A Tobacco Control Propaganda Piece

H/T Tony for Burning Desire: The Seduction of Smoking. Episode 1 on BBC iplayer. It starts with a voice-over:

“Cigarettes are the most lethal consumer product on the planet. Every year more than five million customers of the tobacco industry die.”

At which point a bearded guy in a snappy suit adds:

“These are people who know that their success can be measured in millions of deaths. The more successful they are, the more people will die.”

And this pretty much sums up the thrust of the whole hour-long programme. It’s directed against The Industry and its battle against one form of restriction after another, the latest being Plain Packaging, which the UK government may promise to introduce next week.

Various people then get interviewed, ranging from teenagers to over-sixties. The latter all, without exception, regret ever having taken up smoking. Various familiar faces, such as Professor Linda Bauld and Professor John Britton, appear throughout the programme.

The voice-over continues, pointing out that while one fifth of the UK population smokes, and the proportion is slowly falling, smoking among 20 – 34 year-olds has actually increased in recent years:

“Everyone knows that smoking kills, so why are young people still taking it up?”

“Smokers can’t fail to be aware of the health risks. They scream out from every packet. They’re like pariahs with fewer and fewer places where they can light up.”

Nevertheless, tobacco companies are making larger and larger profits. Pension funds are “addicted” to tobacco stocks. After WW2, three out of four adult males were smokers.

“Tobacco taxes bring in nearly twice the direct cost to the NHS of treating smoking-related diseases.”

Even BAT is wheeled in to support antismoking dogma:

Interviewer: “Do you believe that smoking is harmful to health?”

BAT executive: “Absolutely”

And a Dr David O’Reilly of BAT dutifully produces the standard list of all the carcinogens in tobacco smoke (“benzapyrene, lead, etc, etc”), and repeats how half of all smokers die prematurely. BAT, however, sees itself in the forefront of Tobacco Harm Reduction, and so reshaping the future of the tobacco business.

But where the tobacco industry dissents over plain packaging, its credibility is dismissed:

“I don’t think we can just take their assertions at face value. This is an industry that made assertions for decade after decade that there was no health risk to smoking when they knew that there was.”

At the end of the programme, one of the long-term smokers, who can’t walk 100 yards without getting breathless, is softly asked:

“At 62, what does the future hold?”

I had to laugh. At age 66, I can easily walk 100 yards without running out of breath. And I’m still smoking, unlike the unfortunate 62-year-old.

The programme was really a showcase for the Tobacco Control mentality. There were essentially no dissenting voices. Everyone was agreed that smoking caused lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and countless other diseases. This was an indisputable fact. And Tobacco Control was locked in a Manichaean struggle with a satanic Tobacco Industry which was the embodiment of Evil. And plain packaging was the latest battlefield on which this epic war was being fought. And the more that the Industry was demonised, the more benign Tobacco Control implicitly appeared.

But I’m not much interested in the credibility of the Tobacco Industry. I’m more interested in the credibility of Tobacco Control. Because I no longer believe a single word they say.

Because while tobacco hasn’t done me any harm, Tobacco Control has done me a colossal amount of damage. They’ve completely shattered my social life. They’ve turned me into a social pariah. They’ve gouged me with punitive taxes. And now they want to scream insults at me from my tobacco packs:

plainhahapackaging

Big Tobacco didn’t do that to me. Tobacco Control did that to me.

And it’s not as if they don’t know it:

“Smokers in Australia are now an ostracised minority.”

And if they are, it’s not because of Big Tobacco, but because of Tobacco Control, and the likes of Linda Bauld and John Britton and Deborah Arnott. Those are the people who have created an ostracised minority. And that’s a terrible, terrible, terrible thing to have knowingly done to countless millions of people.

It isn’t Big Tobacco that needs to be closed down. It’s Tobacco Control that needs to be closed down. Tobacco Control must be destroyed.

 

About Frank Davis

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

62 Responses to A Tobacco Control Propaganda Piece

  1. Junican says:

    Well put, Frank.
    And yet the new Australian Government is closing down the pseudo-science, according to an article in the Lancet. You can read my brief analysis here:
    http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/australia/
    Or you can read the whole article here:
    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60901-6/fulltext?elsca1=ETOC-LANCET&elsca2=email&elsca3=E24A35F

    It may be better to read my ‘take’ on the article first because the language and phraseology of the article itself is very much biased. For example, it conflates ‘science’ and ‘public health’, and conflates REAL science and PSEUDO-science.

    As I read the intentions of the Oz government, REAL science will be funded, while PSEUDO science will not.

    Also, it seems that they have seen through the Climate Control crap.

    • Harleyrider1978 says:

      The first junk science dept abolished should be EPIDEMIOLOGY!

    • Vince Harden says:

      The Lancet also called for the ouster of the (first) Rudd gov. They called his gov. “anti-science”.(I don’t seem to be able to find the link anymore-even @ forums that I know I used it.)

    • carol2000 says:

      “A further $3 million has been taken from antitobacco funding nationwide, threatening Australia’s progress and reputation in smoking cessation after former Health Minister Nicola Roxon implemented plain packaging for tobacco in 2012. “These are really negative moves from the government”, says Hambleton. “When investing in health prevention and promotion one gets a return on investment of more than one to one. Equally when one does not invest in prevention the increased expenses more than offset the savings.”

      Those claims are based on the fraud of falsely blaming smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection, and should be attacked as such. Also, they’re probably pretending that non-smokers’ costs (including both health and old-age pension costs) don’t exist at all, and that should be exposed as well. Also, the leading cause of death in both smokers and non-smokers is heart disease, so that’s probably the biggest source of their lies.

  2. jaxthefirst says:

    I didn’t bother watching it. Like most people on here, I could pretty much predict word for word what it would be like, and it sounds from your description that I’d have been almost word-perfect correct. I should have put a bet on it!

    But how many episodes are there going to be, for goodness’ sake? Two? Three? Three, I’ll wager. But who knows? Maybe the BBC, with their much-trumpeted “impartiality” will devote the next programme to all the benefits of smoking – the fact that more non-smokers than smokers are now getting lung cancer (thus hinting at the uncomfortable possibility of a protective effect) – indeed, all the many and varied cancers that non-smokers keel over with all the time which smokers never seem to get, the preventative effect against Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s and MS, the speeded-up healing process, the protective affect against allergy-induced ailments like asthma and eczema, the highly effective self-medication of depression and other mental disorders, the stimulating effect on the creative imagination and the focussing effect on the rational mind, the combination of which enables humanity to achieve its greatest creative works.

    Perhaps they’ll mention the essential, comforting effect which tobacco has offered our military down through the years, and how such a simple, but unique, activity helped them cope with extraordinarily unpleasant and hair-raisingly dangerous situations with calmness, professionalism and stoicism.

    And perhaps they’ll touch on all the great characters down through history who both smoked and changed the world for the better – Winston Churchill, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Oscar Wilde, Lennon & McCartney, to name just a few. Coincidence? Well, the audience must be the judge of that, but perhaps they’ll also point out the, at best, inconsequential and, at worst, downright damaging changes wrought, largely, by non-smokers. Coincidence again?

    Maybe they’ll mention how, by and large, society has become progressively less tolerant, less friendly, more violent, more hateful and less enjoyable at a rate which exactly corresponds with the number of smokers in society decreasing and with the rise in influence of the anti-smoking movement. Coincidence yet again? I don’t think so. After all, when the “coincidences” start to stack up like that, they begin to look less and less like coincidences in the first place and much more like “cause and effect.”

    But I wouldn’t bank on it. I suspect that the BBC, like the rest of the MSM, is, these days, totally incapable of applying the “impartiality” of which it constantly boasts to the subject of smoking. I’d predict that the next episode will focus with all sorts of histrionic goriness on the dreaded ETS, with all kinds of wildly over-inflated “could” and “might cause” scary-sounding statistics; and the last one will probably be about e-cigarettes – thus nicely fulfilling the demands of the anti-smokers who, I’ll bet, have initiated this nasty little set of programmes.

    So I won’t be watching the remaining episodes either. They can preach to the converted all they like, so that all their non-smoking viewers go away with a lovely, warm, smug feeling. I gave up on expecting balanced reporting from the BBC a long, long time ago, and from the snippets you offer us here, Frank, it looks as if that was the right thing to do.

  3. magnetic01 says:

    And Tobacco Control was locked in a Manichaean struggle with a satanic Tobacco Industry which was the embodiment of Evil. And plain packaging was the latest battlefield on which this epic war was being fought. And the more that the Industry was demonised, the more benign Tobacco Control implicitly appeared.

    Moralizing zealots conduct themselves in this manner. Only they are the virtuous attempting to “save” humanity. Fortunately, we even have a record of a reminder to the zealots to consistently conduct themselves in this manner. It’s a “strategy” (i.e., con job) that was suggested by the rabid antismoker and master propagandist (i.e., professional liar), Simon Crapman, way back in 1983 at the 5th World Conference on Smoking & Health that can be used in attention-grabbing “slogan-manufacturing” for the media and has been used incessantly ever since.

    “Such a list could be added to considerably, but most entries would be characterized by being somehow cast in a mythological good versus evil battle in an arena observed by mass numbers of people. The good (health/clean air/children) versus evil (cancer/uncaring, callous industry) dimension is the ineluctable bottom line in the whole issue and a rich reservoir for spawning a great deal of useful social drama, metaphor, and symbolic politics that is the stuff of ‘news value’ and which is almost always to the detriment of the industry.” p.11

    A “paradigm” of their own contrivance: The zealots cast themselves in the role of the “mythological good” (health/clean air/children), natch, battling the “mythological evil” tobacco industry (cancer/uncaring, callous industry). The zealots, being the “mythological good”, are always right, benevolent, and virtuous. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with them is “obviously” wrong, malevolent, and wicked, and most likely, according to the “mythological good” zealots, a shill….. an emissary of the “mythological evil” tobacco industry.

    In more common parlance this is zealots with a “god complex” – delusions of benevolence, omniscience, and infallibility. They’re run-of-the-mill bigots playing a common, garden-variety, self-serving smear routine against “dissenters”.

  4. waltc says:

    t starts. And where else but CA.

    http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/story/news/local/2014/05/30/proposed-soda-label-warning-clears-senate/9755901/

    It reads: “STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.”

    It continues: Another public housing ban. Go here and vote no bec so far the ants are winning

    http://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/social_issues/social_policies/housing-authority-exploring-new-policy-on-smoking-on-and-near/article_0fabc55e-2b85-5af0-a61c-0c99b8cfbc0b.html

    I despair.

    • This will undoubtedly have the effect of parents buying drinks without the warnings, which, of course, means buying drinks containing artificial sweeteners like aspartame because people will want their drinks to be appropriately “sugary”-tasting or they won’t buy them

      “Aspartame: By Far the Most Dangerous Substance Added to Most Foods Today”
      http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/06/aspartame-most-dangerous-substance-added-to-food.aspx

      It doesn’t seem to mention in the article, but one of the side effects of aspartame for some is obesity.

      It’s a substance I have been avoiding for the past several years and while looking for diluting fruit juices in the supermarket, I could hardly find anything without this and/or one or two other artificial sweeteners. I eventually found a juice which was sweetened only with sugar (if you can believe the label – I have read that aspartame is sometimes added to food and drink but not revealed on the list of ingredients).

      Food additives are probably one of the reasons there are so many poorly folk these days: physically and mentally, yet the only mainstream media coverage I recall from my 50 years on this planet is the behavioural problems in children caused by food colourings and the EU has set limits on some of these. Perhaps the only useful thing they have ever done?

    • carol2000 says:

      “I despair.” And what else do you expect when all you do is the equivalent of shooting a popgun at them?

      • Walt Cody says:

        Shut up, Carol. You have no idea who any of us are or what we do. And what have you accomplished with your (alleged)magic bullet?

        • Maybe following the money will cheer you up: Big Pharma company Johnson & Johnson’s daughter company McNeil not only owns the Nicorette-license, but also the “alternative sweetener” Splenda:
          http://www.splenda.com/
          Johnson & Johnson is also affiliated with The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, who produces all the “evidence” against tobacco and sugar through massive grants to hired researches at Californian universities.
          Getting the picture of the Johnson business model?

        • Next step: Lobbying through “experts” for raised taxes on your competitors product – natural sugar – and raise the price on your own product afterwards.
          Ka-ching …

        • carol2000 says:

          If you’re something other than would-be smokers’ rights advocates, then perhaps you ought to admit it so I won’t be deceived into thinking you’re against the anti-smokers. As for what have I accomplished, you mean, what have accomplished all by myself, with no help from your kind? What I’ve accomplished is to force at least some coverage of the role of infections in cancer, and to raise the crucial point that the anti-smokers’ studies ignore it to exploit socioeconomic disadvantages. Otherwise they’d be perfectly happy to say absolutely nothing for all eternity. And what have YOU accomplished? You’ve helped the anti-smokers pretend that the only issue is “freedom versus public health,” instead of freedom AND public health versus their scientific fraud. I’ve attacked their clearly evident misconduct, while you’ve given them a pass. You’ve helped them pretend that the worst thing they’re guilty of is “nannyism,” which isn’t an actionable offense. You’ve helped them pretend that they gave both sides a forum to speak, when they’ve only allowed anti-smokers and people too incompetent to deal with them.

  5. nisakiman says:

    “Cigarettes are the most lethal consumer product on the planet. Every year more than five million customers of the tobacco industry die.”

    So presumably 30 – 40 odd years ago when smoking prevalence was 60 – 80% there were fifteen or twenty million dying annually of ‘smoking-related diseases’. You’d have thought people would have noticed that many smokers dropping like flies.

  6. magnetic01 says:

    The Record: Smoke-free beaches

    There are many smart reasons for expansion of this law, primary among them that secondhand smoke can poison a non-smoker sitting on a beach or park bench just as easily as if the person were seated in a restaurant or movie theater.

    http://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-editorials/smoke-free-beaches-1.1026460

    [Hand slap to the forehead]

  7. Rose says:

    I watched the programme and it lived up to my expectations, I have long since given up expecting impartiality from the BBC especially on the subject of tobacco, they seem to enjoy a spot of social engineering as much as any large taxpayer funded organization.
    I will watch the rest too, painful as it is,if we blocked out all opposing opinions we would have as unbalanced a view as TC .
    To counter their arguments you first have to know what their arguments are and how they intend to present them.
    I wouldn’t want to be taken by surprise again which is why I study them like a bug in a jam jar.

    • Frank Davis says:

      I study them like a bug in a jam jar.

      That’s my attitude too. Although of course one must first overcome the natural feeling of revulsion at the sight of the hideous insect.

      In retrospect, one surprise about the programme was the sheer amount of smoking that is going on throughout it. And it was not being portrayed nastily. I wonder why that was.

      But the principal thing I noticed, as I wrote above, was how the programme immediately set up the tobacco industry (“The Industry”) as the punchbag target, and choosing for a BAT executive somebody who resembled a punchbag.

      Also, rather oddly, the presenter was a rather haggard man who looked as if he suffered from some wasting disease.

      I may even watch it again!

      • Rose says:

        I’m certainly tempted to, but I’ll take notes this time.

        By the way, delightful quote from David Davis in the Telegraph.

        “The Conservatives have just had a wake-up call with a baseball bat,”

        And thanks to the BBC’s multicoloured graphics on election night, now people know that they are not alone.

      • carol2000 says:

        “But the principal thing I noticed, as I wrote above, was how the programme immediately set up the tobacco industry (“The Industry”) as the punchbag target, and choosing for a BAT executive somebody who resembled a punchbag.”

        It’s a fact that the tobacco industry has never, ever attacked the anti-smokers’ scientific fraud. Including in courts of law, where they have control over what they say, unlike TV shows! That proves that they were taken over by the anti-smokers, and it goes back a long, long time, I think from the very first days of the “Tobacco Trust.” What could be a more cunning strategy! Anti-smokers are filthy rich people, but if they just took over one company and halted production for pretended moral reasons, somebody else would just step in. So they took over all the companies, and also created the government agencies to commit scientific fraud that they could pretend was impartial, in order to poison the waters against the whole industry. And they controlled all the companies, to prevent them from ever acting in self-defense. This is easy for the wealthy, because taking over companies is all in a day’s work for them. And remember, the step son of the head of the American Cancer Society who started the war against smokers, was on the board of directors of Philip Morris for nearly 20 years.

        http://www.smokershistory.com/power.htm

        • carol2000 says:

          It’s a matter of fact that the US National Cancer Institute was created in 1937, when the Nazis had plenty of admirers among the medical elites and the Cancer Society (which was then the ASCC), and on Wall Street. And how about this: “Mrs. Lasker’s network is probably unparalleled in the influence that a small group of private citizens has had over such a major area of national policy. One federal official refers to it as a ‘noble conspiracy.’ Gorman calls it a ‘high class kind of subversion, very high class. We’re not second story burglars. We go right in the front door.'” (The Health Syndicate / Washington’s Noble Conspiracy. By Elizabeth Brenner Drew. The Atlantic Monthly 1967, Vol. 200, pp. 75-82)

          http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/12917276.html

        • Frank Davis says:

          It’s a fact that the tobacco industry has never, ever attacked the anti-smokers’ scientific fraud. Including in courts of law

          There’s the 2005 case that Margaret McTear brought against Imperial Tobacco in respect of her late husband – and lost, despite having wheeled in Sir Richard Doll to speak for her.

          That said, it did occur to me last night (not for the first time!) that antismokers might be in control of BAT. The BBC were given surprising access to BAT facilities and BAT employees, all of whom parroted the standard antismoking dogmas, including the one about half of all smokers being killed by their habit.

          I wondered why, if antismokers ran BAT, they simply didn’t close it down. But then, if they did that, they’d lose the very considerable income that is funnelled through to antismoking organisations via the MSA and government taxation. So it makes more sense to keep the tobacco companies not just afloat, but also highly profitable, while using their income to demonise and exclude smokers.

          In fact, it might be suggested that not only do antismokers run BAT, but also greens and global warming zealots run the oil companies. And this might simply be because the moneyed classes seem to now be both green and antismoking and otherwise ‘progressive’. (prime example: Prince Charles) And this is why in the UK at least there’s a growing political division between ordinary voters and the ‘progressive’, green, antismoking, pro-EU political class, as we saw last week.

        • carol2000 says:

          The McTear case did absolutely nothing about the scientific fraud, an issue which Imperial never raised in the first place, thus proving my point. It was one judge’s decision on the legal issue of what is acceptable evidence in a personal injury case, which could be reversed tomorrow. That’s what a lame and flimsy argument it makes.

          And, as I pointed out, if the anti-smokers simply shut down BAT, then someone else would step in. Hence the strategy that I described.

        • Frank Davis says:

          The McTear case did absolutely nothing about the scientific fraud

          Unfortunately, we are completely snowed under by fraud. In my view, the 1950 Doll and Hill London Hospitals Study more or less amounted to fraud, since 98% of the sample were smokers, ensuring that 98% of lung cancer patients were smokers. And in my view, it’s also scientific fraud when nothing is measured accurately, and people are asked in questionnaires to recall what they were doing 10 or 20 years earlier. I also think it’s statistical fraud to associate the increased use of one product (tobacco) with the increased prevalence of disease (lung cancer).

          But this sort of fraud is now endemic in epidemiology. Over the past 50 years it has become the norm.

          And it extends beyond epidemiology into climate science. That’s fraudulent as well. As Leg-iron wrote yesterday:

          Science has become religion now. You have to believe in what the high priests say or you will be damned. The only difference is that your damnation comes not in the next life but in this one.

          When fraud is endemic, when fraud is everywhere, when everything is rotten and corrupt (including in the UK the Royal Society), how exactly does one “attack” or “expose” the fraud? Particularly when the entire mainstream media is peddling the fraud?

        • carol2000 says:

          “When fraud is endemic, when fraud is everywhere, when everything is rotten and corrupt (including in the UK the Royal Society), how exactly does one “attack” or “expose” the fraud? Particularly when the entire mainstream media is peddling the fraud?”

          By talking about the stuff that DOES matter instead of the crap that doesn’t. Not by worrying about how many people smoked 65 years ago, but by highlighting the new discoveries about the role of infection in the diseases they blame on smoking.

        • Frank Davis says:

          by highlighting the new discoveries about the role of infection in the diseases they blame on smoking.

          …which they will ignore. And they will just broadcast hour-long multi-part TV productions repeating their dogmatic beliefs.

          And anyway, precisely why does the role of infection matter more than the role of, say, radioactive fallout or genetics?

        • carol2000 says:

          “And anyway, precisely why does the role of infection matter more than the role of, say, radioactive fallout or genetics?”

          For the damn good reason that I’ve been repeating over and over again – that smokers are more likely to have been infected, for socioeconomic reasons. And those studies that ignore infection are therefore rigged in order to falsely blame smoking, and thus passive smoking as well. GERMS ARE NOT RANDOMLY DISTRIBUTED! Infections are also very common, unlike some rare genetic defect, and they can be definitively identified, unlike something speculated to have been caused by fallout. GERMS HAVE HIGH ORs! When those infections are properly diagnosed, there are generally very high odds ratios between them and a particular disease, which means that a few missed cases can result in spuirious risks, in contrast to the piddling little supposed risks of less than two or so that are claimed for the typical magic food in their lifestyle questionnaire studies.

          This it especially obvious in the cases of those diseases in which infections are implicated in 100% of cases, such as cervical cancer, nasopharyngeal carcinoma, and multiple sclerosis, that the only thing their lifestyle questionnaire studies are really doing is comparing the underlying rates of infection of smokers/passive smokers versus non-smokers, while falsely attributing the difference to smoking.

          Even their pretense that smoking impairs immunity is fraudulent because it’s based on ignoring the role of infection. Cytomegalovirus, which is implicated in the single largest cause of death, namely heart disease, as well as other conditions, causes adverse changes in immunity. And it is the single largest burden upon the immune system that has ever been found, among those who are infected by it.

          “…which they will ignore. And they will just broadcast hour-long multi-part TV productions repeating their dogmatic beliefs.”

          Whereas if you call them “nannies” or whine about slippery slopes, they’ll immediately stop what they’re doing and give up, right?

        • Frank Davis says:

          For the damn good reason that I’ve been repeating over and over again – that smokers are more likely to have been infected, for socioeconomic reasons.

          About the only infectious cause of cancer I’ve looked at is HPV, which is sexually transmitted, and the cause of cervical cancer. And this seems to be well-recognised now, and in the UK girls are offered HPV vaccine. I’m not entirely sure why smokers should be more likely to be infected, unless a) smokers are more sexually active than non-smokers, or b) smoking is now largely confined to lower socio-economic groups in which all kinds of infections spread more readily due to poorer public health.

          HPV has also been linked with other cancers. e.g. colon cancer. And also to lung cancer. But cervical cancer seems to be the one with which it is most strongly associated.

          However, I’ve yet to see anything to convince me that HPV or similar viruses are the sole causes of cancer. I think there’s a very good case for the fallout hypothesis as well. And also for inherited genetic traits. As best I can see, not very much is known about cancer.

          So I simply lack your certainty about the causes of cancer.

          And anyway, what do they do in the case of cervical cancer. Well, they say that it’s mostly caused by HPV. But then they go on to add that smoking is also a risk factor! They never stop.

          Whereas if you call them “nannies” or whine about slippery slopes, they’ll immediately stop what they’re doing and give up, right?

          They never stop, period.

          It doesn’t matter what I or you or anyone else says. They’ll never stop until they’re de-funded and closed down and kicked out of the medical profession.

        • carol2000 says:

          “About the only infectious cause of cancer I’ve looked at is HPV, which is sexually transmitted, and the cause of cervical cancer.”

          Here are some more. Also, on my index page are links to the autoimmune diseases that the latest SG report falsely blames on smoking, by the same fraudulent means.

          http://www smokershistory.com/percent.htm

          “However, I’ve yet to see anything to convince me that HPV or similar viruses are the sole causes of cancer.”

          THEY DON’T HAVE TO BE SOLE CAUSES OF CANCER. They only need to be more common among smokers than among non-smokers. Their studies are rigged to exploit this. Anything else is not our concern.

          “And anyway, what do they do in the case of cervical cancer. Well, they say that it’s mostly caused by HPV. But then they go on to add that smoking is also a risk factor! They never stop.”

          So call them on it! And if you’d bother to read my page, you’d see that they’re falsely blaming smoking for an effect on Langerhans cells that’s really caused by HPV, too! With a whole ton of evidence.

          http://www.smokershistory.com/cclies.htm#Langerhans

          “It doesn’t matter what I or you or anyone else says. They’ll never stop until they’re de-funded and closed down and kicked out of the medical profession.” Like hell it doesn’t matter. It makes all the difference in the world whether you’re exposing their actual misconduct or just generic whining, as to whether anyone will consider de-funding them in the first place.

        • Frank Davis says:

          It makes all the difference in the world whether you’re exposing their actual misconduct or just generic whining, as to whether anyone will consider de-funding them in the first place.

          What works best? If ‘exposing their actual misconduct’ is like a bombshell from out of the blue, ‘generic whining’ is a fine drizzle. One has a much greater impact than the other.

          But I don’t think that the drizzle should be dismissed because of that. Last week I sent my parliamentary MP an email that said “I smoke, I voted UKIP”. He probably gets a steady drizzle of emails like that. But they’ll all very slowly add up. One day it might occur to him that his support for smoking bans is costing him more votes than it’s worth. Particularly when the guy who seems to be getting all the votes is an unashamed smoker and drinker.

          The most-visited page on my blog is The Black Lung Lie. It gets about 100 hits a day. Some days that spikes up to 1000+ hits. In total, it’s got about 100,000 hits in the 2 years it’s been up. I guess it comes as a bit of a bombshell to some people to discover that the “black lung” myth is a lie. It’s probably a key component of their belief system that smokers’ lungs are black inside.

          What works best? Is it the message that 100,000 ordinary people get, or the message that one much more important MP gets?

          I don’t know. It’s not obvious at the outset. When I wrote the Black Lung Lie, I didn’t think “This’ll knock ’em dead.”

          I think everything should be tried. And whatever works adopted.

          A couple of years back I did a bit of campaigning against California’s Proposition 29. I didn’t think it would have any effect at all. But it looks like it bothered Tobacco Control enough for them to add me to the list of Bad Guys on their Tobacco Tactics website. I was delighted. What did I do right? I’m not sure.

          Last night I put up a photo of pope John XXIII smoking with the news that he’s now officially a saint. That’ll be of zero interest to more or less everybody, but it might slightly erode the confidence of some Catholic antismoking zealot somewhere.

          In short, there’s no one single thing that works. There’s no one single magic bullet. People should expose the fraud, AND whine, AND do everything and anything else they can dream up.

        • carol2000 says:

          “What works best? If ‘exposing their actual misconduct’ is like a bombshell from out of the blue, ‘generic whining’ is a fine drizzle. One has a much greater impact than the other.”

          The “Black Lung Lie” IS actual misconduct. It’s not just generic whining about nannyism and slippery slopes. And exposing their disreputable methods could be expected to reduce public faith in the anti-smokers, but only on that particular point, not necessarily the rest of their lies. See how even the media who revealed that they use pig lungs didn’t doubt the rest of their spiel.

          But that “drizzle” of generic whining actually works against us, because the media pretend that allowing someone to whine is sufficient to present both sides of the issue. It helps them create the impression that there’s nothing wrong with anti-smoker pseudo-science, and only a few selfish whiners have a problem with it. Nobody will defund anything, because that would be attacked as giving in to political pressure (usually attributed to “the tobacco industry” or its allies), at the expense of “public health.” That’s why all the generic whining has proven to be highly ignorable, despite the relatively high levels of publicity for it. So much for its “impact.”

          In contrast, exposing the anti-smokers’ fraudulent methods and how their studies are systematically rigged is an attack on their very core. It can reduce trust in the anti-smokers even among health professionals. It gives politicians and the media something SOLID to question the health authorities about, and lack of a satisfactory answer will reduce even the media’s level of trust. It also gives specific and concrete evidence to government officials concerned with research misconduct. The lack of public outcry about this has been the anti-smokers’ greatest asset.

        • Frank Davis says:

          In contrast, exposing the anti-smokers’ fraudulent methods and how their studies are systematically rigged is an attack on their very core.

          I think that’s easier said than done. And the problem is really that the fraudulent methods almost always employ statistics. And statistics is a branch of mathematics. And most people can’t do much in the way of mathematics, so they can’t follow the mathematical arguments, and end up putting their faith in one side or other. And, in practice, that means they’ll usually trust the authorities. And the ‘authorities’ in this case are the antismoking zealots.

          For example, the Doll and Hill 1950 London Hospitals study showed that 99% of lung cancer patients were smokers. And that was enough to persuade many people that smoking caused lung cancer. But when I looked at the study, I saw that 98% of patients in the entire sample were smokers, and even if smoking had no medical ill-effects whatsoever, 98% of patients suffering from ANY disease were always going to be found to be smokers, and so the study was completely valueless. It would only have shown something if there had been a roughly equal number of smokers and non-smokers, and yet 99% of lung cancer patients turned out to be smokers. But that didn’t happen.

          But how many people can look at the study that way? Very few, I imagine. And so the study still gets cited!

          The Black Lung Lie, by contrast, hasn’t got any numbers in it. Lungs are either black or they’re not. Nobody has to do any mathematics at all. But the Black Lung Lie isn’t a foundational lie underpinning the doctrine that smoking causes lung cancer, so it doesn’t have any effect.

          What seems to me to be a stronger line of attack on the methodology is to skip the statistics entirely, but instead consider the raw data on which statistical operations are performed. How accurate are the numbers to start with? To what extent can anyone accurately remember how many cigarettes they smoked yesterday or last week or on average over the past 10 years? What proportion of diagnosed lung cancer cases actually turn out to be lung cancer on post mortem examination? Can people be accurately sorted into smokers, ex-smokers, and non-smokers? And when smoking is measured in cigarettes per day, isn’t it the case that cigarettes vary in length, diameter, and tobacco strength? Aren’t all the numbers rather fuzzy and inaccurate and suspect? And aren’t the subsequent statistical operations performed on these numbers simply adding and subtracting and multiplying one set of fuzzy numbers with another set, and getting something even fuzzier and more inaccurate? If things have been counted wrong to start with, what value have any of the conclusions drawn from them?

          As for the background drizzle of ‘generic whining’, I don’t think it’s going to stop people complaining. That’s what people always do when they don’t like something.

        • carol2000 says:

          “And the problem is really that the fraudulent methods almost always employ statistics.”

          Wrong. The problem is that their fraudulent method is to ignore the role of infection. Over and over again, with just about every disease they blame on smoking, and when they come up with some supposed mechanism by which smoking does so, it turns out to be caused by that same infection as well! And you help them get away with it when you fuss about the statistics. And over crap that’s 64 years old to boot! As if everybody reading you doesn’t know that there’s been a ton more crap since then, which doesn’t necessarily have the defect that you criticize.

          “And so the study still gets cited!”

          Not because it’s state-of-the-art, but because it’s a landmark. They don’t even need it any more, other than for fleshing out their triumphant historical mythology.

          “What seems to me to be a stronger line of attack on the methodology is to skip the statistics entirely, but instead consider the raw data on which statistical operations are performed. How accurate are the numbers to start with? To what extent can anyone accurately remember how many cigarettes they smoked yesterday or last week or on average over the past 10 years?”

          WHO FRICKIN’ CARES! The study is defective because they ignored the role of infection. And not even the most absolute accuracy in the universe about how many cigarettes people smoked can fix this defect! Nothing can fix that defect except accounting for the role of infection (and doing it properly, too, not just a quick serological study of one of the necessary markers like they try to get away with for hepatitis viruses, etc.)

          As for the generic whining, it’s just another obstruction to getting the important truths out there.

        • Frank Davis says:

          their triumphant historical mythology.

          But that’s the problem. It may be historical mythology, but it’s triumphant.

          And it’s been triumphant for 60 years. In fact 80 years if you go back to the Nazi era where it got started.

          And its triumph is part of the triumph of eugenic thinking which had already swept the world 100 years ago.

        • carol2000 says:

          And what about that so-called “eugenic thinking” you keep talking about? Over here, it pertains to sterilizing the retarded and others who are deemed congenitally inferior. It has virtually nothing to do with persecuting smokers.

  8. magnetic01 says:

    For anyone with a spare half hour. It’s a recently uploaded video featuring Jimbo Repace on the case for smoke-free casinos. The video features a trio of neurotic antismoking bigots. The three of them look physically sick with regular coughing (just imagine if there was smoke?) and, given their half-hour of ego massaging, they are also mentally dysfunctional.

    Repace is an interesting figure. He calls himself a “health physicist” and secondhand smoke expert. He’s been with the current crusade from the outset. He’s a R.A.B.I.D antismoker. Together with Glantz, Repace helped promote the idea that secondhand smoke is dangerous through the 1980s.In the early-1980s he managed to convince his then employer – the EPA – to set up a separate department specializing in secondhand smoke. The EPA eventually produced a now notorious meta-analysis on secondhand smoke in the early 1990s. Glantz and Repace were all over the process leading to its conclusions. Repace is the buffoon that claimed that it would take “tornado like air exchange rates greater than 120,000 air changes per hour” to clear SHS to an acceptable level”. More recently he’s been involved in trying to manufacture outdoor smoke into a “grave danger”. He was also the prime prosecution witness in the Schuman trial. His job was to show that a neighbour having two cigarettes per day in the vicinity of his client’s window made his client’s apartment “uninhabitable”. The case failed.

    Concerning the bulk of data presented in the video, it’s junk. He uses the wrong standard – knowingly. He’s well aware of the OSHA (federal regulatory authority governing indoor air quality) stance on SHS and permissible exposure limits (PELS) for relevant constituents of SHS. He simply ignores OSHA altogether.

      • magnetic01 says:

        Frank, I did provide the link which, given that it’s a youtube link, automatically shows up as a youtube screen above. Move your cursor over the screen and click on the “play” marker in the middle of the screen.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Sorry! I was reading your comment using my editor facility, and for some reason neither the YouTube video nor the link to it appeared there.

    • Of course when Mr. Repace has to actually try to defend himself on a level playing field he doesn’t do so well. See the comments from this page that was wiped from the Internet (though I fortunately manage to use the wonderful iCyte service to save a copy first!) and you’ll check out the back-and-forth that I and a few others had with him there:

      http://bit.ly/SchumanTrial

      – MJM

    • carol2000 says:

      The National Council for Clean Indoor Air was set up (largely by EPA insiders) in August 1986 to lobby for the EPA to proclaim that passive smoking kills non-smokers. Richard Zimmer, a New Jersey state senator from the Johnson & Johnson Company’s district and later a US Representative, was Chairman and A. Judson Wells was Vice-Chairman. “Members of the board of directors include Thomas Grumbly, executive director of the Health Effects Institute; Michael Brown, an attorney and former EPA deputy general counsel and enforcement counsel; and Josephine Cooper, vice president of the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association and former EPA Administrator for External Affairs. John C. Topping, Jr., an attorney and former staff director of EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, was instrumental in creating the council and serves as the group’s general counsel, according to Bond.” (Public Policy Group Formed on Indoor Air to Push for More Research on Radon, Smoking. Environment Reporter, Bureau of National Affairs, Aug. 22, 1986.) TOPPING WAS ALSO THE FOUNDER OF THE CLIMATE INSTITUTE! And don’t miss the detail that this SOB was a Republican, and that a Republican president (Reagan) was in the White House – it proves that they’ve been secretly creating and promoting all the things that they pretend to be opposed to.

      http://www.smokershistory.com/NCCIA.htm

    • carol2000 says:

      And this dates from 1984: “Numerous recent reports indicate that there is considerable activity regarding indoor air quality occuring in a number of Federal agencies, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency. These activities are in the form of a variety of studies, some in the planning stages and others currently being conducted. Most significantly, it appears that passive cigarette smoke as a principal air contaminant is becoming a point of commonality throughout all of these efforts. This is of considerable importance to our industry because it appears that these discussions and studies of indoor air are likely to become major, highly visible fora for the condemnation of public smoking, and carry the potential for enabling industry opponents to stir up the issue in a dramatic fashion through the national media. I have been informed that several members of the EPA Air and Radiation staff, including James Repace, who is employed as a policy analyst in the EPA Office of Air and Radiation, is the author of a study on the effect of passive smoking which was the subject of a recent CBS news report, and his superior, Joseph Cannon, are very sympathetic to the anti-smoking crusade. I was also informed that there have been several meetings between Mr. Cannon, Surgeon General Koop and the Department of Energy and Office of Smoking and Health officials to discuss areas of mutual interest, including passive smoking. I have been unable.to confirm a statement that was made by my source identifying both Repace and Cannon as members of GASP. The purpose of this memo is to review certain evidence which shows that even without a clear mandate to study indoor air quality, EPA is proceeding with activity in this area. It is important to note that whereas EPA indoor air activists allegedly had EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus’ blessings, the Office of Management and Budget has consistently opposed indoor air funding provisions within authorizations bills claiming that the issue was ‘not an appropriate Federal responsibility.’ Now that Ruckelshaus has resigned as EPA Administrator, (effective January 5, 1985), it can be expected .that OMB will have more control over the activities within this agency.” (Memo from Amy Millman of Philip Morris, for general distribution; Dec. 5, 1984.)

      http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2026332868-2871.html

  9. magnetic01 says:

    I caught the last 15 minutes of a documentary on Maurizio Pollini. Pollini is a world renown classical pianist, now 72:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurizio_Pollini

    He’s still performing:
    http://www.southbankcentre.co.uk/whatson/maurizio-pollini-piano-72876

    What particularly caught my eye was that at the end of the recent documentary the camera pans on Pollini, now in his early 70s, walking down a main street taking drags on a cigarette.

    To a rabid antismoking nut case, this sight of Pollini would evoke disdain, outrage; the smoking is all that matters to an antismoker; that’s all they see (monomania). In this monomaniacal perception Pollini would be stripped of all, reduced to nothing more than just a “nicotine addict” to be shoved to the margins of society, if not worse, lest he contaminate the “superior” ones with smoke or the “vile” habit. What a dangerously superficial mentality.

    That’s Pollini. But everyone has a story. Their endeavours, striving, accomplishments, disappointments, profession, insight, character, etc, for smokers none…. NONE…. of it matters. They are not viewed as people by antismokers. Those who smoke are just…. only…. “nicotine addicts” to be sneered at, frowned upon, and eventually eradicated from the world.

    Man, do we need help…. urgently.

  10. smokingscot says:

    O/T and for Harley as well as Rose to store.

    It’s two years old, however it’s quite charming. Wee birdie sets up a nest in a pub ashtray in Northern Ireland, using fag butts as building material!

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-18252998

  11. magnetic01 says:

    It just gets more hysterical.

    Third-hand smoke – residue on walls, furniture and car interiors – more harmful than previously thought
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/thirdhand-smoke-residue-on-walls-furniture-and-car-interiors-more-harmful-than-previously-thought/story-fnihsrf2-1226937916055

    I tried to comment but couldn’t get through. Will try again later with this comment (if it’s not censored):

    It world “No Tobacco Day” so out comes the propaganda barrage. These antismoking fanatics/zealots from the Cancer Council should be thoroughly ashamed. “The Cancer Council Queensland will today release research showing third-hand smoke poses a serious health threat to children and could cause cancer.” Well, where’s the research? They’re going to provide it later today. Sure. Don’t hold your breath: There is no such research. It’s all agenda-driven inflammatory blather. It gives an indication of how zealots operate.

    And then there’s this “gem”: “Research shows many of the more than 4000 chemicals in second-hand smoke linger long after cigarettes are put out, sticking to surfaces and damaging human DNA in a way that can potentially cause cancer,’’ Cancer Council Queensland spokeswoman Katie Clift said. That’s a straight out lie. There have been just a handful of studies on so-called “thirdhand smoke” that have been conducted by antismokers. Since we’re dealing with barely detectable trace levels, only two chemicals have been detected that can also come from sources other than tobacco smoke. And the studies in question make no claims concerning “health issues”. Thirdhand smoke “danger” is a conjured nonsense and Clift is adding to the derangement. The antismoking zealots are used to getting away with lying and their lies just get bigger and bigger.

    Only more disturbing is the standard of comments to this article. There is a segment of society that is dangerously gullible: They’ll lap up hook, line and sinker whatever they’re fed by the zealots. That’s what the zealots count on. The thinking of the gullible is addled. This is not a healthy situation. Alternatively, many of the comments may have come from antismoking astroturfers.

  12. Frank Davis says:

    Chris Snowdon on Burning Desire: the Seduction of Smoking

  13. magnetic01 says:

    A short (8:58) video of Jimbo Repace on his own (from 2012).
    James Repace “explains” why ventilation is simply not a solution for removing secondhand smoke from casinos.

    • Junican says:

      I’ve just watched the video.
      I am not quite sure which is worse – direct lying or lying by exaggeration. The difficulty is that direct lying is reasonably easy to detect, whereas lying by exaggeration is difficult to detect. It is even more of a problem when truth, direct lies and lies by exaggeration are all mixed up together. It may be true that Rapace’s machinery detected more tobacco smoke in the casino(s) than outside. In fact, it must be so. That is the element of truth. The exaggeration lies come in the interpretation of the harm from that tobacco smoke. The direct lies are not visible – they are implied. They are that that the consequences of tobacco smoke in casinos are disastrous.

    • beobrigitte says:

      Ah, Repace.

      If he is right, don’t bother with ventilation at all. Just invite a tornado.

      This is the guy who is responsible for stifling the progress of ventilation technology. This includes operation theatres in hospitals and other work environments such as e.g. coal mines and chromium industry etc.

      Well done, Mr. Repace. You managed to kill real people.

  14. Pingback: The throes of a starving monster. | underdogs bite upwards

  15. beobrigitte says:

    “Cigarettes are the most lethal consumer product on the planet. Every year more than five million customers of the tobacco industry die.”

    At which point a bearded guy in a snappy suit adds:

    “These are people who know that their success can be measured in millions of deaths. The more successful they are, the more people will die.”

    Right. Interesting.

    If you kill off your customers your product is no longer in demand.
    1. work out how many new customers the tobacco industry will have to get to replace the ones it “killed off” every month in countries that has the tobacco control industry go riot?

    2. are there enough “poor chiiiiildren” to “entice” considering that there aren’t enough youngsters to ensure I can retire at the age of 60?

    3. Talking about youngsters; there are not enough facilities to deal with Ritalin damaged youngsters. The old ones have to work to support them.

    Go figure.

  16. Re the Repace video: You’ll note it’s sponsored/done/whatever by ANR/ANRF. That’s Glantz’s powerhouses. The “F” is the nonprofit charity that supposedly has to stay away from lobbying, but of course it teams up closely with the one without the “F” to simply juggle the accounts to make them fit with whatever the legal requirements are.

    Also of interest and of some surprise: note the connected videos on the right of that YouTube presentation: they are virtually ALL ANR/ANRF with a couple of other pro-ban videos thrown in. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such uniformity in YouTube. I wonder how they managed to swing that?

    – MJM

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.