Small Acts of Resistance

Carol2000 keeps on saying:

We should be attacking their scientific fraud at every opportunity, and ultimately create or (our?) own opportunity with a lawsuit that calls on them to cease and desist, and which installs appropriate supervision over them.

Well, the first thing that springs out of that is the word ‘lawsuit’. Lawsuits are either expensive or very expensive. And that means that I personally always rule out lawsuits. I haven’t got the money. None of us do. So forget it.

Recourse to the law is for very rich people who can afford it. The rest of us have no access to law.  But anyway, would it be very effective if you actually could prove scientific fraud in a court of law? The antismokers would just shrug and carry on as before. They don’t give a damn about science. They make it up as they go along. They have utterly debased science. Or will continue doing so, unless there’s “appropriate supervision”. But that needs even more money. Maybe even ten times as much money. So forget that too.

Look, we haven’t got any law. We haven’t got any science either. We don’t even have any political representation. Everything is utterly corrupt. The deck is completely stacked. And we haven’t got any money either.

All we have is ourselves, and what we can individually do. If change is to come, it won’t come from the top (the courts, the media, the government, etc.); it’ll come from the bottom. It’ll come from a groundswell from below, pushing upwards. It’ll come from the sum of individual small acts of defiance or resistance or complaint.

One small, individual thing that I personally do is to write this blog, in which I express my resistance to smoking bans and everything associated with them. It costs me no money, and not much time either. But I think that just keeping on “banging on”, day after day, is a way of keeping up a slow drumbeat of resistance to Tobacco Control. I didn’t think it mattered to anyone until I met Rick Transit at Stony Stratford, and he told me that it was very disturbing when I didn’t write anything. So now, even if I really have nothing to say, I’ll usually post something, just to add another small beat of the drum.

But that’s not the only small act of resistance I engage in. After Carol complained today that  “no effective resistance movement has emerged”, I suddenly realised for the very first time that just sitting in a pub garden smoking a cigarette, like I was this afternoon, is also a small act of resistance. It’s a public demonstration of the continued normality of smoking, in the face of concerted attempts to denormalise it. And the band of smokers with me in the pub garden were a bunch of demonstrators, who may as well have been waving placards. They were just waving cigarettes instead. And these little demos are taking place all over England every day, unplanned, unorganised, and unconsciously. And they serve to give support to the other smoking demonstrators: it’s always nice to see somebody else light up. And if people hadn’t been doing this, and had done all their smoking furtively at home or in dark alleys where no-one could see them, it would have been very easy to extend indoor pub smoking bans to the outdoors as well, and for denormalisation to be more or less complete, simply because nobody did it any more. And that won’t happen while all these demonstrators show up every day to wave their cigarettes around.

Another small act of resistance that I engage in is the one where I mark a cross on a ballot paper next to UKIP, which is about the only political party offering a relaxation of the UK smoking ban. And doing that seems to have been causing a bit of an upheaval in recent weeks.

In fact, simply carrying on smoking is itself a small act of resistance, wherever it’s done. Because it represents refusal to comply with Tobacco Control’s insistent demands. Every single cigarette that’s lit is another small burning beacon of freedom.

We think of the French Resistance in WW2 as being a small and active band of resisters, blowing up railway lines and the like. But while there were probably relatively few people who actually carried out such attacks, they were without doubt embedded in an entire culture of passive resistance, in which there were people who could hide people and weapons, or maybe just provide food or shelter. In fact anyone who was not actively collaborating with the Nazi occupation was in some way resisting it, even if resistance took the form of being a bit slow serving them coffee.

Now of course these forms of passive resistance don’t serve to overthrow the oppression, or even change it very much. But they act as a drag upon it. And they serve to maintain a grassroot spirit of resistance. And without that foundational grassroot spirit, nothing in the form of an active and effective resistance can ever be built.

And so I am entirely concerned with encouraging individual, personal, grassroot resistance. Because it will only be when that grows and expands that anything else will start happening. For it seems to me that we have to start at the very bottom, not the very top. And starting with the science and the law courts is starting at the top. Resistance must grow from the bottom upwards. One day maybe it’ll be strong enough to contest the science in the law courts. But that’s a long way away. And so right now I’m not interested in proving anything to anyone, least of all in a law court.

In the past I’ve written about the resistance as being like a growing swarm of wasps. The individual wasps are more or less powerless, and they fly angrily in circles. And their anger and persistence raises other wasps into the air, and the swarm gets bigger and bigger, and angrier and angrier. And then, somehow or other, they all begin to act in concert, and fly off together to do something. And none of what they do is planned or organised, but is instead the sum totality of all the individual wasps’ actions.

And that swarm is growing. It’s getting slowly bigger all the time.

There’s nothing magical about such a process. It’s no more magical than the way countless trillions of water molecules float up into the sky and condense to form the fluffy white clouds I was watching this afternoon. There’s no plan, no organisation. It’s just an unfolding process with an underlying logic.

To re-iterate: We can’t fight the fraudulent science in courts of law because science itself has been corrupted, and the courts are corrupt too, and we have no money to waste upon such futile lawsuits anyway. We only have ourselves. And we should encourage private, personal, individual resistance in the face of barbarity. Because that is all we can do.

About Frank Davis

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

113 Responses to Small Acts of Resistance

  1. legiron says:

    Sing, smoker, sing!
    “We all want justice but you gotta have the money to buy it…”

  2. Strongly agree with pretty much everything Frank! I usually sign my books with a little added note just inside the front cover at the bottom: “Be The Sand.”

    The idea is that we can’t ALL be the “Tank Man” who stands in front of a column of tanks, but we can at least be the grains of sand that gum up the treads and eventually, after enough grains, make them break down.

    In recent years they began banning smoking on open air transit platforms here in Philly. They don’t have very good signage about it so, even if I don’t particularly feel like smoking at a particular point, I’ll find myself a position far enough away from folks (It’s usually fairly quiet on my particular platform when I ride, and my rides are also fairly occasional.) that I certainly can’t be bothering anyone, but I’ll also make sure I’m clearly visible to as many passengers on the other platforms as possible. I’ll then sit down light up and proceed to read a book. Occasionally I’ll have prompted other folks to imitate me, just because they see it can be done. And very occasionally someone must complain because there’ll be an official announcement or two made over the “trains arriving” loudspeakers about no smoking being allowed.

    Well, when I read, I *really* read…. so I don’t even notice those announcements. :> And they’ve never tried to send anyone running out from some cubbyhole to go bother me in person. So, I’ve been a grain of sand.

    Sitting at a bar with a copy of Brains and a pack of smokes next to m is another grain, even if I’m not smoking (There *is* one bar I still pop into that was hit by the ban cuz the owner didn’t follow my advice on filing his exemption in time — but he’s a good guy and been very supportive all along, as has been the main bartender so I still visit sometimes.)

    – MJM

    • c777 says:

      Apathy, the enemy of the people.
      But also the enemy of the Authoritarian.
      They just don’t have enough block wardens to go around.
      The station staff probably got fed up with asking.

  3. waltc says:

    There are many things that Carol either doesn’t understand or else, when concrete evidence is presented, refuses to accept, showing the equal but opposite mindset of the Aunts. Carol demands a spade; you show her a spade and she’ll tell you it’s not a spade and then carry on sniping about the need for a spade.

    The war on smokers is being fought on many fronts and with a wide range of weapons and needs to be combatted on many fronts and with a wide range of weapons. Carol has one weapon, her germ theory, and believes it’s the Atom bomb that will finally end the war if only we idiots would shout it in the streets. First, it is not the bomb–its an interesting and promising theory for which she’s culled, or even cherry-picked, pieces of evidence, blinding herself to everything else. It may be true in some or even many cases of some or many cancers, (or not) but it isn’t the unified field theory she thinks. Second, even the A bombs in Japan wouldn’t have worked to end WW2 if Italy and Germany hadn’t surrendered first and Japan hadn’t been weakened. Or to put that less gently, the war won’t be won by a one-trick pony or a one-trick hobby horse.

    Yesterday, quoting Jay and responding to him, we got this interchange: JAY: “It’s obviously escaped your notice that people HAVE challenged the fraud of SHS – and got nowhere.” CAROL: No, they have NOT. They have never challenged a single damn bit of the fraud, not once.”

    A blinkered hobby horse, at that.

    3/4th of the Osteen judgment challenged the EPA science, called it outright fraud, and the juggernaut, completely undaunted, rolled on. As I’ve cited before, the heads of the EPA and the HHS commented at the time, “Oh well. You wouldn’t want to go back to the days when there was smoking on planes, would you?” and then countersued and got the judgment thrown out, though on extraneous grounds of jurisdiction; the judgement on the science was never dealt with and Osteen/s refutation of the EPA science was therefore never refuted and still, technically, stands.

    The CLASH lawsuit was based on literally hundreds of pages that destroyed the junk science of SHS with published counter-evidence from accepted experts who were enlisted, in some cases, to provide additional testimony as Exhibits. Sight unseen, Carol refuses to accept this undeniable fact (probably because we didn’t ring in germ theory). And refuses to accept the fact that in every case (and there have been others) where the science has been challenged in court, the court, using Rational Basis criteria, has denied its relevance. In the CLASH case, the judge said that for all he knew, CLASH’s scientific arguments were valid but nonetheless, under Rational Basis, couldn’t be considered or factored into the verdict. Carol should spend some time looking into the law and how cases are decided on levels of legal “scrutiny” and adjust to reality.

    So: as Frank says, we do what we do. ‘Each according to his abilities,” as they say. We testify at hearings (where no one listens) but we do it “for the record” or posterity or so’s to look ourselves in the eye in the morning mirror. Some of us write books (MJM), others write blogs like Frank’s that are read far and wide, and letters to the editor, and confront legislators and do online battle and do radio and television talk shows when we can. Audrey also does lawsuits but, learning from experience, canny winnable ones.

    I don’t know when or where or how the war ends. I believe that, like Salem and Nazism and McCarthyism and various Prohibitions, that it WILL end but I believe that like all those hysterical and powerful movements. it will continue, like an epidemic fever, to burn till it burns itself up. And all of us, in our way, will have added yet another match or a Bic to its eventual pyre.

    • carol2000 says:

      “3/4th of the Osteen judgment challenged the EPA science, called it outright fraud, and the juggernaut, completely undaunted, rolled on.”

      Complete BOSH. The Osteen trial was all nitpicking over proceedure, and there was absolutely nothing brought up that exposed any scientific fraud. In particular, there was no mention of the deliberate, systematic fraud the anti-smokers commit with virtually every disease they blame on smoking – namely, they ignore the role of infection, while exploiting the fact that smokers are more likely to have been exposed to those infections, for socioeconomic reasons, in order to falsely blame smoking. This is a clear violation of proper scientific practice, because it’s purposely based on confounding.

      “The CLASH lawsuit was based on literally hundreds of pages that destroyed the junk science of SHS with published counter-evidence from accepted experts who were enlisted, in some cases, to provide additional testimony as Exhibits. Sight unseen, Carol refuses to accept this undeniable fact (probably because we didn’t ring in germ theory).”

      The CLASH lawsuit did not merely fail to show that there was any kind of fraud in the anti-smokers’ claims. Worst of all, they implicitly endorsed that fraud, because their own junk studies were concocted the same way. They merely cherry-picked the few that supported their own preference. It’s just a compendium of counter-assertions which failed to present any rational basis for giving it superior weight. And CLASH lost because they are utterly incompetent and just plain stupid. Not simply because the judge was against them, as you wish to pretend.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Carol Id likely say the judge was against them by political agenda………………….Every single suit Ive read always rubber stamps the claims regardless of counter evidence to the lies. If you read em in the decision part they all basically make the same statement like the judges are handed a carbon copy to put in under section so and so and that’s it……….

        Their proof isn’t proof at all its nothing but high sounding titles like surgeon general or NIH or HHS says etc etc…………then the normal sound bits.

        There is no justice in court at all. Its a waste of time to even go there even though they all know its BULLSHIT! Their political orders are to not rock or upset the official dogma of the government stand until the government decides to drop it…………….Its a political movement not a legal one except to abuse the law to outlaw everybody over something at some point as the progressive rino health fanatics march on.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          But they’ve lost political will to keep it going………….Its over they just haven’t gotton the word yet.

        • carol2000 says:

          CLASH failed because they’re incompetent, pure and simple. When you go to court, you have make your case, and they did not. And as long as they continue to play the anti-smokers’ game instead of exposing how it’s rigged, they’ll continue to fail.

      • waltc says:

        There you go again. You haven’t seen the Clash brief and yet you know what it both did and didn’t say. And there you go again, discounting everything that doesn’t include your germ theory. And what would a Carol post be if it didn’t disparage everyone but Carol , including Osteen , as incompetent and stupid while selectively misreading their work. And once again in willful ignorance of the legal meaning of the term, she completely misunderstands the meaning of Rational Basis scrutiny, under which her germ theory would bite dust faster than an earthworm. Pay attention to what Harley said (above or below–I don’t know where these things appear) and try to stop being so tirelessly and unrelentingly nasty.

        • carol2000 says:

          I have seen the CLASH brief. It’s utterly worthless. Unlike you, I CAN present a Rational Basis for doubting the anti-smokers’ claims – not just the cherry picks and simple minded anecdotes that you think are so devastating. Unlike you, I present the evidence for an alternative explanation of their own data, and show how their studies have been cynically designed to produce false results, while YOU don’t just accept their fraudulent method but deem is satisfactory for your own use, as long as it produces the result you desire.

  4. smokervoter says:

    This is for Jax from yesterday’s thread (Continued)

    I’m going to mooch that little Picasso of a word passage from you and call it my own, if you don’t mind.

    It perfectly desribes my first ever visit to a hippy health food store, circa 1972, in Santa Cruz, California. After wincing uncontrollably in sheer incredulity over the claims of supermarket vegetables supposedly killing me, the next thing to hit me was extreme sticker shock. Four measly carrots with dirt clods hugging the roots for four dollars! When I can buy 8 for a dollar at The Man’s Evil Corporate Conventional Produce Store down the street?

    Thanks, but no thanks Mr. and Ms Dreadlocks.

    But it was the shoppers and the hipster clerks and the faux ethereal vibes that permeated the scene that really sent me packing. And the main thing I remember but heretofore struggled to adequately describe was this: the constant, fixed grin on their faces. Nobody really smiles that much, it’s all one big touchy-feely act. I could see that they were really uptight just below the surface.

    And it was the first place I ever saw a passively-aggressive hand lettered sign, painted up in ‘War is not healthy for children and other living things’ fashion, which read: “Thank You for NOT Smoking in Our Healthy Place”.

    Mind you, you could smoke anywhere and everywhere back then.

  5. Marvin says:

    One form of direct action that works and costs nothing is to join your local constituency party, it only needs a couple of dozen of you and then threaten the sitting MP with deselection*, if they have, or are about to, vote for anymore anti-smoker legislation. It is very satisfying to see the worry on their face when their cushy, wellpaid job is on the line. To those who will scream “but that’s not very democratic” , I will say neither is tobacco control and we are at WAR with them, in any case it is called MANDATING the “public servant” to obey the wishes of his/her constituency party, I would have thought that is more democratic than allowing them to go their own way or do their own thing.

    *When the antismokers get wind of what you are doing, they will ship in bus-loads of other antismokers in order to out-vote your little scheme, but I do wonder if they could muster enough “grass roots” support to do this today, anyway that is what happened in the 80’s when we tried to deselect the anti-working class “new labour” fascists. Then of course, Kinnock got wind of it and chucked us all out, but it was fun while it lasted :)

  6. winnie says:

    I think we should use they,re template to show how nasty this thing is,Fat people I think fat people should be banned from public places as it normalises obesity.400000 people a year die of overweightyness children seeing this might think its ok to attain such weights.I think a really healthy society needs to vet who is allowed on the streets.

    • woodsy42 says:

      Sadly you would probably get support for such a plan. It’s all for their own good, force them to get fit and lose weight before the children are affected and the NHS goes even more bust etc.

  7. I would dearly love to believe that sense and normality will return (in every sense) from the repeal of smoking bans to the overturning of ‘gay marriage’ to the exorcism of Marxism from our places of learning and the media to the return of national sovereignty, etc., etc., but things are happening which have never happened before. We have a world government developing at great pace – not by means of military action, like all the previous attempts, but through sophistry and subversion.

    I’ll just concentrate on the WHO’s FCTC. The signatories (almost every country) are obligated to carry out their ‘recommendations’ and report back on the progress made. It’s going to get more extreme (obviously) when there will be outdoor bans and probably home bans and then smoking will have to be carried out in secret, like snorting coke. You could risk smoking at home upstairs and have incense sticks burning at all times. Maybe have a secret little room like Anne Frank and it’ll be open as a museum in the future where visitors will be able to boast about how they had a smoke in Graham Briggs’ house in Bolton?

    Except…who is going to liberate us?

    Anyways, what good would a united, well-financed freedom association do in the face of the global megalomania which is attempting to engineer a tobacco-free world? It would undoubtedly score local successes, but would lose the war, I’m sure.

    Look back at the Miners’ Strike of the mid-80s when about 200,000 miners went on strike for a year against Maggie Thatcher, mini-dictator with a handbag (just pictured Stalin and Hitler addressing the masses with a handbag over one forearm). She beat them by staying cool and doing nothing while a great many people suffered greatly and a few died (she’d already made sure that the coal-fired power stations had enough supplies to outlast industrial action).

    The year before the strike started,

    “In 1983, Britain had 170 working mines. Today there are four working deep mines.”

    And that was written over five years ago!

    So mass protests don’t necessarily work when you’re up against a determined enough oppressor.

    Smokers would seem to have an equally zero chance of success with either mass protests or a powerful anti-antismoking association.

    Although, protests probably got rid of the poll tax.

    Was that a different age? Were people more inclined to stand up for themselves then? Would they have left their pint in the pub to stand outside in the rain for a smoke or made the plan unworkable?

    The miners failed and the smokers have more committed and powerful enemies and are far less organised, added to which, we are the Celebrity-X-Factor-on-Ice generation, unable (nor brave enough) to organise a smoke-up in a brewery.

    The only possibility of success that I can envisage is a UKIP general election victory, but even then, how many governments honour their manifestos?

    Sorry, but just trying to be a realist. Until the public realises that the globalists own us through the UN, we have no chance.

  8. prog says:

    You do a fine job in the face of almost overwhelming official opposition. But, I disagree with your belief that sitting outside a pub with a fag and beer is a real act of defiance. TBH, it’s essentially compliance. OK, the simple fact that smokers are continuing to smoke is defiance but pubs just haven’t got the message. I was talking to a friend about this last week. He and his wife have a tacky, yet fantastic tropical bar in their garden, made of bamboo with a grass roof. Bar stools and a patio heater etc. He travels a lot to Ireland and told me that many publicans have outside bars, some areas with hedged screens, fire grates, pool tables and so on. That’s defiance, without the risk of prosecution. The last pub I visited had a kind of courtyard outside, but no roof and all the ashtrays were full of water, some used though not emptied.

  9. margo says:

    I have a lot of sympathy for Carol’s point of view. Tobacco Control IS criminality (criminals, not nannies, as she oft points out). I hear her frustration and share it (as I’m sure we all do). But Frank’s right, too. As a small powerless person with no money to spare, I resist the only ways I can. One of them (which I wish all smokers would do) is never ever to lie about my smoking. If I have to go to the doc or the dentist, I wait for the smoking question and say ‘Yes’. I wait out the inevitable lecture and I give them back a steaming rant and make it last twice as long – so they wish they’d never asked. Let Tobacco Control know just how many of us still smoke and why we remain impervious to their propagandist lies. Small resistances, yes, but every one counts.

    • Sunex Amures says:

      You’re right Margo that’s one of the few practical ways left to us. That and giving antis a piece of your mind when the opportunity arises. I’m not really good at conflict, especially in public, but I treasure the memory of my laying into a snotty young woman at a bus stop a while back. The man in front of me lit a ciggie and this woman, in her passive-aggressive manner, ostensibly speaking to no-one in particular but meant for him to hear, said at the top of her strident voice “Why is it wherever I go someone has got to light a cigarette!!”. I didn’t hesitate for a second and laid into her telling her exactly what I thought of her until the next bus arrived. Meanwhile the guy was enjoying his smoke while all hell was let loose around him. It was one of those experiences that really clears you sinuses.

    • Rose says:

      I had the pleasure of that debate with my new dentist a month ago, Margo.
      For every “smoking causes” I could counter in a friendly way with the science that called his statement into question. After gently slipping it into the conversation a few times, he eventually stopped, presumably because he only had antitobacco generalities and I had specific properties of named components and their uses in modern medicine.

      Without such knowledge people are completely unarmed.

      These days, it is a great pleasure to see people on comment boards, particularly vapers confidently stating that nicotine is not unique to tobacco and naming the common vegetables that contain it. That knowledge was virtually unknown seven years ago and could only be found in scientific studies and my mothers pre war gardening books.
      Imagine my delight when it reached the MSM.

      And now they know that we know that they know.

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

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

      “The option was raised to prevent foods such as the nightshades, known to naturally contain low levels of nicotine, from being banned.”
      http: //www.foodstandards.gov.au/_srcfiles/P278_Nicotine_FAR_Final.pdf

      Link no longer works

      The Nicotine Content of Common Vegetables – Rose’s Garden
      http://www.forces.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=363&t=2935

      I agree with Frank, resistance has to start from the ground up because the anti-tobacco citadel however formidable it looks right now is really built on sand.

      Nicotine
      They chose the battleground, not me.

      Now had they said instead that repeatedly inhaling the fumes of a freshly lit match was likely to cause lung cancer in the long run, I wouldn’t have disputed it and would never have taken up smoking.

      Funny how things work out.

    • carol2000 says:

      Send them to my website, smokershistory.com, to see the scientific fraud exposed.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Well they could all be hunted down and shot individually and the Nazis could start a tribute page to the dead smoke Nazis who died for the cause!

        Thatd be my way to do it since they’ve killed so many of us thru their smoker hatred programs……….

      • Rose says:

        Carol, I found your website when I first started researching, it was most helpful in finding out who was involved on your side of the ocean, but apart from researching the plant I also wanted to find out how the madness spread over here.

        This seems to be where it crossed over.

        London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

        1919-1920 – Preliminary moves by Rockefeller Foundation to explore possibilities for a School of Public Health in London.

        1921 – Topley and Greenwood begin collaboration on experimental epidemiology.

        Report of Athlone Committee on Tropical Diseases with observers from the Rockefeller Foundation, June; Alfred Mond as Minister of Health sets up committee to draft scheme for ‘Institute of State Medicine’ July. London University adopts the degree of Ph.D.

        1922 – A week before his death in April, Manson accepts Rockefeller proposals for School.

        1945-1946 – Large numbers of ex-service men and women apply for DPH courses.
        Rockefeller Foundation offers fellowships for training “hand-picked” students in Public Health Department.
        Introduction of lectures on sociology and social medicine.

        1950 Preliminary report by Doll and Hill on smoking and lung cancer.”
        http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/library/archives/history/chronology/

        Medical Research Council
        Rockefeller Medical Fellowships
        1932
        http: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2520659/pdf/brmedj07385-0032a.pdf

        “I shall have a Rockefeller Scholar in my department who might be used on it at little cost. A much better alternative would be Richard Doll who has been employed by the Council in the survey of peptic ulcer (sic) in industry and which is coming to an end I believe.”
        http://www.denialdelay.org.uk/prologue.htm

        They couldn’t get socialised medicine in America where their activities were already known so as well as their success in Germany, they tried again here, where they succeeded. Hygiene in this case meaning Public Health.

        Th e D R U G S T O R Y

        By Morris A. Bealle, a former city editor of the Washington Times and Herald

        Now normally I would be cautious of this, but I was able to check some of his stories out in the excellent TIME archive and found that them to be true.

        A Factological History of AMERICA’S $10,000,000,000 DRUG CARTEL — ITS METHODS, OPERATIONS, HIDDEN OWNER-SHIP, PROFITS AND TERRIFIC IMPACT ON THE HEALTH OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
        By Morris A. Bealle 1949

        “The Rockefeller Foundation was first set up in 1904, and called the General Education Fund. An organization called the Rockefeller Foundation, ostensibly to supplement the Fund, was formed in 1910 and an effort was made to get a charter from Congress.”

        “For three years the Rockefeller lobbyists besieged our national legislature for a charter and official respectability. Congress turned them down year after year on the ground that they would give no sanction to an organization with $100,000,000 to spend for commercial propaganda”
        http: //www.whale.to/a/bealle.htm

        We used to have a 50 year rule before some government papers could be released 2002 was 50 years after the Great London Smog, Doll and Hill’s first study on smoking had been released only two years before.

        2002
        “Professor Virginia Berridge of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine’s History Unit has researched papers relating to cabinet committee meetings in the late ’50s looking into smoking, air pollution and lung cancer.”

        “..the Medical Research Council was planning to issue a statement saying although smoking was a significant cause of lung cancer, up to 30% of cases might be caused by air pollution.

        But the Cabinet committee on cancer of the lung, fearful of another political embarrassment which could be caused by stressing the air pollution connection, asked the MRC to reconsider its statement.

        On 31 May 1957 a modified version was published, which asserted that although it was likely that atmospheric pollution did play a role in lung cancer, it was ‘a relatively minor one in comparison with cigarette smoking’.”
        http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/pressoffice/press_releases/2002/smogpollution.html

        • carol2000 says:

          The Rockefeller connection is interesting, but Bealle is just a quackery believer ranting about things that are irrelevant to our concerns.

  10. Nightlight says:

    Carol is right about the wrong-headedness of the libertarian strategy (attacking nannies) and about obvious failure of smokers to organize and defend. She is also right on the need to attack the antismoking science of the first hand smoke.

    But while she sees the symptoms clearly, she is missing the elephant in the room which makes it impossible for smokers to organize. To see the elephant, consider the far more vigorous activism of vapers even though they are still miniscule in numbers compared to smokers.

    The key difference between them is that vapers believe that vaping is good for them (hence it is virtue), while smokers believe ‘smoking kills’ (hence it is sin). Just as there are no muggers organizing to defend their rights to mug, there won’t be smokers organizing to defend their habit, while being under the ‘smoking kills’ spell.

    Therefore, debating or suing the loud mouth antismoking pharma frontmen or trying to convince general public about nannyism, lost liberties and SHS fraud is as useless as debating them on scientific fraud of antismoking “science”, as Carol would want to do.

    The only path that will work is to focus on opening the eyes of smokers to help them break the spell ‘smoking kills’ and replace it with an equivalent of vapers’ belief — ‘smoking is good for you’ (which is what hard science backs anyway).

    Unfortunately, none of the present smoker groups is focused in this direction. They’re debating liberties, suing or trying to convince public on SHS fraudulence instead of seeking to break the spell on the smokers themselves. Only after you have millions of righteous smokers behind you, as outraged as vapers are about attacks on vaping, then you have an army to fight the antismokers and convince the public.

    Without that necessary army-building phase, the smokers groups will remain like handful of hot headed army generals leading the charge at the enemy, while forgetting to train, equip and transport the soldiers to the battlefield.

    • magnetic01 says:

      Let’s consider the “health warning” Smoking Kills

      All of the evidence against smoking is statistical in nature. Even if we accept that the statistical evidence has been reasonably acquired and free of errors, there are very definite rules governing how statistical information is disseminated. These rules are routinely violated, mangled, abused, butchered by antismoking activists. Zealots use a particular, exaggerated, highly-inflammatory language, e.g., “kill”, “death”, “poison”, “toxic”.

      Honestly depicting statistical information doesn’t have sufficient “terrorizing” value for zealots.

      I can point you to a document (see Godber Blueprint) that instructs activists not to use statistical information, but to use such terms as “kill” which go far beyond the implications of the underlying statistical data.

      Working Papers in Support of the 8th World Conference on Tobacco or Health: Building a Tobacco-Free World
      March 30 – April 3, 1992

      Buenos Aires, Argentina
      (excerpts)
      Use strong direct wording such as
      Smoking kills
      Smoking is addictive
      Smoking causes lung cancer
      Smoking causes heart disease
      Smoking damages your lungs
      Smoking harms the fetus
      Smoking hurts your children
      Don’t use statements that condone any
      form of smoking, imply only a chance
      of contracting disease, or attribute the
      statement to a third party . Don’t use :
      “Don’t smoke too much for health’s sake . ”
      “Smoking may cause……
      “According to the government . . . . .”

      (p.14)
      Consider skull and crossbones or other
      strong visual displays .

      (p.15)

      We’re not dealing with facts here. It’s activism. It’s the standard deterioration into the vocabulary of moralizing zealotry. It’s the production of [baseless] generalized slogans for terrorizing effect.

      This particular document makes for interesting reading. It’s all “how to do activism” exploiting medical authority:
      http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hoc28a99

    • carol2000 says:

      The only thing you’ll accomplish is to help make smokers look absolutely ridiculous. I shall presume this is your intent.

      • Nightlight says:

        Ridiculous to whom? To those who were brainwashed by the antismoking propaganda? So what. They are already seen by the politically correct crowd as pathetic addicts anyway. There are no lower social rungs than where smokers are now.

        Look also at at vapers, a tiny minority of a minority, who are already a lot more effective than smokers in defending themselves. The only difference is how they see their habit — is it harmful or nor, is it a sin or a virtue (they believe they are virtuous for quitting smoking).

        If you had 20-30 millions of US smokers who have broken the spell ‘smoking kills’, they wouldn’t need to care what some politically correct nanny or media whore thinks about them. They could drop the hammer on any politician or any company going against them (and a much bigger hammer than gays or other previously oppressed minorities, but now untouchable, can).

        Several times when some well meaning friend came to advise me on dangers of smoking, after explaining the real science and the antismoking fraud, with references, some of them started smoking.

        Even at longevity & nootropic forum Longecity (previously ImmInst), after several threads on the theme “Smoking is good for you”, some previously antismoking highly health conscious members started smoking, convinced by the evidence presented and months of debate (where antismokers came out as fools with only 2nd hand junk science to back their position). See links to highlights of one such debate in this post.

        • carol2000 says:

          Vapers have friends among the oligarchy. That explains all their success.

        • Nightlight says:

          carol2000 “Vapers have friends among the oligarchy. That explains all their success.”

          They haven’t had all that much success. It also doesn’t explain why the vapers themselves are far more active and aggressive than smokers who are 20 times more numerous. They are righteous and enraged by what they see as an attack on something they as their virtuous action (quitting evil, dirty smoking and starting the clean vaping).

          As long as vast majority of smokers believe ‘smoking kills’ (or even that it is bad for them) they will continue to be increasingly abused without offering any resistance. That is the key lever that needs to be moved first (breaking the spell ‘smoking kills’ among smokers themselves, and who cares what others think about it) before any change can occur.

          Unfortunately, you seem to have swallowed the pharma’s poison pill that this ancient Indian medicine is harmful to smokers (that follows from your earlier comment that ‘smoking is good for you’ message to smokers will “help make smokers look absolutely ridiculous”). But then that seems to contradict your insistence on fighting antismoking pseudo-science. The only way to make the two positions fit coherently is that you are only against antismokers lies about SHS, but believe their lies that smoking harms smokers.

          My position is that antismokers didn’t start lying either when vaping rose (as vapers think), or when they began the war on SHS. They were lying the same from day one, from 1950 when the “scientific” antismoking racket started by their attack on first hand smoke.

        • carol2000 says:

          As long as you don’t give people good reasons to doubt that “smoking kills,” all you do is make yourself look ridiculous going around claiming that smoking is good for you. And babbling about “ancient Indian medicine” won’t do the job.

        • Nightlight says:

          carol2000 “all you do is make yourself look ridiculous going around claiming that smoking is good for you. And babbling about “ancient Indian medicine” won’t do the job.

          I have been collecting research papers on the effects of tobacco smoke for about ten years and debating the topic in health forums, under provocative titles such as “Smoking is good for you”.

          See for example thelinks to highlights of that thread in life-extenstion & nootropic forum Longecity. Initially the whole forum goes berserk attacking the claim, but then as scientific papers are brought up, it turns out they have only junk science on their side while all the hard science (experiments, lab analysis) supports the the “ridiculous” SIGFY claim. After weeks, even months of debate, some highly health conscious members, never-smokers, started smoking. That’s how one sided the evidence is.

          In my personal communications, whenever someone well meaning advises me on dangers of smoking, I bring up the scientific evidence and references, and even some of them started smoking after studying the materials.

          So my point is that if open minded, scientifically educated, health conscious never-smokers, even antismokers, can be convinced by the evidence of hard science vs junk science, to change their mind and even take up smoking, the smokers should be far more receptive.

          If one were to have smokers organization focused exclusively on spreading the SIGFY message among fellow smokers as fast as possible, you could have millions of awaken and righteously enraged smokers pushing back against abuses. Considering that smokers are far larger minority than several untouchable minorities, the well informed smokers could reverse antismoking hysteria and squash the racket overnight.

          Unfortunately, the smokers groups are as much brainwashed and uninformed as general public on the real science of effects of tobacco smoke on smoker. Hence, instead of addressing smokers, they waste time and tiny resources debating antismokers or general public about SHS and liberties, both of which are dead ends. Therefore, they will remain as ineffective as they have been for decades — they simply will never have large enough numbers of supporters to do anything of significance.

          The key is to forget about loud mouth antismokers (they are just dummy puppets for the pharma, with no power or relevance by themselves), or general public, and exclusively focus on fellow smokers, help each of them them break the curse “smoking kills” for themselves (via scientific evidence, such as the above). That will not only help them to stop harming their own health via nocebo or ‘witch doctor effect’ (that’s the only thing that actually harms them about smoking), but will make them far more active and organized in pushing back (as vapers example illustrates).

        • Frank Davis says:

          Nightlight,

          The key is to forget about loud mouth antismokers (they are just dummy puppets for the pharma, with no power or relevance by themselves), or general public, and exclusively focus on fellow smokers, help each of them them break the curse “smoking kills” for themselves (via scientific evidence, such as the above).

          About 4 years ago, I wrote a string of articles (1, 2, 3) under the title “Smoking Is Good For You.” They were in large part inspired by your writings, although they didn’t follow the same reasoning.

          To the best of my knowledge you don’t have your own website or blog, and most of your writings appear as comments on discussion threads. My blog principally addresses smokers. Perhaps you might consider writing one or two guest posts here on why smoking is good for you?

          And maybe Carol might consider writing one that summarizes her views on why antismoking ‘science’ is fraudulent? She has her own website. But since she’s taken to dropping in links to it here, maybe she’d like to write an introduction?

          And I can watch some World Cup football without wondering what I’m going to be writing next.;-)

        • carol2000 says:

          As I’ve said over and over, the anti-smokers falsely smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection. Smokers are more likely to have been exposed to those infections, as are poorer people in general. The anti-smokers’ studies are based on lifestyle questionnaires that ignore the role of infection, so they’re really just comparing difference in rates of infection between smokers and non-smokers. There is also abundant evidence that smokers and poor people are imainly nfected during childhood, before they even began to smoke, for CMV, EBV, and Helicobacter pylori, so they can’t blame smoking for that. And also that there are higher rates of human papillomavirus infection among poorer people. Furthermore, the evidence implicating infection is causal, not just correlational, because viral proteins and DNA are found in the tumors but not in non-tumor tissue, and the viral proteins have been shown to upregulate established oncogene pathways. That’s the most basic explanation.

        • carol2000 says:

          Forget it! Anecdotes are even lamer than lifestyle questionnaire studies. Plus, your “science” parrots all the rottenest anti-smokers, such as SS Hecht, who would be the first to repudiate your claims. Also you don’t seem to recognize sarcasm when they use it on you.

        • Nightlight says:

          carol2000 Forget it! Anecdotes are even lamer than lifestyle questionnaire studies.

          While few anecdotes occur at the start of thread, most discussion is about experiments. See the highlights links which point to over dozen of those posts.

          Note that I didn’t start or name that thread even though I was the author of the top post. That very causal initial post with anecdotes was written in another unrelated thread, but then the responses to it ended up swamping the original thread, so moderators moved the whole sequence into its own thread. It continued there for several more weeks. Numerous papers were brought up and discussed on both sides.

          Plus, your “science” parrots all the rottenest anti-smokers, such as SS Hecht, who would be the first to repudiate your claims.

          I cite him and others to support the positions stated. It is more effective to cite antismoking motivated scientist destroying their own case than to cite tobacco industry. Hecht’s frustration, which sticks out quite clearly, with decades of experimental failures to produce lung cancer via inhalation of tobacco smoke, or contortions they go through to create appearance of harm, are highly informative.

          Also you don’t seem to recognize sarcasm when they use it on you.

          I deliberately ignored all posts that didn’t address the subject matter proper. Calling names and generic ridiculing in response to facts cited from a scientific paper is merely a way some of the members dealt with their own lack of substance. I didn’t care to descent to that level since it was an implicit admission of their failure to find supporting evidence. Why should add anything if someone is already saying an equivalent of ‘I got no facts to support my antismoking hysteria’. Let them bury themselves.

        • carol2000 says:

          Re “highlights links” – “The observation that smoking is statistically associated (on non-randomized samples) with higher rates of rheumatoid arhtiritis is correct. But leaping from such association on non-randomized samples to conclusions that smoking makes it worse or initiates/causes it is incorrect.” These are not clinical trials, so there’s no reason they should (or could) be randomized. “Hence, it’s a pure, deliberate junk science (created & sold chiefly by pharmaceutical industry;” This is a gratuitous inuendo which identifies you as a brainwashed robot of the Harvard health fascists. And your one mouse study is not sufficient to outweigh the anti-smokers’ pile of junk on actual humans, not to mention that the collagen-induced arthritis in mice model has doubtful relevance to RA in humans. Mouse studies are not the anti-smokers’ heavy artillery. Human studies are. It’s a waste of time to push drivel like that, rather than expose how the anti-smokers’ studies are cynically designed to falsely blame smoking.

          http://www.smokershistory.com/rheumat.html

          The rest of that junk is no better. I refuse to be associated with it in any way. And whether the anti-smokers could give animals lung cancer is irrelevant, again because all their important stuff is on humans. And since Hecht now claims to have done so, it doesn’t “destroy” anything. All you did was publicize his success.

        • Nightlight says:

          @carol2000:

          n: “But leaping from such association on non-randomized samples to conclusions that smoking makes it worse or initiates/causes it is incorrect.” carol2000: These are not clinical trials, so there’s no reason they should (or could) be randomized.

          You missed the point. I am saying that leaping to causality from such non-randomized associations (which is the main sleight of hand in antismoking “science” and the chief antismoking argument from the forum members) is the problem, a scientific fraud. Such correlations are at best an early hint and need to be followed up by hard science (experiments, randomized trials) to find out which way the causal links go. If you check the ‘debate’, you will see that most antismoking members were blind to the distinction which is why I had to keep reminding them.

          n: “Hence, it’s a pure, deliberate junk science (created & sold chiefly by pharmaceutical industry;” carol2000: This is a gratuitous inuendo

          You should be familiar with the fact that the pharmaceutical industry and their front organizations are the major creator and financial backer of antismoking groups, as well as the buyers/sponsors of the antismoking laws and regulations (via their political and bureaucratic puppets). That’s all well documented.

          which identifies you as a brainwashed robot of the Harvard health fascists

          ???

          carol2000: And your one mouse study is not sufficient to outweigh the anti-smokers’ pile of junk on actual humans,

          a) 1 (hard science fact) outweighs 0 (hard science facts) in my math. There were no randomized human studies on smoking & RA (or smoking and any other ‘smoking related’ disease), hence the only hard science facts were on SIGFY side of the argument.

          The closest to human randomized trials with smoking were several intervention trials (for lung cancer & , but those were only weakly randomized (advice to quit given to randomly selected test group). Besides, these trials are never mentioned by the antismoking PR since they all backfired anyway, as it was case any time the antismoking “science” veered toward hard science.

          b) There were many more animal studies brought up and discussed in the main thread (see the highlights links), hundreds if one counts the surveys of experiments. They all support SIGFY position and contradict antismoking junk science (which is the sole backing antismoking side had on their side in that “debate”).

          c) not to mention that the collagen-induced arthritis in mice model has doubtful relevance to RA in humans.

          Anti-inflammatory effects of tobacco smoke were well established, documented and discussed independently in the debate (the main thread). The biochemical mechanism of the final inflammatory damage are similar enough that these are considered useful animal models for RA and are used as therapeutic targets for the RA drugs.

          The particular experiment is particularly useful since it establishes not only that tobacco smoke is therapeutic and protective against inflammatory damage (contrary to claims of junk science), but also that it is more so than pure nicotine (while both are better than placebo), contrary to claims and hopes of vapers.

          : Mouse studies are not the anti-smokers’ heavy artillery.

          The point is that antismoking “science” doesn’t have “heavy artillery” (hard science) on their side. All they have and parrot are non-randomized associations.

          carol2000: Human studies are.

          And they have 0 of hard science (randomized) of those. Even the few intermediate ones which were weakly randomized (quitting intervention trials) failed to support or even outright contradicted (more lung cancers or heart attacks in quit group) antismoking conjectures & claims. These points were all well documented in the main thread.

          That’s also the main tell on what the real effects of smoking are — the over six decades of failures to produce hard science facts on their side and resulting necessity to parrot to this day the non-randomized associations as their primary propaganda, is more telling than anything else.

          Already in 1958 R.A. Fisher noticed that peculiarity of the antismoking “science” and called them on it (pdf):

          But the time has passed, and although further investigation, in a sense, has taken place, it has consisted largely of the repetition of observations of the same kind as those which Hill and his colleagues called attention several years ago. I read a recent article to the effect that nineteen different investigations in different parts of the world had all concurred in confirming Dr. Hill’s findings. I think they had concurred, but I think they were mere repetitions of evidence of the same kind.

          Yet, over half century later, they are still stuck spinning in the same loop, parroting the non-randomized associations as their main science.

          carol2000: And since Hecht now claims to have done so, it doesn’t “destroy” anything. All you did was publicize his success.

          The survey discussed was his latest claim. The carefully worded claim of experiments (see highlight #3 about 2004-5 experiments, discussed here).

          The fatal flaw with those claims is that by the time all non-smoking animals had died, half the smoking animals were still alive despite eventually having greater number of lung tumors after they died (but had fewer of other tumors; these were cancer mice bred to rapidly grow tumors everywhere). Their sleight of hand relies on two mechanisms to get larger number of lung tumors in smoking mice:

          a) the smoking mice live longer, hence they grow longer their genetically produced tumors

          b) tobacco smoke (chiefly via nicotine and low dose CO & NO) stimulates angiogenesis, which redistributes growth of genetically produced tumors (more in the organs more exposed to tobacco smoke, fewer elsewhere or in total, yielding longer survival)

          In his survey, Hecht recognized the above problems and his advice is to avoid full lifespan experiments (since that “complicates the analysis” as he euphemistically put it) and use “recovery period” i.e. have mice heavily smoke to middle age equivalent, then abruptly quit (at which point they will get fat and sick, short-circuiting thus the observed life-extending effects of tobacco smoke in full lifespan experiments). Hence, his advice comes down to dropping mechanism (a) and relying on mechanism (b) as well as on other damages from quitting.

          As far as I have seen, there were no later animal experiments than those of 2004-5 on the subject of the mythical lung carcinogenicity of tobacco smoke and the Hecht’s survey (from 2005) covered these.

          All you did was publicize his success.

          As explained, when scratched below the surface claims in the abstract & intro, the survey is actually highly embarrassing for the antismoking case, not a success.

        • carol2000 says:

          Nightlight: Not using a randomized trial does not constitute scientific fraud. Nor is it even obligatory in order to determine causality. So you’re just spouting nonsense. Nor are mouse studies some kind of automatically superior “hard science.” They’re the wrong species, so they count as 0 – a fact which the anti-smokers should be reminded of when they crank these out for propaganda, instead of putting the junk on a pedestal.

          NO: “the pharmaceutical industry and their front organizations are the major creator and financial backer of antismoking groups, as well as the buyers/sponsors of the antismoking laws and regulations (via their political and bureaucratic puppets).” THEY ARE NOT. The GOVERNMENT funds most anti-smoking research, and the Cancer Society and Heart Association are the main lobbyists for it (with their Wall Street cronies backing them.) The pharmaceutical industry wasn’t even involved until MANY decades after the anti-smoking persecution began. That crap about “Big Pharma” was invented by the Harvard health fascists with their religion of magic fruits and vegetables and exercise supposedly being superior to “chemicals.”

          “The biochemical mechanism of the final inflammatory damage are similar enough that these are considered useful animal models for RA and are used as therapeutic targets for the RA drugs.” The anti-smokers blame that inflammation on smoking, and your mouse study doesn’t refute it because the anti-smokers have more garbage than you do. You’re imagining that you can win a garbage-throwing contest against those who are well-funded to produce it. And the mouse arthritis is not even relevant to human RA because in humans, interaction of CMV and its distinctive CD4+ CD28- T cells with the shared epitope of HLA-DRB1 is of major importance. And antibodies to citrullinated alpha-enolase, which comes from Porphyromonas gingivalis, are important, too.

        • Nightlight says:

          @carol2000 Not using a randomized trial does not constitute scientific fraud.

          You seem to read half a sentence and respond reflexively to some imagined statements. I never said the above.

          It is not the non-randomized studies that are junk, but claiming causality from such associations is. That kind of unscientific leap is the chief weapon of antismoking “science”.

          Nor are mouse studies some kind of automatically superior “hard science.”

          Carcinogenicity of various substances is routinely tested on animals, mostly on mice and hamsters. It is a primitive disease with no essential differences between mammals. The fact that decades of such experiment have failed to demonstrate carcinogenicity of inhaled tobacco smoke is more than enough to put to rest that hypothesis.

          Many drugs, including antibiotics and anti-inflammatory drugs, are also tested on animals. Similarly, inflammatory and toxic effects of cosmetics are tested on animals.

          Some people even buy (at much lower cost and without prescription) veterinary drugs for their own use. In that forum Longecity, which is mostly on nootropics & life extension, some members buy nootropic selegiline (deprenyl, MAO B inhibitor) sold for dogs at a fraction of the cost of the medical industry equivalent and without having to get prescription.

          THEY ARE NOT. The GOVERNMENT funds most anti-smoking research, and the Cancer Society and Heart Association are the main lobbyists for it (with their Wall Street cronies backing them.) The pharmaceutical industry wasn’t even involved until MANY decades after the anti-smoking persecution began.

          The governments (mostly US & UK) were the initiators and the main drivers of antismoking pseudo-science in early decades (from 1950s through 1980s). Then pharma took over and the antismoking kicked into high gear. It’s not just RWJF or pharma research grants, but actions of politicians and bureaucrats bought by pharma (from funding decisions through laws & regulations).

          At present one can’t draw the clean line between the two since it is the same crony capitalist mafia, with the same crooks cycling back and forth between the government agencies and pharma (or other industries). The FORCES site and many others (including vaping community lately) have documented plenty of such connections. If you look at the rapid rise in medical costs since then, it is clear why the pharma is so eager to suppress this potent natural medicine.

          That crap about “Big Pharma” was invented by the Harvard health fascists with their religion of magic fruits and vegetables and exercise supposedly being superior to “chemicals.”

          You keep bringing that up, and I still have no idea what that is about. I do prefer whole, raw foods to processed foods and choose it whenever possible, and see no problem with that. It has nothing to do with ‘Harvard health fascists’ or any medical advice (I haven’t seen doctors since 1991).

          The anti-smokers blame that inflammation on smoking, and your mouse study doesn’t refute it because the anti-smokers have more garbage than you do.

          The difference is that you can induce inflammatory effects via acute initial exposures to tobacco smoke and that is the only way they show such effects. In that discussion at Longecity, I labeled this the ‘pinhole vision’ sleight of hand. Namely this is no different than showing muscle damage and cellular energy depletion if say, you make someone who has never lifted weights to suddenly do a heavy weight lifting exercise. But if such exercise is done gradually and repeatedly (as people start smoking), especially under control of the subjects, there is a hormetic effect which overcompensates with protection and rebuilding, so that net effect is improvement of muscle strengths.

          The same happens with inflammatory effects of tobacco smoke. While the first cigarettes seem quite harsh on throat and lungs, it doesn’t take long before the body adapts and boosts its anti-inflammatory mechanisms at all levels (from proliferation of anti-inflammatory alpha-7 receptors on cellular level, through stimulation of cortico-steroids, up to vagus inflammatory master controls at the CNS level). These topics (including weight lifting example and several papers), were all discussed in the thread (see the highlight links).

          The antismokers don’t have more garbage — garbage is all they have. In contrast, all the hard science (experiments and lab analysis) supports my position that tobacco is a potent and highly beneficial medicinal plant. It is without equal in the variety and depth of therapeutic and protective effects among natural or synthetic substances.

        • carol2000 says:

          Nighlight: “It is not the non-randomized studies that are junk, but claiming causality from such associations is. That kind of unscientific leap is the chief weapon of antismoking “science””

          They’re claiming causality on the basis of their epidemiological studies on humans, plus a window dressing of animal studies. And it’s fraudulent because they’re deliberately ignoring and concealing an important alternative explanation, that the cancers are caused by infections, and those infections are more common among smokers and passive smokers, for socioeconomic reasons.

          “Carcinogenicity of various substances is routinely tested on animals, mostly on mice and hamsters. It is a primitive disease with no essential differences between mammals.”

          False. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma in humans is nearly always caused by Epstein-Barr virus, and there’s absolutely no doubt about this. But in the recent declaration that formaldehyde is a human carcinogen, the NIEHS based their determination on epidemiological studies in humans that ignored the role of EBV. So this is fraudulent. Understand, they want to have have formaldehyde declared a carcinogen so that they can claim that the formaldehyde in cigarette smoke causes those cancers. (They have a bunch of other chemicals where they used that same crap science, too.) And this is the reason that the NTP has still refused to admit that Epstein-Barr virus is a human carcinogen (as they have done for HPV), despite the fact that the IARC declared that EBV is a human carcinogen way back in 1997!!! And that is VERY fraudulent. (They also ignored the role of HPV in sinonasal cancers, which they also want to blame on smoking.)

          Click to access Formaldehyde.pdf

          “It’s not just RWJF or pharma research grants, but actions of politicians and bureaucrats bought by pharma (from funding decisions through laws & regulations).”

          I don’t understand what you mean by “funding decisions through laws & regulations.” Anyway, have you ever heard the old joke that ‘So-and-so could buy Delaware, if the DuPonts were willing to sell it”? Well, the Cancer Society is like the owner of Delaware, only bigger. It was the Lasker Lobby that created most of that vast complex of National Institutes of This and That. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has moved a lot of personnel into the government in recent years, but they are primarily implementers of the agenda set by the ACS, AHA, ALA, et al.

          The Harvard health fascists are the advocates of those “whole, raw foods,” and they’re incessantly ranting about “Big Pharma” and pretending that they stand for “Well Care” while “Big Pharma” stand for “Sick Care.” Their junk doesn’t work so it’s no threat anyhow. Likewise, I refuse to get into a lather about “nicotine replacement” crap because all people have to do is say no to it. And they are more likely to say no – and less likely to have smoking bans rammed down our throats – if we attack the scientific frauds that scare people into quitting and passing smoking bans in the first place.

        • Nightlight says:

          carol2000:
          n: “Carcinogenicity of various substances is routinely tested on animals, mostly on mice and hamsters. It is a primitive disease with no essential differences between mammals.”

          carol2000: False. Nasopharyngeal carcinoma in humans is nearly always caused by Epstein-Barr virus, and there’s absolutely no doubt about this.

          The two statements are not mutually exclusive.

          I have visited your site number of times and found useful information there, at least on aspects that you focus on. But there is much more to antismoking and especially on medicinal effects of tobacco smoke which you don’t cover.

          Your angle does not address the latter (medicinal effects of tobacco smoke) at all. But these are vital in explaining the statistical confounding which yields numerous associations between smoking and ‘smoking related diseases’. While your site offers interesting info that supports alternative explanations for ‘smoking related’ cancers, none of that explains why is there is a positive statistical association on non-randomized samples between smoking and lung cancer (or emphysema, RA, etc).

          The mouse experiment example is an extremely nice example (many others where brought up in that SIGFY thread) showing how such confounding occurs. The RA is one of these conditions that is positively associated with smoking and doctors will strongly urge RA patients to quit smoking, often bringing up the association. In fact, the reason for association are none other than the potent anti-inflammatory effects of tobacco smoke illustrated in that experiment (and many others). The RA patients are more likely to smoke since it relieves the joint inflammation (or any other inflammation) and protects against the inflammatory damage to the cartilage, as the experiment demonstrates (it is irrelevant whether the disease in mouse experiment is identical to human RA).

          Another phenomenon that this experiment manifests clearly are the additional anti-inflammatory effects of the full tobacco smoke compared to nicotine alone. This is quite useful when debating vapers on whether pure nicotine suffices as a replacement for everyone — it doesn’t.

          There are many other similar medicinal effects of tobacco smoke discussed in that thread which account, via mechanism of self-medication, for all the usual associations between smoking and ‘smoking related diseases’. The anti-inflammatory effects also account for the associations with bronchitis, emphysema/COPD, asthma, IBD, general infections, etc.

          Another class of medicinal effects of tobacco smoke (due to hormesis) discussed in the thread is strong upregulation of the key internal antioxidants and detox enzymes — near doubling of glutathione, catalase and SOD. Hence, people exposed to any toxic substances at work or the living environment, from toxic metals (mercury, lead, arsenic, aluminum etc) to paints and solvents, will find smoking to provide potent relief and protection due to nearly doubled detox rates. Hence people working or living under such hardship will be more likely to smoke than those shielded from it. But the same exposures will yield more diseases caused by those toxins and carcinogens, yielding thus positive associations between smoking and ‘smoking related diseases’ (see highlights #1, #2, #4, #7 for specific experiments backing this hypothesis & discussion).

          Then, there is MAO B inhibition very similar in profile and level to that of selegiline (a nootropic, youth elixir and antidepressant). That accounts for much of associations between smoking and depression, anxiety and variety of psychological problems, which in turn translate eventually into medical problems.

          None of the above effects is due to nicotine, hence nicotine replacement, whether the pharma NRT or e-cigs will work for many smokers. Nicotine itself has a partial anti-inflammatory effects and provides cognitive boost (focus, memory, mental work stamina), which is reason for some people to smoke, but not for most, especially laborers, soldiers or anyone living and working under harsh and stressful conditions.

          Addressing those associations, through understanding of the full effects of tobacco smoke and explaining why people smoke is essential in fighting antismoking scam. It is also a vital tool in helping fellow smokers shake off the ‘death curse’ (smoking kills) from our modern day witch doctors, so they could stop harming themselves via nocebo (which can cause disease and even kill). I think that should be the first task of smoker groups — spread the word about not only harmlessness of tobacco smoke but about its numerous beneficial medicinal effects (via SIGFY message to smokers only) for which there is no pharmaceutical substitute that works as well and as benevolently.

          Once the millions of smokers are awaken to the real truth about their “sin”, they will be righteously outraged and will vanquish the antismoking syndicate ‘overnight’ and we will enter another cycle in which smoking is riding high, as it happened many times throughout history.

          In contrast to focusing exclusively on spreading the SIGFY message to smokers, other actions such as debating antismokers, or trying to convince public about harmlessness of SHS, or suing against bans, etc are a waste of time and misdirection of efforts — you can’t fight that war with an ‘army’ without morale, with would be soldiers believing they are sinners for harming themselves and those around them. The thieves or wife beaters are not organizing to defend their rights to steal or beat wives. The same goes for smokers living under the death curse ‘smoking kills’ — the decades of ineffectiveness of pro-smoker groups nicely back this observation.

          Therefore the first and most critical phase should be breaking that spell and only then other steps and actions can be taken with a good chance of success.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Nightlight: the first and most critical phase should be breaking that spell

          Nightlight thinks that the spell is the death curse that ‘smoking kills’. Carol thinks that the spell is ignorance of the viral causes of many of the diseases blamed on smoking.

          But I think the spell is over-great public trust in ‘science’ and ‘scientific’ assertions. As long as people trust ‘scientific’ authorities, the authorities can feed them with any old lies to get them to do what they want. And they want people to quit smoking (and also adopt low carbon lifestyles, eat differently, keep fit, etc.), and so they tell lies that produce those desired effects.

        • carol2000 says:

          “But I think the spell is over-great public trust in ‘science’ and ‘scientific’ assertions. As long as people trust ‘scientific’ authorities, the authorities can feed them with any old lies to get them to do what they want…”

          What, so you think the solution is to poison the well so people don’t trust the truthful ones either? That “solution” is completely useless, because people must by necessity trust something. And they will most readily believe in simple correlations if they don’t have good reasons to believe otherwise.

        • Frank Davis says:

          you think the solution is to poison the well

          The well is already poisoned. It’s not just in smoking ‘science’ that there’s a problem. There’s a problem across the whole of epidemiology and well beyond. Global warming ‘science’ is another problem area.

          You seem to live in a fantasy world where the only people who do bad science are antismoking zealots.

        • carol2000 says:

          As I said, do you think the solution is to poison the well so people don’t trust the truthful ones either?

        • Frank Davis says:

          It’s not for me to poison the well. The well becomes poisoned when dishonest science is practised. And that’s what’s happening more and more these days. The correct attitude in such circumstances is to distrust everything, or at least not trust anything too readily. The truthful scientists will earn trust, and the untruthful ones distrust. Trust should not be offered promiscuously to everyone.

        • carol2000 says:

          “none of that explains why is there is a positive statistical association on non-randomized samples between smoking and lung cancer (or emphysema, RA, etc).”

          I explain on numerous pages that smokers are more likely to have been exposed to the relevant pathogens, for socioeconomic reasons, and have sections or a page for it when the evidence exists (HPV, CMV, EBV). That is all the explanation necessary. Your own explanation is purely invented for propaganda purposes, and it only encourages people to believe in the anti-smokers’ bogus “smoking effects.” The ineffectiveness of pro-smoker groups is because they never attack the anti-smokers’ scientific fraud, and form their beliefs as you evidently do from picking out whatever bits of excrement look useful from the mass media’s flowing sewer. And seeing people waste space on lame and half-baked rationalizations does not raise morale.

        • Nightlight says:

          Fran Davis But I think the spell is over-great public trust in ‘science’ and ‘scientific’ assertions. As long as people trust ‘scientific’ authorities, the authorities can feed them with any old lies to get them to do what they want.

          That’s a more general observation which contains Carol’s and my diagnosis (Carol’s is further a more specialized aspect of mine) and it is not specific to smokers.

          The great successes of real, honest science (space program, invention of computer and communication technologies, medicine) unavoidably attracts a parasitic layer of opportunists seeking to get rich quick by exploiting the trust public had in science. Wherever something of value arises, the greedy scum will converge toward it to get a bite.

          The same phenomenon has recurred throughout history e.g. ancient Egyptian priesthoods which grew out of some clever observations about connections between natural cycles of Nile and celestial bodies, the science of that age. But then they gradually expanded domain and eventually declared themselves in possession of wisdom on everything that matters, down to life, death and beyond.

          On a smaller scale this kind of parasitic self-aggrandizement occurs with all present mature sciences, where the establishment forms close knit ‘priesthoods’ (as a fellow British physicist, Trevor Marshall dubbed them), the mutual back-patting societies holding a monopoly on research funding and advance. Having observed this phenomenon close up during physics grad school, that was the main reason I decided to go work in computer industry (which is still in its mostly honest life phase) rather than join such vapid, scheming lifestyle.

        • Nightlight says:

          carol2000: smokers are more likely to have been exposed to the relevant pathogens, for socioeconomic reasons, and have sections or a page for it when the evidence exists (HPV, CMV, EBV). That is all the explanation necessary.

          That’s not nearly enough since correlations persist on samples stratified by SES. Anti-inflammmatory, doubled detox rates, MAO B inhibition and other medicinal effects of tobacco smoke are necessary to account for the correlations within the same SES.

          The general explanatory pattern is that ‘smoking related diseases’ are correlated with smoking on non-randomized samples because tobacco smoke has numerous scientifically well documented (but never mentioned in antismoking propaganda) therapeutic and protective effects aginst those very same diseases. It is the same kind of correlation that exists between any medicine and the diseases for which it is medicinal.

          Hence the correlations are result of self-medication. Besides accounting for correlations, this hypothesis explains why for many smokers it is so difficult to quit, even though nicotine isn’t all that addictive and it can be easily substituted via NRT — the health of smokers who couldn’t quit would get much worse upon trying to quit, despite using NRT and other pharma ‘therapies’. Nothing else worked as well as this ancient medicinal plant, so they went back to what works. This finding shows the actions of antismoking syndicate to be extremely cruel and evil.

          R.A. Fisher who proposed the self-medication hypothesis as an explanation for the observed correlations way back in 1950s, in one paper compared ‘taking cigarettes away from some poor chap to taking the walking stick from a blind man’ (see here, page 163).

          Your own explanation is purely invented for propaganda purposes

          As noted above, I didn’t invent it. I only uncovered whole lot of later scientific evidence that was taboo in the antismoking “science”.

          , and it only encourages people to believe in the anti-smokers’ bogus “smoking effects.”

          How does pointing out the beneficial effects of tobacco smoke as the explanations for observed correlations encourage the belief in harmful effects alleged by antismokers? It does exactly the opposite.

          The ineffectiveness of pro-smoker groups is because they never attack the anti-smokers’ scientific fraud,

          That’s not true. FORCES, which is the strongest USA group, had collected and well organized vast quantities of scientific evidence missing from the public ‘health’ story about smoking.

          Their problem is that they were going out with it to general public and debating antismokers. Like other smoker groups, they were trying to start a war on antismokers with only generals and no army, instead of focusing on spreading the word about their findings to smokers only as quickly as possible.

          Their evidence also lacked many medicinal effects I have uncovered in the scientific literature. Hence they never thought of self-medication as the principal mechanism behind confounding that yields correlations between smoking and smoking related diseases. Instead, they merely pointed out various anomalies in the statistical antismoking epidemiology, but didn’t address the question why the bulk of correlations still point particular way.

          That is a vital element needed to make credible case to fellow smokers since it addresses all epidemiological evidence of antismokers directly, instead of merely running on a parallel track showing off some missing evidence, as FORCES does, while ignoring or casting doubts (via anomalies) on inconvenient observations from epidemiology.

          and form their beliefs as you evidently do from picking out whatever bits of excrement look useful from the mass media’s flowing sewer.

          You obviously didn’t read anything I linked to since none of my evidence is from the mass media or public health pronouncements, but rather from the first hand research papers. The same goes for FORCES evidence archive (which I found quite useful in the initial exploration of the subject).

          And seeing people waste space on lame and half-baked rationalizations does not raise morale.

          That falls short of explaining how half a dozen highly health conscious, well educated never-smokers started smoking as result of those half baked rationalizations.

          But from all the comments, you obviously didn’t waste any time checking out anything at the links provided. Good for you and good luck with all that extra time you saved.

        • carol2000 says:

          “That’s not nearly enough since correlations persist on samples stratified by SES. Anti-inflammmatory, doubled detox rates, MAO B inhibition and other medicinal effects of tobacco smoke are necessary to account for the correlations within the same SES. ”

          FALSE. Startification by SES does NOT prevent confounding by infection. The amount of confounding is proportional to the magnitude of the confounding risk, and infectious risks can be in the hundreds. That means failing to diagnose even a small proportion of cases creates spurious “risks.” What you said is the ANTI-SMOKER reply. They pretend that just because confounding risks with piddling-small odds ratios don’t change the outcome by more than a few tenths of a point, that means it’s fine to ignore important things. Ignoring those important things is precisely how their junk works. Plus, they know that’s what they doing. See “Cigarette smoking as a potential cause of cervical cancer: has confounding been controlled?”

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

          That junk about “Anti-inflammmatory, doubled detox rates, MAO B inhibition and other medicinal effects of tobacco smoke” is just a snow job.

        • Nightlight says:

          carol2000: FALSE. Startification by SES does NOT prevent confounding by infection.

          You are not reading statements to which your autopilot is typing responses.

          My point was precisely that stratification does not eliminate all confounding, including among others, with physiological effects of tobacco smoke. So, there is nothing false, let alone FALSE, about confounding in what I wrote.

          Your infection confounding in stratified samples still does not explain why would infection positively correlate with smoking within same SES. Originally you claimed that SES explains that confounding (between smoking and infections). But that can’t be true for SES stratified samples. Hence you need alternative explanation why does correlation between smoking and STD infections persist in samples which are SES stratified.

          The well documented, potent anti-inflammatory effects of tobacco smoke do explain why would infections correlate with smoking even after taking into account HPV confounding (e.g. by direct detection of antibodies). Your answer stops short of explaining how could there be residual confounding. There are in fact two mechanism that account for positive correlations between smoking and HPV infections or generally STDs and all their downstream consequences:

          a) smoking provides relief against inflammatory processes and people (epi-)genetically susceptible to such processes, or people who end up with greater opportunities for infections (due to details of lifestyle, psychology, etc), would smoke more since it is protective for them (since it alleviates inflammatory damages and discomforts, as well or better than the pharma’s anti-inflammatory drugs do). Eventually, among their infections they end up with HPV and later the cervical cancers.

          b) this correlation would strengthen under antismoking propaganda, since smoking, depicted and understood everyone as a major hazard, become statistical proxy for person’s propensity for risk taking — the natural risk takes will smoke more than people averse to risks.

          The magnitude of the two mechanisms can be further decoupled by stratifying the samples by degree of antismoking scaremongering to which the subjects were exposed (e.g. in many counties the antismoking propaganda was introduced only recently).

          What you said is the ANTI-SMOKER reply.

          It is precisely opposite from antismokers’ reply. In fact it is mutually exclusive with what antismokers say (e.g. that smoking is one of causes of cervical cancers). You are welcome to show some example of antismoker reply that makes the same self-medication point as I do if you believe otherwise.

          You ought to know also that medicinal effects of tobacco smoke are a major taboo (their theory is that people smoke because of addiction to nicotine) in the antismoking “science” hence they will never make the argument based on self-medication hypothesis which I make.

          That junk about “Anti-inflammatory, doubled detox rates, MAO B inhibition and other medicinal effects of tobacco smoke” is just a snow job.

          No, these are all well established and documented effects of tobacco smoke referenced and discussed/debated (with people who spend all day reading and discussing medical research papers) in that thread which you obviously never read. Even the RA paper brought up & cited at the main ‘highlights link’ illustrates one example of the anti-inflammatory effects, as well as the additional effects of tobacco smoke vs pure nicotine.

        • carol2000 says:

          If your point is that “stratification does not eliminate all confounding, including among others, with physiological effects of tobacco smoke,” then you obviously don’t understand what the statistical concept “confounding” means. It means that something non-causal is falsely blamed simply due to its association with a real cause. That is how the anti-smokers create their bogus “smoking risks,” which they claim are caused by those same “physiological effects of tobacco smoke” that you invoke as if you think they explain away the phony smoking risk. You couldn’t be more wrong.

          As noted by Phillips & Smith: “Since the use of a proxy will tend to result in underestimation of the effect of the aetiological pathogen on risk of cervical cancer, however, the adjustment is likely to be insufficient, thus resulting in an overestimation of the adjusted or ‘independent’ effect of smoking.” The pathogen is the REAL risk. If you fail to identify every case of HPV, then those cervical cancers won’t be counted as being caused by HPV. Something else will be blamed, and because smokers are more likely to have been infected by HPV, smoking gets blamed.

          THEY THEN PROCEEDED TO PROVE THE PLAUSIBILITY OF THIS MATHEMATICALLY. “In an attempt to address this concern we used a simulation approach to investigate whether a substantial ‘independent’ association between smoking and cervical cancer might be expected as a result of the use of a poor proxy for the aetiological pathogen, even if there is no true effect of smoking. Using realistic estimates of the association between the presence of the aetiological pathogen and both smoking and risk of cervical cancer, ‘independent’ relative risks for cigarette smoking of two and above were generated. It is therefore plausible that the observed ‘independent’ effect of cigarette smoking on cervical cancer is due to residual confounding.” And Bosch et al. CONFIRMED it with their own data: “Real data are thus in agreement with the model proposed by Phillips and Smith.”

          As I wrote: “When their paper was written, an odds ratio of around ten was considered the best current estimate for the risk of human papillomavirus in cervical cancer. Since then, improvements in the technical methods of detecting HPV have led to its detection in virtually 100% of cervical cancers — and the OR for HPV has soared to over 350. This high odds ratio has made the presence of confounding in all studies claiming to find a smoking risk a certainty. A high odds ratio has an even more powerful effect than a lower one.”

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

          That explains how the anti-smokers’ false claim is generated. But your so-called “well documented, potent anti-inflammatory effects of tobacco smoke” do [NOT!] explain why would infections correlate with smoking even after taking into account HPV confounding (e.g. by direct detection of antibodies)” IT DOES NOTHING BUT SUPPORT THE ANTI-SMOKERS’ FALSE CLAIM! This is exactly the kind of garbage the Surgeon General gang dotes on. (Furthermore, antibodies are a defective means of diagnosing HPV because half of the patients with cervical cancer don’t have antibodies to it, despite the fact that they all have HPV. This shows how uncritical you are of their shoddy work.)

          And I don’t give a damn about your thread because it’s a pile of similar garbage.

        • Nightlight says:

          @carol2000

          Carol, have a ciggy and please calm down.

          We are discussing here in hope of figuring out how to help fellow smokers who are presently suffering under social, psychological and economic oppression and abuses not seen in the western world since 1930s Germany. Nobody is going after you. In fact, most people here, including myself, appreciate the valuable info you have collected on your site.

          But we have been running in circles for a while now since you don’t read past the first few words in a sentence then leap to a wrong conclusion as to what it is going to say and get seized by a fit that discharges in a torrent which in old days would have earned you a mouthful of warm, soapy water. We can resume when you manage to get hold of yourself.

        • carol2000 says:

          Nightlight:
          I have just presented proof that the anti-smokers’ claims against smoking and false because they are based on confounding by infection – its plausibility proven by mathematical model, and its actuality proven by the data, and published in a journal of epidemiology. Not only that, but Phillips & Smith and Bosch et al.are in the anti-smoker camp, which proves that their ilk have known exactly what they’re doing for the last 20 years – and continued to do it.

          But your response to this victory is DENIAL and telling me to shut up. And demanding that I believe in your junk, which is to accept the anti-smokers’ scienctific fraud as truth and then spout drivel that nicotine is anti-inflammatory and that’s why people smoke and blah blah blah. It’s all absolutely unnecessary because all that really happened is that they failed to diagnose the relevant pathogen in some or all cases. Your elaborate cock-and-bull story was dreamed up in the 1950s, when general ignorance made speculation less unacceptable. Anybody who would cling to it in this day and age must want the anti-smokers to win. YOU ought to have your own mouth sealed with concrete.

        • Nightlight says:

          @carol2000 I have just presented proof that the anti-smokers’ claims against smoking and false because they are based on confounding by infection

          While infection does account for cervical cancer, that still leaves open the reason for the statistical association of smoking with infections (hence with diseases caused by those infections). You claimed that the associations with smoking are result of SES confounding, but that is not true since the associations persist even within the same SES groups.

          My point (which you don’t seem to grasp) is that the residual associations are result of anti-inflammatory effects of tobacco smoke and resulting self-medication in people who are more exposed or more sensitive to infections.

          But your response to this victory is DENIAL

          No, I am saying that your explanation falls short of accounting for the statistical association of tobacco smoke with diseases now known to be caused by other agents. You merely point to the real cause of the disease previously blamed on smoking due to associations, but fail to explain the mechanism behind statistical associations with smoking. Let me explain (again) why is this last step important.

          While explaining the latter aspect may not matter much for defending smoking against blame for the diseases for which definite other cause is known (such as HPV infections for some cancers), there are plenty of other “smoking related diseases” for which the cause is unknown or uncertain. The smoking is presently blamed for such diseases based on statistical associations (epidemiology).

          Examples such as cervical cancer, which was previously blamed on smoking, but for which HPV infections are now known and generally accepted to be the real cause, are highly valuable if you don’t stop analysis as soon as you find the real cause but follow up with next step — explain the association with smoking in that instance.

          Namely after establishing the real cause, if you can then find the mechanism behind observable statistical association of smoking with that disease, then you have a perfectly clear mechanism by which smoking can get associated with other ‘smoking related’ diseases for which the real causes are unknown.

          So, my objection is not denial or “DENIAL” of infectious cause as you keep asserting, but that by failing to see anything beyond your HPV pinhole, you are not taking the full advantage of such valuable examples. If you follow up with the next logical step and explain how did the association with smoking arise at all in such cases, then you have a valuable mechanism usable on other ‘smoking related’ diseases with less clear or unknown etiology and for which smoking is blamed today.

          Another valuable example which further makes the mechanism behind the associations with smoking transparent is the mentioned RA case. In that example, the real cause of a disease epidemiologically associated with smoking is not only known (as it is in cervical cancer case), disease being induced by researcher, but the actual effects of tobacco smoke & nicotine on the disease process were also reverse engineered. These effects are shown to be exactly the opposite from the claims by antismoking “science” — they are protective and therapeutic (due to anti-inflammatory effectos of of nicotine & tobacco smoke), rather than cause for the disease.

          Hence the mechanism behind the associations of such auto-immune or inflammatory diseases with smoking is the same mechanism that associates any disease with medications that are therapeutic or protective against it. The only difference is that while pharma medicines are prescribed by doctors, tobacco smoke is taken as a self-medication, instinctively, due to directly observed alleviation of symptoms by the users.

          Merely pointing that HPV explains some diseases for which smoking was previously blamed (based on epidemiological statistical associations) is only a trivial half of the story.

          The other less trivial half which you fail to grasp is actually far more important, since it is relevant (by providing real mechanism behind associations) for other ‘smoking related’ diseases for which the real causes are far less clear, but which are also blamed on tobacco smoke.

          And demanding that I believe in your junk, which is to accept the anti-smokers’ scientific fraud as truth

          You seem unable to see or grasp anything beyond your HPV pinhole. As explained several times already, I merely accept that there is a statistical association on non-randomized samples between smoking and auto-immune & inflammatory diseases.

          The “fraud” is not the observed association, but the leap by the antismoking “science” that such association implies that smoking is the cause (or one of causes) of such diseases. In fact, my point is exactly the opposite — smoking not only doesn’t cause such diseases, but it is protective and therapeutic against them, and that is precisely why it is statistically associated with them. The RA example illustrates this point clearly.

          The statistical associations between factor X and disease D on non-randomized sample merely shows that X and D are in the same web of causes and effects, but not which way the causal arrows point. Hence, such association is a merely a hint for further research using hard science (experiments, randomized trials, lab analysis) in order to uncover the exact nature of the links between X and D. That’s exactly what RA example does very clearly.

          Note also that anti-inflammatory effects of tobacco smoke are only one class of its medicinal effects that results in associations between smoking and ‘smoking related diseases’.

          As mentioned (and discussed & referenced in that SIGFY thread), other such mechanisms include powerful upregulation of key detox and antioxidant enzymes (glutathione, catalase & SOD, all nearly doubled), MAO B inhibition, cholinergic upregulation, anti-apoptotic effects, etc. They all yield via similar self-medication mechanism as the above the observed epidemiological associations between tobacco smoking and the very diseases against which it is protective and therapeutic.

          …spout drivel that nicotine is anti-inflammatory

          It is frankly mystifying that despite direct counter-examples (e.g. RA experiment) you still insist on repeating your falsified claims.

          Nicotine, and even more tobacco smoke, do have potent anti-inflammatory effects (operating at multiple levels, from alpha-7 cholinergic pathway at cellular level, through stimulation of anti-inflammatory corticosteroids, up to vagus anti-inflammatory master control at the CNS level). The relevance of that fact for the associations between tobacco smoking and inflammatory & auto-immune diseases was (re-)explained above.

          Besides the RA example linked earlier, this is an extremely well established fact that anyone debating the effects of tobacco smoking ought to know. Numerous drugs for auto-immune and inflammatory diseases were developed over decades that work via the same anti-inflammatory cholinergic pathways uncovered initially via research on the immunological effects of nicotine.

          There is even a pharmaceutical company Targacept that specializes exclusively in developing nicotine (or tobacco smoke) analogues for these and other therapeutic purposes. Google scholar, among others, will show you many thousands of research papers and surveys on the subject (e.g. recent survey in Nature on some of the mechanisms; or a blog intro with refs on vagus).

        • carol2000 says:

          “While infection does account for cervical cancer, that still leaves open the reason for the statistical association of smoking with infections (hence with diseases caused by those infections).”

          I have a whole website dedicated to the elucidation of the true infectious causes of a multitude of diseases, including the socioeconomic differences in acquisition of infections. Poorer people are more likely to have been exposed to those infections, primarily due to crowding, as well as to the fact tht the people they’re exposed to are more likely to carry those infections. And poorer people are also more likely to be smokers. This does NOT “leave open the reason for the statistical association of smoking with infections.”

          “You claimed that the associations with smoking are result of SES confounding, but that is not true since the associations persist even within the same SES groups.”

          False. I say that it is due to confounding BY INFECTION, due to the cases they fail to diagnose. So stop misrepresenting my position. The plausibility of this has been proven by mathematical model, and confirmed by actual data. And stratification by SES DOES NOT WORK, as shown by Phillips & Smith.

          “My point (which you don’t seem to grasp) is that the residual associations are result of anti-inflammatory effects of tobacco smoke and resulting self-medication in people who are more exposed or more sensitive to infections.”

          Any residual associations are those due to unmeasured factors such as earlier age at infection and more frequent exposures from the people around them. And what YOU refuse to grasp is that your so-called explanation is 1) unnecessary, 2) poorly founded, and 3) harmful to our interests because it endorses their false claims that smoking impairs immunity or has significant pharmacological effects. You swallowed a load of bull and then delude yourself that you’re being clever by supposedly turning it against them. And “self-medication” is a stupid attempt at rationalization which can be easily disproven with those randomized clinical trials you claim to believe in.

          “So, my objection is not denial or “DENIAL” of infectious cause as you keep asserting, but that by failing to see anything beyond your HPV pinhole, you are not taking the full advantage of such valuable examples.”

          WHAT DO YOU MEAN, “PINHOLE”!? Look at the multitude of diseases blamed on smoking for which the real causes are Epstein-Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, polyomaviruses, the bacterial causes of chorioamnionitis, Helicobacter pylori, Chlamydia pneumoniae, and other pathogens. All of them are backed with human biomedical and epidemiological evidence, not just a contrived experiment in mice. And the same principle of confounding by infection applies to all of them that was proven in the case of HPV.

          “It is frankly mystifying that despite direct counter-examples (e.g. RA experiment) you still insist on repeating your falsified claims.”

          Your straw man argument did not falsify my claims. And if you think your stupid mouse study is going to stop the presses, you are profoundly deluded.

          “There is even a pharmaceutical company Targacept that specializes exclusively in developing nicotine (or tobacco smoke) analogues for these and other therapeutic purposes.”

          For crying out loud, nicotine only affects a subset of nicotinic receptors, Plus their products would make smoking unnecessary for that purpose anyhow Do those people even have anything that’s been through clinical trials in the first place? And do you perhaps have a financial interest in them?

          The bottom line is that your claims are 1) unnecessary, 2) poorly founded, and 3) harmful to our interests.

      • Fredrik Eich says:

        One of the principles of science is that you follow the evidence where ever it takes you no matter whether you like what you see or not.
        The problem with anti-smoking ‘science’ is that it only has the goal of proving that smoking is bad for you – to achieve the goal of the eradication of all smokers on the planet. Anti smoking science only considers whether smoking is bad for you or does nothing. It does not seem to consider the option of is smoking good for you, bad for you or does nothing, it only considers whether smoking is bad for you or does nothing – so the bias is built in.

      • Fredrik Eich says:

        To expand on that , in some ways the dice were always loaded.

        Take headache pills for example.
        If head ache pills cause head aches – then people who use those pills will be at higher risk of head aches.

        If head ache pills have a therapeutic effect on head aches – then people who use those pills will be at higher risk of head aches.

        So the anti head ache pill lobby always win.

    • Nightlight says:

      @Frank Davis The well becomes poisoned when dishonest science is practised. And that’s what’s happening more and more these days.

      In fact this only makes it easier to attack the junk science, if people are already weary of the official propaganda on other topics masquerading as science. The level of trust in government, politicians, bureaucrats and their science are at its lowest in memory.

      Hence this is ideal time for awakening fellow smokers to the antismoking scam (not by attacking SHS or loss of liberties, but the first hand smoke fraud which is the key paralyzing sting that has kept us passive all these decades). Only after millions of smokers have been freed out of the antismoking matrix, one can start taking other actions (political, legal, social) to vanquish the oppression and oppressors.

      Another negative aspect that also works in our favor is that we have been herder into smaller and smaller spaces, which makes it easier to spread the word, physically, logistically and psychologically. There is already an implicit brotherhood and trust among smokers huddling together to have smoke. Having few members of smoker organization in each city, going around town and having a ciggy wherever there are smokers gathered together would spread the word (such as SIGFY message) like wildfire. One would need leaflets or cards to leave with them, so they know how to get to the group’s web site or join the local chapter in person.

      Far smaller previously oppressed minorities have become untouchable by being well organized, but for before that can happen, the members need to be shake off the “sin” spell that had previously kept them passive and enslaved. Presently the vapers with their righteous outrage at antismokers are far louder than smokers. Smokers, with their numbers and sociability, could turn the tables on the antismoking racket overnight, provided they realize what few of us already know — that smoking is not a sin, not harmful to smoker or anyone else (other than pharma profits) and in fact it is possibly the most beneficial medicinal plant known to humans.

      • Frank Davis says:

        The level of trust in government, politicians, bureaucrats and their science are at its lowest in memory.

        And falling. I think that calls by the BMA and others for banning e-cigarettes, “because they renormalise smoking”, may also be opening many people’s eyes that this is nothing to do with public health. E-cigarettes are harmless, but they still want to ban them. An antismoking friend phoned me not so long ago, and said, “There’s good news for smokers. There are new things called e-cigarettes that smokers can switch to.” I replied by saying that they were going to ban those too – because they looked liked cigarettes. “What???” she shrieked.

        this is ideal time for awakening fellow smokers to the antismoking scam (not by attacking SHS or loss of liberties, but the first hand smoke fraud which is the key paralyzing sting that has kept us passive all these decades).

        I agree. I think that the more the authorities show that they’re dishonest (as with e-cigarettes), the less people trust them. And once people start to distrust authorities in one way, it becomes easy to distrust them in other ways. When I first heard of SHS claims some 10 years ago, I instantly thought that it was a dishonest claim, and my immediate subsequent thought was that maybe they were lying about first hand smoke too (something I’d never considered before).

        When supposedly reputable authorities show that they are actually rather disreputable, their authority begins to dwindle, and people stop paying attention to them, and call into question everything that those authorities ever told them. I think we are witnessing such a meltdown in progress these days. It will extend far beyond just smoking. It will be a general collapse of trust and faith.

        • carol2000 says:

          “When supposedly reputable authorities show that they are actually rather disreputable, their authority begins to dwindle, and people stop paying attention to them, and call into question everything that those authorities ever told them.”

          Frank, WE are the ones who have to show that they are disreputable. The sheeple wouldn’t figure it out for themselves if you waited passively until hell freezes over.

  11. Frank Davis says:

    Lots of interesting and different responses. I’ve only just managed to dig MJM’s early reply out of the spam folder dungeon. "Be the sand" is very much my attitude.

    And also Leg-iron has written at length, along similar lines:

    Over on Frank’s place, Carol2000 calls for a concerted, organised reaction from smokers. I am very opposed to this.

    For one thing, I will not be controlled. Not by Big Tobacco, not by Anti-Tobacco and not even by the Smoker’s Union. No, I will not do as you say. Hear my theme tune.

    More importantly, any organisation can be broken. An organisation has leaders. A heirarchy. Generals and majors. Take them out and the footsoldiers are lost. That is what the Puritans, the Righteous, are trying to do. They are looking for links to Big Tobacco and cannot understand that those links do not exist. There is no organisation. There are no leaders. As Obo once put it, they are taking over a country house by house. There is no central command they can take out and finally destroy their enemy. And I suggest that we should never develop one.

    Lawsuits are irrelevant when the law belongs to the enemy. We cannot fight them in their occupied territory. It will just cost us money we don’t have.

    If the antismokers manage to take me out, it makes no difference, If they shut down Frank or Junican or Dick Puddlecote or VGIF or Mike McFadden or Nothing2Declare or Smokervoter or any of the others, it makes no difference. None of us hold any office in their imagined ‘big tobacco resistance’. We don’t even care about Big Tobacco. Increasingly, we are growing our own.

    We like to smoke and we just want to be left alone. Not one current mainstream political party will ever grasp that simple concept. The fake science of tobacco control is their excuse to hate us all and they really do love to hate us all. If you smoke and you vote for any of them, you are a turkey voting for Christmas. They openly hate you and still you vote for them? How fucking stupid can you get?

    Well, about as stupid as the drinkers and the smokers and the drivers and anyone else voting for the Triad of LibLabCon. Vote your way into oblivion if you want. I will not.

    We are not an organisation. We have no leaders and no rule book. We are the chaos that explodes into Robert Odin’s head after he has faked it for so many years.

    The antis are the fake psychics using their tricks and twisted words to convince the gullible.

    We are the real ghosts who will find them in the end.

    • smokervoter says:

      I’m typing up some opinions on this great debate we’ve got going on here, but it’s disjointed and all over the place at this time.

      However, as a simple carpenter and a lifelong practitioner and firm believer in the K.I.S.S principle, I’m going to select two key sentences from Leg-irons excellent take on the matter.

      Here they be: “For one thing, I will not be controlled.” and “No, I will not do as you say.”

      Leggy, You da’ Man, as the kids say.

    • carol2000 says:

      That’s the same “brilliant” strategy that’s been working so well all along. Not.

  12. magnetic01 says:

    Concerning yesterday’s link to the BMA “vote”.

    In the 1970s, the zealot nut cases were happy with a minimum age for smoking of 16 (Godber Blueprint). Not long thereafter 18 became the standard minimum age. Therefore, anyone under the age of 18 is The Children™. In New York, the minimum age has been upped to 21. Another American state is considering raising the minimum age to 25. So The Children™ here would be anyone under 25.

    This BMA vote on a perverse idea floated a few years ago would view anyone born after 2000 as The Children™ for all of their lives. It’s an utter contempt for the public.

    It again highlights the root of the problem – the medically-aligned and the “abuse of authority”. Here’s a medical union voting on a hare-brained social engineering edict, viewing the public as essentially an “experimental quantity” at its disposal. The arrogance, the haughtiness, the pomposity, the casual disregard for the critical idea of individual (adult) autonomy is abominable.

  13. Just say when says:

    Sooner or later the message will get through to all who stay on the easy ,pleasant ,correct path
    of protest and complaint…….It AINT getting ANYWHERE
    Forget Legal Process,forget Political Procedure,forget the Media,forget fair play,this is an issue of Liberty in which normal civilized behaviour is suspended. For Freedom and Choice the Human Spirit has no restraints,no rules,no guide lines, a true fighter will stoop to any level to defend the
    legacy of our forebears who fought,struggled and died for the gifts of our way of life now being sacrificed on the altar of apathy and appeasement.. Either start kicking or forever hold your
    peace.

  14. magnetic01 says:

    Just some thoughts on “resistance”. Carol’s “infection hypothesis” is interesting but a “magic bullet” it certainly isn’t, and not by a long, long way. The factors that have allowed this medical imperialism to proliferate are numerous. There’s the deranged physicalist ideology, abuse of authority, the institutionalized bastardization of science – relying mostly on the flimsy “relative risk” statistic – that is called “lifestyle epidemiology”, the institutionalized bastardization of statistical and causal inference, vested financial interests – greed (government through extortionate taxes & Pharma peddling its useless/dangerous wares), the more general, mindlessly accepted slow creep towards Statism in one-time relatively free societies, etc, etc.

    From years of commenting on a variety of boards, there are a few things that stand out for me. We need to distinguish between the informed/uninformed reader. On specialty boards such as Frank’s, a variety of detailed information has moved through the board over years. The readers are relatively up to speed. New information can be introduced without the need for detailed intros. On most boards, however, it would have to be assumed that readers are utterly clueless, having no idea what’s been going on for the last 30/100 years. You can’t just pluck out a few studies assuming that they know what it might remotely mean. They won’t. Most will not see any need to question medical “authority”.

    It therefore becomes quite a challenge (frustrating) to include critical information in comments (sometimes comments boards won’t allow links, have a word limit, and often times there’s the problem of censorship) while also providing some background that highlights the nature of the problem. The critical information for me is that antismoking is NOT new: It has a long, sickly history, much of it predating even the pretense of a “scientific” basis or the more recently conjured secondhand smoke “danger”. Just this information comes to at least some as a “light bulb” revelation. Early last century, out of all the countries in the world, there were only 2 countries – America and Germany – that had high-profile antismoking crusades. And that it was only these two is not coincidental. It was the physician-led Eugenics Movement and supported by the Temperance Movement. It has to be rammed home that the eugenics catastrophe of early last century, that included antismoking, was physician-led. That was the previous time that the medically-aligned ventured into State-sponsored social engineering. The critical mistake made at the time was “well if doctors say so, it must be right”. BIG mistake. Doctors, like everyone else, are prone to the negative tendencies of human nature, particularly a “god complex” and greed. The eugenicists promised the eradication of crime, disease, and poverty with “prevention” as the cornerstone of the eugenics framework. It did no such thing. It brought out the worst in people – racism, bigotry, cruelty, brutality. It can also be pointed out that the two largest group memberships of the Nazi Party were doctors and lawyers. When doctors and lawyers deteriorate into moral destitution, self-aggrandizing, and “ideology”, they can seriously mess up a society. The medially-aligned and social engineering is a demonstrably dangerous mix. It demonstrates that not only can the medically aligned get it wrong, but they can get it terribly, catastrophically wrong.

    And they’re at it again. It can be demonstrated (the Godber Blueprint) that the current antismoking crusade was set in motion and nurtured by the standard eugenics “personnel” – the medically-aligned (physicians, biologists, pharmacologists, statisticians, and, more recently, behaviorists). There’s the same perverse reduction of health to only a physical, absence-of-disease phenomenon. There’s the same reliance on flimsy population-level statistics that were pioneered by eugenicists for population control. There’s the same centering on “prevention”. There’s the same haughtiness and sense of entitlement that the medically-aligned stand above the rest of the population and that only they can and must engineer the human “herd”. There’s the same use of repugnant denormalization/propaganda techniques playing on the primal fear of disease and death to achieve social-engineering goals. And it doesn’t stop with just tobacco. The behavioral dimension of eugenics typically involves anti-alcohol, diet, and physical exercise.

    So there’s the recent history of antismoking and the major players. And it’s all happening again on a far, far grander scale. But we have to first demonstrate that medical authority is very fallible.

    • carol2000 says:

      These are people who’ve been brainwashed that studies based on lifestyle questionnaires that ignore the role of infection are legitimate science. Those are the same kind of studies the Nazis did. The Nazis could hide behind the excuse of ignorance, because nobody knew then that infections cause cancer – but today’s anti-smokers CANNOT. They are guilty of scientific fraud for ignoring this evidence and cynically exploiting the circumstance that poorer people are more likely to have been infected. That’s how they purposely produce false results.

  15. magnetic01 says:

    If anyone wants to use links/refs for a brief history of antismoking:

    Gordon L. Dillow (1981), “Thank You for Not Smoking” [The Hundred-Year War Against the Cigarette]
    http://www.americanheritage.com/content/thank-you-not-smoking

    “Cigarette Wars: The ‘Triumph’ of the Little White Slaver” (1998) by Cassandra Tate. Google the following combination – “the endless war on tobacco” “seattletimes” – which should bring up a summary article of the book at the Seattle Times.
    http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19981129&slug=2786034

    Robert Proctor (1996), “The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis: a little known aspect of
    public health in Germany, 1933-45”

    Click to access bmj00571-0040.pdf

    Some insight into the connection between American eugenics – California in particular – and German eugenics.
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/09/ING9C2QSKB1.DTL

    The Godber Blueprint
    http://www.rampant-antismoking.com

  16. magnetic01 says:

    Frank, I have a comment in the “vault”.
    Thanks.

  17. magnetic01 says:

    Smokers should be “encouraged” to quit. Smokers should be shamed into quitting.

    That’s another simple question that can and should be asked. Who decided that antismoking is a societal ideal? Who decided that smokers should be shamed into quitting? Who decided that smokers should be ostracized and fleeced through extortionate taxes as punitive measures if they don’t “conform”?

    Up until the 1980s antismoking wasn’t a societal ideal. In fact, antismoking made into a societal ideal (involving social engineering) was viewed as repugnant. So what changed and who changed it? And what right did they (i.e., who do they think they are) have to change it?

    Every time we hear
    “every measure should be taken so that not another Child™ takes up smoking” what’s actually being said is
    “smokers, and due only to their smoking, are so bad…. so terrible….. such “write-offs”…. that we don’t want to tolerate even one more person becoming one of them (poor excuses for human beings)”.

    That’s the derangement of rabid bigotry.

  18. carol2000 says:

    Those aren’t good excuses for letting the anti-smokers get away with scientific fraud. By rights, the government should have filed lawsuits on our behalf long ago, instead of on behalf of the anti-smokers. Legislatures should have inquisitioned the anti-smokers, instead of holding disgraceful show trials of the tobacco industry. This is taxpayer money that they’re wasting and misusing! But as long as smokers don’t complain about the fraud, there’s no possibility of that happening. Nobody is going to try to make a case over a sniveling accusation of “nannyism.” Few rich people who could afford a lawsuit would attempt it either if they don’t know what’s going on, and if they did try, it would be weak and ineffectual case like the ones that have been brought so far. The same goes for the bar and restaurant owners, who can afford one if they banded together. And where do you get the idea that it would cost ten times as much money to supervise them? This could be a function of the inspector general’s offices of the institutes that hand out the money. And it would pay for itself in the money NOT wasted on fraudulent science. On top of that, it would promote real resistance from smokers, instead of that cowardly capitulation expressed by those who meekly object that “smokers know the risks.” In case you haven’t noticed, the proportion of smokers keeps dropping lower and lower. Anyone with a lick of sense can see that your “small acts of resistance” aren’t working, and they become less and less common as a result. Rather than a “swarm” of protests, you’re helping cause a colony collapse and are in complete denial about it..

    • Frank Davis says:

      where do you get the idea that it would cost ten times as much money to supervise them?

      Because a lot of people will need to be supervised for a long time.

      In case you haven’t noticed, the proportion of smokers keeps dropping lower and lower

      Not in the UK, where smoking prevalence remains almost unchanged since the smoking ban was introduced.

      And now you’re blaming the government.

      • carol2000 says:

        “Because a lot of people will need to be supervised for a long time.”

        ?? “a lot of people” ?? There are actually not very many who get that money for research. They already have to make lots of reports about how they spend that money, don’t you know, and what is necessary is to make sure they’re not spending it for studies based on lifestyle questionnaires that ignore the role of infection. Or else they’ll have to pay it back.

        “And now you’re blaming the government.”

        It’s the US Congress that pours most of that money into their pockets and then lets them do as they please, so they damn sure are to blame for that. Look what they’ve done at the behest of the gun lobby in comparison! “The CDC conducted gun violence research in the 1980s and 1990s, but it abruptly ended in 1996 when the National Rifle Association lobbied Congress to cut the CDC’s budget the exact amount it had allocated to gun violence research… The 1997 appropriations bill stated, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” Congress also threatened more funding cuts if the gun research continued.”

        http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-ban-gun-research-caused-lasting-damage/story?id=18909347

  19. harleyrider1978 says:

    Every stone thrown,every bullet aimed,every syllable uttered,every study debunked,every battle fought in the trenches of the internet all these and more make the Resistance an army of all of us!

    The Nazis pissed off the people and the ones who actually go and vote to the point nanny state politics is on the way out. The SG even ASH has admitted political will is dying or dead for more anti-smoking measures. They scream for new will to push forward but alas the electorate are Pissed and the movement against everybody is a political lame duck!

    Its over, I can guarantee us that, they have lost and they know it. Yet they still persist with their game and its divisive nature. You cant go around making enemies out of everybody and expect to long survive. The will of the free people will win everytime. People are naturally free and that natural will outlasts any government and any tyranny.

    Well Done Frank and Carol along with all the rest of us………………….

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      White House weakened draft of FDA’s proposed tobacco regulations

      By Toni Clarke and Sharon Begley

      WASHINGTON Wed Jun 25, 2014 7:08am EDT

      Reuters) – White House changes to proposed rules for tobacco products significantly weakened language detailing health risks from cigars and deleted restrictions that might have prevented online sales of e-cigarettes, published documents show.

      The White House’s Office of Management and Budget, which analyzes the potential economic consequences of proposed regulations, deleted language in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s recently proposed regulations describing how the rules would keep thousands of people from taking up cigar smoking and have enormous public health benefits.

      The OMB also weakened language detailing the FDA’s concerns about the safety of e-cigarettes, according to documents published Tuesday in the Federal Register.

      An FDA spokeswoman, Jennifer Haliski, said the FDA does not comment on changes to a proposal during the review process but said the period for the public to comment on the proposal is still open until Aug. 8.

      “All comments will be carefully considered as the final rule is being developed,” she said in an email. “As the science base continues to develop for these products, the agency has the ability to take additional regulatory actions designed to further minimize the public health burden of tobacco use in this country.”

      The FDA has authority under a 2009 law to regulate cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco, but must issue new rules before regulating e-cigarettes, cigars, hookahs, water pipes and other tobacco products.

      In April, the FDA issued a proposal which would subject the $2 billion e-cigarette industry to federal regulation for the first time. It would ban the sale of e-cigarettes to people under the age of 18 and vending machine sales.

      The proposal disappointed public health advocates who criticized the agency’s failure to restrict flavored products or television advertising, which they say attracts children, and criticized the agency for not moving to restrict online sales, where it can be harder to verify a person’s age.

      In its draft, the FDA had proposed “prohibition of non-face-to-face sales (e.g. vending machines).” That would have opened the door to a ban on online sales. But OMB edited the sentence so that the prohibition refers only to vending machines.

      In another significant change, OMB turned the FDA’s proposal as it relates to cigars from a two-part rule – one for traditional tobacco products and one for products that have not previously been regulated – into a “two-option” rule, one of which would exempt “premium cigars.”

      The cigar industry, backed by some members of Congress, had lobbied OMB heavily for such an exemption. In a December 2013 letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg and Sylvia Mathews Burwell, who was director of OMB at the time and is now Secretary of Health and Human Services, 24 Republican lawmakers asked that premium cigars be exempt.

      “As you know,” they wrote, “premium cigars are a niche product with an adult consumer base, much like fine wines. The majority of people who enjoy a cigar do so occasionally, often in social or celebratory settings.”

      When the proposed rule came out in April, some public health advocates expressed dismay.

      “The part of the proposal we are deeply troubled by is the sweetheart deal for the cigar industry,” Erika Sward, assistant vice president for national advocacy at the American Lung Association.

      OMB also deleted an FDA analysis showing that exempting premium cigars from a proposal to require large warning labels would save manufacturers $1 million to $3 million but incur costs to public health of $32.6 million to $34.2 million.

      The White House office also deleted an extensive section in which the FDA calculated how many lives would be saved by regulating cigars, as well as the value of those lives. And it deleted a similar analysis for the improvements in health that would come from dissuading people from smoking cigars, such as through warning labels.

      The “welfare gain” from reducing the number of cigar smokers, FDA calculated, would be $16 million to $52 million.

      Similarly, OMB modified or deleted FDA concerns about the safety of e-cigarettes, including manufacturing quality.

      It deleted FDA draft language saying it would review electronic cigarette cartridges to respond to evidence of poor quality control, variable nicotine content or toxic ingredients such as diethylene glycol, a chemical that the FDA said has caused mass poisonings in products such as the painkiller acetaminophen and cough syrup.

      Last week a panel of U.S. senators excoriated the chiefs of two of the biggest e-cigarette companies, blu eCigs, which is owned by tobacco giant Lorillard Inc, and privately held NJoy, saying they were irresponsibly targeting children with advertisements depicting cartoon characters, movie stars and other celebrities.

      Both companies defended the advertisements, saying they target adult smokers.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/25/us-usa-ecigarettes-whitehouse-idUSKBN0F006O20140625

  20. harleyrider1978 says:

    Health campaigners may actually be insane

    24-06-14

    FANATICAL public health campaigners may be mentally ill, it has emerged

    Doctors who want smoking banned for anyone born after 2000 are being asked whether their obsessive quest for the perfectly healthy human might have turned them a bit funny.

    Professor Henry Brubaker of the Institute for Studies said: “Health campaigning began innocuously with pre-war posters saying things like ‘Eat an apple!’ and ‘Don’t drink beer all the time’.

    “But the next big campaigns are going to be about travelling back in time to unsmoke any fags you’ve ever had, and worshipping Fruitor the fruit god.

    “The problem with health campaigners is they get so into physical health they can’t form a mental image of anything except a wicker basket full of shiny apples, thus they end up completely barking.”

    Sales manager Roy Hobbs said: “Health campaigns make you feel worse than a distraction burglar if you have two cans of Coke a day.

    “It’s as though doing anything unhealthy means you’re stealing money from the NHS which could be used to treat decent people. You know, the ones who think drinking more than two glasses of wine means you’re Sid Vicious at his most nihilistic.”

    Government health advisor Dr Mary Fisher said: “Rest assured there isn’t some sort of public health Spanish inquisition going on.

    “Which is a shame, because I could easily get people to renounce ready meals if I could use red-hot pliers on them.”
    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/health-campaigners-may-actually-be-insane-2014062487913

  21. harleyrider1978 says:

    Famous lies from History

    Government health advisor Dr Mary Fisher said: “Rest assured there isn’t some sort of public health Spanish inquisition going on.

  22. Dirk Vleugels says:

    Look at the good old times in France http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwZXvgfiMh0

  23. junican says:

    I hesitate to venture into this discussion! But, well, go on……..
    Everybody’s right in their own way. Yes, it would have been great if smokers had marched and demonstrated, but there were many things that militated against it. Remember that were exemptions in the original Bill which were (deliberately) removed at the last minute; the fines for actually disobeying the law were paltry, but the fines on publicans, etc were draconian (publicans became unpaid enforcers); newspapers and TV had been sewn up good and proper in advance; bar staff were said to be dropping like flies; surveys showed that 70% wanted the bans, and so on.
    Besides, there is a reason that demonstrations would never have happened – people demonstrate for JUSTICE, and not inconvenience. Publicans perhaps should have demonstrated for justice, but, as we have seen, they were only bashed at the last minute.
    Contesting the science was also very, very difficult. It was no accident that several big studies were commenced around 1950. The world-wide accumulation of ‘evidence’ began around that time. I go along with mag01. The eugenicists were defeated around 1930, but they had not gone away. They rapidly regrouped, dropped the racism and alcohol and began the build up to the attack on tobacco. And it most definitely was a ‘holy’ crusade – these people knew that they themselves would probably be dead before their plans gained fruition.
    As LegIron and Frank have said, not only are we unfunded, we are scattered far and wide, but therein may be our advantage, They Zealots can only swat us one at a time and there are a lot of wasps in a swarm. The Zealots have been playing a very long game, and we must expect to have to do the same. At the age of 74, I doubt that I will see any meaningful victory, but little ‘wins’ here and there will suffice.
    And we can have little wins. I have determined to pay not a penny in tobacco taxes in the UK if I can possibly avoid it. I grow my own, venture abroad and have other sources. Further, I do contest the science by niggling and casting doubts. It isn’t difficult. For example, if someone says to me, “You shouldn’t be smoking” (and people do), I reply, “I’m 74. I’ve been smoking since I was 19. I’m in good health. What are you talking about?” (all in good humour, if course) But it is very important, if commenting on newspaper boards to keep it simple. A nice, simple statement which casts doubts is the information that garyk dug out of the Doctors Study – It may be that 85% of smokers died from ‘tobacco related diseases’, but so did 84% of non-smokers. That is a FACT according to Doll’s study (the ‘holy bible’ of tobacco control). Another simple FACT, from that study, was that, out of 25,000 deaths, only 1050 were from lung cancer, which is 4%. Why so few when at least 70% of the doctors were long-time smokers? (The idea is to contest ‘relative risk’ differences with gross figures)
    Finally, we should get behind vapers, even if some of them are silly enough to join in the condemnation of smoking. There are a number of reasons, one of which is that we generally know more about the science than the average vaper. Most important, however, is the need to block the Zealots’ railway line and derail the gravy-train. Vapers hold ‘the high, moral ground’, but the Zealots have a cunning plan, which they have put into effect. That is to change the emphasis from smoke to nicotine. Rose’s comment about potatoes containing nicotine is relevant in this argument. The Zealots are batting on a sticky wicket regarding nicotine being harmful, and they know it. Further, e-cigs have split the top Zealots down the middle. It can only be a good thing to widen that gap.
    Now shut up, J!

  24. harleyrider1978 says:

    Rose’s comment about potatoes containing nicotine is relevant in this argument.

    matt black says:

    April 3, 2014 at 3:27 pm

    You mean.. the nicotine that has only been found in absolute trace levels in exhaled vapor? Such low trace levels, in fact, that it pales in comparison to your exposure to nicotine from eggplants, soybeans, and various other vegetables? That nicotine?

    Yeah, I didn’t mention it because it would be idiotic to do so since it’s virtually not present in the exhaled vapor. But, if you insist that I mention it, here you go: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/18

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      EPA & FDA: Vapor Harmless to Children

      April 3, 2014 matt black

      In the continued war on e-cigarettes, we hear about the “potential dangers” of e-cigarette vapor and the “unknown public health risks.”

      First, I find it absolutely absurd that we’re attempting to pass laws based on unknowns, but what makes it even more absurd is the fact that there’s very little that isn’t known about e-cigarette vapor at this point. The primary ingredient of concern to those who wish to see e-cigarettes banned is the propylene glycol vapor, which has been studied for over 70 years.

      I recently came across a document titled, “Reregistration Eligibility Decision For Propylene Glycol and Dipropylene Glycol“, which was created by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

      Catchy title. I was intrigued.

      This quote caught my eye:

      Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol were first registered in 1950 and 1959, respectively, by the FDA for use in hospitals as air disinfectants. (page 4, paragraph 1).

      In a previous post, I had shared the summary of research that had been done in 1942 by Dr. Robertson regarding the antibacterial properties of vaporized propylene glycol, but I had never heard that the FDA wound up approving it for the purpose of an air disinfectant in hospitals.

      Indoor Non-Food: Propylene glycol is used on the following use sites: air treatment (eating establishments, hospital, commercial, institutional, household, bathroom, transportational facilities); medical premises and equipment, commercial, institutional and industrial premises and equipment; (page 6, paragraph 2)

      Continued…

      Method and Rates of Application

      ….

      Air Sanitizer

      Read the directions included with the automatic dispenser for proper installation of unit and refill. Remove cap from aerosol can and place in a sequential aerosol dispenser which automatically releases a metered amount every 15 minutes. One unit should treat 6000 ft of closed air space… For regular, non-metered applications, spray room until a light fog forms. To sanitize the air, spray 6 to 8 seconds in an average size room (10′x10′). (page 6, paragraph 6)

      A common argument used to support the public usage ban is that, “Minnesotans have become accustomed to the standard of clean indoor air.” However, according to the EPA and FDA, so long as there’s a “light fog” of propylene glycol vapor in the air, the air is actually more clean than the standard that Minnesotans have become accustomed to.

      General Toxicity Observations

      Upon reviewing the available toxicity information, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. This conclusion is based on the results of toxicity testing of propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol in which dose levels near or above testing limits (as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines) were employed in experimental animal studies and no significant toxicity observed.

      Carcinogenicity Classification

      A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies conducted up to the testing limit doses established by the Agency; therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required. (page 10, paragraphs 1 & 2)

      Ready for the bombshell? I probably should have put this at the top, as it could have made this post a lot shorter, but I figured the information above was important, too…

      2. FQPA Safety Factor

      The FQPA Safety Factor (as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996) is intended to provide an additional 10-fold safety factor (10X), to protect for special sensitivity in infants and children to specific pesticide residues in food, drinking water, or residential exposures, or to compensate for an incomplete database. The FQPA Safety Factor has been removed (i.e., reduced to 1X) for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol because there is no pre- or post-natal evidence for increased susceptibility following exposure. Further, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol based on the low toxicity observed in studies conducted near or above testing limit doses as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines. Therefore, quantitative risk assessment was not conducted for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol.

      In a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health by Dr. Robertson in April of 1946, Robertson cites a study published in the Edinburgh Medical Journal, which was conducted in 1944:

      The report of the 3 years’ study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapors in a children’s convalescent home showed a marked reduction in the number of acute respiratory infections occurring in the wards treated with both propylene and triethylene glycols. Whereas in the control wards, 132 infections occured during the course of three winters, there were only 13 such instances in the glycol wards during the same period. The fact that children were, for the most part, chronically confined to bed presented an unusually favorable condition for the prophylactic action of the glycol vapor.

      An investigation of the effect of triethylene glycol vapor on the respiratory disease incidence in military barracks brought out the fact that, while for the first 3 weeks after new personnel entered the glycolized area the disease rate remained the same as in the control barracks, the second 3 week period showed a 65 percent reduction in acute respiratory infections in the glycol treated barracks. Similar effects were observed in respect to airborne hemolytic streptococci and throat carriers of this microorganism.

      I don’t expect the prohibitionist lawmakers to delve this deeply into this subject on their own, but I certainly hope that when presented with this data that they reevaluate their stance on the subject and consider what science has to say. If they don’t, they’re simply basing their judgement off of rhetoric, misinformation, and personal bias and we all know where that gets us.

      http://mnvapers.com/2014/04/epa-fda-vapor-harmless-children/

  25. beobrigitte says:

    I suddenly realised for the very first time that just sitting in a pub garden smoking a cigarette, like I was this afternoon, is also a small act of resistance. It’s a public demonstration of the continued normality of smoking, in the face of concerted attempts to denormalise it.

    The rare time I go to a pub to sit in the pub garden with a group of people I place my cigarette tin and lighter on the table. When I started doing this it usually sparked of a lovely chat about different tobaccos but by now my tobacco tin has become something normal to the group as it is normal to myself.
    Sure, it is nothing radical but I do find that the smokers on the tables around us begin to do the same. No longer hiding.

    This does remind me of another little thing I have recently noticed. Munich airport does now have a (?more) Winston smoking lounge. My luck was that it is where I got off the plane (a most comfortable flight with Singapor Airlines) and I enjoyed a smoke even before I picked up my luggage!

  26. wobbler2012 says:

    We all missed the boat on 1st July 2007, that would have been the time for peaceful disobedience on a mass scale, but we all did nothing, we let them get away with it. And because none of us stood up back in 2007 they know they can get away with it, and they do.

    • Rose says:

      It was the huge fine for the publican, that did it I feel.
      With nowhere to be disobedient without harming someone else, all you could do is walk away and never go back.

      Trouble is, we are just too civilised.

      Smoke ban rebel owner fined again
      March 2008

      “The first landlord in England to be prosecuted under the smoking ban has been fined again for continuing to allow his customers to light up.
      Hamish Howitt, 55, of Park Road, Blackpool, denied five counts of failing to prevent smoking in his Del Boy Sports Bar.
      He argued the law breaches Human Rights legislation – but was convicted by a judge at Preston Magistrates’ Court.

      Howitt, a non-smoker, was fined £1,950 and told to pay £2,000 costs.

      In November 2007, he was fined £500 at Blackpool Magistrates’ Court after admitting 12 counts of failing to prevent smoking.”

      “A board outside the premises read: “Our political conscience will not allow to put smokers and non-smokers on the street. It’s our choice.”
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/7315046.stm

      Smoke ban rebel pub under threat
      July 2007

      “A Greater Manchester pub where patrons are being encouraged to light up in defiance of the smoking ban could be closed down, a councillor has warned.
      Customers at the Swan Hotel in Bolton have been allowed to continue smoking inside by landlord Nick Hogan.”
      http: //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6263422.stm

      Pub landlord is first person in Britain to be jailed over smoking ban
      february 2010

      “A former pub landlord yesterday became the first person to be jailed in connection with the smoking ban.
      Nick Hogan, 43, was sentenced to six months in prison for refusing to pay a fine imposed for flouting the legislation.”

      “A judge fined Hogan, of Chorley, Lancashire, £3,000 and ordered him to pay £7,236 in costs after finding him guilty of four charges under the Health Act 2006.”
      http: //www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254126/Pub-landlord-Nick-Hogan-given-smoking-ban-jail-sentence.html

      Landlord who defied smoking ban freed from jail after punters pay his fine
      March 2010

      “A pub landlord who defied the smoking ban was released early from jail after his fine was paid by money raised in an online campaign.”

      “The campaign to pay Hogan’s fines was launched by blogger Anna Raccoon with the help of fellow libertarian blogger Old Holborn who set up an account so people could donate online.
      Within 36 hours more than £5,000 had been raised and the campaign received a further boost when it was promoted by political blogger Guido Fawkes.
      By the end of last week donations totalled more than £9,000.

      Mr Hogan was released today from HMP Forest Bank in Salford after the sum owed was handed over in cash to the authorities.

      Speaking outside the prison, Hogan said: ”I’m devastated to be sent to jail. The smoking ban has cost me my pub, my job and my liberty.”
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7416601/Landlord-who-defied-smoking-ban-freed-from-jail-after-punters-pay-his-fine.html

      • wobbler2012 says:

        I see your point Rose but if absolute everyone (smokers that is) had all told them to get f**ked and ignored it then there would be nothing they can do, they would have been defeated by the sheer volume of people. This ban is made even more ironic that the ban was based on the great big SHS lie. It still makes me angry today thinking about it and I’m no longer a smoker.

    • smokervoter says:

      That’s exactly how comedian/philosopher Adam Carolla sees it. He’s a fellow native Californian who lived through the eye of the storm (our pub ban started a full 9 years before the UK Ban) and wanted to punch a few lights out when it first hit. He’s a fellow carpenter as well. Look him up, check out his podcasts, he’s a very funny and wise fellow.

  27. Edgar says:

    I will fight my way. You will fight yours. What is insane is that we fight each other.

  28. Fredrik Eich says:

    If hoax caller were to call the police and claim that there was a bomb planted in a major city and would kill about 281,000 people when it explodes and that person making the call knew that it was definitely not true, then that person would go to prison.

    So how come it is OK for the BBC to report this as fact “The research also revealed that passive smoking had a large impact on women, killing about 281,000 worldwide.“?

    I suppose the answer is that no one can prove that what the anti-smoking lobby says is fact is definitely not true.
    It is merely, probably not true.

  29. smokervoter says:

    I think I may end up representing the voice of the dumb everyday smoker here. Admittedly I’m no scientist – most of the medical/scientific jousting goes over my head. Leg-iron is one of the few scientists out there who’s capable of relating science to us carpenters and plebs. I usually come away from one of his ‘blog lectures’ scratching my chin and thinking to myself ‘Yeah, now I think I get it.’

    Likewise all the legal wrangling goes over my head half the time. I’ve personally been through a maddening miscarriage of justice and completely loath the legal profession. I think that in the halls of justice — the justice is mainly in the halls. I know this much though, and that is that Audrey Silk and Walt and CLASH have actually climbed into the ring and gone a few bloody rounds with the horrid, corrupt and incomprehensible (the the average Joe and Jane) legal system and I salute them from the bottom of my heart for their guts and their precious time and money.

    I wish I had an ‘in’ with Carlos Slim or some other very wealthy white knight who would fund Carol’s plan. I know there’s no one on this planet who knows thine enemy and its history and tactics quite like her. I want Carol to win.

    That leaves the bluntest of instruments, raw political science, the legislative branch and Machiavellian power plays. This I think I might know a thing or two about by virtue of some simple math skills that I possess from the ability to plan, estimate and build a structure and as somewhat of a political junkie.

    I know that when you combine a sizable minority bloc of voters who then vote in a lop-sided preponderance for a certain party (like UK smokers voting UKIP) while turning out to the polls in above average numbers, you can get your way. As living, observable proof; witness the current President of the United States. Blacks (13% of the demographic) and Latinos (17%) voting 80%-20% got him elected and you hear about it ad nauseum. If we ever succeed in getting the same media attention and, more importantly, the attention of political strategists, we’ll hold some power and whoa be it to the S.O.B. that crosses us.

    After all, most of these taxes, restrictions, bans and insults to our character and freedoms come about from some kind of mini-election. This local council voted 5-4 either in favor or against an outdoor ban for example. That parliament and government voted for the smoking ban. This college board voted to have the campus go smoke-free. That homeowners association voted to throw smokers out of their units. On and on it goes.

    Then there’s the state, federal and even supranational levels.

    We smokers must punish our foes and reward our allies. Allies are tough to find because the default position seems to be that smoking is bad and not smoking is good. Most folks who run for office have a tendency towards control freakery or they wouldn’t want the job. However, the freedom to choose has got to enter the equation somewhere along the line or we might as well be North Korea.

    I’ve got more to say but I’m going to cut it off right here. I don’t like long-winded speeches as a general rule. They always put me to sleep.

    • carol2000 says:

      “I wish I had an ‘in’ with Carlos Slim or some other very wealthy white knight who would fund Carol’s plan.”

      Carlos Slim is one of the anti-smokers. Here’s the clue: He’s a director of Philip Morris. He could simply make Philip Morris fight back instead of selling out all the time. As I have explained, the anti-smokers took over the tobacco industry long ago, to prevent them from fighting back. And if you doubt that, consider the fact that Carlos Slim’s money put his relative on the board of directors of BlackRock, which owns a controlling interest in CVS. And he also owns 16.8% of the class A stock of the lie-spewing anti-smoker New York Times, where BlackRock has 7.1%. And he probably plots with them to make Philip Morris commit scandals for the Times to expose, then smirks and gloats about it with NY Times director Mark Thompson, who was director-general of the BBC from 2004 to 2012.

      http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/71691/000007169114000007/a2014proxystatement.htm#s6FD1EF74270D919161F5C9611BB5A8CF

  30. Pingback: A Loss of Self-Confidence | Frank Davis

  31. Epiphany says:

    Go to the places where smoking is still normalized and smoke away. There are still pockets that are immune to denormalization. Celebrate them and avoid all others. Just returned yesterday from a week in Key West. Smoking allowed in bars. Very few places where people were not smoking. I had not observed so many smokers for years, and I am sure there are many other places like this. Give these places your money and avoid all places who do not share this view.

  32. Greg burrows says:

    When the Health act chapter 28 (smoking ban) was passed in parliament in 2006 without any of the exemptions proposed by Dr John Reid this was utter shock. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmhealth/485/48508.htm The only group going in the UK in 2006 against the smoking ban, was called the Big Debate an internet talking shop headed by Bob Feal-Martinez , (which later turned into F2C then into F2C info in August 2007), F2C had decided to try and counter the smoking ban, by taking this law to Judicial review before the ban came in, we were advised later this would cost a vast amount of money, which we did not have and even if we had, we had little chance of winning, we had a massive learning curve to climb, and thousands of documents to read, I found HSE OC 255/15 in early January 2007, and I used this in a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) this complaint indirectly stopped the NHS £10 million advertising campaign that SHS KILLS, this campaign was pulled on March 6th 2007 and the later adjudication, I belive was stitched up to make sure the truth was not exposed, this was the time myself and others started to realise that corruption was in the air, we were in for a rude awakening as to the scale of that corruption, and the lengths they would go to making sure that the truth was withheld, we also found the conivance that had been used, such as the SCOTH committee, (whose findings were used to bring about the smoking ban) who it turned out were just an advisory body, this was stated by a judge after the tobacco companies tried to take SCOTH to judicial review, (advisory bodies can not be held to account).
    We fought with trying to get campaigns running, and offering support to Hamish Howitt,Tony Blows, Nick Hogan, Ray and Jill McHale and many others, Bill Gibson (Scotland F2C) got involved with starting TICAP, UKIP and Godfrey Bloom had supported our efforts at F2C from 2007 by speaking at a few events, and even arranging for the TICAP meeting in the European Parliament building in 2009 (which was cancelled due to the strength of TC) UKIP pulled all stops out to arrange another venue up the road, at the Silken Hotel at the last minute, Godfrey Bloom was one of the speakers and also Nigel Farage was, some may say we have got nowhere, but we now have the truth, all that is left to do, is to expose those that have decieved the populace.
    I agree with Frank we have to fight from the bottom up, this is because the corruption is so pervasive that we can not fight from the top down. I came to this very conclusion in 2009 when I decided to join UKIP with some others, five years on I may not have won any battles, but we are all in our own way nibbling away and are starting to expose this fraud.

    • carol2000 says:

      There’s a long history of lame and ineffectual (even outright traitorous) “leadership” before 2007, namely FOREST. I’m not sure they even exist any more, and it’s no loss if they don’t. That Dr. John Reid epitomizes the kind of fake friends they embraced – the kind who endorse the anti-smokers’ scientific fraud, then pretend they’re fighting for us by trying to nibble out a few petty concessions. WRONG! Attacking the anti-smokers’ scientific fraud, and permanently ending the things rhat they do wrong, should always have been the central policy goal. Sure, they always try to discourage us by claiming it would cost a lot of money. The hospitality industry would have been able to afford this, but they never made the slightest attempt at a genuine fight. They’ve wasted some money on a few battles over nitpicks is all. (And one thing we should never forget is that the government is supposed to be protecting us against these acts of fraud, and of unconstitutional misuse of the taxpayers’ money to promote one faction over others. But they’ve never spent a cent on our behalf, while lavishing funding on the anti-smokers’ show trials and travesties of justice.)

      Now what does your supposed “fight from the bottom up” consist of? More of the same?

      • Frank Davis says:

        Attacking the anti-smokers’ scientific fraud, and permanently ending the things rhat they do wrong, should always have been the central policy goal.

        Forest (which still exists) should have been doing that. But “attacking” that fraud in the courts needs a lot of money, and they haven’t got much. The hospitality industry has pots of money, but they didn’t fight that battle either, and I don’t know why. The government has even more money and real power, but they are in fact promoting one faction over others, and again I don’t really know why. And individual smokers like me don’t have the money to fight the fraud either.

        So nobody’s been fighting the fraud. And so the fraud has prevailed. That’s the story of the last 60 years (and more). And it’s the story not just in respect of tobacco, but plenty of other things too.

        So please stop asking for us to “fight” the fraud. We don’t have the weapons to do so. Please stop asking us – the individual people who read this blog – to do something we simply can’t do. We can’t fight it in an effective way. We’re powerless to fight it. We haven’t got any money.

        Do you have any positive suggestions for anything that we smokers, as individuals, can actually do? Or are you just going to keep on demanding that we do the impossible?

        • carol2000 says:

          “…So please stop asking for us to “fight” the fraud. We don’t have the weapons to do so.”

          What is this nonsense? Do you think that ‘money is speech,’ so if you don’t have any money, you can’t open your mouth and speak? Unreal. There’s no reason people couldn’t have been harping about the scientific fraud at every opportunity, rather than just chattering away about anything and everything except that. Even just a few words and a link to my page (note that there are no ads, so I have no financial interest in this).

        • Frank Davis says:

          Of course I can speak. But that’s not to “effectively fight”. They are two different things.

          And anyway there are a lot more things to discuss than just antismoking fraud.

        • carol2000 says:

          “And anyway there are a lot more things to discuss than just antismoking fraud.” Sure, and the anti-smokers would very much prefer that you discuss them, too. Discussing other things will never imperil their most powerful justification for coercive intervention.

        • carol2000 says:

          Even just saying:

          Cytomegalovirus causes COPD
          http://www.smokershistory.com/COPD.html

          is sufficient. Don’t tell me people can’t do that becaise they don’t have any money. Not when people are clearly able to blather about anything and everything except what’s important.

          When people refuse to say a single god-damn thing about it, that is evidence of their profound hostility to the idea, they might as well be anti-smokers becaise they believe in all the same garbage and ignore all the same evidence.

  33. Pingback: Make the Invisible Crime Visible | Frank Davis

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.