Had To Laugh

I had to laugh.

Somebody dropped a video in the comments here today:

For the first minute or so I was wondering if it was an antismoking ad, given that the voice-over intones, “The medical evidence that tobacco is an unpleasant substance is indisputable.” But the rest of it was given over to several smokers complaining about how they were being made into an underclass, dividing them from their friends, and it was up to them as adults to make their own choices.

In the comments over the past few days, there’s been something of a running battle going on between Carol2000 and Walt and Nisakiman, to which I haven’t contributed. But the video above is, perhaps, a perfect example of the point that Carol is trying to make – which is that once you’ve conceded that smoking is harmful, you have conceded everything, and lost the war.

But more or less every smoker does this. They’ll start out saying something like, “I’ll be the first to admit that smoking is bad for you, but…,” or “Nobody is disputing that smoking gives you lung cancer and heart disease and emphysema, but all the same…”

When people start out like that, they’ve lost immediately.

L. O. S. T.

Lost.

Deborah Arnott would die laughing if she saw the video above (and far be it from me to prevent her from dying laughing or crying or singing or dancing, if the net result is the same). And all the other Nazis is Tobacco Control would die laughing too. And then get out their whips and start driving the smokers towards the gas chambers again.

And the important point is that there’s no need to start off with this concession-of-everything. There’s no need for it at all. Because there’s no real scientific evidence that smoking is harmful. Antismoking ‘research’ isn’t science. The way Carol says it is that it’s ‘questionnaire pseudo-science’. The way I say it is that nothing has been measured accurately. Real science requires accurate measurement of things like mass and length and time, and antismoking ‘science’ never does this. In their questionnaires, they’re not gathering ‘data’. They’re simply getting people’s vague recollections, about how many cigarettes they may have smoked, and for how long, and so on. All their numbers are elastic. And even their fundamental unit of measurement – the cigarette – is elastic, because cigarettes come in all sorts of sizes and strengths. Which is like having a rubber ruler to measure the lengths of things. And they know in advance the conclusions that they’re going to draw from their ‘studies’. And because of all this (and more), antismoking ‘science’ is fundamentally and radically fraudulent. All these people have ever done, from their origins in Nazi Germany onwards, has been to feed people with the idea that smoking is killing them, simply by telling them so over and over again.

And this is of fundamental importance, because if antismoking ‘science’ isn’t called out for the non-science (or nonsense) that it really is, there’s never going to be an end to it.

If I disagree with Carol, it’s that I don’t think we actually know what causes cancer (or heart disease or more or less anything else). In my view, modern medicine remains essentially mediaeval medicine. We know eff-all about anything. And if there’s something else I disagree with her about, it’s her way of advancing her arguments with a baseball bat.

And while I entirely agree with her that antismoking ‘science’ is utterly fraudulent, most people don’t know how to distinguish between real science and fake science. This is true not just with antismoking ‘science’, but with climate science, and lots of other ‘science’ as well. People trust ‘experts’ and ‘authorities’ too much. And they’ve allowed themselves to be conditioned to believe all sorts of things which simply aren’t true, largely by hearing the untruths repeated over and over again.

And I think it’s with this conditioning with which we must begin. Because we’ve all been subjected to the same conditioning, the conditioning that tells you that smoking is ‘bad for you’. And the conditioning is so deep that it takes a great effort to shuck it off.

After all, it’s only been in the last 10 years or so that I started questioning whether antismoking ‘science’ might be fraudulent. And when I started doing so, I found it very difficult to even begin to entertain the idea that it might be. If anything helped, it was my memory of encountering, at age 17, my first antismoking doctor – who I thought then (and still think now) was utterly mad.

And so we have all these smokers, weighed down by decades of conditioning, setting out to do battle with antismokers whom they half-believe or even completely believe. And that’s like going into battle with millstones round their necks.

So there’s a psychological battle to be won before we can win the scientific battle. And the psychological battle is to get people to start to think that maybe they’re being deceived. And most people are nowhere near that point. As is wonderfully demonstrated in the video above, where the first thing that’s stated is the ‘indisputable’ conditioning of the people who made it.

And they’re far from alone. Forest’s Simon Clark regularly and routinely concedes that smoking is bad for you. And even Chris Snowdon believes that smoking causes lung cancer (or he did so two or three years ago during the CATCH debate). And so do all the Harm Reduction people. And most of the vapers as well. And they’re all sure-fire losers. The problem is one of de-programming people who’ve been caught up in what is really a Jim Jones-style Tobacco Control cult

My point is that it doesn’t matter to Tobacco Control if their ‘science’ is fraudulent, just so long as people believe that it’s genuine science, and as long as people can’t even begin to entertain the thought that it might not be genuine science. Because TC has never been working in the field of science, but in the field of psychology and perception and belief and religion. The only thing they want to do is shape or form opinion.

Going back to Russia and all that briefly, we used to be told that the Soviet Union employed ‘brain-washing’ techniques to keep people in line. But these days I rather suspect that it’s the Western world that has been using such techniques for a very long time. And they’re past masters at it.

I don’t usually post anything before midnight here in the UK, but I wrote the above this afternoon, so it may as well go out now.

About Frank Davis

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

62 Responses to Had To Laugh

  1. Emily says:

    I see your point, and I agree completely. I think the reason many smokers begin their arguments by first conceding that smoking is bad for you is that they want to gain credibility in the eyes of their audience. if you’re trying to talk to the average person on the street about smoking- friend, family or stranger- the first thing you want to do is make sure they know that you’re a “reasonable” person, so that you can gain their trust and advance your further argument that anti smoking hysteria has gotten out of control. And the way you do that is by saying “I know it’s bad for me, but…” I personally try to avoid doing this at all costs, but there it is.

    Regardless, I think we need, in general in society, to reach the point where health is not the be-all and end-all of everything. When we see life through a distorted lens where physical health is trumpeted as the highest moral virtue, then everything else will be distorted too.

    • Frank Davis says:

      the first thing you want to do is make sure they know that you’re a “reasonable” person, so that you can gain their trust

      Except that the “reasonable” is unreasonable, and all you are doing is taking the unreasonable side.

      • Emily says:

        Yeah. Maybe more people might be swayed to doubt the absolute certainty they have that smoking is bad for you, just because most average people are sick of all the back and forth that goes on in the media about what is healthy and what is not.

  2. nisakiman says:

    The only issue I would take with your post, Frank, is that you insinuate that both Walt and I have bought into the anti-smoking lies, and are arguing purely from the point of view of freedom of choice.

    I think you actually know full well that that is not true. I don’t have any fundamental disagreement with Carol’s belief that we’ve been fed bullshit for years, and my own personal attitude is that I continue to smoke because I simply don’t believe that the ‘dangers’ of smoking so oft repeated by TC are true. And I regularly post from that standpoint.

    My argument with Carol has nothing to do with the content of her posts, but everything to do with the general tenor of them. Her site is a mirror image of the more risible lunatic anti-smoker sites that we chuckle about, and as such is unlikely to convey any information to anyone. If anything, it will drive people towards the anti-smoking viewpoint. And that to me seems a terrible waste, particularly as there is some useful content in there, if you can plough through the vitriol.

    • Frank Davis says:

      you insinuate that both Walt and I have bought into the anti-smoking lies

      Where did I do that? Quite clearly neither of you have bought into the lies!

      However, I do think that I personally have been steadily moving to the position where I have ceased to believe anything that has ever been said about tobacco (and much else as well). Most smokers do actually think that smoking is bad for them.

      And I agree about Carol. She has a very good website. But the tone of it is unbearable. Which is a great shame.

      • carol2000 says:

        If you can’t bear to say that criminals are criminals, rather than whitewashing them by calling them “nannies,” then the problem is with you, not with me.

        • nisakiman says:

          Carol, it really depends what you hope to achieve, particularly with reference to your website.

          If it is intended just as a personal outlet to vent your frustrations and spleen and in doing so enjoy a psychological catharsis, then I guess it’ has probably worked very well.

          If, on the other hand, you wrote it with a view to convincing others of the mendacity of the tobacco control lobby and the veracity of your researches, then it is a spectacular failure. It’s all very well to adopt a confrontational stance, but the simple truth is that the vast majority of people just turn off when they are faced with that sort foam-flecked diatribe. So at the end of the day it’s self-defeating, since you’ve convinced nobody of the merits of your argument. Purely because you don’t understand human nature, and you have no idea how to interact with people.

          The ones you rail against, the tobacco controllers and their pet ‘scientists’ on the other hand, understand very well what makes people tick, and that is why they succeed in convincing people. If they had adopted your approach, they never would have got past first base.

      • beobrigitte says:

        If you can’t bear to say that criminals are criminals, rather than whitewashing them by calling them “nannies,” then the problem is with you, not with me.

        There is nothing wrong with being outspoken. However, is answering vitriol with vitriol achieves nothing. (Surely you would not tell your mother that she is an utter, utter failure even if you think this to be the case, would you?)

        I do know of one person very much engaged in the “fight” – it is a little unfortunate that people get fed up with e.g. calling the pharmaceutical industry “murderers”. I really don’t believe that this impresses the above industry; they just laugh it off. Readers just get simply fed up with constant vitriol and stop reading – which is a pity as some useful and interesting information is lost.

        • Exactly.

          There’s a very good reason companies spend a LOT of money on public relations and press – because information has to be constructed and packaged in an engaging way that will appeal to as many people as possible.

          What we here are conveying is something extremely against the grain for the vast majority of people, and that alone makes it easy for the casual observer to say such an opinion is crazy. Presenting the argument hysterically only gives them further ammunition.

          If I found a website telling me that diet coke was actually a miracle drink used to cure all ailments, I’d think the author ridiculous. If that information was written in caps, with defamatory and hysterical remarks, I’d laugh and leave the site – *regardless* of the information it contained.

  3. As you brought up CATCH, what I found interesting, and still do, is that Chris, an experienced researcher, was still unable to prove the premise that smoking causes lung cancer. All we saw was different epidemiology studies, and rhetoric. Certainly no response to cigarettes not being a standard measurement.

    I’m still amused that the lack of lung cancer in the Japanese indicates not that smoking may not be as deadly as we are told, but that it’s because they have natural immunity. Despite having higher stomach cancer rates…

    • margo says:

      Natural immunity, Richard? Or maybe it’s to do with their traditional diet of fish and rice and vegetables? Whatever – I predict they will lose their place at the top of the longevity tables over the next 10 or so years, unless they’re immune to radioactive isotopes. If I’m right, their cancer incidence will soar. I expect it’ll be blamed on smoking.

  4. Barry Homan says:

    Sitting in the bus today, there was the usual stop by the school close to downtown Aalborg, here in Denmark. Lots of teens milling around, cute guys and gals, just outside the portal of the school’s entrance. Attractive young gals, a number of them puffing away with their comrades, normal teen behaviour. Not a single deviant low-life among them – the “hip” cool crowd. Stylish, laughing, carefree. No ugly, prunelip nanny-style porter wagging his finger in front of their faces, evil smokers! No sawed-off little spotty nerd, the self-appointed school anti-smoking official waving his hands and coughing, mimicking a heart-attack. Just the normal teen group. The school had even mounted an butt-dispenser, to keep them from littering their butts, right on the wall by the entrance.

    Kind of restores your faith. It’s the next generation of adults. Maybe there is hope…

  5. Frank Davis says:

    I was listening to the Clegg-Farage debate on LBC earlier. At the moment the verdict on LBC is that 65% of listeners thought Farage came out the winner, 35% Clegg.

    Update: Now Farage the winner at 80%.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Unfortunately I had to miss most of it and saw only the first 15 minutes. Clegg started stuttering almost from the word “go”.

      The BBC announced this morning that both, Farage and Clegg, claim “victory” – unfortunately it didn’t show clips from this debate.

  6. Harleyrider1978 says:

    In the comments over the past few days, there’s been something of a running battle going on between Carol2000 and Walt and Nisakiman, to which I haven’t contributed. But the video above is, perhaps, a perfect example of the point that Carol is trying to make – which is that once you’ve conceded that smoking is harmful, you have conceded everything, and lost the war.

    Its really quite simple and it puts everything within perspective!

    FORCE THE BLOODY BASTARDS TO PROVE it befoe they can say anything………………

    I mean PROOF end point connection to disease outcome,it matters not the subject at all be it smoking ,obesity drinking, sunbathing etc etc……………Proof has been the Victim of all this junk science and we quit demanding proof proof positive long ago………….

    By DEMANDING proof we all win and junk science like tobacco control goes the way of the witch doctor in deepest Africa……………Vood Doo science is no longer acceptable. You want grant money prove your theory,want grant money prove your on the trail to proof! Want legislation Prove it before it can be even discussed!

    • carol2000 says:

      My point is that those anti-smoking studies are RIGGED. They’re designed to produce fraudulent results. For socioeconomic reasons, smokers are more likely to have been exposed to the pathogens that are real causes of the diseases they blame on smoking. The anti-smokers’ studies are basically simple comparisons of smokers versus non-smokers, so by ignoring the role of infection, smoking gets false blame. They’ve done this with every disease they blame on smoking, and they use the same fraud about peoples’ lifestyles and pollution as well. And we have every right in the world to demand that studies be done properly. For the government to commit fraud to deprive us of our liberties is automatically a violation of our Constitutional rights to the equal protection of the laws, just as much as if it purposely threw innocent people in prison. And for the government to spread lies about phony smoking dangers is terrorism, no different from calling in phony bomb threats.

  7. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Statistics should be OUTLAWED! Right along with epidemiology!

    • Harleyrider1978 says:

      Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science
      http://www.manhealthissue.com/2007/06/epidemiologists-vote-to-keep-doing-junk-science.html
      Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science

      Epidemiology Monitor (October 1997)

      An estimated 300 attendees a recent meeting of the American College of
      Epidemiology voted approximately 2 to 1 to keep doing junk science!

      Specifically, the attending epidemiologists voted against a motion
      proposed in an Oxford-style debate that “risk factor” epidemiology is
      placing the field of epidemiology at risk of losing its credibility.

      Risk factor epidemiology focuses on specific cause-and-effect
      relationships–like heavy coffee drinking increases heart attack risk. A
      different approach to epidemiology might take a broader
      perspective–placing heart attack risk in the context of more than just
      one risk factor, including social factors.

      Risk factor epidemiology is nothing more than a perpetual junk science machine.

      But as NIEHS epidemiologist Marilyn Tseng said “It’s hard to be an
      epidemiologist and vote that what most of us are doing is actually harmful
      to epidemiology.”

      But who really cares about what they’re doing to epidemiology. I thought
      it was public health that mattered!

      we have seen the “SELECTIVE” blindness disease that
      Scientist have practiced over the past ten years. Seems the only color they
      see is GREEN BACKS, it’s a very infectious disease that has spread through
      the Scientific community with the same speed that any infectious disease
      would spread. And has affected the T(thinking) Cells as well as sight.

      Seems their eyes see only what their paid to see. To be honest, I feel
      after the Agent Orange Ranch Hand Study, and the Slutz and Nutz Implant
      Study, they have cast a dark shadow over their profession of being anything
      other than traveling professional witnesses for corporate hire with a lack
      of moral concern to their obligation of science and truth.

      The true “Risk Factor” is a question of ; will they ever be able to earn
      back the respect of their profession as an Oath to Science, instead of
      corporate paid witnesses with selective vision?
      Oh, if this seems way harsh, it’s nothing compared to the damage of peoples
      lives that selective blindness has caused!

      • Harleyrider1978 says:

        The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby

        Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. None of them has any link with reality.

        http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/13287

        • Harleyrider1978 says:

          Smoking Statistics and Epidemiology

          October 31, 2010 TheZAP

          Regarding smoking, the most reliable statistics are actually supplied by the Tobacco Companies. The prevalence of smoking in any country is determined by the sales of the products. If the combined sales of tobacco are up from last year to this, then more people are smoking (and the reverse applies also). However, in this little blighted land, the Government was bullied into making tobacco here the most expensive in Europe, so we now import it cheaply and legally ourselves, or we buy the cheap smuggled variety here. So, what is the prevalence of smokers in Ireland? In 2008, the Office of Tobacco Control reported optimistically that 23.5% of the population smoked. In 2010, Eurostat reported that it had risen to 31%. Neither figure includes imports from either source. Customs & Excise conservatively suggest that 10% tobacco consumed here is illegal. There is no register of smokers in Ireland and neither is there a register of drinkers so the best that can be said is, that we consume loads of each.

          So, we don’t actually know how many people actually smoke here. And, what about the numbers of people who die from smoking? You’ll have heard people wisely announce that, “the cigarettes killed him”. However, technically, this is false. No Doctor wishing to continue to ply his trade would ever put smoking as the cause of death of any certificate. You see, the Doc knows it’s far more complicated than that. If a smoker dies from a heart attack for example, the Doc knows he cannot isolate smoking from the many many other things that cause heart attacks. This is the difference between multi-factorial conditions (ie. having many possible causes) and Monofactorial (having a single cause). Hell, even old age brings on heart attacks and, believe it or not, the biggest killer in Ireland, according to the CSO, is old age.

          So, while there is a database somewhere with a record of all death certs. you won’t find smoking listed among the causes. Now, 29,000 people approx. die from all causes in this Country every year and some sweet charities maintain that 6,000 of those are smokers. Is this based on 6,000 death certs? Like hell it is. It’s a guesstimate and a bad one at that. If 31% of the population smoke, then to reflect this in the deaths, there should be 8,990 smokers dying in any year. If ASH, the IHF and ICS are correct, then smokers are healthier than non-smokers and that can’t be right, can it?
          http://smokingoutthetruth.com/2010/10/31/smoking-statistics-and-epidemiology/

      • Hugh says:

        I feel your frustration. When I get into an exchange of blog comments with someone of the epidemiological persuasion it’s usually like having a discussion with an automated email response service. I have more productive conversations with my dog. Recently I’ve taken to ending the discussion by posting these 4 links:

        The first 3 minutes of the video sum the situation up quite nicely, the rest is just funny:

        https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Confirmation_bias.html
        http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/
        http://www.globalresearch.ca/conspiracy-theory-foundations-of-a-weaponized-term/5319708

        Most seem to get the point and go quiet.

      • carol2000 says:

        With no original source, this is worthless.

    • garyk30 says:

      Awh Harley, statistics can cut both ways.

  8. roobeedoo2 says:

    I’ve spend many a happy work break discussing information and ideas gleaned from comments and links on this blog. We have to physically take it to the smokers because they don’t know that they don’t know (if you know what I mean). And I thank god for Frank and Rose and Harley and everyone here for giving me to courage and ammunition to do that.

    I talk to non-smokers about it as well. I don’t discriminate.

    • Harleyrider1978 says:

      Your a fighter Roobeedoo keep it up, I just got banned from CNN for the 6th time this year LMAO what an honor.

  9. margo says:

    You’re right, Frank. I’ve been closely examining smoking studies for years. (Started by getting an opportunity to look at the original Doll study many years ago in a University course I was taking). It’s all epidemiology, and bad epidemiology at that, right from the very beginning, continued and imitated over and over from study to study. It isn’t real science by any definition. Nobody has yet truly found any evidence of smoking definitively, let alone exclusively, causing cancer or any other disease.
    Where I disagree with you is on climate science. That is not all bad epidemiology, there’s real science in there. It’s completely different. But we’ll have to agree to disagree on that. I look at this site every day for the comments on smoking (and other interesting topics that come up). I often come only once and miss quite a few contributions. Unfortunately, I’ve missed this running argument with Carol 2000, and I haven’t yet succeeded in finding her website, though I’d like to. Is it just her ‘tone of voice’ people don’t like?

    • margo says:

      I also meant to say: another phrase that always annoys me as an introduction to a tobacco-defence argument (apart from “I know it’s bad for me but …”) is “I’m not a smoker myself, but …” There’s never a need to tell us that – the argument doesn’t require it. I think they say it so that they won’t be mistaken for ‘hopeless addicts pathetically rationalising’. It implies that they think anyone who smokes and defends smoking with an argument is indeed trying to justify the unjustifiable – and that’s why I don’t trust them!!

    • garyk30 says:

      This ‘Climate Science’?

      Since 1970 environment watchers have made quite a few predictions of dire consequences to the planet caused by the activities of humans that have thrown the environment into chaos, among which are:

      •By 1980 all of the important animal life in the sea will be extinct.
      •By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people.
      •The world will be eleven degrees colder by the year 2000.
      •By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by half.
      •A general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.
      •Within a few years children just aren’t going to know what snow is. Snowfall will be a very rare and exciting event.

      Earth Day predictions from 1970….

      “We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
      • Kenneth Watt, ecologist

      “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
      • George Wald, Harvard Biologist

      “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
      • Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

      “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
      • New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

      “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
      • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

      “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
      • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

      “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,”
      • Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

      “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
      • Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

      “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
      • Life Magazine, January 1970

      “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
      • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

      “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
      • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

      “We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
      • Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

      “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
      • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

      “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
      • Sen. Gaylord Nelson

      “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
      • Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

      • margo says:

        Yeah, I agree – it’s very foolish to put specific dates out, because they can’t predict the future in that way. What I was meaning was actual measuring of ice-thickness, differences in the oceans, increased frequency of rather extreme climatic events etc etc over a number of years – that kind of thing, which is hugely different from sociologists doing crap epidemiological studies. I wasn’t meaning those rather hysterical predictions, which of course were a great mistake.

    • waltc says:

      The Carol battle is in the Herzovenia thread, starting about 3 or 4 posts from the top and continuing for far too long.

  10. Harleyrider1978 says:

    1983 Globall Cooling
    1984 Globall Warming
    2010 Climate Change
    2015 Gone nothing left to call it like a hyphenated American just gone!

  11. waltc says:

    Exactly as you say. It doesn’t matter to TC (or the pols or the media they’ve enraptured) that the science is junk. The ends justify the means and they’ve achieved, and continue to achieve, their ends by fraudulent and increasingly ridiculous means. We too once thought that attacking the junk-science foundation could topple the whole skyscraper but learned the Swiftian lesson that “you can’t reason a man out of what he hasn’t been reasoned into.” The 2003 CLASH lawsuit included Exhibits with actual EPA internal memos and transcripts showing suppression of facts and conflicts of interests, additionally dismantled the city’s proffered science brick by brick– and we learned it didn’t matter. Just as Osteen’s judgement, 3/4ths of it painstakingly demonstrating EPA fraud, had no impact whatsoever on policy, nor did Feinstein’s testimony to congress. (So, no, Carol, I don’t think the Osteen decision was “great.” I’m a pragmatist. Great is what works and if Osteen proves anything, it’s the surprising futility of rational argument.)

    Unfortunately, for the genuine science to get promoted, we’d need a lot more unimpeachable Experts to come out swinging and the press to start vigorously promoting their evidence. But as Alvan Feinstein said long ago, ”

    “[I]n the current fervor of anti-smoking evangelism, what young scientists would want to risk their careers and what older scientists would want to risk their reputations by doing anything that might be construed as support for the “bad guys” of the tobacco industry? What governmental agency would fund research in which the established “accepted” anti-smoking doctrines were threatened by a study proposed by someone–an obviously deranged skeptic– who wanted to do an unbiased objective investigation.”

    If Carol thinks her alt theory about germs is the Grail we’re all too stupid to pursue, she should pack up all her evidence in a carton and shlep it to every city, county, state and federal hearing. At least put it to the test instead of armchair sniping. Like the girl who claims she’d have been a great star if only she’d gone to the audition. Okay. Who knows what’ll happen, but I can predict she’ll be hooted out of the room, called an upstart amateur (where are your degrees in biology oncology, phrenology, epistemology?) claiming to know better than the titans of the EPA, FDA, CDC, DOH, SG. and every alphabetical NGO under the sun not to mention the legislators themselves who don’t take kindly to havng their demagoguery challenged. In the church of TC, heresy, no matter how correct it might be, is either punished or ignored. And I’d also imagine when she enters attack mode, she’s likely be forceably removed from the chambers.

    Finally. she seems to have concocted a universe in which everyone’s her enemy– contemptible louts all– and she personifies that enemy into a imaginary straw man / woman onto whom she projects opinions they don’t hold, things they didn’t say, sins they didn’t commit.

    FTR, I have never conceded a f’ing thing to the aunts, don’t believe lifestyle studies about anything, suspect epidemiology is numerical voodoo, and DO believe germ theory is a promising avenue, though not necessarily the unifying theory or the holy grail.

    • carol2000 says:

      Not only did the NYCCLASH lawsuit not ‘dismantle the city’s science,’ the issues they raised were about freedom of association and expression, etc. In other words, just another clueless “freedom versus public health” waste of time and effort. And as I said earlier, I’ve BEEN to every smoking ban hearing in town, often with no other smokers present, for the last 25 years. So all your trash talk predicting that I’d be “hooted out of the room” is nothing but smoke billowing out your butthole. And it’s all thanks to your ilk that the anti-smokers have gotten away with their frauds.

      • Harleyrider1978 says:

        Smoking bans are pure Politics and nothing else. The science is the way to destroy their agenda. Just because a room full of Nazis wont listen in the face of undeniable fact doesn’t mean the public wont listen and vote the dirty prohibitionists out of power.

        • Harleyrider1978 says:

          Walt this year the Proponents of the Ky statewide ban screamed don’t listen to what our enemies say listen to us. We flat pummelled the enemy with the facts about the junk science. I even had a Lobbiest ask me to send him information and he took it door to door in the legislature……………..They killed the ban! It works when you have people who will listen.

      • waltc says:

        Don’t tell me what the CLASH lawsuit did or didn’t say since I contributed to, and possess all several hundred pages of it. The brief approached the ban from every conceivable angle– yes, including the constitutional ones which should be included– but spent the bulk of its time arguing the science with documentation up the wazoo which the judge dismissed out of hand in only a sentence of two of his finding even while admitting that the CLASH interpretation of the science might be valid. No one, not even you, sweetie pie, could have made a better or more complete case against TC science than Clash did. And if you think throwing in a germ or two could have changed things, you’re not just smoking tobacco.

        You are arguing out of complete ignorance and a predetermination to hold everyone in contempt.

        I’m glad you haven’t been hooted at but would ask: in all your appearances, have you succeed in overturning or preventing any bans?

        Harley @ 12:57
        Things are politically different in Kentucky than in New York or in most of the Anti-biased and “liberal” (read illiberal) states. However, in places throughout the country where the science arguments have been used in court, they’ve gone down in flames superceded by legal “rational basis scrutiny.” In places like New York and Massachusettes, the city councils and state legislatures are at least 97% composed of a priori banners. In New York City, even while the council acknowledged there was no “innocent bystander” damage from e-cigs, they were willing to ban them on appearance and superstition alone.

  12. garyk30 says:

    There has never been a Death Certificate that states that the primary cause of death was smoking or tobacco use.

    Such a thing can not happen.

    Smoking might contribute to; but, it can NEVER be the cause of death.

    This is American; but, WHO directions are about the same.

    Click to access blue_form.pdf


    “Instructions for Completing the Cause-of-Death Section of the Death Certificate”

    32. PART I. Enter the chain of events—diseases, injuries, or complications—that directly caused the death.

    DO NOT enter terminal events such as cardiac arrest, respiratory arrest, or ventricular fibrillation without showing the etiology. DO NOT ABBREVIATE.
    Enter only one cause on a line. Add additional lines if necessary.

    IMMEDIATE CAUSE:
    a (Final disease or condition resulting in death)

    Due to (or as a consequence of): Sequentially list conditions,
    b. if any, leading to the cause Due to (or as a consequence of): listed on line a.

    Enter the UNDERLYING CAUSE
    c. (disease or injury that Due to (or as a consequence of): initiated the events resulting in death)

    For instance:

    CAUSE OF DEATH =(line a) Rupture of myocardium

    (note: laceration or tearing of the walls of the ventricles or atria of the heart, of the interatrial or interventricular septum, of the papillary muscles or chordae tendineae or of one of the valves of the heart)

    Due to= (line b) Acute myocardial infarction

    (note: heart attack)

    Due to (line c) Coronary artery thrombosis

    (note: restricted blood flow)

    Due to (line d) Atherosclerotic coronary artery disease

    PART II. Enter other significant conditions contributing to death but not resulting in the underlying cause given in PART I.
    (Note: this is where smoking would first show up.)

    • carol2000 says:

      From your link:

      ITEM 35 – DID TOBACCO USE CONTRIBUTE TO DEATH?
      Check “Yes” if, in your opinion, the use of tobacco contributed to death. Tobacco use may contribute to deaths due to a wide variety of diseases; for example,
      tobacco use contributes to many deaths due to emphysema or lung cancer and some heart disease and cancers of the head and neck. Check “No” if, in your
      clinical judgment, tobacco use did not contribute to this particular death.

      That is a genuinely pointless nitpick to proclaim that “Smoking might contribute to; but, it can NEVER be the cause of death.”

  13. garyk30 says:

    Fizzy drinks/smoking/drinking/lack of exercise/etc are going to kill you!!!!

    Well; surprise to these doom criers, everyone is going to die in the end.

    But, let’s put a little reality into the debate.
    (Figures are for the USA)

    Dying is somewhat of a rare event.
    Only 1/129 people die per year from all causes.
    2.4 million deaths out of 310 million people.

    That means that I have only an 0.8% chance of dying and a 99.2% chance of not dying in any given year.

    Since most people do not die in any given year, let’s look at ‘NOT’ dying.

    Heavy smokers and never-smokers have almost precisely the same chances of NOT dying from those diseases caused by smoking.
    Doll’s doctor mortality report.
    http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestream/400720/field_highwire_article_pdf/0/bmj.38142.554479.AE

    The table on page 3 shows this:
    Lung cancer deaths per year.
    heavy smokers(25+/day) = 4.17/1,000 = 995.83 did not die.

    never-smokers = 0.17/1,000 = 999.83 did not die.

    999.83 divided by 995.83 = 1.004.

    Never-smokers are only 1.004 times more likely than heavy smokers, to not die from lung cancer!!!

    When you have to go to 3 decimal places to find a difference, that difference is, for all practicality, non-existent.

    Other results:
    mouth/throat cancers = 1.001 times more likely to not die.

    all other cancers = 1.002 times.

    COPD = 1.002 times.

    other respiratory = 1.002 times.

    heart attack = 1.005 times.

    stroke = 1.002 times.

    other vascular = 1.003 times.

    • smokervoter says:

      Hey Gary, just a clarification from the previous post/comments. I came up with the total current smokers number myself. I used population (316 million) times .76 for adults times .18 smoking prevalence and was off a little BTW. It should have read 43,228,800 current smokers. That’s a 6% decrease from 2007. The death per thousand (current) therefor went down infinitesimallly to 10.01/1,000, which is a 17.2% increase from 2007. So, current smokers down, deaths way up – 17.2% is no small potatoes.

      All the other numbers stand firm.

      Like you said I think the public health coroners who plug the multipliers into SAMMEC are working off the inventory backlog of smokers from the peak years of the mid-60s. Cancer treatment must be working better than ameliorative heart regimens in their mortality cogitations (love that Junican wording).

      It’s obvious that they’re throttling up the heart disease factor, leaving the respiratory alone and downshifting with the cancer multipliers.

      Maybe there’s a new heart drug on the horizon and big pharma is buttering up smokers in anticipation of its launch.

      If their SAMMEC numbers are to be believed: One in 341 current smokers will succumb to lung cancer this year. Why all the fuss, it’s hardly the sure thing the drones claim in all their bitter comments.

      Graphically picture if you will a group photo of smokers 34 across and going up ten rows of a grandstand. Now isolate one smoker off to the side. That’s your ‘sure death from lung cancer’ smoker.

      • Harleyrider1978 says:

        SMOKING RATES WENT UP ACROSS THE COUNTRY

        March 13, 2014 at 4:54 pm

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/167771/smoking-rate-lowest-utah-highest-kentucky.aspx

        All the smoking rates WENT UP! In the Gallup poll but in my tobacco free kids smoking rates from 2009 are much lower

        • smokervoter says:

          Velly velly intelesting. It seems I’ve erred in using the 18% prevalence multiplier. Gallup (the healthist horseshit company, par excellence) says I should have used 19.7%. Now we’ve got 47,311,520 current smokers which is a 2.85% increase over the alleged 46 million someone, somewhere claimed in 2007. It’s no odd coincidence that both Gary and I used the identical 46 million in our 2007 CDC maths, that was the number going around.

          All of which says that the stats regarding smoking are all over the place. Who in their right mind is going to admit to smoking nowadays when you could lose your job, get kicked out of your house or get fined for smoking in your own vehicle at the college campus (the new boy’s room). The prevalence figures are crapola.

          And how can anyone trust anything Gallup puts out? Why can’t they just do their polling and publish the raw data without all of the political/healthist posturing that article entails.

          Gallup is the epitome of a healthist propaganda media outlet. The very name Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index should be your first clue.

        • Harleyrider1978 says:

          Smokervoter they have no idea how many smoke. I read CDC picks 2 areas in a single state and they call 500-1000 folks within those 2 areas normally cities. They amass the info they want to get the resultant numbers they want. If anyone has reason to lie about the numbers its CDC!

        • Harleyrider1978 says:

          Oh and also historically these movements always end with more people smoking than ever as was the case when the Doughboys came home and the flapper nitelife began with women smoking like crazy!

  14. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Nobody should miss out commenting on this story NOBODY

    There’s a quiet rebellion under way against bossy government

    People want to be free to do what they like, including having a smoke in the pub

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10724498/Theres-a-quiet-rebellion-under-way-against-bossy-government.html

    • waltc says:

      This article seems to hit Frank’s point. While the guy screams for liberty, he starts by saying both that it’s undeniable that smoking kills and that smoking around other people is a– I think his words were– “gross intrusion.” Anything he says after that is nullified by his precis.

  15. The Rainbow Bridge says:

    FAO WTC
    The air we ALL sic breath. Another snippet .
    The Boeing 777. Re Malaysian lost airliner.
    Fuel Payload 181,283 Litres
    Equals 240,601,381 cigarettes ( Yes 240 MILLION +)
    PS There are 1300 777s in service

  16. Harleyrider1978 says:

    EDITORIAL: Blowing smoke on cigarette taxes

    High levies on smokes won’t improve health, but increase crime

    It’s usually true that if you want less of something, tax it. There’s an exception, however, when the item being taxed can be easily smuggled in from a place with lower taxes. “Something” like cigarettes, for example.

    The Tax Foundation revealed last week that rather than curbing smoking or increasing tax revenues, high cigarette taxes increase smuggling. This is obvious to anyone who thinks closely about it. Using data provided by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the Tax Foundation calculates that contraband smokes make up more than 25 percent of all cigarettes smoked in the 12 states that try to squeeze the most money out of their nicotine-addicted residents.

    The beneficiary of high tobacco taxes are low-tax states, such as Virginia, Missouri and New Hampshire. Those states measured a surge in sales once the smugglers went about their business.

    Sales figures don’t keep track of where the purchaser lights up, so policymakers in states with high rates of smuggling are often lulled into thinking that a drop in sales is caused by a significant reduction in smoking. That’s not true. Smokers in states with high cigarette taxes appear to be smoking as much as ever. The difference is that now smokers are addicted to bootlegged menthols.

    Maryland exacts a tax of $2 on a pack. Only spendthrifts pay that much, when a quick trip across a border can score cartons for up to $17 less, since there’s a tax of just 30 cents per pack in Virginia and 55 cents per pack in West Virginia. Even those who can’t make a short trip across the corners of two states can usually buy a bootleg pack from someone who can, and did. The Tax Foundation estimates that 20.2 percent all cigarettes smoked in Maryland are smuggled from other states.

    This is a drag on the budgets of the high-tax states. In Massachusetts, where the levy on a pack of cigarettes rose from $2.51 to $3.51 last summer, the state Revenue Department estimates a loss of nearly a quarter of a billion dollars a year in cigarette taxes owing to increased smuggling.

    In its attempt to curb smoking, New York state imposed of $4.35 per-pack tax, and New York City exacts an extra $1.50, driving the average cost of a pack to nearly $12 in the Big Apple. Now 57 percent of all cigarettes smoked in New York state are smuggled. Millions of dollars are wasted on futile efforts to curb the importation of low-tax packs.

    Fortunately for New York, Massachusetts, Maryland and the other states that are finally recognizing the consequences of greed, there’s a solution close at hand: lower the cigarette tax so it’s competitive with neighboring states. Such legislative change will be difficult, because if there’s anything more addictive than nicotine, it’s the politician’s addiction to someone else’s money.

    Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/26/editorial-blowing-smoke/#ixzz2xAHivicf
    Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

  17. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Sales figures don’t keep track of where the purchaser lights up, so policymakers in states with high rates of smuggling are often lulled into thinking that a drop in sales is caused by a significant reduction in smoking. That’s not true. Smokers in states with high cigarette taxes appear to be smoking as much as ever. The difference is that now smokers are addicted to bootlegged menthols

  18. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Poisoning Cases Related to E-Cigarettes Skyrocket
    New York Times report highlights risk, spurs calls for FDA regulation
    Posted by: Editor | Mar 26, 2014

    http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/tobacco_unfiltered/post/2014_03_26_ecigarette

  19. Harleyrider1978 says:

    smokers have as much right to smoke in the air as jet liners have a right to fly.as car owners have a right to drive and emit billions of cigarettes in mass each day,as restaraunts have the right to release grill smoke into the air,as Humans have a right to breathe and exhale VOC’s chemicals in the hundreds with each breath they take 100s similar to the exact same chemicals in tobacco smoke………..Yes indeed smokers have a right to smoke when and where they please the same right to breathe where and when you breathe or drive or cook in your own home!

  20. TP says:

    I’ve read with interest most, but not yet all, of the comments above. I think that the smoking bans around the word, but interestingly far more in English-speaking countries (that are also ahead of the rest of the world on other methods of diminishing our basic freedoms), are a handy diversion from what is really killing people. Apart form increased stress, constant fear, working harder for less pay, worsening food quality, increased drug pushing by doctors and Big Pharma, there is also the fact that between 1945 and the mid-sixties, the US, UK and USSR conducted thousands of atmospheric nuclear tests. After the ban in the mid-sixties, the French and Chinese continued this for several more decades. The radiation from all these tests is still in the air and has spread out since then. Imagine the lawsuits if that were to get out more than it has. Furthermore, nicotine,unlike alcohol, Cannabis, etc, does not impair rational thought and can actually increase it. The elites (for want of a better word) want our minds addled for most of the time (alcohol, Cannabis, prescription drugs, etc) but they still need us sufficiently awake and functional in order to work for them, hence coffee’s acceptability.

  21. Pingback: Had To Laugh | Frank Davis on Smokophobia | Vap...

  22. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Smoking Gun: State Department and George Soros Bankrolled Individuals who Sparked Ukraine …

    LibertyNEWS.com ⋅ Eric Odom

    A few weeks ago I wrote an article placing blame for Ukraine’s unrest squarely at the feet of the U.S. State Department. In that story, I also mentioned …

    http://www.libertynews.com/2014/03/smoking-gun-state-department-and-george-soros-bankrolled-individuals-who-sparked-ukraine-uprising/

    • Harleyrider1978 says:

      A few weeks ago I wrote an article placing blame for Ukraine’s unrest squarely at the feet of the U.S. State Department. In that story, I also mentioned involvement of George Soros. I highly recommend you take a few minutes to read through the entire article.

      The follow-up to that story included undeniable proof the U.S. State Department was coordinating behind the scenes during the ‘euromaidan’ uprising in Ukraine. In the second story there is audio of a phone conversation that allegedly took place between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State (Victoria Nuland) and the U.S. Envoy to the Ukraine (Geoffrey Pyatt). In the conversation we hear very clear discussion of coordination for the State Department’s pick to replace the fallen pro-Russia Ukrainian President. Note the State Department isn’t admitting the conversation took place, but they aren’t denying it either. Which is extremely telling. You do the math.

      So how does this all tie the State Department and George Soros to Ukraine’s ‘euromaidan’ uprising?

      Revolution on Demand, that’s how.

      Read more at http://www.libertynews.com/2014/03/smoking-gun-state-department-and-george-soros-bankrolled-individuals-who-sparked-ukraine-uprising/#dBTO5vb23lHlRxiu.99

  23. Harleyrider1978 says:

    Hopefully its the LAST GASP OF SMOKEFREE IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

    Bullitt Co. Health Dept. encouraging businesses to go smoke-free

    SHEPHERDSVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) — The Bullitt County Health Department lights up another smoking ban debate, as leaders face what may be their last chance to force change.

    “There’s no need for reservation about smoke-free policies because going smoke-free won’t hurt your bottom line,” according to a radio spot that hit Kentucky airwaves in the middle of the month.

    The Bullitt County Health Department backed the ad, encouraging businesses to go smoke-free.

    “To protect the public’s health. That’s it. That’s the whole thing,” said Bullitt Co. health educator Cynthia Brown.

    Melinda Lynch says she’s one smoker who’s burned by the fight.

    “It’s the government telling me what I can and can’t do, and if I want to smoke what’s it anybody else’s business,” said Melinda Lynch.

    The bartender from the Old Depot Bar and Grill in Shepherdsville says she’s seen how smoking bans do affect business.

    Some of her customers drive in from Louisville to avoid Jefferson County’s ordinance.

    “That’s why they’re regulars because they don’t have to go outside and smoke,” Lynch said.

    The Bullitt County Health Department passed a smoking ban in 2011, but it was never implemented as cities within the county sued to block it.

    The ad campaign comes just weeks before the case goes before the Kentucky Supreme Court. It includes advertisements in newspapers and in movie theaters.

    “Many are actually reporting an array of benefits like a decrease in employee sick time, greater customer satisfaction, faster seating without two sections having to manage two sections and lower cleaning costs,” the ad says.

    In the middle of all of this, Bullitt County Fiscal Court passed its own smoking ban but it only stops people from smoking inside county buildings.

    Leaders say the ordinance was written to supersede the health department’s regulation.

    “There is language in there that is questionable and as I said before we don’t know what that impact is on the Board of Health regulation,” Brown said.

    With the possibility of the ban going up in smoke, simply encouraging companies to go smoke- free may be the last option.

    The advertisements are being funded with two grants through the state Department of Public Health.

    Part of the $20,000 comes from Kentucky’s portion of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. That means tobacco companies are paying to promote this smoking ban.

    http://www.wdrb.com/story/25092811/bullitt-co-health-dept-attempts-another-citywide-smoking-ban

No need to log in

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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