Three Obscenities

Obscenity number one: BMA calls for tobacco prohibition:

The British Medical Association (BMA) has voted by a large majority for the illegalisation of tobacco for people born after the year 2000.

Dr. Tim Crocker-Buque, who is a Specialist Registrar in Public Health, said “Smoking is not a rational informed choice of adulthood…Eighty per cent of smokers start as teenagers as a result of intense peer pressure.”

“Smokers who start smoking at age 15 are three times as likely to die of smoking related cancer as someone who starts in their mid-20s.” He also added on BBC Radio Three Counties today: “one in two smokers will die of their habit.” Croker-Buque also alluded to the “nihilism” of smoking.

These tyrannical bastards all need to be expelled from the medical profession, and the BMA closed down. It’s no longer fit for purpose. Jax commented at length about this a day or two back. Do read it all.

Who the hell do they think they are – believing that because they have a “pet peeve” that the whole principle of the law – that it should apply equally to everyone in the land, regardless of their age, race or sex – should be violated,….

Obscenity number two: UK government to introduce plain packaging (after a ‘consultation’).

All cigarette packs will have to be a “drab brown” colour under plans announced by the Government today.

The proposed regulations will limit information on a packet and see it written only in standard text.

It will also scrap the sale of ten-packs, with the minimum amount allowed to be sold in one packet set at 20.

The regulations will be subject to a six week consultation as ministers attempt to push the measures through before the General Election.

The government had dropped plans for plain packaging but revived them in the face of a public furore.

It wasn’t a ‘public’ furore. It was Tobacco Control kicking up a storm.

And I’d been expecting this. The government always gives in to Tobacco Control. The only surprising thing is that they managed to hold out for a full year.

And they’re not going to be ‘drab brown’. They’re going to be covered in vile pictures.

Obscenity number three:

A 75-year-old man is being thrown out of his home of 40 years inGermany after neighbours complained he was disturbing them by smoking.

In a case which has attracted national interested and divided opinion in Germany, a court in Düsseldorf has ruled that Friedhelm Adolfs, a retired caretaker, must vacate his flat by the end of the year.

Mr Adolfs, who has become known as “Smoker Adolfs” in the German press, has been fighting an eviction notice from his landlady in the courts for a year and a half.

In many countries, he would have been forced to leave long before now. But tenants’ rights are strictly protected in Germany, and Mr Adolfs’ lawyers successfully argued that he could not legally be evicted simply for smoking.

But the court upheld the eviction because the pensioner had not taken sufficient steps to ventilate his flat or prevent smoke passing into the communal hall. He had not even emptied his ashtrays, the court said, and his neighbours had been forced to endure an “unacceptable and intolerable odour”.

Just the odour, eh? Next it’ll be garlic or boiled cabbage. Or anything else that’s ‘unacceptable’ to the little fucks.

About these ads

About Frank Davis

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

48 Responses to Three Obscenities

  1. wobbler2012 says:

    “Public furore” WTF??? These bastards have no shame at all. If anything there was way more people opposing the idiotic idea than supporting it.

  2. magnetic01 says:

    Seems like Russia has deteriorated into the neo-eugenics insanity.

    (excerpts)
    If Russian lawmakers have their way, smoking for women under 40 will soon be banned…..
    The latest string of initiatives by MPs have become so bizarre that Russians say they don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
    One lawmaker with the Russian parliament’s lower house, the State Duma, recently proposed introducing official standards for footwear, charging that high heels and ballet flats were bad for women’s health.
    Ivan Nikitchuk, a Communist Party deputy, vigorously defended his bill to ban smoking for women under 40 and in the presence of children under 14.
    “We don’t want to ban everything,” the 70-year-old told AFP. “What we want is to leave behind a healthy generation.”

    http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/dumb-in-the-duma-shock-in-russia-over-lawmakers-absurd-bills-547986

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      When Insanity becomes the name of the game,the game is likely close to over. They are going to be literally laughed out of the country if they keep it up. It could be they are throwing out the Insane to end the whole madness.

  3. magnetic01 says:

    A DUMBARTON teenager will have a key role in shaping the Scottish Government’s future strategy on cigarettes.

    Rose Moran, 13, as part of a pioneering Youth Commission, has done extensive research on her peers’ views on tobacco, working towards a smoke-free generation by 2034.
    The commission has released a number of recommendations including a 50 metre smoking ban around public places including schools and hospitals, an increase in the age limit for those wishing to purchase tobacco products to 21-years-old in 2031, a ban introduced on selling tobacco to anyone born after 2013 and e-cigarettes must be regulated and distributed for medicinal purposes only, with a ban on all commercial sales.
    Rose: “Smoking is a large issue where I come from so this means a lot to me.
    “I found it really interesting learning about all the different strategies that the Scottish Government has used in order to combat smoking.”
    http://www.dumbartonreporter.co.uk/news/dumbarton/articles/2014/06/25/502281-dumbarton-girl-chosen-for-smoking-thinktank/

  4. Greg burrows says:

    This type of language reminds of the so called health professional nurse, who stated that patients should be left to die, if they refused to stop smoking, having searched I can no longer trace this women, but everyone on our side who has history knows of this women.
    Who is this bloke Croker-Buque who can proffer random statistics, he maybe following in others footsteps, such as this below, I am not sure how valid this is, not having researched this myself, but would not disscount their findings. link to it at the bottom of the page.

    “(NaturalNews) The vast majority of so-called scientific studies focused on cancer research are inaccurate and potentially fraudulent, suggests a new review published in the journal Nature. A shocking 88 percent of 53 “landmark” studies on cancer that have been published in reputable journals over the years cannot be reproduced, according to the review, which means that their conclusions are patently false.

    C. Glenn Begley, a former head of global cancer research at drug giant Amgen and author of the review, was unable to replicate the findings of 47 of the 53 studies he examined. It appears as though researchers are simply fabricating findings that will garner attention and headlines rather than publishing what they actually discover, which helps them to maintain a steady stream of grant funding but deceives the public.

    “These are the studies the pharmaceutical industry relies on to identify new targets for drug development,” said Begley about the false studies. “But if you’re going to place a $1 million or $2 million or $5 million bet on an observation, you need to be sure it’s true. As we tried to reproduce these papers we became convinced you can’t take anything at face value.”

    Begley says he cannot publish the names of the studies whose findings are false. But since it is now apparent that the vast majority of them are invalid, it only follows that the vast majority of modern approaches to cancer treatment are also invalid.

    Back in 2009, researchers from the University of Michigan’s Comprehensive Cancer Center also published an analysis that revealed many popular cancer studies to be false. As can be expected, one of the primary causes of false results was determined to be conflicts of interest that tended to favor “findings” that worked out best for drug companies rather than for the people (http://www.naturalnews.com/026314_cancer_research_studies.html).

    Published research for other conditions also found to be invalid
    The Nature study also confirms what was previously uncovered by Dr. George Robertson from Dalhousie University, who found the same inconsistencies in published research studies on Parkinson’s disease and other neurodegenerative disorders. Just like with cancer, it appears that the foundation upon which drugs for these conditions have been developed is fallacious as a result of phony research.

    And scientists working for drug giant Bayer have run into similar problems in other areas as well, which they outlined in a 2011 paper entitled Believe it or not. According to their findings, much of the published data with which they were expected to develop new drugs could not be reproduced, either.

    “The scientific community assumes that the claims in a preclinical study can be taken at face value,” add Begley and his colleague Dr. Lee Ellis in their review. This published research also assumes that “the main message of [papers] can be relied on [...] Unfortunately, this is not always the case.”

    Ironically, the only thing all these scientists have been able to successfully reproduce over the years is research showing that much of modern science is unsound. Whether it is funded by drug companies or by agenda-driven federal grants, the so-called “gold standard” of science has been debunked as a greed-driven myth.

    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035616_cancer_industry_scientific_fraud_studies.html#ixzz35nOyadLD
    http://www.naturalnews.com/035616_cancer_industry_scientific_fraud_studies.html

  5. Reinhold says:

    Some of my mates know Smoker Adolfs personally, and some of my mates collected money to help him through this lawsuit shit, and some of them really donated quite a lot of money (I believe that the one or two persons I mean most of all are readers here – I salute you!).

    The Smoker Adolfs’ case is a very sad one. It is said that not “the neighbours” attacked him because of smoking, but only a few of them, maybe only one. And it is said that his flat is the only one surrounded by business real estate …

    I can’t say more because I know too little myself, but there are a lot of strange things going on there, and the strangest is that the courts say it’s OK to throw him out.
    Things like that weren’t usual here for a long time. Occupants used to have firm rights.
    But times change, and they don’t change for the better at this time, as we all now.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Reinhold I think if you were to dig youd likely find out the so called other tenants were bankrolled by the Nazi/anti-smoker groups in this push. He was made the example I have no doubt.

    • “And it is said that his flat is the only one surrounded by business real estate …”

      Reinhold, there was a very big headlined case here in the States about ten (?) years ago where a private developer got a court to agree that a private property could be grabbed and developed “for the good of the community” or somesuch rot EVEN THOUGH the land was NOT to be “used for a public purpose.” Traditionally, the state could grab your land to run a railroad or highway or build a dam, etc, BUT this particular decision (look up “The Kelo Decision” for more details) allowed a private developer to grab it to develop a shopping mall or somesuch.

      The ruling was seen as **SO** bad that a good many states in America have since then passed specific laws FORBIDDING that kind of grabbing for private profit. I hope the German lawyers are looking into it with the American background in mind for further work.

      And Harley’s point is quite valid: there have been cases over here where specific big name Antis and Anti groups have seemed to be the driving force behind such things. Here’s an example of a particularly bad condominium case that we won a few years ago: (You’ll note that the page is a SAVED page that I had the foresight to save with the iCyte system it was either censored or “lost accidentally” by the Patch news/posting community.) Note the exchanges with Repace in the 300 comments, and also search for some of the other articles in Patch relating to the same case. I believe this particular instance may have been wiped because of the clarity with which Repace et al were embarrassed and exposed:

      See: http://bit.ly/SchumanTrial

      - MJM

      • Tom says:

        “… about ten (?) years ago where a private developer got a court to agree that a private property could be grabbed and developed “for the good of the community” or somesuch rot EVEN THOUGH the land was NOT to be “used for a public purpose.” …”

        Off hand from memory, I don’t have links, but if that is the case I think it is, the one that was up in New England area, it was a major pharmaceutical company, perhaps Pfizer, I can’t recall which one, but that initiated the case and won the right to tear down and take over all the private property that was condemned on its behalf after the court ruled in its favor – and later on it became economically unprofitable for them to build the factory or warehouse or research center “for a public purpose” they originally went to court over – and thus the private property owners lost their homes and properties, the major pharmaceutical company got, it may have been beach front property too, and then it ended up having nothing done with it.

        It may be that case, but if so, then it seemed odd that once again, pharmaceuticals were involved in stirring up trouble and/or paying off judges to over turn the US Constitution in the court’s ruling in favor of, essentially, a fascist plot.

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    Mayor: smoking ban not ‘black and white issue’ as advocates pressure Lubbock council

    West Texas Smoke Free Coalition cite second-hand smoke risk in pushing ban

    Posted: June 26, 2014 – 8:26pm

    http://lubbockonline.com/filed-online/2014-06-26/mayor-smoking-ban-not-black-and-white-issue-advocates-pressure-lubbock#.U6zPlzYo59A

    This is good shit PLEASE DONT LAUGH TO HARD

    Another, Dr. Naidu Chekuru, said a patient of his recently died of lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke.

    ……………………..

    Restaurant employees working just two hours in a smoky room do the same amount of damage to their lungs that four cigarettes would, resident Kelsey Bernstein said during the citizens’ comment period.

    ……………………….

    “No one has ever died of secondhand obesity or secondhand cirrhosis of the liver,” he said.

    ………………………….

    NO COMMENTS SECTION UNFORTUNATELY

    • smokervoter says:

      Here’s my reaction to this story.

      Lubbock, Texas had three city council races up for grabs this year. Grand total of votes cast was 6,221. I think it’s a pretty good bet that there’s 38,000 smokervoters in Lubbock. How I wish there was a smokervoter.com-type satellite website that could somehow get through to these good folks and encourage them to register to vote if they haven’t already done so and then for them to get out and vote.

      The mayor sounds like he wants to put it up to a community vote. The city already leans the in the right direction – there’s 4 Republicans and one Libertarian (yaay!) versus just two Democrats. There’ll be a fairly sizable non-smoker ‘live and let live’ bloc to start with.

      As a wild guess I think it might attract 15,000 votes all told. One-third of those 38,000 smokervoters equals damn near 13,000 alone.

      See what I mean about my constant frustration with our lack of Machiavallien ambitions?

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        I always vote. I even fight the dirty Bastards anywhere I can find em. But If you cant get the word to the troops or would be troops picking up the flag to charge the enemy as a lone combatant is not going to win a vote. It might win ya a popularity contest in the bigger picture but it aint leading an army yet.

        Getting media coverage and the word out is always the most important piece to any movement.

        • smokervoter says:

          Getting media coverage and the word out is always the most important piece to any movement.

          I hear ya’ there Harley. I keep wishing that we could get a post by Frank, Leg-iron, Audrey or Dick Puddlecote etc, etc. up at Matt Drudge’s site. He gets some mighty heavy duty traffic. I think it’s a possibility. Even better would be to get them on his link list.

          Any ideas on how that would be accomplished? I am all ears. I want to win. I’m an old Oakland Raiders football fan from way back. I remember team owner Al Davis’s saying “Just Win, Baby!”

          That’s my attitude, too.

          Like Walt said once before: Harley, you’re a one man army. I appreciate what you do. Keep on fighting. Just Win, Baby.

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    Frank didn’t the UK already have a consultation and we won.

    • Rose says:

      Yes.
      Berger: “We Still Won”
      http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/berger-we-still-won.html

      64% against, 36% for.

      But it was more a bit of windowdressing , plain packaging is one of the demands of the FCTC so implementing it in Britain at least, was a forgone conclusion.

      16. Plain packaging.

      The effect of advertising or promotion on packaging can be eliminated by requiring plain packaging: black and white or two contrasting colours, as prescribed by national authorities: nothing other than a brand name and/or manufacturer’s name, contact details and the quantity of the product in the packaging, without any logos or other features apart from health warnings, tax stamps and other government mandated information or markings: prescribed font style and size: and standardized shape, size and materials.
      There should be no advertising or promotion inside or attached to the package or on individual cigarettes or other tobacco products”
      http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_13.pdf

      • ” plain packaging is one of the demands of the FCTC so implementing it in Britain at least, was a forgone conclusion.”

        Rose, note however that there is no timetable for implementation. The UK does not “have to” implement it this year, or this decade, or even this century. All they have to do is be “working toward” implementing it. They could set up a parliamentary committee of two people whose duty would be to send a one-paragraph report to the full parliament every springtime stating whether significant progress toward the “goal” has been made. Obviously something like this must be the case since there have been 130ish signatories and only one (two?) of them has actually implemented plain packaging as of this point.

        My guess is that such a thing *may* be true for everything in the FCTC. If I’m correct, then any country claiming “We have to do such and such a thing (now) because we signed the FCTC.” is lying and should be called on the lie.

        - MJM, who’d like to point out that the FCTC “commitment to raise taxes” could also be fully satisfied by raising them by one pence per carton each year.

        • Rose says:

          They’ll leave it for Labour to implement, it’s what happened with the Display Ban, MJM

          Government ‘fixing health consultations’ with taxpayer-funded groups
          2009

          “The Government has been accused of fixing the outcome of public consultations on health policy after it emerged that reviews were flooded with block votes from groups funded entirely by the taxpayer.”

          “Earlier this month the Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, announced that the display of cigarettes and tobacco in shops would be banned in England and Wales from 2011.”

          “Mr Johnson boasted that the display ban was favoured by an “overwhelming majority” of 96,000 responses to a six-month public consultation on the subject.

          Yet only a handful of those 96,000 respondents came from individuals submitting their personal views. Almost 70,000 came from those collected by pressure groups entirely funded by the Department for Health.”

          “Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, said the disclosures summed up Labour’s “cavalier” approach to consulting the public.
          Mr Lansley said: “It will come as no surprise to us if the Department of Health has funded organisations that provide the responses to consultations that the Government is looking for.

          “The public are understandably cynical about the way Labour consults the public – it’s time we had a Government that treats the public and their views with the respect they deserve.”
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/4076290/Government-fixing-health-consultations-with-taxpayer-funded-groups.html

          Shops to be banned from displaying tobacco products
          2011

          “Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, has decided to go ahead with the display ban, albeit delayed, after reviewing the move made possible under Labour legislation.”
          http: //www.theguardian.com/society/2011/mar/09/shops-banned-displaying-tobacco-products

          Article 13

          12. Retail sale and display.

          “Display of tobacco products at point of sale in itself constitutes advertising and promotion.Display of products is a key means of promoting tobacco products and tobacco use,including by stimulating impulse purchases of tobacco products,giving the impression that tobacco use is socially acceptable and making it harder for tobacco users to quit.

          13.To ensure that points of sale of tobacco products do not have any promotional elements. Parties should introduce a total ban on any display and on the visibility of tobacco products at points of sale, including fixed retail outlets and street vendors.”
          http: //www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_13.pdf

          Smoking is no longer part of life, says Andrew Lansley
          2012

          “The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, has declared that “we no longer see smoking as a part of life”, as a ban on tobacco promotion in large shops comes into force.

          The legislation means that from Friday all large shops and supermarkets in England must hide cigarettes and tobacco products from public view.”

          “All tobacco products must be kept out of sight except when staff are serving customers or carrying out other day-to-day tasks, such as restocking. Those found not complying with the law could be fined up to £5,000 or face imprisonment.”
          http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/06/smoking-no-longer-part-life

          And to think that I believed all their protestations against Labour’s social engineering.

          But Cameron had “modernised” the tories without telling us before the Election, now despite any residual conservative instincts in the party, if the Health Lobby accuse them of being in league with Big Tobacco for not following their policies and quick, like stamping infront of an oncoming spider, they scuttle the other way.

        • Frank Davis says:

          “we no longer see smoking as a part of life”

          We? Who are “we”?

          His “we” doesn’t include me. And it doesn’t include millions of other people as well. He has excluded all of us from “his” society.

  8. carol2000 says:

    Gwynn Contributed to Anti-Tobacco Film in Months Before Death
    By Mason Levinson Jun 25, 2014 11:36 AM CT

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-25/gwynn-contributed-to-anti-tobacco-film-in-months-before-death.html

    The anti-smokers lie. Cytomegalovirus is a proven cause of salivary gland cancer. “Given that hCMV is frequently resident in salivary gland (SG) ductal epithelium, we hypothesized that hCMV would be important to the pathogenesis of SG mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC). This was initially supported by our finding that purified CMV induces malignant transformation in SG cells in an in vitro mouse model, and utilizes a pathogenic pathway previously reported for human MEC…” In 39 carcinomas, “All four prospective causal criteria for viruses and cancer are fully satisfied: (1) protein markers for active hCMV are present in 97% of MECs; (2) markers of active hCMV are absent in non-neoplastic SG tissues; (3) hCMV-specific proteins (IE1, pp65) are in specific cell types and expression is positively correlated with severity; (4) hCMV correlates and colocalizes with an upregulation and activation of an established oncogenic signaling pathway (COX/AREG/EGFR/ERK). Thus, the evidential support reported here and previously in a mouse model is strongly confirmatory of a causal relationship between hCMV and SG mucoepidermoid carcinoma.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22101257

    Mucoepidermoid carcinoma is the most common malignant major and minor salivary gland tumor. Other types are caused by Epstein-Barr virus.

    • Rose says:

      Now I wouldn’t know where to find the quote, but it was explained that as smoking is supposed to weaken the body’s defences, any illness that a smoker might get can be attributed in part to their previous smoking.

      • Rose says:

        A particularly egregious example.

        Miners win historic compensation claim
        1998

        “Six miners who suffered chronic ill health from inhaling coal dust during their work have won compensation claims against the UK Government.”

        “Mr Justice Turner awarded the six test case miners up to £10,000 each for pain, suffering and disability from emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

        All but one of the claims were reduced because smoking contributed to the diseases.”
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/49973.stm

        Wilhelm Hueper, post-World War II epidemiology, and the vanishing clinician’s eye.

        “Just as fundamentally, Hueper’s resistance reflected his concerns about how the new epidemiology would become translated into clinical and medicolegal decision making.

        If physicians came to agee that smoking was such a universal and important cause of lung cancer, even in their work-patients, then liability and compensation suits by workers in the industries that did cause lung cancer in workers, such as coke, chromate, or asbestos production stood in dire jeopardy.”

        “If a worker happened also to be a smoker – which most blue collar workers tended to be – then companies would argue that he brought it on himself.

        Epidemiologists themselves did not argue that the new smoking evidence distinguished the influence of workplace exposures from that of smoking in any individual case.

        Yet Hueper knew how defence attorneys and their medical witnesses would seize upon a plaintiff’s smoking to provide a “convenient escape for the guilty industrial part to pay compensation to the victim or to his widow and orphans.”
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1381166/?page=8

        • carol2000 says:

          And they even blame smoking for CD4+ CD28- T cells, which are well known to be absolutely specific for CMV infection: They have been observed to arise during primary infection, and they are not found among people who have not been infected by CMV. That’s what they’re doing now with COPD, which is new because those closed-minded dogmatists have never looked for this pathogen in all their decades of blaming smoking. And that has prevented victims from the possibility of effective treatment aimed against the CMV.

          http://www.smokershistory.com/COPD.html

          And this demonstrates just how profoundly unethical they are, both for what they do to patients and for how they try to exploit public ignorance and do a snow job using those CD4+ CD28null T cells. And the Surgeon General MUST be consciously aware of this fraud, and is purposely engaging in it, because in the latest SG report ruthlessly evades any mention whatsoever of CMV in COPD (although one of the studies cited stated that, “a significant number of lung CD4+ T cells had lost expression of the costimulatory molecule CD28.) And likewise the SG also ignored the abundant evidence implicating pathogens in so-called autoimmune diseases, including macular degeneration, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, Sjogren’s syndrome, and lupus (links are on my index page).

          http://www.smokershistory.com/

        • Rose says:

          I have noticed that they are reluctant to let go of any disease they have previously claimed as smoking-related like cervical cancer or peptic ulcer, when the true cause is found.

          On the subject of COPD, take a look at this if you haven’t seen it already.

          Indoor air pollution behind COPD, not smoking: study
          2010

          “You don’t have to be a smoker to suffer from Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). Indoor air pollution is enough for one to contract the infection, says the first-of-its-kind study conducted at 22 villages of Pune.

          Out of 3,000 people randomly selected for the study, 210 suffered from COPD. “At least 93 per cent of those who had COPD were non smokers,” says Dr Sundeep Salvi, coordinator of the Chest Research Foundation (CRF).”

          “Among those identified to have COPD, only 7% were smokers and 93% were never smokers, indicating that smoking is clearly not the most important risk factor for COPD in India. More importantly, 23% of the COPDs occurred in age group less than 40 years, which has not been reported earlier, says Salvi.

          It has always been believed that COPD starts occurring after 40 years and above in people who have smoked for over 15-20 years.

          But in India, indoor air pollution seems to be the most important cause so the disease occurs in earlier age groups as well because of exposures from childhood, he explained.
          http://www.indianexpress.com/news/indoor-air-pollution-behind-copd-not-smoking-study/712430/1

          Your lungs at higher risk from wood smoke, dung cakes

          “The CRF study found that the prevalence of the respiratory disease was 6.9 per cent in the Indian population. Among those identified with COPD, only 7 per cent were smokers while the remaining 93 per cent were non-smokers.

          Over 700 million people in India suffer from high levels of indoor air pollution affecting women and young children as 75 per cent homes use biomass fuel like wood, crop residue and dung cakes.”
          http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Your-lungs-at-higher-risk-from-wood-smoke-dung-cakes/articleshow/6937971.cms?referral=PM

          7% were smokers and 93% were never smokers ?

          I’m looking at something but I’m not sure what.

        • carol2000 says:

          “I’m looking at something but I’m not sure what.”

          You’re looking at incompetence and incoherence, that’s what. It doesn’t include necessary basic information, namely what proportion of the population smokes ub the first place. Presumably, the rate of smoking is low in those “22 rural villages in Pune.” It also includes no data on CMV. But claiming that cooking smoke causes COPD is no different and no better than claiming that smoking causes COPD in the first place. So for god’s sake don’t imagine that you can go around posting this junk as supposed proof that smoking doesn’t cause COPD. All it does is support their junk science of ignoring the role of infection.

        • beobrigitte says:

          But claiming that cooking smoke causes COPD is no different and no better than claiming that smoking causes COPD in the first place.

          Have you heard of Prof. Grieshaber?

          http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/romano-grieshaber-the-unwavering-professor/

          His findings in his line of work DID find that cooks in restaurants indeed showed a high rate of lung cancer, whereas serving/bar staff DID NOT, contrary to what he expected to find.

          I agree with you on CMV/HPV – however, if you extend your meticulous search to the latest rate of viral/bacterial genetic set-up changes of antibiotic resistant micro-organisms and compare this to our methods and rate of adapting to these, you might just start getting worried – and really annoyed when you find out how much money is being thrown out the window for “a-smoke-free-generation” when this “smoke-free-generation” is being killed off by rapidly mutating micro-organisms.

          As for challenging the anti-smokers on their lies – they knew that this was the first thing we’d do. And they have prepared for this.
          I usually point out in any discussion that if tobacco industry funded research is not acceptable, then tobacco control funded research is not acceptable, too. After all, both pursue their own agenda. No links. No challenge.

          Last, but not least, may I ask what all your aggression towards us is about?
          You do not always have to scream and shout – if you do too much of it, it will be ignored. Just as my kids ignored me when I did that until I reached the point at which I became quiet and even smiled.
          The most effective thing about smokers is that we are DIVERSE and we have no leader, less even “a plan”. If you play chess, try NOT to plan your moves, just respond to your opponent. You can annoy your opponents that way endlessly!!! All you have to do is just continue to play. You are reading your opponent – he/she can’t read you.

          We do have a lot of people here who do post links to articles – they are always a great starter on perusing literature. We are not quiet. We are not subserviant. And we TALK to people in the real world outside the internet.

        • carol2000 says:

          And what exactly did “Prof. Grieshaber” do that’s supposedly so fantastic? “a study of actual disease incidence among German hospitality industry staff (showing no increased lung cancer risk for non-smoking waiters).” How large was it, and what was the power of this study (that I can’t find on PubMed) to detect an increased risk of what magnitude? Not to mention that it’s just another piece of garbage that slavishly obeys the Nazi/anti-smoker formula of “lifestyle questions that ignore the role of infection,” which leave the anti-smokers free to rig their studies by exploiting infections that smokers and passive smokers are more likely to be exposed to. In other workds, the same old brain-dead crackpots who’ve sold us short every step of the way. He and the rest of his ilk can go burst into flames.

          And that crap that “this ‘smoke-free-generation’ is being killed off by rapidly mutating micro-organisms” – it’s just another pile of hysteria-mongering establishment crap. The supposed resistance just means a higher dose is necessary, or sometimes the germs revert to earlier forms simply by not using the drugs to which they’ve become resistant for a while. Then you can use them again.

          “Last, but not least, may I ask what all your aggression towards us is about?” Are you kidding? When supposed smokers’ advocates do the stupid thing every time and fall flat on their faces, then pat themselves on the back for what a great job they’ve done and hallucinate that the anti-smokers are losing? “You do not always have to scream and shout – if you do too much of it, it will be ignored.” And isn’t ignoring me exactly what your lot have been doing all along? How will I tell the difference? “Just as my kids ignored me when I did that until I reached the point at which I became quiet and even smiled.” I don’t yell. I act. And it is not ignorable. “The most effective thing about smokers is that we are DIVERSE and we have no leader, less even “a plan”.” There is absolutely nothing effective about smokers. Absolutely nothing. “If you play chess, try NOT to plan your moves, just respond to your opponent.” And how many chess championships have YOU won with that strategy?

        • beobrigitte says:

          How large was it, and what was the power of this study (that I can’t find on PubMed) to detect an increased risk of what magnitude? Not to mention that it’s just another piece of garbage that slavishly obeys the Nazi/anti-smoker formula of “lifestyle questions that ignore the role of infection,” which leave the anti-smokers free to rig their studies by exploiting infections that smokers and passive smokers are more likely to be exposed to. In other workds, the same old brain-dead crackpots who’ve sold us short every step of the way. He and the rest of his ilk can go burst into flames.

          I take it you have not read Prof. Grieshaber’s book. But you have decided to pass your judgement.

          And that crap that “this ‘smoke-free-generation’ is being killed off by rapidly mutating micro-organisms” – it’s just another pile of hysteria-mongering establishment crap.

          You might be concentrating a little too much on HPV and CMV only.

          Name effective antibiotics available nowadays. Side effects? How long do you think they are going to be effective? How much money is going into the development into new, effective antibiotics? How much money is going into “smoking-kills-fake-’studies’?
          The “establishment” is rather quiet about this subject, so no fear mongering there.

          Sure, you do have an impressive collection of papers on your site. But this isn’t challenging the anti-smokers, is it?

        • carol2000 says:

          “I take it you have not read Prof. Grieshaber’s book. But you have decided to pass your judgement.”

          How about explaining WHY anybody should read this book, instead of just pretending that they have a duty to squander their time on it?

          “Name effective antibiotics available nowadays. Side effects? How long do you think they are going to be effective?”

          Surely you know what Google is.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_antibiotics

          Do you realize that much of this so-called “resistance” is relevant only to special tests in a petri dish, but is not relevant clinically? And that most of said resistance can be overcome with a somewhat higher dose, or by a combination therapy? And if you expect something to have no side effects, you’re just being unreasonable. People can get upset stomachs from an ordinary meal. Just realize that there is a certain faction that hysteria-mongers about these things, just like they hysteria-monger about secondhand smoke (e.g. how credible is CDC director Thomas Frieden). You’d do better to skip the propaganda directed at the general public, and look for something more scientific.

        • beobrigitte says:

          How about explaining WHY anybody should read this book, instead of just pretending that they have a duty to squander their time on it?

          Carol, with respect to Prof. Grieshaber’s book – there is as yet no translation into English. Isn’t it everyone’s free choice to choose what they wish to read?

          And that most of said resistance can be overcome with a somewhat higher dose, or by a combination therapy?

          Surely you know what toxicity is. (?)

          You’d do better to skip the propaganda directed at the general public, and look for something more scientific.

          You appear to have collected quite a lot of scientific papers. Citing paragraphs does not mean you can stand up in a discussion.

          WHY haven’t you openly challenged tobacco control funded scientific fraud? Does your “we” mean that others are to take on the battle whilst you sit at home, searching for paper after paper after paper for suitable paragraphs to cite?

          I am sorry, I do not see you “fighting” the anti-smokers.

        • carol2000 says:

          “Carol, with respect to Prof. Grieshaber’s book – there is as yet no translation into English. Isn’t it everyone’s free choice to choose what they wish to read?”

          So you want me to read a book that’s in a language I don’t speak, merely so that I can see someone claim that “cooks in restaurants indeed showed a high rate of lung cancer, whereas serving/bar staff DID NOT, contrary to what he expected to find.” WHY should I consider this important? It looks like an ecological study, with occupatonal data rather than individual data. It’s probably small. But you think I must not dismiss it without reading it? And how trivial and flimsy do studies have to be for you to agree they’re not worth reading?

          “Surely you know what toxicity is. (?)”

          Yes, it’s a piece of speculation you spout at me, rather than an intelligent look at margins of safety.

          “You appear to have collected quite a lot of scientific papers. Citing paragraphs does not mean you can stand up in a discussion.”

          While spouting ad hoc speculation shows that you can “stand up in a discussion.”

          “WHY haven’t you openly challenged tobacco control funded scientific fraud? Does your “we” mean that others are to take on the battle whilst you sit at home, searching for paper after paper after paper for suitable paragraphs to cite?”

          WHO are you accusing? I’ve not only opened challenged them online, I’ve also tried to find an attorney to take them on. I found that, thanks to the state’s tobacco lawsuit, the big law firms were all “conflicted” (they got money for “helping” on the anti-smoker side.) A small firm that was willing needed lots of money up front, due to not having the resources that a large firm could draw on.

          Then despite all my decades of unpaid and unappreciated work, with no help of any kind from your ilk, you sneer, “I am sorry, I do not see you ‘fighting’ the anti-smokers.” And you think YOU are? That’s ridiculous.

        • Online exposure of their fraud is valuable, *IF* it’s put out in forums where the general public (what I call “the passers-by”) runs across it, and *IF* it’s presented in limited enough way to break through their credibility barriers. When they run across a successful challenge to an individual study put in a way they can understand and also be confident they’re not simply being fooled because of their scientific/mathematical naivete, it will stick with them (hopefully) long enough for them to run across ANOTHER such exposure, etc … until eventually they begin to get an understanding that a LOT … and perhaps ALL … of the “mountain of studies” they “know” exist are ALSO questionable.

          Which is what I do online on the news sites every day, and which I also did in the middle 150ish pages of “The Slabs” in TobakkoNacht. http://bit.ly/FDAstudy is a good example of my approach there, along with a few other pieces at bit.ly/TobakkoNacht itself.

          But we all fight in different ways and are offering different things. Carol’s done excellent research work on her website. Audrey’s fought quite well in the NY court system and we’ve learned a lot about what doesn’t work because of that. Our bloggers (heh, particularly some of those Brits whose names I don’t need to mention here…) not only do a yeoman’s job in sharing great thinking and information, but are also widely enough read and cross-referenced/linked from elsewhere that they also serve that “reaching out to the passers-by” function and bring more people to our side. TICAP and FORCES and the SmokersClub may not seem to do a whole lot on the surface, but the people active in them work together and support each other on particular projects that are quite productive sometimes while also giving us sometimes-localized folks some tie ins with people and ideas from elsewhere.

          Yeah, it’d be nicer if we had one huge all-powerful world organization with clearly agreed and worked upon tactics and goals, but we don’t. And while that weakens us, it also makes us stronger since there’s no single enemy the Antis can attack.

          - MJM

        • beobrigitte says:

          Then despite all my decades of unpaid and unappreciated work, with no help of any kind from your ilk, you sneer, “I am sorry, I do not see you ‘fighting’ the anti-smokers.”

          It was an observation on this side of the planet, not sneering.

          Also, whilst we are busy fighting each other we forget about the common enemy.

          WHO are you accusing? I’ve not only opened challenged them online, I’ve also tried to find an attorney to take them on. I found that, thanks to the state’s tobacco lawsuit, the big law firms were all “conflicted” (they got money for “helping” on the anti-smoker side.) A small firm that was willing needed lots of money up front, due to not having the resources that a large firm could draw on.

          Here you do raise the point others have made – lack of funds for challenge!! You also do point out big law firms’ conflicts of interest.

          Online exposure of their fraud is valuable, *IF* it’s put out in forums where the general public (what I call “the passers-by”) runs across it, and *IF* it’s presented in limited enough way to break through their credibility barriers.

          I do agree with this, Michael. And, yes, many people here post very interesting and informative links which induce a few thoughts or even to look up previous publications in order to find that one contradicts the other.
          However, it is a different matter nailing the anti-smokers on their fraudulent claims alone. They are prepared for this. In my view our diversity and lack of organisation is our most useful tool!

          And you think YOU are?
          The one you termed “ilk”?
          On a lighter note: Look at the bright side, once this anti-smoking lark is over we are not forced to be friends.

      • carol2000 says:

        They commit the same fraud of falsely blaming smoking for the effects of infection when they claim that smoking impairs immunity. Haven’t you caught their pattern yet? Such as blaming smoking for fewer cervical Langerhans cells, that’s really the result if HPV.

        http://www.smokershistory.com/cclies.htm#Langerhans

        And blaming smoking for the effects of cytomegalovirus.

        http://www.smokershistory.com/CMVimmun.html
        http://www.smokershistory.com/rheumat.html

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX

    Congressional Candidate Calls for End of Global Warming Ruse

    State Rep. Lenar Whitney, who is running for Congress in Louisiana, has released a new video proclaiming man-made global warming as “the biggest deception in the history of mankind”

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/26/gop-candidate-calls-global-warming-greatest-deception-ever-video/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Smoking bans are not about improving health – they are about control

    Thu, 06/26/2014 – 9:20am | posted by Liz Harrison

    Wikimedia Commons

    When states and cities started banning smoking in public places, any push back by citizens didn’t receive much attention. Smoking isn’t good for one’s health, and certainly doesn’t help anyone nearby. So, with people having fewer places to legally enjoy tobacco, there was at least a little more interest in quitting – the smoking cessation industry got a little boost. Now, insurance companies are not only hitting people with higher rates for life insurance if they use tobacco products, but also for health insurance. Sadly, many of the smoking cessation products out there don’t tend to work very well for a lot of people, though.

    The latest tool for dropping tobacco is “vaping” – using e-cigarettes. While there are ones that are marketed for a single use, there are those that people can fill for themselves. This method of walking away from smoking tobacco is actually working for quite a few people, but it seems that government wants to put a stop to the use of e-cigarettes as well.

    The claims are that they are just switching addictions, and might hook teens anyway. However, that isn’t necessarily the case, as R-Street is pointing out in a primer on the topic.

    On the practical level, if a person bothers to look into the e-cigarette industry, they quickly figure out that if you’re dealing with ones that require that users fill them with fluid, there are quite a few flavors out there. Also, it is possible to reduce the level of nicotine, and it’s possible to get fluid without it. Given that there are quite a few flavors that cater to people with a sweet tooth, it’s not out of the question that vaping could end up aiding people in dealing with another generally unhealthy addiction – eating too many sugary treats.

    The cool factor involved with vaping doesn’t necessarily involve nicotine at all. While it’s true that teens might be drawn to get these devices, with the non-nicotine options that just deliver flavored vapor to users, it’s not a dangerous addiction as long as they avoid the nicotine liquids. Bans that are being entertained by lawmakers aren’t about public health. They are about controlling the public – motives are most likely related to a hatred of the tobacco industry, but also loyalty to big pharmaceutical companies that didn’t get on board for this trend. Early indications are that vaping is eclipsing other forms of smoking cessation. That’s no reason for lawmakers to be trying to stop people from doing something that helps them get away from, or avoid an unhealthy habit altogether.

    http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/18109-smoking-bans-are-not-about-improving-health-they-are-about-control

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    June 27, 2014
    Smoking-ban ruling impedes ‘ascendance of a fourth branch of government – the regulatory state’

    The Times-Tribune
    - See more at: http://www.thetimestribune.com/editorials/x611397525/Smoking-ban-ruling-impedes-ascendance-of-a-fourth-branch-of-government-the-regulatory-state#sthash.bRQIKd2y.dpuf

    Harley says

    Nasty habit my arse! I smoke and am proud to be a smoker! The more it disgusts Nanny Nazis the better. Theres room for everyone if they will allow live and let live to be the RULE OF THE LAND! Junk Science and Propaganda is what these anti-tobacco Collectivists use to outlaw the God Given rights of Americans and Kentuckians. We have as much right to the PUBLIC TABLE as any radical anti-smoker does. If you want smoke free I will tell you as you tell us TAKE IT OUTSIDE FOR A FRESH AIR BREAK! Us smokers didn’t ask for a prohibitionist movement to use us as the GUEINEA PIGS for their social experiments as you have seen every new public health epidemic these charletons CREATE is based upon the same de-normalization tactics they used on us smokers! The same junk statistical Magic they use is used on anti-gun,anti-obesity,anti-drinking anti anything and you will find some federal grant or non-profit funding it to use and Outlaw every dang one of us from doing what ever it is we do they decide to hate!

    We have in effect a Liberal Progressive Eugenics movement going on and they’ve invaded every health dept,Legislative body and city council across America.

    These people have no more right to vote on our god given rights than god almighty has to take them away!

    We are Free Americans and by god those who don’t stand up for those rights are as guilty as those who would take YOUR RIGHTS!

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Legislative bodies nor voter referendums have any right to vote away another persons rights!

    • carol2000 says:

      Don’t waste your time with that 9th Amendment spiel. They’ll say you have no such right. They’ll say if it’s ok to ban heroin, it’s ok to ban tobacco.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Carol a ninth amendment right exist when it has long traditional standing in the culture!

        • carol2000 says:

          They’ll just claim that since they “discovered” how dangerous it is, that gives them the right to take it away.

  13. smokervoter says:

    Just Win, Baby

    It’s short, but sweet.

    Man alive, it’s great not being a persona non grata on YouTube anymore. That April 30 Microsoft deadline for Windows XP finally got me off my arse to fire up that XP machine I got secondhand from an old friend. I still don’t appreciate the fact that Google booted everyone with an old computer that still worked perfectly fine off in the first place. I thought they were all peace and love and we’re down with the little guy and save the earth and all that good stuff.

    Typical Silicon Valley/Bay Area lip service.

  14. Pingback: The Waiting Room | 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