Don’t Stop

I woke up this morning remembering that Bill Clinton used Fleetwood Mac’s Don’t Stop in his presidential campaign. It goes;

Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow,
Don’t stop, it’ll soon be here,
It’ll be better than before,
Yesterday’s gone, yesterday’s gone.

And I thought that maybe he chose this because ‘progressives’  are very much oriented towards the future, which they usually see as much rosier than the present or the past. They want to ‘progress’ towards that future. They quite literally never stop thinking about tomorrow, which will soon be here, better than before.

I think there’s a problem with being future-oriented in this way, and it’s that you never live in the present, in the now. Because when the future becomes the present, you’ll be looking to yet another future, which also will soon be here, better than today. And so on. You never get to enjoy life right now. Not ever.

The other thing that goes with being future-oriented like this is that you’re always pushing to make the future come quicker. You’re impatient. And if you’re sufficiently impatient, you may even become a revolutionary, just so as to speed things up a bit.

I once read somewhere that, back around the time of the Russian revolution, many Russians were impatient for a future which would see Russia become a modern industrial democracy. If they’d just waited, it would have happened of its own accord. But they couldn’t wait. And the future that they brought upon themselves was that of Stalin’s gulags, which probably wasn’t quite what they’d been dreaming of.

Modern progressives – who are also future-oriented – also can’t wait for the future that they foresee to be realised. And so they try to legislate it into existence.

Antismoking ‘progressives’ have foreseen a world in which nobody smokes – but rather than wait for it to arrive, they have set about legislating it into existence.

Green ‘progressives’ have foreseen a green, low energy world in which polluting industry has vanished. This isn’t entirely irrational. The more efficiently we use energy, the less of it we’ll need. And it’s possible to see the process of miniaturisation in computing technology, which now can pack into one hand-held device the computing power that needed an air-conditioned building 50 years ago. But rather than wait for it to happen if its own accord, they also have set about legislating it into existence, with carbon taxes and windmills.

And the EU is full of ‘progressives’ who have foreseen a United States of Europe, and they’ve set about legislating that into existence as well.

None of them will just let things happen of their own accord, and in their own time. They feel compelled to make things happen, just like Lenin and every other revolutionary.

But trying to make things happen is like coming up behind someone who is walking along a street, and pushing them to make them run. And this brings resistance. People don’t like to be pushed to do things that they were going to do anyway. And that’s one reason why, when people push to make things happen, they very frequently don’t happen at all, or the opposite happens.

And that’s what’s likely to happen with smoking bans, and energy conservation, and the EU. The attempts to force them into existence, to legislate them into existence, will result in unforeseen outcomes, and an unexpected future.

Nevertheless, ‘progressives’ see themselves as morally superior to non-progressives, because they regard themselves as embodying or exemplifying the future, particularly if they don’t smoke, and drive an eco-friendly car, and think of themselves as Europeans rather than natives of some obsolete nation state.

Because in their moral universe, the future is deemed good, and the past deemed bad, and to the extent that they have reached the future earlier than anyone else, they are morally superior to them.

I can imagine a world in which people don’t smoke, because they don’t want to smoke. I can also imagine a world in which a great deal can be done using very little energy. And I can even imagine a United States of Europe. But I can only imagine them if they are the result of people’s free choice. If they are forced into existence, I can’t last.

But I can also imagine (much more readily) a world in which people continue to smoke. And one in which they use more and more energy, rather than less and less. And I can imagine a Europe that has become a thousand city states just as easily as I can see a monolithic European superstate.

And in neither case can I ever say that I have seen the future. I haven’t. I’ve just seen one or two possible futures.

Nobody can see the future. And for anyone to imagine that they can is a conceit. And of course, ‘progressives’ are very conceited. They think they know better.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Don’t Stop

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    Ya thats it Pushed. I wont be pushed as the fine family man yesterday discovered. I hope he was an anti-smoker!

    I think most of us in the fight for sometime have proven we wont be pushed or changed,we fight back making life and media as miserable for these Nazis as we can. They cant win and they know it. Why else are they talking the ‘END GAME”.. The end game is them as the progressive world thye try and force upon the masses by criminal law or weight of forced government edicts wont work.

    Fran I think you will find todays movement in this progressive regressive world domination model experiment is a carbon copy of the last centuries with the LEAGUE OF NATIONS. Thats the last time the progressives had gained enuf power to get things their way and its the same today. In fact weve got everything happening today as happened back then!

    No doubt their back and screwing us globally again………..same plan,same political idealogues!

    Same outcome,it will all collapse.

  2. junican says:

    Interesting, Frank, that you should mention this topic. I have just written an essay over at the Bolton Smokers Club blog about COOPERATION – a different view of the same thing.
    Coercion without cooperation will not work and never has. We accept lots of coercions because they are good ideas: driving on the left (or right as may be the case) is a good example. Coercion without cooperation just makes us angry, so that we withdraw cooperation in all sorts of unrelated ways. Thus, when we are coerced into paying unreasonable taxes, we do our best to avoid them. I do not detest my doctor or hospital doctors or nurses, but I detest the medical elite. I detest MPs. Why? Because they wish to coerce me without even trying to gain my cooperation.

  3. Marvin says:

    “I once read somewhere that, back around the time of the Russian revolution, many Russians were impatient for a future which would see Russia become a modern industrial democracy. If they’d just waited, it would have happened of its own accord. But they couldn’t wait. And the future that they brought upon themselves was that of Stalin’s gulags, which probably wasn’t quite what they’d been dreaming of.”


    They weren’t allowed to “wait”.

    Russia in 1918 was a backward agricultural economy and in the same year fourteen capitalist countries invaded them.
    Sensing what a mortal threat to their power, democratic workers states would be, they joined forces with the fascist “white armies” to help THEM win the civil war.
    Fortunately, after Trotsky had created the Red Army, the fascists were defeated.

    However, after Lenins death and with the experience of the civil war, Stalin made a very important speech. He said “We are 50 to 100 years behind the rest of the world, we must make this up in ten, or they will crush us”.

    Say what you like about Uncle Joe, but he was bang on the money with this one!!!
    Just twenty years later, the capitalist pigs had another go, when Hitler invaded the USSR.
    Try blaming the aggressors for a change instead of the victims.

    • Marvin says:

      Comrade Stalins speech in 1941, when the Krouts were just a few kilometers outside of Moscow…….inspirational.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Marvin Russia was in the world war and defeated in 1917. The serfs revolts had been going on a long time before Lennin was ever on the scene. In fact the Czar in the 1830s had given the serfs a few rights but then they murdered the czar if I recall correctly and the Czars after that quickly quailed any serf demands or revolts. It was also during this time the Communist Manefesto was being written. It was a movement not based upon private property or even equality in the sence of capitalistic ideas. It was a concept of the government owns everything and basically everyone in it…………….They ruled by fear and disapearances of the citizenry if you didnt abide the party politic.

        Communism can in no way be tolerated it is everything nobody wants or desires. It is destruction of anyhting capable of of self reliance. The Chinese Reds have entered upon a daring capitalistic approach since Nixon and it appears to be working within bounds. But with this approach its a slow and fast move towards its own communistic collapse. China loves Americas most favored Nation status with all its bennies.
        We do it because it undermines Communism as the people earn money and own private property. Which goes against the ideals of communism itself. In effect the Chinese have been seduced by Capitalism and its rewards!

        • Mike R says:

          The serf liberation was in the 1860s. It wasn’t serfs who murdered the Czar but the usual middle class revolutionary types. Lenin’s brother was executed for his part in a plot to murder the Czar in the nineteenth century.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Thanks Mark I knew what happened just not when. But I didnt know Lenins Brother had been executed.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Hitler hated communists. Stalin hated everything and trusted no one,hense the cleansing of the Red army of its officer corp right before the war broke out. Dissidents hauled off to the Gulags and Stalin we hear killed tens of millions of russians himself thru internment camps and work camps. We have no real idea how many died of Stalins distrust and phobias of being murdered by his own people.

      The only thing I can agree on with Stalin is that he smoked! So Id guess we can say he didnt lock anyone up for smoking!

    • Mike R says:

      This is so flawed as ideology and history it would take a long time to write a thoroughgoing counter to it. Here are just a few points –

      First , to address Frank’s comment and correct a pervasive, but quite inaccurate myth. The Russians did not rise up and put the Lenin gang in power. The real popular revolution overthrowing the Czar took place in early 1917 whilst Lenin and co were still in exile abroad. The Bolsheviks were beaten in subsequent free elections. In October 1917 they seized power in a Petrograd via a coup which brought down the non monarchist government of Kerensky., not the Czar. One of Kerensky’s main problems was opting to continue the war against the Central powers – the Bolsheviks wanted an immediate end to hostilities with their German sponsors. In power they ceded a great deal of territory to the Germans. For the Germans had actually facilitated the Bolshevik takeover by financing Lenin and co, sending them back from their exile abroad to Russia, with the specific aim of ending the war on two fronts that the Germans, were fighting.

      To call the white armies “fascists” is ridiculous. Fascism did not even exist as a political movement when the civil war began. Even reactionary monarchist Czarists who were part of the anti communist coalition white armies could not be called “fascists”.

      When he saw communism wasn’t working economically, Lenin pragmatically brought back a significant degree of semi capitalism with his New economic policy in the 20s.
      Stalin later created an essentially slave state in his drive to industrialize. He was given as significant amount of help by capitalists, especially Americans, in industrialization. His collectivization of agriculture was an unmitigated disaster. It led to millions of deaths thru starvation and communist violence.

      Stalin crippled the military effectiveness of his army by murdering so many of the officers – for doing nothing of course, as usual with this psychopath. He murdered most of the old Bolsheviks who had “made” the red takeover in 1917 too. He murdered everyone and anyone. He murdered his greatest sycophants as well as so called opponents/”deviationists” ; he murdered his secret police chiefs and many in the secret police rank and file; he murdered factory managers (and then murdered those who replaced them in a seemingly unending cycle of violence). He sent hundreds of thousands to gulags where they died of starvation, cold and communist brutality.

      As anyone with any reasonable grasp of history will know – Stalin cut a deal with the Nazis in 1939, so the 2 brutal gangster regime’s would carve up Europe between them. This “non aggressor” invaded eastern Poland, Finland, Lithuania, Estonia, and parts of Romania. He was merrily supplying the Nazis with raw material to use in Hitler’s war of aggression when his ally Adolf reneged on the pact and invaded the USSR in 1941. The German armies were often initially hailed as liberators by those who had been under Stalin’s yoke – but soon Nazi evil showed itself to be more than a match for Stalin’s variety – leading to the growth of significant resistance to the Germans.

      To defend, even to praise the Soviets, especially Stalin, one of the 3 greatest murderers and repressors in history, is as bad as rooting for the Nazis and justifying their death camps (or denying their existence) – it dances on the (usually unmarked) graves of millions of the murdered and starved innocent. The Bolshevik fan should reflect that if he had lived in the Soviet Union in good old Joe’s heyday, there would have been a strong possibility of him being murdered or sent to a death camp – just as happened to most of the “true believers” in Bolshevism in Russia, the leading cadre of the party, who were relentlessly exterminated by Stalin in the 30s. Those fools died because under their precious “liberating” system of communism they had created a Frankenstein monster, the most repressive and totalitarian police state in history (Nazi crimes up to WW2 pale beside Stalin’s record in the 30s). They had built a state without an impartial justice system, with no legal opposition, so there could be no defense or help for them against the regime’s charges and actions when Stalin came for them . The odious Trotsky became another of the millions of corpses created by the evil Soviet regime he had done so much to bring about, finally murdered by Stalin’s agent, after a number of failed attempts, in his cushy exile in Mexico. As in the cases of Trotsky, Zinoviev, Bukharin and countless others, the communist regime murdered far more Bolsheviks (and workers) than any white Russian force did. The Czar or “the capitalists” didn’t kill Trotsky, he was murdered by the totalitarian political ideology he subscribed to – but the Bolsheviks did murder the Czar…along with his wife, children, doctor, servant…the first victims, a warning of what would become an orgy of repression and mass murder which turned Russia into a charnel house.

      ideology of Marxist – Leninism belongs in the same dustbin as Nazism.

      • Marvin says:

        1) – Russia in 1917 was a backward, feudal, agricultural economy.
        2) – They were invaded by 14 capitalist countries in 1918.
        3) – They were invaded AGAIN in 1941.
        4) – They were getting a bit pissed off with this.
        5) – The only way they could defend themselves was by industrialising rapidly.

        My point is, they did not have “time” for a normal, steady, industrialisation.
        It was either, industrialise in 10 years or be utterly destroyed by the violent, invading, capitalist countries.
        Stalin chose the former. If it had not been for the murderous assaults by the so-called “free world” on the new workers state, Stalin and his ideology would never have become dominant in the Bolshevik party. Lenin did not like him. Trotsky wanted a slower, more humane industrialisation, which is why he and his followers were assassinated.

        Everything ugly that happened, is directly related to the policy of “industrialise in 10 years”. In the UK it took 150 years, but even that was not without its inhumanity.

  4. harleyrider1978 says:

    Frank its happening! Check out this story from NZ!

    Hating smokers doesn’t help anyone

    By Deborah Hill Cone
    5:30 AM Monday Apr 22, 2013

    I want to be a smoker. Listening to Professor Stanton Glantz, eminent cardiologist and director of the Centre for Tobacco Control at the University of California, San Francisco, made me want to go out and buy my first packet of cigarettes.

    Professor Glantz is an educated, scholarly man on a mission. He is in New Zealand to try to get us to start what he calls a de-normalisation campaign against smoking. Sounds good so far I know, but stick with me.

    Professor Glantz doesn’t approve of the way we gently try to encourage individual smokers to give up. What were we thinking?

    We should stop doing this forthwith and instead mobilise the entire population, even people who don’t smoke, to be angry and and hate tobacco companies because they are, in Professor Glantz’s words “evil”.

    These people are despicable and working “in the shadows”, he says.

    The good professor is also lobbying to stop anyone portraying smoking in mainstream films – even Hobbits smoking pipes – and to ban e-cigarettes being used as an aid to stop people smoking.

    I understand smoking is bad for your health, but am not clear about why he thinks electronic cigarettes, which emit only water vapour, are so bad, except that he is a zealot.

    But why did this erudite tweedy man make me, a non-smoker, want to drive straight to the nearest dairy and buy a pack of fags with a picture of rotting teeth on it? It could be just that I am bloody- minded and contrary.

    But there is something else as well. Smoking is bad. But going around trying to make people – even non-smokers who don’t smoke and may never smoke – angry and hateful strikes me as being a really unhelpful thing to do. Not to mention banning screenings of Casablanca.

    It seems to be taking one bad thing – some people smoke – and adding another bad thing, everyone gets worked up and angry and full of hate at “them”. It is easy to make people hate “them”. Professor Glantz is using shame and belittling as a way to make smokers “other”.

    This is a dangerous strategy. As TED talk superstar Brene Brown says in her life-changing book Daring Greatly: “It doesn’t matter if the group is a church or a gang or a sewing circle or masculinity itself, asking members to dislike, disown or distance themselves from another group of people as a condition of ‘belonging’ is always about control and power.”

    We should question the intentions of any group that insists on disdain towards other people as a membership requirement.

    Not that I can talk. I’m just as bad as anyone else. I have lots of people I can’t stand.

    People with hand-tooled leather signs outside their houses, people with Swiss watch collections, Hooray Henries, yoga bores, wine bores, Louvretec bores, slow walkers, slow talkers, people who wear three-quarter length pants, people who say “Cheer up, it may never happen”, soccer moms, skiers, rich socialists, Gwyneth Paltrow, people who clean their cars with a toothbrush, people with novelty coffee cups, parents of “gifted children”.

    I could go on and I haven’t even got to the Sensible Sentencing Trust or my Die Yuppie Scum sub-genres. The point is, that we all have our own list of “them”.

    The trick is learning not to focus on seeing people as a group who are annoying but instead learning to connect with individual people. Even ones with stick figures of their families on the back of their cars.

    And I know two people who have worked for tobacco companies and they don’t appear to eat broken bottles and wear barbed wire next to their skin. Perhaps they should meet Professor Glantz.

    It would be good to encourage smokers to stop. But using shame is not the way to do it. Smoking is bad for your health. But so is Professor Glantz.

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    Ya just gotta read the comments!
    Basically owebama’s found a new way to create more gdp when its actually nothing!

    Just more add this and add that to come up with this and voila instant recovery story!
    Or change the unemployment equation to show lowered UE numbers!

  6. waltc says:

    Comrade Marvin

    WTF are you thinking? That totalitarianism of the left is somehow (how?) better than totalitarianism of the right? That it’s not all the same soul-crushing power-tripping bunk, with the same broken eggs in the name of the same elusive but visionary omelet? You think that Stalin really cared about The People? The millions he starved? (Look into the man-made Russian famine). The hundreds of thousands he sent off to camps for not sharing his Vision of progressive Russia? And HOW did it “progress” with its Five Year Plans? Yes, by the ‘fifties it could build an atom bomb (with a stolen formula) but couldn’t put enough food on people’s tables (if people had tables in their miserable communal crowded apartments). You really believe that the noble Soviet “workers” were better off, by any dimension of “better” than their western counterparts? Oh, and please justify his pact with Hitler.

  7. Mike R says:

    Frank -the real “Russian revolution” overthrowing the Czar took place early in 1917. The communist Bolsheviks seized power much later in October 1917. They had been defeated soundly in elections and overthrew the non Czarist Kerensky government by a coup. There was no popular uprising or ballot by which the Russian people brought Lenin and his mass murdering gang to power.

  8. smokingscot says:


    Reasonably good news that’s only been reported by German media thus far.

    Horacio Cartes wins the Presidential election in Paraguay.

    He’s a businessman and beat off a (left wing, socialist) “career politician” who, during the election campaign, made every effort to besmirch Mr. Cartes, because he happens to be a Tobacco Baron!

    Didn’t play with the electorate at all. No Sir it did not, Cartes whooped him – big time.

    You may be aware that Bloomberg Philanthropy spent several million Dollars to assist the previous (corrupt) regime impose a smoking ban in April 2010. It had the same effect as here on the leisure sector.

    First change the people of Paraguay have had to express their opinion on this matter.

    Note to Farage: push Cameron and Miliband to do the smoking put down in 2015.

  9. Rose says:

    Excellent, if we are on to Communist Russia, a subject I know very little about, it’s high time I investigated Trofim Lysenko, it’s something I’ve been meaning to do for years.

    Science: Lysenko’s Legacy
    Monday, Dec. 06, 1976

    “During Stalin’s iron rule, he commanded virtually unlimited support for his outlandish agricultural schemes, controlled the direction of research in areas far beyond his competence—and set back Soviet genetics nearly a generation. Indeed, when Izvestia last week belatedly revealed the death of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko at age 78 in a brief back-page announcement, his bitter legacy was still all too apparent. Only now are the biological sciences in the U.S.S.R. finally recovering from what the American geneticist I. Michael Lerner calls “the most bizarre chapter in the history of modern science.”,9171,911872,00.html

    Preliminary research this morning, regularly equates Lysenkoism with Global Warming science and everything else takes a Western view, but Marvin is here to set me straight.

    “In Stalin’s Soviet Union, a madman named Lysenko was put in charge of the nation’s wheat growing. Lysenko rejected the idea that genetic traits are inherited from your parents, and instead believed that you could change an organism’s offspring by changing the organism itself.

    So if you cut one leg off a mouse and bred it, he reasoned, the little mice would have one leg smaller than the rest. Do it for long enough and you’d get a three-legged mouse.

    It’s rubbish, of course, but it was ideologically comforting rubbish. Stalin loved Lysenko’s theories because they suggested that the Soviet programme of changing the current generation would change the generations that followed, making an ever more perfect worker’s paradise.”
    http: //


    Melvyn Bragg and guests delve into the dark world of genetics under Joseph Stalin in discussing the career of Trofim Lysenko. In 1928, as America lurched towards the Wall Street Crash, Joseph Stalin revealed his master plan – nature was to be conquered by science, Russia to be made brutally, glitteringly modern and the world transformed by communist endeavour.

    Into the heart of this vision stepped Trofim Lysenko, a self-taught geneticist who promised to turn Russian wasteland into a grain-laden Garden of Eden. Today, Lysenko is a byword for fraud but in Stalin’s Russia his outlandish ideas about genetic inheritance and evolution became law. They reveal a world of science distorted by ideology, where ideas were literally a matter of life and death. To disagree with Lysenko risked the gulag and yet he destroyed Soviet Agriculture and damaged, perhaps irreparably, the Soviet Union’s capacity to fight and win the Cold War.
    http: //

    Comrade Lysenko in Copenhagen
    How Stalin’s favorite scientist paved the way for today’s global-warming enthusiasts.

    As the illustrious conclave of global-warming true believers, led by Pres. Barack Obama, gathers in Copenhagen for yet another exercise in environmental doom and gloom, observing the proceedings with the sly smirk of somebody who’s “been there, done that” is likely to be the ghost of one Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. No ordinary ghost he: Comrade Lysenko was Stalin’s favorite scientist for decades and the driving force behind the greatest scientific fraud in history prior to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Indeed, to fully understand the nature, magnitude, and implications of the AGW scam, it’s worthwhile to revisit Academician Lysenko’s exploits.

    The 1950 edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, the arbiter and repository of all politically correct Communist knowledge, had the following entry under genetics: “Soviet scientists under the leadership of Academician Lysenko proved scientifically that genes do not exist in nature.” Having Mendelian genetics outlawed on the grounds that it was not a science was probably Lysenko’s crowning achievement.

    A self-taught agronomist, Lysenko early on jumped aboard the Stalinist bandwagon and developed a number of agricultural ideas — ideas that rejected all established science as “bourgeois” and therefore “counter-revolutionary,” an approach similar to the Nazis’ assault on “Jewish mathematics.” Included were promises to dramatically raise grain yields through the practice of something called “vernalization,” change the climate of Siberia by planting trees, and make wheat plants produce rye, among others. To push these ideas, Lysenko called his opponents “wreckers” and the mere discussion of his theories “political sabotage.”

    “Despite a well-known record of bogus research, experiment falsification, and faked results, and with Stalin’s blessing, Lysenko and Lysenkoism ruled Soviet agricultural science for three decades with dismal consequences for agriculture and the country at large.

    While pre-Lysenko Russia was known as the granary of Europe, the Soviet Union was never able to feed its population and relied on huge grain imports until its demise.”

    “In summary, the comparisons between Lysenkoism and Global Warming are:

    1. Work first through political organisations.

    2. Claim that the science is settled. There is nothing to debate.

    3. Disregard or deny all the accumulating evidence that the predictions are wrong.

    4. Demonise the opposition (Mendelian geneticists; deniers of Global Warming)

    5. Victimise the opposition (execution and exile; loss of jobs or research funds)

    6. Relate to a current ideology (Stalinism; Environmentalism)

    7. Support a vast propaganda machine.

    8. Create a huge bureaucracy where many people have careers dependent on the ruling concept.”
    http: //

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Google translated

    Let me through, I’m an epidemiologist!
    Posted on April 21, 2013 by the editor

    Or: What can the epidemiology? And what they can not do?

    A fundamental criticism of epidemiology. Part 3

    The logic that drives you now abuse, serves more to fix the stuck in the usual terminology errors, than to explore the truth, it is therefore more harmful than useful. (Francis Bacon, Novum Organon)

    Modern epidemiological methods are based on mathematical models, which are the most non-epidemiologists a book with seven seals. This is one of the reasons why it is so easy to fend off criticism of scientific results, which are done on an epidemiological basis: a layman who has no experience with mathematical models, in fact, the calculations may be because supposedly see through only experts these methods and hardly understand , the authors of the epidemiological results can almost always refer to passive smoking on the non-expert status by critics and their criticism for that reason – credible to the outside – reject. This applies even if the critics would certainly qualify them for criticism and only the status of “epidemiologist” is missing. In reality, you need the mathematical models that is not so exactly know, in order to assess whether they are used correctly or incorrectly. One must also be a piano virtuoso to to hear it when a piano is out of tune.

    This brings us back to the two already described scientific worldviews: the deterministic-mechanistic and system-oriented view of the world.

    The deterministic-mechanistic scientific method, I wrote in my first post, may very well capture and analyze mono causal relationships and give good support even when experimental approaches. Epidemiological methods that have this image of science as a basis can also edit multifactorial problems, provided

    – No interactions exist

    – This multifactorial braid not to complex systems (eg, an organism) and thus inevitably meet again on interactions

    – No unknown risk factors and risk indicators exist,

    – All influence factors and variable environmental conditions are measured and quantitatively and qualitatively detected.

    The effect and the influence of material and psychosocial variables that are beyond the measurement by those methods inevitably have an effect ergebnisverfälschende. This deficit of deterministic-mechanistic approach can be compensated with any epidemiological-statistical model. It is especially a mistake multifactorial considerations equated with considerations of complex systems. A complex system is constantly changing its state and never falls back to its original state. This presents an enormous challenge to the measurement and evaluation of the system in single-element considerations and causality considerations. Multifactorial epidemiological methods encounter with such a task unfortunately its limits:

    – All factors causally involved for the specific risk of the disease are not known time of the survey.

    – Time of the survey there is not any known factors that are causally responsible for the specific disease into account.

    – The effect of known factors is unknown (radiation risk, filter systems in diesel-powered motor vehicles, ultrafine or nanoparticles).

    Short slide to the nanoparticles: Their effect overlooks basically not even no. They also measured a technical challenge. (As an aside: Measuring Methodological problems of a similar nature was well into the 90s, since no meaningful measurement option for tobacco smoke was present, to the development of measurement methods, which provided reproducible results, the BGN-prevention has developed itself such a measurement method that tobacco smoke measurement.. )

    Go to the limits of the epidemiological method:

    – Specific exposure needs to show an effect (increase of diseases or deaths). These effects must, however impacts of actions involved in any manner other coexisting cause of the effect (disease-specific) are separated (requirement of causality criterion 3, see further down in the text).

    – If interactions are present at the level of actions, these must also be taken into account.

    – If interactions in complex bio-psycho-socio-technical system are present, then this a go in the change in the effect.

    This problem tries to meet the modern epidemiology with mathematical developments, such as univariate and multivariate analyzes of variance, regression, logistic regression, Cox regression, Harzard function bootstrap method. These efforts to causality approach, however, are still very much limited by the number of unrecognized variables in the statement. Also, using this modern mathematical methods, it is not possible to analyze complex systems, since prerequisites are missing at the moment. When acting simultaneously influence variables that influence a target variable, are not considered, is both stochastic and deterministic ways of looking at the probability statement of Epidemiology, causality back.

    In my open letter to Dr. Kuhn I had set out on pages 5 and 6, that and why an application of epidemiological methods, for example when it comes to determine occupational diseases in accordance with the legislative requirements for the practice completely useless, unrealistic results leads. It seems almost ludicrous, but if the demand is made, but we must apply these methods to address scientifically correct. One method is nothing more than a means to an end, and the end is a result that reflects the reality or at least come as close as possible. The correct application of a method to misunderstand as objective, the sense of epidemiological research on the head.

    To consider causal relations in a deterministic way, fails regularly on extremely varied changing response of the system and the unrecognized or unknown causal factors. The epidemiological method can therefore provide a maximum of suspicion against the studied factor as a result. Whether a causal link exists, in contrast, can only guess. How likely is a causal relationship, depends mainly on the strength of the association. The relative risk greater than 2 (at lower confidence level greater than 1) More likely than not, that a causal relationship exists. Provided a proof that one has not yet, however, because of a large number of predictors, only a fraction can be mitbeurteilt.

    The problem is generally well known to scientists. Examples such as the Environment Agency to his website:

    In epidemiological studies, the population is examined in a real situation. […] But in real life, the boundary conditions can not be controlled. What is found is the result of many factors, which are not always known. […] Epidemiological studies can never prove it, but probably do, if certain requirements are met causality. To test the causality criteria are often used by Sir Austin has called Bradford Hill (“Hill criteria”), 1965 (including strength of the statistical relationship, specificity of effects, several matching observations, dose-dependent, correct temporal sequence of cause and effect).

    Described here, the “specific requirements” are not met in almost regular way of epidemiological theory of passive smoking. Something “probably do” means that the so-called “simple probability” is given: it speaks more to a relationship than not. When teaching causality in occupational disease process that is specified as the definition and basis of the recognition procedure.

    Why these “specific requirements” only from a relative risk of 2 can be met, I had described in my book:

    The risk clearly to a particular risk factor – in this case – can be assigned (“attributable risk”), is not identical to the relative risk, but in this case, hardly a precise definable subset of passive smoking. Statements about the attributable risk can be made even more difficult the lower the relative risk fails.

    The usual formula for calculating the attributable risk is:

    Relative risk minus 1.0 = probability of causation

    Relative risk

    With a relative risk of 2.0, the probability of a risk attribute variables is thus 50 percent.

    RR 2.0 minus 1.0 = 0.5

    RR 2.0

    If a relative risk that is higher than the value of 2.0, therefore speaks more likely than not that a causal relationship exists, and the higher the risk, the more likely the causal link may be considered certain. A relative risk of 1.25, however, contains a much higher probability that speaks against such a relationship.

    For good order’s sake at this point also noted that I have presented the matter of the attribute variables risk in this passage of my book, while not wrong, but simplified with respect to the comprehensibility something – because of course the effects are unknown after this formula factors not included as before, so it if you want to say it quite correct to a “maximum of 50 percent” probability is, not one that is exactly 50 percent. Understood in a mathematical sense causality evidence is not available, but be a legal basis in the evidence considered sufficient to “condemn the delinquents”, that is: to recognize a factor as the cause of an occupational disease.

    L. Kreienbrock et al have dominated in their 2012 new edition textbook the epidemiology of the sentence: “The concept of causality in epidemiology is thus one of degree rather in the sense of increasing evidence through the collection of evidence.” This “gradual notion of causality” as a supposed solution to the Declaration of embarrassment epidemiology is seen on its own for a declaration of bankruptcy of the charges that science claim to be able to deterministic worldviews construct causal evidence based. The epidemiological method – which is actually stated here – can not provide such evidence, without changing the definition of terms of causality, which, however, is then no longer identical to the otherwise common definition. To meet those needs, therefore it especially in cases with low relative risk of the combination with other instruments such as toxicological and experimental nature, they should also help to prove a causal relationship, or at least to suggest them.

    By Rothman and Greenland, 1998 and Kreienbrock and Chess, 2000 is assumed that a factor corresponding to the cause of a disease, if three conditions are met:

    The exposure to the risk factor must precede in time the disease.
    A change in the exposure must be accompanied by a change in disease incidence.
    The association between risk factor and disease can not be the result of an association of these factors with a previous factor.

    Point 3 is to be observed in complex systems fundamentally, as confounding factors in a mono-causal epidemiological study can if ever, be taken into account only imperfectly. The erroneous assumption that complex systems could still be analyzed in this way, probably rooted in the fundamental error, a system equivalent to the sum of its individual elements. In fact the whole thing is – as the saying goes – in this case, far more than the sum of its parts. Variations of the system, unknown factors that are always present, the interactions of the disturbances that alter the individual elements constantly, and the responses of the system vary and can not be detected here. There’s simply because of the many unknown mode of factors that come into dynamic interaction and in turn introduce unknown variables into the system, no mathematical models which may be mapped to an epidemiological way.

    The epidemiology should therefore operate exclusively with real numbers on the input and output of this complex system, which can be considered as a “black box.” Whenever recourse in the epidemiology of projections and specified variables, remove them from the reality that they really should converge further. This fact can not be changed even by the most sophisticated mathematical formulas. Of course it is much less expensive to make use of such tools, when making the exposure group, outgoing and again to analyze, but it is inevitably deteriorates the knowledge gained from the underlying results, rather than improve it. If realistic scientific research, the goal is treading the wrong path this should actually ban by itself.

    The following would be correct way to map disease risks realistically:

    If the outputs of the peer group to bring as many or fewer deaths or ill, there is no functional relationship of the exposure in terms of pathogenicity. Then nothing needs to be taken preventively. Based on epidemiological studies on passive smoking means – roughly speaking (the ifs and buts of the associated subtleties I discuss if needed happy with those who are familiar with it) – that all studies with a relative risk of less than 2 (at lower confidence interval of less than 1 ) require no further activities.

    Studies in which exposure group has more diseases than the comparison group, but would then not be “finished”. In such a case, the suspicion of a functional relationship exists when the exposure is present as the only distinction comparison group. In this case, however, need factors, which act as confounders, be checked, or there must be processes within the “black box” may be explored experimentally the cause.

    So it’s not as though I would argue that epidemiology can not actually make a valuable contribution with the right approach to investigate the causes of disease. Is to demonstrate how well the example of passive smoking, but are epidemiological results that might be only a starting point in a system-oriented view, considered as the end point, which is considered generalizable and will be transferred to on meta-analyzes in abstract epidemiological considerations in which a supposedly demonstrable effect will be used in the future of passive smoking in the form of a no longer unquestionable relative risk as default variable. This happened for example in the aforementioned WHO tobacco smoke extrapolation as well as in the case of the DKFZ-publication “passive smoking – an underestimated risk.” All this must inevitably pass far to reality.

    If one has analyzed the success of prevention intervention with experimental epidemiological methods and the measures taken to the target variable (disease) favorably influenced, so the analysis of this complex system is managed. A prime example is the BK 4301 (baker’s asthma). To compete for the detection of passive smoking in a similar way, can not succeed in principle, since this exposure does not cause increased morbidity compared to the same population. It is not enough for prevention, to have learned the usual in epidemiology and mathematical formulas to correctly apply. Must also be assessed, whether its help with realistic results are achieved or not.

    If a lifted out in action attribute of a group (eg, exposure to secondhand smoke at waiters) to be examined, then you have in a system-oriented approach to the initial value (disease diagnosis, symptom) with the comparison group (in the example: other people / other professionals) set in relation are. A causal relationship can be assumed in this approach, if the following conditions are met:

    The initial value must be higher than in the comparison group.
    Is that the case must be analyzed to confirm the suspicion against the exposure factor or identify other possible causes by appropriate methods the complex system.
    If the initial value equal to or lower than in the comparison group, a causal relationship between exposure and disease can not be assumed.

    All variables that change the input-output variables and, ultimately, find their way in this regard. Also included are all unknown disturbances, and it can not risk factors or risk indicators are consciously or unconsciously omitted. Furthermore, this system approach also takes into account all known or unknown interactions.

    A complex system can not be lit on causality relations towards using epidemiological methods from the outset. To know this limit of the method used, is at least as important as being able to apply them correctly within the limit. In epidemiology these limits are not regularly observed, either not recognized or exceeded targeted. Half a century epidemiologists who make all the same mistakes leading to border crossings, but the results can be mutually so often peer reviewen as they want, without this brings them closer to reality.

    As the analysis of a complex system works in practice, I describe in the next post.

    • junican says:

      An interesting read, Cousin, even though it is difficult.
      The author is at pains to point out that, in a complex situation, where there is interaction among many variables, no one can say how these variables will interact. The whole thing is far, far too complex. I say a calculation regarding the possible interactions between all the chemicals in tobacco smoke, and the number of possibilities comes something like 10 to the power of 2,500. And, of course, there is no certainty that these interactions will continue in the same way in the future.
      The same sort of thing applies to the climate.
      The main thing is that it is not possible to produce a realistic model if the interactions are not known.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Thanks, Harley.
      Prof. Grieshaber’s
      A new begin in science – a fundamental criticism of epidemiology
      is in 8 parts; Or: What can epidemiology? And what can it not do? is only part 3.
      It will take a little time to translate this blog.

      To Prof. Grieshaber:

      From 2000 until his retirement March 2011 Prof. Dr. med. Romano Grieshaber was the responsible leader of the Department for Prevention and Research at the “Berufsgenossenschaft Nahrungsmittel und Gaststätten (BGN)”, the German Employer’s Liability Insurance Association for the Food and Catering Industry. He is Honorary Professor of Applied Prevention and Health Promotion at the Friedrich Schiller University of Jena. He was board member of the “Forschungsgesellschaft für angewandte Systemsicherheit und Arbeitsmedizin (FSA)”, the German Research Association for Applied System System Safety and Occupational Medicine, member of the International Social Security Association (ISSA), and spokesman of the board of the “Kompetenzzentrum für interdisziplinäre Prävention (KIP)”, Competence Centre for Interdisciplinary Prevention at the University of Jena.

      Grieshaber is a physician. After doing clinical work in internal medicine, trauma surgery, emergency and occupational medicine, he worked from 1986 at the BGN, first as chief physician at the Occupational Health Service, and from 1994 as Medical Director, and from 2000 as head of the department for Prevention and Research.

      Prof. Grieshaber is a non-smoker.

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    Stanishev promised repeal of a ban on smoking in Bulgaria

    Author: OFFNews Published on April 21, 2013 at 18:40

    This was announced in Shumen BSP leader Sergey Stanishev.

    “It is clear that there should be restrictions on smoking, but what I do is not reasonable. I think we need to rethink, ie to take a step back and maybe go back to the previous situation, “said Stanishev, who is a smoker.

    In his words, the damage to small and medium businesses from total ban on tobacco smoke in enclosed places are too big.

    He noted that the government “Borisov” initially gave a total ban on tobacco smoke indoors, but then came the “new 100”.

    According to him, the state administration have behaved like bullies and follow the instruction to fine any price to clog the holes in the budget with little money.

  12. Bucko says:

    Frank – I think they are impatient because they want their names to be stamped on the changes. Can you imagine someone like Simon Chapman saying, ‘No rush, we’ll get there one day’. Unless it happens when he is still alive, he won’t be able to get his name in the history books.

    That’s why they want it now. They want the power and the kudos, they don’t want it to go to thier kids or grandkids.

  13. Rod says:

    I’m a bit slack. I haven’t read any of the comments.

    It was a shit song and didn’t make sense even then.

    We’ve got an idiot bitch prime minister who is going to get kicked out in September. She likes to talk about moving forward. She’s also a criminal thief and will be doing really well if she stays out of prison.

    • junican says:

      I take it that you are from Australia, Rod.
      The trouble is that she has already caused an enormous amount of damage. Can that damage be repaired? Not unless the next administration see sense, and realise that COERCION, in all its forms, is counter-productive.

  14. cherie79 says:

    Unless one Party decides to put amending the ban in their manifesto, unlikely, I simply can’t see how things change, much as I wish it would. People think nothing now of being rude to smokers in a way they would not be to any other minority, it is disgraceful. I think we will have to take a leaf out of the gay movement, they were once a despised minority and now are accepted by almost everyone.

  15. harleyrider1978 says:

    65 billion illegal cigarettes sold in the EU! Gosh between the excessive taxation and treating us like dogs for a none existent health issue – SHS – who would ever have thought this would happen.

  16. timbone says:

    An ancient Chinese proverb says “He who dwells on the past destroys his future, but he who lives today can build on his past”.
    Jesus said “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of it’s own”
    Ray MaCarthy said “A future plan is good, but a projection brings anxiety”.
    timbone says “I am here and it is now”.

  17. The revenues of the European central institutions are trivially small: less than 1 percent of EU GDP. There is no central European Treasury. There is no federal European debt. All the Europeans have is a European Central Bank. And today they are discovering the hard way what some of us pointed out more than 13 years ago, when the single European currency came into existence: that’s not enough.

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.