tar pitch volatiles (PEL is 0.2 mg/m3) and/or coke oven emissions (PEL is 0.15 mg/m3).

      According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke……..

      They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA’S minimum PEL’S on shs/ets…….Did it ever set the debate on fire.

      They concluded that:

      All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

      For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

  19. harleyrider1978 says:

    These junk scientists also claim smoking thickens the blood which it does to a degree but no more than eating green leafy vegetables as its the vitamin k in tobacco they are refering too, the same vitamin k in all green plants we eat everyday! Green beans are especially high in vitamin k. Vitamin K is the cure for Coumadin a blood thinner for people with blood clots. What do they do if you smoke,they simply alter your dosage as these docs alreay know how much vitamin k is in a particular pack of smokes,ya they had it plastered all over the walls in the Coumadin Clinic at Keesler Air force base Hospital in Biloxi MS.

  20. harleyrider1978 says:

    Two studies exact carbon copies of the other but from 2 diferent subjects one on HDL the other on BAP and skin disorders. Ya think the DOC or someone said hey lets try this over here…….another outcome based study ehh!

    An environmental contaminant, benzo(a)pyrene, induces oxidative stress-mediated interleukin-8 production in human keratinocytes via the aryl hydrocarbon receptor signaling pathway
    Gaku Tsujia, , , Masakazu Takaharaa, Hiroshi Uchia, b, Satoshi Takeuchia, Chikage Mitomaa, b, Yoichi Moroia, Masutaka Furuea, b
    a Department of Dermatology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0923181111000272

    Inhibition of apolipoprotein A-I gene by the aryl hydrocarbon receptor: A potential mechanism for smoking-associated hypoalphalipoproteinemia
    Emad Naema, Rosalyn Alcaldea, Margaret Gladysza, Sandra Meslinienea, Sarada Jaimungala, Mae Sheikh-Alia, Michael J. Haasa, Norman C.W. Wongb, Arshag D. Mooradiana, ,
    a Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Jacksonville College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, USA

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024320512002974

    • Junican says:

      Wonderful stuff, this benzo(a)pyrene, innit? Where can you get it? I just fancy a bit of grilled hypoalphalipoproteinemia, perhaps with a side dish of oxidative stress-mediated interleukin-8, and a few chips.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Cousin the 2 studies above I posted 1 being the Chemical found that causes heart disease story and the other on skin disorders. They are literally Identical to even the graphs and pictures they posted. Obviously these rats knew already what they would get and did it. Ive a feeling theres going to be more junk studies like this since somebody discovered BAP will attach to dna in a petri dish. Theres a lot more to what Im trying to say they are doing and Im sure its actually common knowledge among scientists I just havent found the angle exactly yet. But the main point is how much doping they did in comparison to how many cigs need to be consumed to create the same effect in a human! Thats where its flawed.

  21. Rose says:

    Harley, sorry I just couldn’t think yesterday, I had a head full of dental anaesthetic, I’m not convinced that it’s completely worn off even now.

    Run your eyes over this, I found it while I was puzzling over why people would irradiate mice then smear them with tobacco “tar”.
    It looked to me like they were trying to prove that tobacco smoke was synergistic with radiation exposure and that the workers exposed were in some way partly responsible for their own illness if they smoked.

    Look how many times they say that Cigarette Smoke Condensate – CSC didn’t cause cancers on it’s own.

    “Nenot (1977) studied rats that inhaled cigarette smoke plus
    americium 241, which delivered alpha radiation to the lungs. The
    smoke increased the yield of lung cancers and made them appear
    earlier. It was interpreted as a cancer-promoting effect by cigarette
    smoke, because the smoke alone did not produce cancer at the doses
    used.”
    http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBCCN.ocr

    So much for passive smoking.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Synergy Still Controversial

      Synergy is an integral part of our methodology. A majority of scientists support the concept of a radon/tobacco smoke synergistic interaction that is more than additive; we used the conservative 10-fold estimate. Apart from the documentation of synergy between radon and tobacco smoke, however, synergy is largely ignored or virulently contested

      Work in the laboratory of endocrinologist John McLachlan at Tulane University, reported by Steven Arnold and others (Science, 7 June 1996, p. 1489) found dramatic synergistic interaction between “hormonelike” chemicals in the environment. They reported that when two pesticides were tested together, their estrogenic activity shot up 160 to 1600 fold. They also found five-fold synergy with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which would have profound environmental implications.

      The reaction to the work at Tulane was swift and aggressive. Few papers provoke the kind of response that followed in the scientific community. New studies were promptly done that failed to replicate the synergistic results found by McLachlan. In an unusual move, Dr. McLachan withdrew the synergy paper. From press reports one might conclude that synergy was proven not to exist. However, in the retraction letter that appeared in the July 25th issue of Science (1996) it is clear that the basic idea of synergy was not withdrawn, but rather the pronounced levels initially reported.

  22. harleyrider1978 says:

    The common scientific attitude is that synergism doesnt happen in the natural world,but instead in the laboratory where its made to happen! They cant get tobacco by itself to cause anything so they started using the synergistic approach that included tobacco just so they could make a claim. Usually the reports go we found more lesions in the smoking rats or this paired double blind study saw more tumorous cells in this subset of cells compared to the other 78 subsets,but the others showed no more than any of the other 76 subsets……….then they toss in causal bullshit to try and point to a few subsets that showed what they wanted to claim to start with. Yet when someone went to duplicate the studies they couldnt.

  23. “I WILL NOT USE my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties”

    Well, that one’s gone for a burton with Britton, hasn’t it? ;)

  24. Pingback: Good Riddance | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s