George Godber

Tinkering with Joomla today, and wondering how I could create a new incarnation of Rose’s Garden, I hit on a fairly simple way of recreating it. The original Rose’s Garden on Forces’ bulletin board contains about 80 pages of HTML. Joomla allows pdf files to be uploaded to it. And this evening I discovered a nice little online utility which converts HTML pages to pdf files. It would take less than an evening to convert the whole garden on Forces into pdf files uploaded to Joomla. The result would be something like an exact reproduction of Rose’s Garden on Forces.

These pdf files couldn’t be edited. But nobody wants to edit them. But they’d be embedded among files which could be edited, but only by people with the permission to do so. Anyone could read these files, but very few people could write them.

But as I’ve read today, I’ve realised that I only know how to do very simple things with Joomla. There are all sorts of strange things it can do, most of which I don’t really understand at all. I know what a web page is. And I know that a website is made up of lots of different pages linked together. But beyond that…

I sat by the river this afternoon. It was sunny, and warm. And I’d been reading Rose’s Garden:

“The smoker” chooses for his own gratification to introduce into his own personal micro-environment the agent that will do him harm. What we are trying to do is to persuade him that that voluntary act is not only a long term threat to his future, but also an inducement to others to adopt the same folly. We are in fact asking for an almost infinite number of acts at self-abnegation so that a dirty and dangerous habit can be eliminated from our society.”

Sir George E, Godber, M.D.,
Chief Medical Officer,
British Ministry of Health
London (link )

Seems to me that George Godber was trying to abolish sin, through an “almost infinite number of acts at self-abnegation.” The “dirty and dangerous habit” could be almost anything. Name your “dirty and dangerous habit.”

Sir George Godber, I learned from Rose’s Garden today, spent the 1960s railing against promiscuity and tobacco. He was, I also learned, a strict teetotaller. So why wasn’t he laying into alcohol as well? And cannabis? And rock ‘n’ roll music. And chocolate. And shiny, golden things.

I wonder how many people have set out to eradicate sinfulness from the world? Thousands, probably. And did any of them ever get anywhere?

And anyway what exactly is sinful and wrong about sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll? 99.999% of it is utterly harmless. It really is.

What these righteous zealots really can’t stand is the idea of anyone enjoying themselves.

Why is it that we pay attention to them? Why is it that, as soon as anyone stands up on their hind legs and starts denouncing promiscuity and alcohol and tobacco, everybody listens to them as if they’ve just announced some profound, eternal truth – that enjoying your life is a sin. Why do we stick these murderous ideas up on a pedestal? Why is it that people people who smoke tobacco (or cannabis or opium), and who enjoy a glass of beer or wine or cider or three, will all listen in mute silence as their habits are castigated by righteous killjoys?

Why?

Why don’t people get up and smash these bigots’ heads in with spades and shovels and hammers, and tell them to get lost? Why aren’t they in prison? Why aren’t they on death row awaiting death by slow strangulation?

It’s not us who should be fearing for our survival. It’s them.

But they’re not. Isn’t it weird that all these anti-human, anti-life killjoys have the moral high ground? It’s a bit like having murderers and rapists and child molesters in charge of morality, and teaching people to kill themselves.

These days I think that all the evil in the world is not done by drinkers and smokers, but by the people who’re trying to stop them.

One thing I know about George Godber: he’s dead. He died about 5 years ago. And good riddance, I say. I don’t want him back.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to George Godber

  1. Anonymous says:

    Godber was not peculiar. He was typical of a rabid antismoker with a bullying disposition. He had the same views on smoking as eugenics fanatics of early-1900s USA and Nazi Germany (as did others at the World [Eugenics] Conferences on Smoking and Health). Godber was a World Health[ist] Organization (Eugenics central) representative. The current antismoking crusade was initiated by the WHO and the American Cancer Society. Godber was the most likely leader of the antismoking onslaught post-WWII. However, he was “authorized” by the WHO which now has most countries signed up to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
    See the Godber Blueprint http://www.rampant-antismoking.com
    Anon1

  2. Anonymous says:

    Godber was not peculiar. He was typical of a rabid antismoker with a bullying disposition. He had the same views on smoking as eugenics fanatics of early-1900s USA and Nazi Germany (as did others at the World [Eugenics] Conferences on Smoking and Health). Godber was a World Health[ist] Organization (Eugenics central) representative. The current antismoking crusade was initiated by the WHO and the American Cancer Society. Godber was the most likely leader of the antismoking onslaught post-WWII. However, he was “authorized” by the WHO which now has most countries signed up to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
    See the Godber Blueprint http://www.rampant-antismoking.com
    Anon1

  3. Anonymous says:

    “Why don’t people get up and smash these bigots’ heads in with spades and shovels and hammers, and tell them to get lost?”
    Because we are civilised.
    We don’t question the right of everyone to have different opinions to our own.We carefully examine those opinions to see if they might in some ways be right.
    And while we are quietly considering their arguments, we find our heads are rolling in the ditch.
    The savages will always be on the winning side, at least for a while, because they just don’t care what we think.
    We accept compromise, they use that as a stepping stone.
    Rose

  4. Anonymous says:

    “Why don’t people get up and smash these bigots’ heads in with spades and shovels and hammers, and tell them to get lost?”
    Because we are civilised.
    We don’t question the right of everyone to have different opinions to our own.We carefully examine those opinions to see if they might in some ways be right.
    And while we are quietly considering their arguments, we find our heads are rolling in the ditch.
    The savages will always be on the winning side, at least for a while, because they just don’t care what we think.
    We accept compromise, they use that as a stepping stone.
    Rose

  5. Anonymous says:

    Anon1
    Its right there in pride of place, along with the obituaries and a bit of background.
    Rose

  6. Anonymous says:

    Anon1
    Its right there in pride of place, along with the obituaries and a bit of background.
    Rose

  7. Anonymous says:

    joomla has article->print/pdf/email functions built in to it ;)
    There’s a pref somewhere to enable the corresponding buttons in the headers.
    But for your project I think PHP would be the way to go. Joomla is kind of a behemoth for that sort of thing. The online service you mention probably do it the same way. There’s a php-class (read add-on functionality) for that sort of thing. But of course you’d have to know PHP :/
    Also, PDF’s *can* be edited/falsified, if that was what you wanted to prevent.

    I didn’t know about the garden, looks interesting. It could use a rss-feed though :)
    As for godber, probably a misguided neoplatonic through medieval christianity. As they all are. And since we all (more or less) have our base in christianity, it’s easy for these freaks to draw on the emotions of the uncritical/uneducated masses.
    People just need to be educated to be critical about these sort of things. But “science” is about to give them a lesson they won’t forget. ;)

  8. Anonymous says:

    joomla has article->print/pdf/email functions built in to it ;)
    There’s a pref somewhere to enable the corresponding buttons in the headers.
    But for your project I think PHP would be the way to go. Joomla is kind of a behemoth for that sort of thing. The online service you mention probably do it the same way. There’s a php-class (read add-on functionality) for that sort of thing. But of course you’d have to know PHP :/
    Also, PDF’s *can* be edited/falsified, if that was what you wanted to prevent.

    I didn’t know about the garden, looks interesting. It could use a rss-feed though :)
    As for godber, probably a misguided neoplatonic through medieval christianity. As they all are. And since we all (more or less) have our base in christianity, it’s easy for these freaks to draw on the emotions of the uncritical/uneducated masses.
    People just need to be educated to be critical about these sort of things. But “science” is about to give them a lesson they won’t forget. ;)

  9. Anonymous says:

    The comments thread on Dr Siegel’s blog is a wonderful source of views and evidence. People come at the problem from all manner of different angles, so I learn things that I would never have even thought of myself.
    If it wasn’t for the posters there, the Garden would be a very short piece on the plant, its relatives and known properties.
    Rose

  10. Anonymous says:

    The comments thread on Dr Siegel’s blog is a wonderful source of views and evidence. People come at the problem from all manner of different angles, so I learn things that I would never have even thought of myself.
    If it wasn’t for the posters there, the Garden would be a very short piece on the plant, its relatives and known properties.
    Rose

  11. Anonymous says:

    HTML to PDF conversion
    I use http://www.cutepdf.com/ (it’s free). With this you install it as a printer driver. When you want to save a page in your browser, you just press print as normal but choose the pdf driver and it saves the page as a file on your hard drive (nothing gets printed on the printer and you do not need to have a printer). It’s quicker than doing it online (once you have installed the driver). I use this quite a lot.
    Fredrik Eich

  12. Anonymous says:

    HTML to PDF conversion
    I use http://www.cutepdf.com/ (it’s free). With this you install it as a printer driver. When you want to save a page in your browser, you just press print as normal but choose the pdf driver and it saves the page as a file on your hard drive (nothing gets printed on the printer and you do not need to have a printer). It’s quicker than doing it online (once you have installed the driver). I use this quite a lot.
    Fredrik Eich

  13. Anonymous says:

    Usually, I notice the Godber types tend to have an affinity for GIMP suits and such like.
    As Adam Ant said “you don’t drink don’t smoke what do ya do” ?

  14. Anonymous says:

    Usually, I notice the Godber types tend to have an affinity for GIMP suits and such like.
    As Adam Ant said “you don’t drink don’t smoke what do ya do” ?

  15. Frank Davis says:

    I don’t know anything about PHP. What makes you think it’s more appropriate? But then I don’t really know that much about Joomla. Why do you call it a “behemoth”?
    I was trying to find some religious underpinning to Godber’s views, but turned up nothing. Yet he was non-smoking and non-drinking by the time he got to university. All of which suggests childhood influences, one of which may well have been religion.
    Frank

  16. Frank Davis says:

    I don’t know anything about PHP. What makes you think it’s more appropriate? But then I don’t really know that much about Joomla. Why do you call it a “behemoth”?
    I was trying to find some religious underpinning to Godber’s views, but turned up nothing. Yet he was non-smoking and non-drinking by the time he got to university. All of which suggests childhood influences, one of which may well have been religion.
    Frank

  17. Frank Davis says:

    I haven’t been there for a while. I got rather sick of Siegel’s fence-sitting attitude to Tobacco Control. He knows they’re lying, and he says so. But he clearly regards himself as one of them.
    Frank

  18. Frank Davis says:

    I haven’t been there for a while. I got rather sick of Siegel’s fence-sitting attitude to Tobacco Control. He knows they’re lying, and he says so. But he clearly regards himself as one of them.
    Frank

  19. Frank Davis says:

    Re: HTML to PDF conversion
    That sounds better than what I’ve got, which isn’t one click, but about 5.
    Frank

  20. Frank Davis says:

    Re: HTML to PDF conversion
    That sounds better than what I’ve got, which isn’t one click, but about 5.
    Frank

  21. Frank Davis says:

    I spent a while today writing about Godber. But I ended up getting more interested in something I found on The Godber Blueprint page. The piece on Godber can wait.
    Frank

  22. Frank Davis says:

    I spent a while today writing about Godber. But I ended up getting more interested in something I found on The Godber Blueprint page. The piece on Godber can wait.
    Frank

  23. Frank Davis says:

    We accept compromise, they use that as a stepping stone.
    So there should be no compromise.
    Frank

  24. Frank Davis says:

    We accept compromise, they use that as a stepping stone.
    So there should be no compromise.
    Frank

  25. junican says:

    Godber
    I’m afraid that this post is awfully long. It did not start out to be so. It grew and grew. The only good thing is that it may contain some element of a future idea that may be useful in combating the arch devil of nazi propaganda. I do not know.
    I will have to split it into two or more parts.
    To begin……
    Yes, even then, smoking was vilified – mostly in American comics. But every one saw this vilification as part of the general exaggeration of everything</i) in comics. No one took it I think that there is a very simple explanation for the acceptance of these speeches. I am pretty sure, Frank, that you will have been in a church where the priest has entered the pulpit and had a good go at sinners of one sort or another. I remember in the mid to late fifties (?) when the birth control pill first appeared, an encyclical (a letter from the pope to all the faithful) was read out which condemned the pill. I was too young at the time to understand the implication, but I can certainly imagine an awful lot of parishioners feeling rather guilty about what they got up to in bed.
    The key word there is GUILTY.
    When someone stands up and goes on about ‘BIG WICKEDNESSES’, we find it difficult, in our minds, not to feel guilty about our own ‘little wickednesses’. We slink out of church thankful that we have not been exposed. This ‘feeling’ was certainly exacerbated by the widows and spinsters, who lost no opportunity to rail against ‘this sexeral’ stuff all over the TV.
    Long before the smoking ban, I recall feeling slightly guilty about smoking. ‘Mens sana in corpore sana’ – a healthy mind in a healthy body’. And then there was the cost, with three small children to look after. But I reasoned that if I was paying 90% of my earning to look after my family, then, surely, I could have a bit of fun with the other 10%? That 10% also incorporated joint enjoyable activities with the wife.
    Thus, in my family and with my family, I was content – more or less – and so was herself.
    seriously.

  26. junican says:

    Godber
    I’m afraid that this post is awfully long. It did not start out to be so. It grew and grew. The only good thing is that it may contain some element of a future idea that may be useful in combating the arch devil of nazi propaganda. I do not know.
    I will have to split it into two or more parts.
    To begin……
    Yes, even then, smoking was vilified – mostly in American comics. But every one saw this vilification as part of the general exaggeration of everything</i) in comics. No one took it I think that there is a very simple explanation for the acceptance of these speeches. I am pretty sure, Frank, that you will have been in a church where the priest has entered the pulpit and had a good go at sinners of one sort or another. I remember in the mid to late fifties (?) when the birth control pill first appeared, an encyclical (a letter from the pope to all the faithful) was read out which condemned the pill. I was too young at the time to understand the implication, but I can certainly imagine an awful lot of parishioners feeling rather guilty about what they got up to in bed.
    The key word there is GUILTY.
    When someone stands up and goes on about ‘BIG WICKEDNESSES’, we find it difficult, in our minds, not to feel guilty about our own ‘little wickednesses’. We slink out of church thankful that we have not been exposed. This ‘feeling’ was certainly exacerbated by the widows and spinsters, who lost no opportunity to rail against ‘this sexeral’ stuff all over the TV.
    Long before the smoking ban, I recall feeling slightly guilty about smoking. ‘Mens sana in corpore sana’ – a healthy mind in a healthy body’. And then there was the cost, with three small children to look after. But I reasoned that if I was paying 90% of my earning to look after my family, then, surely, I could have a bit of fun with the other 10%? That 10% also incorporated joint enjoyable activities with the wife.
    Thus, in my family and with my family, I was content – more or less – and so was herself.
    seriously.

  27. junican says:

    What has gone wrong is that ‘the comical exaggeration of smoking harm’ has, somehow, ceased to be the subject matter of American comics and become the subject matter of learned theses (or rather, dodgy studies).
    The fact of the matter is this:
    I have been smoking, on average, 40 cigarettes a day since I was 20 years old. My wife has been smoking similarly since she was about 26 years old. Not only have we been ‘full on’ smoking, but we have also been passive smoking each others smoke at the same time. I am 71 and she is 69 – we are both breathing easy. Why have we not got lung cancer? Or, at least, heart problems. Or, at least, ……whatever.
    This fact is far more important than it seems. If a person who smokes heavily (as I do, or so they say) does not get lung cancer, or heart disease, or whatever, then the worst that the Chief Medical Officer can say is that SOME PEOPLE get these diseases (if in fact they can be described as ‘diseases’ – rather than ‘conditions’).
    But the difference between ‘diseases’ and ‘conditions’ is something that I am not sure about. I would certainly think of ‘diseases’ as being ‘infections’ by external agents – bacteria or viruses, or even the immune system attacking a person’s body without cause (except that it has been said that many of these ‘auto-immune attacks’ have their origin in some ‘bacteriological or viral’ attack in the past). ‘Conditions’ could be considered to be the effects of old age, for example, or even the result of ‘birth defects’, such as Siamese twins and such. Or the reason that, occasionally, an apparently healthy young man has a heart attack while playing rugby and dies. No one ever talks about that. ‘Conditions’ could have genetic origins.
    The fact that my wife and I are still in good health, more or less, at the age of 71 and 69, despite smoking 40 a day each and also passively smoking each others smoke (along with my appalling addiction to alcohol), MUST, scientifically, be the exception that disproves the rule. That is, the science does not stand up because an exception has been found. There are millions and millions of these exceptions.
    Thus, smoking harm, if it exists at all, is genetic. Also, it may well be true that Joll’s original research was contaminated by the effects of living in smog-filled cities and towns. No one knows.
    It really is dreadful how politicians have fallen into the trap. Clearly, it all started with the WHO agreement regarding tobacco control. One can easily imagine delegates (with the agreement of their governments) signing up. ‘It is the right thing to do!’ Obviously, by the time that the shit hits the fan and smoking bans are enforced and pubs close in their thousands and tourist go elsewhere, the original signatories have long since collected their grossly inflated pensions that we are all NOW paying for.
    I know that the deficit has to be reduced. My own personal opinion is that there is no quick fix. It really is not a political party thing – it is a NATIONAL thing. If this government had any courage at all, it would say that we are no longer going to pay money to the United Nations UNLESS we have been provided with justified accounts. No longer will we, the taxpayers, provide funds for Dr Panchuri to produce codswallop pseudo-scientific reports about global warming. The same thing should apply to the WHO. The purpose of the WHO is to combat malaria and such. How on earth did it get into the enjoyment of tobacco? Of all the evils in the world, I would have said that the enjoyment of tobacco is the least.
    The serious problem is POLITICIANS. I cannot help but think that they are so riddled with GUILT (expenses, employing wives and children, etc) that they lose control of their minds.
    Sorry to go on, Frank. I know that you don’t mind, but I feel GUILTY about wasting your time!
    One last thing. In the Telegraph Magazine for Saturday, there was an article called ‘Wildlife’ – a regular weekly photo collage of celebs in various situations. This Saturday’s edition (2. 10. 10) was about celebs smoking. There are pictures of Simon Cowell, Cheryll Cole, Madonna, Jerry Hall, Dot Cotton, Sienna Miller, etc smoking. I must ask, “Why is it not possible to have these celebs endorse the pleasure of tobacco?

  28. junican says:

    What has gone wrong is that ‘the comical exaggeration of smoking harm’ has, somehow, ceased to be the subject matter of American comics and become the subject matter of learned theses (or rather, dodgy studies).
    The fact of the matter is this:
    I have been smoking, on average, 40 cigarettes a day since I was 20 years old. My wife has been smoking similarly since she was about 26 years old. Not only have we been ‘full on’ smoking, but we have also been passive smoking each others smoke at the same time. I am 71 and she is 69 – we are both breathing easy. Why have we not got lung cancer? Or, at least, heart problems. Or, at least, ……whatever.
    This fact is far more important than it seems. If a person who smokes heavily (as I do, or so they say) does not get lung cancer, or heart disease, or whatever, then the worst that the Chief Medical Officer can say is that SOME PEOPLE get these diseases (if in fact they can be described as ‘diseases’ – rather than ‘conditions’).
    But the difference between ‘diseases’ and ‘conditions’ is something that I am not sure about. I would certainly think of ‘diseases’ as being ‘infections’ by external agents – bacteria or viruses, or even the immune system attacking a person’s body without cause (except that it has been said that many of these ‘auto-immune attacks’ have their origin in some ‘bacteriological or viral’ attack in the past). ‘Conditions’ could be considered to be the effects of old age, for example, or even the result of ‘birth defects’, such as Siamese twins and such. Or the reason that, occasionally, an apparently healthy young man has a heart attack while playing rugby and dies. No one ever talks about that. ‘Conditions’ could have genetic origins.
    The fact that my wife and I are still in good health, more or less, at the age of 71 and 69, despite smoking 40 a day each and also passively smoking each others smoke (along with my appalling addiction to alcohol), MUST, scientifically, be the exception that disproves the rule. That is, the science does not stand up because an exception has been found. There are millions and millions of these exceptions.
    Thus, smoking harm, if it exists at all, is genetic. Also, it may well be true that Joll’s original research was contaminated by the effects of living in smog-filled cities and towns. No one knows.
    It really is dreadful how politicians have fallen into the trap. Clearly, it all started with the WHO agreement regarding tobacco control. One can easily imagine delegates (with the agreement of their governments) signing up. ‘It is the right thing to do!’ Obviously, by the time that the shit hits the fan and smoking bans are enforced and pubs close in their thousands and tourist go elsewhere, the original signatories have long since collected their grossly inflated pensions that we are all NOW paying for.
    I know that the deficit has to be reduced. My own personal opinion is that there is no quick fix. It really is not a political party thing – it is a NATIONAL thing. If this government had any courage at all, it would say that we are no longer going to pay money to the United Nations UNLESS we have been provided with justified accounts. No longer will we, the taxpayers, provide funds for Dr Panchuri to produce codswallop pseudo-scientific reports about global warming. The same thing should apply to the WHO. The purpose of the WHO is to combat malaria and such. How on earth did it get into the enjoyment of tobacco? Of all the evils in the world, I would have said that the enjoyment of tobacco is the least.
    The serious problem is POLITICIANS. I cannot help but think that they are so riddled with GUILT (expenses, employing wives and children, etc) that they lose control of their minds.
    Sorry to go on, Frank. I know that you don’t mind, but I feel GUILTY about wasting your time!
    One last thing. In the Telegraph Magazine for Saturday, there was an article called ‘Wildlife’ – a regular weekly photo collage of celebs in various situations. This Saturday’s edition (2. 10. 10) was about celebs smoking. There are pictures of Simon Cowell, Cheryll Cole, Madonna, Jerry Hall, Dot Cotton, Sienna Miller, etc smoking. I must ask, “Why is it not possible to have these celebs endorse the pleasure of tobacco?

  29. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Godber
    Well, you almost got the hypertext right there. You just closed off the italic with a close-bracket rather than a close-angle-bracket. But at least it didn’t screw up all the subsequent comments. Otherwise I might have deleted it and replaced with the right markup.
    And you should know by now that you can write as much as you like here (although I might draw the line at a whole book).
    And I’m interested to learn that you have a Roman Catholic background. Me too!
    Frank

  30. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Godber
    Well, you almost got the hypertext right there. You just closed off the italic with a close-bracket rather than a close-angle-bracket. But at least it didn’t screw up all the subsequent comments. Otherwise I might have deleted it and replaced with the right markup.
    And you should know by now that you can write as much as you like here (although I might draw the line at a whole book).
    And I’m interested to learn that you have a Roman Catholic background. Me too!
    Frank

  31. Frank Davis says:

    but I feel GUILTY about wasting your time!
    Don’t feel guilty.
    If I don’t want to read what you say, I’ll tell you.
    But I thought your wife wasn’t too well these days.
    Frank

  32. Frank Davis says:

    but I feel GUILTY about wasting your time!
    Don’t feel guilty.
    If I don’t want to read what you say, I’ll tell you.
    But I thought your wife wasn’t too well these days.
    Frank

  33. Anonymous says:

    I am surprised that you remember that, Frank, since you must see many, many comments. Yes, she has MS and is ‘severely disabled’ thereby (not many people really understand just how awful it is not be able to walk at all!). However, once you accept that limitation (along with the other more minor problems, like dizziness and waterworks), if you use your intelligence, you can find ways around the problems. Suffice to say that we are off to Majorca for ten days next week. All organised – taxi to airport, help onto plane, taxi at the other end, specific room in hotel, friends in pub across the way, friends in various cafés, etc. Third time this year.
    Just for fun, if you do not mind me recounting this little tale, a district nurse called round at my request to sort out a little problem. We have a hoist to help raise my wife up to get into and out of chairs and such. When this lady came round, I had to operate the hoist because she ‘was not trained’ to operate the hoist (damn it! It is no more complex that pressing buttons on the TV remote!). Also, she had to don plastic gloves, an apron, rub grease of some sort into her hands, just to have a look (I do not want to go into detail – I am sure that you get the point). I don’t blame her at all – she is just obeying instructions. But is this not another blatant example of the hysteria which has overcome our country? All with the encouragement of the likes of Sir Liam Donaldson – and Godber before him.
    Anyway, thanks for your concern.

  34. Anonymous says:

    I am surprised that you remember that, Frank, since you must see many, many comments. Yes, she has MS and is ‘severely disabled’ thereby (not many people really understand just how awful it is not be able to walk at all!). However, once you accept that limitation (along with the other more minor problems, like dizziness and waterworks), if you use your intelligence, you can find ways around the problems. Suffice to say that we are off to Majorca for ten days next week. All organised – taxi to airport, help onto plane, taxi at the other end, specific room in hotel, friends in pub across the way, friends in various cafés, etc. Third time this year.
    Just for fun, if you do not mind me recounting this little tale, a district nurse called round at my request to sort out a little problem. We have a hoist to help raise my wife up to get into and out of chairs and such. When this lady came round, I had to operate the hoist because she ‘was not trained’ to operate the hoist (damn it! It is no more complex that pressing buttons on the TV remote!). Also, she had to don plastic gloves, an apron, rub grease of some sort into her hands, just to have a look (I do not want to go into detail – I am sure that you get the point). I don’t blame her at all – she is just obeying instructions. But is this not another blatant example of the hysteria which has overcome our country? All with the encouragement of the likes of Sir Liam Donaldson – and Godber before him.
    Anyway, thanks for your concern.

  35. Anonymous says:

    “Also, it may well be true that Doll’s original research was contaminated by the effects of living in smog-filled cities and towns. No one knows.”
    1953
    “Bessy Braddock, Labour MP for Liverpool Exchange, favoured an environmental explanation, and therefore found the urban–rural divide a barrier to acceptance of the smoking–lung cancer connection.
    ‘In view of the fact that cigarette and pipe smoking goes on all over the country, it is folly to say that it is the main cause of lung cancer.’
    “Dr Guy Scadding, taking part, expressed the views clearly:smoking cannot be called the cause of lung cancer, since non-smokers also get the disease, and moreover the increase in cigarette smoking is not likely to be the only cause of the increase in the lung cancer death rate.
    “The effect of smoking cannot explain the difference in mortality between town and country dwellers.”
    “The MRC, so it was reported to the Cabinet committee, had for the first time come to the conclusion that the smoking of tobacco had a direct causal relationship to lung cancer and therefore there was no alternative but to publicize their conclusions.
    It was the proposed inclusion in the MRC statement that up to 30% of lung cancer might be caused by air pollution which caused the greatest political alarm.
    This would give air pollution, the minutes record, ‘unwarranted prominence’.”
    The MRC had re-examined their draft and proposed to modify the references to atmospheric pollution which implied that it might be responsible for up to 30% of such deaths.
    The section would read instead, ‘on balance it seems likely that atmospheric pollution plays some part in causing the disease, but a relatively minor one in comparison with cigarette smoking.’
    http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926030-3.pdf
    Fear of political embarrassment led to government cover up of link between air
    pollution and lung cancer
    “A few years later, in 1957, the Medical Research Council was planning to issue a statement saying although smoking was a significant cause of lung cancer, up to 30% of cases might be caused by air pollution. But the Cabinet committee on cancer of the lung, fearful of another political embarrassment which could be caused by stressing the air pollution connection, asked the MRC to reconsider its statement. On 31 May 1957 a modified version was published, which asserted that although it was likely that atmospheric pollution did play a role in lung cancer, it was ‘a relatively minor one in comparison with cigarette smoking’.”
    http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2002/smogpollution.html
    A strange sort of science where the scientists were quite happy to alter the figures rather than fight tooth and nail for scientific “truth” don’t you think?
    The “truth” was even more elastic before the MRC’s report.
    “To cover up the true extent of the smog disaster the government invented an influenza epidemic. In fact research has shown there was no epidemic and that the thousands more people who continued to die for the next four months did so because of the air pollution.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4557923-110826,00.html
    Hardly fills you with confidence in the science of the time.
    Rose

  36. Anonymous says:

    “Also, it may well be true that Doll’s original research was contaminated by the effects of living in smog-filled cities and towns. No one knows.”
    1953
    “Bessy Braddock, Labour MP for Liverpool Exchange, favoured an environmental explanation, and therefore found the urban–rural divide a barrier to acceptance of the smoking–lung cancer connection.
    ‘In view of the fact that cigarette and pipe smoking goes on all over the country, it is folly to say that it is the main cause of lung cancer.’
    “Dr Guy Scadding, taking part, expressed the views clearly:smoking cannot be called the cause of lung cancer, since non-smokers also get the disease, and moreover the increase in cigarette smoking is not likely to be the only cause of the increase in the lung cancer death rate.
    “The effect of smoking cannot explain the difference in mortality between town and country dwellers.”
    “The MRC, so it was reported to the Cabinet committee, had for the first time come to the conclusion that the smoking of tobacco had a direct causal relationship to lung cancer and therefore there was no alternative but to publicize their conclusions.
    It was the proposed inclusion in the MRC statement that up to 30% of lung cancer might be caused by air pollution which caused the greatest political alarm.
    This would give air pollution, the minutes record, ‘unwarranted prominence’.”
    The MRC had re-examined their draft and proposed to modify the references to atmospheric pollution which implied that it might be responsible for up to 30% of such deaths.
    The section would read instead, ‘on balance it seems likely that atmospheric pollution plays some part in causing the disease, but a relatively minor one in comparison with cigarette smoking.’
    http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-926030-3.pdf
    Fear of political embarrassment led to government cover up of link between air
    pollution and lung cancer
    “A few years later, in 1957, the Medical Research Council was planning to issue a statement saying although smoking was a significant cause of lung cancer, up to 30% of cases might be caused by air pollution. But the Cabinet committee on cancer of the lung, fearful of another political embarrassment which could be caused by stressing the air pollution connection, asked the MRC to reconsider its statement. On 31 May 1957 a modified version was published, which asserted that although it was likely that atmospheric pollution did play a role in lung cancer, it was ‘a relatively minor one in comparison with cigarette smoking’.”
    http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2002/smogpollution.html
    A strange sort of science where the scientists were quite happy to alter the figures rather than fight tooth and nail for scientific “truth” don’t you think?
    The “truth” was even more elastic before the MRC’s report.
    “To cover up the true extent of the smog disaster the government invented an influenza epidemic. In fact research has shown there was no epidemic and that the thousands more people who continued to die for the next four months did so because of the air pollution.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4557923-110826,00.html
    Hardly fills you with confidence in the science of the time.
    Rose

  37. Anonymous says:

    Not only that, but we couldn’t afford to import tobacco anyway.
    “The study now commenced. It was not happening in a vacuum. The economy was struggling: the winter of 1947 had been one of the bitterest on record, rationing was becoming tighter, and dollar imports – such as 88% of the tobacco consumed in Britain – were tightly restricted. The April 1947 budget increased the price of cigarettes by a shilling – about 40-45% – leading to protests in Parliament about the hardship caused to pensioners. A Treasury official recorded the next day: ‘The Chancellor [Hugh Dalton] has been thinking over the question of a possible concession on tobacco to old age pensioners in the light of yesterday’s debate, and he has come to the pretty firm conclusion that a special arrangement of some kind must be devised . . .’ After much debate tokens worth 2s 0d a week (10 cigarettes cost about 1s 8d at the time) were issued to pensioners who declared themselves to be habitual users of tobacco or snuff[13] – a concession terminated only in 1958[14].
    All purchases of US tobacco were stopped on 22 October. In December 1947, Sir Edward Bridges, Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, wrote to Sir John Woods, his opposite number at the Board of Trade: ‘The Chancellor [Sir Stafford Cripps] has given instructions that we should consider what action should be taken in the April Budget in the light of the probability that we shall not be able to afford any purchases of tobacco at all next year.’
    http://www.denialdelay.org.uk/prologue.htm
    1956
    “As we all know, the expenditure of dollars on tobacco is one of our most serious problems.”
    http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1956-06-05a.880.3
    Mr Frank Beswick ( uxbridge) in a debate on removing the Old Age Pensioners tobacco tokens, to reclaim £2.25m for the Treasury.
    The concession was given in 1947 to insulate the pensioners from the effects of a massive tobacco tax rise, while coincidentally Richard Doll was working for the MRC.
    Much better to persuade the public to give up tobacco voluntarily.
    The financial burden would just disappear without creating too many waves.
    But it appears that the public weren’t sufficiently convinced.
    SECOND WORLD CONFERENCE ON SMOKING AND HEALTH – 1971
    “There was a feeling on the part of many participants that fear had failed as an instrument of persuasion, that apathy among the public had developed with respect to claims concerning smoking and health and that, in many instances, the matter had been cast in terms of morals rather than health.”
    http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=ica61e00&page=1
    15.
    The Principle in an Anti-Smoking Cure and the Introduction of the Measuring of Carbon Monoxide.
    Describes use of carbon monoxide measurements to scare patients.”
    http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/guildford/pdf/109/00011035.pdf
    Rose

  38. Anonymous says:

    Not only that, but we couldn’t afford to import tobacco anyway.
    “The study now commenced. It was not happening in a vacuum. The economy was struggling: the winter of 1947 had been one of the bitterest on record, rationing was becoming tighter, and dollar imports – such as 88% of the tobacco consumed in Britain – were tightly restricted. The April 1947 budget increased the price of cigarettes by a shilling – about 40-45% – leading to protests in Parliament about the hardship caused to pensioners. A Treasury official recorded the next day: ‘The Chancellor [Hugh Dalton] has been thinking over the question of a possible concession on tobacco to old age pensioners in the light of yesterday’s debate, and he has come to the pretty firm conclusion that a special arrangement of some kind must be devised . . .’ After much debate tokens worth 2s 0d a week (10 cigarettes cost about 1s 8d at the time) were issued to pensioners who declared themselves to be habitual users of tobacco or snuff[13] – a concession terminated only in 1958[14].
    All purchases of US tobacco were stopped on 22 October. In December 1947, Sir Edward Bridges, Permanent Secretary at the Treasury, wrote to Sir John Woods, his opposite number at the Board of Trade: ‘The Chancellor [Sir Stafford Cripps] has given instructions that we should consider what action should be taken in the April Budget in the light of the probability that we shall not be able to afford any purchases of tobacco at all next year.’
    http://www.denialdelay.org.uk/prologue.htm
    1956
    “As we all know, the expenditure of dollars on tobacco is one of our most serious problems.”
    http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1956-06-05a.880.3
    Mr Frank Beswick ( uxbridge) in a debate on removing the Old Age Pensioners tobacco tokens, to reclaim £2.25m for the Treasury.
    The concession was given in 1947 to insulate the pensioners from the effects of a massive tobacco tax rise, while coincidentally Richard Doll was working for the MRC.
    Much better to persuade the public to give up tobacco voluntarily.
    The financial burden would just disappear without creating too many waves.
    But it appears that the public weren’t sufficiently convinced.
    SECOND WORLD CONFERENCE ON SMOKING AND HEALTH – 1971
    “There was a feeling on the part of many participants that fear had failed as an instrument of persuasion, that apathy among the public had developed with respect to claims concerning smoking and health and that, in many instances, the matter had been cast in terms of morals rather than health.”
    http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=ica61e00&page=1
    15.
    The Principle in an Anti-Smoking Cure and the Introduction of the Measuring of Carbon Monoxide.
    Describes use of carbon monoxide measurements to scare patients.”
    http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/guildford/pdf/109/00011035.pdf
    Rose

  39. Pingback: Bye Bye Sally | Frank Davis

  40. Pingback: The Bullying Bastards in Tobacco Control | 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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.