Political Correctness Was Invented In Nazi Germany

H/T Tony for this audio interview of Christopher Monckton by James Delingpole. I’ve roughly transcribed bits of it where Monckton was talking:

“It’s a dangerous time. I’ve been looking quite closely at the pre-Nazi period in Germany. I have a lot of papers to do with it which aren’t public, because my grandfather was minister if information during the early years of the war… And so he had a lot of papers on this, and was very interested in how the Nazis had managed to get control. And they had followed a pattern that is discernible in their documents. The first thing they did was to go round saying there was only one acceptable point of view. That was where Political Correctness really first was invented, as you were not allowed to have a point of view other than that of the Nazi Party. Even though they were hardly represented in the Reichstag at all, they were beginning to shout down anyone who disagreed with them, and they would attack the individuals rather than their arguments…. The next stage was they began openly demanding that those who disagreed with them should be arrested, put on trial (or not put on trial, they didn’t much care) and then either imprisoned or executed… for disagreeing with the Nazi party on almost anything… I saw a note the other day from somebody who’d listed half a dozens instances of what I call the Climate Communists saying that people like us should be arrested, imprisoned, tried and executed for crimes against the planet, or treason against the planet, or high crimes against humanity. There are various formulations from Jim Hansen upwards… Practically every week somebody is now saying this. And I thought I would just see if we bullied the bullies back, what would happen… The third stage was that they took office, and then they began going round and arresting people and executing them because they took a different view. So I don’t like the fact that we’ve got to stages 1 and 2. And one of the interesting things about pre-Nazi Germany was that because of the savage personal attacks which were directed by the Nazis at anyone who disagreed with them, it eventually got to the point where very few people who disagreed with them would dare to say so. And so it was left to only a tiny handful who dared to put their heads above the parapet. I was talking to a US Congressman the other day, and I said, “Why, since you don’t believe a word of this global warming stuff, why don’t more of your colleagues do what you very occasionally do, and come out and say this is rubbish?” He said, “We’ve all seen what’s happened to your reputation because you dared to speak out… … We’ve watched this happening, and we don’t want it happening to us. That’s why we don’t speak out more often.” That is exactly how it was in Nazi Germany, and I have all the papers on it… And you could see this hate-speech going on all the time against anyone who dared to disagree, and eventually it worked: people just became frightened to say anything. Now that is happening in our legislature to quite a large degree now. People want to get re-elected, and they know that if they come out too openly against the usual suspects, then the Greens will target them – perhaps even at national level – and make it impossible for them to be re-elected… If you broadcast, they’ll try to take your advertising revenue away… This constant attack against the individual doesn’t so much hurt the individual, what it does do is frighten off anybody else from doing the same, and this comes over and over again in the pre-war papers of what was going on in Nazi Germany.”

No mention of the Nazi antismoking parallels.

But I can see what he means about when the Greens fire up a big media assault on somebody. The Greens and ‘progressives’ more or less own the mainstream media. And Monckton knows what it’s like to be pilloried by them.

But does it really matter if the mainstream media crucify you? The media are really just a highly vocal minority. The people who really count are the broad mass of voters. And this particular voter has a high opinion of people like Monckton (and Delingpole), and it’s next to the names of people like them that I’m going to mark my cross. I’ll vote for anyone who comes out against smoking bans, global warming, and EU tyranny – regardless of what the media throw at them.

And I suspect a lot of other people feel the same. After all, the media set out to crucify Nigel Farage and UKIP at the EU election earlier this year – and UKIP went and won the election. So much for the power of the media.

“I was invited to California to give an address – a lecture – to a group of Zionist Jews on the parallels between the pre-Nazi period on which I often lecture and what is happening in the climate debate today. They’d seen these parallels. So I read up Mein Kampf and found bits there where Hitler was making … similar remarks: “It is the business of the people to defer to authority. It is not the job of parliament to vote on things. They are there to carry out in the most efficient way the wishes of the leadership.” And one of the Australian professors… had been saying similar things. He’d been saying “If you are not a climate scientist, it is your duty to defer to the authority of those who are.”…”

I seems that some people are just control freaks. The EU was designed by control freaks for control freaks. They don’t like representative government. Its leadership is a bunch of unelected control freaks in the EU Commission. And the only job of the EU parliament is to rubberstamp the Commission’s proposals, not make any of their own.

And Hitler was a control freak too. He took more and more of the decisions. And many of his decisions were the wrong ones. Which is what’s bound to happen when there’s no real debate to place all the options on the table and carefully weigh them up, and the decisions are instead the whim of a single uneducated man.

I’ve been reading about Tsar Nicholas II of Russia in WW1. Like Hitler, he took over personal command of the Russian army from his generals. And like Hitler, it was a disaster.

The only good thing about leaders is that in a crisis they can make quick decisions in ways that slow democratic consultative processes can’t. But it doesn’t help much if the quick decisions are the wrong ones.

“What is interesting is that the silent majority – that both sides always claim [as their own] – I think is genuinely with us. I think they are beginning to notice the frenetic hate-filled speech of the other side, and the constant attempts to silence debate. People can kind of feel that that’s not right. And so I think that very largely the other side are now helping us…”

I probably don’t count as one of “the silent majority”, but I think he’s probably right.  Or at least I hope he is.

On the fear that we may end up under a new Nazi tyranny:

“No, I’m sure we won’t do that, because there are those of us who will make an awful lot of noise before they got away with that. And that is the difference between how it was then, and how it is now.  At that time people didn’t realise that it was dangerous NOT to speak out.”

I hope he’s right about that. But I read today that in the UK 660 people have been arrested as suspected paedophiles. Where do you keep 660 people? Sounds to me like you need to have some sort of camp to hold numbers like that. A camp with, say, a barbed wire perimeter fence and watch towers and long low huts. And in Britain today, who isn’t a suspected paedophile? What if next they say that 66,000 people have been detained as suspected paedophiles? It seems to be heading in that sort of direction.

About Frank Davis

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

73 Responses to Political Correctness Was Invented In Nazi Germany

  1. wobbler2012 says:

    Monckton is an absolute legend!! A few years ago in 2011 he actually parachuted into a climate change conference.

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    Funny Frank you post the above about Control and here they are right on track with the Nazi solution:

    Ohio University Considers MANDATORY Re-Education Classes For Smokers

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/16/ohio-university-considers-mandatory-re-education-classes-for-smokers/#ixzz37fxgBOFc

    • carol2000 says:

      Do you realize how much disruption you could cause to their class simply by using it to propagandize your own beliefs? Do a good job, and they’ll ban you from the class.

  3. Reinhold says:

    That is exactly how it was in Nazi Germany

    From all I read and heard, it was exactly like this, yes.

    there are those of us who will make an awful lot of noise before they got away with that. And that is the difference between how it was then, and how it is now.

    Aha.
    After three or four weeks in a re-education camp, from that “lot of noise” not even a humble beep will be remaining.
    At least that’s the way they silenced the communists back then in the 1930s. One by one. And when the individual came home, his will was broken and he never said a word about politics again – for the sake of his family and for the entire rest of his life.

  4. junican says:

    Who decides what is ‘politically correct’?

  5. SomeFrenchBloke says:

    On some points raised by waltc yesterday:

    1) “from the 16th to 19th centuries, people didn’t live long enough to develop lung cancer which seems to strike at average age of late 60s”

    This is a weak argument. According to the Charcot-Bouchard’s Traité de médecine, Vol. III (1892), stomach cancer, which was quite prevalent then, was typically diagnosed at 60-65. People did live long enough to develop stomach cancer, which strikes at roughtly the same age as lung cancer.
    For lung cancers, the Charcot-Bouchard treatise, Vol. IV (1893) gives the age range 40 to 60 for most victims of this – then rare – condition.
    Stomach is the only cancer site where incidence has markedly decreased for over 6 decades. In spite of increased longevity, the average risk for men as well as women is down by 75% in developed countries with the notable exception of Japan (only a slight (9%) decrease for women there compared to the 1950 rate). Some chalk the decrease up to the advent of the refrigerator (but why no improvement for the Japanese then?). It could well be said that the only really effective form of cancer prevention for decades has been inadvertent. Most other ‘Big C’ prevention tactics are either complete BS (the tobacco scare) or semi-BS (eating ever more fiber).
    Philip Burch in his ‘Biology of Cancer – A New Approach’ (1976), pp 315 to 320 has numerous graphs showing that the modal age for LC, which was 65 in men as in women, increased from the 1930s for women and from the mid-50s for men, reaching 72 and 70, respectively, for the 1961-65 period. Having compared statistics for 26 national populations, he also insists on the fact that the modal age is independent of .the levels of prevalence.
    As for the first known case of LC, it was observed in 1761, but the first pathological description of the condition was by Gaspard Laurent Bayle, in 1810, who described it as “phtisie cancéreuse,” one of his six varieties of phthisis (cf. Carcinoma of the Lung A Study of its Incidence, Pathology and Relative Importance. Moses Barron, M.D. Arch Surg. 1922)

    2) “Also it was misdiagnosed for much of that time.”

    Professor Burch, on p. 327 of ‘Biology of Cancer – A New Approach’ concurs with this statement:
    “Sehrt (1904) described 178 cases of lung cancer discovered at necropsy, only six of which had been recognized during life.”

    If these particular results reflect the general situation at the time, this would mean that only one in thirty cases was detected.
    Burch’s reference: E. Sehrt “Beiträge zur Kenntnis der primären Lungencarcinoma” (1904)

    • carol2000 says:

      “General interest in lung cancer developed considerably later in the United States than it did in Europe but cases were described (37) at the Massachusetts General Hospital in 1842 and 1850. Articles contributed by Lehlbach (38) in 1870 and by Loomis (39) in 1876 showed considerable familiarity with the disease. Delafield (40), the pathologist at Roosevelt Hospital, was well acquainted with primary lung cancer as early as 1868 as evidenced by his autopsy records. In the later decades of the 19th century the number of American articles increased including contributions by Pepper (41), Van Giesen (42), Ripley (43), Kemper (44), Janeway (45), Holland (46), Hodenpyl (47), and LeCount (48). On December 18, 1880, the Medical Record commented editorially that lung cancer would continue to interest pathologists despite the lack of specific treatment. The most important American article on lung cancer in the 19th century appeared in the New York Medical Journal on February 8, 1896. The author was Adler (49) whose monograph on the subject in 1912 has since become a medical classic. In the 1896 article, Adler repeatedly emphasized that lung cancer was not a rare disease in the United States but was rarely diagnosed. He urged physicians to become more familiar with its clinical manifestations and pathologists to do more meticulous work so as to better recognize the disease at autopsy.” (Smoking and Disease: Etiological Perspective. Testimony of Milton B. Rosenblatt to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, March 18, 1965.)
      http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/60272142.html

  6. SomeFrenchBloke says:

    On other points raised by waltc:
    https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/encrypting-bbc-iplayer/#comment-99836

    1) “how does the mortality rate correlate with the smoking rate?”

    Taking figures from the WHO database and from Derek H. Beese’s “Tobacco Consumption in Various Countries”: 1930-1970
    http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kpg51f00/pdf

    one can come up with a few comparisons:

    Austria crude male lung cancer death rates (100.000, all ages): 59.67 (1955)
    Tobacco consumption per capita:
    1930 – 940 cigs, 4.7 lb; 1950 – 1.100 cigs, 3;2 lb

    Ireland crude male LCDR: 11.5 (1950), 23 (1955)
    Tobacco: 1930 – 930 cigs, 4.5 lb; 1950 – 2.510 cigs, 6.9 lb

    UK Male crude LCDR: 47.3 (1950), 67.3 (1955)
    Tobacco: 1930 – 1380 cigs, 4.6 lb; 1950 – 2180 cigs, 5.7 lb

    It correlates VERY poorly indeed. In fact the tobacco hypothesis is an endless source of discrepancies!

    2) “the average incubation period is 30 or more years”

    Does this incubation period apply to most cancers or is it a special feature of LC? Considering the high prevalence of cancer in general, would that mean that 40% or more of people in their thirties carry around mysterious, embryonic, undetectable cancers?
    It seems to me this dubious notion is mostly trotted out by TC & friends, .and these people are no more scientists than they are nannies: they’re professional liars!
    Professor Burch uses the notion of ‘estimated age at initiation’ (which he seems to set at two and a half years before diagnosis), that is, when some cell dysfunction meets some environmental factor.

    • waltc says:

      I bow to your superior knowledge and research. Understand that I was trying to knock down the implied link between smoking and LC stats from the top of my head. That’s why I asked about the correlation with smoking rates. I’m still inclined to think that, all things considered, the average life span was shorter in the darker ages and that therefore, the rate of lung cancer was lower since cancer is mostly a disease of age. I have to wonder, however (if I read your stats right) what could account for the large rise in lung cancer deaths from 1950 to 1955. Any thoughts? I want to mull some more about “age of initiation” since I can see top-of-head arguments for both sides, some relating to dose/response and some to the process of cell disruption. But thanks for opening the question.

    • Frank Davis says:

      SFB: professional liars

      That’s exactly what I think they are too.

      Walt: the average life span was shorter in the darker ages and that therefore, the rate of lung cancer was lower since cancer is mostly a disease of age.

      I believe that the average life span was indeed shorter, but this was mostly due to high infant mortality. If you survived childhood, you could expect to live to the age of 70, much like today.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Even a certain pharaoh lived to 90 years of age 4000 years ago. Mortality is an invention of extremists to further an agenda.

      • waltc says:

        True. Methuselah lived 900 years. But people succumbed to bacteria diseases at all ages and women died in childbirth. I continue to believe that with few exceptions, cancer is part of Man’s Fate, that with age cells begin to make mistakes, and that very possibly viral invasions cause at least some of those mistakes. If other environmental irritants have a role, and considering dose/response, tobacco would have had nothing to do with it before the 20th c. if then. Rather industrial and mining exposures, the artifacts of war, and eventually perhaps nuclear radiation. For the rest, I can’t completely dismiss, because I don’t know for sure, whether smoking is a contributing factor or merely a confounder. Considering genetic predispositions and the wide range of environmental and viral/bacterial exposures that all humans share, in any case no one can honestly finger smoking as The Cause.

        • beobrigitte says:

          Last night I did watch an interesting documentary about a Russian fasting clinic which also cancer patients attend.
          This did remind me of my mother who, shortly after being diagnosed with terminal breast cancer in 1989 (12/15 lymphnodes were found to contain cancer cells). The medical establishment decided against chemotherapy and mastectomy (which induced a major argument between the medic and myself). In the end the medical establishment prescribed 3 rounds of radiotherapy. That was it.
          Shortly after her diagnosis, for weeks, unbeknown to my siblings and myself, my mother was fasting. Living on water and every third day some soup at midday. I took off on her, which led to her promising to eat – only to continue fasting for another few weeks.
          Much to everyone’s surprise, my mother was well 5 years after the diagnosis. By then the medical establishment was baffled and began to consider mastectomy and perhaps chemotherapy, which my mother declined.
          My mother died on 25.06.2009 of age related illness at the age of 86. She lived 30 years with terminal cancer without being ill.

          So I continued watching the documentary. Interestingly, when people “starve”, gene expression begins to change (which it has to inorder to utilize the available food “stores” – muscles and fat cells). Interestingly, in cancer cells the opposite happens.
          To me it would be interesting to expand on this – cancer has a multitude of “causes”; e.g. impaired DNA repair mechanism; reduction of rate of apoptosis; increased cell proliferation etc. etc. etc.

          Naturally there are no funds available for research into this ancient and CHEAP ?treatment – tobacco control’s idealistic proliferation is more important.

          Perhaps we should just feed them to kill them.

  7. Socialised healthcare also seems to have started in Germany. First, by Bismarck (for certain people) in the 1880s (he supposedly believed that a light version of socialism would stave off full-blown Marxism).

    During the Weimar Republic, further advances were made and the popularity of
    social Darwinism grew, so by the time Hitler came along, he could implement, for example, the Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring which enabled a “Genetic Health Court” to order the sterilisation of anybody considered to suffer from a supposed genetic disorder (many of which weren’t genetic).

    A few years later, ‘Action T4’ (Aktion T4) came into being where perhaps 200,000 people were euthanised (murdered) in mental hospitals from 1939.

    Here is the important point from this (can’t link as tab has disappeared):

    Medical concerns which had largely been in the private domain in the nineteenth century increasingly became a concern of the state. The physician began to be transformed into a functionary of state-initiated laws and policies. Doctors slowly began to see themselves as more responsible for the public health of the nation than for the individual health of the patient. It is one thing to see oneself as responsible for the “nation’s health” and quite another to be responsible for an individual patient’s health. It is one thing to be employed by an individual, another to be employed by the government.

    In Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote:

    He who is bodily and mentally not sound and deserving may not perpetuate this misfortune in the bodies of his children. The völkische [people’s] state has to perform the most gigantic rearing-task here. One day, however, it will appear as a deed greater than the most victorious wars of our present bourgeois era.

    It was around this time that some of the (other) characters who have shaped the modern Western world were active, like Marie Stopes, who doted on Hitler and concentrated her ‘clinics’ among poor people and her counterpart in the USA, Margaret Sanger, was prominent and wanted to sterilise the blacks into extinction. Stopes wanted to sterilise the diseased, drunkards and people of ‘bad character’. Probably blacks, Jews, gypsies, etc. as well, but not sure if that’s on record.

    Social Darwinism thrived after the apparent defeat of the Third Reich. You could argue that Aktion T4 is still alive in the UK with unborn babies with disabilities allowed to be aborted (murdered) up until the moment before birth and where the Liverpool ‘Care’ Pathway starved and dehydrated people to death.

    Like Aktion T4, it was painted as a caring way of dealing with people, but is leading to increasing numbers being killed off one way or another. Interestingly, T4 used starvation as one of the killing methods, along with lethal injections and gas chambers.

    This headline may be slightly misleading, but he made the most out of it and showed how dangerous it can be in the wrong hands: The Real Father of Universal Healthcare – Adolf Hitler,

    The first mass murders of the Holocaust were carried out in the socialized German hospitals and the techniques for governmental mass murder were developed and refined there. Several hundred thousand handicapped and mentally ill persons were murdered in Hitler’s universal healthcare system. Retarded and mentally ill children were euthanized and the T4 project did the same for handicapped, mentally ill and elderly adults. In his order permitting medical killing, Hitler called them “mercy killing” and “lives not worth living.” In this way Germany produced great savings in healthcare, not only due to the extermination of existing patients, but many ill persons and their families became too fearful, due to rumors of the killings, to dare check into the hospitals.

    I believe this is one of the reasons for blanket smoking bans in hospitals these days. It will deter smokers seeking treatment.

    How many times have we heard that as an excuse for aborting the unborn suspected of being disabled: their lives wouldn’t be worth living?

    It’s now being used to promote euthanasia for the old and sick.

    Who’ll be next? The mentally ill, like under T4?

    • Rose says:

      Socialised healthcare also seems to have started in Germany

      But they did try to get it in America before they found a niche here.
      If you have some time on your hands you may find this all rather interesting.

      Published in 1949 by a former editor of the New York Times.

      To give you a taste of it.

      “When a German beer hall bum named Hitler began to plan his 1,000-year Reich, the powers-that-were in Germany didn’t actually know that American politicians were going to solve their acute employment crisis by forcing us into the second world war to again save England’s hide and Rockefeller’s oil. But they weren’t taking any chances.

      Germany’s huge dye trust (or chemical cartel) known as the I. G. Farbenindustrie Aktiengesellschaft, enjoyed a monopoly on all chemical products manufactured in Germany. German IG made an alliance with American Standard Oil in order to control important patents.”

      “At this juncture American IG Farben decided to camouflage its German parentage and sympathies, with the help of Standard Oil. It changed its name to the General Aniline & Film Corporation shortly before the Pearl Harbor attack. Before doing this, American IG purchased an undisclosed number of shares in the Ozalid Corporation, Schering & Company, Mission Corporation, Monsanto Chemical, Aluminum Corporation, Drug (Incorporated), Dow Chemical, Antidolar Company, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Standard Oil of Indiana, Standard Oil of California and the duPont Company. It took over bodily the privately-owned Hoffman-LaRoche Company.”

      “When the American doughboys sloughed into Germany, and reached the industrial city of Frankfort, they were amazed to find intact all of the buildings and the huge plant of the German IG Farben Chemical Trust. American aviators, pinpointing their targets, had demolished every other structure in town.

      What the doughboys didn’t know was that the Secretary of War, one Robert P. Patterson, was a Rockefeller lawyer, appointed by President Roosevelt upon Rockefeller orders, fresh out of Dillon, Read and Company. The Dillon-Read concern not only is a Rockefeller subsidiary, but was the banking house that financed German IG Farben and attended to the financial details of forming the American “cover up” firm for the German chemical cartel.

      American aviators, who gnashed their teeth at their orders to miss the biggest target in Frankfort, have never accepted the weak alibi given them from headquarters. Which was that this juicy and IMPORTANT target should be saved because the American Expeditionary Forces would “need an office building” when they got into Germany proper.”

      Chapter 4 Socialized Medicine – 1949

      “Since introduction of the bill for socialization of medicine, Senator McGrath has resigned from the Senate to accept the appointment as Attorney General of the United States.

      In properly analyzing a controversial issue it is always advisable to examine those various special interests which are for and against it. In the case of Socialized, or Communized Medicine, which we have had with us since 1933 this is not hard to do.

      There are four separate and distinct Special Interests plugging the 1949 version — night and day, early and late, tooth and toenail. These four interests are:

      1. The Drug Trust which aims, through its Washington stooges and medical dictatorship, to suppress all forms of therapy, exercise and diets which will reduce the use of drugs in any manner.

      2. Incompetent medical doctors who see in S-1679 a chance to have patients, who have no choice in the matter, assigned to them; and a chance that the government will make for them what they cannot make for themselves.

      3. The American Communists who see, in the possible passage of Communized Medicine legislation, the opening wedge to communize everything else under the sun.

      4. Oscar Ewing, Rockefeller attorney, Federal Security Administrator who, under S-1679, would not only be the Czar of medicine, but will have the administering of a fund of probably five billion dollars a year — with all the power, pomp, panoply, prestige, glory and benefits that go with $5,000,000,000.”

      “A report from England gave the Drug Trust much joy. Since Britain’s Socialist government had socialized medicine, and made pills and drug concoctions “free,” the British people had tripled and quadrupled their consumption of these unnatural products.

      Pill swillers — the British people are being called. When you quadruple the 10 billion dollar annual drug bill of the American people you get the figure $40,000,000,000. Take 90% of that and you get $36,000,-000,000 profits.”
      http://www.whale.to/a/bealle.htm#Socialized_Medicine_

      Ever wonder why people like osteopaths weren’t available on the NHS and you had to go privately?

      Meanwhile

      Sir George Godber: Government’s Chief Medical Officer who helped to establish the fledgling National Health Service

      http: //www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/sir-george-godber-governments-chief-medical-officer-who-helped-to-establish-the-fledgling-national-health-service-1607201.html

      If you look into the history of anti-tobacco in England, you will see the name of the Rockefeller established London School of Hygiene and Tropical medicine a lot.

      Sir George Godber

      Sir George Godber, alumnus of the School and former Chief Medical Officer, died aged 100 on 7 February.

      One of the last survivors of the generation which founded the NHS in 1948, Sir George obtained the Diploma in Public Health at the School in 1936, following training at the London Hospital, and New College Oxford, where he rowed twice in the University Boat Race.

      Sir George worked in a number of junior health posts after graduating, within a system where many of the poor could not afford to pay for a doctor but were too proud to seek free care. He became convinced of the need for a national health service, and joined the Department of Health in 1939 as a medical officer.”
      http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/alumni/news/sir_george_godber.html

      Hygiene – Public Health.

      So just like Doll he was another Rockefeller Student.

      • Rose says:

        You can’t always believe what you read on the internet, so while the TIME archive was still available I checked some items in the story.

        It seems that he certainly did know what he was talking about.

        CHEMICALS: Who Owns Aniline?
        Monday, July 28, 1941

        CHEMICALS: Who Owns Aniline?

        “General Aniline is a desirable property. It is the second largest U.S. manufacturer of photographic equipment (after Eastman), and is tied for third place with American Cyanamid (after Allied Chemical and Du Pont) in the making of dye-stuffs”

        But it was formed under the auspices of I. G. Farbenindustrie, the great German dye trust, and it has prospered with the help of Farben skills and patents.

        General Aniline had some distinguished American directors when the Germans set it up in ’27. But Walter Clark Teagle, chairman of Standard Oil of N.J. (with which the Farben used to share patents) resigned from the Aniline board last year, and Edgar M. Clark (a Standard Oil man) and Edsel Ford followed suit early this month. As the U.S. got less & less neutral, the Nazi cloud over Aniline looked thicker every day.

        I. G. Chemie is on the British blacklist.”
        http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,795457,00.html

        “A new product called sulfathiazole tablets was concocted by Winthrop Drug Company, one of the 66 subsidiaries of German Farben-American Standard Oil’s drug cartel. Being made by this Rockefeller unit it was automatically under the protection of both the Food & Drug Administration and the American Medical Association.

        Fishbein announced in his Journal of the American Medical Association on January 25,1941, that … “Sulfathiazole-Winthrop has been accepted by the Council of Pharmacy and Chemistry for inclusion in its official volume of new and non-official remedies.”

        This concoction was also approved by one Dr. J. J. Durrett of the Food & Drug Administration – the official in charge of new drugs. Dr. Durrett, being a Rockefeller-approved appointee, was only doing what his undercover bosses expected him to do.

        Four hundred thousand sulfathiazole tablets were unloaded on the market December, 1940. These tablets were a mixture of the “germ-destroying” sulfa drug and Luminal, the drug which puts people to sleep. Although the usual safe dosage of Luminal is one grain, some of the tablets were found to contain 5 grains.

        Many people who bought and took these Winthrops really did go to sleep. They never woke up. It was then discovered that, to be charitable, the Food & Drug Administration had been asleep at the switch. They had approved deadly tablets apparently without knowing what they contained. No one was ever punished, or even embarrassed, for these murders.”
        http: //www.whale.to/a/bealle.htm#Government_Gangsters_

        The 1941 Sulfathiazole Disaster and the Birth of Good Manufacturing Practices

        “The beginning of modern standards for good manufacturing practices can be traced to an incident that began in December 1940, when the Winthrop Chemical Company of New York put on the market sulfathiazole tablets contaminated with phenobarbital. Hundreds of deaths and injuries resulted. FDA’s investigation into Winthrop’s sulfathiazole production and the agency’s efforts to retrieve the Winthrop drug remaining on the market revealed numerous control deficiencies in the plant and serious irregularities in the firm’s attempt to recall the tainted tablets.”
        http://journal.pda.org/content/53/3/148.abstract

        Medicine: Dangerous Drug
        Monday, Apr. 07, 1941

        “The best drug to cure dread staphylococcus bloodstream infections is sulfathiazole, a sulfanilamide relative which came out last year.

        Last December Winthrop Chemical Co., a reputable Manhattan firm, shipped out 410,000 sulfathiazole tablets throughout the U. S. Several days later a doctor complained that the pills made a patient dangerously drowsy. Company chemists discovered to their horror that they had been accidentally mixed with a powerful sleeping powder, phenobarbital (popularly known as luminal).* In large doses, phenobarbital, like other sedatives, may prove fatal.”
        http: //content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,765439,00.html

        • carol2000 says:

          At a meeting of the New York Academy of Medicine, Albert G. Milbank called for states to create compulsory health insurance plans, saying that the Wilbur Committee’s voluntary plan wouldn’t work. It was attended by Dr. George F. McCleary, former Deputy Senior Medical Officer of the British Ministry of Health, and also former Principal medical officer of the National Health Insurance Commission of the U.K. Pearl S. Buck and Edward C. Carter also spoke, and Dr. Livingston Farrand, president of Cornell, presided. (Health Insurance Urged By Milbank. New York Times, Mar. 17, 1933.)

          Albert G. Milbank was the scion of the Milbank family of Borden’s Milk fame. He joined Masten & Nichols, attorneys for the Borden Company, and became chairman of the board of Borden. Masten & Nichols merged with Murray, Aldrich & Webb, and became Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy. He was also an officer of the Milbank Memorial Fund, established in 1905 by his cousin, Elizabeth Milbank Anderson. He was a member of the General Committee of the American Society for the Control of Cancer when it received its big unconditional gift of $100,000 from John D. Rockefeller (Rockefeller Aids Cancer Study Fund. New York Times, May 3, 1926), and a director of the Chase National Bank since 1930. He had two sons, Robbins Milbank of Burlingame, Cal., and Samuel R. Milbank of New York. (Albert Milbank, Lawyer, 76, Dies. New York Times, Sep. 8, 1949.)
          http://www.smokershistory.com/Chase.html#Albert_G._Milbank
          Samuel R. Milbank’s father-in-law was superintendent of the United Fruit Company’s farms and railways in Costa Rica, including thirty or forty large banana farms. (Gossip Gathered in Hotel Lobbies. New Orleans Times Picayune, Oct. 11, 1899 – note that this is the date of its founding.) Robbins Milbank’s son, David L. Milbank, was on active duty with the U.S. Army from 1951 to 1957 and was a Korean War veteran. In 1957, he transferred to the active reserve in military intelligence and retired as Lieutenant Colonel in 1982. From 1957 until his retirement in 1985, he worked for the C.I.A. in the Directorate of Plans, the Directorate of Operations, the Office of National Estimates, the Directorate of Intelligence, and the Intelligence Community Staff. While working for the C.I.A. and later for various private defense contractors, he published several articles on international terrorism.” (The Thacher News, Fall 1999/Winter 2000, Volume XII, Number 1. Obituaries p 56.) Robbins Milbank’s second wife’s brother was Lyman B. Kirkpatrick Jr. of the O.S.S., later inspector general of the C.I.A.

          It was the Milbank Quarterly of the Milbank Memorial Fund that published The Economic Costs of the Health Effects of Smoking, 1984. By Dorothy P. Rice, Thomas A. Hodgson, Peter Sinsheimer, Warren Browner, and Andrea N. Kopstein. Milbank Quarterly 1986;64(4):489-547, that got the Big Lie started that smoking is an economic burden to society.

        • Thank you. Interesting reading…

      • Frank Davis says:

        American aviators, pinpointing their targets, had demolished every other structure in town.

        From everything I’ve read of aerial bombing campaigns, it was never ‘pinpoint’ accurate. They were lucky if the bombs landed within half a mile of the designated target.

        More or less any photo showing bombs exploding on the ground shows them landing all over the place rather than being tightly bunched around a single factory or bridge or railway line

        • Rose says:

          Strangely enough –

          IG Farben Building

          Frankfurt

          “During World War II, the surrounding neighbourhood was devastated, but the building itself was left largely intact (and inhabited by the homeless citizens of a bomb-ravaged Frankfurt). In March 1945, Allied troops occupied the area and the IG Farben Building became the American headquarters of General Dwight D. Eisenhower”

          “The building was the headquarters for research projects relating to the development of Nazi wartime synthetic oil and rubber, and the production administration of magnesium, lubricating oil, explosives, methanol, and Zyklon B, the cyanide-based pesticide that was later used by the Nazi regime to generate the lethal gas used in concentration camps.
          After WWII, the IG Farben Building served as the headquarters for the Supreme Allied Command and from 1949 to 1952 the High Commissioner for Germany (HICOG). It became the principal location for implementing the Marshall Plan, which largely financed the post-war reconstruction of Europe. The state apparatus of the Federal German Government was devised there. The IG Farben Building served as the headquarters for the US Army’s V Corps and the Northern Area Command (NACOM) until 1995.

          The US Army renamed the building the General Creighton W. Abrams Building in 1975”

          Rumours

          “General Eisenhower issued orders to preserve the building during the bombardment of Frankfurt, because he intended to use it after the war as his headquarters.

          It may also have been that the building was saved by its proximity to Grüneburgpark with its prisoner of war camp holding captured American airmen.”[21]
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben_Building

      • carol2000 says:

        Godber was at the American Cancer Society’s World Conference on Smoking and Health in 1967. I’m going to post the complete list of participants, which I just finished transcribing (parts of their scans were lousy).

    • carol2000 says:

      “physician began to be transformed into a functionary of state-initiated laws and policies.”
      Here”s your link: National Health Care: Medicine in Germany, 1918-1945
      Does the modern bureaucratization of medicine risk a return to the horrors of national socialist medicine? NOVEMBER 01, 1993 by MARC S. MICOZZI M.D.
      http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/national-health-care-medicine-in-germany-1918-1945

  8. waltc says:

    Not to make Hitler analogies or anything (I mean that sincerely) but Obama seems to believe it’s the job of the congress to legislate his whims and if they don’t, that he has the moral right if not the constitutiional authority to do it himself– by fiat. That’s why congress’s proposed law suit against him for overstepping the role of the Executive is so important. Then, too, most of the regulatory agencies in the US (EPA, FDA etc) are part of the executive branch and pretty much bypass congress and dictate policy. So here in the home of checks-and-balances, we have few checks and fewer counterweights against the new rule of “Because I Say So,” and don’t seem to like (or rather our political elites don’t seem to like) representative democracy a whole lot either.

    Then, too, in the US, it’s not just the media that attacks the contrarians nor is the range of what’s attackable limited. A CEO was fired on the spot when it came out that 5 yrs ago he’d given $1000 to an anti-gay marriage campaign. A fast food chain was denied a NYC franchise for the same reason. Businesses are boycotted for holding any views not held by The Progressives, and petitions are circulated to get broadcast licenses suspended or incorrect talk hosts taken off the air. And then anything Our Ladies of Perpetual Outrage can distort into being racist (which includes any attack on Administration policy and–my favorite example– a city councilman somewhere who protested a budget cut as being “niggardly”) is not only tarred by the press, but fired, and bombarded with death threats. A legislator somewhere who was unaware of an open mike and observed to the guy next to him that a fat lady was fat, was forced to resign and apologize in tears. And God help the pol who even whispers against bans or taxes on smokers. Bloomberg dubbed such a guy “the pro-cancer candidate.”

    • prog says:

      A similar thing happened over here a number of years ago – some of the dumbed-down thought paediatricians were child abusers.

      • beobrigitte says:

        prog, I do remember such a case! A (female) paediatrician had her windows thrown in and faced threatening graffity on her house wall.
        After this incident newspaper articles about paedophiles seemed to disappear.

        That is one solution. Just make it disappear. Labour.

        In any case, this (vile) subject is hitting headlines again. On one hand the subject needs to be raised. On the other, there seem to be only celebrities facing the wrath. This is NOT going to change ANYTHING for the public and the little kid with a “friendly” uncle, is it?

  9. Supergran says:

    On the fear that we may end up under a new Nazi tyranny:

    “No, I’m sure we won’t do that, because there are those of us who will make an awful lot of noise before they got away with that……….
    We smokers, climate disbelievers and people who just want to be left alone to eat, drink, smoke, enjoy our weather and basically live our lives as we want, have been using the internet (via good guys like Frank etc) to MAKE A LOT OF NOISE!!!!!!! But the “enemy” just trundles on. Non elected quango’s marching their way through our lives, making LAWS (by God) and mass media questioning absolutely NOTHING. Quacks inventing science, the EU getting bigger and bigger!!
    “on the fear that we may end up under a new Nazi tyranny??????? Would the “enemy” allow a lot of noise????? I remember when the “Sun” newspaper was the main reason the Tories got in one year – due to their backing, news, comments etc. Quotes such as Sun readers will be led like sheep by the offerings of the tabloid. If we have no mass media backing, where will the bloody noise come from????? Scary indeed.

    • carol2000 says:

      N’-Nitrosonornicotine, CAS No. 16543-55-8, p. 320: “No epidemiological studies were identified that evaluated the relationship between human cancer and exposure specifically to N-nitrosonornicotine.” NNK and N′-nitrosoanatabine (NAT), N′-nitrosoanabasine (NAB), 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK), 4-(Methylnitrosamino)-4-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanol (iso-NNAL) were not listed among the carcinogens. (Report on Carcinogens, Twelfth Edition, 2011.)

      Click to access Nitrosamines.pdf


      Q: “Aren’t the TSNA actually the same as any other nitrosomine?” R: “Actually the same” only in the sense that all they have are animal studies and no human ones. And the types of cancers they claim the nitrosamines cause, such as nasal carcinomas, are in HUMANS known to be caused by Epstein-Barr virus, with some others by HPV. So it’s automatically invalid to extrapolate to humans, as they’ve done.
      http://www.smokershistory.com/EBV.htm

      • beobrigitte says:

        only in the sense that all they have are animal studies and no human ones.

        Animal studies are based on the assumption that in both, animals and the human animal, all biochemical processes + gene expression is the same when encountering the same conditions.

        HPV IS a know cause of cancer. (HeLa cells) Epstein Barr is a little trickier.
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1097-0142%2819920701%2970:1%3C185::AID-CNCR2820700129%3E3.0.CO;2-J/abstract
        (since you do love links – I am not prepared to pay for them, though!)

        With respect to viral causes – you will need to spend time and learn about viral modes of replication.

        • carol2000 says:

          That’s all you’ve got is one study, dating from 1992, using Southern blot? Well, I’ve got whole pages full, including IARC Monograph 70, 1997, where they declared that “There is sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of EBV in the causation of Burkitt’s lymphoma, sinonasal angiocentric T-cell lymphoma, immunosuppression-related lymphoma, Hodgkin’s disease and nasopharyngeal carcinoma,” and “EBV is carcinogenic to humans (Group I).”
          http://www.smokershistory.com/EBVlymph.html
          http://www.smokershistory.com/EBV.htm
          EBV as a cause of cancer is only problematic for anti-smokers and their chemical-carcinogen-hysteria-mongering fellow travelers.

        • beobrigitte says:

          Is quantity important these days?

          How much do you know about viral replication in general? Papers are interesting but you must bear in mind that they NEVER provide the full picture.

          The anti-smokers will happily invite you as a single person to discuss various papers. Think about it.

        • carol2000 says:

          “Is quantity important these days?” How about Gulley’s two later studies that unquestionably did find EBV in lymphomas? Oh, I get it – you think that if you can find one negative study, it cancels out all the positive ones. Even if that one study is old and out of date. For your information, that is NOT how science works.

          “How much do you know about viral replication in general?” For your information, “viral replication in general” is only peripherally relevant to the causation of a particular cancer by a particular cancer. Although I supposed that you might spout off about it just to hide the fact that you have nothing to say.

          “Papers are interesting but you must bear in mind that they NEVER provide the full picture.” But your one study does? And how are we supposed to get this “full picture,” by meditation?

          “The anti-smokers will happily invite you as a single person to discuss various papers. Think about it.” WHO are you kidding?????

        • beobrigitte says:

          Oh, I get it – you think that if you can find one negative study, it cancels out all the positive ones.

          Wrong. Not at all.

          For your information, “viral replication in general” is only peripherally relevant to the causation of a particular cancer by a particular cancer.

          Wrong again. You will need to spot errors – this is very difficult if you lack the basics.

          But your one study does? And how are we supposed to get this “full picture,” by meditation?

          By learning, learning, learning and more learning. This is the little bit the anti-smokers give us no credit for, remember?

        • carol2000 says:

          You don’t have the sense to learn anything useful. Mere pedantry is not useful. And one of the purposes of those pages is note things that are useful or potentially useful.

        • beobrigitte says:

          You don’t have the sense to learn anything useful.

          That is not for you to be the judge of, is it?

          Mere pedantry is not useful. And one of the purposes of those pages is note things that are useful or potentially useful.

          And what are you going to do with something potentially useful information when it will be easy to take you apart in a discussion by asking questions relevant to the potentially useful information involving the basic of basic knowledge?
          Dare I ask if you are prepared to listen?

          It is your belief and choice to go the papers route. I really do hope you will succeed and prove me wrong. Don’t get me wrong, people here do post incredibly interesting links – and, yes, remembering the basics most certainly helps further searches to the links posted. As it stands you will struggle to find TRULY independent papers published.

          In my view papers are not the route to take on the anti-smoking zealots. I prefer to take a look at who and what is against me and search for the achilles heel.

          As already pointed out – we do not have to be friends when this anti-smoking nonsense is over.

        • carol2000 says:

          “And what are you going to do with something potentially useful information when it will be easy to take you apart in a discussion by asking questions relevant to the potentially useful information involving the basic of basic knowledge?”

          It is evident that you’re not equipped to ask such questions. And you don’t even seem to realize that qualified persons will be more impressed by the IARC report and subsequent evidence, and not the slightest bit by someone blathering about “viral replication in general.”

          “In my view papers are not the route to take on the anti-smoking zealots. I prefer to take a look at who and what is against me and search for the achilles heel.”

          More like you prefer to ignore their achilles heel, which is that they falsely blame smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection.

        • Frank Davis says:

          you prefer to ignore their achilles heel

          If they have such an Achilles’ heel, wouldn’t somebody (e.g. You) have already fatally injured them by using it?

        • carol2000 says:

          “If they have such an Achilles’ heel, wouldn’t somebody (e.g. You) have already fatally injured them by using it?”

          When only one person is talking about it, they can just ignore it. Especially when they can distract attention with endless noise and empty rhetoric about nannyism and slippery slopes, etc. Just consider for a moment how many people are even aware of the scientific evidence, versus the rhetorical distractions. It seems as if every single “discussion” consists of nothing but rhetoric from our side. The solid evidence that the anti-smokers are deliberately ignoring the role of infection deserves to be highlighted, and made a game-changing policy issue. They should not be allowed to ignore the role of infection, and the fact that poorer people are more likely to have been infected, at younger ages, and have more frequent exposures. Nor to use deficient methods of identifying those infections, nor deficient methods of supposedly compensating for it, such as “controlling” by the use of indirect means such as education and income.

        • beobrigitte says:

          And you don’t even seem to realize that qualified persons will be more impressed by the IARC report and subsequent evidence

          Good luck with that.

          More like you prefer to ignore their achilles heel, which is that they falsely blame smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection.

          Ok. Back to square one. How much do you know about viral modes of replication?

          (Aren’t you glad that our paths are not likely to cross in real life?)

          oh, btw:
          It is evident that you’re not equipped to ask such questions.
          That is not for you to be the judge of, is it?

        • carol2000 says:

          “That is not for you to be the judge of, is it?”

          Whether you like it or not, not just I but anybody who cares to do so will be judging you. And your approach is sorely lacking.

        • beobrigitte says:

          Whether you like it or not, not just I but anybody who cares to do so will be judging you.

          There is no point in doing that. It’s a waste of time since most of us will go our separate ways when the smokerhatred has gone.

          And your approach is sorely lacking.
          This is a matter of opinion.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      This is really fun, and oh-so typical.

      Einstein College recently studied folks who lived past age 95. The reluctantly reported result: “People who live to 95 or older are no more virtuous than the rest of us in terms of their diet, exercise routine or smoking and drinking habits.”

      Einstein College press release:

      http://www.einstein.yu.edu/home/news_pr … 78&pt=news

      Did you notice in link above that they just state that the very old smoked about as much as did people who died younger, with no detail given, although detail is given regarding eating, boozing, exercise, and so on? Well, when it came to publishing the abstract with the National Institutes of Health, they ignore smoking results entirely! They do say that smoking was studied, but make no mention whatsoever that smoking was not shown to impair longevity: again, as with the press release, precise detail is given regarding other studied factors, but when it came to smoking — the holy taboo of all holy taboos — they simply couldn’t bear even to mention their own finding!

      Here it is: the official NIH abstract:

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21812767

      • beobrigitte says:

        Einstein College recently studied folks who lived past age 95. The reluctantly reported result: “People who live to 95 or older are no more virtuous than the rest of us in terms of their diet, exercise routine or smoking and drinking habits.”

        Give them a reason why they should and they will LAUGH at you.

        • Marie says:

          My mother is nearly 101. She has never considered, what she was eating or drinking. She did, what she liked. That means, she never smoked or drink alcohol or coffee, because she did not like it herself, but she always loved to be with people smoking, and she was living with smokers the first 50 years of her life. She admits, that she prefers cigars and pipe for cigarettes. She always walked a lot, because she enjoyed nature and beautiful landscapes. She never did any form for exercise or sport, she hated that. She loves sweets, ice cream, cakes and chocolate, lots of milk and lemonade. She never ever had any thoughts of being healthy or living long.

        • beobrigitte says:

          This is probably why your mother is still alive. Reducing the worries to what needs worrying about.
          Fear kills.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      100-year-old Dorothy Howe has puffed her way through nearly HALF A MILLION cigarettes

      Nov 12, 2013 00:00
      By Steve Doohan

      The former secretary has smoked 15 a day since she was 16 and says the killer habit is the key to her long life
      http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/smoker-dorothy-howe-reaches-100-2760426#.U1qoP_CCQ1A.facebook

      • beobrigitte says:

        AHHHH!! GREAT!! She is the lady lighting up a cigarette on her birthday cake. My (non-smoking) sister send me her picture this year for my birthday.

        I really do NOT wish to make 100 in THIS society….

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Researchers demonstrate health risks posed by ‘third hand’ tobacco smoke

    Posted on 16 July 2014

    Research led by the University of York has highlighted the potential cancer risk in non-smokers – particularly young children – of tobacco smoke gases and particles deposited to surfaces and dust in the home.

    Until now, the risks of this exposure known as ‘third hand tobacco smoke’ have been highly uncertain and not considered in public policy.

    However, a new study published in the journal Environment International, has estimated for the first time the potential cancer risk by age group through non-dietary ingestion and dermal exposure to third hand smoke. The results indicate potentially severe long-term consequences, particularly to children.

    The research was carried out by York’s Wolfson Atmospheric Chemistry Laboratories, the National Centre for Atmospheric Science, and the Chromatography and Environmental Applications research group at the Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Spain.

    The study, which was supported by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and the General Research Directorate of the Government of Catalonia, also demonstrates for the first time the widespread presence of tobacco related carcinogens in house dust, even in ‘smoke-free’ environments.

    Scientists collected dust samples from private homes occupied by both smokers and non-smokers. Using observations of house dust composition, they estimated the cancer risk by applying the most recent official toxicology information.

    They found that for children aged one to six years old, the cancer risks exceeded the limit recommended by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in three quarters of smokers’ homes and two thirds of non-smokers’ homes. The maximum risk predicted from the third hand smoke levels in a smoker occupied home equated to one extra cancer case per one thousand population exposed.

    Lead investigator, Dr Jacqueline Hamilton, from York’s Wolfson Atmospheric Chemistry Laboratories, said: “The risks of tobacco exposure do not end when a cigarette is extinguished. Non-smokers, especially children, are also at risk through contact with surfaces and dust contaminated with residual smoke gases and particles, the so-called third hand smoke. This risk should not be overlooked and its impact should be included in future educational programs and tobacco-related public health policies.”

    Each year 600,000 people die worldwide through passive inhalation of environmental tobacco smoke, also known as second hand smoke. As numerous countries have introduced smoking bans in public places, the home has become the main source of passive smoking exposure.

    Professor Alastair Lewis, from York’s Wolfson Atmospheric Chemistry Laboratories and the National Centre for Atmospheric Science, said: “Over 40 per cent of children have at least one smoking parent and whereas there is a general public awareness about the harms of second hand smoke, there is little knowledge about the dangers of third hand smoke. Carcinogenic materials can be passed from smokers to non-smokers during shared contact, for example between clothes and surfaces and also enter homes via airborne transport of cigarette smoke.”

    The researchers examined exposure to carcinogen N-nitrosamines and tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) in the dust samples. These are produced when nicotine deposits on indoor surfaces and then is released again to the gas phase or reacts with ozone, nitrous acid and other atmospheric oxidants. They are classified as carcinogenic for humans.

    Measurements were made using a comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography system, which was originally funded by NERC to study particulate matter in the atmosphere.

    Professor Rosa Maria Marcé, from the Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, said: “This highly selective and sensitive instrument has allowed the small amounts of TSNAs stuck to the surface of house dust to be measured for the first time.”

    Dr Noelia Ramirez, a Postdoctoral Research Fellow from York’s Wolfson Atmospheric Chemistry Laboratories who started this research line, said: “While TSNAs have been suspected to form part of third hand smoke as a result of laboratory studies, we have demonstrated for the first time the presence of carcinogenic tobacco-specific compounds, such as TSNAs, in settled house dust found in a panel of smokers’ and non-smokers’ homes.

    “The TSNAs concentrations found in smoke-free homes would suggest that TSNAs formed in smoking environments can persist for extended periods, possibly due to partitioning to ambient particles, and subsequently be transported into non-smokers’ homes from outside.”

    http://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2014/research/third-hand-tobacco-smoke/

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Youd think theyd give this BS up……….But I guess they had to put this up to collect the last of their 3rd hand grant money!

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    Smoking Wars again

    Posted on 4:01 pm, July 17, 2014 by Sinclair Davidson

    This morning the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare released results for the 2013 National Drug Strategy Household Survey.

    The anti-smoking lobby is crowing that the results support the tobacco plain packaging policy

    “This is the biggest drop I’ve ever seen. This is champagne-cork pulling time,” professor Simon Chapman of the University of Sydney’s School of Public Health said on Thursday.

    “It’s almost like the equivalent of developing a very good vaccine against lung cancer. The survey was taken before the December 2013 price rise – the only major factor* that would explain this is the introduction of plain packaging.”

    but – as always when dealing with the progressive left – you have to check the data yourself.

    Here is the headline result:
    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/07/17/smoking-wars-again/

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    Environmentalists Decry Repeal of Australia’s Carbon Tax

    New York Times · 2 hours ago

    SYDNEY, Australia — Opposition politicians and environmentalists in Australia reacted with dismay Thursday to the country’s repeal of laws requiring large…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/18/world/asia/environmentalists-decry-repeal-of-australias-carbon-tax.html?_r=0

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    Should research fraud be treated as a crime? Toronto expert says Yes

    If you perpetrate a fraud in most walks of life, you risk facing criminal charges. But that rarely happens to scientists who commit research fraud.

    http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4633340-should-research-fraud-be-treated-as-a-crime-toronto-expert-says-yes/

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Should research fraud be treated as a crime? Toronto expert says Yes

      DR. ZULFIQAR BHUTTA

      DR. ZULFIQAR BHUTTA
      Bernard Weil,Toronto Star
      Dr. Zulfiqar Bhutta, a member of the advisory board for the medical journal BMJ, believes scientists who commit research fraud should be chriminally charged.

      By Helen Branswell

      TORONTO – If you perpetrate a fraud in most walks of life, you risk facing criminal charges. But that rarely happens to scientists who commit research fraud.

      A new debate in a scientific journal questions whether that ought to change. Published by the journal BMJ — formerly the British Medical Journal — the point-counterpoint-style article explores a problem that dogs academia, wastes precious research funds and potentially puts the lives of people who need medical treatment in danger.

      For Dr. Zulfiqar Bhutta the answer is clear — though he acknowledges his view won’t be universally embraced in the academic world.

      “Our fraternity is not very united when it comes to washing our dirty linen in public,” Bhutta, co-director of the Centre for Global Child Health at Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children, said in an interview.

      “(But) when somebody is determined to commit something like this and does, and if it is brought to light, then I think the full weight of law needs to come on that person.”

      Bhutta, who is on the advisory board of the journal, said the idea for the article stemmed from a discussion he and his colleagues had recently about scientific misconduct, of which fraud is one component.

      In his argument that scientific fraud ought to be treated as a criminal offence, Bhutta pointed to cases of individual and pharmaceutical industry fraud.

      British doctor Andrew Wakefield linked the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine with autism in a study that drove down acceptance of the vaccine and led to a resurgence of the diseases, particularly measles, in developing countries. The study has been widely repudiated and expunged from the medical literature; Wakefield was stripped of his licence. He had been working on an alternative to the vaccine he impugned.

      South Korean stem cell researcher Hwang Woo-suk was forced to resign from Seoul National University after his work was discovered to have been faked — though he’s since returned to academia and publishes prodigiously.

      There are a few cases where charges have been laid. Iowa State University researcher Dong-Pyou Han, who was working on an HIV vaccine, has been charged with four counts of making false statements after it came to light he falsified data. Han had hundreds of thousands of dollars in funding from the U.S. government.

      Scott Reuben, an American anesthetist whose fraudulent pain studies influenced clinical practice for years, was sentenced to six months in jail. And the Indian pharmaceutical company Ranbaxy was fined US$500 million for data falsification.

      Bhutta believes there should be more of those kinds of consequences for scientists who deliberately commit fraud, whether it is reporting on studies that never took place, manipulating the outcome of research or misrepresenting a clinical trial’s findings.

      However, research fraud is typically handled within an academic institution, treated as an internal matter. “Individuals generally get off with just a slap on the wrist at the time and at the most a dismissal from service,” said Bhutta.

      Dr. Julian Crane, director of the Wellington Asthma Research Group at the University of Otago in Wellington, New Zealand, countered Bhutta’s argument.

      He suggested the system has to operate on trust — and imposing the threat of criminal sanctions would undermine the effort.

      “Criminalizing research misconduct is a sad, bad, even mad idea that will only undermine the trust that is an essential component of research and requires good governance, not criminal investigators,” he wrote.

      Bhutta doesn’t find that argument persuasive. And neither does Ivan Oransky, co-founder of the website Retraction Watch, which has been recording cases of scientific retractions — and reporting on the back stories behind them — for the past four years.

      Oransky said increasingly countries are looking to the notion of levelling criminal charges in cases of research fraud. It’s a reflection, he suggested, of the frustration politicians feel toward academic institutions which have not done enough to stamp out research fraud.

      “If scientists would rather sweep all this under the rug … they’re protecting fraud,” said Oransky, who is also global editorial director at Medpage Today, a medical news website for physicians.

      “We really wouldn’t put up with that in any other field.”

      The Canadian Press

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Simon Chapman,Stantonitis Glands,Tornado Repace……………….Dr. Siegel

      • carol2000 says:

        It’s a waste of time for you to post this, because what they define as “research fraud” does not include what the anti-smokers do. Not to mention that you yourself refuse to attack them for this fraud.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Carol write me up something really chilling on fraud and I will use it…………….

        • carol2000 says:

          I’ve written about their fraud dozens of times, and you ignore it. You wouldn’t know fraud if it landed on your nose is the problem.

  14. harleyrider1978 says:

    It appears the Nazis have an automated computer to save their precious Wikipedia Sites when they set them up…………….automatically removing any changes.

    Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Smoking ban has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

  15. harleyrider1978 says:

    Al Capone’s Ghost must be smiling and his successors laughing.

    On the 24th June this year, the BMA voted to ban the sale of cigarettes (forever) to anyone born after the millennium. So in 2018 it would be illegal for an eighteen year old but legal for a nineteen year old. And with each successive year thereafter, the discrimination would notch up accordingly.

    The effect of course would be to progressively drive young and eventually older people into the hands of modern day Al Capones.

    Freedom2choose chairman Dave Atherton appeared on BBC radio Wales and Freedom2choose Scotland’s Belinda Cunnison was also allowed a brief slot on BBC radio Scotland.

    http://www.f2c.org.uk/blog/2014/06/27/prohibition-fever-at-the-bma/

  16. harleyrider1978 says:

    (function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = “//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));
    Post by Prinz Marcus von Anhalt.

  17. harleyrider1978 says:
  18. harleyrider1978 says:

    Dear Nigel Farage/UKIP

    Im afraid our organization is much to important for us to write notes to politicians like you.

    Please remember that our organization is very very very very very important.

    However there is no ASH FAN CLUB despite our importance, Because all our fan club was murdered by the allies in 1945.

    I enclose a photograph to remind you of what your kind did to my kind in 1945.

    The Nuremburg hangings!

    Yours Sincerely,

    Deb Arnot

  19. Pingback: Political Correctness Was ‘Invented In Nazi Germany’ and How They Made the Most out of Socialised ‘Healthcare’ | Real Street

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.