A Slight Parting of the Curtains

I’ve always regarded antismoking zealotry as almost inseparable from global warming alarmism. They are, after all, both concerned with trace amounts of gases in the atmosphere, once regarded as innocuous, but now widely believed to be lethal.

Yet despite this, global warming sceptics (or “deniers”) seldom make the same association. There’s an almost complete blackout on the subject.

But today on Bishop Hill there was a slight parting of the drawn curtains with the news that, as well as being sceptical about global warming claims, atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen is also sceptical about antismoking claims:

Lindzen clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He’ll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking. He speaks in full, impeccably logical paragraphs, and he punctuates his measured cadences with thoughtful drags on a cigarette.

and continued to be as recently as 2011:

Anna: ….Did you dispute that there was not a link between smoking and health problems?
Richard: I have argued as most people who have looked at it that the case for
second-hand tobacco is not very good. That was true of the World Health
Organization also said that.
Anna: Do you stand by that claim?
Richard: That second-hand smoke is a poor situation? Sure, I’m not worried about
that. With first-hand smoke it’s a more interesting issue. There’s clearly an
issue and, you know, one looks at the statistics and it was done by meta
analysis. That’s usually the case when you don’t have great studies and you
have to combine them.
The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there
are differences in people’s susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have
pointed to. I’m simply saying anything in science requires you look at it. You
know, I have always found it profoundly offensive that to question something
indicates you’re doing something wrong. It pays to look at the studies. Have
you read the studies?
Anna: I’m not saying that you’ve done anything wrong but I do think that –
Richard: No, no, no but I have never testified. I know Jim Hanson said I did.
Anna: I was reading his books so I’m very sorry that I got that wrong.
Richard: No, no, he said that and that’s clear slander.
Anna: But what I mean is it seems to me that the evidence for passive smoking
leading to health problems is quite clear so if you’re questioning that why
should I trust you on climate science?
Richard: Why should I trust you that you’ve read it? The World Health Organization
found the evidence dubious on passive smoke.
Anna: But in 2011 it seems that the evidence now is quite clear that passive
smoking is bad for you?
Richard: No, it isn’t. Second hand smoke is an issue, passive smoke is an issue that is very different from primary smoking.
Anna: Then why in Australia is it illegal to smoke in restaurants and cafe?
Nick: Because politicians want to be seen to be doing something, ridiculous.
Richard: Yeah. I mean the notion that because politicians responded it makes the
science true happens to have a certain element of truth in it, that is to say
when science differs with politics, politics is the piper.
Anna: So you would support having restaurants and cafes and –
Nick: What’s this got to do with climate change?
Anna: Well I think it has a lot because it comes down to who you trust on the issue
of science.
Richard: It’s, you know –
Nick: There is a debate about passive smoking and its impacts on health, we know
that, we know there’s a debate about that. Who’s suggesting that debate is
over? And I really don’t see the relevance to a debate about, you know, the
extent to which we should be concerned about CO2 emissions.
Anna: I thought that actually the science was quite clear that passive smoking
harms people.
Richard: Well, you’ve certainly have been led to believe that by all these bans but I
think if you looked at it a bit further you would discover that it’s really a
remarkably weak case. You know, there are cases – I think as a matter of
courtesy there are people who finds smoking offensive. I don’t think one
should just smoke any place. I think people with asthma might react badly.
We want you to be considerate of that but the overall issue of passive smoke
is weak, is really statistically weak. The EPA did 13 studies not one of them
came out with a statistically significant relation.

Perhaps the most interesting remark here is by Anna, when she says:

it seems to me that the evidence for passive smoking leading to health problems is quite clear so if you’re questioning that why should I trust you on climate science?

i.e. if you don’t buy antismoking dogma (including SHS dogma), you can’t be trusted as a sensible person at all, including about your own discipline.

And this may explain the reticence of most global warming sceptics to broach the subject of smoking, even if (like Climate Depot’s Marc Morano) they are themselves occasional cigar smokers: they don’t want to be branded as tobacco harm deniers as well as global warming deniers.

Anyway this prompted some interesting comments on Bishop Hill, which revealed some deep divisions among the climate sceptic readers:, ranging from this from Johanna:

You should see the pictures on cigarette packets in Australia, complete with warnings that are just plain factually inaccurate. “Cigarette smoking causes X, Y and Z.” Umm, no. They have dredged up statistical correlations, but no mechanism. As for the gruesome pictures, it emerged that they searched all over the world for them. Apparently, there aren’t enough Australian smokers exibiting sufficiently florid imagery.

Nor do they bore us with pesky details like what percentage of cases of X, Y and Z they attribute to smoking fags, or how they reached those conclusions. And how about (from my current packet) “Inhaling tobacco smoke releases hydrogen cynanide into your body.” Scary, huh? And utterly meaningless.

I realise that this is a bit of a sidetrack, but the central point is that “science” has been used as a vehicle for other agendas many times before, and little compunction has been shown about lying outright for The Cause.

To this from Salopian:

OK you win. Keep puffing away at your fags, and if your tinfoil hat fails to stop you getting small-cell lung cancer or emphysema, you can always blame it on inhaling fairy dust. But, you might like to actually read IARC 38 if you really want to know the mechanistic evidence regarding smoking and lung cancer.

I think the problem here is that many of these climate sceptics are claiming that it’s only climate science that is corrupt and politicised, and that scientific probity is the norm elsewhere.

But I think they’d do better if they started arguing that a great deal of science is now corrupt and politicised, and climate science is just the latest casualty.

But nobody ever seems to dare to do this.

Which is not surprising. It would open a most enormous can of worms. And to question the received body of scientific wisdom would trigger, as I’ve remarked before, social divisions rivalling those experienced in the Reformation 500 years ago, when some people had the temerity to suggest that not everything the Pope said was true.

But I don’t think it can be avoided for very much longer.

About the archivist

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

53 Responses to A Slight Parting of the Curtains

  1. Joe L. says:

    Bravo, Richard Lindzen!! This is the kind of story we need to spread as far and wide as possible. This is an actual, credible scientist questioning the SHS “studies,” as well as the so-called “direct link” between smoking and lung cancer… all while attempting to put forth an argument against climate change! This is important not just for our liberties, but also for the future of science. We can’t let this go unnoticed. We need to rip the curtains apart while they’re parted!

    • Frank Davis says:

      But Richard Lindzen is only one atmospheric physicist. And he’s probably retired (he’s at least 74 now). And he’s not been highly outspoken. And you can see what sort of trouble he was getting into in that interview for daring to question the settled science of SHS.

      Someone like Anthony Watts (of Watts Up With That) is a true believer in smoking harm. Both his parents were smokers, and both died of lung cancer. So while he’s a climate sceptic, he’s not a smoking harm sceptic at all.

      • Joe L. says:

        On point as always, Frank. However, Lindzen is now one more legitimate scientist on the public record as being skeptical of the “science” behind the smoking bans. Obviously the first few are going to dragged through the mud for speaking up, but the hope is that it incentivizes other actual scientists to speak up against junk science and will eventaully cause a snowball effect. As a weird but fitting analogy, look at the current Bill Cosby rape allegations for example. People were afraid to speak up for decades because Cosby was universally beloved. However, after only a couple big drips, the facuet handle broke clean off, and now the media is portraying him as a full-fledged mickey-slipping, toe-sucking rapist.

        • Frank Davis says:

          now the media is portraying him as a full-fledged mickey-slipping, toe-sucking rapist.

          But is he actually one? Here in the UK we’ve been having a whole string of disc jockeys being given media trials along similar lines.

  2. Smoking Lamp says:

    This post directly addresses the thoughts I have been having over the past day or so regarding the New Orleans situation. As you know the City of New Orleans is facing a possible comprehensive indoor/outdoor smoking ban. At the same time many cities and provinces throughout the US and Canada (not to forget Australia and New Zealand) are pressing forward on comprehensive bans as well.

    Now, the majority of bans are predicated upon the “documented” proof that second hand smoke is a health risk. The problem is there is actually no solid documentation and somehow that meme has taken hold and is accepted. The same though comes to mind with the connection between smoking and diseases. It seems everything that can go wrong with a body is derived from smoking. If not first hand smoking then second hand smoking. The problem is I don’t recall any study actually producing these links. I recall associations between smoking and lung cancer and assertions related to dose-response relationships. These are reasonable indicators that further research is needed, that there is a risk, but not of causation. Of course there are several risk factors at play. Yet, the “absolute” causal link is the basis of all current policy. Somewhere in this mix there are legal proceedings and consent decrees with tobacco companies. It seems the documentary evidence in these cases is not fully in the public recurred. Why is that? Does some of the evidence mitigate claims of racketeering and wrong doing? I don’t know, but without transparency it is difficult to ascertain.

    The propaganda has taken hold. The question is how do you counter it. As demonstrated in this post even when presented with evidence that the debate hasn’t been fully or fairly pursued the knee jerk reaction is discount the undesired evidence — “don’t confuse me with facts.” If you try and counter the conventional wisdom or ask why cancer rates are going up when smoking is going down or any other reasonable doubt you get rejected out of hand. Somehow by being informed and skeptical you are ignorant.

    How did this happen? I was in France last year at a conference. During the breaks nearly 200 smokers would be outside, perhaps a third of the conferees. How did their voice get ignored? It seems smoking rates did not go down enough there so they are adding new bans. What will it take for even smokers to question this drive toward total control? I know totalitarianism is powerful and consumes rational process. I know it drives banal acts of evil and persecution, but in the past it was in (relatively) small pockets with counter forces competing. Now it seems the fascist machine is fully global. Perhaps that presents an opportunity for if the totalitarian gambit gets exposed and challenged in one place it will be challenged in all…

    • Some other Tom says:

      Their voices got ignored because the media won’t hear them or let them speak. It doesn’t fit the agenda

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      It builds until finally it BURSTS at the seams and completely falls apart…….It becomes a total political liability to back anti-smoking measures. That’s whats coming.

    • prog says:

      Part of the problem is that many smokers have also swallowed the big lie. On online discussions you can almost guarantee that at least person who claims to be a smoker will bang on about not smoking where non smokers are present, children in particular. Granted, these will include antis who pretend to be smokers.

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    Frank no matter what the whole damnable junk science business will be ripped apart at the core.

    They brought it on themselves all of them from the politicians to the researchers and prohibitionist an global warming Nazis themselves……

    The reformation came about because of one thing…………CATHOLIC ABUSE of the people and of DOGMA in the bible itself.

    In effect Dogma today is the volatile use of agenda driven junk science and the absolute blackmale and threats to tow the line and stay in line by government and medical or research divisions,universities or whatever…….

    The entire system of BS will create itself into a total collapse possibly even greater than the Reformation!

  4. waltc says:

    Yes. Acknowledging that shs kills is like a sanity test. You know.. like knowing the correct date or who’s president. To not acknowledge it means you’re nuts. And that’s why so few dare.

    But so much medical science is skewed in the same way as shs, by a small band of zealots in high places and, in many cases, a pharma co with potentially a lot to gain. I keep referring to Gary Taubes’ book, “Good Calories, Bad Calories” but it’s as much a political document as anything else, an anatomy of how the whole cholesterol scam began and a near-perfect parallel to shs. Then too, I read a fascinating piece about those anti-osteoporosis drugs which claim to reduce bone fractures by 30%. Turned out this was based on a study of 10,000 older women, all of whom had osteoporosis to start with. Upshot: at the end of x (I think it was 10) years there were a grand total of 3 fractures in the 5000 women getting the placebo, and “only” 2 in the pill-taking group. Therefore: the claim of reducing fractures by 30%. But statins and bone builders get into the medical culture and there’s no getting them out because it’s so damn hard to uproot a deeply planted idea.

    It’s interesting to contemplate who benefits from the shs scam. Aside from pharma, which still keeps plugging for a smoker-free planet in which millions, they hope, will eventually be hooked on their wares, and aside from the priggish egos of control freaks, and the souls of hypochondriacs who discovered the cause of their every malady real and imagined, , everyone else loses–financially, psychically, socially and otherwise.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Acknowledging that shs kills is like a sanity test.

      When in fact, in my opinion, it’s an insanity test. I think anyone who thinks SHS kills is crazy, and it’s why I’ve parted from many of my former friends. They believe this craziness, and I don’t.

      We’re now living in a world that’s as demon-haunted as in any mediaeval time. Only it’s not witches and goblins and fairies that plague us, but CO2 and SHS. These are the new phantoms and spectres.

      Worth watching if you can get it is Richard Lindzen at what is a sort of Inquisition in the UK last year. He’s a slow-talking guy, and he was surrounded by a baying crowd of global warming True Believers. I bet he wished he’d never accepted the invitation. It’s 45 minutes of stalin show trial, more or less.

    • margo says:

      ‘,,, it’s so damn hard to uproot a deeply planted idea.’ That’s about it, walt, though a couple have been uprooted – the ‘butter is bad’ one, the ‘coffee is bad’ one, I think. So maybe there’s always hope.

    • nisakiman says:

      It’s interesting to contemplate who benefits from the shs scam. Aside from pharma, which still keeps plugging for a smoker-free planet in which millions, they hope, will eventually be hooked on their wares…

      I used to think that the multi-billion dollar global market in NRT was the reason for the pharmaceutical industry involvement, but that’s small beer with regard to overall pharma profits. Then it occurred to me that the execs in that industry probably scrutinise and believe the stats put out by Tobacco Control, that smokers die younger. And the big money lies in drugs to treat diseases associated with ageing, like cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, high blood pressure and the plethora of other complaints that appear when the body is just about used up. And that, I believe, is why they pour so much money into the anti-smoking lobby. The more old people there are to treat, the greater the profits to be made. The NRT profits shrink into insignificance by comparison. They are just an added bonus. And just think how much could be made if the 30%+ smokers in the world could be made to quit and live into an unhealthy old age! It would be a bonanza!

      On another tack, since I was here in Thailand last year, the restrictions have grown apace. From what I’ve seen of the cigarette packets, there is no room for ‘plain’ – the whole packet appears to be a gory and grotesque depiction of some awful affliction or another on one side and some sort of written exaggeration / lie on the other. I’m not sure where they put the brand name – on the bottom of the pack, perhaps?
      The smarter restaurants with outdoor seating are starting to plaster ‘No Smoking’ signs everywhere in the outside seating areas. All hotels seem to be non-smoking (I’m not sure if that’s law or not). You can’t scratch without being assaulted by one of those awful signs. It’s quite appalling how how they’ve fallen for all the propaganda hook, line and sinker.

      I despair…

      • nisakiman says:

        Oh, as an addendum, on the way here I transited through the brand new (opened this year) Hamad terminal in Doha, a huge edifice stuffed full of upmarket shops and food outlets. It’s a very busy terminal as it is a hub for Asia, the Middle East, Africa and the West. There are just a few tiny, badly ventilated and uncomfortable smoking booths in the whole place. Perhaps 0.001% of the area has been grudgingly put aside for the use of 25 – 30% of the passengers who pass through. I was disgusted.

        • beobrigitte says:

          You wanna try heathrow….. I had an encounter with a 20 something anti-smoker who told me that the smoking area (OUTDOORS!) was too far away for me to catch my connecting flight. The he proceeded to tell me that he told his father to stop smoking and give HIM the money instead.
          I just smiled and said:” Boy, I do hope your job pays enough for you to live on. Your smoking father obviously suvived what I did – our youth.”

    • Rose says:

      From the comments thread –

      “If Dr Waiton wants to blow carcinogens in the faces of his infant children while they are confined in a moving metal box then he should feel free, why would any rational person object?”

      They do already and there is no escape.

      Being a virtual hermit these days and living away from main roads, going down the motorway last weekend I was struck by the strong smell of vehicle fumes coming through the air vents and as the cars and lorries passed, I could smell the different fuels and oils they were using even though the windows were closed.
      I suppose most people get so used to them it ends up as an unnoticeable and invisible background smell.

      I thought that all that stuff was ment to be filtered out.

      • prog says:

        It is because they can’t see it, also because they haven’t been brainwashed to fear it. Not that anyone can really do much to solve the problem, it’s far more convenient and politically expedient to play it down and find a much less dangerous scapegoat.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          You want to fuck with peoples minds,challenge their pre conceived set in stone beliefs…..

          Simply tell em prove smoking causes any disease……………or any other so called beliefthey hold as settled science. Its the same as nailing a 99 page thesis to the brandeburg church door and starting Protestantism………

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    Ive just noticed something here in America. When top public healt positions come open around the country. Its become all to clear that only other top Trusted Nazis get hired for the positions from other parts of the country. Ive seen it happen al to often now. SG regina Benjamin Miss fat ass in anti-smoking for instance then a Louisville Nazi who didn’t get the required results in northern Kentucky was fired but yet hired to do th same job in deland fla and all the hooplala that went with the send off and then the party reception for when the Nazi arrived at his new post………

    Today I see another Kentucky loser Nazi gets hired for a texas position doin the same thing;

    • Frank Davis says:

      The same thing happens in the UK. But at least in America there are some places which hold out (like Kentucky). Here in the UK, we have wall-to-wall zealotry. Once the zealots take over anywhere, they take over everywhere. It’s why I don’t watch TV or read newspapers.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        I agree with the tv and newspaper bit. But unfortunately to stay abreast of the latest BS claims or latest junk science claims one has to stay informed from every source available.

        The Kentucky Nazis are back at it again with 3 stories this morning alone.

        The health and welfare committee is using their committee to force a few meetings with various members trying to drum up support. Its still a dead issue but they try andmake it sound like they have chance again just like cheerleaders.

        This time the new tactic is the old one we always here about HEALT COST SAVINGS using their normally skewed BS cost claims………..life years lost costs,value of life etc etc……


        • harleyrider1978 says:

          The Govenor Beshear has bee running an illegal health exchange that the legislature refuses to fund or even aknowledge and its in court being fought now by a friend who is a lawyer and a libertarian. My other friend Phil Moffet a Republican just won a seat in te ky legislature and he is and always has been against a ban. He ran for governor here last time and only lost by a small margin. He may yet run again this coming year.

          Phil keeps us abreast along with Ken knoelman of any and all alerts then we attack in mass lighting up the switchboard…………Ken ran for state treasurer2 years ago unsuccessfully I hate to say. But he gets on KYET in the debates over the ban with westrum and a few others. He was tearing them a new one last year and started using our stuff to flat out destroy the opposition especially on body counts to SHS and the like.

          The Nazis were in total fear when he cut lose an omg moment when naturally they cut the show early!

          Then Ive got a few friends who are lobbyist whom I wont name but are instrumental at destroying ban movements……….

          I gave them more ammo last year at their request than likely needed,but it was printed and passed around the state capitol in person by them.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Well, I read lots of stuff online, from all over the world. But I don’t have a TV set, and I don’t buy any newspapers. Why should I, when none of them speak for me?

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          None speak for me either not even foxnews anymore. I just need to know the latest BS out of the Nazis mouths and figure out what their up to next to make a battle plan.

  6. Rose says:

    Talking of religions.

    This story has finally got me in the Christmas mood.

    Don’t say ‘Merry Christmas’, it might offend someone, says Whitehall guidance

    “Employees at the Department of Energy and Climate Change have received advice on keeping their festive greetings ‘politically correct’

    “Staff at a Government department have been urged to avoid writing the words “Merry Christmas” in seasonal email greetings to avoid upsetting anyone.

    Instead, employees at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) have reportedly been advised to stick to the more neutral term “Seasons Greetings”

    I really must inform my Sikh neighbours, they’ve had their Christmas decorations up for a fortnight.

    It’s been called Christmas or the Latin equivalent, since Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire of which we were then a part.

    “Nicene Christianity became the state church of the Roman Empire with the Edict of Thessalonica in AD 380, when Emperor Theodosius I made it the Empire’s sole authorized religion”
    http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_church_of_the_Roman_Empire

    So its as good a name as any, I’ve never been quite sure what our non-religious family celebrate but we do so with gusto.

    Still, two days to the Solstice, things get brighter from then on.

    • beobrigitte says:

      “Employees at the Department of Energy and Climate Change have received advice on keeping their festive greetings ‘politically correct’

      For me that ‘politically correct’ festive greeting still is “Merry Christmas”. My muslim and jewish colleagues don’t mind; they cover what they can over Christmas and we christians cover their festive days. That way we all get time off on OUR festive days.

      We do not get time off for e.g. Eid – and why should we? We are Christians! So there are many more of us and it is easier for us to cover the e.g. Eid absence than it is for the muslim/jewish colleagues to cover for us over Christmas! And they will work with the “Merry Christmas” banners all around them. After all, for us it is “Merry Christmas”!!! It will take a lot for me to persuade my youngest that, although Christmas this year is very sad to 3 families we know, it is for us still a wonderful family time for us. I haven’t got a clue as yet how I am going to do it but I’ll think of something positive.

  7. carol2000 says:

    Oh, whoop-dee-doo, another worthless limp noodle. He doesn’t question the scientific fraud of blaming smoking for diseases caused by infection, and he even dredges up that red herring about meta-analysis supposedly being bad. That establishes his incompetence in a subject I know well, so I have no confidence about his competence elsewhere.

  8. Rose says:

    Is there no end to this torment? Now they are singing at us.

    VIDEO: Yorkshire Smokefree workers record Christmas song to raise awareness for their stop smoking campaign

    • beobrigitte says:

      Sorry, after 47 seconds I killed the vid. By then my BLOOD BOILED.
      On the first day of Christmas not smoking gave to me a healthier life that’s smoke-free….
      Can they please go and sing this dumb version to (since a few days) 3 sets of parents and relatives who this year have to spend Christmas without one of their children/siblings/grand-children/nephew/cousin….? (The funeral of the last one is on Saturday).

      Anti-smokers, take your fucking smoke-free Christmas to hell with you.

  9. beobrigitte says:

    The case for lung cancer is very good but it also ignores the fact that there
    are differences in people’s susceptibilities which the Japanese studies have
    pointed to.

    In other words: although it looks like the cause of lung cancer could be anything. This is most likely to be closest to the truth. For many years I have wondered why smoking for 45 years has not resulted in me suffering from lung cancer. IF smoking is a contributary factor for lung cancer, what sets me (and many, many others!) apart from those who do suffer from lung cancer? What is their average age?
    IF I get lung cancer when I am feeling too old and miserable in my little isolated world will every other potential factor be ignored and smoking stated as cause; and the (idiotic) “lag” phase of 20 – 40 years (not taking into account what substances I have encountered in these 20 – 40 years) stated by the anti-smokers be used as “proof” by the latter?

    I’m simply saying anything in science requires you look at it.
    YES!!!! Scientists have been elevated to a level of ‘no-doubt’; not even god can measure up to them. However, scientists, too, want to make money. And publish papers. And become important.

    Looking very critically at EVERY piece of “science” published is something a lot of people have to learn.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      For many years I have wondered why smoking for 45 years has not resulted in me suffering from lung cancer. IF smoking is a contributary factor for lung cancer, what sets me (and many, many others!) apart from those who do suffer from lung cancer? What is their average age?

      Lung and Bronchus. Invasive Cancer Incidence Rates and 95% Confidence Intervals by Age and Race and Ethnicity, United States (Table *†‡

      Rates are per 100,000 persons. Rates are per 100,000 persons.

      Note the age where LC is found…………..OLD AGE group incidence hits the 500/100,000 at age 75-85

      AGE it seems is the deciding factor……….

      http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/… Cancer Sites Combined&Year=2010&Site=Lung and Bronchus&SurveyInstanceID=1

      • garyk30 says:

        Welll, the antis will claim that smokers get lung cancer at a younger age; but, that is not true.

        Smokers and never smokers are diagnosed with lung cancer at about the same age!!

        Although never smokers were slightly older at lung cancer diagnosis than current smokers in two population-based cohorts (MEC and NHEFS), this difference was not observed in the majority of cohorts evaluated (NHS, HPFS, CTS, and U/OLCR; Table 2).

        • garyk30 says:

          Using that SEERS data, the average age of lung cancer diagnosis is 72.

          ACS and CDC say that the majority of smokers start smoking before the age of 18.

          Thus, you have to smoke for, on average, at least 54 years before getting lung cancer.

      • garyk30 says:

        Or, folks will have to be exposed to Carol’s viruses for about 72 years to get lung cancer.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Frank could just be it takes the age component and immune response degradation along with CAROLS infections to actually do the deed. If we reverse the trend and go back in time we find no so called tobacco related diseases nearly at all. Its a mystifying thought but likely on track.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Meant Gary not Frank……………lord my sometimers is kicking in again

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Just think id they had never messed with tobacco at all and styed with heir core mission of viral and bacterial control andput all that time money and effort they might just have found actual cures for so many diseases today like cancer……….

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    The Obama administration withheld the premium increases on Obamacare until after the elections to protect his Democrat Senators and Congresscritters, but it didn’t help. The premium prices will increase for 2015 from 5% for the low cost bronze and silver plans to over 25% for the top platinum plans. Deductibles will range from $2500 up to $6700 for the low cost plans. Yes, the monthly premiums are low, but many people will pay up to $6000 per year out of pocket before the insurance kicks in. So, why should most have this insurance if you’re going to pay out of pocket anyway? Many on a borderline budget will either not pay the premiums or go bankrupt.
    If you have the more expensive premiumed gold and platinum plans, the costs will be the same out of pocket. Instead, you’ll pay higher premiums to get better insurance, so you’re still going to pay heavily for the plans. In most cases, those that lost their insurance because of the insurance change-overs to Obamacare, are paying beyond their monthly budgets and are making choices not to take insurance. Notwithstanding a large population signed up for Medicaid under Obamacare (usually the poor), there has been a net loss of millions of people who were previously insured (31 Million remain uninsured; how’s that working?). Thus, the whole idea of Obamacare having the middle class paying for the poor will eventually collapse under its own financial weight. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance-f8C11484394. The idea that you can keep your insurance and your doctor was a lie, as Obamacare consultant Jonathan Gruber has told the world. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/09/22/under-obamacare-americans-will-continue-to-lose-coverage So, here is the explanation of Obamacare condensed from 20,535 pages to 4 sentences: 1. In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to un-insure the insured. 2. Next, we require the newly uninsured to be re-insured. 3. To re-insure the newly uninsured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured. 4. The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became uninsured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original uninsured can be insured, which will be free of charge to them. This is called “redistribution of wealth”; in other words, SOCIALISM

  11. Jim says:

    “a great deal of science is now corrupt and politicised, and climate science is just the latest casualty”

    The recent revelations regarding the scientific underpinning for the EU ban on neonicotinoid pesticides has shown how far the rot has set in for science – scientists basically conspired to ban these chemicals by agreeing beforehand they they should be banned and produced the ‘evidence’ to order.


  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    Taxes are to be fair and equitable with tobacco its not it is a penalizing tax and it sure isn’t used for so called smoking related diseases as they claim. Its used for SCHIP CHILDRENS INSURANCE yet they scream smokers cost xxxxxx and we all have to pay for it. BS smokers have always paid their own way and nobody else. But why wouldn’t they put smokers taxes into smoking health problems that they claim exist. Maybe the truth is they know no such thing exists as its never been proven smoking causes a single disease in anyone…………

    7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
    November 2004.


    “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

    In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

    The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Then theres ERIC HOLDER admitting the charade that they the government has to bullshit the people into believing:

      The Vetting – Holder 1995: We Must ‘Brainwash’ People on Guns like we did on cigarettes

      Breitbart.com has uncovered video from 1995 of then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder announcing a public campaign to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”
      Holder was addressing the Woman’s National Democratic Club. In his remarks, broadcast by CSPAN 2, he explained that he intended to use anti-smoking campaigns as his model to “change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, DC” about guns.

      “What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.”

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    La. police: Smoking ban would hit gambling halls

    The Daily Advertiser

    NEW ORLEANS – Louisiana regulators say $104 million in revenues and state fees might be lost over two years from Harrah’s casino, a horse-racing …


  14. Reblogged this on artbylisabelle and commented:
    Buy the whole bag of apples and gamble on whether one is spoiled?

  15. mandyv says:

    Frank, I remember this being said in a TV interview – A light-hearted note was supplied by Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, who said, ‘If I wanted to do research on the squirrels of Sussex any time from 1990 onwards, I would write my grant application saying, “I want to investigate the nut-gathering behaviour of squirrels with special reference to the effects of global warming”, and that way I get my money; if I forget to mention global warming, I might not get the money.’ http://creation.com/the-great-global-warming-swindle-debate 2007.

    So I was gob smacked when I heard this a few days ago, someone took the money to get to this conclusion surely, how depressing – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2877313/Scientists-ground-squirrels-beavers-contributing-global-warming-previously-released.html

No need to log in

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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