The New Niggers

In a referendum, it seems the Irish have voted to legalise gay marriage. Frankly, I’m astonished. But then I’m not Irish (even though I have Irish ancestry).

But Grandad‘s Irish:

So while the 5% homosexual crowd are now rejoicing, I would ask about the new Niggers of Ireland?  They constitute well over a quarter of the population and are now classed as the underdogs, with open encouragement to sneer and vilify them.  Not only do they have no laws to protect them, but it is the law itself that has classed them as the underdog, to be refused welcome, to be ostracised and to be cast in the street at every opportunity.  Millions are spent each year with the specific aim of persecuting this underclass with the stated and specific aim of forcing them to change.

One possible explanation:

Obeara pointed out what defenders of traditional marriage were up against: “all the political parties, about 160 out of 166 members of parliament, all the media, all the major US multinationals, 90% of the funding was on the Yes side, it is extraordinary, and something approaching a miracle, that 40% of the voters had the courage to vote No.”

And H/T Rose for this Reuters report:

(Reuters Health) – Smokers have more pessimistic attitudes about cancer and may be more likely to delay getting screened, according to a new survey from the UK.

Smokers are less likely to engage in cancer screening programs and are less engaged with health services overall, senior author Jane Wardle told Reuters Health in an email.

“We wanted to investigate why, by exploring whether this could be partly due to excessively negative beliefs about cancer,” said Wardle, the director of the Health Behavior Research Center at University College London…

It continues:

“In the case of smokers, the greater their perception of risk for smoking, the greater their psychological aversion to having their worries confirmed by a doctor,” said Omid Fotuhi, a psychology researcher at Stanford University in California.

Fotuhi, who was not involved with the new study, told Reuters Health by email that this may be especially true for the older sample of smokers in this study, as they may be less likely to believe that they can quit.

What about those smokers who don’t believe in the risks of smoking, and who have no wish whatever to stop smoking? Why might they avoid screening?

There’s another explanation why smokers may not wish to be screened for cancer (or anything else), and that is that they want to have as little as possible to do with a medical profession that has orchestrated the current, obscene, global persecution of smokers.

But I doubt that this will ever occur to them.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

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

17 Responses to The New Niggers

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    It just part of using the cancer scare on smokers. In fact they use cancer as a red badge to fuck everybody in the world from donation fraud to downright scare tactics to try and use that to aid the denormalization process. Franks right first the belief system has to kick in and say Do I believe the risk BS or do I believe the facts that they cant prove a damn thing………..

    Myself I stand on the side of SOLID END POINT PROOF. If we were on that level we wouldn’t be having any health laws or other Propaganda and totally ruined and distrusted medicos and research groups out there. In fact if they had to have proof positive before any debate could begin theyd all shut down tomorrow because all the do is create risk BS to back up a lifestyle war on everyone or whatever the political cause is that requires OUTCOME BASED STUDIES……..

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    Vivek Oberoi booked for smoking in public place

    Ironically Bollywood actor Vivek Oberoi, who is also the face of the anti-smoking initiative by the World Health Organisation (WHO), was booked for smoking in public places in 2012. Recently, Vivek launched the ‘Tobacco-Free Mumbai Police’ campaign with Raveena Tandon to spread awareness about the ill-effect of smoking tobacco among the policemen.

    Vivek Oberoi, who himself was booked in 2012 for smoking a hookah in a public place in 2012 kicked off the campaign yesterday. Vivek and Ranveer pledged the policemen to quit tobacco basically after 20 policemen died of cancer last year. Chewing tobacco is a habit seen in most of the cops which eventually takes their life. The drive seeks to motivate policemen to get rid of the habit by ranking police stations as ‘Tobacco-free police stations’

    Kicking tobacco is an initiative supported by the Cancer Patients Aid Association (CPAA) which was launched by the ‘Krrish 2’ actor along with actress Raveena Tandon. The actors inaugurated the campaign yesterday.
    Oberoi, the brand ambassador of the anti-smoking initiative by the World Health Organisation (WHO), was caught smoking a shisha in March 2012, at Mabrook, a restaurant in Sahara Star, the five-star hotel at Vile Parle. Shisha is a blend of molasses, fruits, and tobacco. During a raid carried by Assistant Commissioner of Police Vasant Dhoble, actor was caught smoking hookah and was booked under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003.
    Dhoble told mid-day, “The actor then wanted to escape and told me that if he was caught, it could spoil his image. But I told him that if he tried to escape, he would have to be stopped forcefully. After which, Oberoi sat with the other patrons and was booked for smoking in a public place. I later handed him over to the Airport police station.”

    However, the actor denied the incident, “I have been working as the brand ambassador of WHO’s anti-smoking movement for the last thirteen years. I have rejected the Red and White Bravery Award that I was offered for my work in helping the victims of the (2004) tsunami, since it is by a cigarette-making company. I’ve rejected several commercials of pan masala brands as they have tobacco in it.

    I don’t smoke or drink. I was just sitting with my guests at the restaurant when Dhoble rounded us up for no reason. They (police) started asking our names and addresses. He was doing it all for publicity. I showed him the bill, which had neither hookah nor liquor,” the actor told this paper
    http://www.bollywoodmantra.com/news/vivek-oberoi-booked-for-smoking-in-public-place/17840/

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    Councilman has no immediate plans to ask for another vote on proposal to ban smoking in Lafayette bars

    http://theadvocate.com/news/12443576-123/councilman-has-no-immediate-plans

    Sounds like a resounding win in Lafayette La. after the Nazis took over NOLA………….LOL YOU GOTTA LOVE KARMA

  4. Nika says:

    I will never get screened for lung cancer, and neither did my mother. She smoked all her adult life and lived in good health, thank you, until age 80. She died a few months later after wisely refusing her doctors’ offer of horrendous cancer treatment (we’d both witnessed someone else go through that hell at about that age and die shortly thereafter anyway). Ironically, my non-smoker father died at 68 from a cancer not (yet!!) linked to so-called passive/second hand smoke.

    So, I choose quality of life, not quantity. If I die tomorrow, fine with me. I want to enjoy the time I have left as best I can, without living in fear of (or denying myself) anything I like to eat, drink, smoke, etc. Unfortunately, too many people want ALL OF US to go kicking and screaming to our graves like they do, without any pleasures or dignity whatsoever. (As an atheist, I have always wondered: if religious people really believe in the bible and heaven, why do they always try everything in the medical books to avoid going there?)

    • Joe L. says:

      Nika, I also abide by the same “quality of life” philosophy that you do.

      To answer your closing question, I believe a large number of “religious” people are simply afraid of the total lack of control they have over this thing called “life” (Frank’s post from yesterday and Zaphod’s commentary are a great examination of this – these people, IMHO, are the ones who yearn to be controlled). In order to feel like they have more control over their destiny than they actually have, they put their faith in other mortal, fallible human beings who simply appear to know more than they do in the hope that they’re correct. They’re ultimately afraid of death and Christianity (as well as many other organized religions) promises some form of an eternal “afterlife.” However, if some other offer comes along that promises longer physical life, they will jump at it too, as longer physical life is a far more tangible concept to us humans than some vague, hocus-pocus metaphysical life.

      Thus, modern medicine has become a religion — it requires about the same level of faith; doctors are filling the roles of priests, “saying your prayers” has become “taking your pills,” etc. Savvy business people realized this and are capitalizing on it day in and day out at the public’s expense (currently, we smokers just happen to be taking the brunt of it, but ultimately everyone suffers). Healthism is quickly becoming (has already become?) the new Catholicism, but many people are just too scared of the chaos around them to see it for what it really is.

    • Frank Davis says:

      (As an atheist, I have always wondered: if religious people really believe in the bible and heaven, why do they always try everything in the medical books to avoid going there?)

      Perhaps they’re worried that, instead of heaven, they’ll end up in the Other Place?

      And I entirely agree with Joe L about modern medicine having become a religion, requiring the same level of faith. Same with global warming.

      • Joe L. says:

        Exactly, Frank — Environmentalism is another modern religion just the same.

        The science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard was quoted as saying, “You don’t get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.” Obviously he wasn’t joking, as years later he founded the Church of Scientology.

        History has proven that a large portion of the population need “answers” to the unanswerable questions of death, the end of the world, etc., and will believe (and fund with what little money they have) just about anything as long as it is presented to them in a way that resonates. I view Healthism and Environmentalism as on the same plane as Scientology: religions that appear to be based on science that have been invented for the sheer sake of capitalism to prey on those who are disillusioned with traditional religions.

        Smoking is now the deadliest sin. Doctors pushing NRT, smoking cessation programs and other lifestyle changes on patients are no different whatsoever than Christians who lecture you about how you’re a sinner and if you don’t repent and change your ways, you’ll go to hell. The only difference is the modern religions are doing away with the intangible “heaven”/”hell” and replacing them with the more tangible “longer life”/”shorter life.” To ironically quote a Biblical idiom: it’s nothing more than a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

  5. NotLuty says:

    “There’s another explanation why smokers may not wish to be screened for cancer (or anything else), and that is that they want to have as little as possible to do with a medical profession that has orchestrated the current, obscene, global persecution of smokers.”

    QFT. Fuckers.

  6. Rose says:

    By delaying or avoiding cancer screening, “smokers are therefore increasing their risk of cancer death over and above the risk due to smoking,” Wardle said

    Now hang on a minute you’ve already told us that one in two of us will die from smoking, that’s 50% how great can the percentage of these extra cancers we may not have possibly be?

    “We are talking about a fairly unhealthy section of the population anyway . . . one in two will die because of smoking.”
    http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/smokers-urged-keep-taking-pills-1465336

    The study –

    Smoking is associated with pessimistic and avoidant beliefs about cancer: results from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership
    7th May 2015

    “Almost 20% of all new cancer diagnoses each year in the UK, rising to 86% of lung cancer diagnoses, are caused by smoking (Parkin, 2011). Smoking is not only the key risk factor for lung cancer but has also been linked to cancer risk at multiple sites, including the colon, rectum, and uterine cervix; and evidence is emerging for a role in breast cancer (Secretan et al, 2009). Smoking cessation is therefore the most important cancer prevention behaviour for smokers. However, smokers can also benefit from screening for colorectal, cervical and breast cancer, and from prompt help-seeking for any potential cancer symptoms.

    In comparison with their non-smoking counterparts, smokers are less likely to have been screened for breast, colorectal or cervical cancer, and among those who have been screened, smokers are less likely to meet current recommendations, independent of socioeconomic status (Fredman et al, 1999; Sutton et al, 2000; Byrne et al, 2010, 2014; Vander Weg et al, 2012). Smokers show less interest in the prospect of lung cancer screening (Silvestri et al, 2007), and delay longer before presenting to their GP with warning signs for lung cancer (Corner et al, 2006), particularly those who have been lifelong smokers, have chronic illnesses, or live alone (Smith et al, 2009).

    There is also some indication in the literature that smokers avoid contact with primary care more generally (Kannan and Veazie, 2014), and two studies suggest that smoking is associated with an increased time to help-seeking for cancer types other than lung (Hansen et al, 2008; Innos et al, 2013).

    Additionally, studies have found smokers were less likely to believe that mammograms provide peace of mind or were necessary in the absence of symptoms (Messina et al, 2002), and they perceived cervical cancer screening to be less important than non-smokers (Marteau et al, 2002).”
    http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/bjc2015148a.html

    Bingo!

    “Ultimately, poorer engagement in early detection is likely to exacerbate smokers’ increased risk of death from cancer, and will mean they miss out on potential teachable moments in smoking cessation

    I think they just answered their own question.

  7. Steven says:

    Just going back to the legalisation of gay marriages in Ireland,this leads me onto another point.in leeds you find it very difficult to foster or adopt if you are a smoker.however if you are gay they will encourage it.discrimination?

  8. Rose says:

    Teachable moments.

    Understanding the potential of teachable moments: the case of smoking cessation
    2001

    “Abstract

    The label ‘teachable moment’ (TM) has been used to describe naturally occurring health events thought to motivate individuals to spontaneously adopt risk-reducing health behaviors. This manuscript summarizes the evidence of TMs for smoking cessation, and makes recommendations for conceptual and methodological refinements to improve the next generation of related research. TM studies were identified for the following event categories: office visits, notification of abnormal test results, pregnancy, hospitalization and disease diagnosis.”
    http: //her.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/2/156.short

    Hospitalization

    Nicotine Substitution Does Not Reduce Intensity of Withdrawal Symptoms in Hospitalised Smokers: Presented at ERS

    “VIENNA, Austria — September 22, 2009 — Offering nicotine substitution to smokers hospitalised for elective surgery does not have a significant effect on reducing cravings or other nicotine withdrawal symptoms, according to a phase 3 study presented here at the 19th Annual Congress of the European Respiratory Society (ERS).

    In addition, no further differences were seen in rates of smoking cessation 1 to 6 months following the study.

    “Hospitals have been smoke free by law since 2006 in Belgium, so we saw in-hospital smoking cessation as a teachable moment for patients,” explained Kris Nackaerts, MD, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, on September 16.”
    http://www.docguide.com/nicotine-substitution-does-not-reduce-intensity-withdrawal-symptoms-hospitalised-smokers

    Nicotine patches may boost intensive care risk
    2006

    “Nicotine given to intensive care patients to ease their withdrawal from cigarettes may put them at a greater risk of death than going “cold turkey”, researchers say.

    “A preliminary study of more than 200 smokers placed in intensive care suggests they are better off simply enduring withdrawal symptoms than receiving nicotine replacement therapy (NRT).

    Nicotine replacement therapy has become common in hospitals’ intensive care units (ICUs) in the last five to 10 years. The drug reduces withdrawal symptoms, such as headache and irritability, among smokers in these units, who are too sick to go to an area where they can smoke.

    Bekele Afessa at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine in Rochester, Minnesota, US, and colleagues expected to find that patients comforted by (NRT) fare better than smokers who do not receive it.

    The team examined the intensive care records of 224 smokers, half of which received NRT, mostly via skin patches.

    Surprisingly, they found that 18 of the patients on NRT died, compared with just three of the smokers that did not receive nicotine. Also, the average duration of an ICU stay for patients given nicotine was 24.4 hours, about 2 hours longer than their cold-turkey counterparts.

    “We have to be aware that we may be doing some harm [by giving patients NRT],” Afessa warns.”
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10380-nicotine-patches-may-boost-intensive-care-risk.html

    Giving people in intensive care a Green Tobacco Sickness on top of whatever else is wrong with them was never going to help.

    “Green tobacco sickness (GTS) is an illness resulting from dermal exposure to dissolved nicotine from wet tobacco leaves; it is characterized by nausea, vomiting, weakness, and dizziness and sometimes fluctuations in blood pressure or heart rate”

    • nisakiman says:

      “Nicotine given to intensive care patients to ease their withdrawal from cigarettes may put them at a greater risk of death than going “cold turkey”, researchers say.

      And even greater risk than had they been offered the facility to smoke, thus avoiding the complications of extra stress brought on by being forbidden a comfort area.

      But of course, that aspect doesn’t occur to people like Kris Nackaerts as he (like all in Tobacco Control) is labouring under the delusion that every smoker actually wants to quit. And that he is helping them.

      Of course nothing could be further from the truth, but the anti-smoking mob are convinced otherwise. Unfortunately.

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    Calls grow for government-run BBC to be abolished: it’s nothing more than state propaganda | THE…

    (Ethan A. Huff) The most recognized name in U.K. mass media by far, BBC News has officially been dubbed irrelevant by several major private news outlets that –…

    http://govtslaves.info/calls-grow-for-government-run-bbc-to-be-abolished-its-nothing-more-than-state-propaganda/

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The most recognized name in U.K. mass media by far, BBC News has officially been dubbed irrelevant by several major private news outlets that — unlike their British Crown-owned target — supposedly have no affiliation with any government or its associated state-issued propaganda.

      The Telegraph recently published a piece chastising BBC News for embodying what it says are tenets of what George Orwell, author of the chilling fantasy novel 1984, described as “the shallow self-righteousness of the Left-wing intelligentsia.”

      Backing this up, Martin Durkin, writing for the right-leaning Breitbart news syndication service, compared the relevance of state-owned broadcasting services like BBC’s to the relevance of communism — in other words, they’re not relevant at all, in his view.

      These and other similar criticisms come as an increasing number of Brits lament the undue influence that the BBC holds over the direction of public policy in the U.K., especially as it continues to gobble up lofty “license fees,” also known as tax dollars, from an unwitting public.

      One major gripe voiced by The Telegraph is BBC’s immense capacity to persuade voters against conservative political candidates. BBC’s agenda, according to the paper, seems to be about expanding the size of government, which includes raising taxes and welfare programs.

      “This set of Left-of centre [sic] assumptions underpins much of the news and cultural output of the BBC, which, no doubt unwittingly, contributes to a reluctance among voters to say they support the Conservatives,” bemoaned The Telegraph, even as the country’s Labour Party witnessed defeat in recent elections.

      “Faced with a constant diet of reports and commentary implying that [spending] cuts are bad, public spending is good, Europe is right but worrying about immigration or welfare is wrong, then is it any surprise that people who hold such views are shy of voicing them?”

      Conservative capture of UK politics could spell end to “left-leaning” views presented by BBC

      It’s an argument often voiced in the U.S. as well — that “left-leaning” or “right-leaning” news outlets are blatantly biased and thus unfairly influential. However, in the case of BBC News, the issue stems from the corporation receiving public funds to spread what some say is a steady stream of Big Government propaganda.

      Private media outlets are free to report what they wish, but when public tax dollars are involved, the goal should be to present both sides of the argument with the intent of informing rather than persuading.

      According to The Telegraph, things could eventually change at BBC News after the recent appointment of John Whittingdale to the position of Culture Secretary in charge of negotiating BBC’s charter renewal, which David Cameron declared as “war on the BBC.”bbc

      The piece explains that “…the corporation [BBC] needs to decide what it is for and who it serves as the negotiations get under way about the charter and the license fee.” The piece goes on to ask, “Why does the BBC need to have such an all-encompassing digital news operation in competition with newspapers that do not have the luxury of a tax to support them?”

      At the same time, BBC is about a whole lot more than just news. A full spectrum of content from radio programming to drama shows to documentaries and everything in between is included in the mix, and this is something that people need to keep in mind in terms of BBC’s future.

      “There is far more to the BBC than its news and current affairs output,” admits The Telegraph. “Much of what it does, from radio to drama and documentary, is part of the warp and weft of the nation.”

      Are calls for BBC’s abolishment akin to ill-willed censorship and bullying?

      Durkin clearly feels differently about the situation, having called for the BBC to be shut down completely, no questions asked. The whole reason the BBC even exists, he contends, is because the British government of old didn’t want private media sources exposing people to the truth, which led them to set up a ministry of propaganda.

      “The BBC was set up to limit free speech,” warns Durkin, who says he used to work for the media giant. “[T]he BBC controls 70 per cent of news output on British TV and radio. The people who run the BBC (like others who work for large State organizations) tend to look favourably on high public spending and increased State regulation.”

      Much like National Public Radio (NPR) in the U.S., BBC relies on public funds to keep it not only afloat but ahead of the curve. Perhaps even more so than NPR, the BBC holds incredible sway over public opinion, so much so that many consider it to be a news monopoly.

      “The BBC has played a key role in the transformation of Britain from a thriving, prosperous, free country, into a flagging State-dominated manufacturing has-been,” writes Durkin. “Don’t be fooled by the glittery frocks on Strictly Come Dancing. The BBC is a sinister organization. It must not be reformed. It must be abolished.”

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Durkin clearly feels differently about the situation, having called for the BBC to be shut down completely, no questions asked. The whole reason the BBC even exists, he contends, is because the British government of old didn’t want private media sources exposing people to the truth, which led them to set up a ministry of propaganda.

        Sock puppets all the way

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