Another article by Klaus K translated from the original Danish.
¤ Outdoor air pollution more dangerous than indoor tobacco smoke
¤ Do smoking bans protect against a non-existent disease risk?
– OFFICIAL WHO RECOMMENDATIONS
(Photo: Colourbox)
First they said that indoor secondhand smoke was dangerous – now they say that the outdoor air in cities is more dangerous. Is secondhand smoke no longer officially a serious health hazard?
Well, officially it is – but the experts appointed by the World Health Organization (WHO) have twice, within 15 months, downplayed the role of secondhand smoke in the development of lung cancer by comparing the risk of tobacco smoke to the risks of outdoor air and diesel exhaust.
It happened when two official IARC-statements were published that placed outdoor air pollution and diesel exhaust on the group-1 list of known causes. Also on the list is secondhand smoke, despite some researchers’ skepticism.
Secondhand smoke was not directly mentioned in the WHO’s media material however (1 – 2), because the WHO never compares various cancer risks in its written material. But, most unusually, the published statements were accompanied by media opinions by IARC-experts that outdoor air pollution is more harmful than indoor secondhand smoke – and that diesel exhaust is much more harmful than secondhand smoke.
Dr. Debra T. Silverman is a leading American researcher in diesel exhaust in the workplace – her studies eventually led to the WHO statement on lung cancer risk from diesel exhaust, and she was quoted in the New York Times:
“Dr. Silverman said her research indicated that occupational diesel exposure was a far greater lung cancer risk than passive cigarette smoking”
And IARC’s own expert, Kurt Straif said that outdoor air pollution is the most serious cause of lung cancer in the environment, more so than passive smoking, according to Bloomberg Businessweek and the South China Morning Post:
“We consider this to be the most important environmental carcinogen, more so than passive smoking.”
Health organizations
are sitting on
Big Pharma’s lap
It is now more than a decade ago, in 2002, that the WHO for the first time declared secondhand smoke carcinogenic and deadly in the IARC Monograph 83 – despite independent experts’ skepticism.
Meanwhile, it has been revealed that the chairman of the WHO working group – the leader of Monograph 83 – Dr. Jonathan Samet and several other anti-tobacco researchers have had long-term economic relations with Nicorette companies Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline. These companies have gained a tremendous economic advantage since the declaration of mortal risk of secondhand smoke, because the smoking bans were introduced to protect against that risk.
For smoking bans were the reason the pharmaceutical giants could earn billions from the sale of nicotine replacement and smoking cessation products to Europe’s 150 million smokers, who were forced to refrain from smoking at work and in the hospitality industry by the bans.
The WHO’s own passive smoking study from 1998 – the largest in Europe – showed no link between passive smoking and lung cancer, either in the home or at work. The only significant correlation they found was that people who were exposed to passive smoking in childhood and upbringing had a 23% lower risk of getting lung cancer later in life compared to people who grew up in smoke-free homes.
Nevertheless, a year later the WHO entered a mysterious partnership with the nicotine giants Novartis, Pharmacia & Upjohn (later Pfizer) and GlaxoSmithKline. The reason given was “to help smokers stop smoking” – this absurd partnership no doubt secured the WHO financial support from the pharmaceutical giants in return for acting as the industry’s world-wide Nicorette agent.
And immediately two days later the WHO director-general Gro Harlem Brundtland informed the public that WHO had started working on its part of the bargain: The production of the anti-tobacco treaty – the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control – committed all WHO member states to introduce the smoking bans which are now scattered across Europe.
The reason given for the smoking bans – the health hazards of secondhand smoke – is formulated in the treaty’s Article 8:
“The Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.”
It is this unscientific claim that the WHO experts no longer say is so “unequivocally established”. As the French Dr. Philippe Even said: The smoking bans are based on a lie. And such a lie cannot be sustained in the long run.
Laboratory animals do not get
lung cancer
from tobacco smoke
It’s also pretty unlikely that second smoke could have caused lung cancer – especially considering the fact that the scientific community has had no success in inducing malignant lung tumors in experimental animals with tobacco smoke – despite the fact that this has been diligently tried for over 80 years. Scientists have even bred genetically artificial mice that are particularly susceptible to lung cancer, but to no avail.
The reason that this is still being researched is that the tobacco industry scientists are trying to invent less harmful types of cigarettes – but no matter what type of cigarette smoke the mice or rats are exposed to, none of them develop more lung cancer than the control animals, which are exposed to air.
Maybe not so strange anyway, if the outside air is carcinogenic?
After all, this has been known since 1962 when American cancer researcher Wilhelm Hueper found that in many countries and cities there was a weak correlation between lung cancer and cigarette smoking, while in contrast, lung cancer was closely related to air pollution from heavy industries.
This was also shown by the late Danish researcher and clinician, Knud Wilson.
In the 1962-article’s “comments” section Hueper gives his six reasons to why cigarette smoking can be no serious cause of lung cancer – one of them is that city dwellers have twice as much lung cancer as people who live in the country.
In light of WHO’s statements, it is not illogical to say that it does not matter to your health whether you are walking in a normally busy street, or you are sitting in a smoking cafe. If the air is more harmful on a dose response level in the streets, then what exactly is the point of banning smoking in the cafe?
If indoor secondhand smoke does no more harm than the ambient outdoor air, there is no sense in such bans. And so any cafe owner should be able to decide his own smoking rules.
If it wasn’t for the pharmaceutical giants of course … as you may know it’s not about health, but about money. And the pharmaceutical giants’ influence is enormous. Not just here in Europe but also in the United States.
Frank Davis 
You couldn’t make it up, really.
Interesting. I remember reading in Leg-iron’s blog in the early days, when he was still a fairly new arrival in Blogland and still had a girlfriend called “Ug” (don’t ask – it’s a long story), his talk of the Righteous and his experiences with them from his disparate youthful days – and the one thing that he said, time and time again was that every time, right down through history, the Righteous always and without fail ended up fighting against each other and thus causing their own downfall and leaving the way open for a brief period of respite before they crawled back out from under their rocks, re-grouped and re-formed in a different guise to torment normal people all over again.
It seems he was right. Am I the only one who sees “Climate Change” stamped all over this story? All those naughty car drivers, travelling to and fro in selfish comfort and convenience whilst all around them the oh-so-obedient drones battle the wind and the rain and the cold on their environmentally-friendly bicycles, saving polar bears and dutifully squeezing their obligatory 30 minutes per day of aerobic exercise into their sad lives? And who better for the Climate Change keenies to compare the terrible effect of their arch-enemies, car drivers, to but the Great Terror which is environmental tobacco smoke? They must be thinking “Thanks, anti-smokers – you’ve provided the perfect “danger” for our Enemy Number One to be cited as ‘even worse than.’”
Who’da thunk it? I would have put my bottom dollar on anti-alcohol being the downfall of anti-smoking. All those lovely correlations. An almost perfect template match in all aspects with just a little adjustment of the wording and the “doomsday” scenario to result from consumption of the demon drink. After all – with a little bit of emotionally-charged advertising – crime, social disorder, domestic violence, family breakdown and vehicle accidents would easily put paid to drinkers’ sole (and boringly predictable) usual defence of “But there’s no such thing as passive drinking …” As a side bet, I’d have thought the anti-obesity lot would be in with a chance, too, if for no other reason than because the majority of obese people are only obese because they obediently gave up smoking the moment the were told to – with the inevitable weighty result – and anyone who is easily-scared enough to quit smoking when told will be just as easily bullied into daily physical jerks and a diet of raw carrots and mineral water.
But if anyone had suggested to me that the Climate Change loons would make a bid to be the ones to topple anti-smoking from their increasingly-shaky pedestal of No 1 Public Health Saviours, I wouldn’t have thought there’d be any way they could correlate the two “dangers” in support of their cause. Yet here they are, not saying that driving is “as bad as” smoking (like the anti-alcohol or anti-obesity crew have been starting to say about their little pet projects), but saying instead that it’s actually worse! Just goes to show how cunning these single-issue hobby-horse riders can be when they put their minds to it and when, unlike anti-smoking, whose rhetoric has now become repetitive and boring and hackneyed and old, they have lots of new ideas to scare the public with.
Reblogged this on caprizchka and commented:
The latest on the non-danger of tobacco smoke or misery to smokers, and the business of bars, cafes, etc., for no good reason.
This is really scary. Fascism at work! Too bad it is almost too late. Smoking bans indoors and out are on a roll. The new Ontario ban prohibits outdoor smoking patios, as do new bans in the US. The proposed New Orleans ban will eliminate smoking in bars an almost all public streets. Almost the entire US and Canada now and soon China (guess they have to cover up pollution somehow). All based on lies. This needs wide dissemination ASAP!
Those are examples of ‘the Juggernaut’. That is, masses of people who depend upon the lies for their livelihood, and whose livelihoods are protected by the incompetence of Governments world-wide which did not set up controls over the WHO and the IPCC. Thus, those organisations are full of charlatans.
The N.O. BAN has only ONE supporter in council…………..everything else is plastic decorations and their been 4 editorials against any bar bans in New Orleans even in the Leftist NOLA rag!
Well, go ahead :)
I totally agree with you. It is all about power and money. I own a chain of vape shops, and I have seen how corrupt the system is. Everytime they want to air a vape shop on the news, it is always one that is new and they do not know what they are doing. It is like why not go to the big shop that is doing what is right. They want us to die. That is obvious. It is all about who can pay someone off to get their own agenda
Its funnysince Dr Enstroms own study the one he was actually fired over showed outdoor diesel smoke over 25 years showed no effect……………..That was diesel exhaust 2.5pm…………..
Enstrom published peer-reviewed research in 2003 showing that second-hand cigarette smoke doesn’t kill people.
Then he published another politically incorrect, peer-reviewed study in 2005, which showed that fine particulate matter does not kill California residents—the basis of California’s restrictions on diesel engines because of their contributions to particulate air pollution health effects.
In his 2005 study of American Cancer Society data, Enstrom found no scientific evidence to support CARB’s assertion that very fine particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns causes a variety of disease outcomes, including cancer and asthma.
The California Air Resources Board ignored his findings, despite his study, which specifically showed no evidence of premature deaths in California due to exposure to PM2.5.
Enstrom also proved that University of California science professors exaggerated the health effects of diesel particulate in California, knowing the results would be used by the CARB to regulate diesel-engine vehicles.
Enstrom outed the lead “scientist” employed by CARB, Hien Tran, who falsely claimed to have a Ph.D. from UC Davis. Tran had purchased the Ph.D. for $1,000 from a diploma mill. CARB still employs Tran as a scientist, despite his degree hoax.
Enstrom said UCLA retaliated, and told him his research “is not aligned with the department’s mission” at UCLA, as justification for his dismissal after 35 years.
Tran’s research was used by CARB and the Legislature to impose drastic, heavy-handed regulations on owners of diesel engine vehicles.
Enstrom has factually and boldly promoted his studies because he says most of the government policies about air quality regulations come from poor or incorrect science. It has survived intense challenge of its facts from many eminent experts in the field who have been unable to find errors in Enstrom’s methods or findings.
Enstrom said he is not alone in questioning “junk environmental science,” nor is the CARB alone in ignoring studies like his.
Exposing a colleague
Enstrom was also responsible for getting UCLA activist and scientist, John Froines, booted from the CARB Scientific Review Panel, which is responsible for identifying toxic contaminants.
The panel is comprised of nine scientists nominated by the University of California president, who are then formally appointed by the governor, the Senate Rules Committee, the Assembly Speaker, and the California Secretary of Environmental Protection.
Enstrom discovered Froines had been on the panel without reappointment for 25 years, which exceeded the legislatively- mandated three-year term limits.
– See more at: http://www.flashreport.org/blo…
……………….
The Firing Of Dr. James Enstrom: The Dangers of Bucking Fashionable Science
Posted by Katy Grimes at 10:07 pm on Feb 12, 2014
Part l of a series:
Bucking the highly fashionable notion that California’s air pollution is deadly, Dr. James Enstrom was one of only a few scientists willing to blow the whistle on the fraudulent science perpetrated at the California Air Resources Board.
It is often said the cover up is worse than the crime. Dr. Enstrom is living proof.
An attempt to muzzle scientific debate and academic freedom on a University of California college campus is at the root of the wrongful termination lawsuit of Dr. James Enstrom.
Enstrom challenged the scientific research that the California Air Resources Board and California Legislature used to enact policies regulating diesel fuel emissions. And then he was fired from his job of 35 years at University of California, Los Angeles.
– See more at: http://www.flashreport.org/blo…
The Firing Of Dr. James Enstrom: The Dangers of Bucking …
http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2014/02/12/the-firing-of-dr-james-enstrom...
Enstrom published peer-reviewed research in 2003 showing that second-hand cigarette smoke doesn’t kill people. … Enstrom’s research could have put an end …
.
The Firing Of Dr. James Enstrom: The Dangers of Bucking …
watchdogwire.com/california/2014/02/13/the-firing-of-dr-james…
Enstrom published peer-reviewed research in 2003 showing that second-hand cigarette smoke doesn’t kill people. … Enstrom’s research could have put an end …
(Re-analysis of NMMAPS data) Temperature, Not Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5), is Causally Associated with Short-Term Acute Daily Mortality Rates: Results from One Hundred United States Cities. T Cox, D Popken, PF Ricci. Dose Response 2013;11(3): 319–343. “Table 3. Granger tests show no significant causal association between PM2.5 and mortality rates in daily time series.” And: “Table 4. Granger tests strongly reject the null hypothesis of no significant causal association between temperature (tmin) and mortality rates in daily time series.” “The contrast between our negative findings and conclusions from previous analyses of the NMMAPS data set, and other data sets, requires some explanation. We propose that the following factors may contribute to the differences in conclusions… Splines provide some smoothing, and eliminate more confounding than a linear model, but may leave some residual confounding, especially if the spline is relatively stiff… But the methodological point is that, if a clear, robust causal relation exists – one that does not depend on details of modeling choices – then it is puzzling that it is not more apparent when model-free methods and other analyses are used to look for it in this large data set. This may add new weight to previously expressed concerns… that the usual current approaches to analyzing time series data on exposures and mortality rates may be identifying associations that do not necessarily reflect reliable causal relations.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3748846/
And the causal factor that the PM2.5 demagogues are ignoring is the influenza virus: “…the cause of the winter increase in US mortality is singular and probably influenza. Weather and other factors may determine the timing and modulate the magnitude of the winter-season increase in mortality, but the primary determinant appears to be the influenza virus.”
http://www.smokershistory.com/influenza.html#Air_Pollution
Incidentally, Tony Cox is the nephew of Archibald Cox, founder of the Health Effects Institute which concocts much of that engine exhaust junk science. And he doesn’t like the quality of its work! But he’s another Harvard guy, so considering infection probably wouldn’t occur to him in 1000 years.
Enstrom also said 2.5 pm isn’t going to harm you as anything at 1 micron is going to expand and be coughed out of your lungs to begin with!
The WHO now claims that traffic pollution is more dangerous than SHS. Based on all we know today, I think we can safely agree with Enstrom and assume that SHS is definitely not dangerous.
Enstrom has showed that the health effects of diesel smoke (in the dose usually found in the air) are negligible or inexistant.
Why should we believe the WHO’s claim that diesel smoke is dangerous than SHS if in reality? It might be more dangerous, but is it dangerous in absolute terms. The WHO’s history of hyperventilation is notorious; no that the SHS battle is over, they must look for new ventures to keep their seat on the gravy train.
Nine years ago, the European Commission aired a similar scare story:
Air pollution is responsible for 310,000 premature deaths in Europe each year, research suggests.
A study by the European Commission calculated that air pollution reduces life expectancy by an average of almost nine months across the European Union.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4283295.stm
Some typos, sorry, should read: …the WHO’s claim that diesel smoke is more dangerous than SHS? It might be more dangerous, but is it dangerous in absolute terms? The WHO’s history of hyperventilation is notorious; now …
The house of CARBS is fast falling apart ehh!
This could be the biggest one so far. Whether true or false, it could be the start of banning cars from cities; in fact, making them so expensive to run that only the very rich can afford them.
It was either here or Leggy’s where I mentioned Forum for the Future’s cartoon ‘scenarios’ for the year 2040 where we would be crammed into cities (those who refuse to comply will live in ghettos). It was about their forecast that people then would only be able to afford meat on their birthday – maybe – or else it’s pea and potato pie. Again.
But as I wrote at the time (forget the Alex “CIA” Jones praise),
“It would be easy to brush this animation off as just a scenario and not to be taken too seriously, but as I wrote about a few weeks ago when highlighting the Optimum Population Trust’s campaign for a huge reduction in the UK’s population, Forum for the Future offers students the chance to turn their environmental dreams into our common nightmare.”
The Forum for the Future website stated (this was nearly four years ago):
Since 1996 our Masters in Leadership for Sustainable Development has been training the sustainability leaders of the future. Last year we celebrated the graduation of our 165th student, and many graduates are already making their mark as think-tank directors and government advisers.
I have the feeling that smokers will continue to be persecuted, but so will car drivers (even more than presently), using the same tactics of secondhand fumes and no doubt secret UN meetings to discuss raising the taxes on fuel globally by 70% or 700%.
The P.T.B. have used ‘soft’ tactics as once was the case with smokers. We were encouraged to leave the car at home and walk more, take public transport or ride a bike. But it’s not enough. They wanted smokers exiled to the outdoors and they’ll want cars imprisoned in the garage.
Forum for the Future even ‘envisaged’ multi-storey car parks being used to grow vegetables. It now just takes all their “graduates” and the Common Purpose “graduates” and all the others to abuse their positions as think-tank directors and government advisers to actually get all this done.
This is how seriously the humble bicycle is now being taken:
Mayor unveils his 18-mile “Crossrail for the bike”
3 September 2014
Europe’s longest substantially-segregated urban cycleways were unveiled today, the centrepiece of the Mayor’s £913 million commitment to get more Londoners on their bikes.
Two continuous cycle routes almost completely separated from traffic will cross central London from east to west and north to south, opening up thousands of new journey opportunities for cyclists.
The north-south route will run for more than 3 miles from Elephant & Castle to King’s Cross. The east-west route will run from Barking to Acton, a distance of over 18 miles, including a section on the Westway flyover, where one lane will be removed to create a segregated cycle track.
https://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2014/09/mayor-unveils-his-18-mile-crossrail-for-the-bike
Ya we got those bullshit bike trails all over Nashville right in the middle of traffic. Yet nobody uses a single one of them.
Stewart, I’ve often told people over the years that one of the reasons I understand the Antismokers so well and have been “outing” them and their tactics since the ’80s is that I used to BE an Antismoker… of a sort. I was an Antidriver. Full fledged-radical bicycle activist organizing demonstrations and feeling rightful and smug in promoting social engineering and half truths in pursuit of what I then saw as “The Greater Good.”
Needless to say, I no longer believe I have the right to play God with other people’s lives in that fashion, but I *DO* retain the knowledge of the motivations and tactics that lead to things like the antismoking movement and it’s that knowledge that I’ve tried to share in my writings.
– MJM, who still bicycles, but would no longer push for 5 mph speed limits, $20/gallon gasoline, or “allowable parking” rules set up to ensure that most people would have to walk a mile to their homes if they drove.
Tho I agree the warmists and the anti-carists will make promiscuous use of this, I wouldn’t say it exonerates secondhand smoke. If anything, the PR may go that traffic fumes are EVEN more dangerous than (the well-established danger of) secondhand smoke. That meme won’t die easy.
Side note: as Martha Perske once proved to me, the liquor prohibitionists claimed the lethality of a drinker’s exhalations. IOW, secondhand booze .
Be a lot of babies not here today if not for alcohol breathe! And a smoke afterwards.
And I examined “secondhand booze” in my piece in the British Medical Journal at:
http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/secondary-smoke-alcohol-and-deaths
– MJM
OT. Parallels between your (Brit) political disenchantment and ours(Yank).
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/393377/forgotten-americans-victor-davis-hanson
Reblogged this on befrits and commented:
Although I do not agree with no risk from smoking, this post does make a very strong case for second hand vapor being completely harmless. Even if cigarettes didn’t cause cancer (they do) the plethora of other nasty diseases is good enough by far, cause to not smoke.
Proof if its purely belief your relying on theres plenty of IDOLOGY worship groups out there!
Even if cigarettes didn’t cause cancer (they do) the plethora of other nasty diseases is good enough by far, cause to not smoke.
Oh, that does explain why the baby boomer generation (growing up with “smoking everywhere”) has been told to work to the ages of 67 (males) and 65 (females). I thought it was because we do live longer?
Dr. Silverman said her research indicated that occupational diesel exposure was a far greater lung cancer risk than passive cigarette smoking
Bus workers file suit against diesel companies
“For 32 years, Connor Hartnett worked in bus depots throughout the city with little or no ventilation. Diesel fumes from hundreds of idling buses were so thick he often couldn’t read the identification numbers on the vehicles.
“There were times you couldn’t see the buses,” said Hartnett, 73, who retired in 1992 and now has inoperable lung cancer and a heart condition.
Yesterday, Hartnett and 17 others filed suit against diesel engine manufacturers, claiming that exposure to the particulate matter in the emissions caused their severe illnesses. Hartnett’s attorneys estimate that he was exposed for 42,960 hours during his time as a bus driver and shifter. Other in the case had more exposure, like mechanics Vincenzo Mancio and Joseph Ganz, who are now deceased from cancer and heart problems and are represented by family in the law suit.
At the end of his shift Emidio DeStefano, 71, drove his bus into the back entrance of a depot he worked at for 20 years at 126th Street near the East River. He and the others then had to walk the length of the massive structure, some three blocks, to the other side. It was a slow walk because he often had to squeeze between the buses parked cheek by jowl. “There was no air whatsoever,” he said. He said they complained to supervisors but nothing was ever changed.
Today he has throat cancer. All the doctors at the hospital ask him, how many packs a day do you smoke. “I never smoked in my life,” he said.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20090330173714/http://www.amny.com/news/local/transportation/am-bus0819,0,6550452.story
Devil in the diesel
“A COMPOUND discovered in the exhaust fumes of diesel engines may be the most strongly carcinogenic ever analysed, say Japanese researchers. They warn that a major source of the chemical is heavily loaded diesel engines, and that it could be partly responsible for the large number of lung cancer cases in cities.
The compound, 3-nitrobenzanthrone, produced the highest score ever reported in an Ames test, a standard measure of the cancer-causing potential of toxic chemicals.
“I personally believe that the recent increase in the number of lung cancer patients in vehicle-congested areas is closely linked with respirable carcinogens such as 3-nitrobenzanthrone,” says Hitomi Suzuki, a chemist at Kyoto University who led the study. Test emissions from truck engines and the air above central Tokyo both contained the compound”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15621050.200
Discussion on diesel killing Australians – 2003
“Diesel exhaust is a chemical cocktail of about 450 different compounds. At least 40 are toxic contaminants like arsenic, benzine, cadmium, dioxins, toluene and formaldehyde.
Even the two most carcinogenic chemicals ever discovered, 3-nitrobenzanthrone and 1,8-dinitropyrene, are found in diesel exhaust, especially from engines working under heavy load.
The particles provide a microscopic delivery system that carries these toxic payloads inside the body, and deep into the lungs.”
http: //www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/dirty-diesel/3536020#transcript
Forces Tavern having crashed a week ago and taken Rose’s Garden with it, I have had to go back as far as Catch 5 to find these!
Thanks, Rose. I read what I think was the Dr Silverman study years ago and was going to try to find it for this post.
Anyone who thinks traffic fumes are harmless should try waiting for a bus at my local bus station on a bad day. Increase in road traffic in UK since 1960 (say) – about x15?
I remembered some more, Margo.
DIESEL EXHAUST CALLED PERIL IN NEW YORK CITY
May 19, 1985
“Exhaust from diesel-powered buses and trucks is a serious and growing threat to health and the environment in New York City, according to a report by a national environmental group.
The report, prepared by the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that more than 3,000 tons of toxic particles from diesel engines were ”spewed into the air in New York City every year.” It said the pollution was increasing as more diesel vehicles entered the city’s streets.
The report also said recent health surveys had linked diesel particles with elevated levels of lung cancer. Diesel exhausts also degrade visibility in urban areas, create noxious fumes and deposit dirt on buildings and other structures, it said.”
“It also charged that environmental agencies at the city, state and Federal level had failed to address the problem adequately.”
”Diesel emissions are probably the single most important air-quality threat in New York City today,” said Eric A. Goldstein, a lawyer for the environmental group and an author of the report. ”But city, state and Federal agencies have not yet mounted a broad-based counterattack.”
The report said the diesel-exhaust problem was particularly acute for New York because of the large numbers of buses that jammed the city. It called the city ”the nation’s bus capital,” with more than 5,600 buses on the streets and highways each day. The problem is compounded by the tens of thousands of trucks as well as diesel-powered taxicabs and private cars.”
Asthmatic Girl Used in NY Traffic-Fee Ad
Image of Asthmatic Girl Used to Promote NYC Mayor’s Traffic-Fee Plan – 2007
“NEW YORK – A sad-looking little girl squeezes an asthma inhaler, with a message imploring lawmakers to approve Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to reduce traffic and pollution by charging motorists who drive into Manhattan.
The tag line: “She cannot hold her breath waiting for Albany to act.”
“The mayor’s car tax is not a cure for asthma what it is is a giant bureaucracy funded by a regressive tax,” said Weiner, D-N.Y.”
http: //readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=48914
When I first started looking I hadn’t even thought about ships contributing to the Great Smog of London or the respiratory diseases in London Boroughs.
Diesel Fumes From Ports Raising Cancer Risk in Region, Study Says
2005
“Pollution from L.A. and Long Beach harbors is cited in findings released by Air Resources Board.
Diesel fumes from the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach are elevating the risk of cancer not only adjacent to the ports but many miles inland, a new study shows.
It is the first state study that shows that air pollution from the ports is increasing cancer risk in the Los Angeles Basin, said Jerry Martin, spokesman for the California Air Resources Board, which released a draft of the study Tuesday.
The study concludes that potential cancer risk from port-related diesel fumes exceeds 50 additional cases of cancer per million people for residents within 15 miles of the two ports.
Two million people live within the study area, which includes southern Los Angeles County and western Orange County.”
“What we are saying is that on top of that, 100 [in the study area] are going to have cancer for no other reason than the diesel pollution from the ports,” Martin said. He said lung cancer is the primary risk from diesel fumes. Lung cancer is usually fatal.
The 53,000 people who live nearest the two seaports face a risk exceeding 500 in a million from port pollution alone, according to the study.
Under state law, fixed facilities such as refineries and dry cleaners must post warnings if the potential cancer risk exceeds 10 additional cases of cancer per million people. In the Los Angeles area, polluters must prepare detailed plans and slash emissions if the risk exceeds 25 cases per million.
The sources of much of the diesel exhaust, however, are not covered by those rules because ships, trains, trucks and cargo equipment are considered “mobile sources” that are regulated less stringently.”
“Earlier research had found that diesel fumes accounted for 71% of the cancer risk associated with air pollution in the Los Angeles region.
Other reports have looked at cancer risk from a variety of sources. But the state study is the first comprehensive look at the cancer risk of diesel fumes generated within the ports. The fumes are especially harmful to children and the elderly.
“I’m not aware of any other assessment on emissions and risks from the ports that have been done in so much detail,” said Jean Ospital, health effects officer at the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which regulates air quality in the Los Angeles Basin.
One surprise in the study is that pollution from within the two ports extends so far inland, Ospital said.”
“The health effects of diesel fumes from the two ports extend beyond cancer, the report states. It estimates that such pollution each year causes 29 premature deaths of people aged 30 and older, 750 asthma attacks, 6,600 lost workdays and 35,000 days of minor restricted activity.
Some activists say the study seriously underestimates the medical impact of port-related emissions because it fails to consider truck and train activity that extends beyond the ports’ boundaries. The study does not include such emission sources as the truck-clogged 710 Freeway and the sprawling rail yards of Los Angeles and Commerce.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/oct/05/local/me-air4
“In light of WHO’s statements, it is not illogical to say that it does not matter to your health whether you are walking in a normally busy street, or you are sitting in a smoking cafe. If the air is more harmful on a dose response level in the streets, then what exactly is the point of banning smoking in the cafe?”
Tsktsk Frank! You’re not being properly paranoid here! Think about it: the bans have moved smokers outdoors to sit in the carcinogenic diesel fumes while they smoke. Soooo… we will now start developing BETTER statistics showing that smokers get more lung cancer!
Meanwhile, with this new emphasis on evilcars and holycycles, I think it’s time I resurrected my first official publication, “Free Peoples Transit,” published in WIN Magazine almost forty years ago, in which I show quite nicely why I understand the Antismokers’ Brains! You’ll get to see me using the early forms of their techniques in all their prehistoric glory as I launch into a full-fledged attack on the child-mangling auto-addicts in their Detroit Death Machines as they pollute our air, eviscerate our lives, destroy our world, and recycle cyclists into road pizza!
I guess one thing I can thank the Antismokers for is that they helped me see the error of my ways. While I still have many fragments of the same feelings toward autocentric society, the Antis taught me the wrongness of using propaganda techniques and social engineering “nudges” to push my views upon everyone else. You’ll see, when I get the article up! :> I’ll be emailing Samantha to see if she’ll host my little treatise at smokersclubinc.com and I’ll letcha’ll know when it’s up ‘n runnin’!
:)
MJM
The Prime Minister Davis Cameron said today on PMQ’s that the WHO need’s reorganisation and regionally the WHO is not fit for purpose, not sure what the topic was they were discussing I assume the Ebolo outbreak, it does appear now that the WHO’s incompetence has actually been noted by the PM, Frank you were a little faster on pointing this out here. https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/critics-pile-in/
Greg
In other news:
NHS to discontinue dementia diagnosis payments to GP practices
Scheme to improve diagnosis rates has been fiercely criticised by GPs and patient groups will not be renewed in March
To my knowledge the payments to a health official for bullying a smoker to stop smoking for a month continue.
This is exactly the kind of worthless garbage that we don’t need. Bickering over whether diesel exhaust or secondhand smoke is a gambit for losers. It accepts the health fascists’ scientific fraud of ignoring the role of infection as legitimate. And it leads to the idiocy of attempting to refute the dangers of every individual supposed carcinogen. The anti-smokers fire a shotgun, and these fools think they should try to chase down every individual pellet! And if they ever finished their fools’ errand, it still wouldn’t threaten the anti-smokers’ junk science!
And that “Big Pharma” garbage is completely the opposite of reality! “These companies have gained a tremendous economic advantage since the declaration of mortal risk of secondhand smoke, because the smoking bans were introduced to protect against that risk.” As if Samet, who received millions of dollars from the US government both before and during his anti-smoking activism, only engaged in that activism because of trifling gratuities from the pharmaceutical companies! The so-called research behind this nonsense is not even marginally competent, either historically or financially. The truth is that the US government has funded Samet’s career, and “Big Pharma” only got involved VERY belatedly; and it is doubtful that they did so for financial reasons, because their profits of quit-smoking products are such a tiny proportion of their total profits. The real corruption probably flows in exactly the OPPOSITE direction that this tripe pretends, namely that Pharma only got involved because SAMET instigated them, by using his connections to get government funding for things that they were really interested in.
Samet has received at least $19,400,186 since 1991, which doesn’t include two projects funded by AHRQ. That’s an average of $843,486 per year, over 23 years. $10,000 amounts to only 1.1% of his income, and for all we know it was merely to cover travel costs.
http://projectreporter.nih.gov/Reporter_Viewsh.cfm?sl=13EBCF0A468DC4D17598B8961CAA4A01A2FFCEB861BF
And as for that bogus “tremendous economic advantage” from quit-smoking products: Global revenues of pharmaceuticals were about $531,340,000,000 in 2013, and none of the top 50 products are NRTs. Global sales of nicotine replacement products were about $4.5 billion in 2011, which is just 0.85%, LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF THEIR BUSINESS REVENUE!
Plus, it completely ignores the fact that aound 62% of quitters gave concern about health-related issues as a major reason for quitting, while less than 5% used a nicotine patch, less than 2% used prescription gum, and less than 1% used nicotine gum to do so. So you put a magnifying glass on less than 10% to make them look big so you can yap as if Big Pharma is to blame for it all, while tacitly endorsing the junk science science the anti-smokers’ health lies are based upon.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1717/tobacco-smoking.aspx
concern about health-related issues as a major reason for quitting
Brain washing of the weakest…………………
This is exactly the kind of worthless garbage that we don’t need. Bickering over whether diesel exhaust or secondhand smoke is a gambit for losers.
It accepts the health fascists’ scientific fraud of ignoring the role of infection as legitimate
One small problem, the rise in lung cancer is supposed to have started around 1920, but even exposure to mustard gas in WW1 doesn’t explain the difference in rates between towns and rural areas.
If it is caused by an infection why did it suddenly appear then, better diagnosis perhaps? And how would you explain the urban rural divide.
Environmental Causes of Cancer of the Lung Other Than Tobacco Smoke – 1956
W. C. HUEPER
“In fact the first observations on an appreciable rise in the frequency of lung cancer were reported from the highly industrialized cities of densely populated Saxony during the first two decades of this century.
Some years later it was found that high lung cancer rates existed for the population of the industrialized territory of the Ruhr valley, while they were below average for the agricultural region of the Main valley.”
Click to access 141.pdf
Which was still there in 1983.
The Urban Distribution of Lung Cancer Mortality in England and Wales 1980-1983
“Lung cancer area mortality rates for the period 1980-1983 in England and Wales followed the pattern observed for previous years, with high rates concentrated in urban districts and low rates in remote rural districts.”
http://usj.sagepub.com/content/25/6/497.short
Even a genetic disposition to lung cancer still doesn’t explain that.
Prof. Grieshaber has made an interesting comparison between smoking prevalence and mortality from lung cancer. He can’t find any correlation. Although the text is in German, the graphs give you an idea of how he comes to his conclusion.
better diagnosis
Only after the advent of XRAYS were they able to increase diagnosis! That appeared just prior to the 1920 increase you described. Consumption or lung fever may well have always been LC instead of something else.
And who is to say that before the knew precisely how much dose radiation was ok that they didn’t expose MEGAREMS into everyone across a whole slew of body parts……….
As we all know radiation is a cell disrupter/cancer causing agent proven!
They even had foot xray nickelodians out there that had a screen to see your foot on xray in kiddy arcades back at the turn of the last century………..
And why do you expect me to explain things for which there is no data, specifically data on HPV? Surely even you know that angels don’t go around equitably sprinkling viruses on everyone.
Well quite, but there does have to be some logical reason for the urban rural divide and so far the only thing that was truly new and the human race had never been exposed to before is the man made carcinogens in diesel which would be mostly found in high concentrations in towns.
That’s if indeed the causative agent comes from without rather than within.
The urban rural divide is what stops me reaching any firm conclusion.
Testimony of Dr Hueper 1957
“They manipulated the evidence. Anyone who introduces a corrective factor in his calculations to make the evidence fit a preconceived idea, I do not feel that this is valid scientific evidence.
“Do you feel, in view of what you said, that the application of a corrective factor means a predetermined manipulation in this case?
A.In this case I could not say, no.
Q I want to get clear on that.You asked me to read on. I will do that. This appears on Page 435 of your May, 1957 article and reads;
“However, even this estimate is heavily biased by the arbitrary assumption that the benzpyrene content present allegedly in cigarette smoke was about 12 times as effective in eliciting cancers as benzpyrene demonstrated in atmospheric air.
Only when such a “corrective” coefficient is applied was it possible to obtain proportional correlations between the total exposure to benzpyrene from both cigarette smoking and air pollutants and the relative incidence rates of lung cancer found in the industrialized metropolitan Liverpool area, an intermediary urban-rural region, and the rural area of North Wales”
A That is right.
Q That was your statement.
A I would like to have that on the record too.
Q All right. It is in Doctor”
http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/503243231-3367.html?zoom=750&ocr_position=above_foramatted&start_page=91
Mortality in the London Boroughs, 1950—52, with Special Reference to Respiratory Disease
“It is interesting to note the parallel between these figures and those of a recent study of cancer among British immigrants in New Zealand ( Eastcott, 1956)
Compared with the native born population, British immigrants had an excessive risk of death from cancer of the lung (but no other site),and this excess was sufficiently greater for persons who had lived in Britain until they were 30 years old than for those who migrated at an earlier age.
Thus emerges from both studies a consistent relationship between duration of exposure to the putatively noxious environment and risk of later death from respiratory disease.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1058618/?page=4
That old antique stuff is just an irrelevant sidetrack.
I think it’s important to know where it all begin in the UK, after all we are having to wade through decades of propaganda, so it’s very relevant to us.
12 thousand deaths from air pollution is why the government of the day grabbed the much disputed Doll study, they were afraid that they would be held responsible for their policy of sending all the clean coal for export.
I don’t know much about the UK, because I was hoping someone who’s from there would do it, as I truly have my hands full already.
It’s what I’ve been attempting to do for the past seven years, as well as researching the plant.
It seems that the Rockefeller Foundation went looking for a new, less critical base of operations and found us.
Rockefeller gave lots of money to Harvard, too. But it wouldn’t be correct to accuse him of corrupting them, because they were that way already, anyhow.
@carol2000: It is misleading to compare Pfizer & Glaxo’s revenue from smoking replacement products with the total world-wide revenue of the pharma industry and on that basis claim that Big Pharma had no involvement in the smoking bans.
The article does not say that pharma’s economic advantage happens solely because of “quit-smoking products”, but that it is due to the smoking bans – Nicorette etc. revenues are only part of the picture, and, in contrast to what you assume, Nicorette is not sold to quitters but to smokers who can no longer smoke at work. The smoking bans are the cause of pharma’s economic advantage: Pharma businesses have been very good after the “crisis” in Europe since 2007, while other industries have been sufffering – and it is quite clear that the scientific groundwork under the smoking ban recommendation is the passive smoking “danger” claim by Jonathan Samet et al.
It is no wonder at all that J. Samet and the other “experts” behind the smoking ban recommendation have ties to the industry – it is exactly the same picture we saw in the never happening H1N1-flu WHO-pandemic in 2009: The experts who adviced WHO to declare pandemic had close money ties to GlaxoSmithKline – the vaccine selling company.
Anyway we’ve been through this discussion before but you keep advancing the same arguments even though they are refuted.
The smoking bans are the cause of pharma’s economic advantage
Its called rent seeking legislation. Insurance companies have done it for decades along with other entities. With smoking bans each state had within its law that roughly 300 million per state in smoking cession drugs would be bought by the state to hand out to quitters via the ACS run nation wide quit line service they ran generating themselves a cool 12 million a year for the efforts………..
But there is much more in it for Big Pharma than “smoking cessation drugs”. The Nicorette-business in itself is huge thanks to the scheme of ever-rising prices following pharma’s lobby calls for ever-rising cigarette taxes. And since the smoking bans make many smokers depressive the anti-depressivant sales are soaring too. We have also recorded a huge rise in suicides and suicide attempts. Not mentioning all the drugs for diseases that are directly caused by smoking cessation, like diabetes type-2 and hypothyroidism.
Smoking bans are a way of changing society to suit Big Pharma’s needs. Which is why diseases skyrocket when smoking bans are kicked in. This article is in Danish, but you’ll understand the graph which is showing hospital admissions in Denmark:
http://dengulenegl.dk/blog/?p=4412
All that specious claptrap about “rent seeking” is so that you can avoid pointing your finger in the right direction, namely at the American Cancer Society, et al., which is an ideological special interest, far more than a medical one. They want power, and thanks to your eagerness to avoid blaming them for anything, they have no trouble getting it handed to them without a fight. All because YOU insist on blaming “Big Pharma” instead! Simply because YOU have it in for “Big Pharma,” because that’s what the politically-connected Harvard propaganda machine yaps about, and you’d rather follow the herd and feel powerful than to speak the truth. No, the ACS doesn’t just passively operate a quit line. The ACS was the prime instigator behind the National Cancer Institute way back in 1937, and they’ve operated their own unaccountable branch of pseudo-science under its auspices ever since. The ACS created their own propaganda factory and cultivated the mass media to spread their ideology, while “Big Pharma” has done nothing of the sort. And that’s how they brainwashed YOU so that you think that studies based on lifestyle questionnaires that ignore the role of infection are legitimate science. Bashing “Big Pharma” does absolutely nothing to attack that scientific fraud, which is obviously exactly how you want it. What the hell do you think – that judges are going to throw out smoking bans merely on the incidental circumstance that some company might make money peddling nicotine gum (or any kind of gum for that matter), while ignoring the (flagrantly fraudulent) “evidence” that secondhand smoke is “dangerous”? Jeezus H F’ing Xr$t, that is the stupidest thing I ever heard.
“THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY”
“The American Cancer Society was founded in 1913 by 10 doctors and 5 laypeople in New York City. It was called the American Society for the Control of Cancer (ASCC).”
Carol, would that be J.D. Rockefeller, Standard Oil, just after his diversification into selling petrochemical based medicines and collecting pharmaceutical companies?
http://www.whale.to/a/bealle.htm#What_Nujol_Started_
I read somewhere else that it was General Motors. Alfred P. Sloan and Charles Kettering so it gets confusing
I think the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, founded by the Rockefeller Foundation is where Richard Doll as a Rockefeller student did his London Hospital study.
So I feel that Big Oil started it all rather than Big Pharma
But I’m rather shaky on my American history.
Memo Re: General Motors Press Conference With Doll R Discussing Link Between Cancer and Chemicals 1979
“Thanx for the NL “special” about Sir Richard Doll. I’think it is exactly the sort of thing we need to make the Newsletter more informative; apparently, also, it is what our readers want.
I attended General Motors’ press conference this morning for Sir Richard. He should have had on a GM blue blazer. Doll said it is a mistake to attribute cancer to recent developments in industrial countries. “I don’t expect much trouble from chemicals – introduced in the last 30 years,” he said.”
“TTO asked Doll: “Do you have any second thoughts at all — since your work does deal with cancer and the environment — about accepting an award from an industry which is having its own controversies concerning polluting the environment.
” Doll: “No ……. To be honest with you, No.”
(Another scribe to me: “He’s blushing.”)
GM Cancer Foundation Pres. then jumped in to explain that “great pains” are taken to separate GM the company from the foundation.”
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIMN0110278-0279.html
The financial elites of New York City were prime movers behind the ASCC in 1913. George C. Clark [of Clark, Dodge & Co., private bankers], was president from 1913-19. Rockefeller’s crony Thomas M. Debevoise was there, also Mrs. Frederick W. Vanderbilt and Mrs. Russell Sage. With links to the ones I have some research about.
http://www.smokershistory.com/ASCC.htm
Also, Mrs. Thomas M. Debevoise was a niece of Henry W. Farnam, S&B 1874, of the Life Extension Institute and the “Committee of Fifty” anti-smoking conspiracy.
Thanks Carol, I knew you’d know.
Also, Rockefeller’s boy, Sen. Royal S. Copeland, was chairman of the committee that submitted the joint House-Senate legislation which created the National Cancer Institute in 1937. Eustace Mullins I think said of Copeland that Rockefeller hadn’t corrupted him because he’d never had any desire in his life other than to serve John D. Rockefeller anyhow.
“So I feel that Big Oil started it all rather than Big Pharma”
@Rose: It is the same thing, the same owners and the same kind of business: Chemicals.
See one of Carol’s many links: Eustace Mullins. Very interesting – good supplement to Morris Bealle:
http://www.afn.org/~govern/rockefeller.html
“He should have had on a GM blue blazer.” ;)
@Rose: In the article there’s a link to a piece about the Danish researcher Knud Wilson. The article itself is in Danish unfortunately, but there are some links in it to good English articles about the corrupt Sir Richard: http://dengulenegl.dk/blog/?p=3586
“@Rose: It is the same thing, the same owners and the same kind of business:”
I know Klaus, I was being pedantic : )
Thank you for the links about Doll, I might be able to give you a few more.
He’s one of the first people I researched, I just knew I’d find an Englishman at the bottom if it.
That man lied to me all my life from my PVC coat to the lead in my petrol but the only thing I never believed was his study on tobacco smoking.
Re Mullins’ claims about supposed Rothschild-Rockefeller connections – every bank in Cleveland was happy to lend to the Rockefellers, not just the supposed “Rothschild” one. And none of the authors who drivel so much about Rothschilds ever mention the original partners of their agent, the first August Belmont, namely Charles Christmas and Ehrard Adolf Mattheissen (a German of Danish descent). Most of the Matthiessen brothers were involved in the American Sugar Refining Co. (aka the Sugar Trust). There was also one who owned a zinc refinery in Illinois.
We already know beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt exactly who is responsible for the anti-smoking persecution – THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, plus supporting roles by its crony organizations, the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association. The pharmaceutical companies practically had to be dragged into it, by the anti-smoking thugs who have controlled the federal health establishment from the very beginning, and anybody who goes around yapping about “Big Pharma” is nothing but a damn liar! A damn liar with some ulterior motive, such as peddling our enemies’ worthless nostrums of magic fruits and vegetables and BS, or simply Quack Pharma. And that would explain why they haven’t the slightest interest in exposing any genuine scientific fraud or corruption.
As mentioned earlier I find it very naive to suggest that extremists, organisations or individuals, would have any power in the world without heavy financial backup from the ones who are profiting from their actions. It is like saying: Politics are important, money is not. Obviously this is not true. For your information: Money rules the world. Big Pharma corporate leaders are not dumb – they know exactly what they are doing, and therefore they shower disease charities like the cancer societies with money:
http://acscan.org/corporatemembers
You put the cart before the horse, as always. The pharmaceutical company “contributions” to the Cancer Society are TRIBUTE, not bribes. As I said, we already know beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt who is responsible for the anti-smoking persecution, and that is the Cancer Society. It was at their behest that the National Cancer Institute was created, back when the pharmaceutical industry was knee-high to a grasshopper. They staffed the new NCI with their people. And after WWII, In the person of Mary Woodard Lasker et al., they propagandized the public and lobbied the government to create more National Institutes of This, That and The Other. The Cancer Society’s interest is in mass epidemiology, to manufacture pretexts for meddling in peoples’ lifestyles. The pharmaceutical companies’ interests are in getting approval for drugs, which is the concern of the Food and Drug Administration, and is separate from the National Institutes. The primary interface between the Cancer Society and the pharmaceutical companies is about DRUGS TO TREAT CANCER – not quit-smoking crap. You completely ignore this vast market!! That is why they are there, and everything else is pulled out of your ideologically-biased butt. As I’ve said before, the “Big Pharma” haters are all ideologues from the camp of our enemies, who want to peddle their worthless nostrums of magic fruits and vegetables and BS. And as for whether “Big Pharma” or Big BS is more scientific, the randomized controlled trials of drugs are of far better quality any day than the health fascists’ junk on whose basis they want to run our lives. And note in particular that on the few occasions when lifestyle interventions are actually tested with a randomized controlled trial, that is when they fall flat on the faces and fail.
The market for drugs to treat cancer was $91 billion in 2013.
http://www.imshealth.com/portal/site/imshealth/menuitem.c76283e8bf81e98f53c753c71ad8c22a/?vgnextoid=19b381d71adc5410VgnVCM10000076192ca2RCRD&vgnextchannel=5ec1e590cb4dc310VgnVCM100000a48d2ca2RCRD
Versus $4.5 billion for quit-smoking crap. As if it’s not obvious that the vast majority of those pharmaceutical companies have nothing in the quit-smoking market in the first place.
To Big Pharma the cancer & health “charities” are just foot soldiers in their army, who they call to media-war when they want to prevent their hidden negative trials from reaching the public mind:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/21/big-pharma-secret-drugs-trials
None of your anti-Big Pharma screeds are of any conceivable use for smoking-related scientific fraud. It is the propaganda of a particular little well-connected ideological genre, whose concerns are irrelevant to smokers’ rights. We should be asking, who funds YOUR cause?
So today I learned I am “a damn liar” with an “ideologically-biased butt” who “haven’t the slightest interest in exposing any genuine scientific fraud or corruption.” I belong to “the camp of our enemies, who want to peddle their worthless nostrums of magic fruits and vegetables and BS.”
Very funny. Thank you! For your information I am just following the money. A well-known journalistic discipline that you for some reason never heard of. That is a shame though, because applying the money trail to your own impressive research would put it in proper perspective. You would have many more readers if you didn’t constantly pretend that your “enemies” are fighting you because of their evil characters or because they went to the same school as kids and that money has nothing to do with it. Because it has. No “evil” extemist group or individual will get anywhere in the world without heavy financial backing from those who are profiting from their actions. It applies to Hitler, Lasker, Lenin, Glantz, as well as any other succesful extremist / activist you can think of. This is the truth and you should imo stop pretending otherwise.
You’re not following the money. You look at a little teeny bit of it and pretend it’s the whole pile. And you look at only one possible motive and pretend it’s the only one that exists. That’s dishonesty. Plus, besides ignoring the $91 billion market for cancer drugs, you’re also ignoring the fact that the US federal government funds far more research than all private industry put together, and the Cancer Society et al. have always had a stranglehold on that. They don’t need to beg for industry peanuts. Your “Big Pharma” story is nothing but a crock, and the bottom line of it all is that out of the whole voluminous pile of pretended exposes of their supposed wrongdoing, not a single one of them is of any value or relevance to our concerns about anti-smoker scientific fraud.
The Amish aren’t wealthy, but they have enough influence to cut their own deal with the U.S. government regarding income taxes and the ACA. I believe it’s by court decision. And it’s because they’re organized, which certain people seem to regard as unnecessary.
Why do you pretend that the US-government is not corrupted by the medical monopoly aka Big Pharma? Everybody knows it is. There is a reason America has the highest drug prices in the world – the US-government is sitting on Big Pharma’s lap. Just like the French government:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/14/french-doctors-drugs-useless-dangerous
That’s called a non-sequitur, to claim that drug prices are high, therefore pharmaceutical companies must be lobbying the government for smoking bans. As if we’re supposed to believe that whining about high drug prices will make smoking bans go away. It’s another example of how your drivel is worthless to us, and also amounts to trying to co-opt us to serve other peoples’ agendas.
Confusing the facts with strawmen. That’s a discipline you seem to be very familiar with. I did not “claim that drug prices are high, therefore pharmaceutical companies must be lobbying the government for smoking bans” – that’s just bullshit.
I wrote that the US-government is corrupted by Big Pharma, which is FYI the truth. There is a million tons of evidence for that claim:
http://www.cdcfoundation.org/pr/2011/new-research-initiative-examines-economic-impact-smoke-free-policies-restaurants-and-bars
For what reason then did you just claim that “There is a reason America has the highest drug prices in the world – the US-government is sitting on Big Pharma’s lap”? And then you expect people to make a mental leap between the cost of drugs and persecuting smokers? That’s crackpot “reasoning,” and no thanks to it. As I said, the crap you’re peddling has nothing to do with our concerns.
And what, pray, are “our concerns”?
Our foremost concern is that the anti-smokers deliberately and systematically commit scientific fraud to falsely blame smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection. Our policy objective should be to ensure that the government does not fund this kind of fraudulent research, and that those within the government who have employed this fraud should be removed from their positions.
The consequences of this fraud have been immense, because it has served to justify everything from smoking bans to raising cigarette taxes to taking smokers’ children away, not to mention everyday discomfort and inconvenience for tens of millions of smokers. Worst of all, it deceives smokers into quitting and other people into not starting, and thus weakens our political base to resist further encroachments against our liberties and property.
The only word in that which I disagree with is the fourth word: “is”. Because I don’t think that our foremost concern actually is that. I think everybody reading this blog will have slightly different foremost concerns. You might of course think that systematic scientific fraud should be our foremost concern (and you probably do), but that doesn’t actually make it our foremost concern.
And why should systematic scientific fraud be our foremost concern? Assuming that it actually is fraud (and I’m increasingly of the view that it is indeed deliberate fraud), a lot of that fraud was carried out 50 – 80 years ago, and many of its practitioners are now dead. It won’t help us much to get governments to stop funding current fraudulent research, when it’s the stuff that was carried out many decades ago that is principally being used against us. It would be like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.
It’s really not good enough to stop the fraud that is now being committed. Past fraud has to be dealt with as well, because it’s that “well-established” fraud (e.g. smoking causes lung cancer) that is doing us the most harm.
Furthermore, can we separate fraudulent antismoking science from other scientific fraud? A lot of people think that the global warming scare is another enormous fraud. Or at least isn’t happening. It seems to me that science in general has been subjected to something of a tidal wave of fraud.
Or do you think that antismoking fraud is the only fraud that matters?
And I say that regardless of whether you realize it or not. anti-smoker scientific fraud “IS” our foremost concern. As for everybody having different concerns, just remember the saying that for every person attacking the root of a problem, there are a thousand futilely hacking away at the branches. Yes, that fraud was begun 50-80 years ago, but the fact that they continue to do the same thing now is an outrage. That old junk is NOT what is principally being used against us – see every Surgeon General report. As I often say, the Nazis could hide behind the excuse of ignorance about the role of infection for their lifestyle pseudo-science, but today’s anti-smokers CANNOT. Your ridiculous attitude is that they should be allowed to continue getting away with it just because they’ve gotten away with it for decades! What are you, a lawyer or something? In science, established beliefs are supposed to be modified and adjusted to accord with new knowledge (and the fact that they’re not demonstrates how unscientific the anti-smokers really are). And YES, anti-smoking fraud is the only scientific fraud that really matters to me.
And I say that regardless of whether you realize it or not. anti-smoker scientific fraud “IS” our foremost concern.
My primary concern is with the social catastrophe that smoking bans bring, as societies are torn apart. Because that’s my personal experience. That’s not just an ‘inconvenience’. That’s a catastrophe.
Put it this way. The Titanic hit an iceberg and sank (let us say) because the captain wanted to cross the Atlantic in record time. But I’m not concerned with who is to blame, who lied, or who cheated. I’m concerned about all the people floating in the water. That’s what matters. We can apportion blame later.
That old junk is NOT what is principally being used against us
That ‘old junk’ is the reason why smokers have been quitting smoking for the past 50 years.
In science, established beliefs are supposed to be modified and adjusted to accord with new knowledge
Antismoking science is a parody of science, and always has been. It’s not science at all. These people start with the conclusions, and then look around for evidence to support those conclusions. These people don’t do science.
“My primary concern is with the social catastrophe that smoking bans bring, as societies are torn apart. Because that’s my personal experience. That’s not just an ‘inconvenience’. That’s a catastrophe.”
That’s a thoroughly useless concern, because the anti-smokers will simply point out that all you have to do is submit to them and everybody will all be unanimous. There, are you happy? I damn well want to rip things apart just as hard as I can.
“That ‘old junk’ is the reason why smokers have been quitting smoking for the past 50 years.” And you refuse to expose it for the fraud that it is, never mind tackling the recent stuff.
the anti-smokers will simply point out that all you have to do is submit to them and everybody will all be unanimous.
No they won’t be unanimous. They’ll be divided. Ignoring one entire section of society doesn’t produce unanimity.
And you refuse to expose it for the fraud that it is, never mind tackling the recent stuff.
I’ve devoted several essays to the Doll and Hill London Hospitals study, which is where the fraud started (in the UK at least).
“Ignoring one entire section of society doesn’t produce unanimity”
The anti-smokers would say that’s just because YOU’RE being stubborn. And they don’t care anyhow. They figure they’ll just wait for your generation to croak.
“I’ve devoted several essays to the Doll and Hill London Hospitals study, which is where the fraud started (in the UK at least).”
Which bothers the anti-smokers not one whit, because they have new junk that doesn’t have the nitpicky problems you regard as important. But they still ignore the role of infection, which is even more outrageous because there is now far more evidence that they are ignoring.
They figure they’ll just wait for your generation to croak.
They might have to wait rather a long time.
Which bothers the anti-smokers not one whit, because they have new junk
That’s true. Tobacco Control is just a lie machine. And even if you take apart the new junk, they’ll have even newer junk tomorrow. And the day after. And yes, of course they ignore they role of infection. They ignore everything that doesn’t fit into their scheme of things.
“And even if you take apart the new junk, they’ll have even newer junk tomorrow. And the day after. And yes, of course they ignore they role of infection. They ignore everything that doesn’t fit into their scheme of things.”
You miss the point. The new junk supposedly fixes those little nitpicks about the old junk – except for that fraud of ignoring the role of infection, which escapes unscathed every time.
It’s not little nitpicks. Their entire methodology is junk. You’ve said as much yourself: “questionnaire science” I think you called it.
You’re still missing the point. Don’t waste time on the little stuff. Ignoring the role of infection is what matters, and it’s the defect in all their junk, even when they fix the little stuff in later studies. Wasting time over little stuff only makes it look as if there isn’t any bigger stuff.
Ignoring the role of infection is what matters, and it’s the defect in all their junk
It’s one defect in all their junk. There are other defects. What makes you think that it matters more than, say, ignoring the role of radioactive fallout in cancer causation?
Infection matters more because SMOKERS ARE MORE OFTEN EXPOSED TO THOSE INFECTIONS, for socioeconomic reasons. Their bogus studies are designed to exploit this circumstance in order to lay false blame on smoking. But smokers are NOT more likely to have been exposed to radioactive fallout (unless you’ve swallowed their polonium-lung cancer crap that even the Surgeon General ignores nowadays).
SMOKERS ARE MORE OFTEN EXPOSED TO THOSE INFECTIONS,
Are there studies that show that smokers get more of (for example) HPV than non-smokers? And is it all smokers, or just smokers who live in crowded ghettoes?
smokers are NOT more likely to have been exposed to radioactive fallout
It depends how fallout got into them (and no, I’m not thinking Polonium 210). If, for example, tobacco crops got dusted with radio-active fallout from nuclear tests, then smokers would have been smoking radio-active tobacco, which would have given them lung cancer. Non-smokers wouldn’t have got such lung cancers so frequently. They would have instead got stomach and intestinal cancers from eating radio-active food.
At the moment I think that to cause cancer, fallout has to get lodged inside people, and kill or mutate cells in the vicinity of the trapped fallout particles.
The good thing about the fallout hypothesis is that, since atmospheric nuclear testing was stopped after about 30 years, it provides an explanation for why lung cancer is in decline (if it actually is declining). The infection route (e.g. HPV) doesn’t explain why there was a lung cancer peak. And assuming that HPV isn’t a new virus, there should have been lots more lung cancer in the past, when for socioeconomic reasons people of all classes lived much more closely with each other, and got more infectious diseases.
“Are there studies that show that smokers get more of (for example) HPV than non-smokers? And is it all smokers, or just smokers who live in crowded ghettoes?”
The best data on HPV and class is from cervical cancer studies, with far more subjects and more studies than for other HPV-related diseases. HPV is transmitted sexually (as I hope you are aware). So crowding is not a relevant issue, but infection rates in the pool of potential sexual partners is. The poor peoples’ pool is more likely to include professional sex workers, and smokers are more likely to be among the poorer people.
And I have pages of studies on other class-related viruses, EBVsocio.html and CMVsocio.html
Fallout “provides an explanation for why lung cancer is in decline (if it actually is declining). The infection route (e.g. HPV) doesn’t explain why there was a lung cancer peak.” Are you forgetting the World Wars, which took millions of men away from their homes, so many turned to those professional sex workers? At any rate, trying to explain overall disease rates is not as important for our purposes as explaining the differential between smokers and non-smokers. And falsely diagnosing up to a quarter of lung cancers as “smoking related” rather than HPV-related amounts to a very large number of cases with which to jack up the SAMMEC.
“there should have been lots more lung cancer in the past” [there may have been but it wasn’t diagnosed as such], “when for socioeconomic reasons people of all classes lived much more closely with each other” Please try to remember that HPV is mainly transmitted sexually. Also, the wealthy have not in historical times been closely packed. See Buckingham Palace, etc. etc.
Are you forgetting the World Wars, which took millions of men away from their homes, so many turned to those professional sex workers?
Are you suggesting that the two world wars were peaks of sexual as well as military action? I always get the impression that sex is one of the constants of human nature.
And I do know that HPV is sexually transmitted.
Buckingham Palace, etc
The palaces were hardly empty. The court accompanied the crown. And there were servants, butlers, cooks, chaplains, nurses, and of course armed guards.
“Are you suggesting that the two world wars were peaks of sexual as well as military action? I always get the impression that sex is one of the constants of human nature.”
You just sound as if you’re trying to play stupid in order to disrespect me. Otherwise, this is some of the lamest thinking I’ve ever seen. As if you believe that an inane and superficial generalization that “sex is one of the constants of human nature” is a mighty bulldozer of logic that sweeps away any inconvenient facts, such as massive conscription leading to camp followers leading to spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Well, what are you saying? Are you saying there was much more sex during WW1 and WW2? Or are you just saying that many more men used the services of hookers? Or what?
I’m no sexologist. I don’t know that much about it. If anything I’d say that the “Swinging Sixties” were a much more sexually active era than the world wars. But I might be wrong….
“The consequences of this fraud have been immense, because it has served to justify everything from smoking bans to raising cigarette taxes to taking smokers’ children away, not to mention everyday discomfort and inconvenience for tens of millions of smokers.”
But then why don’t you accept that Big Pharma has a very big hand in this? The Johnson Foundation brags on its website that they were the ones who built the scientific base under the political demand for the raising cigarette taxes. They were the ones who set up (and pay for) the lobby org Tobacco-free Kids, they are the ones who pour hundreds of millions into activist anti-smoking groups and organisations in order to change society to be anti-smoking.
Now don’t tell me again that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has nothing to do with pharma (and Nicorette-) giant Johnson & Johnson, because that is not true. They act as a public health front group of J&J – indeed there is a very close bond between the two: Not only does the Foundation’s financial capital consist of J&J stock only, there is also close ties between the Foundation’s board of trustees and the directors & ex-managers of J&J. In fact more than half of the members of the Foundation’s board are people from Johnson & Johnson.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation looks like an octopus with tentacles that has infiltrated the US-government, its reguating and decision bodies, its hospitals & health organisations and the whole medical establishment (in Dr. Even’s words about Big Pharma in France).
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/14/french-doctors-drugs-useless-dangerous
Big Pharma has NOT had a big hand in the anti-smoking persecution, and your supposed evidence is contemptible – it ignores the fundamental fact that the vast majority of pharmaceutical companies have no quit-smoking crap to peddle, and the reason they’re donating to the Cancer Society is because they have cancer treatment drugs. (And incidentally it completely ignores the possibility of pay-to-play going on. Some journalism!) The boasts on the RWJF website are no more credible than their anti-smoking lies. Plus, RWJF’s role is in implementation of the agenda set by the Cancer Society et al., they’re not independent agenda-setters themselves.
“Big Pharma has NOT had a big hand in the anti-smoking persecution, and your supposed evidence is contemptible”
No. Big Pharma has a HUGE hand in the smoking bans and the evidence for that claim is all over the internet for anyone who cares to look for it. The world’s four biggest companies: Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKine, Johnson & Johnson and Novartis have financed most of the important studies underlying the bans
– they have hosted anti-smoking conferences, partnerships and meetings for decades
– they have made anti-smoking groups, ngo’s, health organisations, government “foundations”, decision bodies, regulating agencies and the media beholden to them with money for decades
– they have poured a huge number of grants on the heads of the most important experts in the anti-smoking field for decades
They may have used around 25 billion dollars since the 1980’s to pave the way for the smoking bans in the EU and in the USA. Do you think they did this just for fun?
Your assumption that anti-smoking products don’t mean anything to these companies (because they earn more on cancer drugs) just shows that you don’t know how these businesses work. Unlike cancer drugs Nicorette is a growth area and as such it plays an important role to pharma investors. That’s why there has been such a media fuss over the upcoming E-cigarette: It took almost half of the Nicorette revenue away from Big Pharma within two-three years.
Also it is false when you pretend that this is about “bribes”. No – it is not about bribes, and not about “tributes” either. Big Pharma bosses like the Pfizer whistleblower Peter Rost call it “third party grants” – it’s a grant policy that deliberately is constructed in order to make the receiver beholden to the companies. “Everybody are out there with their hands out,” says Peter Rost in a link, I posted earlier. That may be the reason so many academics seem to run in Big Pharma’s direction.
This is the truth. The “anti-smoking persecution” may have been rooted in religion or health in earlier times, but today it is just business. It’s all about money.
“The world’s four biggest companies: Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKine, Johnson & Johnson and Novartis have financed most of the important studies underlying the bans.”
Rubbish. The United States government has poured the most money into the REAL “most important studies,” including the ACS CPS studies, which are probably the most important of all. What exactly do you think is “important,” anyway – a study of some quit-smoking product? BE SPECIFIC.
“they have hosted anti-smoking conferences, partnerships and meetings for decades.”
Big deal. The partnerships that matter are between ACS, AHA, and ALA. RWJF is just their tool.
“they have made anti-smoking groups, ngo’s, health organisations, government ‘foundations’, decision bodies, regulating agencies and the media beholden to them with money for decades”
Completely the opposite. They give money to curry favor with the ACS et al. on behalf of drugs they really care about, not their little quit-smoking sidelines, if they even have one. The ACS is not beholden to them because the ACS has too much power and influence over the government.
“they have poured a huge number of grants on the heads of the most important experts in the anti-smoking field for decades”
Those people get their funding from the US government, to the tune of millions of dollars, not peanuts like $10,000 consulting fees.
“They may have used around 25 billion dollars since the 1980’s to pave the way for the smoking bans in the EU and in the USA.”
Pure rubbish which you can’t back up of course.
“Your assumption that anti-smoking products don’t mean anything to these companies (because they earn more on cancer drugs) just shows that you don’t know how these businesses work.”
You don’t even know that the vast majority of those companies whose logos decorate the ACS CAN website don’t even have a quit-smoking product. So obviously YOU’RE the one who doesn’t know how those businesses work.
“That’s why there has been such a media fuss over the upcoming E-cigarette: It took almost half of the Nicorette revenue away from Big Pharma within two-three years.”
Media fuss does NOT constitute proof of importance. (Ever hear of pump-and-dump?) E-cigs versus Nicorette is a battle between fleas.
“Big Pharma bosses like the Pfizer whistleblower Peter Rost call it “third party grants” – it’s a grant policy that deliberately is constructed in order to make the receiver beholden to the companies.”
Google says: No results found for “third party grants” “Peter Rost”
Google says: Your search – “Peter Rost” “Everybody are out there with their hands out” – did not match any documents.
Peter Rost, ex-Pfizer vice-CEO: “Everybody I have encountered in my former carrier as a pharmaceutical executive are out there with their hands out”:
Even though you have made some impressive research into the history and person-relationships in the anti-smoking issue, you seem to be quite blank on the influence of money. That is a shame, because you turn cause and effect upside down. The money provider is the ruler of the agenda, not the one who is begging for money. That’s because money is addictive.
Since the 1980’s governments have been loosing power while big private corporations have gained power, and today Big Pharma’s influence is so strong that you may say that the smoking bans (as well as many other changing laws in recent years) represent the governments’ “tribute” to Big Pharma. They simply bow to the new ruler – the one with the money.
You’re the one who’s clueless. Read my lips: The government has the big money, and the Cancer Society et al. control the government. Read my lips: THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE BIG MONEY. Not pharmaceutical companies. You’re a blinkered dogmatist who demands that everybody shut their eyes and blindly believe that the pharmaceutical companies are automatically guilty of whatever you wish to accuse them of, simply because they exist, in defiance of clear evidence that they don’t even have a quit-smoking product. You lie to us. You point to one tiny bit of money and pretend it’s the whole pile. You fixate on just one motive and pretend it’s the only possible one. The so-called evidence you point to is worthless crap – videos by some blathering idiot are the fool’s gold of stupid people.
You’re a small-minded simpleton who’s perfectly incapable of understanding the nature of our attackers, and thus incapable of anything but wasting our time barking up the wrong trees. “Mrs. Lasker’s network is probably unparalleled in the influence that a small group of private citizens has had over such a major area of national policy. One federal official refers to it as a ‘noble conspiracy.’ Gorman calls it a ‘high class kind of subversion, very high class. We’re not second story burglars. We go right in the front door.'” You’re busy looking for second story burglars, because you’re truly profoundly incapable of understanding how the world really works and who runs it.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/12917276.html
Peter Rost is a small fry who worked in marketing. He didn’t decide whether drugs would be developed, he merely performed his assigned duties in the marketing chain. Show me just one link where Peter Rost says that he or others promoted smoking bans. And don’t pretend that just because he made a broad generalization that everyone HE ever talked to had their hand out, that this constitutes evidence that Big Pharma is behind the anti-smoking movement. Everybody that HE ever talked to isn’t everybody, never mind whether they were anybody of any consequence. This kind of crap that you’re trying to peddle is not evidence of anything that matters to us.
“Read my lips: The government has the big money, and the Cancer Society et al. control the government. Read my lips: THE GOVERNMENT HAS THE BIG MONEY. Not pharmaceutical companies.”
Why should anyone “read your lips” when you are singing so many false songs? Governments have NO money, they have trillions in deficits each year and huge debts. Big Pharma on the other hand has lots of money in tax-havens – in fact today these companies are so immensely rich they don’t even need banks anymore. Why should they? Their own profit margin is more than a 100% higher than the bank profit margin, let alone the banks’ interest rates.
For your information: Since the 1980’s things have changed: Today Big Pharma and the medical mafia are in control of your government and other governments. As Dr. Even says, Big Pharma has corrupted the scientific process, the medical establishment, the health organisations, the regulating and decision bodies, and the cancer, heart, lung, diabetes etc. “charities” which today just act like Big Pharma’s front groups. Today everybody bows to the money – i.e. to Big Pharma.
This article is ten years old – I suggest you read it and muliply with three to see the present situation:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2004/jul/15/the-truth-about-the-drug-companies/?pagination=false
That’s childish ignorance to believe that government budgets are equivalent to household budgets. Governments can raise their revenues any time by raising taxes and/or cutting loopholes. And it’s really infantile to regurgitate those lies about their having “no money” when they always have money for tobacco control. Furthermore, the US government is the biggest funder of all medical research, anyhow.
And your link just proved my point that you’re just parroting enemy disinformation. Look who’s telling us this supposed “Truth” about the drug companies – Marcia Angell, a Harvard lecturer and former editor in chief of The New England Journal of Medicine. NEJM is the flagship journal of the Harvard School of Public Health, that premier nest of charlatans who use studies cynically designed to falsely blame smoking and lifestyle for diseases that are really caused by infection. None of the things she blathers about is of consequence to our liberties, but all of the crap she condones, IS.
Anybody would think from the big phony act you put on that you had pages of testimony by Peter Rost describing how he and/or others bribed politicians to ban smoking, etc. But in fact, there is not one single solitary thing in those reams of irrelevant drivel that is of any interest or concern to us as advocates of smokers’ rights. You just want to sidetrack smokers into serving your own irrational and demented hatred of pharmaceutical companies.
“And your link just proved my point that you’re just parroting enemy disinformation. Look who’s telling us this supposed “Truth” about the drug companies – Marcia Angell, a Harvard lecturer and former editor in chief of The New England Journal of Medicine. NEJM is the flagship journal of the Harvard School of Public Health, that premier nest of charlatans who use studies cynically designed to falsely blame smoking and lifestyle for diseases that are really caused by infection.”
Enemy disinformation? Funny. I see you now copy the anti-tobacco fanatics’ stupid guilt-by-association arguments about the tobacco industry. FYI Marcia Angell is a whistleblower from the New England Journal of Medicine … oh, you knew that? Then why do you pretend she represents NEJM?
I laid the article link to you beause you asked for evidence for Big Pharma’s take-over of your Government since the 1980’s. As the article shows Big Pharma is in control of your governments medical research through money-partnerships.
I think you should move on from the 1980’s and realize that Big Pharma is at the steering wheel today. Research into cancer and infection will be done once there is a vaccine or medicine available that Big Pharma can profit from. Society follows the money. Smoking was exonerated from involvement in cervix cancer lately, right? Wasn’t that because of the HPV-vaccine? I think so. The fact that the HPV-vaccine doesn’t work is another story …
Anyway it is the same principle by which smoking bans have been widespread: Big Pharma could profit from them because of Nicorette. Without Big Pharma’s money-interest in this area, smoking bans had never been possible.
Marcia Angell represents the corrupt ESTABLISHMENT, she’s not a whistleblower. Who the hell are you kidding that the EDITOR of the NEJM (which she was for a decade) does not represent the NEJM? Her finger points at the mote in the pharmaceitical companies’ eye while ignoring the beam in her own. That’s guilt by her own role, NOT merely by association. And your sorry excuses for “evidence” just prove that you don’t have any evidence, only wild accusations pulled out of your own ass. MY evidence proves that the health fascists have committed scientific fraud by falsely blaming smoking for diseases that are really caused by infection from the very beginning, decades before there was any interest by pharmaceutial companies in any quit-smoking crap. The vast majority of them still have no interest. You spew out reams of utterly irrelevant drivel and conclude, on the basis of NOTHING (other than your own prejudices) that the pharmaceutical companies are to blame, merely because you SPECULATE that “Big Pharma could profit from them because of Nicorette.” You ignore their historical lack of interest and tardy entry into the field. You lie in our faces that “Without Big Pharma’s money-interest in this area, smoking bans had never been possible,” when what made those bans possible is HEALTH LIES in which pharmaceutical companies play no role. They fund drug trials, not epidemiology. Those who want to control our LIFESTYLES are responsible, and they use government money, for which they can thank the ACS, ALA, and AHA.
And more of your lies: “Smoking was exonerated from involvement in cervix cancer lately, right?”
Wrong. The 2004 Surgeon General Report proclaimed that “The evidence is sufficient to infer
a causal relationship between smoking and cervical cancer,” and this has not been changed. This is another example of your complete lack of scholarship, and your lazy expectation that other people are supposed look things up for you, while you toss out any nonsense that serves your propaganda.
More of your lies: “Wasn’t that because of the HPV-vaccine? I think so.” Because nothing changed in the anti-smokers’ claims, obviously not. Also, whether there is a vaccine or not is irrelevant to the issue of what proportion of disease is caused by HPV. It is the latter which determines the desireability of the former, not vice versa – another example of your backwards “reasoning.”
“The fact that the HPV-vaccine doesn’t work is another story …”
So, you show your true colors as an anti-vacciner, which fits right in with your serial lies and invented “facts” and complete lack of scientific aptitude. And you’ve come here to spread lies and disinformation and manipulate smokers to blame all the wrong people, because you believe in those lifestyle lies and want them to get away with it.
My “true colors” … ? Funny. What is the relevance? This is about facts, not about your or my “colors” …
As I said: Without Big Pharma and their financial interest in the Nicorette-business smoking bans would never have happened. It is not possible. Leading politicians and civil servants don’t bow to fanatics. They bow to the money. Like most people do.
At least in Europe no one had ever heard of the anti-smokers at the time Big Pharma went to the stage, teamed up with the anti-smokers and started guiding the direction from the background. If they didn’t have the Nicorette interest they would not have done that and as a consequence we would still not have heard about the anti-smokers even today.
It has been interesting to see your many personal attacks on me. You are welcome, but don’t you think you cast some doubt in your own fine research when you react so aggressively to my posts?
Anti-vacciners are not notable for the accuracy of their “facts.” Nor are they notable for their comprehension of causality. It’s absolute nonsense to babble that “Without Big Pharma and their financial interest in the Nicorette-business smoking bans would never have happened.” It was already a done deal before the first Nicorette existed. The Cancer Society and the Heart and Lung Associations had already installed their stooges in the federal health establishment and they were busily committing scientific fraud to deceive the public with phony health risks of smoking and consequently of secondhand smoke. Officials don’t have to be bribed when they’ve been convinced that it’s a public health danger. You have no credibility because you have no evidence – nothing but your dogmatic belief that everybody has been bribed. You’re the one they consider a fanatic! One who simply ignores the “evidence” they believe in, and makes false accusations against them.
“It’s absolute nonsense to babble that “Without Big Pharma and their financial interest in the Nicorette-business smoking bans would never have happened.” It was already a done deal before the first Nicorette existed.”
Nevertheless this is the truth. The smoking bans are Big Pharma’s brilliant & wicked marketing scam. But since you say you know better, could you just tell us then, when this supposed “deal” about the smoking bans was done? What year and on what occasion? It must have been before Nicorette was licensed then …
“The Cancer Society and the Heart and Lung Associations had already installed their stooges in the federal health establishment and they were busily committing scientific fraud to deceive the public with phony health risks of smoking and consequently of secondhand smoke. Officials don’t have to be bribed when they’ve been convinced that it’s a public health danger.”
Who is talking about “bribes” all the time? You are. Are you really so ignorant of human nature that you don’t understand how big money works and how it gets its way? “Everybody are out there with their hands out,” – have you already forgotten? Big money always gets its way. People & politicians bow to the money – not to fanatics.
The cancer, heart and lung societies are just front groups of the medical mafia, i.e. Big Pharma. But you think that public health officials are so dumb that they believe in the passive smoking theory? Of course not. They know damned well they are lying:
http://www.fead.org.uk/video327/John-Davies:-%27Bad-science-in-a-good-cause-is-just-bad-science%27.html
The American Cancer Society and the Heart and Lung Associations plus the Public Health charlatans got those smoking bans, by committing scientific fraud. And the mass media shoved it down everyone’s throats for them. Not some stupid little chickendropping of a vice president of marketing who spent a year on quit-smoking products doing his standard routine of “continuing medical education” on prescribing the stuff, and giving away some freebie quit-smoking crap, then went on to something else. I KNOW WHO GOT THOSE BANS BECAUSE I SAW THEM IN ACTION WITH MY OWN EYES! I know their names and faces, so don’t you imagine for one fucking second than I’m going to abandon my brain to the demented rantings of some ignoramus in Denmark who sits around imagining that vice presidents of marketing rule the world, just because one of them claimed that “Everybody are out there with their hands out” (meaning everyone HE ever saw in his limited little world, all without the slightest evidence that it included anything to do with smoking bans). And don’t spout your rubbish that “The cancer, heart and lung societies are just front groups of the medical mafia, i.e. Big Pharma.” The societies took control of the federal health research establishment, from their very beginning and used it for their social engineering agenda, and there was no “Big Pharma” around. You’re completely deluded and incompetent, and what you need is a nice big can of STFU.
“And don’t spout your rubbish that “The cancer, heart and lung societies are just front groups of the medical mafia, i.e. Big Pharma.””
But they are. So let me “spout” my “rubbish” again: The patient societies are the interfases between the world wide medical mafia and the governments. Today these are groups with which Big Pharma controls the governments. That’s why Big Pharma bosses call them their army which they can “mobilise” against governments when Big Pharma wants to prevent their negative drug trial results from being published:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/21/big-pharma-secret-drugs-trials
“The American Cancer Society and the Heart and Lung Associations plus the Public Health charlatans got those smoking bans, by committing scientific fraud.”
Sure they committed scientific fraud, as you have documented yourself. But first: This fraud would never have been accepted at any level of government if it didn’t represent an enormous possibility of earning money, both for governments via higher taxes on smokers, and for Big Pharma via Nicorette, Champix and antidepressant sales.
Second: Fraud alone does not create smoking bans. A huge financial backup for propaganda studies & reports plus heavy lobbying efforts was needed to pull that one through governments all over the world. Who paid this? Well, Big Pharma paid a lot.
“And the mass media shoved it down everyone’s throats for them.”
Yes. And who owns mainstream media and the major news networks? Big Pharma money. Furthermore Big Pharma is the biggest single advertiser in the mainstream media. They are in control of the scientific media as well as the mainstream media.
“You’re completely deluded and incompetent, and what you need is a nice big can of STFU.”
Thank you. At least I know about media, business and money, which you clearly don’t.
Liar. The article whines about “patient groups,” and the ACS, AHA and ALA are absolutely NOT “patient groups.” Those “patient groups” are just people who use their products, and wish to continue to do so. You obviously don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground, and simply make things up to suit yourself. And given your demonstrated level of abject ignorance, what entitles YOU to make dogmatic assertions as if you think you’re fucking ‘Herr Professor’ and we’re supposed to worship every piece of nonsense that drivels out of your pie hole: “This fraud would never have been accepted at any level of government if it didn’t represent an enormous possibility of earning money…” The fact is, IT WAS ACCEPTED, that is historical fact, so you can stick your dogma where the sun doesn’t shine. The Cancer Society’s lobbyist was Mary Woodard Lasker, and the government did their propaganda studies with our tax dollars, while the mass media spewed their lies for free (and pharma advertising wasn’t even allowed then but you’d never dream of letting the facts get in your way). Nor do you have the faintest idea who owns the media or even the slightest inclination to attempt to find out – you simply presume that the person you’re spewing your hogwash at is too iignorant to know what an empty-headed, phony, crankjob BS artist you are.
You almost sound like prof. Doll in the McTear trial: Furious ad hominem attacks on your opponents when you run out of valid arguments …
“Patient groups” is a NAME for the cancer, heart, lung, diabetes etc. societies, among them the three you mention. They act as Big Pharma’s and other big industries’ front groups and can be hired to do media- or lobby campaigns as well as epidemiologic studies for industries. The name “patient groups” has no practical meaning however – they may have a few small patient acitivities but only as show-offs for the media. For many years the Danish cancer society stated on their website: “We have partnership with the pharmaceutical industry”, although this was changed after Big Pharma came under scrutiny i 2012 – now it says: “We have partnership with private corporations”. The cancer society’s most recent media campaign is their five-year long “stay out of the sun”-campaign with Scandinavia’s biggest insurance company. This campaign has been heavily criticized because it has been shown by Danish researchers that sun exposure prevents cancer (the vitamin-D relation). Other media and lobby campaigns by the Danish cancer society are the campaigns for vaccinating all young males and females with the HPV-vaccine for Merck & Glaxo, and the campaigns for breast and colon cancer screenings which are also under scrutiny now because screenings raise the incidence of cancers significantly. Well of course they do – that is the whole point: Cancer is a business, and the “patient groups” are in it as the drug- and treatment companies’ front groups to maximise their business. This is now new, and you know it:
http://www.whale.to/a/lynes.html
It’s hard to understand why you constantly omit the presence of money in the disease business – as if doctors, health lobbyists, patient groups, drug companies and even politicians were doing their work for the sake of our blue eyes. No way. They are in it for the money – and that goes for your Mrs. Lasker too. Obviously she was a front for the cancer industry / medical mafia, and as such, a front for Big Pharma. You are making a fool of yourself as long as you pretend otherwise. As for your earlier claim that there was no Big Pharma before Mrs. Lasker took over US-government – that is wrong too, and you know it:
http://www.whale.to/b/ruesch.html
And your phony accusation of ad hominem is a misrepresentation, too. I am attacking your lack of any evidence to back up your accusations against “Big Pharma,” and your habitual misrepresentations anytime it serves your purposes. That is shady behavior which justifies raising the issue of your personal morality. But you pretend that yelping “ad hominem” gives you blanket immunity from anyone questioning your honesty. I’ve got news for you: It doesn’t.
Look at this worthless crap you try to foist on us: “‘Patient groups’ is a NAME for the cancer, heart, lung, diabetes etc. societies, among them the three you mention.” No, it’s not. It’s a term defining a group of people which distinguishes them from those organizations. Patient groups are composed of people who use a particular drug and want to keep from losing it. They aren’t affiliated with the societies, most of whose members are not patients and many of whom are health professionals. What are you, Humpty Dumpty and you think words mean whatever you want them to mean?
And don’t pretend that it’s sufficient merely to point to a website statement that a society has a “partnership” with the pharmaceutical industry. You must show that there’s something improper about it, and furthermore, for us, that it’s relevant to our concerns – not just a peg for you to hang your anti-vaccine propaganda on. Of course, evidence isn’t your strong suit anyhow. Nor do you strengthen your case by linking to screeds as poorly documented as your own.
“Patient groups are composed of people who use a particular drug and want to keep from losing it. They aren’t affiliated with the societies, most of whose members are not patients and many of whom are health professionals.”
I’m afraid you are wrong again. Just a couple of examples: The Danish Cancer Society calls itself a “patient group”, its name in English: The Fight Against Cancer. Yet it mirrors the ACS 100% in all its acitivties. They do media & lobby campaigns with industries, they make epidemiologic studies with industries, and all their affiliated experts have ties to Big Pharma, They are funded by government, industries and patient / citizen contributions, and they have a fortune worth $300.000 in private stocks and government bonds. The cancer society parades a patient group, but it is in reality a lobbying organisation, just like the ACS, and a very powerful one, since they have a monopoly on money raising activites for cancer in Denmark. Tax free of course.
http://www.cancer.dk/
The same applies to the Danish Heart Foundation. It parades as a patient group but is in reality an equivalent to AHA. They too do media and lobbying campaigns, research and epi-studies, and all their experts have ties to Big Pharma. These two “patient groups” are the most powerful in Danish media, and they represent the kind of organisations that is mentioned in the Guardian article as Big Pharma’s army of “patient groups” they want to mobilise.
Interestingly the former chairman of the Heart Foundation (2008-2012), Peter Clemmensen, chairman of a European heart doctors association, and four other top heart doctors from the most reputable hospital in Danmark have all been fired, and are involved in a big criminal case, which is now going to trial, because they used reseach grants from Big Pharma for private purposes. Please use Google Translate:
http://www.bt.dk/danmark/fyret-overlaege-staar-frem-derfor-brugte-jeg-forsknings-kroner-paa-familieferier
Read my lips – Samet pressures them, they don’t idictate to Samet. Everything you fantasize is exactly the opposite of how things really are. Just like everything you trump up is petty and small change and unimportant, while the things you ignore are what matter. And don’t tell me rubbish that smokers supposedly need Nicorette because they can no longer smoke at work. Not when more than 90% of quitters don’t bother with it. For that matter, don’t waste our time with tantrums over things that individuals can deal with all by themselves, simply by saying no. We’ve got more important things to worry about.
And you’re not just endorsing their bilge about “nicotine addiction,” you’re using it as a foundation for your own sandcastle of fantasy.
What is the purpose of your rants? Now I am “endorsing” the theory of nicotine addiction? I don’t think so:
You haven’t “refuted” a damn thing. You just keep yapping “Big Pharma, Big Pharma” and pretending that Samet is just their puppet, instead of a prime instigator and promoter of their involvement in the quit-smoking market. His most likely role is explaining how to market the crap. In practice, the pharmaceutical companies are perfectly happy to sell off their quit-smoking lines to anyone who will buy them, or toss them into a deal involving other products. They aren’t emotionally invested. They only got into this market because the anti-smoking ideological groups wanted them to.
Correction: Big Pharma is in this game because there is money to be earned. It is quite amazing to realise that you, who have written extensively about the tobacco wars, are not familiar with the pharma business model. Big Pharma is the elephant in your living room.
http://www.radcliffehealth.com/shop/deadly-medicines-and-organised-crime-how-big-pharma-has-corrupted-healthcare
House Republicans just passed a bill forbidding scientists from advising the EPA on their own research
The “reform” measure makes room for industry-funded experts on the EPA’s advisory board
Congressional climate wars were dominated Tuesday by the U.S. Senate, which spent the day debating, and ultimately failing to pass, a bill approving the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. While all that was happening, and largely unnoticed, the House was busy doing what it does best: attacking science.
H.R. 1422, which passed 229-191, would shake up the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, placing restrictions on those pesky scientists and creating room for experts with overt financial ties to the industries affected by EPA regulations.
The bill is being framed as a play for transparency: Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, argued that the board’s current structure is problematic because it “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups.” The inclusion of industry experts, he said, would right this injustice.
But the White House, which threatened to veto the bill, said it would “negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB.”
In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research — the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest. “In other words,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”
http://www.salon.com/2014/11/19/house_republicans_just_passed_a_bill_forbidding_scientists_from_advising_the_epa_on_their_own_research/
Typical media crap, namely the smug presumption of “academics GOOD, industry BAD.” No awareness whatsoever of the frauds perpetrated by the supposed good guys, nor that the industry scientists let them get away with it. It doesn’t even resemble the bill summary anyway.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1422
The sad thing is the mainstream media is totally ignoring this just as it ignored all the fabricated past studies. The public worldwide has bought the anti-tobacco/anti-smoking myth. Indoor bans are not enough, now they are actively pursuing outdoor bans. Canada, all over the US, and now China (which it seems has a significant industrial pollution issue).
The problem is the message about social control and manipulation of the studies (not to mention outright fabrication) is not getting out and when it does it is being ignored. Significant political action and exposure is needed to counter this. Just today at least a dozen new US news stories are on the web advocating outdoor bans. It seems there is no resistance to bans in Canada, and most US smokers rights groups seem to have given up.
If you bothered to dig a tad youd have seen about half a dozen stories against outdoor bans and also against ecig bans…………..Theres also been 3 against campus wide bans and 2 I saw in public housing bans. Theres much more out there. Stossels story on the nannystate has made it to over 14 countries that I know of in 2 weeks time……..Bulgaria was the last and it even made it into the French version………….
As Enemy guest said on Siegels blog the end is here…………….
I’m digging, but I see more anti-smoking coverage than freedom to smoke coverage. I see a patio smoking ban in Oceanside is proposed, but only scant coverage. In Ontario, there has only been a couple of pro-liberty op-eds. Dozens of college smoke bans proposed. (I have responded to several, but somehow my comments are in moderation for 2-3 weeks?)
The Stossel piece is a start and that has gotten coverage which is good. There have been a couple of pro-liberty articles on the proposed New Orleans Bar and Public Ban but the mainstream coverage is decidedly anti-smoking in orientation. I see stories but few are balanced, few present anything more than anti-smoking perspective, repeating the anti’s assumptions on second hand smoke. I wasn’t saying there wasn’t coverage of the bans; although a half-dozen pales to the scores presented on the anti-side (even if it is “Great Smoke Out Time” ). I was saying there is not balanced coverage.
Right now mainstream media in Denmark seems to be a little more “hungry” for pro-smoking stories than before …
Most US smokers never bothered to join any kind of group in the first place. They believe in that noxious, paralyzing myth that gets parroted here all too frequently, that all they have to do is stand there with their fingers up their noses and let things magically fix themselves.
I agree with you here.
Another great translation of a great article, thanks Frank and Klaus K!!!
The WHO downplaying the ‘deadly emission’ from a simple cigarette? *shock*
Since the WHO ‘took control’ of the Ebola epidemic ongoing we hear very little about it. MSF seem to have been gagged and the media has moved on.
Perhaps the WHO, too, has moved on to more pressing issues, such as pushing what was decided in secret in October 2014 in Moscow over caviar down the throats of politicians who couldn’t give a xxxx about people?
Don’t get me wrong, the WHO does spend a bit of time on Ebola in true media jargon:
Global Alert and Response (GAR)
Ebola response roadmap – Situation report
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/situation-reports/en//
And it has gone VERY quiet about smoking. But that is usually not a good thing since it just means that they are VERY busy pushing what was decided in secret in the October Extravaganza 2014 in Moscow over caviar down the throats of politicians who couldn’t give a xxxx about people.
No wonder people all over the world are getting angrier and angrier. The riots are never about the lack of balance of enjoyment-work. If we had such a balance people would not go rioting.
It is a fact: make people unhappy and you light a fuse.
I can guarantee you those behind Moscow doors talks included the loss of the American senate and a plan to toss into wharp speed all of their agenda plans before republicans can get control of the purse strings in sub comittee and divert the Nazis taxpayer dollars into other things……..
You know, usually new information comes from a heated scientific debate, but when an argument sinks to
“We should be asking, who funds YOUR cause?” to my mind, they just lost.
Everyone here will have unfairly been accused of being a stooge for big tobacco at one time or another, it’s a standard anti-tobacco silencing technique.
Disrupting the flow of conversation with unwarranted insults is another.
Klaus is always fussing about “Big Pharma” funding the Cancer Society, but you don’t take exception to that. And he claimed that any group that gets anywhere has been funded by someone who profited from it. Whereupon I merely noted how well-connected the anti-Big Pharmers are, then you imply I don’t have any right to ask about their funding. All hypocrisy and double standards I say!
That is such a foolish statement. Big Pharma and the cancer societies are part of the world-wide medical monopoly grounded in the drug patents, which are law in most parts of the world. The patents are the underlying power on which they do their business, and their business model is selling patented (and therefore high-priced) chemicals to put into the human body on the false claim that it is “evidence based” a “healthy” thing to do.
With that very profitable business model they have corrupted the science, the universities, the medical establishment, the health authorities and all the cancer, heart and lung “charities” – how? With religious vodoo? No – with money of course:
And then while spouting your dogma you fail to notice that their quit-smoking patents expired long ago and that there are far fewer of them.
“Growth in global spending on cancer drugs, including those used for supportive care, increased at a compound annual growth rate of 5.4 percent during the past five years, reaching $91 billion in 2013, compared with 14.2 percent from 2003 to 2008. The recent lower growth rate reflects fewer breakthrough therapies for very large patient populations, as well as patent expiries, reductions in the use of supportive care medicines, and stronger payer management. While oncology spending remains concentrated among the U.S. and five largest European countries – which together account for 65 percent of the total market – the rising prevalence of cancer and greater patient access to treatments in pharmerging nations has propelled oncology to the fifth-largest therapy area in those markets.” (22 New Oncology Therapies Launched in Past Two Years. IMS Health, May 6, 2014.)
http://www.imshealth.com/portal/site/imshealth/menuitem.c76283e8bf81e98f53c753c71ad8c22a/?vgnextoid=19b381d71adc5410VgnVCM10000076192ca2RCRD&vgnextchannel=5ec1e590cb4dc310VgnVCM100000a48d2ca2RCRD
So how many new patents in quit-smoking crap have those pharaceutical companies eagerly developed?
I didn’t write one word about “quit-smoking-crap” in the post. Another strawman from you. The case is that smoking bans lead to higher total revenue for the pharma industry because of more disease in the population after a ban:
http://dengulenegl.dk/blog/?p=4412
You expect me to take that link as credible evidence of “more disease in the population after a ban”? Forget it.
It cannot be denied, that there has been more disease in the population after the Danish smoking ban, because that is a fact. You can say there may be other reasons for it, or contributing reasons. But the association is quite clear, and I don’t understand why this hasn’t been investigated in other European countries, like England & Ireland for example.
@Klaus@Rose: It is the same thing, the same owners and the same kind of business: Chemicals.
What about Baptist religion, in the case of the Rockefellers? Once again, you take only one possible motive and ignore others.
And the proportion of oil that goes into pharmaceuticals versus transportation, etc., is truly ridiculously microscopic.
Come on. This has nothing to do with religion. I’ts about money and nothing else. The chemical industry and the pharmaceutical industry is the same thing: It’s the same chemicals, the same companies that are spin-offs of each other – and it’s the patents on each little “invention” in this business that make these industries so profitable.
Oh, I see. So even if pharmaceutical companies don’t even have a quit-smoking product, they reap the profits from anti-smoking simply because “It’s the same chemicals, the same companies that are spin-offs of each other,” and thus they donate to the Cancer Society so they can reap all those profits from anti-smoking. What a brilliant, insightful theory – I’m sure you’ll win a Nobel Prize in economics for it someday. As if!
So in other words, the story you’re peddling to us is as specious as telling people that God created the world in six days. etc. It’s worthless as a picture of the real world, and merely provides the believer with delusions that he knows the answer. And then you can go around trying to shove your religion down everyone else’s throats.
The case is that the pharmaceutical industry profits when society bans smoking. Almost all other industries on the other hand are suffering …
The demand for drugs for cancer treatment and other medical purposes doesn’t fluctuate according to economic conditions that affect other sectors. And don’t try to pawn off the nonsense that smoking bans cause an epidemic of hospitalizations.
“The demand for drugs for cancer treatment and other medical purposes doesn’t fluctuate according to economic conditions that affect other sectors.”
It is a fact that introductions of smoking bans raise the sales of anti-smoking products, and possibly anti-depressant sales too. The bigger question is: Do smoking bans affect the overall ecomomy negatively. Evidence suggest they do, even though Big Pharma has drowned the medical litterature with flawed studies showing no ban-effect on bars / restaurants.
“And don’t try to pawn off the nonsense that smoking bans cause an epidemic of hospitalizations.”
The hospital admission epidemic after the smoking ban in Denmark is a matter of fact. And you don’t think the smoking ban had anything to do with it, do you? Is it a mere coincidence? Do you really believe that state leaders can change society completely to the disadvantage of a big minority without any effect on them? Can they trample on their rights, humiliate and denormalise them without any effect on their health at all?
I think you are wrong.
“What about the Baptist religion”
First place I looked, Southern Baptists, anti alcohol, anti tobacco no wonder they funded the Anti Saloon League that led to Prohibition. The anti tobacco campaign has been religiously based from the start. Started in England with James 1, head of the Church of England and came over to America with the Puritans.
“”And now good Countrey men let us (I pray you) consider, what honour or policie can moove us to imitate the barbarous and beastly maners of the wilde, godlesse, and slavish Indians, especially in so vile and stinking a custome?”
“shall we, I say, without blushing, abase our selves so farre, as to imitate these beastly Indians, slaves to the Spaniards, refuse to the world, and as yet aliens from the holy Covenant of God? Why doe we not as well imitate them in walking naked as they doe? in preferring glasses, feathers, and such toyes, to golde and precious stones, as they do? yea why do we not denie God and adore the Devill, as they doe?”
“In your abuse thereof sinning against God, harming your selves both in persons and goods, and raking also thereby the markes and notes of vanitie upon you: by the custome thereof making your selves to be wondered at by all forraine civil Nations, and by all strangers that come among you, to be scorned and contemned”
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/james/blaste/blaste.html
Read Counterblaste carefully, it contains every bit of their propaganda, right down to the the black lungs.
After Prohibition failed they said they would keep on going.
LIQUOR: Gentlemanly Temperance
1935
“In the two decades before Prohibition, those lifelong teetotalers John D. Rockefeller Jr. and his father gave the Anti-Saloon League their stanch moral support and $350,323.67. When he declared for Repeal in 1932, Mr. Rockefeller by no means meant that he was quitting his long war on liquor. Having despaired at last of temperance by statute, he set his agents searching the world for other methods of attack.”
“What the Council proposes to do is spend $100,000 or more per year in attempting to persuade U. S. citizens to drink like gentlemen, to acquire “an attitude of individual responsibility toward the use of liquor.”
“Our messages will travel over the airwaves, reach the eye and ear through the screen and stage, and fashion public thought through advertising and other kinds of publicity.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,755063,00.html
Sadly subscription only now and that part of the article is not covered by the preview.
The problem seems to be that a lot of these discussions have happened before you joined us, Carol.
For instance, that Time article Gentlemanly Temperance was posted on this blog in 2011.
And probably not for the first time.
Still, I think going back over old ground is worth doing as I doubt that the average visitor will want to trawl through Frank’s blog archives back to 2009.
Though luckily for me the various posts do show up on search engines.
However, I was reading through your link last night and was particularly interested in the references to the German Dye industry which does cross my previous research on who, what and why.
So if you are still reading this, I’ll get back to you on a newer page.
“The problem seems to be that a lot of these discussions have happened before you joined us, Carol.”
Oh I see, the problem is ME, and that I’ve never heard of all this learned crap before – as if I’m not thoroughly sick and tired of hearing about it and of seeing the people who repeat it over and over again act as if they’ve definitively answered the question of why the anti-smokers are persecuting us. Rather than the problem being Klaus and his insistence that it’s exclusively about profits for the pharmaceutical industry and that they control everybody else, and offering up as proof books full of drivel about their supposed wrongdoing which are of absolutely no relevance or value to any of our concerns about anti-smoker scientific fraud (about which his dogma says nothing because his precious dogma comes from the enemy side).
Carol, perhaps you would prefer it if we stopped doing any research of our own, never put forward any views of our own and simply sat in meek silence.
I’m afraid it is a bit too late for that.
None of us know what useful information someone may have until they produce it.
Trying to shout others down is hardly conducive to the exchange of information.
I don’t want Klaus to stop telling me things I may not have known and I doubt anyone else does, I know he has been very helpful to me in the past.
In America you haven’t ratified the FCTC, but our countries have and for the last few years have been making our lives a misery.
The Pharma drugs have even been signed into our laws.
“In an effort to reduce tobacco use, the EU and its Member States have signed up to the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).The FCTC’s Article 14, through its recently adopted guidelines, demands action to promote cessation of tobacco use and provide adequate treatment for tobacco dependence. Countries who have signed up to the FCTC therefore have a legal obligation to implement the recommendations of Article 14.”
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/219321.php
One can only wonder what they’ll try to inflict on us next.
Oh and if you are interested, Carol, I am a housewife and keen gardener with time on her hands, nobody funds me, I do the research because I want to know and if anyone finds it useful then I’m glad.
Feel free to ignore me if you don’t think I’m sufficiently qualified.
I think you a extremely qualified, Rose. I have been very happy with your links. Thank you.
Rose, you are a treasure chest full of interesting information and links that prompt to look further into various issues.
*priceless*
It would be nice if smokers actually did do research of their own, rather than simply regurgitating predigested stories that were written by and for the establishment to serve their own ends. Don’t you know they leave things out that are inconvenient and uncomfortable for them? At any rate, stuff that happened in the 1600s is too remote to be directly relevant to this particular discussion.
“Countries who have signed up to the FCTC therefore have a legal obligation to implement the recommendations of Article 14.”
That’s a hobgoblin to frighten children. Countries break treaties all the time, whenever it suits them. And the fact that smokers are being persecuted whether their countries have ratified it or not proves that the FCTC is not important.
It is absolutely clear from the context of the article that the patient groups to which they are referring are the patients who use their drugs, and they are NOT referring to the ACS, AHA, ALA, or any of your Danish societies. So stop trying to pettifog over what the Danish societies call themselves. They are not being referred to there.
Perhaps we should all just stop breathing, that’s bound to please.
For years the governments have lead us to believe that if someone has lung cancer, respiratory disease, heart failure then it is THEIR fault if they smoked or have breathed in second hand smoke. This is a LIE.
How ridiculous to ban smoking around children in cars, play grounds and all buildings and yet the government is perfectly happy for those children to walk down the high street breathing in vast amounts of deadly diesel fumes. Smoking is not good for you or children but lets get things in perspective; the government with its promotion of diesel has been responsible for millions of deaths but persist in blaming the individual for their own demise. If they ever admitted fault imagine the number of lawsuits against them for unlawful killing.