Devoid of All Empathy

H/T Dick Puddlecote for this article in SANE: The Madness of Banning Smoking in Psychiatric Units:

In my opinion, and as a former patient with schizophrenia, new public health policy may be in breach of the Hippocratic Oath that used to compel medical professionals to “first, do no harm”.

Since I drew attention to one NHS Trust’s decision to ban outdoor smoking in psychiatric units, my worst fears are unfolding. Several others have now followed East Lancashire’s lead: Oxford, Mersey, South London and Maudsley, with more to follow as ‘Public Health England’ (PHE) and the ‘National Institute For Health and Care Excellence’ (NICE) demanding a total outdoor ban across the country.

Forcing patients to quit smoking when they’re in the middle of a mental breakdown is intolerably cruel. There is no worse time or place that mental patients would cite as a desirable opportunity to quit.

Further on, he lists the dire consequences:

The invasion of public health policy into what was almost becoming a humane system of psychiatric care has created massive problems on the ward. Due to the role played by PAHs, total smoking cessation can be very dangerous when mixed with starting or increasing a course of anti-psychotics. The journal Current Psychiatry notes that symptoms that accompany this unholy alliance include extreme fatigue, myoclonus, orthostatic hypotension, seizure, sialorrhea, somnolence, tachycardia, and worsening psychiatric symptoms. Smoking cessation may therefore be in breach of the Hippocratic Oath for medical professionals that held ‘first, do no harm’.

In addition, since the indoor smoking ban came in, cases of self-harm have rocketed by 56% in the UK. Meanwhile in the USA, where state-run units in 35 of the 50 states now have some form of outdoor ban, patient-on-patient violence has risen by an average of 22% and up to a whopping 390% in Austin, Texas. Furthermore average durations of stay have increased by nearly 90%.

He reflects on the experience of smoking:

Sadly public health types only regard smoking as a form of nicotine dependency. They honestly believe the effect of their daft bans can be mitigated with nicotine replacement therapies and, amongst the really radical (not many), with e-cigarettes. But tobacco is much more than a nicotine-hit. It’s not just that smoking is far more pleasurable than nicotine substitutes, nor that it helps alleviate the side effects of medication, and indeed certain psychotic symptoms such as attention deficit, learning, anxiety and depression. Tobacco also has a long history of being associated with freedom, and this is what the mentally ill chiefly yearn for. Whether or not smoking really is a good way to express freedom is technically irrelevant – the important point is that it has this cultural symbolism and feel. E-cigarettes, as a new innovation, lack this history. There are no films, TV programmes, nor music I can think of that depict vaping as cool.

The natural companion to the sense of freedom is friendship with other people. Thus sharing a smoke with other patients and staff used to be part of one’s social activity. It had the massive benefit of breaking down barriers by being a shared experience. As such, it genuinely did aid recovery. It is therefore no surprise to those of us familiar with human nature that self-harm and patient-on-patient violence has risen since the bans: take away the cigarettes, and you inevitably turn people against each other. Tell them this is only a consequence of their diseased brain, and they increasingly hate themselves. This then appears to psychiatrists as a worsening mental health condition, hence the increase in duration of stay.

I have no first-hand experience of psychiatric units. All I do know is that in those times in my life when I’ve been psychologically stressed, cigarettes have always been a great help. And so it seems to me to indeed be intolerably cruel to deprive people of this crutch at the very moment in their lives when they need it most. And it also seems psychologically counter-productive to do such a thing. It is, in physical terms, like admitting someone into hospital, and immediately taking away their walking stick, and breaking both their legs.

But I’ve long ceased to believe that there is any ‘psychological’ dimension to Tobacco Control’s notion of health. They are always and invariably entirely devoid of all empathy or compassion. As best I can make out, they simply measure ‘health’ inversely with tobacco consumption: so that H = k / N, where H is health, and N is cigarettes smoked/day, and k is some constant. When N = 0, H = infinity, and you live forever. They know this because they already know that tobacco is the cause of all cancer, of all heart or lung disease, and in fact of all disease. And since they believe that all physical disorders are caused by smoking, they probably also believe that all psychological disorders are also caused by smoking.

That there are deleterious psychological effects from smoking bans in psychiatric units must be obvious to anyone with the slightest trace of empathy for their fellows. But that raises the wider question of whether there are deleterious psychological effects from smoking bans in the wider community outside psychiatric units. Smoking bans are also extremely cruel to ordinary smokers, never mind psychiatric patients.  It’s a question that could have been asked in the ISIS survey, but was not. It might have been something like: “Do you suffer more from depression/anger/anxiety/loneliness after the smoking ban? [always][sometimes][never].” I for one have always been angry to some degree or other since the introduction of the UK smoking ban. In fact I was getting so angry at times that I worried that I might have an apoplectic fit. Cigarette consumption rocketed for a while.

But I doubt if any of these considerations will make one jot of difference. Tobacco Control seems to be in top down control everywhere, and if they want smoking banned in psychiatric units, it will be banned.

I just hope that, when the resulting disaster is finally clear to everyone (as one day it will be), Tobacco Control will be destroyed, and its practitioners treated with the exact same lack of compassion that they themselves demonstrated.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

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

63 Responses to Devoid of All Empathy

  1. The Blocked Dwarf says:

    I have no first-hand experience of psychiatric units.

    I have-not for myself I hasten to add- but being married to The Bestes Paranoid Psychotic Ehefrau In The Whole Wide World means I have spent a fair bit of time in Closed and ‘Open’ wards over the 26(?) years we’ve been married.

    Only the cruelest,twisted, most deluded-on-their-own-self-righteousness, minds could think a smoking Verbot in psych-wards is anything but torture. It is the most hideous bullying of those who can’t fight back. Fortunately The Bestes Frau is a life long non-smoker so it won’t prevent her being voluntarily admitted the next time she needs it…and there will be a next time-it goes with the territory. But no smoker with mental health issues is going to want to be admitted BEFORE the shit hits the cognitive fan now.

    Thanks Guys. Thank you so much for setting Mental Health Care back to the ‘Asylum’ days, when the ‘Institution’ was a place of terror to be avoided at all costs. This sickens me more than I can say. Pray God I never fall into the hands of such ‘caring’ folk…or should i say ‘volk’?

    • Reinhold says:

      or should i say ‘volk’?

      This one this time didn’t come from Germany, I think.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Sorta reminds me of the movie HOUSE OF HORRORS…………

        In mexico along the border if one can afford it they have private hospitals to take care of loved ones with none of the anti smoking BS in them. I have a rich friend who had to have his daughter abducted some years ago and took her down to one of them. She had terrible chemical imbalance and still suffers the occasional Frankenstein moments butshe smokes and who in their right mind would take away something that soothes the beast from awakening.

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    Fox Poll: Trump Leads Carson; Up 2 Points Since October …

    linkis.com/youtube.com/Fox_Poll_Trump_Leads.html

    1 day ago – New Poll: Trump surges 33%, Cruz now 2nd: 22% Carson crumbles | http://www.prntly.com. The new poll of voters in October has been released by …

  3. harleyrider1978 says:

    As crazy as it sounds, this is not a joke. Paul Ryan has requested that the workers at Capitol Hill renovate his new sumptious office to rid it of smoke smells left over from John Boehner’s term as Speaker. Boehner was known to smoke in his office and was a proud advocate of “smoker’s rights.” Ryan wants to completely rehaul to…

    Speaker Ryan to spend $1 mil taxpayer cash to rid office of “smoke smell”

    http://prntly.com/blog/?p=2106

    • churchmouse says:

      Thanks for this.

      From Ryan’s POV, smoke gets everywhere including carpet pads, etc. Arf!

      Can’t believe cleaning costs $1m, though. Tells us something about Ryan. Just think, he could have been Vice President now had Romney won.

      That said, Boehner, using the thinking man’s drug nicotine, could have done a much better job as speaker. I was delighted to find out a few years ago that he was a smoker, thinking that he would be a political dynamo. But no. He was disappointing.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Exactly and bonhner was just as big a RINO as his newly hand picked replacement.
        His smoking was his only saving grace other than that he was likely as bad at pushing and funding the crap against us as Ryan will likely be. Hypocrits abound in an era of hipocracy.

        • Joe L. says:

          While I greatly admired the fact the Boehner was an unabashed smoker, I think the author is stretching the truth by saying Boehner “was a proud advocate of ‘smoker’s rights.'” What did he ever do for smokers? He simply ensured that he could continue to freely smoke everywhere he pleased. I think it’s more accurate to say Boehner was a proud advocate of “Boehner’s rights.”

      • slugbop007 says:

        I thought a can of Febreze could do the trick? Mr. Clean, or a couple of joss sticks. Millions of dollars are spent each year advertising the virtues of household products that rid household air of unwanted odors and Ryan is going to spend one million dollars of the taxpayers money. Not a Fiscal Conservative after all. Just another bullshitting hypocrite.

        • churchmouse says:

          Precisely — thank you! Febreze is supposed to be the miracle solution for all bad odours.

          Too bad Ryan didn’t take the cheaper option — saving American taxpayers millions! It could even have been an advert, indirectly helping the GOP:

          ‘My office stank. What could have got these horrible smells out of, you name it — curtains, carpets, well, everything?

          ‘I could have spent $1m of taxpayers’ money, then, I thought, hey, why not get the staff in to …’

          I end the mock — potential — advert there in case of any something/whatever which goes against the grain.

  4. Tony says:

    They seem to try to justify their sadistic cruelty by claiming it will be good for the victims health. This rests on two assumptions :

    1. Persuading (and by extension, forcing them) to quit will induce more to actually do so.
    2. That the overall effect on the subjects will be to improve their health.

    There have been several properly conducted scientific studies run to test this. Most notably, the multiple risk factor randomised controlled trial (MRFIT) that ran from around 1969 to 1985 or so. The final results were written up and published in around 1986 I think. *
    The conclusions were absolutely clear and inescapable.

    A. More people did quit when persuaded. Although coercion was not tested.
    B. The persuaded (intervention) group did marginally worse on all health measures than the control group. In other words intervention marginally increased lung cancer and heart disease rates. It also marginally reduced life expectancy. None of these results were statistically significant but it does provide clear scientific proof that assumption 2, above is wrong.

    So even persuasion will at best be neutral and at worst be harmful. God knows how harmful coercion will be. Probably very. Hence I make no apology for describing it as a sadistic policy for this reason alone. And there are plenty of other reasons to so describe it.

    * I can dig out the link for this but I don’t have it on me right now.
    P. S. I’ve not had any personal experience of these institutions.

  5. mikef317 says:

    This pertains to yesterday’s post. The New York State Attorney General is investigating Exxon.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html?_r=0

    The NY AG is a Democrat, and the NY Times is a fan of global warming.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Mike sounds like the start of another massive MSA deal where a bunch of leftwing States AG go and sue on behalf of each state for damages,but then what damages?

      Air Pollution and that small risk study they did a few years ago to humans………..

      Dr Enstrom already destroyed that fairy tale with his 25 year study on diesel exhaust and PM 2.5 human intake which showed no effect.

  6. prog says:

    Outdoor smoking at Rampton Hospital has been banned since 2006.

    Excuse is need for high security (last para)

    ‘He said the 2006 Health Act required that smoking should be banned “indoors” at hospitals.
    The courts had also ruled that smoking could lawfully be prohibited at top security hospitals where patients could not go outside to smoke because of security concerns, said Mr Southey.

    Mr Southey argued the ban at Chadwick Lodge breached the 2010 Equality Act.

    The court heard patients were banned from smoking anywhere on hospital premises and also when they were accompanied by hospital nurses on escorted leave.

    A Chadwick Lodge spokesman said: “The Court of Appeal has already decided in the Rampton (high- security hospital) case in July 2009 that there is no right to smoke at a hospital.’

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-13312503

    I’ve mentioned it before, but long term totally smoke free environments would be good control cases of whether or not smoking bans improve patient and staff health (and, indeed, ever/never smokers generally). If it’s not being monitored, some have failed miserably at their jobs. But my feeling is the clipboard brigade WILL have studied this very closely and we’ve heard nothing because things have got worse. I spoke to a few members several years ago and they told me obesity rates rose.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The PTSD unit at VA has a smoking policy for being able to have a smoke while going thru treatment,but its harder and harder to get the luxury even there. Its not that the docs agree or disagree with the policy they just seem to thinks its counter productive to mental health outcomes to start a barrage of scare tactics during a storm of anxiety and depression already deep enuf. The scare tactcis actuall have the reverse effect and make the patients smoke more!

      • prog says:

        I think it goes without saying that if someone is totally prevented form smoking by others the desire to do will be increased. Even the NHS cessation service states it’s very difficult to do and most attempts fail. Though they don’t mention by how much, about 95%. Thing is, they bleat on about compassion, understanding blah blah, but none of this appears to count when it comes to incarcerated people with mental illness who are far more likely to suffer stress and depression. It’s state sanctioned torture. Made worse, if that’s possible, by the fact that many of the perpetrators will certainly enjoy doing it.

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    The wife taped Greys Anatomy a leftist hospital show in America.

    First scene is a surgeon the main character doing a cadaber class interns. Then next beside the cadaber body was the old plastic pipe black lung anti tobacco teaching aide I had found 2-3 years back and posted picgture of it on Franks blog. The surgeon goes onto state the cadaber was a father of 2 who claimed he didn’t smoke but snuck out of the house at nite sitting in his car to smoke 2 packs a day for 20 years. Then they claimed what was hanging was his diseased lung…….

    That’s American left coast TV for you today…………….I could possibly video it on my phone if she doesn’t delete it but upload on my phone to youtube would take forever. This is the new season of greys anatomy. show 287 dated 11-7-2015

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    Exactly

    It is therefore no surprise to those of us familiar with human nature that self-harm and patient-on-patient violence has risen since the bans: take away the cigarettes, and you inevitably turn people against each other. Tell them this is only a consequence of their diseased brain, and they increasingly hate themselves. This then appears to psychiatrists as a worsening mental health condition, hence the increase in duration of stay.

    Smoking
    Calming effect
    Builds trust in therapy outcomes due to building repore with treating docs and other patients.
    enhances thought process and emotional stability.

    Anti-smoking was the psychiatrists worse enemy to ever come along.

    Ive known many shrinks while in the navy at the hospital who told me smoking was a great tool in their arsenal of tricks to help calm patients and make treatment easier.

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    Anyway my moms in the hospital and not looking good shes 76 next week.seems her kidneys are failing and she has pnuemonia on top of it and they just put her on a respirator,then found what maybe a clot in her right ventircle. So my birthdays sunday and Id hate that she might I cant say the words on my birthday………tears

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Americans smoking more after decades-long decline

    Note they state evry fanatically thing they could think of as the cause except that its more likely people just enjoy a good premium cigarette over trash tobacco for a change.

    NEW YORK — For the first time more than a decade, Americans appear to be smoking more.

    A confluence of factors — from a better jobs market to cheaper gasoline to reductions in government anti-smoking programs — are driving a months-long pickup in cigarette sales, analysts say. If current trends hold, 2015 could mark the first year since 2002 that sales volumes increase.

    Not even tobacco companies are suggesting the long-term decline in smoking in the U.S. is reversing itself. Indeed, executives predict annual volumes will keep falling over time.

    But recent data pointing to a slight increase in pack sales this year nonetheless underscore worrisome trends for public health officials. While the number of smokers in the US has steadily declined, some smokers now seem to be lighting up more. Others are turning to chewing tobacco and electronic cigarettes to supplement cigarette habits rather than quit.

    To public-health groups, any signs that the declines in smoking might be levelling off is cause for alarm and renewed anti-smoking efforts.

    “Anytime cigarette sales aren’t going down, that’s cause for concern,” said Mr Vince Willmore, spokesman for the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. “We’re talking about the No 1 cause of preventable death in our country.”

    Gas Savings

    This year’s apparent bounce largely reflects the improving economy, particularly rising employment, analysts say. Gasoline prices are also a factor. Smokers as a group tend to have lower incomes than non-smokers, and some are using the money they’re saving at the pump to buy cigarettes.

    “Those gas price savings are a big benefit,” said Ms Vivien Azer, an analyst at Cowen & Co. Sixty per cent of cigarette sales happen at convenience stores and gas stations, she said.

    Tobacco companies continue to spend aggressively on marketing, and the industry — and its investors — have been profiting from those efforts. At Reynolds American Inc, the second-largest US tobacco seller, cigarette volumes rose 12 per cent during the first nine months of 2015, including sales from its recently acquired Newport brand, according to company filings. Altria Group Inc, the No 1 seller and the maker of Marlboro, reported a 1.5 per cent increase.

    http://www.todayonline.com/world/americans-smoking-more-after-decades-long-decline

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    Indeed, executives predict annual volumes will keep falling over time.

    Then they state this LMAO

    At Reynolds American Inc, the second-largest US tobacco seller, cigarette volumes rose 12 per cent during the first nine months of 2015,

    A 12% rise isn’t anything that’s a blimp its a mega quake of future sales skyrocketing!

    Remember right before it broke about tobacco sales skyrocketing the CDC blasts out real fats and furious rates fell to first 17.6% and then a week later stated it fell to 15%……….then a week later it breaks in the news sales went up on literally all tobacco products nationwide. It really sux when the Nazis know their efforts are a failure and the bounce back effect hits home hard and furious.

  12. Frank Davis says:

    BMJ

    Should psychiatric hospitals completely ban smoking?

    Deborah Arnott, chief executive, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), London, UK, Simon Wessely, president, Royal College of Psychiatrists, London, Michael Fitzpatrick, former GP and writer, London

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    GOOD ARTICLE:

    In my opinion, and as a former patient with schizophrenia, new public health policy may be in breach of the Hippocratic Oath that used to compel medical professionals to “first, do no harm”.

    Since I drew attention to one NHS Trust’s decision to ban outdoor smoking in psychiatric units, my worst fears are unfolding. Several others have now followed East Lancashire’s lead: Oxford, Mersey, South London and Maudsley, with more to follow as ‘Public Health England’ (PHE) and the ‘National Institute For Health and Care Excellence’ (NICE) demanding a total outdoor ban across the country.

    Forcing patients to quit smoking when they’re in the middle of a mental breakdown is intolerably cruel. There is no worse time or place that mental patients would cite as a desirable opportunity to quit.

    Further on, he lists the dire consequences:

    The invasion of public health policy into what was almost becoming a humane system of psychiatric care has created massive problems on the ward. Due to the role played by PAHs, total smoking cessation can be very dangerous when mixed with starting or increasing a course of anti-psychotics. The journal Current Psychiatry notes that symptoms that accompany this unholy alliance include extreme fatigue, myoclonus, orthostatic hypotension, seizure, sialorrhea, somnolence, tachycardia, and worsening psychiatric symptoms. Smoking cessation may therefore be in breach of the Hippocratic Oath for medical professionals that held ‘first, do no harm’.

    In addition, since the indoor smoking ban came in, cases of self-harm have rocketed by 56% in the UK. Meanwhile in the USA, where state-run units in 35 of the 50 states now have some form of outdoor ban, patient-on-patient violence has risen by an average of 22% and up to a whopping 390% in Austin, Texas. Furthermore average durations of stay have increased by nearly 90%.

    He reflects on the experience of smoking:

    Sadly public health types only regard smoking as a form of nicotine dependency. They honestly believe the effect of their daft bans can be mitigated with nicotine replacement therapies and, amongst the really radical (not many), with e-cigarettes. But tobacco is much more than a nicotine-hit. It’s not just that smoking is far more pleasurable than nicotine substitutes, nor that it helps alleviate the side effects of medication, and indeed certain psychotic symptoms such as attention deficit, learning, anxiety and depression. Tobacco also has a long history of being associated with freedom, and this is what the mentally ill chiefly yearn for. Whether or not smoking really is a good way to express freedom is technically irrelevant – the important point is that it has this cultural symbolism and feel. E-cigarettes, as a new innovation, lack this history. There are no films, TV programmes, nor music I can think of that depict vaping as cool.

    The natural companion to the sense of freedom is friendship with other people. Thus sharing a smoke with other patients and staff used to be part of one’s social activity. It had the massive benefit of breaking down barriers by being a shared experience. As such, it genuinely did aid recovery. It is therefore no surprise to those of us familiar with human nature that self-harm and patient-on-patient violence has risen since the bans: take away the cigarettes, and you inevitably turn people against each other. Tell them this is only a consequence of their diseased brain, and they increasingly hate themselves. This then appears to psychiatrists as a worsening mental health condition, hence the increase in duration of stay.

    I have no first-hand experience of psychiatric units. All I do know is that in those times in my life when I’ve been psychologically stressed, cigarettes have always been a great help. And so it seems to me to indeed be intolerably cruel to deprive people of this crutch at the very moment in their lives when they need it most. And it also seems psychologically counter-productive to do such a thing. It is, in physical terms, like admitting someone into hospital, and immediately taking away their walking stick, and breaking both their legs.

    But I’ve long ceased to believe that there is any ‘psychological’ dimension to Tobacco Control’s notion of health. They are always and invariably entirely devoid of all empathy or compassion. As best I can make out, they simply measure ‘health’ inversely with tobacco consumption: so that H = k / N, where H is health, and N is cigarettes smoked/day, and k is some constant. When N = 0, H = infinity, and you live forever. They know this because they already know that tobacco is the cause of all cancer, of all heart or lung disease, and in fact of all disease. And since they believe that all physical disorders are caused by smoking, they probably also believe that all psychological disorders are also caused by smoking.

    That there are deleterious psychological effects from smoking bans in psychiatric units must be obvious to anyone with the slightest trace of empathy for their fellows. But that raises the wider question of whether there are deleterious psychological effects from smoking bans in the wider community outside psychiatric units. Smoking bans are also extremely cruel to ordinary smokers, never mind psychiatric patients. It’s a question that could have been asked in the ISIS survey, but was not. It might have been something like: “Do you suffer more from depression/anger/anxiety/loneliness after the smoking ban? [always][sometimes][never].” I for one have always been angry to some degree or other since the introduction of the UK smoking ban. In fact I was getting so angry at times that I worried that I might have an apoplectic fit. Cigarette consumption rocketed for a while.

    But I doubt if any of these considerations will make one jot of difference. Tobacco Control seems to be in top down control everywhere, and if they want smoking banned in psychiatric units, it will be banned.

    I just hope that, when the resulting disaster is finally clear to everyone (as one day it will be), Tobacco Control will be destroyed, and its practitioners treated with the exact same lack of compassion that they themselves demonstrated.

    http://www.sane.org.uk

    sane.org.uk

  14. harleyrider1978 says:

    In addition, since the indoor smoking ban came in, cases of self-harm have rocketed by 56% in the UK. Meanwhile in the USA, where state-run units in 35 of the 50 states now have some form of outdoor ban, patient-on-patient violence has risen by an average of 22% and up to a whopping 390% in Austin, Texas. Furthermore average durations of stay have increased by nearly 90%.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      They think prison smoking bans will work,where likely 60% of the population has some form of mental condition to begin with.

  15. slugbop007 says:

    And I bet that every one of these holier-than-thou sadists considers her/himself a Christian. If Jesus were around today he too would probably end up in a mental hospital. Good material for a TV drama: Bedlam Revisited.

  16. slugbop007 says:

    The top 50 Foundations and Funders in 2004. Gates Foundation Number One, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 4th and 6th:
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Foundations_and_Funders
    Lots of empathy here as well.

  17. slugbop007 says:

    I don’t like the moniker Tobacco Harm Reduction, it’s playing into the hands of the antitobacco zealots to use that word, or that concept. If we believe that tobacco does no harm then we can not accept the naming of ecigs and vaping as THR. If you wish to vape, go right ahead. Stop being holier-than-thou about it and mocking traditional smokers as fools like the vapers did earlier this year in New Orleans. Smoke, sniff, chew or whatever suits your fancy and knock yourself out.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      slug your exactly right. Its a planned and performed attack making the claims the Nazi have made seem as though they are facts instead of the junk science they are. At the same time the scheme of harm reduction is used by ecig companies and snuss and snuff makers as a means to further their own profit margins. Besides as CARL has said before he has always been an activist epidemiologist, he makes his living off perpetuating so called harm reduction and reinforces it by creating his own studies or determinations on the subject.

      I once asked why the epidemiologists don’t want toxicology working hand in han with them to prove their so called claims. He went berserk on me with every imanginable excuse that could be made!

      It use to be epidemiology pointed at something as a possible cause and then the microscope guys investigated their work to see if it were true or just a false lead.

      But of course in todays world they don’t want to prove anything like before when science was real,instead they make their money by dealing in propaganda andnever ever wanting to go near toxicology to fill in the end points as factually they know it cant be done.

      So the FEAR campaign goes forth feeding a frenzy that’s just about worn itself out with the public at large. They’ve made so much junk science claims nobody buys it anymore.

      In the end its how it all ended lastime with total public outcry against the spinmeisters and all their shit science. Then its over and hopefully real science can regain its reputation back in about 20 or so years after they give up being paid quacks for political agendas trying to take over the damn world.

  18. barry9999 says:

    Thanks for discussing my SANE article. Note it was written by Barry Curtis, not Dick Puddlecote as implied, he wrote a favourable review but the research was mine. Also check out http://www.facebook.com/casbipu (Campaign Against Smoking Bans In Psychiatric Units) for more links to the specific issue of bans in mental hospitals.

  19. slugbop007 says:

    Can it be proven without a doubt that the World Bank blackmailed all the countries that signed the Tobacco Accord? Is the evidence so overwhelminly damning that it would qualify for a hearing at the International Court in the Hague?

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      slug theirs a weboage of the world bank that backs everything he Nazis at the who do and it even stated that would deny loans based upon non compliance to sign the FCTC treaty.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        The World Bank and Tobacco Control: The Facts

        http://www.worldbank.org/…/world-bank-and-tobacco-control-the...

        World Bank

        Aug 20, 2013 – The Bank is an active observer of WHO’s Framework Convention for Tobacco Control (FCTC) (pdf). The Bank is actively supporting countries to …

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          World Bank Group President Jim Kim has highlighted tobacco control as an important issue in recent speeches, and in his comment on The Lancet Commission on Investing in Health.

          Advocacy on tobacco control will continue to be a pillar of the Bank’s public health work. As the Bank formulates its new global practice on health, nutrition and population, effective July 2014, we hope to scale up our efforts further, working with partners like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Bloomberg Philanthropies.
          http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/health/brief/tobacco

        • slugbop007 says:

          Your link did not come through. Maybe they pulled it down?

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          That wouldn’t be unusual at all,as soon as we find the evidence from their own mouths the links usually just disappear. That’s why its important to always copy the entire article for future use.

        • nisakiman says:

          Harley, that link takes me to the World Bank homepage, but I can’t find the PDF relating to TC. Their search engine throws nothing up to do with tobacco.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          nsaki it was there they also have a page on the WHO website or did……….Id have to go find it again. This is old stuff.

        • irocyr says:

          The link works fine for me. Everything is up there.

  20. harleyrider1978 says:

    http://www.rainbow-int.co.uk/?xhtml=xhtml%2Ftechnology%2Fairmanager.html&xsl=technology.xsl

    Air Manager

    Advanced technology providing complete odour and smoke control

    Accreditations & Certifications

  21. harleyrider1978 says:

    Well here it is they finally went over the top……….

    College Student Tackled in Her Desk By Cops Because She Smoked a Cigarette Outside

    Luckily the teacher filmed the assault and the charges were dropped, but the student is still too scared to go back to school.

    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-brutally-arrest-college-student-smoking-cigarette/

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Glen Ellyn, IL — Slammed to the ground and manhandled on video, a former student filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court Thursday against two campus police officers for using excessive force and threatening to fire a Taser at another student recording the arrest. Warned for smoking a cigarette outside, the student was followed into the class and arrested for trespassing after showing the cops her student ID.

      On December 7, 2014, Jaclyn Pazera stepped outside during a break between classes with several of her classmates from the College of DuPage to smoke cigarettes. According to Pazera’s lawsuit, Officer Vallardes approached the group and gave them a verbal warning for smoking on campus. After Vallardes asked Pazera and her classmates for identification, Pazera told the campus cop that she had accepted his warning, put out her cigarette, and began walking to class.

      Vallardes called for backup as he followed Pazera to her philosophy class. Accompanied by Officer Tamurrino, Vallardes entered the classroom and shouted at the teacher, “Is that your student?”

      The teacher informed Vallardes that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) prohibited him from revealing the names of his students. When Tamurrino asked for Pazera’s identification, she showed them her student ID with her photo and expiration date visible. Instead of attempting to de-escalate the situation, Tamurrino told Pazera that she was under arrest for trespassing even though she had just shown them her school ID.

      As the officers grabbed Pazera’s arms, her teacher began recording the incident on his cellphone. After knocking over her desk, the officers slammed her to the floor and aggressively handcuffed her as she screamed in pain.

      “Stop resisting!”

      “You’re hurting me,” Pazera pleaded.

      “Stop resisting!” the officer repeated.

      “I had two fully grown men on my back pushing me into the ground, and he said in the video, ‘If you can talk, you can breathe,’” Pazera recalled. “He picked me up and slammed me into the ground harder.”

      After injuring her shoulder and wrist during the arrest, Vallardes allegedly threatened to use his Taser on a student recording the arrest on his cellphone. Vallardes reportedly confiscated the phone knowing that the video recorded on it could be used as evidence against him in a criminal trial. Unbeknownst to Vallardes, the teacher was also recording the incident on his cellphone.

      Although Pazera was initially charged with obstructing a peace officer and resisting arrest, the charges were dropped 10 months later. On Thursday, Pazera filed a civil rights lawsuit against the college and the two officers for using excessive force during her arrest. Previously unbeknownst to Pazera, cops are often trained to take down people who are not immediately compliant while mindlessly repeating the mantra: “If you can talk, you can breathe.”

      These cops are no stranger to controversy. In an infuriating video from September, two students at the College of DuPage were on campus exercising their First Amendment rights by passing out pocket Constitutions and fliers that read “America is a free speech zone.” They were then approached by a police officer and threatened with arrest – for handing out constitutions.

      Read more at http://thefreethoughtproject.com/cops-brutally-arrest-college-student-smoking-cigarette/#4Rb9yKVubjrcO0sz.99

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Colleges being forced to go smokefree by Obama Administration

        The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced an initiative to ban smoking from college campuses last month. This is part of the HHS goal to create a society free of tobacco-related disease and death, according to their action plan released by the HHS in 2010.

        Colleges who fail to enact campus-wide smoking bans and other tobacco-free policies may soon face the loss of grants and contracts from the HHS, according to the plan. Western receives grants through a subdivision of the HHS called the National Institutes of Health, Acting Vice Provost for Research Kathleen Kitto said.

        http://www.westernfrontonline.net/news/article_f8068f12-0efe-11e2-8b41-001a4bcf6878.html?success=1

        Obama administration to push for eliminating smoking on college campuses

        Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/11/obama … z29zJ2V2TV

        President Barack Obama has already promised not to smoke cigarettes in the White House. If his administration has its way, American college students will soon be required to follow suit while they’re on campus.

  22. harleyrider1978 says:

    Colleges being forced to go smokefree by Obama Administration

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced an initiative to ban smoking from college campuses last month. This is part of the HHS goal to create a society free of tobacco-related disease and death, according to their action plan released by the HHS in 2010.

    Colleges who fail to enact campus-wide smoking bans and other tobacco-free policies may soon face the loss of grants and contracts from the HHS, according to the plan. Western receives grants through a subdivision of the HHS called the National Institutes of Health, Acting Vice Provost for Research Kathleen Kitto said.

    http://www.westernfrontonline.net/news/article_f8068f12-0efe-11e2-8b41-001a4bcf6878.html?success=1

    .
    Obama administration to push for eliminating smoking on college campuses

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/11/obama … z29zJ2V2TV

    President Barack Obama has already promised not to smoke cigarettes in the White House. If his administration has its way, American college students will soon be required to follow suit while they’re on campus

  23. slugbop007 says:

    Obama’s a wuss. To hell with him.

  24. harleyrider1978 says:

  25. slugbop007 says:

    How do we take down these fascist bastards? Obama’s a turncoat and a hypocrite.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      slug the same way as last time we keep fighting on all fronts in the lifestyle wars on everyone,just include the junk science used against smokers and then toss in the junk studies they used the same way on that news stories subject be it obesity alcohol or guns or whatever……….the rest just finally happens,keeping them on the defensive is our only offensive weapon until politically will for the nannystate finally collapses.

  26. harleyrider1978 says:

    American Meteorological Society Slams House Science Committee Witch Hunt

    Michael Halpern, program manager, Center for Science & Democracy | November 4, 2015, 14:37 pm EST

    http://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-halpern/american-meteorological-society-slams-house-science-committee-witch-hunt-945#comment-2346478618

    Seems congress aka the republicans are after all the junk scientists and their emails along with studys to bust them apart at the seams and end this charade once and for all.

  27. harleyrider1978 says:

    This one you gotta love I get banned for proving what Im talking about.

    Jack Listerio • 8 hours ago

    It more appears that NOAA is hiding a conspiracy of its own just as the 2009 IPCC emails proved was the case.

    If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear, RIGHT!

    Climate change is a fraud we all know this now and has been for those of us keeping up with it over the last 40 years. Global cooling,then np its Global warming,then no its climate change,then no wait that’s busted lets go with this maybe they will believe us then……………sorry you guys ran out of scientific credibility the same time passive smoke was dubbed a killer……….Then closer inspection found not even smoking has ever been proven to cause anything in anyone.

    JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
    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.

    SCIENCE DOESN’T CARE WHAT YOU THINK.

    Jack Listerio > canaan • 21 minutes ago

    Thats just it, it aint science at all. Its all made up computer models created to get the results the programmers wanted the same as all the epidemiology junk sciensused in every form of political fraud scheme out there like anti smoking or anti obesity. Take your pick they all use the same junk science methods.

    Jack Listerio > Jack Listerio • 4 minutes ago

    ………..
    The Medicalizing of America

    Part I: The Numbers Game

    Medicalize: “To identify or categorize (a condition or behavior) as being a disorder requiring medical treatment or intervention,” American Heritage Dictionary.

    Responses to virtually all questions, medical and otherwise fall into two categories: 1. Those having a finite number of answers, including yes, no, or in-between, for example “are you hungry?” or “are you sick?” and 2. Questions having a range of answers or values. Biologic and other scientific measurements fall into this latter category and include such things as weight, age, height, blood pressure, blood chemical values, such as glucose, cholesterol, PSA, etc. Where we get into trouble is in deciding, particularly in medicine, what is indeed normal and what is not. No matter where we place the dividing line or cutoff point, we are faced with an irresolvable medical dilemma.

    If we make the cutoff between normal and abnormal too low, we include too many normal in the abnormal group (called false positives, a Type I error); if the cutoff is too high, we include an excess of abnormal in the normal group (false negatives, Type II error). In the first instance we call too many well people sick, and in the latter, too many sick people well. (We are assuming the spectrum of low to high corresponds to the range of normal to abnormal; sometimes this range is reversed.)

    Over the years, various cutoff points for normal values have been based on generally accepted statistical and common sense clinical grounds. For example we have “normal” values for fasting and non-fasting blood sugars, upon which the diagnosis of diabetes is based; the “normal” level for blood pressure, defining the condition, hypertension; cutoff points for weight, defining obesity; and “normal” levels of blood lipids (HDL,LDL and total cholesterol) which for some even define the presence of heart disease (sic!). In what appears as a fatally misguided hope of extending treatment benefits to as many citizens as possible, various professional societies as well as Government Agencies have indeed changed our definitions of disease with unforeseen consequences. Specifically, in the present climate of change driven by a perceived need to keep us healthy and long-lived, these cutoff points have been lowered progressively and so drastically as virtually to create a nation of patients.

    In a revealing article in Effective Clinical Practice (March/April 1999) Lisa M. Schwartz and Steven Woloshin conclude that the number of people with at least one of four major medical conditions (actually risk factors) has increased dramatically in the past decade because of changes in the definition of abnormality. Using data abstracted from over 20,700 patients included in this Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988-1994) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics, the authors calculated the prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, elevated cholesterol, and being overweight under the old and the new definitions and calculated the net change (i.e., number of new cases). Here are the results reported in the above article.

    Diabetes:

    Old Definition: Blood sugar > 140 mg/dl
    People under old definition: 11.7 million
    New Definition: Blood sugar > 126 mg/dl
    People added under new definition: 1.7 million
    Percent increase: 15%

    The definition was changed in 1997 by the American Diabetes Association and WHO Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus.

    Hypertension:

    High blood pressure is reported as two numbers, systolic or peak pressure and diastolic pressure when heart is at rest) in mm Hg.

    Old Definition: cutoff Blood Pressure > 160/100
    People under old definition: 38.7 million
    New Definition: Blood Pressure > 140/90
    People added under new definition: 13.5 million
    Percent Increase: 35%

    The definition was changed in 1997 by U.S. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.

    Prehypertension, a new category created in 2003: blood pressure from 120/80 to 138/89 includes 45 million additional people! If one includes this category, we have a grand total of 97.2 million total numbers of hypertensives and prehypertensives (whatever that is).

    High (Total) Cholesterol:

    Old Definition: Cholesterol > 240 mg/dl total cholesterol
    People under old definition: 49.5 million
    New Definition: Cholesterol > 200 mg/dl total cholesterol
    People added under new definition: 42.6 million
    Percent increase: 86%

    The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study.

    Overweight:

    Body Mass Index (BMI) is defined as the ratio of weight (in kg) to height (in meters) squared and is an inexact measure of body fat, though it supposedly establishes cutoff points of normal weight, overweight, and obesity.

    Old definition: BMI > 28 (men), BMI > 27 (women)
    People under old definition: 70.6 million
    New definition: BMI > 25
    People added under new definition: 30.5 million
    Percent Increase: 43%

    The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

    “The new definitions ultimately label 75 percent of the adult U.S. population as diseased,” conclude the two researchers. They add cautiously that “…the extent to which new ‘patients’ would ultimately benefit from early detection and treatment of these conditions is unknown. Whether they would experience important physical or psychological harm is an open question.”

    We seem to live in an equal opportunity consumer culture tyrannized by the fear of growing “epidemics” going by the leading risk brand names, High Blood Pressure, Obesity, Diabetes, and High Cholesterol. Just read the papers, peruse the Internet, or turn on your TV to learn what the Government watchdogs, the consensus insurgency, and the other image makers have to say about our disastrous state of health.

    Several related questions arise when we consider the implications of these new definitions of disease (actually disease risk-markers). First how did these official and semi-official watchdogs achieve their status of “guideline-makers,”who appoints them and why, and how powerful an influence do they wield in terms of medical practice? Finally, one has to wonder what is the rationale for adding over 86 million new “patients” (not counting 45 million “prehypertensives”) to our already staggering over-the-top healthcare cost.

    Coming soon, these and other issues will be examined in our next newsletter.

    Martin F. Sturman, MD, FACP

    Copyright 2005, Mathemedics, Inc.

    Its simple you got a political agenda simple invent one by lowering the stabdards and voila the next morning you have billions of diseased ridden people out of NOWHERESVILLE,just like they fraudulent 480,000 dead smokers a year created on the governments SAMMEC computer…………pumping in relative risk factors to invent dead bodies with no names or anything…………its all the same with every so called government claim.

    ⚠ We are unable to post your comment because you have been blocked by The Equation. Find out more.

    Post as Jack Listerio

    Jack Listerio > Jack Listerio • 20 minutes ago

    ………….Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts?

    ”Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome—you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”

    Read under the title :
    Tobacco Control: The Long War—When the Evidence Has to Be Created

    milbankDOTorg/uploads/documents/0712populationhealth/0712populationhealthDOThtml

    Jack Listerio > Jack Listerio • 20 minutes ago

    ……………Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science

    Epidemiology Monitor (October 1997)

    An estimated 300 attendees a recent meeting of the American College of
    Epidemiology voted approximately 2 to 1 to keep doing junk science!

    Specifically, the attending epidemiologists voted against a motion
    proposed in an Oxford-style debate that “risk factor” epidemiology is
    placing the field of epidemiology at risk of losing its credibility.

    Risk factor epidemiology focuses on specific cause-and-effect
    relationships–like heavy coffee drinking increases heart attack risk. A
    different approach to epidemiology might take a broader
    perspective–placing heart attack risk in the context of more than just
    one risk factor, including social factors.

    Risk factor epidemiology is nothing more than a perpetual junk science machine.

    But as NIEHS epidemiologist Marilyn Tseng said “It’s hard to be an

    Id bet every comment I made proving my case was removed too!

    American Meteorological Society Slams House Science Committee Witch Hunt

    http://blog.ucsusa.org/michael-halpern/american-meteorological-society-slams-house-science-committee-witch-hunt-945?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=fb

    • slugbop007 says:

      I was riding on a bus in Montreal some thirty years ago and there were about a half a dozen public mesage posters that proclaimed this and that Canadian would get arthritis in their lifetime, cancer, kidney disease … blah, blah, blah. When I added them all up it was over one hundred percent of the population. Fearmongering is an art that pays dividends.

  28. harleyrider1978 says:

    Yep they removed them………….Its the UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
    SCIENCE FOR A SAFER PLANET AND HEALTHY WORLD BLOG………..LEFTIST COMMIES IS WHAT THEY ARE.

  29. slugbop007 says:

    Speaking of the World Bank, it appears that they have been blackmailing countries at least since 2000.
    http://www.alternet.org/story/9360/aids_and_the_world_bank%3A_global_blackmail

  30. slugbop007 says:

    And keeps those funding dollars rolling in.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Obama gave the IMF and world bank 4 trillion dollars 3 years ago to keep them in money and persuasion. Meanwhile he appointed their leaders at the same time.

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