Mad Behavioural Psychologists

For antismoking zealots it’s not that smoking causes disease, but instead that smoking is itself a disease. This is where their madness starts. Case in point:

The global smoking epidemic: a history and status report.

There is no global smoking epidemic. But for these people, diseases aren’t things like malaria or cholera. For them diseases are errant forms of behaviour. They are trying to cure behaviours.

They could just easily be trying to cure nose-picking or stammering or drinking or chess-playing or television-watching. Some or all of these could just as easily be classified as diseases. They want to change the way people behave. They want a well-behaved world.

Because they are behavioural psychologists. And as behavioural psychologists they regard behaviours as the only observable phenomena, unlike unobservable – and therefore non-existent – thoughts, dreams, hopes, or fears. They are devoid of empathy. They can only apply a variety of stimuli – e.g electric shocks -, and observe the behavioural responses.

What else are health warnings on cigarettes packages other than a negative stimuli that smokers receive whenever they reach for their cigarettes packs?  A sort of mild electric shock.  And aren’t they always increasing the voltage? First it was Smoking Can Damage Your Health. Next it was Smoking Kills. Soon it will be gruesome cancerous images plastered all over the “plain packaging” which is the canvas on which they are permitted to paint words and images of ever-increasing disgusting intensity. And since this is the only idea they have ever had, it is the only thing they know how to do, and so they can only keep increasing the voltage. Because they believe that at some point the smoker will suddenly make the desired association between smoking and disease and death, and – bingo! – stop smoking.

Rats may behave like this. But humans are rather more complex than rats. They’re not so easily programmed or conditioned. They have a great many more defence mechanisms. Because the stimuli don’t work, and the behaviour doesn’t change.

It’ll never work. It never could work. Because behavioural psychology is a lot of nonsense. It is itself a form of madness. It is, to put it in terms that a behavioural psychologist would understand, a form of bad behaviour.

Behavioural psychology is something to be destroyed.

About Frank Davis

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

22 Responses to Mad Behavioural Psychologists

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    For them diseases are errant forms of behaviour. They are trying to cure behaviours.

    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


    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Its simple just invent some Bullshit out of the blue,get a few big names to say ok,then payoff some politicians and voila instant criminal law based upon nothing but hatred.

      Dig to another topic and you find the same thing as we found in the medicalization of America. Where all the health Nazis did was lower the point or level at which a disease entity is identified and voila the next morning you added over 2/3rds of America to the sick rolls who the day before were perfectly healthy,then Big pharma jups in to sale meds that get pumped up by the new lowered levels and billions start getting made.

      Alcohol samo samo………… matters not the subject it matters only that they control everything from cradle to grave and they hate being put on the spot,they cant defend against folks who are subject professionals on their facist march to world domination.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        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.


        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.


        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.


        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.

  2. Yes.
    Another example by this crazy people: vacine is good; vacine is the only best thing for mankind.
    Although the Ministry of Health have ruled out any possibility of microcephaly outbreak be related to rubella, renowned infectious diseases Rosana Richtmann reiterated the existence of a relationship between rubella and congenital microcephaly. Regarding the recent cases, concentrated in Pernambuco, the expert don’t believe in the possibility of relationship to vaccination.
    An error started in Pernambuco to use MMR vaccine (measles, mumps and rubella) early in pregnancy, it may have generated microcephaly.

  3. marieengling says:

    Yes, of course. Big Pharma pay for curing deceases, and how should WHO else get money?

    • Clicky says:

    • beobrigitte says:

      Yes, of course. Big Pharma pay for curing deceases, and how should WHO else get money?

      Big Pharma has lost the battle against microbes – it costs too much to develop new, effective, antimicrobial agents when these become next to useless in a few years because the bug(s) have become resistant.
      Big Pharma makes it’s money (BIG MONEY!) with dubiously, previously determined USELESS compounds that have the small side effect to e.g. occupy nicotine receptors and the massive side effect to screw up brain chemistry.
      The medics are being told that the “benefits” outweigh the massive side effects. And then the medics are told that if they reach a certain number of prescriptions they get a weeks holiday in the Bahamas.

      All WHO approved, of course.

  4. barry9999 says:

    Very insightful Frank. Over at CASBIPU (, we are concerned that ‘public health professionals’ are increasingly regarding smoking as part of one’s mental health condition rather than an unrelated habit. Hence there is a tonne of pseudo-science purporting to claim that smoking worsens psychiatric symptoms (whereas the more solid work and common sense shows the opposite). Tragically the notion that smoking is part of the disease leads to ‘treatment’ in this instance of imposing a total ban, even outdoors, that is seriously harming mental health patients who have committed no crime and who are supposed to be protected by society in the asylum rather than become the new lab rats.

  5. Harleyrider1978 says:

    My behavior is simply live and let live. Let people be left to their own devices.
    Let people simply be themselves. Government is acting not as a nanny state but as a religion of government.

    This is what mankind has always fought servitude to a master.

    Call them whatever, we know the difference and liberty is a natural element of every human being. Why else have we always fought against tyranny.

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      Harley, Speaking about fighting against tyranny, I see the antismokers are taking another pass on a statewide ban for Kentucky (with year in a row). In addition, they are looking for a ban on sales for all born after 2000 in Norway (like the Tasmania plan). They are dead set on a tobacco free world by 2035. Their tobacco free end state relies on tyranny, behavioral modification, propaganda, and punishment.

  6. Rose says:

    Soon it will be gruesome cancerous images plastered all over the “plain packaging” which is the canvas on which they are permitted to paint words and images of ever-increasing disgusting intensity

    Bearing in mind that people who buy cigarettes from legitimate sources have been subjected to this every day since 2008 with the full agreement of many MPs, I was surprised to see their distressed reaction on recieving similar images before the Syria vote.
    Some of them even called the police.

    “New Labour MP for Grimsby, Melanie Onn, who had been undecided on how to vote, turned on one troll when she was sent a picture of a crying woman surrounded by dead children this morning.”

    “Miss Creasy was sent a picture of a pile of dead bodies via Facebook.”

    “Peter Kyle MP is sent photograph of dead baby over support for Syria air strikes”

    “And it has also been reported that some Labour MPs were left in tears after being warned by hard-left activists they would be “murdering women and babies” if they backed military action.”

    “Neil Coyle, 36, who is on a ‘traitor list’ of 66 MPs threatened with deselection by left-wingers, has called in the Met after a troll sent him a sinister message with pictures of knives.”

    “Pro-bombing Labour MPs targeted by anti-war protesters also had pictures of dead Syrian babies and severed heads put through their doors…”

    But they haven’t had to put up with these images day in day out for 7 years and yet how many of these shocked and aggrieved MPs earlier in the year voted to inflict similarly distressing images on us?

    Cigarettes to be sold in plan packets with gruesome health warnings from May next year as MPs back landmark new law
    11 March 2015

    “The legislation, which will come into force from May next year, easily cleared the Commons by 367 votes to 113.

    MPs really shouldn’t be surprised when they too recieve “graphic images” . They started the trend.

    But when it happens to them they call it apalling abuse.

    http: //

    http: //

    Graphic images appear on cigarette packets to shock smokers into quitting
    2 October 2008

    “Among the other images smokers will see are rotting lungs, a corpse in a morgue and a body cut open during surgery.”

    Despite all this the MPs still voted for airstrikes, so much for graphic images being a successful tool for behavioural change then.

  7. Frank Davis says:

    Posted on behalf of Michael McFadden:

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Yes Indeed

    • And the hat/tip from me goes to Smokers Against Discrimination!

      where you’ll find an INCREDIBLE collection of graphics like that!


    • beobrigitte says:

      (I took an nonsmoker shopping today. Despite the Sales being on the population out in shops appeared at best average. The number of homeless, however, appears to have increased sharply since my last shopping trip many years ago. Since I have stopped all donations to organisations I figured that I can give my money to individuals in need. One I gave some of my cigarettes, too. Whatever these people buy with my donation is their problem; at least I did not support some arsehole on >£100 000pa buying a mercedes for himself.
      The non-smoker has a new angle to view the from the government lobbied laws)

  8. beobrigitte says:

    They want a well-behaved world.

    The eradication of individualism.
    What is well behaved? Political correctness does not equal well behaved. If anything our youngsters are everything from mentally screwed up to ruthless yuppies; categories in which “well behaved” isn’t an apt term.

    They want control. And using fear is the easiest way to control masses. The fear about one’s health works best to push sneaky fanatics’ agendas.
    Behavioural psychology? So, you have seen one or 20 animals behaving in a certain manner. It means fuck all.

    Behavioural psychology is something to be destroyed.
    It is something to be ignored as it is a load of rubbish and a money making exercise, and therefore should never even reach the importance of something to be destroyed.
    But then, used together with artificial fear it’s a tool of control.

  9. slugbop007 says:

    Health Psychology is a much sought after degree at universities around the world. Quack! Quack!

No need to log in

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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