Please Label Everything As Carcinogenic

Something I noticed while reading Legiron:

I’m hoping that they really do label everything as carcinogenic. Not just cigarettes and alcohol and fast food and all the usual suspects. No, everything. I want to see paintings and sculptures and buildings labeled as carcinogenic. And newspapers and books and bibles labeled as carcinogenic. And cars and buses and planes labeled as carcinogenic. And cats and dogs and goats and sheep and cattle labeled as carcinogenic. I want all fish individually labeled as carcinogenic. I want every single tile on my roof to be individually labeled as carcinogenic. And I want every single paving stone in the street outside labeled as carcinogenic.  And I want trees and shrubs and flowers labeled as carcinogenic. And I want mountains and hills labeled as carcinogenic. And I want rivers and lakes and seas and oceans labeled as carcinogenic. And I want clouds labeled as carcinogenic. And I want air labeled as carcinogenic.

Oh, and I want the Sun and the Moon labeled as carcinogenic. And I want Mars and Jupiter and Saturn labeled as carcinogenic. And I want all asteroids and comets labeled as carcinogenic.And I want the stars individually labeled as carcinogenic, every single last one of them.

Why? Because once everything is carcinogenic, nothing will be carcinogenic. The word “carcinogenic” will become meaningless.

In fact, I wonder if it hasn’t always been meaningless, For as best I understand it, the way they used to determine whether something was carcinogenic or not was to shave the hair off mice, and paint their skin with the potential carcinogen. And if the mice developed cancer, they declared they’d found a new carcinogen.

Well, maybe they had. Or maybe they hadn’t. For it seems to me that it will be such a shock to a mouse to a) have its hair shaved off, and b) painted with some sort of gunk, that cancer might result regardless of what the gunk was made of. What if skin that’s covered in anything becomes cancerous, because it’s no longer getting any air or sun or water (or love)?

Why should they suppose that it’s only carcinogens that cause cancer? A few years back I concocted an evolutionary model of cancer which didn’t use any carcinogens at all. My idea was that as people aged, and cells in their bodies died, gaps would appear in tissues between cells, in the exact same way that clearings appear in forests when trees dies. And just like when trees die, and fast-growing weeds and shrubs and grasses and ferns start growing in the clearings, so also in the spaces between cells fast growing cells (if any happened to be around) could also multiply. And if there were enough gaps between cells for the gaps to join up with each other, fast-multiplying cells could rapidly multiply (“metastasize”) throughout a living body. No carcinogen caused these cancers. All that was needed was for cells to die off enough for spaces to appear between them, and you’d quite naturally find fast-growing cancers developing in them just like you find fast-growing plants filling clearings in forests.

I think that’s just as good an idea of what might cause cancer as the one these mice-shaving fuckers have got. Because if nothing else is clear, it’s at least clear that nobody – absolutely bloody nobody – has a clue what causes cancer. For if we did know, we’d almost certainly be able to prevent it. But we don’t know, so we can’t prevent it. (If my evolutionary model of cancer proved to be the right explanation, you could prevent cancer by filling up the spaces between cells with something that would prevent anything growing there.)

Anyway, the sooner these fuckers declare everything to be carcinogenic, and demand that everything be labeled as carcinogenic, the better. Because then we can close down their laboratories. And free all the mice.

Anyway, you do know that Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, don’t you? Good, I thought you would. Everybody Knows that Smoking Causes Lung Cancer. In fact, it’s the only thing that anyone knows with any certainty at all – including whether the Earth is flat.

About Frank Davis

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

24 Responses to Please Label Everything As Carcinogenic

  1. garyk30 says:

    The Sun is ‘carcinogenic” as exposure to it can cause skin cancer.

    The Moon,which reflects Sun rays, could also be considered to cause skin cancer, much like SHS.

    Overused words that have lost all real meaning are epidemic(an over used word in itself).
    Words such as racist, fascist, bigot, and Nazi are good examples.

    Then there are the overused words that are ill defined; such as social justice, equality, inequality, public health, the will of the people, the good of all mankind, social responsibility, the rich or the poor, and everyone knows, and experts say.

    Most of those words are not only ill defined, no definition at all is often the case.

    • Joe L. says:

      Well said, Gary.

      The Moon,which reflects Sun rays, could also be considered to cause skin cancer, much like SHS.

      They could convieniently repurpose the initialism “SHS” by renaming “moonlight” to “second-hand sunlight.” In fact, I hope they do.

      This also made me realize that vegetarians are exposed to far more “second-hand (or would it be third-hand?) sunlight” in the form of chlorophyll produced in the copious quantities of green vegetables they consume. We need warning labels on them, too.

      • Joe L. says:

        … and future generations of classical music fans will spend many hours sitting standing in sterile, stark, energy-efficient-LED-lit rooms with high-efficiency air filtration systems, drinking sugar-free smoothies and snacking on unsalted, gluten-free, baked Quinoa while monotonically discussing Beethoven’s “Second-Hand Sunlight Sonata.”

        (I must admit the alliteration has a nice ring to it)

  2. Clicky says:

  3. nisakiman says:

    Everybody Knows that Smoking Causes Lung Cancer.

    In comments under articles about smoking, I regularly point out that there is as yet no proof that smoking causes LC.

    It really throws the cat among the pigeons. Heh!

    I get the same sort of reaction that I would if I ran into a crowded mosque, swinging a leg of pork round my head and shouting that Mohammed is a false prophet!

    Because it’s an article of faith for the majority of people, and for anti-smokers, it’s an unassailable fact. It really fucks with their heads when I point out all the flaws in their belief. And their problem is that it’s really a very easy task to show that it’s not a proven fact, but just a theory based on correlation. And most people know that correlation does not mean causation.

    Those threads usually end up with all the antis ganging up to call me stupid; uneducated; unable to understand science; in denial (interestingly, often comparing me to an AGW denier, which of course I am); and of course the old “well, you’re an addict, so you would say that” chestnut so beloved of smoker-haters. Because in the end, ad hominem is all they’ve got left to use..

    And I will continue to point out that the ‘smoking causes LC’ meme is merely an unproven theory at every opportunity; because that assumption is the bedrock of the anti-smoking bandwagon, and the more that belief can be undermined, the weaker the anti-smoking argument becomes.

    • Claudia says:

      A very nice summary! Love it!

    • Furtive Ferret says:

      Never underestimate the desire for a drowning man to clutch at straws in a desperate attempt to survive:

      • nisakiman says:

        Yes, I saw that. You can tell that they’re running out of ideas. They must have used just about everything in their armoury by this stage, so we’re now into ‘bottom of the barrel scraping’ phase.

      • smokingscot says:

        @ FF

        Ta for that link. BBC article itself is just a summary – and heavily edited at that. However the comments raised an interesting point; essentially the chap says it’s very unlikely they studied ANY group ANYWHERE that consisted of people who only smoke one cigarette per day.

        So he speculated that they’d taken data from broadly relevant studies, then extrapolated from that their “findings”, hence the study the BMJ references had to be treated with extreme scepticism.

        As that view coincided with mine I went to the article:

        and noted at once that:

        “Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.”

        “Data sources: Medline 1946 to May 2015, with manual searches of references.”

        So they looked at stuff that was produced between 2 and 72 years ago. Now that really does confirm yours and Nisakiman’s claim about the bottom of the barrel. Furthermore, stuff produced in the immediate post war years has to be incredibly suspect, because smoking was not identified as anything risky back then – and it’d be all done manually – and the documents only made available by scanning.

        Now the kicker “meta-analysis”! So what exactly does that mean Dear Ferret?

        “Definition. A subset of systematic reviews; a method for systematically combining pertinent qualitative and quantitative study data from several selected studies to develop a single conclusion that has greater statistical power.”

        Basically you take a bunch of studies that have some relevance to your subject, then extract from that the data that’s relevant to your study – and that way you can sound all dead knowledgeable, because you did this:

        “The meta-analysis included 55 publications containing 141 cohort studies. ”

        WOW, WHOOPEE, I AM SO (f…..g) IMPRESSED.

        So what the heck are these studies? So I shall do my own systematic meta-analysis, if you don’t mind, just to show the relevance of some of them:


        Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

        Garfinkel L. Selection, follow-up, and analysis in the American Cancer Society prospective studies.

        Fuller JH, Shipley MJ, Rose G, Jarrett RJ, Keen H. Mortality from coronary heart disease and stroke in relation to degree of glycaemia:

        Hippisley-Cox J, Coupland C, Brindle P. Derivation and validation of QStroke score for predicting risk of ischaemic stroke in primary care and comparison with other risk scores: a prospective open cohort study.

        Ji J, Pan E, Li J, et al. Classical risk factors of cardiovascular disease among Chinese male steel workers: a prospective cohort study for 20 years.

        Molshatzki N, Goldbourt U, Tanne D. Perceived hardships at midlife: prediction of long-term stroke mortality.

        Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2009.

        Greenland S, Longnecker MP. Methods for trend estimation from summarized dose-response data, with applications to meta-analysis.

        Pope CA, Brook RD, Burnett RT, Dockery DW. How is cardiovascular disease mortality risk affected by duration and intensity of fine particulate matter exposure? An integration of the epidemiologic evidence.

        Britton J, Edwards R, eds. Harm reduction in nicotine addiction: helping people who can’t quit. A report by the Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians.


        Above are just a very few random samples that have naff all to do with the claims being made by the so called authors. I have ignored completely ALL studies conducted by various tobacco control bodies.

        I know this is a terribly long-winded way of saying you guys were right from the off.

        However there is some satisfaction out of this. The BMJ tracks every link into their study and thus far all of 10 news outlets are mentioned and 33 tweeters. Now they’ve got Frank’s site to add to their list!!!

        Do click on it – and as some “research assistant” will doubtless follow up on the link, feel free to tell said flunky – we’ve got you lot bang to rights, you’re a sham – and we know it.

        • Furtive Ferret says:

          Thanks for the detailed analysis. Are you familiar with the work of Prof. John Brignell? This is where I first learned to be sceptical about meta-analysis and data dredging in epidemiology.

        • smokingscot says:

          Thank you for the link. I note several blogs I read are considered by him to be good.

          However I learned all about meta analysis all on my own when I researched a certain individual, goes by the name of Dr Sean Semple – he just so happens to be a perfect example of a tobacco control whore, who’ll prostitute himself for a big fat grant and prove everything his paymaster wishes.

          By using meta analysis.

        • Joe L. says:

          “Meta-analysis” is literally nothing more than a statistical study using data produced from one or more previous (usually also statistical) studies.

          However, the term “meta-analysis” is a cleverly-phrased attempt at duping the layman into believing it’s something highly scientific, when in reality, it couldn’t be further from the truth.

          Basing the results of a statistical study solely on data produced from previous studies only compounds errors, anomalies and confounders. It’s like dubbing copies of copies of a cassette tape: with each subsequent generation, the quality is lessened as errors are passed on, multiplied and added to in the process.

          Simply put, “meta-analysis” is pseudoscience.

      • beobrigitte says:

        Cardiovascular disease, not cancer, is the greatest mortality risk for smoking, causing about 48% of smoking-related premature deaths.
        So the lung cancer lie no longer can be supported.
        The researchers said men who smoked one cigarette a day had about a 48% higher risk of developing coronary heart disease and were 25% more likely to have a stroke than those who had never smoked.

        For women, it was higher – 57% for heart disease and 31% for stroke.
        Fumbling in the dark?
        To begin with, strokes are caused by either, a blood clot blocking a blood vessel or a vessel rupturing, causing a bleed. Which kind of stroke is meant?
        As a smoker of 48 years I start my exercise routine with cardio – and (according to the heart rate measurements in my gym) it takes ages to push my heart rate to 120 (calorie burning).
        [Ok, all these exercises do not lift the parts of me going south due to my age, neither do these exercises magically make the wrinkles due to ageing disappear but at least I can pack a hell of a punch to people pointing this out!!]
        One cigarette a day gives me a 57% higher risk of heart disease? Regulars at the smokydrinky bar watch me smoking when I’m there.
        BBC, give me a break and an explanation.
        Prof Allan Hackshaw at the UCL Cancer Institute at University College London, who led the study, told the BBC: “There’s been a trend in quite a few countries for heavy smokers to cut down, thinking that’s perfectly fine, which is the case for things like cancer.

        “But for these two common disorders, which they’re probably more likely to get than cancer, it’s not the case. They’ve got to stop completely.”
        Fumbling in the dark.

        Deborah Arnott, chief executive of health charity ASH, said: “It’s addiction to nicotine that keeps people smoking but it’s the tar in cigarette smoke that does the serious damage.

        “Vaping is much less harmful, but only if you quit smoking altogether.”
        Deborah Arnott, having had real work experience in PR, is now qualified in dictating life style?

        One cigarette a day ‘increases heart disease and stroke risk’
        I take this report as good news – the anti-smoking zeal… erm … advocates are running out of convincing arguments!!!
        As for science: Here something interesting for German speakers and how science works:

        Yes, uncomfortable results can disappear when a career and finances are involved.

        I ask for TRANSPARENCY!!!!!

      • RdM says:

        It’s weird that the BBC article link takes you a login page, when the actual article is freely available in full text, as Smoking Scot has referenced.

        What stood out, I’d highlight, in my reading, was when they got down to

        Supporting biological mechanisms

        Substantial biological evidence shows that components of cigarette smoke lead to endothelial injury, cell dysfunction, atherosclerosis and acute thrombosis, and decreased ability of the blood to carry oxygen.8489 Several such studies were summarised previously with regards to increased platelet aggregation and increased carotid arterial wall thickening at low cigarette consumption, and coronary heart disease and stroke may have common underlying pathways.1284 Harmful effects at low doses are further supported by studies of second-hand smoke that show adverse actions on subclinical vascular disease and thickening of carotid artery walls.89 Barnoya and <b<Glantz describe a wide range of potential mechanisms by using a comprehensive literature review to purport that platelet and endothelial function, arterial stiffness, atherosclerosis, oxidative stress, inflammation, heart rate variability, energy metabolism, and increased infarct size are all sensitive to second-hand smoke.93 They also noted that even brief exposure to second-hand smoke has notable adverse effects on these mechanisms, compared with that in active smokers. Three recent experimental studies focused on low consumption/exposure.949596 In one study, 29 smokers each consumed a single cigarette, immediately after which they had a significant decrease in blood vessel output power and significant increase in blood vessel ageing level and remaining blood volume 25 minutes later, as markers of atherosclerosis.94 In another study, human coronary artery endothelial cells were exposed to the smoke equivalent to one cigarette, which led to activation of oxidant stress sensing transcription factor NFR2 and up-regulation of cytochrome p450, considered to have a role in the development of heart disease.95 These effects were not seen when heart cells were exposed to the vapour from one e-cigarette.95 A study exposed adult mice to low intensity tobacco smoke (two cigarettes) for one to two months and found adverse histopathological effects on brain cells.96

        Indirect evidence for large harmful effects seen at low consumption also comes from studies reporting significantly reduced hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease shortly after the introduction of smoke-free legislation in various countries,979899100101 including systematic reviews.83102103 One such review, based on 45 studies, showed that the risk of hospital admission was reduced by 15% for all coronary events and 16% for cerebrovascular events.104 The authors reported that the benefit remained with longer follow-up after the legislation was implemented, and greater risk reductions were seen with more comprehensive laws.

        and references to previously debunked (Chris Snowdon &etc) “heart attack miracles” in the footnotes… lead me to some skeptical suspicion.

        It requires further digging in to… to fully expose the deceptions inherent in it.

        Meanwhile, on a more friendly side of humanity and the planet,

        • RdM says:

          O, I meant to bold Glantz, for it is he who has some or many references for that section, but even the references seem not to have fully survived the translation…

          “A lie gets half way around the world before the truth has time to get its boots on.”

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      Reply, I know the feeling. The antismokers gangs up to suppress dissent then the media typically removes the civil dissent while retaining the ignorant antismoker hate speech.

  4. beobrigitte says:

    Because once everything is carcinogenic, nothing will be carcinogenic. The word “carcinogenic” will become meaningless.
    I do believe EVERYTHING IS carcinogenic. Perhaps this is the reason virtually all religions prescribe a period of fasting?
    I do recall my mother, following the diagnosis of terminal cancer (12/15 lymph nodes were showing cancer cells) embarking on a 3 week fast. I do not know how often she did these fasts.
    My mother must have been shocked that she did not get a mastectomy and that she was prescribed radiotherapy only, simply because the cancer was too far progressed for chemotherapy to be effective and the fasting perhaps was a desperate attempt.

    My mother died nearly 30 years later of old people’s illnesses, her cancer still being there but in an arrested state.
    Many years later I came across a youtube video about a clinic somewhere in Russia treating cancer patients rather successfully with fasting.
    In recent years research of fasting as cancer treatment is only promoted in combination to chemotherapy. (Perhaps this has to do with the funding of this research?)
    A 2014 publication:
    One from 2016
    One from 2017
    https: //
    which ends:

    Dietary interventions are attractive as inexpensive supportive anticancer therapies. CR is an established tumor preventative regimen, reducing systemic inflammation and growth factor signaling, as well as improving metabolic markers. Improved metabolism and inflammation are also likely mechanisms through which CR may reduce tumor growth and enhance therapeutic response (Fig. 1). In addition, oncogenic transformation and loss of senescence in cancer cells may render them more sensitive to CR than normal cells (Fig. 1). As chronic CR is contraindicated for many cancer patients at risk for weight loss, cachexia, and immunosuppression, intermittent CR, fasting-mimicking diets, low carbohydrate/ketogenic diets, or CR mimetic drugs may be more suitable. Fasting and low carbohydrate diets have been shown to reduce side effects and to improve chemotherapy and radiation therapy in animal models, and there is great promise for these interventions in the clinic. More preclinical studies are required to determine in which cancers, at which stage, and in what combinations CR mimetic drugs may prove most effective. Future studies should take into consideration (1) the risk of cachexia in a patient population, whereby those at high risk may benefit from a ketogenic diet or short-term fasting; (2) the immunologic state of the enrolled patients, when CR or rapamycin treatment may be detrimental to wound healing or inflammatory responses; and (3) the metabolic state of patients, with diabetic patients in particular being at risk of adverse effects during chronic CR or fasting regimens, whereby treatment with metformin or a ketogenic diet may be of benefit. While in the short-term studies will need to focus on the safety and added benefit to current therapies, future studies may also focus on the potential of CR in enhancing the response to lower doses of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. In summary, CR and its mimetics show promise as supportive anticancer therapies. Clinical studies are ongoing and will inform on the potential use of these dietary and drug treatments alongside conventional treatments.

    CR = calorie restriction, which in my view does not equal fast. Also, “Clinical studies are ongoing and will inform on the potential use of these dietary and drug treatments alongside conventional treatments” = no funding being made available simply because: Because once everything is carcinogenic, nothing will be carcinogenic. The word “carcinogenic” will become meaningless.

  5. Joe L. says:

    Excellent post, Frank. I’m with you in your hopes that these overzealous bastards label everything as carcinogenic, thus rendering the word meaningless.

    I also agree that absolutely nobody understands what causes cancer, because if anyone truly did, there would exist proven preventive methods and cures by now (as opposed to the medieval and frequently unsuccessful treatments which “modern” medicine currently relies on).

    I’m beyond fed up with these assholes who pretend to be “experts” in order to prey on the fears of the public for the purpose of social engineering. The more overzealous they become, the sooner they will dig their own graves.

    • beobrigitte says:

      I say let them ban fruit! Or at least put warning labels on it. If they’re going to put warnings on processed foods that are high in sugar, they should also put them on fruit. Especially in today’s world where everyone pretends to be concerned with “equality.”
      I’m a woman and I’m a smoker. Double dose of inequality? As a woman at least I can win a fight. As a smoker I have to fight much harder!!!

      I’m beyond fed up with these assholes who pretend to be “experts” in order to prey on the fears of the public for the purpose of social engineering. The more overzealous they become, the sooner they will dig their own graves.
      I’m beyond fear. So far the anti-smokers are already 3 feet into their own grave. The woman in me wants to help them dig themselves much quicker into their grave. The smoker in me takes a seat in the first row to watch close up the funeral.

  6. Rose says:

    It would be far more helpful for the Californians to label the anticarcinogens that counteract them.

  7. Rose says:

    Today’s news with a particularly good example of doublethink from Ian Gilmore.

    Alcohol could get cigarette-style health warnings
    26 Jan 2018

    “RSPH chief executive Shirley Cramer said: ‘Having a drink with friends or family is something many of us enjoy.

    ‘However, the potential health consequences of alcohol consumption are more serious than many people realise. If and when people choose to drink, they have the right to do so with full knowledge of both what their drink contains and the effects it could have.

    ‘Consumer health information and warnings are now mandatory and readily available on most products from tobacco to food and soft drinks, but alcohol continues to lag behind.

    ‘As Britain exits the EU, we ask that any additional regulatory freedom be used to strengthen that contribution – not to diminish it.’

    Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, chairman of the Alcohol Health Alliance, said: ‘It is clear from this research that the public want labels to include the drinking guidelines, and we know from our own research that 81 per cent of the public want to see the guidelines on labels.

    ‘Alcohol is linked with over 200 disease and injury conditions, including heart disease, liver disease and at least seven types of cancer. We all have a right to know the drinking guidelines, along with the risks associated with alcohol, so that we are empowered to make informed choices about our drinking.’

    “‘Having a drink with friends or family is something many of us enjoy.” not for long if The Royal Society for Public Health have their way.

    Despite it’s seeming antiquity, you may not have heard of the Royal Society for Public Health, because it’s a fairly new thing created in 2008.

    “The Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH) is an independent, multi-disciplinary charity in Great Britain dedicated to the improvement of the public’s health and wellbeing. Formed in October 2008 with the merger of the Royal Society of Health and the Royal Institute of Public Health”

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.