A Reply To Seppi

Yesterday I noticed several interesting new links. The first, in a comment by Philip Neal, was to The Burch Curve. Philip Burch was, I believe, a statistician who disagreed with the cigarette hypothesis of lung cancer causation promoted by Doll and Hill.

And my attention was also drawn to A Critique of Nicotine Addiction (2000) by Frenk and Dar, which looked interesting.

Finally, Kin_Free left a long comment in my blog yesterday which received an accolade from many readers, and so today I’ve promoted it to become a blog post in itself. Maybe that way it’ll get read a bit more. The comment didn’t have a title, so I’ve called it A Reply To Seppi. If it’s already available somewhere else, I’ll be more than happy to provide a link there.

Seppi has called me out on my brief summary of the current state of the anti-smoker deception, so will have to reply. This is a longish and more comprehensive post, yet I was still unable to cover everything. It may be considered verbose to some in this twitter world of economic one-liners and succinct slogans.(too long can’t be bothered to read it – move on). I hope the reader can get through it and ask themselves some pertinent questions about what they have been led to believe by the anti-smoker industry, maybe inspire them to look deeper or even make some noise themselves rather than turning a blind eye.

The name, Seppi Seppowitsch, is new but the the rhetoric is easily identified as that of bertl from the ‘Discus’ commenting platform (or someone who has copied his style in detail -unlikely) Oh, the irony!! Berti has been (assigned as?) my personal stalker for some years now, mainly when commenting with my pseudonym ‘Bright Eyes Open Wide’ (it’s no secret). Previous encounters are all recorded in my BEOW discus profile where many of the issues he raises here, have been covered there, and can be viewed by anyone. He keeps on repeating the same dogma over and over again, unable to move on from anti-smoker ‘group-think’ (so I have ignored him for a while too). As a (formal/informal) disciple of the anti-smoker $billion industry, the intention of course is merely to raise sufficient doubt to reinforce learned smoker CONTROL propaganda. Amongst those already well under its insidious influence, that can be easy. Anti-smoker propaganda is so well ingrained in the publics consciousness that it has almost become common sense, so it doesn’t take much to maintain belief in what ‘everyone knows’.

The anti-smoker campaign in general, works on ‘appeal to authority’, unquestioningly quoting acts and sections of the anti-smoker Bible scriptures / Quran and repeating published opinion from their equivalent of Muftis, Bishops, Cardinals, etc. that amounts to a ‘consensus’ predicting doom and gloom, illness and infirmity to non believers.Those who do NOT comply can expect punishment for their sins.(Do I really need to give current examples?)

Inherent in this paradigm is the presumption that the issue is too complex for ordinary men who are too ignorant understand, and they must all fall at the feet of those select few individuals (experts and priests) who do understand – have spoken directly to God as it were. (I do not wish to criticise traditional religion, merely draw attention to the parallels and how those similarities are being exploited by the smoker CONTROL industry).

We know that anti-smoker appeals to authority and emotion are very effective means of psychological control (Hitler exploited this: “I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few”). However, emotional propaganda is ultimately inferior to the truth, appeal to reason, to common sense, common logic and the natural ability of the average man to identify and understand the many contradictions inherent in anti-smoker ‘science’ (this includes many professionals!). These skills are universal – you do not need to be a rocket scientist to understand, only the ability to think and capable of resisting being overawed by so-called experts and their emotive, apparently complex ‘science’! Of course if you are a quitter then your ability to think may have been downgraded somewhat; http://dengulenegl.dk/English/Nicotine.html

The skilled statistician can make statistics ‘prove’ almost anything he/she wishes and the smoker CONTROL industry has utilised this to the Nth degree. Given that their only ‘evidence’ of harm is based on statistics, one can understand why.

In fact we can distil this ‘evidence’ down to just one or two early mid C20th epidemiological studies (Doll et al), and repetitions of the same, that have been repeated over and over, expounded upon, extrapolated from and ‘deemed’ to be proof! (But only ever showing correlation – not evidence of causation). All the frightening figures always quoted of those thousands or millions who have died of so-called ‘smoke related’ diseases in specific cities, states, countries etc. or predicted for the future, are nothing more than equations based on the early study, but there are no real bodies, just intangible, manufactured statistics. (Computer says; “IF… : THEN…”)

Despite claims of overwhelming scientific evidence, this is their only ‘evidence’ of active smoking ‘harm’ ! No other research, using different methodology, has corroborated that early study, and that research (eg. Hard experimental science and Random controlled intervention trials) often directly contradicts the early statistical research.

Random controlled intervention trials; eg. The WHO ‘Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial’ (MR FIT 1982). Explained here by Prof Carl Selzer;
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wjm58e00 Other examples; Wilhelmsen et al 1986 : Jorgensen et al 2014 – ‘gold standards’ in medical research that do not support the statistical studies.

Hard clinical science; Succinctly explained by Dr Arthur Furst 1982; ”For many years, I tried to induce lung cancer in animals with cigarette smoke, with NO success, despite the most sophisticated smoking machines available. Not only were my colleagues and I unsuccessful, but so was EVERY OTHER investigator”

We can take this further by examining some legal cases that contradict the anti-smoker industry.

Furst’s emphatic comments about real ‘hard’ science, and other examples, were reported in the Scottish legal case; McTear -v- Imperial Tobacco 2005; http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=c77c86a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

This was an anti-smoker showcase trial that was intended to prove, in the legal domain, that smoking caused lung cancer. The anti-smoker industry showcased the best evidence they could collate, along with all the top anti-smoker ‘experts’ they could muster to give evidence, including Richard Doll, the highest of high priests in the anti-smoker community.

They FAILED – the case was kicked out.

Here is the clincher; Despite being asked for and given plenty of time to do so, Doll refused to produce the primary data from his ‘seminal’ research studies that marked the beginning of current anti-smoker mania (following only in Hitler’s footsteps). This crucial ‘evidence’ clearly was NOT robust enough to withstand scrutiny by the court and clearly he had no confidence that it would, or he would have produced it. Yet to this day, this remains the main (only?) evidence for the claim that active smoking is harmful!

Judge Nimmo Smith comments;
“On one view of the scientific approach, these studies [produced by the anti-smoker industry] could be regarded as yielding no more than untested hypotheses.”… “Mr McEachran’s (counsel for McTear) main argument, as I understood it, was that the conclusion that cigarette smoking could cause lung cancer had met with general acceptance in the scientific community by the late 1950s, was accepted by the media in the 1970s, was taught at medical schools and reflected in textbooks…”.

“This is all very well, but I have to say that I am reminded of the Bellman in Lewis Carroll’s The Hunting of the Snark, who said: “What I tell you three times is true”.
He ruled; “…applying the law relating to expert evidence, I am unable to find it proved that cigarette smoking can cause lung cancer.”

The smoker CONTROL industry ignored this ruling, along with all the other contradictions to their faith, and carried on with their prohibition agenda regardless.

The tobacco industry did not bathe themselves in glory with the mid 1990’s US Master Settlement Agreement when they sold-out their smoker customers in exchange for a virtual monopoly of the tobacco trade, apparently quite happy to be the anti-smoker’s boogie man while their profits kept rolling in – and they have. This and an earlier US legal judgement on passive smoke ‘science’, possibly provided the confidence and opportunism for the anti-smoker industry to go ahead with the Scottish McTear case, without any real evidence to prosecute it. The logic being that; ‘If the Americans can get away with it then so can we in Britain’ Wrong!

In this 1998 lawsuit, Judge William L. Osteen Sr. of Federal District Court in Greensboro, N.C., vacated the bulk of a 1993 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report that claimed secondhand cigarette smoke caused as many as 3,000 cancer deaths a year among nonsmokers.
Judge Osteen(p.89); … [the] EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act’s procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act’s authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs products and to influence public opinion. In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiological information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA’s conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the agency’s research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer.
http://archive.tobacco.org/Documents/980717osteen.html (full judgement)
Also https://www.nytimes.com/1998/07/20/us/judge-voids-study-linking-cancer-to-secondhand-smoke.html

However, The Court of Appeals later reversed Osteen on grounds that the agency’s report was ‘not reviewable agency action’. The district court’s assessment of the validity issues were NOT addressed by the appellate court. (i.e. Osteen’s damning judgment of the facts, evidential content and EPA conduct were not challenged). The implication is that no one is allowed to raise methodological challenges to the EPA’s purported use of a scientific method. Effectively, it appears that they could say anything they wished without fear of challenge and I’m sure this led to the anti-smoker industry believing they had become untouchable – and largely, that has been true.
A critique ; http://schachtmanlaw.com/epa-cherry-picking-woe-epa-1992-meta-analysis-of-eta-lung-cancer-part-1/

A recent court case in Washington DC (2014) is one of the few exceptions to this. The case revealed massive conflicts of interest with three prominent anti-tobacco experts who were on the payroll of the pharmaceutical industry. The judgment ordered the FDA to remove three leading anti-tobacco experts, Jonathan Samet,“ (senior scientific editor” of the official “Surgeon General” reports on passive smoking and tobacco 2006), Neal Benowitz and Jack Henningfield from TPSAC because of their extensive conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies, and because they all acted as the government’s expert witnesses against the tobacco industry. Their untrustworthy tobacco report was to be removed from FDA registry.
https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/anti-smoking-experts-paid-by-big-pharma/

Additionally, an interesting new appeals court case, just reported on 30th August 2017, provides some hope for the future in the legal domain (Pollari v. Philip Morris USA Inc. et al). The court REVERSED a $13 million jury verdict in favour of a widow whose husband died of so-called ‘smoking-related’ lung cancer. Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that Pollari’s attorneys used the surgeon general’s reports from 2010, 2012 and 2014 in opening and closing arguments and throughout the earlier trial, were inadmissible hearsay and remanded the case for a new trial of the claims brought by Rose Pollari on behalf of her husband, Paul Pollari.
https://www.law360.com/articles/959232/fla-appeals-court-reverses-13m-smoking-death-verdict

Also tenuously linked; Wednesday, May 15, 2013;
another legal case in USA; http://www.wvgazettemail.com/News/201305150041
“Big victory for Big Tobacco in Kanawha County – Charleston”
The jury of five women and three men did not find evidence that punitive damages should be awarded. They also decided cigarette companies weren’t negligent designing testing or manufacturing their cigarettes, didn’t fail to warn smokers and, among other things, didn’t intentionally conceal evidence regarding the dangers of smoking.
(see also blog on this one by Audrey Silk; http://stopquestionfrisk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/disagreement-with-tobacco-control-now.html

ThePharmaceutical industry has had a long history aligned with the tobacco CONTROL industry. They are not philanthropic organisations, as some seem to think. They are about making money, and there are wagon loads to be made in smoking cessation aids and the medication requirements of a growing proportion of the population who are suffering from stress and depression. The potential for even greater profit lies in the manifold health and cognitive improvements linked with the wonder drug, nicotine. If only they could neutralise their current competition – the organic alternative – the humble cigarette! Big Pharma have a very unhealthy relationship with the World Health Organisation (WHO) – a leading player in the anti-smoker prohibition agenda.

Since their partnership was officially admitted in 1999 we have seen the enactment of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (2004), drawn up by tobacco CONTROL advocates that requires countries to implement their anti-smoker agenda.

Article 5.3 of the FCTC is of particular note in that it effectively legitimises the exclusion of anyone or any evidence that does not conform with tobacco CONTROL objectives. It contains stringent recommendations to ensure no funding is provided by parties (governments) to those who ‘have any conflicts of interest with established tobacco CONTROL policies’, and tobacco companies are basically not allowed to fund anything that may further their interests. i.e. A tobacco CONTROL plan to enrich themselves and impoverish their opponents, or put another way, they fixed the game to build up their weapons of war against smokers (e.g. funding, junk science, expensive media campaigns, legislation etc) while seriously restricting the ability of smokers and tobacco companies to defend themselves! Vacant politicians agreed to this, without reference to the people whom it would seriously affect. In fact it was kept very quiet then presented as a fait accompli to the public – signed, sealed, delivered!

This is the WHO, let’s not forget, that dined on champagne and caviar in 5* luxury on their Moscow jamboree in 2014, even as it complained about being low on funds to tackle the deadly Ebola crisis in West Africa. Thousands died – 1st world money trumps 3rd world lives eh? Contemptible in the extreme. The WHO also showed their true pedigree here when they excluded journalists and the public while they drew up their plans, in secret, that would require governments to impose mafia style tax extortion on the citizens they were supposed to represent.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/14/johnson-whos-secret-tobacco-tax/

Anyone not concerned with whom they are populating their senior positions in the WHO and/or praising them for their contribution to global tobacco prohibition?
eg. Dictators and human rights abusers; Rodrigo Duterte, Phillipines
(http://www.newsweek.com/dutertes-drug-war-7000-success-630392);
Robert Mugabe. Zimbabwe;
http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/mugabe-who-role-model-of-month.html?
And countries –
https://order-order.com/2016/10/10/anti-e-cigs-lobby-organises-taxpayer-funded-maldives-jolly-for-north-korea/

The antecedent history of the tobacco CONTROL industry (or maybe now more aptly named the TOBACCO PROHIBITION industry) should give the average man some cause for concern.

Today, in all sorts of areas, we are inundated with fake news, junk science, and intolerant legislation. Authoritarian government, led by ‘experts’ and single issue fanatics using coercion over reason, is slowly replacing individual freedoms that were enjoyed by everyone only a few short years ago. Leading the way with most of it has been the anti-smoker industry, demonstrating just how easy it is to get public figures to do their bidding.

“Trust me, I’m an expert” has taken on a whole new meaning.

As a result of seppi’s challenge to my first brief precis, it is clear that I need to provide more detail with some references on specific points;

Seppi claims that lung cancer has been declining since the 1990’s and that this is evidence the anti-smoker campaign has ‘saved’ millions of lives. Indeed this is also what the anti-smoker industry claims, but it is NOT true and distinctly Orwellian. However, this needs further explanation;

At baseline; while smoking has been reducing over a generation or so, cancers have increased substantially as have Alzheimer’s dementia, clinical depression, child asthma and more.

In the UK, over one half of people (that’s ONE in TWO of ALL people, NOT just smokers!), currently under 65 yrs old will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives. The lifetime risk for cancer is now greater than 50%! (David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford, April 2015). (It was only about 1in 5 in 1950 apparently – when almost everyone smoked.)

Lung cancer (the alleged signature cancer of all so-called ‘smoke related’ illness), has grown to be the number *1* cancer killer. Globally, lung cancer now claims more lives each year than colon, prostate, ovarian, lymph and breast cancers combined. In US, raw lung & bronchus cancer incidence increased by nearly a THIRD (31%) between 2000 and 2008. (American Cancer Society 2010). That, in case you didn’t realise, is a massive increase – NOT a reduction since the 1990’s! (This information, like much that contradicts the anti-smoker agenda, has been removed from the web, but is copied/pasted on my Kin free blogsite; asbestos-v-smoking- appendix 1 &2).

The reason the smoker CONTROL industry ( and Seppi) can claim a reduction in lung cancer since the 1990’s, is only after statistical adjustments have been made for age and population, reinforcing the fact that cancer is, overwhelmingly, AGE related. There is nothing wrong with this method of reporting statistics unless it is being used to deceive (by making the erroneous suggestion that the reduction is a result of the decline in smoking – when in fact, as we look deeper, it suggests the opposite). Its main value is in making comparisons between different countries with different populations.

So for instance, China has double the male smoking rate of USA, but China suffers only half the male cancers (per 100K of population) and only two thirds the lung cancers of USA. (The Burden of cancer in Asia, 2008- http://www.pfizer.com/files/products/cancer_in_asia.pdf)

The gap is even wider for heavy smoking Indonesia where there is currently a reluctance to adopt onerous smoke bans that could impoverish millions of workers, despite financial ‘incentives’ to comply.(e.g. a Bloomberg grant of $393,234 in 2009 to the Muhammadiyah, a Muslim religious group for “the issuance and dissemination of religious advice on the dangers of tobacco use).”http://jakartaglobe.id/archive/indonesian-clerics-join-smoking-fatwa-row/

Further, In USA, smoking prevalence has been reducing for several decades but in Russia and Ukraine smoking has been increasing, yet, the same statistical methodology produces a similar, age adjusted, reduction in lung cancers over roughly the same time period. (Frank Davis 2014.)https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/ukraine-smoking-up-lung-cancer-down/
(Note; Indeed Frederick Eich makes some of these comparisons very well on this thread)

To reach this 90% figure of smoker/lung cancer that originated with 1950’s Doll (along with the 50% of smokers die of smoking with apparently 10 years of life loss too), as Seppi quotes with this common sleight-of-hand tactic, they add together never smokers AND former smokers, while also claiming that quitting will improve health almost immediately and quitters would have similar health to never smokers after only a few short years.

The ratio of lung cancer sufferers in the developed world has been known for many years and is roughly; Active smokers 20% and Never smokers 20% with Quitters accounting for 60% of all lung cancers, so you can see how they spin these facts to produce 80% ‘smokers’.
More recently, A study in California, reported at the 11th International Lung Cancer conference in 2010, disclosed that the ratio was even more stark; ie. Active smokers 11.3%: Never smokers 23%; and Ex-smokers 65.7%, with a mean length of time between quitting and developing lung cancer of 18 years. (Cindy Mong et al 2010) http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/725138
(Can’t access this link without password but can be found here on the ‘way-back machine’; https://web.archive.org/web/20130118020726/http://www.medscape.com:80/viewarticle/725138)

While never smokers suffered double the lung cancers of active smokers in the Californian study, it is even more relevant to those who have quit in the last few years.

This next report was presented at the 16th World Conference on Lung Cancer in Sept 2015, but good to see it has had more media coverage in August 2017;
“The annual frequency of never-smokers developing lung cancer in Britain has more than doubled over the last seven years, from 13 percent to 28 percent”… London-based Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, the largest-volume provider of lung-cancer surgery in the U.K. (2014.)”http://www.healthimaging.com/topics/oncology-imaging/nonsmoker-lung-cancer-curiously-rise-uk

ALZHEIMER’S ; I actually covered the Glanz opinion of it (cited in seppi’s comment) in my blog (Kin-free blogspot.co.uk, under the tab; Other Blogs/Comments : Alzheimer’s and Smoking). Read that for a more in-depth critique but here’s another recent study re Alzheimer’s and schizophrenia; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3429645/ .

Incidentally, tobacco usage with schizophrenics has been rated as high as 90 percent and they smoke heavily (they self medicate), but ‘Cancer Standardized Incidence Ratios’ (SIRs) for all sites were SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER in schizophrenics than the general population (Grinshpool et al 2004)

ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION was invented by the anti-smoker industry, just as their predecessors invented the ‘masturbation makes you go blind, causes cancer…’ – to put the fear of God into young people. To further the tobacco prohibition movement, this is just another, anti-smoker manufactured, moral panic!

A few studies were indeed carried out to ‘prove’ the erectile dysfunction claims. One Tobacco Control study was even titled; “Erectile dysfunction and smoking: SUBVERTING tobacco industry images of masculine potency”. You have no need for a degree in psychological manipulation, to understand their motivation here and clearly, there is no place for subtlety when indoctrination of people like seppi, and general propaganda is the name of the game. Some do claim an association BUT when we look at the studies more closely we find statements, deep in in the data/text, such as “…these cross-sectional data do not prove cause and effect”.
OTOH, Studies that have found that; 
”Serum Testosterone did not decrease with age, and was significantly higher in SMOKERS than for non-smokers. Serum DHEA decreased with age more sharply in non-smokers than for smokers.” (Mizushima et al 2006)
Here’s another; Svartberg et al, found that after adjustment for age and body mass index, smokers had significantly higher levels of total testosterone, free testosterone, and SHBC (sex hormone-binding globulin).
http://www.eje-online.org/content/149/2/145.abstract?ijkey=0ce8b33e5128d0bcf5d5afaa1310a25395386bd7&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

To put this into perspective, most people know that Testosterone is a male sex hormone that determines ‘manliness’ or masculinity, but it also acts to increase libido in both men and women.
DHEA (Dehydroepiandrosterone) is considered by some to be an anti-ageing or youth hormone. DHEA helped men with erectile dysfunction to get and sustain an erection. Some studies suggest it may also help improve sex drive, improve learning and memory and help reduce bone loss in older women. In a few clinical studies of people with major depression, DHEA improved symptoms compared to placebo. Note that there are other benefits linked to DHEA that are also known to be beneficial effects of smoking;- http://www.umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/supplement/dehydroepiandrosterone

The scientific evidence is far more convincing that smoking is actually the antidote to erectile dysfunction, it increases sex drive and improves the sex lives of both genders. Nicotine also triggers the release of dopamine (a neurotransmitter that helps control the brain’s reward and pleasure centres), and serotonin (regulates anxiety, happiness, and mood), while the lack of these are implicated in depression, Alzheimer’shttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4174765/ and Parkinson’s diseases. (It is important to note that the downside is that quitters tend to be even more deficient in these)

Is this why some smoking women and men still seem to ooze sex despite the best anti-smoker efforts to mar, denormalise, and degrade that image? Add this to the lowering of inhibitions with alcohol use, music and dance and one can see why all these activities have long been the target of religious and puritan nutters – to prevent adult (immoral?) pleasures. Use some common sense too – the biggest ever baby boom in human history occurred just after WW2, when very few males were not smokers!

‘Nicotine ‘blocking the blood flow’ is another suggestion that can be challenged. Smoking tobacco/nicotine actually INCREASES vascularisation / angiogenesis – (makes blood vessels work better, prompts the growth of new blood vessels) eg. http://archive.wired.com/…/discoveries/news/2007/06/nicotine

Smokers more likely to survive Heart attack etc;
.
Smokers have higher rates of survival and lower rates of poor neurological status after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) than do nonsmokers. Of the 838,464 patients with CPR for IHCA, 116,569 patients (13.9%) were smokers.This ‘smoker’s paradox’ of improved outcomes has been recognized in patients with acute myocardial infarction for 25 years (Gupta et al 2014) http://www.nature.com/nrcardio/journal/v11/n7/full/nrcardio.2014.73.html?foxtrotcallback=true

A similar result (smokers less likely to die after MI), was found in Chung et al 2014, but, reminiscent of Boffetta et al 1998 where the main finding that SHS had a beneficial health effect on children was downplayed, this information was clear in the data but no mention of it made in the text or conclusion.http://www.drdavidgrimes.com/2014/10/cigarette-smoking-and-death-from-heart.html

STROKE; Among AIS (Acute Ischemic Stroke) hospitalizations in a large nationally representative database, current or previous smokers had a lower adjusted in-hospital mortality compared with non-smokers.(Patel et al 2015) http://www.neurology.org/content/84/14_Supplement/S5.006

GENERAL TRAUMA; That Nicotine Accelerates Angiogenesis and Wound Healing in Genetically Diabetic Mice (Jacobi et al 2002) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1850685/ – could be one reason why smokers are more likely to survive hospital stay for severe injuries.
Viz; Smokers were significantly less likely to die during the hospital stay for general trauma, compared to nonsmokers, and smokers were also less likely to develop a major complication than nonsmokers.(Bell et al 2015) https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article-abstract/17/12/1499/2583918/Smoker-s-Paradox-in-Patients-Treated-for-Severe

LUNG TRANSPLANTS – subjects are more likely to survive if the lungs used have been donated by a smoker; Seppi in fact cites evidence of just that, but misses the point – e.g. “A total of 77.7 per cent with non-smoking donors’ lungs were alive after the first year, compared with 90.8 per cent with smokers’ lungs.”http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/smokers-lungs-used-in-half-of-transplants-9101647.html

The point of course, is that while the anti-smoker industry claims that smokers lungs are stuffed with tar and shot through with cancer, eg.https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/the-black-lung-lie/, the reality is that they are more often in better condition than non smoker lungs. Also given that only around 25 – 30% of the population smoke, or even less if we are daft enough to believe anti-smokers when they claim so much success in coercing smokers to quit, (and plead for more public money to continue to fight the good fight), YET after screening, nearly half the lungs used have been donated by smokers. Sadly, many needing new lungs have died as a result of being brainwashed into believing smokers lungs are sub-standard, causing them to decline the smokers lungs that could have saved their lives.

I’m pretty sure that the main tobacco controllers are aware that the ‘science’ etc relating to their cause has been inadequate for quite some time (as explained above). Hence why the need to create the perception that smokers are poor, dirty and smelly is rapidly becoming the only tactic remaining, together with the slide to more and more domination, coercion and fright tactics, attacking and bullying the most vulnerable first (ie. the easiest targets and the route always taken by all cowardly bullies!), one example of many is noted in this blog entry; http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/cruel-but-sadly-not-unusual.html#disqus_thread

Anyone, such as doctors, nurses, other carers, teachers, politicians etc who think this treatment of the most vulnerable (or even the not-so vulnerable) is not wrong, ‘cos it’s science init’, or believes it is for the target’s own good, should be forced to watch the Milgram experiments until they understand the implications that relate to them! https://vimeo.com/89396290

Sitting back, turning a blind eye or watching this callous treatment and allowing it to continue because it has nothing to do with you, does not abrogate you from responsibility. Abnegation will no doubt kick in. If you think you are too intelligent to be manipulated in this manner, I suggest you remove your head from your backside as soon as possible.

A comment by ‘pointydigit’ caught my attention; “This is precisely what happens when you foment disgust and dehumanisation as a means of advancing your ideological worldview. It’s also what happens when you systematically remove the responsibility of the individual to weigh up the holy trinity of compassion, tolerance and freedom of choice, and replace it with diktats and groupspeak. People stop asking questions. They stop asking questions of the policies, and they stop asking questions of themselves.”

If you, the reader, value your health over an ideologically driven tobacco prohibition and social CONTROL agenda then do not sit on this information – USE IT and raise awareness. Find out more, ask questions and demand answers, Feel free to disseminate the information in this post at your discretion.

Finally, the first draft of a smokers manifesto by Russian author Dmitri Kossyrev is worth a read, particularly for those tobacco CONTROL advocates who think the tracks of their gravy train, and their untouchable status, will go on into infinity; https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2017/08/20/a-smokers-manifesto/
Kin Free; August 2017

About Frank Davis

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

22 Responses to A Reply To Seppi

  1. Smoking Lamp says:

    This is an excellent overview of the lies and exaggerations perpetrated by the tobacco control project. Thanks for posting!

  2. Lepercolonist says:

    Bravo, Kin_Free !

    Well organized and beautifully presented.

  3. irocyr says:

    Hi all,
    First of all, thank you kin-free, excellent and passionnate work you did there.

    Secondly, I read yesterday’s interesting discussion of how to approach the public and get them to think. When I started in this fight back in 2004 Gian Turci was one of my, if not the, most respected mentors in this fight. We used to skype and have hours of conversations. One thing he attempted to convince me was that the anti-smoker industry had to be attacked at its very roots namely the lies on FHS. I always thought that I would have been written off as a lunatic if I handled it that way. Heck I had trouble making myself credible even on SHS, how much attention, nevermind credibility, would I be getting if I even dared to mention that even FHS theories were flawed. I tried to sneak them in my discussion with more open-minded people anytime I saw a small opening, but even then I was getting funny looks that I translated into ”you talk like an addict who is looking for excuses to carry on with their addiction”. Up to this day (13 years later) I still have a hard time getting people to listen to the flaws, euphemism for fraud, of the FHS so called scientific consensus.

    What I did find however, that reached listening ears without discounting me as a lunatic addict, is speaking of moderation in smoking. Let me first tell you that I personally believe that decades of inhaling large amounts of smoke daily, whether from tobacco or other sources, can and very often does cause respiratory problems sooner or later in life, so I have no qualm of speaking of keeping one’s smoking moderate in order to give the lungs a chance to do what they do best – filtering, cleaning, detoxicating themselves without overloading them. This been said, I was quite surprised when I posted a comment in Quora lately and the upvotes (albeit the very small amount of followers I have) kept and are still coming in. Obviously, my message resonated with many people who are slowly but surely realizing that the ”no safe level” mantra of the anti-smoker industry makes no sense.

    Is proning for moderation the secret to getting people to listen and getting them to question the so called consensus? Is it the right balance between trying to debunk FHS vs SHS ? Try it out for yourselves and let me know the reactions. Here’s what I posted in Quora :

    ”A heavy smoker was once considered anyone smoking over 35 – 40 cigarettes a day. The definition has insidiously been changed by the anti-smoker industry to include anyone smoking over 15 – 20 cigarettes a day. But when you consider the soundbite ‘’no safe level’’ of smoking the propagandists peddle around, if one’s going to smoke even one cigarette (not to mention whiffs of secondary smoke) he is putting his health at risk. By ignoring the basic scientific principle that the dose makes the poison and with their quit or die rhetoric, the anti-smoker industry is doing more harm than good. When we know that smoking has benefits and a person can keep their mood, cognitive functions and appetite under control without chemical pills that can have far worse consequences than smoking a couple of cigarettes a day , the ‘’no safe level of smoking’’ must be dropped totally and a more credible and sensible anti-smoking message should be embraced instead.”

    And I carried on with the following that I adamantly believe and also finds listening ears because Big Pharma shenanigans are no surprise to anyone and it also reaches out to vapers. :

    ”But then of course the pharmaceutical industry that funds anti-smoking researchers, anti-smoker non-profits and political campaigns, in the billions worldwide, won’t have it. Not only do they compete in the nicotine business with their quit smoking nicotine ‘’replacement’’ therapy ‘’ / chantix / zyban, but their anti-depressant, psychotropic, diet pills and surgical interventions against obesity business is booming ever since smoking rates have decreased dramatically. Does anyone wonder why there is such a fierce campaign against e-cigarettes that have thrown a monkey wrench in Big Pharma’s clever but sinister marketing strategies?”

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      Excellent points and very nice presentation. Of course this was the common view until the late 1980s and before the antismoker extremists captured public health in its near-entirety.

    • Frank Davis says:

      When we know that smoking has benefits and a person can keep their mood, cognitive functions and appetite under control without chemical pills that can have far worse consequences than smoking a couple of cigarettes a day , the ‘’no safe level of smoking’’ must be dropped totally and a more credible and sensible anti-smoking message should be embraced instead.”

      I’m never going to “embrace” any “credible” or “sensible” antismoking messages.They are none of them credible, and none of them sensible. I completely reject them all.

      This is a war between them and us. They give us no quarter, and we should give them none either.

      • Joe L. says:

        I’m never going to “embrace” any “credible” or “sensible” antismoking messages.They are none of them credible, and none of them sensible. I completely reject them all.

        I’m with you, Frank. I refuse to concede to Antismoking pseudoscience, because the Antismokers have neither provided anything remotely scientifically “credible” nor “sensible.”

        Nevertheless, it’s heartening to hear that Iro believes people seem to be warming back up to the idea of moderation, because once people stop believing in the “no safe levels” bullshit, they have no choice but to become receptive to skepticism of the rest of the catalog of lies.

    • Rose says:

      Let me first tell you that I personally believe that decades of inhaling large amounts of smoke daily, whether from tobacco or other sources, can and very often does cause respiratory problems sooner or later in life, so I have no qualm of speaking of keeping one’s smoking moderate in order to give the lungs a chance to do what they do best – filtering, cleaning, detoxicating themselves without overloading them

      I’m still reeling that my experiment this summer worked, but here goes.

      LAB OF INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE,VITAMIN TESTING NEW YORK
      1944
      “The niacin content of unfortified tobacco was found to be 0.13mg. niacin over three fourths of the cigarette.”
      https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/docs/#id=kmjc0115

      Twiglets
      “Twiglets were invented in 1929 by a French biscuit maker named J. Rondalin, a technical manager at Peek Freans’ Bermondsey factory, who added brewer’s yeast to a leftover batch of Vitawheat dough. They were first launched onto the consumer market in 1932 by Peek Freans. Today, Twiglets are manufactured in Aintree by United Biscuits subsidiary Jacob’s.”
      Wikipedia

      I don’t know about Canada but in America you can get them online from the British Corner Shop and I’m guessing that they will still be an awful lot cheaper than a packet of cigarettes there.

      Both cigarettes and yeast extract seem to work sublingually not through the lungs.

      • Rose says:

        I should add that the niacin in brewer’s yeast was first found during the search for the cure for Pellagra the killer niacin deficiency disease, in the 1900’s, tobacco appears to have been used previously as a folk medicine to stave the worst effects of Pellagra off, right idea wrong amount.

      • RdM says:

        Never heard of Twiglets here in NZ Rose, (it reads a bit like Winnie The Pooh!) but I was going to comment on your earlier post on this;- every few months I remember to buy a months supply of multivitamin tablets, sometimes an extra “Executive Stress B complex” (with added calming herbs) and although I don;t have an example of the latter, the empty last bottle of Red Seal ‘Men’s Multivitamin’ tells me that it has B3 (they don’t even call it Niacin) 50mg.
        This is a long way from 0.13mg. niacin in a cigarette…
        And I didn’t feel any urge to smoke less while I was taking these supplements…
        (A months supply of vitamins about the same price as a cheap bottle of wine… )
        (maybe to be consumed in one night! – and we know what alcohol does re B vitamins)

        So, choices…

        Best ;~ Ross

        • Rose says:

          Vegemite might do it for you.
          The trouble with swallowing pills is you can’t tell one thing from another when it it hits your stomach, your tongue can almost instantly.

          Twiglets are a pleasant snack which we enjoy anyway, if you dissolve the twiglet coating or tiny bit of vegemite on your tongue first the signal goes straight to the brain and you need very little.

          Another recently discovered virtue of Vegemite.

          Australian scientists pioneer Vegemite breakthrough that could prevent thousands of miscarriages
          August 10, 2017

          “AUSTRALIA’S favourite spread is behind what could be the nation’s greatest ever medical achievement, after scientists made a breakthrough expected to prevent thousands of miscarriages and birth defects.
          The cure is remarkably simple — a common dietary supplement that contains niacin, one of the key elements of Vegemite.

          The research team at Sydney’s Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute made the historic world-first discovery, which is expected to forever change the way pregnant women are cared for around the globe.”
          http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/australian-scientists-pioneer-vegemite-breakthrough-that-could-prevent-thousands-of-miscarriages/news-story/1dfed39818b01723cdfc7a22c39c6b0b

          No wonder we all enjoy vitamin B3, tobacco, coffee, beer, vegemite, marmite, twiglets. a little of what you fancy does you good.

      • waltc says:

        In the US you can get them online from Amazon. About $4.50 for a small bag.

        • Rose says:

          How does that compare to the price of a packet of cigarettes, in New York for example?
          I’m hoping that a possible solution wouldn’t be priced out of the market there.

    • Fredrik Eich says:

      ”you talk like an addict who is looking for excuses to carry on with their addiction”.
      To this I would reply with “save me your smokerphobic epithets” and would relentlessly attack the FHS mythology. I hardly ever bother with SHS mythology and if I do it is only as a quick stepping stone to FHS. It works for me but you do have to know your stuff.

    • RdM says:

      Thank you for your very comprehensive post, comment, with all the inherent wisdom, which I’ll re-read again, but for now, I’m taken by the idea of responding to this one small idea of terminology… “anti-smoker industry”

      It’s not really an industry, is it?
      Well, lots of people ‘work’ in it, but what do they actually produce?

      A tobacco industry produces tobacco for consumption, the pharmaceutical industries provide pills and remedies for consumption, but… anti-smokers?
      Screeds of studies, reports, public propaganda, influence agents to governments.

      I prefer to think of them as the anti-smoker cabal, or even cartel, since in bed with the pharmaceutical industries etc.

      cabal

      1. A clique (often secret) that seeks power usually through intrigue
      2. A plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)

      cartel

      1. A consortium of independent organizations formed to limit competition by controlling the production and distribution of a product or service
      “they set up the cartel in the hope of gaining a monopoly”

      But given the obvious Communist involvement of so many of the major players in the anti-smoking movement, and even in the WHO, well before but now alongside the Big Pharma and elite “Philanthropist’ funding sources, maybe cabal is more likely.

      And even then inadequate.

      I remember reading an interview with a ‘retired’ (could there be such a thing?) ex KGB agent, more involved with biological agents, who in his retirement had a job in his new country involved with the water supply of the capital city, but apart from that stated, in the interview, (and the journalist didn’t follow it up)

      “We even had a team inside the WHO”

      • RdM says:

        Sorry, I messed up the italics there… maybe Frank can see through and correct them!

      • kin_free says:

        I think ‘industry’ describes them perfectly. The anti-smoker industry consists of a large group of persons employed in a wide range of jobs to serve a common purpose, whereas a ‘cabal’ suggests a small, secret, group of plotters. The anti-smoker industry is not small nor, generally speaking, secretive.

        Some in the smoker control business are indeed involved in the manufacture of propaganda, junk science etc. but many have just been brainwashed and are paid to promote the anti-smoker message in many different ways. They all work industriously to sell their product to the medical profession, politicians and the public etc. to attain their insidious goal.

        Part definition; Industry;
        . diligence in an employment or pursuit; especially steady or habitual effort.
        . a department or branch of a craft, art, business, or manufacture, especially one that employs a large personnel and capital.
        . a distinct group of productive or profit-making enterprises eg the banking industry or the tourist industry. (what do these industries make or manufacture?)

        Anti-smokers often try to portray themselves as poor little innocent David fighting the large evil tobacco Goliath, when this is far from the truth. The anti-smoker campaign has become a worldwide, billion dollar industry employing thousands of workers. They have themselves become the modern day Goliath or the many headed Hydra.

        No, anti-smoker / tobacco CONTROL / prohibition ‘industry’ is appropriate and suitably describes their operation.

        • RdM says:

          Thanks for the thoughtful riposte.
          I think I understand your viewpoint, and fair enough.
          Of course it’s about CONTROL and not about ‘Health’, or traditional ‘Public Health’.
          (except that the latter has been morphed into eugenics)

          But looking at your

          Part definition; Industry;
          . diligence in an employment or pursuit; especially steady or habitual effort.
          . a department or branch of a craft, art, business, or manufacture, especially one that employs a large personnel and capital.
          . a distinct group of productive or profit-making enterprises eg the banking industry or the tourist industry. (what do these industries make or manufacture?)

          Well, money, money for other people, and themselves, selling ideas and services.

          But still, fair enough, call it an industry.

          There are lots of industrious people on that gravy train, for sure.
          The propaganda gravy train, the pharmaceutical gravy train, and the political influence industry, subject to who knows what external and internal ideas and forces?

          I still reckon that there’s an old Communist, however morphed into modern whatever International Socialism or what have you, influence campaign operating from way back, even the beginning when British doctors traveled to Russia to see its health system.

          Latched on to funding by pharma, but still promulgating its own influence.
          What better way to take down the West, get it to self-destruct from within?
          And just one of many campaigns, I’m sure.

          I bet the Russian and Chinese armed forces won’t be banning smoking within them any time soon, unlike the idiotically subjugated and hypnotised or internally influenced by ‘Public Health’, NZ and Israeli armed forces which have recently pledged to do…

          Never mind the smoke of battle, you can’t have a cigarette!

        • Kin_Free says:

          RdM. Are you thinking Cultural Marxism? As suggested by Nisikaman
          And liz here:- https://vapingpoint.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/i-am-giving-up.html

  4. gimper30 says:

    Excellent post, Frank. Unfortunately, the ability to reason appears to be a diminishing trait. How we older folk were taught to reason back in the 50’s and 60’s seems to be lost on our modern day scholars. This is a sorry state of affairs and one that should concern us all.

  5. Philip Neal says:

    Well put, Kin Free.

    The random controlled intervention trials deserve particular emphasis because they test the same question as the Doctors Study, their design is superior and their negative results should count for more than the older studies. A complete list is here:

    http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/12/smoking-followup.html

    Also this listing of animal trials:

    http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/12/animal-smoking-studies.html

    • Rose says:

      You might find this interesting.
      I learnt a great deal I didn’t know from this court case.

      Deposition of Dr Wilhelm C.Hueper
      1957

      Including –

      “They manipulated the evidence. Anyone who introduces a corrective factor in his calculations to make the evidence fit a preconceived idea, I do not feel that this is valid scientific evidence.

      Q.Do you feel, in view of what you said, that the application of a corrective factor means a predetermined manipulation in this case?

      A.In this case I could not say, no.

      Q I want to get clear on that.You asked me to read on. I will do that. This appears on Page 435 of your May, 1957 article and reads;

      “However, even this estimate is heavily biased by the arbitrary assumption that the benzpyrene content present allegedly in cigarette smoke was about 12 times as effective in eliciting cancers as benzpyrene demonstrated in atmospheric air.
      Only when such a “corrective” coefficient is applied was it possible to obtain proportional correlations between the total exposure to benzpyrene from both cigarette smoking and air pollutants and the relative incidence rates of lung cancer found in the industrialized metropolitan Liverpool area, an intermediary urban-rural region, and the rural area of North Wales”

      A That is right.

      Q That was your statement.

      A I would like to have that on the record too.

      Q All right. It is in Doctor”
      https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/docs/#id=lkdg0096

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 )

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.