Doctors In Name Only

H/T to Chris Snowdon for reporting something that had slipped under my radar:

On Saturday at the sixty-fifth World Health Assembly – a meeting of the 194 member countries of the World Health Organisation – ‘delegates approved the development of a global monitoring framework for the prevention and control of NCDs, including indicators and a set of global targets. Member States agreed to adopt a global target of a 25 per cent reduction in premature mortality from non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases by 2025.’

This is the place, as far as I can see, where most of the world’s legislation is made, by people whom nobody elected. Orders are sent out to the the 194 member countries, and they obey them.

And the current chief honcho of the WHO is someone called Margaret Chan. Or, to give her her full name, Margaret Chan Fung Fu-chun, born in 1947 in Hong Kong. When I tried to pronounce the last three words, it sounded a bit like “Confusion.” I’ve been spending a while today finding out more about Mrs Confusion.

She never wanted to be a doctor, it seems.

She became a doctor out of love, not for medicine but for her new husband, David Chan… When he then decided to become a doctor, she worried that his medical studies would leave little opportunity for them to spend time together. So she enrolled alongside him at the University of Western Ontario. The couple returned to Hong Kong after graduation.

And, as far as I can make out, she never actually practised as a doctor. Because, according to wikipedia, she graduated with her M.D. in 1977, and in 1978 she joined the Hong Kong department of health, where she stayed for many years, rising up its ranks. In this respect she seems to be in the same mould as Gro Harlem Brundtland, who doesn’t seem to have actually tended anyone who was, y’know, actually sick. Or, for that matter, the late Richard Doll, who (apart from a spell on hospital ships during the war) doesn’t seem to have prescribed a single tablet in his entire life. They are, as it were, doctors in name only. My Dr W was another one. Their real interests lie elsewhere. And those interests may even be quite antithetical to medicine. But they portray themselves as doctors, and they bask in the the esteem in which the medical profession is held. They are, one might say, wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Eventually, anyway, she was promoted all the way to the top of the WHO, and after being nominated by China has just got herself a second 5-year term, starting on 1 July. Working for the WHO her principal achievement seems to have been that

In June 2009 she became the first WHO chief in 41 years to announce a worldwide pandemic when swine flu swept across the globe. This time around critics complained the public health expert had overreacted. The Council of Europe accused the WHO of having “gambled away” public confidence by overstating the dangers of the flu pandemic, in a draft report. But Chan is unrepentent, firmly stating,”That was the right call”

Certainly looks like the anti Right Stuff. She’s also signed up for global warming. But how strongly antismoking was she? The answer was to be found in a speech she made in March this year, early on in which she said:

Tobacco use is the world’s number one preventable killer. We know this statistically, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Can anyone know something statistically, beyond a shadow of a doubt? It struck me as a contradiction in terms. Statistics deals with the probabilities or likelihoods of events, and there are always inherently shadows of doubt and uncertainty in its conclusions. But not in Mrs Chan’s mind, it seems. Nor did she have any doubt about who her enemy was:

And we have an enemy, a ruthless and devious enemy, to unite us and ignite a passionate commitment to prevail.

Unfortunately, this is where the balance no longer tips so strongly in our favour. The enemy, the tobacco industry, has changed its face and its tactics. The wolf is no longer in sheep’s clothing, and its teeth are bared.

Tactics aimed at undermining anti-tobacco campaigns, and subverting the Framework Convention, are no longer covert or cloaked by an image of corporate social responsibility. They are out in the open and they are extremely aggressive.

Big Tobacco is a big, bad wolf.

Big Tobacco can afford to hire the best lawyers and PR firms that money can buy. Big Money can speak louder than any moral, ethical, or public health argument, and can trample even the most damning scientific evidence. We have seen this happen before.

It is horrific to think that an industry known for its dirty tricks and dirty laundry could be allowed to trump what is clearly in the public’s best interest.

And there are other tactics, some new, others just old butts in new ashtrays…

More and more, investigations are uncovering the tobacco industry’s hand in court cases filed against tobacco control measures.

Paying people to use a country’s judicial system to challenge the legality of measures that protect the public is a flagrant abuse of the judicial system and a flagrant affront to national sovereignty. This is direct interference with a country’s internal affairs.

How dare the big bad wolf defend itself in court! That’s obviously an abuse of the judicial system, since the WHO is obviously in the right. It shouldn’t be allowed!

I doubt if I’ve ever read anything anywhere else that quite so completely demonises the tobacco industry.

And this focus on Big Tobacco is where I think Tobacco Control is making a catastrophic, strategic mistake. They’ve become fixated on a single enemy. But they have many more enemies than just Big Tobacco. Because these days, Tobacco Control isn’t just demonising Big Tobacco, but is also demonising the world’s 1.5 billion smokers. We are being expelled from society, refused medical treatment, fired from our jobs, vilified and degraded. We smokers are now the enemies of Tobacco Control too. Tobacco Control has made itself 1.5 billion enemies. And Mrs Confusion hasn’t even noticed it.

They may as well have dug their own graves, and climbed into them.

And that, more than anything, is why Tobacco Control will be destroyed, most likely along with the WHO and any number of associated organisations with 3-letter names. It has made itself far too many enemies. It’s inevitable.

They set out to destroy us, but we will destroy them.

And in fact, one might even say that such an outcome is beyond a shadow of a doubt.


P.S. He’s been getting around a bit, has that Snowdon chap.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Doctors In Name Only

  1. magnetic01 says:

    Doctors in name only = nominal doctors

    • Frank Davis says:

      I think I’m beginning to see where the fault line in the medical profession lies. They all call themselves ‘doctors’ and they’ve all got genuine medical qualifications (except Stan. And maybe Ken and John.). But that’s just the superficial similarity.

      The real doctors all go on to deliver babies, fix broken bones, and hand out pills. They’re the ones who actually care about people.

      The fake doctors – the ones who never wanted to be doctors, like Mrs Confusion – never treat anybody at all. They go into some bureaucracy like the Department of Health in whatever country they live in (Hong Kong in this particular case). And for them, people become statistics (even though Mrs Confusion clearly doesn’t understand the first thing about statistics).

      So how come it’s the fake doctors who become spokesmen/women for the real doctors? Well, it’s because their days aren’t filled up with stupid annoying people with unborn babies and broken legs and bad headaches, and they’ve got loads of time to lobby, brief, plan, organise, and generally out-manoeuvre their over-worked colleagues. They are the ones who become Presidents of the BMA, or US Surgeon Generals.

      This isn’t entirely true, though. Sir Charles George was (and perhaps still is) a leading heart surgeon. But somehow or other, back in 2004/5 he managed to also be President of the BMA and the BHF. But regardless of that, in about 1990 or thereabouts, the BMA was taken over by antismoking zealots, and it still remains in their hands, and it will continue to remain in their hands until we (the people) prise it out of them, and hand it back to the real doctors.

      So what I’m now thinking is that the statutes of the BMA should be changed to exclude anyone who has qualified as a doctor, but who has never actually practised as one, from speaking on their behalf.

      I qualified as an architect about 7 zillion years ago, but I never actually practised as one. But (fortunately) I have never used my qualifications to attempt to speak on behalf of all the architects who actually design and build real buildings.

      • Having discussed the smoking issue with REAL doctors who perform REAL surgeries and treat REAL patients , I can tell you for sure that they recognise the benefits of smoking .

        Those hardliners statisticians are the ones who don’t have touch with reality.Unfortunately they run the medical establishment….

        And they don’t even believe 100% on what they say since it’s just theory,not a fact

        No wonder their scientific articles are full of ‘estimates’ , ‘ may ‘ , ‘possibilities’.And that’s why they can avoid criticism…

        In America smoking kills 400,000 per year, (The figure hasn’t changed for the last 15 years I believe?) can you please name those 400,000 Mr Epidemiologist?

        But Sir,it’s just an estimate…

      • Rose says:

        Richard Doll – Oral History

        Click to access 327.full.pdf

        Apparently he didn’t ever want to be a doctor, he wanted to be a mathematician, but during his exams having been out with friends from Trinity and drinking 3 pints of Trinity Audit Ale, he did badly on the fourth paper and didn’t get the scholarship.

        He was apparently so annoyed with himself that he decided to follow his fathers wishes and become a doctor.

    • Doctors in name only = nominal doctors = Self inflaing doctors.

  2. magnetic01 says:

    Some background.

    In the mid-70s, where the current antismoking crusade formally begins, the fanatics did what their predecessors did. They held the [fake] moralistic view that no-one should be smoking and called for all sorts of restrictions on smoking. There was very little interest in this extreme view. Nonsmokers didn’t buy into either. They viewed the fanatics as extremist bullies and it would have been heard many a time in the late-70s USA – from nonsmokers – to leave the smokers alone.

    Two things occurred in the early-80s that changed the fanatics’ “fortunes”. One was the idea of secondhand smoke “danger”. The fanatics noticed that there were nonsmokers willing to change their stance if exposure to ambient tobacco smoke posed a threat. Normally in lifestyle epidemiology, flimsy enquiry as it is, one needs a coherent reason to pursue a line of enquiry. For example, a particular disease may be significantly on the rise. There was nothing indicating an epidemic of lung cancer, say, in nonsmokers that warranted looking into potential risks, let alone specifically looking at ambient tobacco smoke. This line of enquiry was entirely forced by the fanatics. Repace, a rabid antismoking fanatic, had to convince his superior at the [American] EPA to establish a separate department looking into ambient tobacco smoke. Until then, no-one except antismokers viewed tobacco smoke as problematic for nonsmokers; it wasn’t remotely on the radar. And through the 80s, although there were only a few flimsy studies, the fanatics got to work on the media spreading the word of secondhand smoke “danger”.

    Second was the 5th World Conference on Smoking & Health in 1983. A particular presentation by Chapman is noteworthy of highlight. Chapman is a high profile antismoker in Australia that has made a lucrative career from antismoking. In the 70’s, he was best known as a member of a group that went around de-facing/vandalizing tobacco advert billboards. Chapman’s presentation at the conference had to be repeated due to high demand (see Godber Blueprint). The presentation revolved around his article “The Lung Goodbye”.

    This article is interesting because it details propaganda tricks to advance the cause. And quite a number of the tricks (i.e., deception) have been used profusely, ad nauseam, over the last three decades, and still used today. For example, although he didn’t invent the trick, he suggested the use of the following.

    We’ve all seen some variation of this “information”:
    Acetone (nail varnish remover), Ammonia (cleaning agent), Arsenic (ant poison in the USA), Benzene (petrol fumes), Cadmium (car battery fluid), DDT (insecticide), Ethanol (anti-freeze), Formaldehyde (embalming fluid), Hydrogen Cyanide (industrial pollutant), Lead (batteries, petrol fumes), Methanol (rocket fuel), Tar (road surface tar).
    This trick was suggested by Simon Chapman (an antismoker) at the Fifth World Conference on Smoking & Health (1983) while presenting his “manual of underhanded tricks & tactics”.
    “A glance through any copy of the Smoking and Health Bulletin of the U S Department of Health and Human Services shows an entire indexed, section on ‘Tobacco Product Additives’ . Citations are included from patent office registrations of new chemical applications to tobacco processing and from the specialist chemical literature. Both these sources are virtually unintelligible, let alone normally accessible to the average person but are rich in potential for anyone willing to translate them into news items with popular interest . Polysyllabic chemical names should be checked through a reference book that lists common usages and toxicological data for chemicals . Look for usages that will connote revulsion or concern . For example, well known chemicals found in tobacco include cadmium (as in car batteries), ammonia (as in toilet cleaners), cyanides, formaldehyde and so on ……” (p.15)

  3. magnetic01 says:

    The Chapman Trick is to associate trace levels of particular chemicals in tobacco smoke with industrial-type uses of the same chemicals that involve extraordinarily larger quantities of these chemicals and entirely different chemical composition. It is lying by omission by not including any coherent context. It violates the toxicological maxim that “the dose makes the toxicity”. As Chapman notes and intends to exploit, most people are not familiar with chemistry and dosimetry. Concerning the trick, they don’t pay attention to the chemical names because they don’t understand them. Rather they focus on the English words that they do understand. And, as the information is presented, people conclude that there is ant poison in cigarettes, embalming fluid in cigarettes, anti-freeze in cigarettes, etc. So let’s be clear, there is n ant poison, embalming fluid, or anti-freeze, etc, in cigarettes. And there certainly is no road tar in cigarettes. The only purpose of this trick is to deceive. It is intended to promote outrage and revulsion in, particularly, gullible nonsmokers at whom it’s directed. This trick has been used, ad nauseam, since the mid-1980’s by medical organizations, antismoking groups, and governments because it is highly effective. It is highly effective because, like most antismoking propaganda, it is inflammatory and false: It outrages because it is misleading. Its only purpose is to mislead, i.e., inflammatory propaganda. This trick has been instrumental in manufacturing tobacco smoke into a bio-weapon-like substance akin to, say, sarin gas.

    Just to be sure, the air we typically breathe has many of the same chemicals as in tobacco smoke, and more, and in higher concentrations.

    Again, these chemicals are typically at trace levels and are not problematic.
    A google search will reveal similar chemicals in raw food and from cooking, and in drinking water.

    Chapman also suggested using “good vs evil”/ “David vs Goliath” mythology – the good antismoking fanatics battling the evil tobacco industry – for its drama appeal to the public, i.e., theatrics.

    At the time, the number of rabid antismoking fanatics was small. So he suggested that if asked by the media on the number of antismokers involved, they should not commit to a number but use the term “Movement” which gives the impression of a large/larger membership.

    And he indicates other tricks and tactics.

    It is at this conference that the fanatics did what their predecessors also did – they gave themselves license to lie through their teeth to advance “the cause”, to which the barrage of inflammatory propaganda ever since is testimony.

  4. magnetic01 says:

    Just a few more thoughts on the “Chapman Trick”.

    Use of the Chapman trick is conduct similar to the fanatics of earlier last century that claimed the tobacco companies were lacing tobacco with cocaine and that plantation workers urinated on tobacco leaves: Concerning alcohol, a century ago, the Scientific Temperance Department taught schoolchildren that a few glasses of alcoholic drinks could burn a hole in the stomach and that alcohol drinkers were prone to spontaneous combustion. The fanatics’ goal is to incite revulsion/fear/hate to conformity, usually by lying.

    A national current affairs program a few years ago ran a story on smokers using hypnosis to quit the habit. The opening scene was 5 or 6 smokers seated in a room. The hypnotherapist enters the room carrying a tray. On the tray were a box of ant poison, a bottle of industrial detergent, and a number of other industrial-type products. He smiled at the smokers and declared, “this is what you’re smoking!” That’s not what they’re smoking. This hypnotherapist had lapped up the propaganda, hook, line, and sinker, as most people have done so. It should then not be surprising that there is a significant number of nonsmokers who believe that tobacco smoke is a weapons-grade poison able to kill with a whiff, and that requires draconian bans for “protection”. They are now suffering somatization or anxiety disorders such as phobia. And it is ideologically/financially-driven Public Health that has produced this very sick circumstance.

    Consider a recent Surgeon-General report (2010) further highlighting the “perils” of exposure to ambient tobacco smoke. There at the very beginning, on page 3, it starts with the Chapman Trick, i.e., inflammatory propaganda.

    Click to access consumer.pdf

    How seriously should we take the remainder of the report when it begins with inflammatory propaganda? (In fact, this report is an agenda-driven, inflammatory propaganda piece par excellence, the contribution typically made by high-profile, long-standing antismoking activists). These fanatics are still pulling the same tricks 30 years on – and still getting away with them. As we go from antismoking website to antismoking website, we see essentially the same variant of the trick, i.e., a simple cut and paste. Over the last 30 years, the Chapman Trick has been included in numerous agenda-driven reports and in activist manuals. It has been plastered all over work places, e.g., recreation rooms, kitchens, dressing rooms, meeting rooms, first-aid stations. This trick has saturated the public consciousness. It cannot be overstated how much mental damage this trick has produced and is critically responsible for many nonsmokers turning to the antismoking “side”. Those trained in [mediocre] Public Health courses over the last 20 years wouldn’t know where this trick originated or that it is even a trick. It wouldn’t be surprising if there are many in Public Health that are themselves deceived by the trick, which makes them even more zealous to eradicate the “poisonous”, smoking activity.

    Some might well ask how there can be fanatics in Public Health, or academia, or the medical establishment. Not only are there fanatics in these groups, but there are the worst kind of fanatics – the society/world fixer fanatics. These believe that they have a definitive world view that all must abide by, i.e., “god complex”. Over the last three decades, these fanatics have been seriously messing with people’s minds.

  5. magnetic01 says:

    Big Tobacco is a big, bad wolf.

    Chan’s use of the “big, bad wolf” metaphor is just a variant of Chapman’s “good vs evil” or “David vs Goliath” mythology: There is the “wonderful”, “benevolent” WHO battling the “big, bad wolf” tobacco industry. It is all contrived – stirring theatrics. It is trickery that has been going on for three decades.

    Then we have Chan accusing tobacco companies for an “abuse and affront to national sovereignty”. Tobacco companies have been on the receiving end of much propaganda-based legislation. They obviously would want these matters adjudicated in a court of law. It would typically be referred to as due process. If anyone conducts itself as an abuse and affront to national sovereignty, it is the WHO. The WHO declares all manner of programs that member nations must implement. These programs affect the citizenry (and businesses) of member nations. Yet the WHO was never elected by affected citizens. Having declared programs to be implemented by member nations, the WHO, an unelected bureaucracy, then doesn’t want anyone to be able to question these programs, i.e., tyranny. The situation is extraordinary.

    The question that needs to be asked is why government health ministers have made themselves so beholden to the WHO. Government health ministers are not responsible to the WHO: They are responsible to the nation’s citizens whom they represent. It is this sickly relationship between governments and the WHO which is undermining national sovereignty and culture, turning countries around the world into bland, mindless uniformity.

  6. magnetic01 says:

    And there’s more in the Chan blather-fest:

    ”Big Tobacco can afford to hire the best lawyers and PR firms that money can buy. Big Money can speak louder than any moral, ethical, or public health argument, and can trample even the most damning scientific evidence. We have seen this happen before.
    It is horrific to think that an industry known for its dirty tricks and dirty laundry could be allowed to trump what is clearly in the public’s best interest.”

    According to Chan and her fanatical ilk, if BT wins a case, it’s not because the antismoking “science” was questionable or that anti-tobacco measures were baseless. It’s because the decision was bought with “Big Money”. How is it possible to reason with this mindset? Even when they are clearly wrong, they believe they are always right, that they have been subverted by “highly-paid, unseemly” conduct: It is an insult to any nation’s judicial system. And they believe that they know exactly what’s in the public’s best interest. It would be pathetic if the framework wasn’t obviously dangerous. It has to continually be remembered that this is the “reasoning” of an unelected, self-installed bureaucracy that is also demonstrably interfering with the internal affairs of nations around the world. The WHO conducts itself as an above-the-law know-it-all, i.e., god impersonator.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Magnetic – a hell of a read! Answered some other questions I had.

    • Beautiful as always Mag! :) An expansion on their use of “the Movement” to characterize themselves: that was later expanded by Glantz et al I believe as they began simply trying to describe themselves as speaking for all “nonsmokers.” For a while in the early 90s I began seeing smokers buying into that language in their internet postings, noting “nonsmokers” as the opponents. That was when I went on a serious crusade to ALWAYS post about and make the distinction of those seeking bans etc as “Antismokers” with a capital A and no hyphen. They are a distinct entity of crazy people, and over the last 20 years they’ve managed to drag a good bit of the normal population out into the daisy fields to dance with them through the use of fear.

      They get away with it because they’ve got such a strong command over the public microphone. Here on the internet it’s more of a true “Level Playing Field,” one that their money and flashy sound bites can’t dominate. They’re well aware of that as a problem. Marita Hefler recently did a research paper with Dr. Chapman on the use of the social media to sway opinions about smoking. I wrote her and asked for a copy of the research and she said she’d be happy to send me one, though she also asked what group I was working with on the subject. I responded to her honestly and, as you might expect, she immediately cut off communications with me. Finally, after about a week of followup emails she sent me a curt response indicating she was not interesteed in offering me any assistance.

      So much for her commitment to share her research in any scientific fashion, eh? Is this what Chapman is teaching his grad students?

      – MJM

    • i agree though i wonder where u stand on vaccines

  7. Frank Davis says:

    The question that needs to be asked is why government health ministers have made themselves so beholden to the WHO.

    Exactly. And I suspect that it’s because these are unquestionable “doctor’s orders.” The medical establishment has managed to arrange for its opinions to be unimpeachable. People are used to not questioning what their doctors tell them. And this includes the entire political class. So if the medics tell them that global warming is happening (as Mrs Confusion does) then they believe it.

    One might say that medicine is the last refuge of scoundrels.

    • Margo says:

      Dear Frank
      Don’t forget that WHO got into bed with the nuclear industry in 1959, signed a deal with them that meant that WHO could not publish anything about radiation effects without the nuclear industry’s approval (NB my previous post about radiation and industrial pollutants being the real cause of increase in cancer ad other illnesses since the ’50s and smokers being the scapegoat). Doll was connected to various industries (asbestos for one). As long as the public is fixated on the idea that smoking causes all illnesses, the nuclear and weapons industries are free to pour more and more lethal substances into the atmosphere – lying through their teeth about the health effects and making themselves mega-huge profits. Now, of course, with the Fukushima blow-up, they’ve managed to wreck the Pacific ocean. They’ll be a lot of cancers/heart disease etc in Japan over the next decade or two (heavy smokers, the Japanese, and up to now long-living). Smoking will be blamed.

      • Fredrik Eich says:

        I have found a number of references that the IAEA has a veto on research conducted by the WHO but found nothing solid to back it up, if you have a link I would be greatful.

        I thought the only connection Doll had with the asbestos industry was that he investigated whether asbestos caused disease and death and found that it did.

        He also took the trouble to list a number of diseases that smokers were at a lower risk of

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      One might say that medicine is the last refuge of scoundrels.

      Couldnt agree more especially at vanderbilt university in Nashville!

  8. Robert Prasker says:

    “….adopt a global target of a 25 per cent reduction in premature mortality from non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases by 2025.”

    I’m unaware of any existing definition for “premature mortality”. Perhaps someone looking in could inform me, If its defined as the current “average expected lifespan” then the goalpost will always change as the “average expected lifespan” increases. (For the moment, I’m bypassing the fact that the WHO actually takes reports from places like Cuba at face value when coming up with this stuff.)

    If there is no real definition for “premature mortality”, then I’m unsure of how people (who are all mortal, of course) are supposed to die.

    Even if cancer is somehow cured in the next 25 years, given broad definitions like “cardiovascular disease” (Heart attack? Stroke? Aneurysm? Embolism?) and “chronic respiratory disease” (does it have to be “chronic”? What defines “chronic”?), are we all to die in car accidents, falling down the stairs, or infectious disease to satisfy the WHO? It seems that the WHO has set up a goal that can never be reached.

    Meanwhile, doesn’t the WHO complain about overpopulation? I’m pretty sure I could dig something up on that without too much difficulty.

    You’re not permitted the simple luxury of an inevitable, natural death–but, at the same time, you should feel like a guilt-ridden plague on the planet if you happen to be alive?

    Oh, I see. We’re all supposed to live long lives, so long as we live as directly prescribed to us by government organizations like the WHO. Non-conformists will be “educated”.

    Why is it that I get the impression that the UN and the WHO simply wants to micromanage the lives of every human being on Earth? Call me crazy, but I think something misanthropic is going on.


    • harleyrider1978 says:

      It seems that the WHO has set up a goal that can never be reached.

      Thats always been the goal,to have an unattainable goal…….a never ending regulatory scheme that keeps on trucking on……………..Just call their job what it is…….infinity!

  9. Susanne says:

    Hi Mr. Frank
    I am a regular reader from Denmark . I read your site and comments with great interest. I wish to have your permision to use some of your comments on a Danish facebook site?
    Í better say I am just a ‘simple’ citizen with no academic education , but do smoke myself and read all the information I can get on the smoking/anti smoking issue.
    Thank you for your time.
    Susanne the sailor.

  10. magnetic01 says:

    The root of the problem

    The problem lies in what is understood by “health”.

    Consider the World Health Organization’s definition of health instituted in 1948:
    The World Health Organization (WHO) defines health in its preamble as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being.”

    Notwithstanding a few questionable concepts such as “complete”, we can be sure that this definition was a direct result of the Nuremberg trials addressing the horrors of Nazi eugenics. Whatever was directed at Nazi eugenics was also directed at American eugenics. Eugenics is biologically reductionist (materialist/physicalist) or, as noted by the Nazis, “applied biology”. The WHO definition attempts to account for the fact that health is more that just absence of disease, more than just a biological phenomenon. It involves other dimensions such as psychological and social.

    Given that this WHO definition was put into circulation by Brock Chisholm, the first director of the WHO and a eugenicist, there is always a suspicion as to how the WHO, a medical organization, could potentially warp this definition in the long-term. It could have been an “appeasing” definition, given the anti-eugenics sentiment of the time. (From my understanding, the “mental” and “social” well-being aspects were a last-minute inclusion).

    However, what should be noted is the limited scope of the WHO. It does not have a monopoly on health. Being a medical organization, it is intimately bound to the biological level. It is not really a world health organization but a world medical organization – a global medical headquarters. It would have to accept that there are aspects of health that are not its domain or jurisdiction. Just this idea, properly applied, should discourage potentially destructive ventures into social engineering as was seen in eugenics early last century.

    Yet with all this history, as we have seen over the last half century, particularly pertaining to antismoking, the WHO and the medical establishment generally, and contrary to the WHO’s very own definition of health, have deteriorated back into a biological reductionist view of health and ventures into social engineering.

    Over the last half century, health has been reduced to the behavioral dimension of eugenics – anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol, prescribed diet, and physical exercise. The WHO adopted antismoking as a societal ideal many decades ago (Godber Blueprint) and now most nations are signed-up to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. With this ideological stance comes social engineering, i.e., coercion to conformity.

    We have seen smoking bans on hospital grounds where patients have to venture considerable distances in night-attire and in all manner of weather to have a cigarette. This becomes a psychological and social health issue, in addition to the physical health issue. Indoor smoking bans with no prospect of accommodation have alienated particularly the elderly. This is a psychological and social health issue. Denormalization, a repugnant, vulgar concept very much identified with eugenics, has again come to the fore. Smokers have been incessantly slandered, ridiculed, and terrorized by official, government programs of denormalization. This is a psychological and social health issue. Many nonsmokers have been manipulated into irrational fear and bigotry to advance the ideological cause. This is an issue of psychological and social health. Smokers are being bullied out of normal social life on a purely ideological basis. This is an issue of psychological and social health. With this propaganda barrage, medical care professionals are demonstrating a cruel, bigoted streak – again – that can compromise the medical treatment of those who smoke. This is an issue of psychological, social, and physical health. Not only are psychological and social health issues important in their own right, but these can also have detrimental ramifications for physical health. Health has again been reduced to quantification, dollar cost-benefit analyses, another eugenics trait. All of these detrimental consequences inflicted by ideology under medical authority is iatrogenic.

    Everywhere we turn health has again been reduced to only a biological phenomenon (e.g., behavioral) and with the [eugenics] intent of social engineering. “Get healthy”, “he’s looking after himself”, “I work out” all pertain to physicalism. In the obsession with physicalism, psychological, social, moral, and ideo-political aspects of health have been brutalized and discarded – again. And it is the WHO that leads this assault.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I take your point. In the video of Stanton Glantz I posted up a few days back (TobaccoTactics and 29) he spoke of smoking as a “behaviour’. And there was a whole movement of psychology called ‘behaviorism’, the idea of which was that it was only possible to observe people’s behaviour, and not possible to ascribe to them things like thoughts of any kind, because you can’t see thoughts. I’ve forgotten the name of the English psychologist who was its principal proponent. It enjoyed a bit of a vogue in the 1950s. Perhaps it lingered on?

      That’s the problem for me: I thought Behaviorism was dead. It always struck me as a non-starter of an idea anyway, because it’s one that precludes thought of any sort. And as a psychological idea, it’s even dafter, because the subject of psychology is thoughts and feelings and so on. Behaviorism throws out the baby with the bathwater.

      Anyway, in the WHO definition you give, it’s the idea of a ‘right’ to health that I find myself tripping over. Once people are regarded as having a ‘right’ to health, it becomes incumbent on all concerned to guarantee these rights, and make sure that people live forever, because it’s their ‘right’. My own view is that I don’t have any right to health or even to life, because I know that one day I will die, and that therefore there cannot be any right to life. It’s a nonsensical idea.

    • Frank Davis says:

      B.F.Skinner. That’s who I was thinking of.

      Behaviorism (or behaviourism), also called the learning perspective (where any physical action is a behavior), is a philosophy of psychology based on the proposition that all things that organisms do—including acting, thinking, and feeling—can and should be regarded as behaviors, and that psychological disorders are best treated by altering behavior patterns or modifying the environment. According to behaviorism, individuals’ response to different environmental stimuli shapes our behaviors. Behaviorists believe behavior can be studied in a methodical and recognizable manner with no consideration of internal mental states. Thus, all behavior can be clarified without the need to reflect on psychological mental states.

      Skinner’s political writings emphasized his hopes that an effective and humane science of behavioral control – a technology of human behavior – could help problems unsolved by earlier approaches or aggravated by advances in technology such as the atomic bomb. One of Skinner’s stated goals was to prevent humanity from destroying itself.[45] He comprehended political control as aversive or non-aversive, with the purpose to control a population. Skinner supported the use of positive reinforcement as a means of coercion, citing Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s novel Emile: or, On Education as an example of freedom literature that “did not fear the power of positive reinforcement”

      • magnetic01 says:

        Ah, Frank, you’ve discovered behaviorism. You’ll find an insightful section on Behaviorism in Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger, p.184-194.

        Behaviorists are only concerned with what can be objectively observed. These guys initially study with rats in the lab and then extrapolate to humans (humans are viewed as a slightly more complex “organism”).

        There was a period through the 60s where there was much resistance to this “dead” view of humanity. But then something nasty happened – it came back with a vengeance. By the 1990s, behaviorists dominated psychology departments in the West. In other words, there’s no psychology occurring, just the fixation with observable behavior. So, although they may still be called psychology departments, most are dominated by behaviorism. In other situations, departments have been renamed to departments of behavioral sciences.

        The move over the last decade or so is even more disturbing. One-time independent psychology departments were initially taken over by behaviorists and now some are being taken over by medical faculties, teaching only a handful of subjects, predominantly “health psychology”. Health psychology (really behaviorism) is concerned with how to get people to engage in “healthy” behaviors. These “takeover” moves are orchestrated and represent danger. What it’s actually doing is removing all potential for criticism of the physicalist/materialist framework. For example, someone familiar with psychology would question the use of propaganda, particularly in relatively free societies, viewing it as an assault on mental health; propaganda puts people into states of irrational belief.

        Behaviorism is morally relativist. Its only concern is conditioning “appropriate” behavior (through positive/negative reinforcement). Its only interest is in what will work, not with whether the conditioning information is true or false. So we can see how behaviorism fits in the physicalist/materialist framework. We have the physical “organism”, the physical gross-level behavior of the organism, and the physical environment of the organism. In materialism, there ain’t nothing else; that’s it. And with the way academia is being restructured of late, there is now very little scope for criticism of this physicalist view and domination.

        It should be of concern that those in Public Health courses are taught behaviorist theories, very basic statistics, and the attitude that PH should be “nurturing” (conditioning) healthy (in physicalist terms) behavior in the population, i.e., social engineering. This is a eugenics view, entirely at odds with relatively free societies and the idea of individual autonomy.

        Consider B.F.(Burrhus Frederick) Skinner. He raised his daughter for the first two years of her life in an incubator-like box (not a Skinner box) where he could control environmental stimuli. This mentality is obsessed with [physicalist] control. If you read the link above, you’ll get Skinner’s view on religion and smoking. Concerning the latter, behaviorism will simply accept whatever is told it by the medical establishment. If the medical establishment says that smoking should be eradicated, the only question that behaviorism (e.g., health psychology) will ask is what sort of negative/positive reinforcement are needed (e.g., propaganda, taxes) to extinguish the behavior. This is a dangerous, closed, physicalist loop.

        • Frank Davis says:

          But then something nasty happened – it came back with a vengeance.

          You appear to be right about that. It was something I hadn’t noticed.

        • XX propaganda puts people into states of irrational belief. Behaviorism is morally relativist. Its only concern is conditioning “appropriate” behavior (through positive/negative reinforcement). Its only interest is in what will work, not with whether the conditioning information is true or false. XX

          Does that not make “Behaviourism” INTO “Propoganda”. Meaning surely, with your description there, they are, or could be seen as one and the same thing…??

          Or have I misunderstood ? (Or more to the point, NOT read a part of your post where you actualy SAY that… :-§ ?)

        • magnetic01 says:

          Does that not make “Behaviourism” INTO “Propoganda”. Meaning surely, with your description there, they are, or could be seen as one and the same thing…??

          Behaviorism is a [questionable] physicalist view – a philosophical framework – that can produce propaganda to achieve a goal. We would understand it as propaganda because it involves propositions that are demonstrably not true. But behaviorists wouldn’t call it “propaganda”, only a way of positively/negatively conditioning a behavior. But it’s important to the behaviorists that the population believe that false propositions are true. In psychological terms, this would be an assault on mental health. But not for behaviorists (or the eugenics mentality generally). They have a complete disregard for a mental dimension. Assaults on mental health don’t register as problematic on the radar of their [physicalist] definition of health.

          So, in terms of the question I think you’re asking, behaviorism and propaganda are not the same thing; the former produces the latter, although the former doesn’t refer to it as propaganda.

        • XX the former produces the latter, although the former doesn’t refer to it as propaganda.XX

          Well, they wouldn’t, would they? :-)

          That is along the same lines as the “defence” of every scoundrel; “Oh but they are not REAL christians/communists/muslims/etc.”

          Thanks for the answer. ;-)

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    Tobacco use is the world’s number one preventable killer. We know this statistically, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

    Just as are TC advocate yesterday was challenged to back up his claims of causes………

    That shithead knows full well there is no proof and even this OWEBAMA anointed Chan knows its all smoke and mirrors in statistics!

    Somebody posted this awhile back somewhere but its right on target:

    Here’s my all-time favorite “scientific” study of the the anti-smoking campaign: “Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths,” Robert A. Levy and Rosalind B. Marimont, Journal of Regulation, Vol. 21 (4), 1998.

    You can access the article for free on the Cato Institute’s wesbite, This article neither defends nor promotes smoking. Rather it condemns the abuse of statistics to misinform and scare the public. Levy, by the way taught Statistics for Lawyers at Georgetown University Law School. There is also a popular law school class called How to Lie With Statistics.

    You might also find this study of interest. It examines carcinogens in cigarette smoke and finds them insufficient to be a cause of cancer. Last sentence is the key one:

    there is little reason to be confident that total removal of the currently measured human lung carcinogens would reduce the incidence of lung cancer among smokers by any noticeable amount.

  12. Rose says:


    Doll and asbestos.

    Smoking and Health Review: Volume XI Number January-February 1981

    Asbestos vs. tobacco.
    “Standard Asbestos Manufacturing and Insulating Co. of Kansas City has filed suit against major U.S. tobacco companies, arguing that the tobacco companies are responsible for the lung damage suffered by asbestos workers.
    Thousands of suits have been filed against Standard and other asbestos-related companies by “workers who claim that asbestos is responsible for their injuries and disabilities.
    An attorney for Standard said that “Asbestos workers who smoke have approximately 92 times the risk of death from lung cancer as asbestos workers who do not smoke.'”

    E.Cuyler Hammond, Vice President of the American Cancer Society, blazed the trail in the 50’s with his study zeroing in on smoking as the cause of lung cancer. He hasn’t stopped since. Regarding another possible cause, he said:. “There is no relationship whatsoever between lung cancer and air pollution.”
    He has said that the danger from asbestos is limited to only those workers who also smoke.

    Asbestos: A shameful legacy

    “The authorities knew it was deadly more than 100 years ago, but it was only banned entirely in 1999. The annual death rate will peak at more than 5,000 in 2016 – now MPs have a chance to do the decent thing.”

    “Those most at risk are ordinary workers and their families. Whether it was dockyard workers who unloaded the lethal cargoes, or those in the factories exposed to the fibres, or the carpenters, laggers, plumbers, electricians and shipyard workers who routinely used asbestos for insulation – all suffered.

    So did the wives who washed the work overalls and the children who hugged their parents or played in the dust-coated streets.”

    “Only in 1955 did Richard Doll, then a junior academic (and later famous for establishing the connection between tobacco-smoking and cancer), complete an epidemiological study in Rochdale which established the link between asbestos and cancer. He had been approached by T&N but the company initially refused to allow him to publish the findings. Later T&N persuaded its own scientist, Dr John Knox, to draft a paper discrediting Doll’s work.

    Knox encouraged academic scepticism about asbestos diseases but clearly knew there was a problem. He regularly X-rayed employees and when the results showed them developing signs of disease moved them to less dusty jobs. They were not told why.”

    “The company found government representatives only too pliant. One medical adviser is recorded as advising T&N to keep quiet about the cancer dangers of their product. In correspondence between two directors of the plant, the opinion of Professor Archie Cochrane, director of epidemiology at the Medical Research Council, was noted: “In tackling a problem of this nature [mesothelioma] one should either be completely frank with everyone or maintain complete secrecy – it is the latter that he feels is best at the moment.”

    “In 1965 Doll wrote, referring to asbestos production at Turner and Newall, it is possible that the specific occupational hazards to life have been completely eliminated. As late as 1982, criticising Alice – A Fight for Life, a film on the effects of asbestos which forced the government to bring in heavier regulation of asbestos working conditions, Doll suggested that asbestosis, and cancer caused by asbestos, were no longer a significant risk to workers.”

    Injurywatch discovers secret payments for anti-smoking cancer-link by Oxford academic Sir Richard Doll by asbestos and chemical industry

    Asbestos scandal

    “In 1982, following a television exposé which laid bare the dangers of asbestos, Doll was wheeled out by T&N at factory meetings with workers across the UK to reassure their staff that their asbestos exposure danger was what he termed “a pretty outside chance.”

    In fact using Turner and Newall/Doll’s own figures at the time, the cancer risk incidence was 1 in 40 (2.5%) which is very high. But now the incidence has been shown to be much higher. In the UK, between 1900 and 2000 people die each year from mesothlioma, a cancer solely caused by exposure to asbestos fibre. The figure is doubled by other lung cancer deaths caused by asbestos. The annual incidence is expected to escalate with the yearly death rate rising until at least 2012.

    Perhaps because of his financial relationship with Turner and Newall, Doll consistently refused to testify on behalf of dying asbestos plaintiffs or their bereaved families in civil litigation against asbestos industries and indeed filed a sworn statement in U.S. courts in support of T & N.
    Indeed Doll expressed that the £50,000 payment was in “gratitude from Turner and Newall for work I had undertaken on their behalf.”

    • Margo says:

      Yes. And check out the Low Level Radiation Campaign (llrc) site. Somewhere there is a piece called Richard Doll, a really dodgy scientist. He was a great networker, though. He managed to destroy professionally a REAL epidemiologist (Alice Stewart) and therefore to suppress her work on the harmful effects of radiation.
      I do think we’re on to something here. It is, of course, all about money and power, as we all knew.

      • Rose says:

        I should have added this.

        Letters: Doll demurs – 1993

        “It would be unfair to the Health and Safety Commission, the asbestos company whose employees’ health my colleagues and I have been keeping under review since 1954, and the employees themselves to allow a statement of Alan Dalton (Letters, 16 January) to stand uncorrected: ‘In 1982, following the (TV) film Alice – a fight for life, which revealed the real hazards of asbestos, the workers at the factory invited him (that is, me) to meet them in person. A few words from them revealed that the company’s application of the 1931 regulations had not been effective in protecting them’.

        The inadequacy of the 1931 regulations had, in fact, long been known. My colleagues and I had reported in 1977 that: a hazard of lung cancer had persisted in men first employed since these regulations had been put into effect; the company had further reduced exposure substantially in the 1950s; and stricter levels for permissible exposure had been introduced and applied. The meeting that I attended in 1982 was arranged primarily at the employees’ request because of their concern about the distortion of the facts presented in the TV film and nothing that was said at the meeting revealed any new evidence beyond that which the company had already provided.

        Richard Doll Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford.”

      • Rose says:


        Doll and radiation

        Richard Doll: a really dodgy scientist

        “The Seascale Cluster and population mixing: an improbable explanation”

        Darby, Doll and the Test Veterans – Update
        The Bomb Test Service Men

        “Significantly, though Doll has always refused to accept the connection between man-made radioactivity and cancer, he has always seen, for reasons best known to himself, natural background radiation as a major cause of leukaemia and other cancers.”

        “It is easy to demonstrate that in every field in which Doll has been involved he has systematically defended the interests of industry and the State, even then these are in total conflict with those of people in general, and are irreconcilable with all the established knowledge on the subject.”

        Nuclear veterans told: No case for compensation

        “Ministers tell servicemen who witnessed 1950s test explosions they should have claimed years ago
        Ministers have been accused of blocking compensation claims brought by hundreds of nuclear test veterans who believe they developed cancers and other illnesses after being forced to witness atomic bomb experiments in the 1950s and ’60s.

        Despite pay-outs to former servicemen in the US, France and China, Britain has told its veterans there is no case for offering compensation, and that there is no scientific justification for a full investigation into birth defects suffered by the veterans’ children and grandchildren”

        ‘Malignant Maneuvers’

        The Woman Who Knew Too Much: Alice Stewart and the Secrets of Radiation.

        “I interviewed Doll while writing about Stewart, the physician and epidemiologist who discovered that the practice of X-raying pregnant women, which was common in the Forties and Fifties, doubled the chance of a childhood cancer.

        Doll and Stewart moved in the same Oxbridge circles, sat on the same committees and editorial boards. Both started out as physicians, then moved into epidemiology after the war, each making major discoveries in the Fifties that helped shape epidemiology so it came to include cancer as well as infectious diseases.

        But after Stewart went public with the dangers of radiation, she plummeted to obscurity, while Doll, credited with discovering the link between lung cancer and smoking, rocketed to fame and a knighthood.

        Immediately after Stewart published her findings, Doll launched a study to prove her wrong. For nearly two decades, he succeeded in keeping her findings from being accepted, thereby allowing fetal X-raying to continue (one doesn’t like to think how many cancers that may have caused).

        This was the decade when the arms race was at its height and the US and UK governments were reassuring us we could survive all-out nuclear war; nobody wanted to hear that radiation was as dangerous as Stewart claimed. But she dug in her heels and built an extensive database, the Oxford Survey of Childhood Cancer, that established beyond a doubt that she was right. Yet when Doll came to Oxford as Regius Professor, in 1969, he announced (publicly) that “there was little there in the way of epidemiology research,” and made her so unwelcome that she took a position at another”

        “The incidence of child leukaemias was increasing and no one knew why. She suspected that the mothers might remember something the doctors did not, so she interviewed them and rapidly saw the correlation with X-rays, which she demonstrated statistically.

        X-rays were medicine’s new toy and were being used for everything from examining the position of the foetus to treating acne; even shoe shops had X-ray machines where customers could see how their footwear fitted.

        This was at the height of the arms race, when the British and US governments were trying to build up public trust in the friendly atom and did not want people to get the idea that low-dose radiation could kill their children.”

        “Although long regarded as a pariah by the medical/scientific establishment for her controversial views on radiation effects, Stewart became known to many as a visionary who worked indefatigably to advance the understanding of radiation health effects and cancer etiology.”

        “Stewart’s findings sparked vehement attacks not only from the medical profession–which had become enamored of X-ray technology, using it frequently–but also from the nuclear industry, which had long assured the public that low-level radiation was harmless”

        Richard Doll and Alice Stewart: reputation and the shaping of scientific “truth”.

        There seems to be a long line of battered scientists who tangled with Doll, here’s another.

        Intervention in Vietnam inquiry

        “Professor Hardell considered Agent Orange a cancer hazard, but Sir Richard warned the commission not to place much value on his work. Many of his published statements, wrote Sir Richard, “were exaggerated or not supportable and … there were many opportunities for bias to have been introduced in the collection of his data.

        His conclusions cannot be sustained and in my opinion, his work should no longer be cited as scientific evidence.”

        • Margo says:

          Rose – Thanks for that brilliant research! I’ve been looking at this kind of thing for quite some time now (eternally grateful to all the guys who started me off – Chris Snowdon and others – by giving me back-up for what started as instinctive distrust of anti-Tobacco studies, and to my fellow-smokers for support, especially bloggers like Frank Davis for the platforms they provide), looking for the answer to the question: Smokers are being falsely blamed, but WHY?
          There’s no doubt that cancer and other illnesses have gone on increasing since the 50s. The true causes for this? They’re kept secret. I think that if they come out (all of them, whatever they are), only then will smokers maybe be let off the hook. That’s the kind of path I’ve been going down. I’ve read the Alice Stewart biography you quote (it’s quite riveting) and I feel certain she was right about low-level radiation.
          Look at the secrecy that went on with Chernobyl, and now Fukushima (complete silence from the press and media). Thank goodness for the Internet, or we wouldn’t know anything. What I’m looking at now is the true power of the energy companies, their tie-ups with government and other industries and global economy.
          I think the truth will out!

  13. magnetic01 says:

    Frank, just a little more information so we can connect some of the “dots”.

    Critical to the antismoking assault has been the Chapman Trick promoting the idea that tobacco (what’s in a cigarette), and therefore the smoke it produces, is highly “poisonous”, containing things such as ant poison, embalming fluid, etc. Another critical point is secondhand smoke “danger” which promotes the idea that nonsmokers are being exposed to “poisonous” smoke that contains ant poison, embalming fluid, etc. And critical again is the baseless idea that nonsmokers are effectively being forced to smoke when exposed to SHS.

    Some clarification on “passive smoking”.

    The idea of “passive smokING” (which originated with the Nazis, by the way) is just another baseless inflammatory term. There have even been jokes and comments made in films, for example, that a nonsmoker has “passive smoked” a pack a day.

    The term “secondhand smoke” (highly diluted) is OK, but SH smokING or passive smokING are not. There are some nonsmokers who believe that when they are exposed to SHS they are being forced to smoke, that they are effectively smokING. Being exposed to SHS, which is breathing air with highly dilute remnants of smoke, is nothing like smoking. Those who believe they are passively “smoking” have obviously never smoked a cigarette. Having never smoked, and therefore unable to tell the difference, they have been manipulated into the deranged belief that SHS exposure is equivalent to smoking. The quickest way to resolve the issue is to borrow a cigarette, light it, take a drag and inhale (drawback) the concentrated “packet” of smoke. That’s smoking. It should be noticed immediately the incredible difference between smoking and simply being exposed to ETS which cannot be equated in any way with smokING. There is no active and passive smoking. There is only smoking which involves inhaling a concentrated packet of smoke.

    For those not prepared to test the hypothesis, it should dawn that if smoking was simply being exposed to SHS, then why don’t smokers just leave their cigarette lit and breathe the ambient air? No. They actually take a drag on the cigarette – a concentrated packet of smoke – and inhale. That’s smokING.

    For gullible nonsmokers, when you are sitting by an open fire, do you believe you’re “smoking” then? If you’re close-by to lit candles, do you believe you’re “smoking” then? If you’re close to cooking or BBQ smoke, are you “smoking” then? Etc. See the point?

    The only term that has a modicum of meaning with little/no application is “involuntary smoking”. This would refer to the situation where a person is forced (e.g., at gunpoint) to take a drag on a cigarette and inhale the concentrated packet of smoke.

    Referring to SHS exposure as a “fraction” or a “degree” of smoking for statistical/causal extrapolation has no meaning. SHS exposure and smoking are two entirely different phenomena.

    This clarification is important because the idea of secondhand “smoking” is still being pushed. For example, consider Bill Gates’ latest antismoking venture:

    Focusing on the harmful effects of exposure to others’ smoke, the initiative will aim to help smokers quit and encourage nonsmokers to ask people not to smoke around them. At a news briefing the two billionaires donned green T-shirts reading “Say no to forced smoking” in Chinese. The Microsoft founder won a burst of applause by slowly reciting the slogan, repeating the words after Mr. Li, who is chief executive of the Chinese online search company.

    Not only is the inflammatory myth of “forced smoking” perverse, but so too is how one (or a few) billionaire can enter a foreign land and toss their money/deranged beliefs about in order to alter its socio/cultural/economic structure. Gates and Bloomberg have recently also ploughed over $300million into third-world countries (e.g., Africa) for anti-tobacco measures.

    • smokervoter says:

      Two billionaires jet-setting around the globe to spread social animus and discord (and CO2) to a heretofore accommodative culture, how special.

      Bill Gates’ planned obsolescence business model has created mega toxic Chinese computer hardware salvage dumps. You’ve gotta’ wonder how many cancers are erroneously being ascribed to smoking. Chinese cities sport legendary industrial smog basins.

      “The Green Party issued a press release on Monday claiming that consumers who move to Vista, which launched to consumers on Tuesday, will be forced to buy more expensive and energy-hungry hardware, which will have a knock-on effect on the environment. .”

      “Future archaeologists will be able to identify a ‘Vista Upgrade Layer’ when they go through our landfill sites,” claimed Green Party Female principal speaker Sian Berry.

      Even the Greenies have his number.

      Thanks Bill n’ Mike; you’re breaking up families and friendships in the name of dodgy passive smoke science whilst ignoring all other possible causes.

      Actively promoting hate and discord between peoples via this “asking nonsmokers to ask people not to smoke around them” meme is foul. Neither of these guys are dumb, they know what invariably will result from this campaign. Yet another culturally separated and mangled country and inevitable fist fights.

      Don’t get me wrong, I don’t agree with blowing smoke in anyones face, including other smokers. Electronic gadget-hungry Chinese might want to invest in an ionic air cleaner for the home, if not simply from an aesthetic standpoint.

      I’m wondering how you say “Do you mind if I smoke?” in Chinese. Way simpler.

  14. harleyrider1978 says:


    DEMANDS for the British people to have a say on our role in Europe got a huge boost yesterday.

    A new poll showed more than 80 per cent of voters are crying out for a referendum.

    Nearly half of voters – 49 per cent – want their voices heard straight away, according to the survey.

    A further third, 33 per cent, believe that there should be a vote “in the next few years”.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Yo Frank its totally unraveling!


      BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Commission has been providing legal advice to others who are considering possible scenarios should Greece leave the euro, a European Union spokesman said.

      Olivier Bailly said Tuesday that, legally, limits could be imposed on movement of people and money across national borders within the EU if it’s necessary to protect public order or public security — but not on economic grounds.

      “Some people are working on scenarios,” he said, but refused to confirm or identify which organizations and people were working on them.–finance.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CV.WNdPN10AzDzQtDMD

    • Aye. But whenit comes to elections, they forget all that, and vote for the same old shite, “Because Grandaddy did”, or “Because that nice man with the blue (red/Green/yellow) rossette fixed my pavement.” Or even MORE likely, for whichever crock of parliamentary shite gives them a 0,0000001% larger tax cut than the other crock of shite.

      They would, every one of them, sell their kiddys arseholes for a TWO percent income tax cut. (Ignoring the 20% rise on petrol, Tobacco, Drink, whatever, that wipes out every percieved income tax benefit any way)

      The voters are, at best, imbeciles.

  15. magnetic01 says:

    Just as an aside, here’s Stantonitis Glands’ take on Prop 29. He has redefined the Prop as between him and his ilk (the mythological good) and tobacco companies (mythological evil – big, bad wolf). It demonstrates an utter contempt for anyone having voted no as just dupes of the “evil” tobacco companies, and where “yes” voters resisted the duping and sided with the “angels”. He is also pushing the main theme of the recent World Conference on Tobacco or Health, being that of tobacco company “interference”. Concerning Prop 29, it’s all just tobacco company interference. Pitiful!!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Stantonitis admitting defeat in his own self cenetered way!

      I did a county-by-county analysis, using the election day returns to predict post-election returns (using linear regression), then estimated the number of yes votes remaining based on the number of uncounted votes by county. The result shows a very narrow loss of 29, but the difference is well below the “margin of error” of the statistical estimates.

      It’s still too close to call.


      • beobrigitte says:

        I did a county-by-county analysis, using the election day returns to predict post-election returns (using linear regression), then estimated the number of yes votes remaining based on the number of uncounted votes by county….

        Will this affect available grants?

        …..It’s still too close to call.

      • smokervoter says:

        Harley, do you have 326,000 still uncounted?

        I think Prop 29 will lose by between 18-24 thousand votes. Final margin 50.2%-49.8%.

        The uncounted votes are still running at a 52%-48% Yes skew after 70% of the ultimate uncounted vote recorded.

        I think the final tally is only 7% away from being complete.

        The data from that Sec. of State website is all over the place and conflicting to say the least.

  16. harleyrider1978 says:

    Indiana law lets citizens shoot at police
    Mark Niquette, Bloomberg

    San Francisco Chronicle June 6, 2012 04:00 AM
    Wednesday, June 6, 2012

    Columbus, Ohio — Every time police Sgt. Joseph Hubbard stops a speeder or serves a search warrant, he says he worries that suspects assume they can open fire – without breaking the law.

    Hubbard, a 17-year veteran of the Police Department in Jeffersonville, Ind., says his apprehension stems from a state law approved this year that allows residents to use deadly force in response to the “unlawful intrusion” by a “public servant” to protect themselves and others, or their property.

    “If I pull over a car and I walk up to it and the guy shoots me, he’s going to say, ‘Well, he was trying to illegally enter my property,’ ” said Hubbard, 40, president of Jeffersonville Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 100. “Somebody is going get away with killing a cop because of this law.”

    Indiana is the first U.S. state to specifically allow force against officers, according to the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys in Washington, which represents and supports prosecutors. The National Rifle Association pushed for the law, saying an unfavorable court decision made the need clear and that it would allow homeowners to defend themselves during a violent, unjustified attack. Police lobbied against it.

    The NRA has worked to spread permissive gun laws around the country. Among them is the stand-your-ground self-defense measure in Florida, which generated nationwide controversy after the Feb. 26 shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed Florida teenager.

    The measure amends the 2006 so-called Castle Doctrine bill that allows deadly force to stop illegal entry into a home or car.

    The bill’s author, Republican state Sen. Michael Young, said there haven’t been any cases in which suspects have used the law to justify shooting police.

    “Public servant” was added to clarify the law after a state Supreme Court ruling last year that “there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers,” he said. The case was based on a man charged with assaulting an officer during a domestic-violence call.

    Young cited a hypothetical situation of a homeowner returning to see an officer raping his daughter or wife. Under the court’s ruling, the homeowner could not touch the officer and only file a lawsuit later, he said. Young said he devised the idea for the law after the court ruling.

    Opponents see a potential for mistakes and abuse.

    It’s not clear under the law whether an officer acting in good faith could be legally shot for mistakenly kicking down the wrong door to serve a warrant, said state Sen. Tim Lanane, the assistant Democratic leader and an attorney.

    Read more:

  17. beobrigitte says:

    P.S. He’s been getting around a bit, has that Snowdon chap.

    Indeed he has!

    The report said the anti-smoking group ASH, gay rights charity Stonewall, the Campaign for Better Transport and the Child Poverty Action Group were recipients of large amounts of state funding.

    It looks like ASH gets much more from smokers than just “5th hand-smoke-damage-from-the-“contaminated”-cash-of-smokers… Whose politicians pet cause is ASH? It would be good to know before the next election.

  18. Jeff says:

    About Mrs Confusion: actually her real name is Dr Fu Manchu !
    I came to that conclusion thanks to rigorous statistical analysis that would prove anything beyond the shadow of a doubt.

  19. Pingback: I love smoking - Page 10

  20. Pingback: Γιατροί μόνον κατ’ ὄνομα; | Φιλονόη καὶ Φίλοι...

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 )

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.