80% of Britons Hate the Nanny State

Items noticed today. One:

Eighty per cent of Britons ‘hate the meddling nanny state’

BRITONS hate the nanny state and think the Government should stop meddling in people’s lifestyle choices, says a survey.

Researchers found significant opposition to stealth “sin taxes” on products such as tobacco, alcohol or sugary drinks.

Instead more than 80 per cent of those questioned, excluding ‘don’t knows’, believe it should be down to individuals to make their own lifestyle choices without official interference from Government.

Supporters of Ukip were most likely to resent Whitehall meddling in their daily lives, the pollsters found.

Mark Littlewood, director general of free market think-tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, which commissioned the ComRes survey, said: “These results should be a wake-up call to politicians across the spectrum.

“It is clear that the majority of the British public think the nanny state has gone too far and want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit.

“Interestingly, Ukip voters clearly favour personal freedoms and lower sin taxes to the greatest extent, which should provide food for thought for the traditional Westminster parties. This is a clear sign that the Government needs to row back on its constant interventions into people’s lives.”

I’m one of the 80%. And I’m a UKIP voter who wants the restoration of the freedom to sit in a pub and drink a pint of beer and smoke a cigarette. That’s more important to me than UKIP’s policies on the EU and immigration.

Two:

Ebola, Smoking, and Mission Creep at the CDC

Before Tom Frieden became director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2009, his two nemeses were tuberculosis and smoking. Although both are commonly described as threats to “public health,” they differ in ways that may help explain the CDC’s stumbles in dealing with Ebola.

Tuberculosis, which Frieden helped control in New York City and India as a CDC epidemiologist, is a contagious, potentially lethal disease. Smoking, which Frieden targeted as New York City’s health commissioner, is a pattern of behavior that increases the risk of disease.

That distinction matters to people who reject paternalism as a justification for government action. We believe the use of force can be justified to protect the public from TB carriers but not to protect smokers from their own choices.

Frieden rejects that distinction. He sees the goal of public health as minimizing morbidity and mortality, even when they arise from voluntarily assumed risks, and he does not hesitate to rely on state power in pursuing that mission. For him, public health means quarantining and treating disease carriers, but it also means imposing heavy taxes on cigarettes, banning trans fats, and forcing restaurants to post calorie counts.

This understanding of public health is an open-ended license for government meddling. It is also a recipe for mission drift, as reflected in the CDC’s ever-widening agenda…

Today the CDC’s mission includes pretty much anything associated with disease or injury. In 2013 The New York Times mentioned the agency more than 200 times. Communicable diseases accounted for 54 of those references, but the topics also included smoking, drinking, electronic cigarettes, obesity, diet, suicide, addiction, driving, sports injuries, contraception, economic inequality, domestic violence, and gun control.

Obviously I don’t have a high opinion of the antismoking Frieden. But I thought he’d been replaced by somebody else after the Ebola fiasco?

Three:

60 Prominent Germans Appeal Against Another War In Europe

In a letter published by Germany’s Die Zeit, numerous famous and respected Germans including a former president and former prime minister write “Wieder Krieg in Europa? Nicht in unserem Namen!”, or, roughly translated, “War in Europe Again? Not in Our Names!”

“Nobody wants war. But North America, the European Union, and Russia are inevitably driving towards war if they do not finally halt the disastrous spiral of threats and counter-threats. All Europeans, including Russia, are jointly responsible for peace and security. Only those who do not lose sight of this goal can avoid fatal actions.”

Clearly there are a lot of people getting worried about this.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

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

41 Responses to 80% of Britons Hate the Nanny State

  1. Smoking Lamp says:

    Extreme state intervention into lifestyles is troubling. It is an affront to liberty, it misdirected government effort, and it empowers violent repression.

    The 80% of Britons indicating that government meddling has gone to far is a welcome indicator. Unfortunately it is counter balanced by the intense hate and bullying of many directed against smokers. Just a few hours ago the Guardian published an article “Doctors’ fury at ministers over delays to plain cigarette packaging,” http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/27/doctors-ministers-delays-plain-cigarette-packaging#comments . It is not so much the 4,000 medical personnel advocating for an unwise policy (plain packaging which fuels organized crime and has no impact on smoking rates) as the intense hatred exhibited in many of the comments. It seems a segment of antismokers believes that wishing death and harm on smokers is a morally righteous posture. They also seem to think that health care for smokers places an undue burden on them. Obviously they miss the fact that smokers also pay the same base taxes and additionally pay steep tobacco taxes. These propaganda-driven rants need to be disabused.

    Hopefully the tide is beginning to turn.

    • Ivan D says:

      The Guardian article is just one in a series from a particularly pathetic excuse for a journalist. He does not represent “doctors” in any meaningful way. He is a talentless man who hates smoking and smokers. He is a useful idiot who unquestioningly supports public health extremism. The Guardian is a sad, twisted comic propped up by a particularly hate filled minority of British society.

    • Reinhold says:

      Every now and then something seems to show that the tide begins to turn.

      It never did.

      Quite the opposite.

  2. waltc says:

    Freiden still heads the CDC and will as long as Obama reigns . He was simply replaced by an “Ebola czar” who was supposed to more convincingly communicate with the public after Freiden f’d up too many times. But the czar himself never communicated with anyone at all , neither public nor press, and completely disappeared in a matter of weeks if not days. Alas, Freiden is a fact of life and the new FDA head appears to make the war on tobacco a priority. And what politician could argue with that?

    • Frank Davis says:

      But Ebola dropped out of the news after the “Ebola czar” took over. It became a non-story. Reporting dried up in early November. Back then the body count was approaching 5000. I read last week that it had now reached 7000. So it’s not as if the epidemic has died out. Perhaps the “Ebola czar’s” job was to not communicate, and he’s been doing his job very well?

      • beobrigitte says:

        But Ebola dropped out of the news after the “Ebola czar” took over.

        Yes. It was very noticable, all of a sudden no more reports about the Ebola epidemic. Perhaps Mrs. Chan was hoping we’d all forget that the WHO went to a, held in secret, FCTC “conference” from 13.10.14 to 18.10.14 in Moscow, costing the taxpayers $1.6million when the WHO knew in September 2014 that the Ebola epidemic was out of control.

        And now they (tobacco control = same thing as WHO) are all itching to implement what in this frivolous gathering in Moscow has been decided. The WHO’s INCOMPETENT reaction to the Ebola epidemic gets in the way of this.

        Ebola is still raging. Whilst it begins to burn itself out in Liberia, it still is increasing in Sierra Leone. I have been told that the latest batch of volunteers flew out there on 20.12.14.

        Real deaths are a mystery to the WHO&friends. More (including a lot of children) will follow due to famine hitting the Ebola epidemic affected areas. Little children, having lost their parents, do not know how to bring in the harvest. Neither are they in a position to look for employment.

        Here we have it: The World Health Organisation & friends does not care about Ebola victims. They are REAL. Unlike “tobacco victims”.

  3. junican says:

    The whole point of the ‘EU Project’, started in a small way, in the first instance, as the ‘Coal and Steel Agreement’ (or whatever), and subsequently converted into ‘The Common Market’, was to bring to an end the possibility of any future wars between European nations. If we look back at the history of Europe over the past several centuries, there have always been wars between one nation and another. The objective, and a laudable objective, has been to stop those wars once and for all. Why was it that ‘The West’, including the RAF and the USAF, blasted and bombed Serbia? Was it not to reinforce the supremacy of the ‘no European wars’ ideal?
    And yet, the EU Aristocrats have come close to causing a European war in the Ukraine, which could easily conflagrate into serious devastation. What is the problem? The problem is ‘unaccountability’. No matter how laudable the objective might be, autocracy will lead to disaster. It always has done.

    ====

    It really is weird. The Common Market was achieving great things. More and more European nations were achieving common standards of equipment durability, and more and more trade was producing greater and greater prosperity for everyone.
    And then the Charlatans moved in. The UN, the WHO, the IPCC, the World Bank and others. Corruption followed.
    Britain seems to be locked in. Is there any way out? Well, yes there is. Revert to Common Market ideals. It is that simple. No need to leave the EU – just refuse to accept subservience. STOP FUNDING THE CHARLATANS.

  4. harleyrider1978 says:

    “Hookers & Blow” Lift Britain Over France As World’s 5th Largest Economy
    Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/27/2014 – 15:00

    Britain has inched out France as the world’s fifth-largest economy thanks to what The Telegraph calls “a shake-up” of the national accounts this summer. UK gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to total $2.828 trillion (£1.816 trillion) this year, compared with French GDP of $2.827 trillion, as The Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) said Britain’s acceleration was boosted by the inclusion of sex and drugs to UK growth (as part of new pan-European accounting standards). Official estimates show prostitution added about £5.7bn to the UK economy in 2013, while illegal drugs were worth about £6.62bn. One question – how did they estimate it?
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-27/hookers-blow-lift-britain-over-france-worlds-5th-largest-economy

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    2014: The Year Propaganda Came Of Age

    Still, without wanting to put myself anywhere near the level of those very very real heroes, please don’t get me wrong about that, that’s not what I mean, I was thinking about them with regards to what is happening in our media today. I’ve mentioned before that I don’t think Joseph Goebbels had anything on US and European media today.

    That propaganda as a strategic and political instrument has been refined to a huge extent over the past 70-odd years since Goebbels first picked up on Freud’s lessons on how to influence the unconscious mind, and the ‘mass-mind’, as a way to ‘steer’ an entire people, not just as a means to make them buy detergent. These days, the media can make people believe just about anything, and they have the added benefit that they can pose as friends of the people, not the enemy.

    But there is a reason why such a large ‘industry’ has developed on the web with people writing articles that don’t say what the mass media say. That reason for is, obviously, first and foremost that not everybody believes whatever they are told. The problem is equally obvious: not nearly enough people are being reached to make a true difference, and to question the official narratives.

    Me, I have no claim to fame outside of the appreciation I get from first, my readers and second, from my colleagues and peers. I get a lot of both, and I thank you for that, but this certainly is not about me. If anything, it’s about trying to live up to the desire for truth in the face of odds squarely stacked against it, and against the people I try to reach out to. Trying to do just 0.1% of what the WWII underground press was about.

    A few days ago, I wrote in About That Interview:

    The FBI claims they are certain the hackers are North Korean, but they have provided no proof of that claim. We have to trust them on their beautiful blue eyes. I think if anything defines 2014 for me, it’s the advent of incessant claims for which no proof – apparently – needs to be provided. Everything related to Ukraine over the past year carries that trait. The year of ‘beautiful blue eyes’, in other words. Never no proof, you just have to believe what your government says.

    And that truly defines 2014 for me. A level of propaganda I don’t recognize, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen before. 2014 has for me been the year of utter nonsense. To wit, it just finished in fine form with a 5% US GDP growth number, just to name one example. Really, guys? 5%? Really? With all the numbers presented lately, the negative Thanksgiving sales data – minus 11% from what I remember -, the so-so at best Christmas store numbers to date, shrinking durable goods in November and all? Plus 5%?

    It really doesn’t matter what I say, does it? You have enough people believing ridiculous numbers like that to make it worth your while. After all, that’s all that counts. It’s a democracy, isn’t it? If a majority believes something, it becomes true. If you can get more than 50% of people to believe whatever you say, that’s case closed.

    With well over 90 million working age Americans counted as being out of the labor force, and with 43 million on food stamps, you can still present a 5% GDP growth number, if only you can get a sufficiently large number of people to ‘believe’. And you do, I’ll give you that. As far as the media goes, we have achieved the change we can believe in. We may not have that change, but we sure do believe we have, don’t we? And isn’t that what counts? Are congratulations in order?

    Well, not where I’m at, they’re not. I should do a shout out to the likes of Zero Hedge, Yves Smith, David Stockman, Wolf Richter, Mish, Steve Keen, Jim Kunstler, and so many others, we’re a solid crowd by now even if we’re neglected, and please don’t feel left out if you’re not in that list, I know who you are. The problem is, we’re all completely neglected by the mass media, even though there are a ton of very sharp minds in this ‘finance blogosphere’. And perhaps we should make it a point to break through that ridiculous black-out in 2015.

    2014, in my eyes, has been the year of propaganda outdoing even its own very purpose, and succeeding too. We are supposed to be living in a time of the best educated people in the history of mankind, and everyone thinks (s)he’s mighty smart, but precious few have even an inkling of a clue of what transpires in the world they live in. Talk about a lost generation. Or two.

    We really need to question the value of higher education, if all we get for it is a generation of people so easily duped by utter blubber. What do they teach people at our universities these days? Certainly not to think for themselves, that much is clear. And then what is the use? Why spend all that time raising an entire generation of highly educated pawns, sheep and robots? I can think of some people liking that, but for society as a whole, it’s devastating if that’s all higher education is.

    And if you would like to raise doubts here, the very existence of finance blogosphere I mentioned before is proof that we indeed have raised a generation of sheep. If we had functioning media, there’d be no need for that blogosphere. We are the people who keep on pointing out where the mass media fail, let alone the politicians, simply by being there and being supported to the extent we are by the few people who escape the sheep mentality.

    But that’s not nearly enough. Journalists, reporters, whatever they call themselves, working for Bloomberg, Reuters, CNBC etc. should at the very least quote Zero Hedge on a daily basis, and Mish, and Steve, and Yves, and perhaps even me – though it’s fine if they continue to ignore me, as long as they give the rest their rightful place.

    There are many people in the blogosphere who are many times smarter than the people who write for the mass media, and that’s a very simple and hardly disputable fact that needs to be recognized. When you read something in your paper or at your online news provider, it should be second nature to ask yourself: but what would Tyler Durden say, or the Automatic Earth, or Naked Capitalism, or David Stockman?

    But we’re nowhere near that, are we? We’ve been fooled with economic stats for years, not just in the US, not even just in the west, but all over, they all grabbed on to the potential of providing people with numbers that have little to do with reality, but that simply feel good. Or even just look good.

    Still, boy, have we been, and are we being, fooled. Then again, most of you wouldn’t know, would you? We people tend to discount the future, to see today as more important than tomorrow, and in the same manner we find our children’s future much less important than our own. Because that feels good too. If we are comfy right now, screw them. Not that we’d ever put it into those terms.

    But you know, that’s really all old hack by now. 2014 brought us a whole other class of nonsense. And we swallowed it all hook line and entire sinker.

    2014 gave us Ukraine. And you just try and find anyone today who doesn’t think Vladimir Putin is and was the evil genius mind behind the whole thing, including the 4500+ people who died there over the past 10 months. Why is it so hard to anyone who doubts that narrative? Because our media told us Putin is the bogeyman. And ‘we’ never asked for any proof. That is, except for those of us in that same blogosphere.

    Meanwhile, round after round of sanctions against Russia have been set up and activated by EU and US, causing hardship for both Russian people and European businesses. But why, what exactly is Putin allegedly guilty of?

    The US/EU installed a government in Kiev in February (yeah, yap about it), which is still in place, with a bunch of US citizens recently added for good measure – and for profit-. The chocolate prince president was indeed elected months later, but the prime minister – Yats – was handpicked by America, and is still -amazingly – in place. That’s the same government that had it own army murder thousands of its own citizens, and not a thing has been resolved so far.

    The whole thing came to a head when MH17 was shot down over the summer. That too was blamed on Putin. Or was it? Well, not directly, nobody said Putin ordered that plane to be shot. Nor did anyone say Russia shot it. There is the accusation that Russian speaking Ukrainian ‘rebels’ did it, but proof for that was never provided in the 6 months since the incident. And there must be a best before date in there somewhere.

    Is it possible the ‘rebels’ did it? We can’t exclude it, but that’s for the same reason we can’t exclude the option that little green Martians did it: we don’t know. But even then, even if they did, there’s the question whether that would have been on purpose. Which seems really stretching it: nothing they want would be served by shooting down a plane full of European, Malaysian and Australian holiday goers.

    But here we are: no proof and layer upon layer of sanctions. And nary a voice is raised in the west. If one is, it’s to denounce the Russians as bloodthirsty barbarians. Even though there is no proof they did anything other than protecting what they see as their own people. Something we all would do too, no questions asked.

    Ukraine defines 2014 as the year western propaganda came into its own. Not just fictional stories about an economic recovery anymore, no, we had our politico-media establishment ram an entire new cold war down our throats. And we swallowed it whole. We may have had a million more years of higher education than our parents and grandparents, but we sure don’t seem to have gotten any smarter than them.

    There is a lot of information out there, written by people inspired by things other than monetary incentives or job security or anything like that, people who simply want to get information out that your trusted media won’t give you anymore than Goebbels’ media did in occupied Europe in the 1940s. And you don’t even have to risk your lives to access that information. All you have to do is to get off your couch.

    The Automatic Earth is but a small part of a very valuable and fast growing resource that warrants a lot more attention than it’s been receiving to date. A reported 5% US GDP growth print is one reason why, the entire Ukraine fantasy story is another. The blogosphere is full of functioning neurons, which is more than you can say for your papers and online MSM.

    As far as media is concerned, 2014 has been downright scary in its distortion of reality. Let’s try and move 2015 a little bit closer towards what’s actually happening.
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-27/2014-year-propaganda-came-age

    • Frank Davis says:

      Ukraine defines 2014 as the year western propaganda came into its own. Not just fictional stories about an economic recovery anymore, no, we had our politico-media establishment ram an entire new cold war down our throats. And we swallowed it whole.

      Well I didn’t swallow it. And I can think of plenty of other people who didn’t either. And I’d guess that all those prominent Germans mentioned above didn’t swallow it either.

      The author of this piece is complaining that not enough people pay attention to the blogosphere. But why should they? Do I ever complain that not enough people listen to me? Why should anyone listen to me? I don’t see why they should.

  6. magnetic01 says:

    Simon Clark notes that it’s really 70% of Britons hate the nanny state; still a hefty amount. Information on the actual poll:
    HEADLINE FIGURES
    Seven in ten (70%) British adults say it should be the individual’s responsibility to make their own lifestyle choices and the government should not interfere. Looking at those expressing a preference, this figure rises to over 80%.
    Half of Britons (51%) believe indirect taxes are too high, this rises to seven in ten (69%) among only those who declared a preference. Eight in ten (78%) giving an opinion believe they hit the poorest the hardest.
    A majority of Britons believe the government should not offer financial incentives to people who are trying to lose weight (61%), stop smoking (60%) or stop drinking excessively (62%).
    UKIP voters are the most hostile to government intervention on lifestyle choices across the board.
    http://comres.co.uk/poll/1359/iea-lifestyle-taxes-poll.htm

    There’s another recent poll that seems to be tapping the same sentiment.

    New polling by Ipsos Mori for NPC warns that the mistrust many UKIP supporters feel for ‘the establishment’ is now extending to the charity sector.
    Over half of UKIP supporters said that they had no trust in UK charities, adding them to the list of institutions in which they have lower than average trust – MPs, the BBC and the police.
    The new data, which is the first of its kind ever published, finds that 53 per cent of UKIP supporters declare low trust in charities, compared with 33 per cent of Conservative voters, 28 per cent of Labour supporters and 24 per cent of Lib Dems.

    http://leftfootforward.org/2014/12/the-disillusionment-of-ukip-supporters-could-damage-the-charity-sector/

    It could be argued that a significant amount of the “nannying” (bullying) comes from a government-connected/aligned segment of the “charity” sector, i.e., “lifestyle Gestapo”. The article has a very nasty slant in that it fosters the impression that UKIP supporters are the “problem”, this time for charities too. Rather, it would seem that a significant portion of the population is disillusioned with an overbearing establishment that fails to represent them. Expecting much of the same from the mainstream parties and media, this disillusioned segment is flocking to UKIP. The article never entertains the idea that a segment of charities in its bullying, megalomaniacal conduct is responsible for its understandably bad name with this group of voters.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      So I guess it means all of us here led the way as the first to say I HATE THE NANNY STATE.

    • smokingscot says:

      @ Magnetic01

      Dug into the poll you mentioned and noted the results for the question:

      “Owners of pubs and private members clubs should be allowed to have a private room for people to smoke in if they want to.”

      That’s at page 6, table 4 (it’s a low data pdf).

      http://comres.co.uk/polls/Lifestyle_taxes_Polling_Tables_December_2014.pdf

      Those under age 24 ain’t that keen, even on separate smoking rooms, while those over 25 tend to favour it, until you hit the 65 and above, when it tails off. Also there’s a big skew, with those in the upper classes against it, while those in the lower classes far more open in their favour.

      Over 4000 surveyed and I think it’s pretty good all round.

      With that question there are fewer undecided, yet – with experience of polls conducted in Scotland – I’m of the opinion that there’s an aspect of not wanting to say the wrong thing (certainly the case in Scotland) and a fair percentage simply won’t vote.

      With respect to your second link. That poll was carried out by NPC. So who are they?

      New Philanthropy Capital

      and their mission?

      “NPC exists to make charities and funders more successful in achieving their missions. Through rigorous analysis, practical advice and innovative thinking, we make their money and energy go further. Our consulting services help charities and funders find solutions to the challenges they face, whether they are trying to work more effectively, exploring new ways of working, or setting out to prove their worth.”

      http://www.thinknpc.org/our-work/

      So none too keen on looking in mirrors. It’s ALWAYS the fault of someone else.

  7. Frank Davis says:

    I’ve just added mIchael McFadden’s Wall of Hate in my right margin. It’s full of antismoking hate comments. Can someone check that it works OK to bring up the Wall of Hate jpeg.

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The Idiot Thai Nazis used Hydrogen gas in the balloons

      • roobeedoo2 says:

        “This incident is yet more evidence that cigarettes in any form can be hazardous to your health”.

        LOL! No, not that anti-smoking fuckwits are hazardous in trying to make a point. What was the compere’s name … Pits? Figures …

    • beobrigitte says:

      The people left closest to the blaze are left with burned hands, scorched faces and missing eye brows…

      That’s what hydrogen filled balloons do to overeager anti-smokers.

      There is a god!!!

  9. Rose says:

    For the last four days, no internet, no newspapers, no watching BBC news, I have been blissfully unaware of any “guidance” whatsoever from Public Health, it has been quite marvellous and I feel considerably better for it.

  10. Tony says:

    This video is 3 hours long and I haven’t seen it all yet. But I like the way it starts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YkVHHYwXm8U

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Smoking-cars-child-abuse/story-25774714-detail/story.html

    ‘Smoking in cars is child abuse’

    By The Sentinel | Posted: December 28, 2014

     Comments (0)
    I HAVE recently seen an article about a forthcoming Parliamentary ‘private member’s bill’ that will debate whether there should be a ban on smoking in cars that are carrying children.

    To place any child in a smoke-filled vehicle or any enclosed space is tantamount to child abuse.

    I personally think smoking in all vehicles should be banned, regardless of the age of the passenger

    There is overwhelming evidence of the very serious health risks for smokers and those who inhale their exhaled smoke – and it doesn’t just stop with the inhalation of smoke. Those who habitually smoke can’t possibly have the best of health.

    They are more likely to cough while driving . They will not always be able to have both hands on the steering wheel in emergencies.

    There is always a chance of being burnt by cigarettes etc. There is even a risk of fire.

    It is also a well known fact that children who spend time in the presence of adults who smoke are more likely to smoke themselves.

    I find it hard to understand that some leading politicians in this country are against anti-smoking legislation when it causes so many premature deaths and is also a massive strain on our health service. It doesn’t make sense.

    NIGEL HANCOCK

    Alsager

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Funny we been smoking in cars since they were invented and even on submerged submarines ,in pubs,at home we even had the same arguments about listening to radios in cars would cause distracted driving all faked I care do gooder arguments. Nobody dropped dead from exposure to the smoke or the songs………..Perhaps you sir didn’t get spankings by a caring father as a youngster. So today your an anarchist out to bully everyone and especially with the insane Idea that smoking around a child or in a car is child abuse. You sir are an abuse on everyone including children who desire nothing more than a ride in the car to go bye bye with daddy!

      The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

      “Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.

      The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
      “These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”

      They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”
      The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
      Volume 121, Issue 1 , Pages 38-42.e3, January 2008

      .
      This is a Swedish study.

      “Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

      CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”
      Clin Exp Allergy 2001 Jun;31(6):908-14

      • Some French bloke says:

        “preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them”

        With ‘them’ being the reasons to avoid you know what…
        Complete quote: They conclude: “The harmful effects of cigarette smoke are well known, and there are many reasons to avoid it. Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”

        cf. ‘WHO 1998 report into passive smoking, let’s be honest’
        http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/who-1998-report-passive-smoking-lets-be-honest

        On a similar note, the article about the ‘Health Benefits of Smoking Tobacco’ (Tom’s link from two days ago) contained similar endorsements in five out of its ten paragraphs (§ 1, 2, 5, 9, and 10).

        http://www.sott.net/article/221013-Health-Benefits-of-Smoking-Tobacco

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          They’re so called harmful effects are well known to them and the junk science they based their claims on.

          That bottom quote is they atypical cop out line attached to any study that debunks their junk science……… Or the other oft seen Further study is required to verify these findings……etc etc for grant sponging researchers ready to sale out for any dollar they can find.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          They often put those messages in there just to get the journals to accept them or were told to do it or it wouldn’t be accepted……..Biases run so deep they even eventually stopped taking any studies even 2 parties disassociated with tobacco companies from even being accepted or looked at………that’s just how biased all the journals are anymore.

          We all know this already but bares repeating.

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    Looks like the americans took notice

    New National Program in Britain: Requires Doctors to Report Patients Who Put on Weight [Read]

    You may want to think again before scarfing down that Big Mac, if you live in the UK. In an attempt to combat obesity, doctors are now being required to report people who gain weight. That’s right, Big Brother now knows if you choose a hot dog over a salad. Makes you feel protected, doesn’t it?

    From The Telegraph:

    GPs will be asked to identify patients who are putting on weight under a new national programme to help fight obesity.

    Simon Stevens, the head of the NHS, said it was time for Britain to “get back in shape” in order to protect millions of people from a host of obesity-related diseases.

    Under the scheme, family doctors will be asked to identify anyone who has gained weight and is at risk of diabetes – particularly those aged below 40.

    They will then be offered tests for pre-diabetes, followed by healthy lifestyle advice and close monitoring to ensure they are eating better and exercising more.

    It comes as new figures show Britain is now the second fattest nation in Europe, with almost 25 per cent of Britons classified as obese – compared with a European average of 16.7 per cent.

    Mr Stevens, the chief executive of the health service, said obesity was a problem that could be tackled – provided schools, parents, the NHS and the food industry all ‘got their act together’ and worked in unison.

    In a direct attack on last week’s EU ruling – which said fatness could constitute a disability – Mr Stevens said such fatalistic attitudes to the issue were “daft”.

    Instead, he urged millions of people to put Christmas indulgences behind them, and take action to shed the pounds.

    “The ghost of Christmases past reminds us that 20 years ago we didn’t have these problems as a nation,” Mr Stevens said.

    “The ghost of Christmases future tells us that if we get our act together – as the NHS, as parents, as schools, the food industry – we can get back in shape.”

    He called on individuals to take concerted action and suggested attitudes needed to change to prevent the country sleepwalking into the worst public health emergency in at least three decades.

    “Rather than recent daft judgments by the European court practically pretending that obesity is inevitable, in England in 2015 we’re going to start proving that it isn’t,” he added.

    The new figures – comparing 26 EU countries – show that in Europe, only Hungary now has higher obesity levels than Britain.

    In total 24.7 per cent of Britons are now obese, compared with a European average of 16.7 per cent, the figures from the Organisation for Economics and Co-operation disclose.

    Six EU countries now have obesity levels less than half those in the UK, the figures show. Italy, Bulgaria, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Austria all have obesity levels of less than 13 per cent, with the lowest rates in Romania, at 7.9 per cent.

    In the EU, only Hungary has higher rates of adult obesity than the UK, at 28.5 per cent.

    Mr Stevens promised to introduce the first ever national programme to target millions of people at risk of diabetes, because their weight is creeping up.

    Well that’s not intrusive or anything. But I suppose when the general population is paying for your healthcare, this is the kind of crap you get. Ahhh, the wonder of socialized healthcare. You hear that, liberals? This is what could happen in America thanks to Obamacare. I hope you like eating tofu and twigs.
    http://rightwingnews.com/top-news/new-national-program-requires-doctors-report-patients-put-weight/

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    George Orwell

    The Freedom of the Press

    Orwell’s Proposed Preface to ‘Animal Farm’

    This book was first thought of, so far as the central idea goes, in 1937, but was not written down until about the end of 1943. By the time when it came to be written it was obvious that there would be great difficulty in getting it published (in spite of the present book shortage which ensures that anything describable as a book will ‘sell’), and in the event it was refused by four publishers. Only one of these had any ideological motive. Two had been publishing anti-Russian books for years, and the other had no noticeable political colour. One publisher actually started by accepting the book, but after making the preliminary arrangements he decided to consult the Ministry of Information, who appear to have warned him, or at any rate strongly advised him, against publishing it. Here is an extract from his letter:

    I mentioned the reaction I had had from an important official in the Ministry of Information with regard to Animal Farm. I must confess that this expression of opinion has given me seriously to think… I can see now that it might be regarded as something which it was highly ill-advised to publish at the present time. If the fable were addressed generally to dictators and dictatorships at large then publication would be all right, but the fable does follow, as I see now, so completely the progress of the Russian Soviets and their two dictators, that it can apply only to Russia, to the exclusion of the other dictatorships. Another thing: it would be less offensive if the predominant caste in the fable were not pigs[*]. I think the choice of pigs as the ruling caste will no doubt give offence to many people, and particularly to anyone who is a bit touchy, as undoubtedly the Russians are.

    * It is not quite clear whether this suggested modification is Mr… ’s own idea, or originated with the Ministry of Information; but it seems to have the official ring about it. [Orwell’s Note]

    http://orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go

  14. harleyrider1978 says:

    Monday, August 4, 2014

    http://www.endofinnocence.com/2014/08/american-progressive-manifesto.html

    American Progressive Manifesto

    It is self-evident that government has the power (or should have the power) to implement any good idea, and that when we are all on the same page, everyone benefits, but now, let’s think for ourselves, and explain why.

    Effective government is necessary for the health and prosperity of everyone today and for future generations. A threat to government is thus a threat to the health and prosperity of everyone.

    Government has some powers delegated from the power of individuals, such as the power to borrow and spend, and government also has unique powers that may not be legitimately exercised by individuals independently of government, such as the power to kill or to tax other individuals. Government thus has these unique powers, not because they were delegated by individuals who do not possess such powers, but because those individuals agreed to be bound by government.

    We know that 97% of individuals, if given the choice, would agree to be bound by government rather than live without the benefits of government. Every individual instinctively knows that his life without government would be short, nasty, and brutish.

    Although we would like to grant the 3% the right to live without government, many of those reactionaries would not get vaccinated, and many more would possess weapons. Therefore, it is self-evident that the health and prosperity of the other 97% dictate that all 100% of individuals must agree to be bound by government.

    Everyone must be bound by government at all times, even when they disagree – especially when they disagree. Otherwise, Rule of Law would devolve into chaos and threaten the health and prosperity of everyone. No one can be above the law.

    While we Progressives do not always agree with each other, we always accept the authority of government because effective government requires that 100% accept the authority of government. Anyone who does not accept the authority of government is thus a threat to the health and prosperity of everyone.

    Some governments have committed atrocities in the past, but we will not let our government commit atrocities. However, individuals and businesses will always allow themselves to be ruled, and thus, if Progressives do not rule, then a worse faction would rule. Any other faction would be less effective and may even commit atrocities, and thus a threat to our rule is a threat to the health and prosperity of everyone. In other words, we are the good guys, in the vernacular, as it were.

    Given that we are the good guys, and that we know we are right, then if we think for ourselves, we can deduce many other self-evident corollaries, such as the fact that it is OK to lie to maintain our rule. Such action is not only OK, but it is indeed noble. It is the Noble Lie advocated by Plato.

    For all these reasons, it is thus legitimate for progressives to take any action up to and including killing any number smaller than a majority in order to maintain our rule. Obviously, if we had to kill a majority to maintain our rule, then our rule would not have been legitimate. We are people of principle after all.

    More important than maintaining our rule is defending government itself. Government would be justified in killing a majority rather than letting anarchy prevail. Then, at least, the surviving minority would have the blessings of government.

    More important than maintaining government and defending our rule is defending the future. For example, defending the planet is the most critical element of defending the future, and thus we would be justified in killing all but a tiny remnant of individuals if that were necessary to stop a threat to the planet, such as Global Warming, but of course, if it were possible to save the planet by merely sterilizing (instead of killing) all but a small remnant of humanity, then we would do that instead.

    Another threat to the future is bad genes. In order to improve the human gene pool, it could be necessary to kill and/or sterilize all but small remnant of humanity. It should be self-evident that any such eugenics program should begin with those reactionaries who are least progressive.

    By now it should be clear that only by our rule can everyone experience the full blessings of government; and though we mean to rule with benevolence, make no mistake, we mean to rule.

    ——————

    I have spent years arguing with self-proclaimed American Progressives both face-to-face and online, and I have watched the words and deeds of many others. Therefore, I was able to write their manifesto, including all of their cognitive dissonance, logical fallacies, and self-delusion. They could have written it themselves if they were able to be that articulate and that honest with us and with themselves about their real goals and motives.

    In other words … I can out them …

    Progressivism in America can be summarized as the Soul of Animals trying desperately to exterminate the Soul of Humanity.

    Never forget that most (maybe all) humans carry the Soul of Humanity and not just the Soul of Animals, so perhaps all Progressives can be saved from the wrong side of history if we appeal to the soul of their humanity and if we change the perverse incentives of our society that keep pressuring them to double down on the failed, flawed, and fatal polices of the past. Ironically, it is American Progressives who are doing the most to hold back progress and thereby delaying the next great leap forward for humanity.

    To be clear, not every progressive is as ready as their elites, such as Obama’s progressive science czar, to perpetrate democide, genocide, and eugenics, but they would of course go along with their elites – some eagerly and some reluctantly. Those who would go along reluctantly simply don’t that about themselves yet.

    Although Progressive elites see those dependent on government as useful idiots, they do not realize that they are the useful idiots for a higher elite. nor do they realize that American Progressivism is actually … fascism.

  15. Pingback: 2014 in review | Frank Davis

No need to log in

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s