Big Bad Tobacco

The antismokers over on Liberal Vision were very quick to accuse commenters of working for Big Tobacco. Professor Robert West said:

Some of the posts above have all the hallmarks of an orchestrated attack by the tobacco industry which is deeply concerned that the activities of ASH will damage their revenues.

Somehow or other over the past 50 years, Big Tobacco has become the very embodiment of the devious, lying, corrupt merchant of death. I doubt if even armaments manufacturers have quite such a bad name.

In a long piece in Rolling Stone last week, Al Gore was comparing global warming sceptics to Big Tobacco (my added emphases):

But whatever the cause, the referee appears not to notice that the Polluters and Ideologues are trampling all over the “rules” of democratic discourse. They are financing pseudoscientists whose job is to manufacture doubt about what is true and what is false; buying elected officials wholesale with bribes that the politicians themselves have made “legal” and can now be made in secret; spending hundreds of millions of dollars each year on misleading advertisements in the mass media; hiring four anti-climate lobbyists for every member of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. (Question: Would Michael Jordan have been a star if he was covered by four defensive players every step he took on the basketball court?)

This script, of course, is not entirely new: A half-century ago, when Science and Reason established the linkage between cigarettes and lung diseases, the tobacco industry hired actors, dressed them up as doctors, and paid them to look into television cameras and tell people that the linkage revealed in the Surgeon General’s Report was not real at all. The show went on for decades, with more Americans killed each year by cigarettes than all of the U.S. soldiers killed in all of World War II.

This time, the scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every major professional scientific society related to the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged “unequivocal.”

Nor is it even as if global warming alarmists are the only ones to compare their opponents to Big Tobacco. The sceptics do it too. Here’s Fox News on NASA’s James Hansen:


And here’s SPPI in 2007:

“Newsweek appears a naively willing party to a sophisticated but unsuccessful campaign strikingly similar to the tobacco industry’s callous 40-year campaign challenging the established causative link between smoking and fatal diseases such as lung cancer. This strategy provides a positive “pro-science” public stance that masks the ignominious activity of institutional and professional persecution of numerous scientists whose honest work casts legitimate doubt upon the more alarmist projections of the supposed “consensus.”

Like the tobacco industry, this campaign (to which Newsweek has made itself party) has:

♥ “Manufactured uncertainty and fear by stridently proclaiming certainty and consensus based on dubious and uncertain modeled results…

♥ “Adopted a strategy of information laundering by acting as a seemingly independent and respectable front…

♥ “Ignored or misrepresented peer-reviewed scientific findings or cherry-picked facts…

♥ “Attempted to shift the focus away from research based on observation with misleading charges that journalistic balance … is the enemy of free of speech,…

♥ “Stifled legitimate debate…

♥ “Placed bad politics and deliberate misinformation before good science and rational understanding.”

I must confess that I don’t know that much about Big Tobacco’s dark history, because I’ve spent most of my time over the past few years looking at its antismoking opponents in Tobacco Control, who (for me at least) now embody everything that is devious, lying, and corrupt. So much so, in fact, that I’ve come to wonder whether this image of Big Bad Tobacco has been the painstaking construction of Tobacco Control, slowly built up over several decades, despite every flailing effort by the tobacco companies to neutralise it.

I remember, for example, seeing the CEOs of several tobacco companies stand up before the US Congress and declare, one after the other, that they did not believe that smoking caused lung cancer. And back then, even though I was a smoker, I wondered how they had the nerve to say something so contradictory to what everybody knew was true. It was almost like saying that the world was flat. Everybody knew it wasn’t.

There are quite a few other stories about Big Tobacco that I’ve heard down the years, but as far as I can see (and I’m happy to be corrected) their principal ‘crime’ was  to deny the orthodox medical view of smoking as the cause of lung cancer – much like it’s the crime of global warming sceptics these days to deny the consensus of opinion within the climate science community on global warming. Everybody knows that that’s happening too. And everybody knows that it’s the oil companies who are trying to suppress the truth.

In both cases these are large and profitable corporations which have come under attack from a few grassroot pressure groups (like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, GASP, etc.) It’s a David versus Goliath battle, which plucky little David somehow manages to win, cheered on by everybody in the audience.

These days, however, it seems to me that David has metamorphosed into Goliath. There are huge amounts of tax money funding antismoking organisations, and there are huge amounts of tax money funding environmentalist organisations. And both have the ear of governments around the world, and use their influence to drive legislation (e.g. smoking bans, carbon emission targets, etc.).

But, even though they have become the political establishment, they still masquerade as David fighting Goliath. Here’s Robert West again (my added emphasis):

It is sad to see people writing on behalf of a vastly wealthy industry that manufactures and very heavily promotes a product that ruins the lives of so many millions of people, and attacking an organisation that on a shoestring has done more to save lives of our citizens than any other that I can think of in the past half a century.

Yes, Deborah Arnott, with her £60,000ish a year job as director of ASH, is running on a shoestring. Or, at least, that’s how she’d like to be perceived: as working for a struggling charity with one old typewriter, and supported solely by postal orders sent weekly by a couple of old ladies in Rotherham who lost their husbands to lung cancer 40 years ago. Because it’s very important to continue to look like you’re still David fighting an unequal battle against Goliath, with only a couple of stones to throw against his vast, armoured bulk, even if you actually have a heavy machine gun, and used it to turn Goliath into bloody pulp two or three decades ago. Because if the audience ever gets wind of how it really is these days, they’re quite likely to switch their allegiance to the other side.

I don’t know whether there’s ever been a movie that has explored this theme. Like maybe a version of Robin Hood where he not only defeats the Sheriff of Nottingham, but takes over his job, and becomes even more villainous than he ever was, while Friar Tuck becomes the Archbishop of Canterbury, and is even worse. If there isn’t, there ought to be. Because we’re living in such times.

The main thing is to demonise your opponent. If you can make him seem cruel and heartless and greedy, then you’ll have the audience on your side, and you’ll be winning. It’s important to be seen to be fighting against someone like, say, Osama bin Laden, with a long beard and cruel eyebrows and fleshy lips, who lives in a cave in Afghanistan and commands millions of obedient suicide bombers bent on the destruction of Western Civilisation and the complete subservience of women.

Perception is everything, it seems. And perceptions can change. It’s entirely plausible that one day – when it’s been found that smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer, but something else does – that Tobacco Control will start to look like a bunch of vicious Nazi thugs who dishonestly and unfairly demonised both the blameless tobacco business (upon which America’s fortune was originally built) and its equally blameless and friendly and law-abiding customers – simply to line their own pockets.

But it’ll need a grassroot organisation of smokers, armed with only a few old laptops running Windows 98, drinking cheap Co-op whisky from dirty glasses, tapping away alone at 3:30 in the morning, and driven only by burning anger at what has been done to them and their friends.

And where the hell do you find people like that?

About the archivist

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Big Bad Tobacco

  1. Frank fighting smoking bans and nazi propaganda dont get much more cheap than one computer and no budget!

    Yet you add up how many single computers fighting the nazis each and everyday?

    You start to get the jist of why ASH and the rest are on the DEFENSIVE instead of on the attack!

    A force of one multiplied by thousands and readers telling others hey its all bullshit about second hand smoke……..the populace begins to scrutinize the government and then it starts to make waves…… ASH feeling the waves…….you bet!

  2. alanx says:

    “We will come from the shadows . . . “

  3. Walt says:

    Slowly slowly (perhaps) the press catches on?

    Financial Times (Christopher Caldwell) article on the graphic warnings. It’s filled with terrific lines, eg

    “They [the new labels] reflect an ideology-driven habit of mind: if someone is not following your orders, it must be because you are not yelling loud enough. They are disrespectful, dehumanising and abusive of law-abiding citizens. They are the sign of a governing class that has lost its sense of proportion and its sense of accountability ”

    “William Corr, an anti-tobacco activist who is now deputy secretary of Health and Human Services, said recently that these ads “tell the truth”. But he is right only in the sense that pornography “tells the truth” about sex, or propaganda “tells the truth” about war. ”

    Read it. A lot more of Caldwell’s on-target hits.

  4. Frank Koza says:

    “And where the hell do you find people like that?”

    Perhaps there are more of us out there “armed with only a few old laptops running Windows 98, drinking cheap Co-op whisky from dirty glasses, tapping away alone at 3:30 in the morning, and driven only by burning anger at what has been done to them and their friends” than you could imagine?

  5. Bill Gibson says:

    This proves an interesting read … the information has been passed to the Ohio State Legislators for investigation and the US Congress has been alerted

  6. Bill Gibson says:

    Robert West is included here as are other notable names

    • Frank Davis says:

      From your link:

      Robert West undertakes research and consultancy for companies that develop and manufacture smoking cessation medications. He has a share of a patent for a novel nicotine delivery device. He is a trustee of QUIT. His research is funded mostly by Cancer Research UK.

      I didn’t know he worked to help develop smoking cessation products

      • Rose says:

        82% think nicotine causes cancer – Getting the facts right about NRT – 2005

        “A recent survey has revealed the worrying lack of knowledge about nicotine and smoking. 82% of people think nicotine causes cancer and a third believe NRT is unsafe because it contains nicotine.
        Even the professionals seem unclear as (45%) of GPs questioned believe that nicotine causes cancer.

        Smokers who want to give up may be missing out on one of the most effective ways to stop because of the myths surrounding nicotine. Negative associations such as ‘nicotine stained teeth’ are the prime example of these misperceptions, when in fact it is the tar in cigarettes and not the nicotine that stains.

        Commenting on the research, Professor Robert West, Professor of Health Psychology, Cancer Research UK said, “The confusion surrounding nicotine, shown by these survey results, present a barrier to NRT which can double a smoker’s chances of quitting successfully.
        It is essential that people are provided with the facts and that healthcare professionals are accurate with the language of nicotine and smoking”.

  7. Mike F says:

    FD quote: I’ve come to wonder whether this image of Big Bad Tobacco has been the painstaking construction of Tobacco Control, slowly built up over several decades, despite every flailing effort by the tobacco companies to neutralise it.


    Double bingo!!

    Who were the liars? Tobacco or anti tobacco? Who were (and are) the real scientists? Judge for yourself.

    From maybe 1976.

    Page 3:
    One aspect which makes a discussion of this controversy so very difficult is, that it is fraught with so much emotionalism. Many, otherwise sober and logical, physicians and other scientists seem to lose all sense of measure and perspective when it comes to talking about smoking and health. Now, this emotionalism is such, that the anti-cigarette forces often abuse those who try to present a more objective and more sober point of view, even threatening them in their livelihood, and particularly accusing them of serving “merchants of death” or serving “vested interests.” But, here we should not forget, that many of the physicians and other scientists who allege that cigarette smoking is responsible for shortening the lifespan of smokers, and that it is, mainly or at least in part, responsible for so many medical ailments, equally represent “vested interests”, because their scientific reputation and their livelihood depend on just that.

    However, there seem to be lately some changes in that onesidedness, because a few of these scientists no longer concentrate exclusively on cigarettes, but are devoting their attention to our daily food, and I am not talking about food additives or pesticides or other contaminants; I’m talking about the food themselves, such as meats, vegetables, dairy products and their main ingredients, such as proteins, sugars, starches, fats, and even vitamins….

    Page 5:
    Similarly, no component or group of components, as found in smoke, has ever been proven to be the cause of any disease in man. Analogously, it is, at this time, impossible to exonerate unequivocally any of the smoke components, singled out by the antitobacco forces, of any involvement in the human diseases allegedly linked to smoking.

    Just briefly at this point, this is why, in my judgment, it is very hazardous to modify cigarettes, and at the same time to seemingly offer what could be construed to be an, at least implicit, warranty of safety. Fortunately, in the U.S., all members of our Industry have too high a sense of social responsibility to fall into that latter trap.

    [MF: I wonder what Stan Glantz would say about the last sentence.]

    Modification of cigarettes based on mere conjectures is, “by definition”, devoid of meaningful scientific merit – not the least because a series of contradictory remedies are suggested to this Industry. Most of our adversaries recommend lower “tar” and nicotine. Others recommend only lower nicotine. Still different recommendations suggest only lower “tar”, but leave the nicotine unchanged.

    On the other hand, as late as 1965, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the Surgeon General took the position, that “while it seems at least plausible that cigarettes with lower tar and nicotine may present lesser health hazards, there is presently no proof that this is so”, (3): they changed their mind in 1966; how do we know whether they might not change their mind again in 1977?

    Page 9:
    Now, all these reports by the Surgeon General are rather onesided, in that they are very heavily weighted against cigarettes and tobacco in general, and, more or less, ignore or play down any contrary evidence, no matter how solid.

    Page 10:
    In 1968, the then Secretary of the U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, made a gesture and asked the Industry to present its point of view…. A group of us…labored many weeks… to put together a comprehensive report. However, all those efforts were in vain and our report was completely ignored by the Government.

    In the course of the U. S. Senate Hearings, held in February 1972, (7a), the Chairman asked Dr. Sommers…for a list of references omitted from the U. S. Government reports on smoking and health, and Dr. Sommers supplied a collection of almost 2,000 references…. However, the next report was only slightly less flagrantly biased. I am mentioning this merely as an illustration of the difficulties of those who try to present a more objective scientific point of view. This applies regardless of whether such scientific studies are or are not supported by the tobacco industry.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Many, otherwise sober and logical, physicians and other scientists seem to lose all sense of measure and perspective when it comes to talking about smoking and health.

      It’s strange that. The same goes for a lot of ordinary and otherwise sensible people. Like as if words like “smoking” and “tobacco” trigger some conditioned response, like Pavlov’s salivating dogs. How was it done? And to so many people?

      • Morningstar says:

        But is this not half the point !

        People have been conditioned to think that (for instance) ‘passive smoking’ is a danger to themselves, their children and thier long lost uncle in Australia ! If you mention that passive smoking has more independant studies showing that it has no discernable effect outside of the polutants found in the natural air around them (as per WHO study) – then they look at you like you are a complete loonatic !

        It is all done through long term conditioning – especially since before the ‘internet’ released people to actually investigate and query the reports. the anti smoking brigade has been indoctrinating the masses for 50 or so years ! Getting even 10% of the brainwashed to accept that they have been brainwashed is probably a hundred years war – because they have taken to brainwashing the people around themselves.

  8. “the tobacco industry hired actors, dressed them up as doctors”

    Why would they need to do that when there were a multitude of real doctors at the time who smoked, and believed the evidence to be flawed? Sounds BS to me, Mr Gore.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Maybe he meant those ads they ran, with doctors singing the praises of one brand or other of cigarettes. We never had them in the UK, but I think they were a staple in the USA for many years. Maybe some US commentator can enlighten us.

      • churchmouse says:

        Having grown up in the US, I can attest that most doctors of my acquaintance did, indeed, smoke. My family didn’t know a single one who denounced it, even if they were non-smokers. It was a choice.

        There was no negative perception for many years (probably up until the mid-1970s), even when the first anti-smoking leaflet went into every mailbox in America (1963 or 1964, IIRC). I still have the one delivered to our house. They were largely ignored at the time, although the content was informative — not hectoring (or hysterical). But, you wouldn’t have hectored then — just not the done thing. Americans prided themselves then on keeping their emotions in check, relying on reasoned debate instead. Most television programmes featured presenters or actors smoking, generally cigarettes or a pipe. Perfectly normal. Objections were raised to cigars, of which I still have bad memories.

      • Frank: It IS bullshit. Tobacco companies actively recruited doctors who doubted the science of the time, it wasn’t a difficult thing to do in the 50s/60s. No paid-for actors were required, there were far too many medical sources – at the time – willing to give their services for free.

        Gore is talking out of his lying arse.

  9. Rose says:

    From what I’ve read, it appears that when the Standard Oil and it’s various companies came under suspicion of causing death and disease, having already set up a medical foundation to sell their products, through various oil funded scientists, they pointed the finger at tobacco, who seem to have been taken unawares by the accusation.

    Caught on the back foot, they had to start defending themselves.

    Long-term effect:
    “The tobacco industry is becoming increasingly disturbed by industries which are using smoking as a cover-up for their problems in complying with the Clean Air Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
    Tobacco executives have noted efforts by the oil industry, the automobile industry and others to hide their pollution behind a tobacco smoke screen.”

    Adding to their suspicion is foot dragging of the National Cancer Advisory Board in acting on environmental and occupational cancer, which some scientists and environmental activists regard as ignored and “unindicted co-conspirators” in the case against cancer.
    The NCAB is much more vigorous in its almost single-minded persecution of smoking.

    Precedent effect: Yielding to pressure from the NCAB in regulating cigarettes will open a Pandora’s Box.
    Will the White House want to deal with similar advisory board “scientific assessments” to provide the basis for the regulation of auto exhaust hydrocarbons, occupational fumes, sugar content of breakfast food, etc., etc.

    The membership of the NCAB and the President’s Cancer Panel lends credibility to the tobacco industry’s fears. At the least there is ground for an appearance of possible conflict of interest. For example:
    Benno Schmidt; Chairman of the President’s Cancer Panel, is on the Board of Directors of four oil companies.
    Jonathan Rhoads is a past president of the American Cancer Society, which GM tycoons Alfred P. Sloan and Charles Kettering set up and nurtured.
    In the early 1950’s the ACS was looking at both cigarette smoking and air pollution as possible causes of lung cancer, but soon dropped air pollution as a target.”

    It seems to have been a constant battle between the environmental oncologists and anti-tobacco who not only had the religious moralists and the oil/pharma companies behind them but industry and government too.
    Pollution being the price of progress, if you could wriggle out of compensation claims by blaming the victim for his personal habits rather than the toxic environment he lived and worked in, so much the better.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Pollution being the price of progress, if you could wriggle out of compensation claims by blaming the victim for his personal habits rather than the toxic environment he lived and worked in, so much the better.

      Well, yes. It reminds me of how, over 50 years ago, one of my school classrooms was decorated with beautiful posters showing varieties of marine and animal life. They were works of art, lovingly hand drawn. Who produced them? Shell Oil. They probably sent them out free to schools all over the world. Over 50 years ago, companies like Shell were positioning themselves as friends of the environment., in ways that I don’t remember Big Tobacco ever doing.

  10. Rose says:

    Of course if you had no idea of the plant chemistry it was quite reasonable to believe the scientists when they said it would kill you.
    As anti-tobacco only appears to have found out about the chemistry in 1993 when it was pointed out to them, instead of considering their position in the light of this information,they then appeared to have used it to intensify their own campaign.

    Exposure to Second-Hand Smoke Widespread

    “Nearly 9 out of 10 non-smoking Americans are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS, or second-hand smoke), as measured by the levels of cotinine in their blood, according to a study conducted by HHS’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    The data, reported by CDC in this week’s edition of the “Journal of the American Medical Association,” shows measurable levels of cotinine in the blood of 88 percent of all non-tobacco users. The presence of cotinine, a chemical the body metabolizes from nicotine, is documentation that a person has been exposed to tobacco smoke.”

    Well I suppose that they believe that everything is fair in love and war.

    Having known the rudiments of the chemistry and it’s relation to the nightshade vegetables since I was a very young gardener, it’s infuriating to see what they have been up to.
    If they think of it at all, I don’t think most of them give a damn that their misdirection also casts a shadow over food.

    “Many commonly and widely consumed vegetables of the nightshade family (Solanaceae) such as potatoes, tomatoes, eggplants and capsicums naturally contain low levels of nicotine. Nicotine has also been detected in cauliflower and tea – two non-solanaceous plants. Recently there have been a number of attempts overseas to deliver nicotine medications presented as food, such as in bottled water or in lollipops.

    A concern expressed by health authorities is that the addition of tobacco or nicotine in food may promote or legitimise the smoking of tobacco or the use of smokeless tobacco products. VicHealth proposed a modified Option 2 – Allow the use of Nicotiana species in all foods but restrict the level of nicotine to the level demonstrated to be safe and not to be therapeutic or psychoactive.” ?

    “The option was raised to prevent foods such as the nightshades, known to naturally contain low levels of nicotine, from being banned.”

    Click to access P278_Nicotine_FAR_Final.pdf

    That they dared to even consider the possibility of banning our food, strikes me as unbelievable arrogance.

  11. Rose says:

    How I miss preview.

    Frank, could you fix that quote from food standards for me so I look slightly less incompetent than I am.

    • Frank Davis says:

      What’s wrong with it?

      • Rose says:

        It’s full of breaks where I copied it from Rose’s Garden.

        By the way, do you remember them wheeling out Richard Doll from time to time over the years to assure us that man made chemicals were harmless?
        When I was young I believed every word that man said, except what he said about the tobacco plant.

      • Rose says:

        Much better, thank you.

        I was just thinking, anyone born after 1970 is at a huge disadvantage in understanding all this because they never saw, or worse smelt, those killer, toxic industrial smogs that the cigarette theory was meant to distract people from.

  12. Gary K. says:

    ‘BIG TOBACCO”; well, just how BIG are those companies as compared to drug companies ???

    Market cap as of today:
    RJ Reynolds tobacco = 22 billion dollars
    Lorillard tobacco = 16 billion dollars

    Pfizer drugs = 159 billion dollars
    Johnson and Johnson drugs = 179 billion dollars

    Rose mentioned Standard Oil,they are now Exxon and they have a market cap of 384 billion dollars.

    As for Doc Doll, here is a bit about his Doctors Study:

    Page 6

    Age-standardized mortality per 100,000 from lung cancer and coronary heart disease among cigarette users in a cohort study of British Male Physicians. At baseline, 83% of physicians were smokers.

    (from Hennekens & Buring Epidemiology in Medicine – Data from Doll and Peto Br Med J 1976;2:1525.)

    Annual mortality rate per 100,000

    Lung Cancer…………. Coronary Heart Disease

    Cigarette smokers…. 140……………………………….669

    Curious thing about the claims that smoking causes lung cancer death and coronary heart disease death:
    Smokers have 99.9% of non-smokers chances of NOT dying from lung cancer and 99.7% of non-smokers chances of NOT dying from coronary heart disease.

    Sooo, smoking is claimed to ’cause’ those diseases;but, a smoker is just as apt,as a non-smoker, to NOT die from them!!

  13. Gary K. says:

    As for the 450,000 deaths caused by smoking:
    See the table here:

    The CDC says there are 19 ‘smoking related’ diseases and there are a total of about 1,300,000 deaths from those 19 diseases.

    The CDC further shows that 393,000 of those deaths are attributed(caused) to smoking,ie, happen to smokers(current+ex).

    393,000 is 30% of 1.3 million; so, 70% of the deaths from smoking caused diseases happen to non-smokers!!!
    Current smokers are 20% of the adult population and ex-smokers are 21%.
    Smokers(current+ex) are 41% of the adult population; so, 41% of the adults account for ONLY 30% of the adult deaths from those diseases.

    The 59% of the adults that are non-smokers account for 70% of the deaths from those smoking ’caused’ diseases!!!

  14. Junican says:

    The problem with looking back at what Big Tobacco did in the past is that you lose the context of the times. How far do you have to go back to see pretend doctors with white coats and pens in their top pockets advertising stuff? Or pretend scientists wearing white coats with pens in their top pockets? Not very long, I think! In fact, I think that they are still at it.

    In the context of the times, as best I can recall, there really was very little real, actual evidence of tobacco harm. As I recall, the only perceived effect of tobacco smoking was that it might make a person breathless and cough a lot.

    At some point, anti-tobacco latched onto the idea of getting individuals to sue tobacco companies if they suffered from lung cancer. They tried and tried, and finally succeeded in a court case – but not that smoking causes cancer, but that the tobacco company did not advise that smoking might cause cancer, even though it knew that smoking might cause cancer. I think that the tobacco company defence revolved around a plea that ‘it was common knowledge that smoking might cause cancer’, but the judge (and jury?) did not accept that argument.

    It was at that point that the floodgates opened. In the words of the IRA, “You have to get lucky every time – I only have to get lucky once”

  15. Walt says:

    My father was a doctor. My mother smoked Camels. My father (who didn’t smoke) got a phonecall one day: “Doctor, if we sent you a carton of Camels, would you smoke them?” My father said Yes. My mother got the Camels. Gospel-true story.

  16. Walt says:

    Crap. I forgot the whole point-of-it punchline. After he said Yes, the caller said: “Thank you. More doctors smoke camels.” Which, I think, was their slogan.

No need to log in

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

You are commenting using your 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.