What Defiles A Man

Simon Clark has asked me to be a guest speaker at a webinar on smoking and pubs next week. I shouldn’t have too much difficulty: I’ve been writing about it since 2009.

What might I say?

I suppose the main thing about 1 July 2007 (a day I still vividly remember) is that it was the day that I was expelled from society. I’ve never been able to accept the smoking ban that was imposed that day. I’ve been an outsider ever since. And I’m still as angry about it as I was back then. The anger is never going to go away.

I was born in England and I’ll always be English, but England ceased to be my country that day. I became an exile in my own land.

I had a wide circle of friends and acquaintances before 1 July 2007. The acquaintances all vanished that day, and the friends all followed the one by one over the next 10 years, usually when they banned smoking in their own homes, and I no longer wanted to know them.

I’m not a believer in the supposed health risks of smoking. In large part this is because the first antismoker I ever encountered – Dr W – referred to it as a “filthy habit” – which indicated that his was an aesthetic rather than medical objection. But I also don’t think that so-called antismoking “science” is any sort of science at all. To me antismokers seem to be no different from antisemites who also hate an entire class of people for what they are. They are people who think more of themselves by thinking less of others.

I don’t know why it is that some people are so concerned about what  goes into people’s mouths, whether eaten or drunk or inhaled. But I think Jesus had it about right:

And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

I don’t think the antismokers will ever succeed in stamping out smoking. I instead think that it will be the antismokers who will be stamped out.

I belong to the pot-smoking generation of the 1960s. They couldn’t stamp out pot back then, and they won’t succeed in stamping out tobacco now.

I’m sure that there’s much more that can be said, But those are a first few thoughts.

About Frank Davis

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

36 Responses to What Defiles A Man

  1. Dmitry says:

    A perfect opening statement, Frank. Cannot be better.
    You may go on with a warning: it may happen to you, too, not necessarily about smoking, but about somegthing that’s a vital part of your life. You see, I’ve just finished a column describing my daughter’s friend who’d just got out of a vegan group, saying something like “never again”. She still dislikes meat, but the group was shaming people, distributing fake information about meat eating based on that WHO report of 2018, was contemplating picturing meat-eaters as a threat to other people, and thought about some international treaty on the subject… well, you know. They were saying: if they did it with smoking, why can’t we do it with meat?

    • “if they did it with smoking, why can’t we do it with meat?”

      Exactly. What we’ve been seeing over the last 40 years is the development and refinement of the methods that can be used to adjust human behavior into “desired patterns” in a way the Goebbels et al could barely have dreamed of.

      – MJM

      • Joe L. says:

        Spot on, Michael. Just look at what they’ve been able to do with public acceptance of face coverings recently. For decades, people were conditioned to call the police if they saw someone covering their face in public, as that person was suspected to be a criminal, hiding their identity. In a matter of only a few short weeks, people have been re-conditioned to call the police if they see someone not wearing a face covering in public, because they’re a ruthless grandma-killer.

        It’s unfathomable that the behaviors and perceptions of millions of people could be inverted like that in such a short period of time, even with a good deal of scientific evidence indicating face coverings have very little, if any, efficacy in preventing the transmission of viruses. Goebbels would be green with envy at how much they’ve honed their social engineering tactics.

        • Rose says:

          Then again, Joe, it’s a wonderful opportunity for a lifelong law-abiding citizen to mask their face like a highwayman and walk through the local area unquestioned. I can’t wait for mine to arrive. I’ve seen some very attractive ones around already.

    • RdM says:

      What defines a man, apart from what might defile a man, I’d have thought to query …

      Hey, Dmitry, I’ve started to really enjoy your writing through Google Translate.

      Thanks! ;=}}


      Meanwhile, thinking about Bible translations, you might read mark learn & inwardly digest …

      this, forward & back. For everyone and anyone.


      Great to read new interpretations of history, about translation errors, & so on… yes?

      Cheers for now !!
      And Kindest Regards !
      Best wishes for all new publishing,

  2. Rose says:

    I think that the problem is that we were taught critical thinking at school rather than unquestioning belief, and were rewarded when we exhibited it rather than criticised.

    I think Wikipedia’s explanation expresses it best

    “Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment. The subject is complex, and several different definitions exist, which generally include the rational, skeptical, unbiased analysis, or evaluation of factual evidence. Critical thinking is self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism.”

    “Socrates established the fact that one cannot depend upon those in “authority” to have sound knowledge and insight. He demonstrated that persons may have power and high position and yet be deeply confused and irrational. Socrates maintained that for an individual to have a good life or to have one that is worth living, he must be critical questioner or must have an interrogative soul. He established the importance of asking deep questions that probe profoundly into thinking before we accept ideas as worthy of belief.”

    This is probably why I had so much trouble believing Anti-tobacco’s explanation of why tobacco was a bad thing when they visited my school. I already knew that what they told me about tar was false. I wondered for years why they did it.
    If they had told me that repeatedly inhaling the burning fumes of a match was dangerous to my health I’d believed without question.

    I had previously thought that smoking was a pointless practice because the same plant chemicals were in nightshade vegetables.
    In the end I took up smoking because it was the only way to find out why they had lied to me and what about.
    It’s taken a lot of years though.

    • Rose says:

      I hadn’t seen that one HFL, thank you.

      But there’s that assumption that it must be nicotine remarked on by Joe in the previous thread,on three of the reports though.
      I’ll be back.

      • Rose says:

        From your link –
        “For example, it has been well documented that smoking vastly decreases someone’s risk of developing osteoarthritis (OA)28and provides some level of protection against it. Smokers demonstrate significant protection at four sites commonly seen in OA patients (knee, spine, hand and foot)29. Smoking also presents a negative correlation with large joint OA and has been shown to decrease the risk of OA in obese individuals.30 Experts have theorized that this may be because nicotine has beneficial effects on bone maintenance, growth and repair. Furthermore, according to L. Gullahorn, M.D, “of the more than 400 agents found in cigarette smoke, nicotine is one of the most physiologically active components. An in vitro study recently published demonstrates that nicotine is a potent stimulator of bone cell synthetic activity.”

        Other observations

        Smoking Could Reduce Risk Of Joint Replacement Surgery

        “Men who smoke have less of a risk of needing joint replacement surgery than those who have never lit up a cigarette, according to a new study published online in the journal Arthritis & Rheumatism.

        “The study, which was led by George Mnatzaganian, a Ph. D. student at the University of Adelaide in Australia, analyzed study data of more than 11,000 subjects and discovered that those who had smoked for 48 years or more had a 42% to 51% lower risk of needing a total knee or hip replacement than those who had never done so.”

        “Analysis showed that being overweight independently increased total joint replacement risk, while smoking lowered the risk, which was most evident after 23 years of smoking exposure,” they added, noting that “vigorous exercise increased risk of joint replacement in men in the 70-74 year age group.”

”Our study is the first to demonstrate a strong inverse correlation between smoking duration and risk of total joint replacement,” Mnatzaganian said in a statement
        . “The independent inverse associations of smoking with risk of total joint replacement were evident also after adjusting for major confounders and after accounting for the competing mortality risk in this elderly cohort of men.”
        Further investigation is required on the subject, he added.”
        http: //www.redorbit.com/news/health/2076418/smoking_could_reduce_risk_of_joint_replacement_surgery/index.html?source=r_health
        No longer available

        The Carbon Monoxide-Releasing Molecule tricarbonyldichlororuthenium(II) Dimer Protects Human Osteoarthritic Chondrocytes and Cartilage From the Catabolic Actions of interleukin-1beta

        Harvard and U. Pittsburgh researchers explain carbon monoxide’s anti-inflammatory effects

        “In a study appearing in the April 2007 issue of The FASEB Journal, scientists from Harvard University and the University of Pittsburgh have shown for the first time that the anti-inflammatory effects of carbon monoxide originate within cells’ own molecular engines, mitochondria.
        Specifically, mitochondria react to low levels of carbon monoxide by releasing chemical signals that reduce or shut down the body’s inflammatory response, raising the possibility for the development of new anti-inflammatory therapies, one of which may be low levels of inhaled carbon monoxide.”

        Something I rely on myself, I get plenty of muscle strains and aching joints from the garden and they all disappear like magic overnight, I had wondered why.

      • Rose says:

        2. “Secondly, it is commonly known in the scientific community that neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s present a much lower risk in smokers; so much so that methods of treatment using nicotine (and its byproducts) are now being actively developed by pharmaceutical companies for new neurological treatments.”

        Smoking May Act as an Antidepressant Drug

        “The study found that the brains of chronic smokers had neurochemical abnormalities in the locus coeruleus that can be produced by repeatedly treating laboratory animals with antidepressant drugs, he explained.

        Specifically, long-term smoking appears to inhibit monoamine oxidase (or acts as an MAO inhibitor). Monoamine oxidase is the enzyme that metabolizes monoamines — such as norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin, Klimek explained. The locus coeruleus produces norepinephrine. Drugs that inhibit monoamines are antidepressants.”

        Why the wicked weed wards off Parkinson’s

        “A SUBSTANCE that may protect the brain against Parkinson’s disease has been found in tobacco smoke, a discovery that could shed light on the causes of this debilitating condition.

        Researchers have known for decades that smokers are less likely to develop Parkinson’s than non-smokers, but not why. Four years ago, however, Joanna Fowler of Brookhaven National laboratory in New York showed that in long-term smokers a brain enzyme called monoamine oxidase (MAO) is 40 per cent less active.

        Normally, MAO breaks down such neurotransmitters, but it can also help convert other substances into toxins that poison dopamine-producing brain cells.

        “Intrigued by these findings, Kay and Neal Castagnoli and a team at the Harvey W. Peters Research Center at Virginia Tech set out to identify substances in smoke that inhibit the enzyme.”
        https: //www.newscientist.com/article/mg16622332-000-why-the-wicked-weed-wards-off-parkinsons/

        Parkinson’s Inhibitor Fingered in Tobacco

        “They ground up tobacco leaves and tested representative samples in a test tube to see if they inhibited MAO. From the fraction containing the most potent MAO inhibitor, they isolated a chemical known as 2,3,6-trimethyl-1,4-naphthoquinone.

        To find out whether this was a key MAO-inhibitor in cigarette smoke, Castagnoli’s team examined mice in which dopamine-producing neurons were killed with a compound called MPTP that’s converted to a toxin in the brain, causing symptoms much like Parkinson’s disease. Without the naphthoquinone, dopamine levels in the mice given MPTP dropped 60% below normal.

        Yet when the mice were pretreated with naphthoquinone, dopamine levels fell only 40%. This suggests that naphthoquinone “is a good [MAO] inhibitor–not gangbusters, but a good inhibitor,” Castagnoli says.
        Napthoquinone had previously been found in tobacco smoke, but not linked to dopamine.”

        Recent study using Doll’s own data from the British Doctors survey.

        Smoking Study Adds Fuel to Parkinson’s Debate

        “Male British physicians who smoked tobacco in 1951 had a 30% lower risk of death from Parkinson’s disease, an analysis of data from the British Doctors Study showed.

        Moreover, doctors who continued to smoke over the years had a 40% lower risk of Parkinson’s mortality, reported Robert Clarke, MD, of the University of Oxford in England, and co-authors.

        As shown in their study online in Neurology, Parkinson’s mortality risk was inversely associated with the amount of tobacco smoked, and for those who quit smoking, the effect was attenuated with increasing time since quitting.”
        https: //www.medpagetoday.com/neurology/parkinsonsdisease/86370

      • Rose says:

        3.”Aside from neurological diseases, smoking has been found to consistently reduce the risk of developing Ulcerative Colitis, an inflammatory bowel disease. According to Lashner et al40, “non-smokers are approximately three times more likely to develop Ulcerative colitis.”One review41 suggests that current smokers are associated with an approximately 42% reduced risk; however, former smokers are associated with increased risk when compared to non-smokers.”

        Carbon Monoxide Soothes Inflammatory Bowel Disease

        “Doctors have long known that smokers rarely suffer from a common form of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) called ulcerative colitis, but they didn’t know why.
        A new study in the December 19 issue of The Journal of Experimental Medicine might help explain this apparent resistance. Scott Plevy and his colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh now show that carbon monoxide (CO), a component of cigarette smoke, helps shut down the intestinal inflammation that causes ulcerative colitis.”

        “But recent scientific studies have shown that CO — at least at low concentrations — has a redeeming quality: it acts as an anti-inflammatory agent”

        “The group traced the action of inhaled CO to a protein that is produced by immune cells called interleukin (IL)-12. IL-12 is normally produced during infection and helps activate the immune cells that fight off the invading pathogens.
        But chronic production of IL-12 in the gut also drives the inflammation that causes ulcerative colitis.
        Inhaled CO inhibited the production of IL-12, short-circuiting the disease-causing inflammation.”

        ‘Doctors don’t always know best:’ Student claims he cured debilitating bowel disease by taking up smoking
        A medical student claims to have cured himself of a debilitating disease by taking up smoking.

        “Formerly a non-smoker, Stephen Pendry, 23, struggled with crippling pain, tiredness, shortness of breath and dehydration since he was diagnosed with bowel disease ulcerative colitis four years ago.
        He had to rush to the toilet up to 15 times a day but is now completely symptom-free, thanks to a new four-a-day cigarette habit.”

        • In terms of CO, Albert Donnay’s work is by far the most impressive I’ve seen:


          It’s doctoral dissertation research level!

          – MJM

        • Rose says:

          But this one makes a lot easier reading for us non scientists, MJM, I found it lurking on my address bar.

          Ventilation corona patient can backfire
          6 April 2020

          “Hyattsville, MD: “COVID-19 patients are dying of carbon monoxide poisoning,” warns Albert Donnay, an independent toxicologist and environmental health engineer who has been studying carbon monoxide for 20 years.”

          Donnay says this poisoning is not from inhaled carbon monoxide (CO) but from endogenous CO that humans make all the time and more so in response to stressors of all kinds. Respiratory infections increase lung CO levels five-fold, from one to five parts per million, which helps kill both bacteria and viruses.

          But according to Donnay, days of exposure to higher than normal levels of CO also causes fatigue, cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, headaches, and all the other symptoms of COVID-19. He cautions that when patients are treated with oxygen therapies and mechanical ventilation, they make even more CO in response. They also very effectively flush all this CO out of their lungs into arterial plasma and from there into other organs. As CO gradually accumulates in these tissues beyond the lungs, the hypoxia it causes eventually results in multi-organ failure and death.”
          View at Medium.com

  3. DP says:

    Dear Mr Davis

    I cannot think of anything more defiling than the words coming from the mouth of Ms Arnott featured on your blog near the bottom right hand side.

    Perhaps she thinks her £100k plus salary makes it all worthwhile.


    • Rose says:

      Don’t hate the smoker
      Deborah Arnott
      Mon 8 Jan 2007

      “In the BMJ today it’s argued that smokers should be denied operations unless they quit. And recently there have been cases of people being refused jobs or are being sacked just for being smokers even though they promise not to smoke at work. This is not what Action on Smoking and Health is fighting for – we are anti-smoking, yes, but not anti-smoker and in today’s climate we think that there is a very real danger that smokers are being marginalised in our society.

      When the smoking ban comes into force in England in July smokers will be exiled to the outdoors. Ash campaigned for the new law because we now know that second-hand smoke is a killer and it is only right that smokers should not harm those around them. Smokers should be allowed to carry on smoking if they want to, as long as the health of others is not put at risk, and the only way to do that is not to allow people to smoke in enclosed places.

      But we don’t want to see smokers marginalised, because there’s a danger that they’ll begin to see their habit as a badge of honour, a sign of individuality, something to be proud of.”

      • DP says:

        Dear Rose

        “Don’t hate the smoker” – just exile them to the outdoors. ‘Second-hand smoke’ is a made up thing with which to beat smokers and make their lives even more miserable. As for ‘protecting people’, if people don’t want to be exposed tosecond handsmoke, they only need avoid smoky enclosed spaces.

        I don’t see how you can be anti-smoking without being anti-smoker. There’s no smoking without a smoker. Likewise being ‘anti-tobacco’.

        Nice to see Ms Arnott recognised smoking as a ‘habit’ and not an addiction needing to be ‘cured’. Wonder what made her change her mind.

        If smoking protects against the latest scare du century, will ash be promoting the optimal dose in cigarettes per day as part of their declared aim of action on smoking and health?


        • Rose says:

          No one mentioned hating anyone until she did.
          And then gives a list of reasons why she thinks people should. A very basic attempt at reverse psychology if ever I saw one

  4. Александра Собина says:

    Great article.

  5. Clicky says:

  6. waltc says:

    I see your role as an evangelist or a salesman and merely offer the caveat that stating flatly that smoking (as opposed to secondhand smoke) presents zero risk will instantly ring up a NO SALE. Nothing else you say before or after that would be given credulity by an indictrinated audience. Pick battles you have a chance of winning. So the question becomes do you want to get your rocks off or make a winning case for opening pubs to smokers? If you’re thinking strategically, the best strategy would be to deflect any question of that to instantly discussing either the benefits of smoking or to say that the subject of pub and other bans is secondhand, not firsthand smoke, and go on to demolish that. I expect to have metaphoric rotten tomatoes thrown at me for saying this and have no illusion it will influence what you do but …

  7. Frank Davis says:

    stating flatly that smoking (as opposed to secondhand smoke) presents zero risk will instantly ring up a NO SALE.

    It may not be what others think, but it’s what I think.

    • Frank, one approach you might consider if you’re concerned about the credibility point raised by WaltC is to speak of statistics and how they can be a strong indicator, but that it’s very hard to make a jump to certainty. You can note, e.g., that there’s a very high correlation between smoking and cirrhosis of the liver when the stats are compared to the general nonsmoking population. And if you were an alien scientist imported from another planet and were given incomplete information (maybe innocently so, by scientists who had never really examined alcohol and its effects on the liver because they believed that alcohol was the precursor to being “The Blood Of Christ” kind of as per most Christian religions.

      Since those scientists had never examined alcohol, they noted the high correlation between heavy smoking and cirrhosis and decided that it was a **FACT** that smoking caused cirrhosis. Virtually ALL the scientific studies carried out in The Christian World agreed with this, and it was further proven experimentally when living animals carved up so their livers were hanging exposed from their bellies were taken 20 times a day to a chamber where concentrated streams of smoke direct from the ember of burning cigarettes was blown directly at their livers through tubes just 1 centimeter away. After just several months of such treatment, most of the mice died and their livers showed clear signs of damage (or even just “the precursors of damage”) and thus physical, biomedical, unbiased experimental evidence supported the statistical link and PROVED that cirrhosis was caused directly by smoking (or even by “exposure to secondhand smoke.”)

      In much the same way, although most might say it is highly unlikely, you have a right to say that, no, it is NOT “absolutely” proven that smoking tobacco causes human lung cancers, and that it is at least POSSIBLE that the cause is something else that we simply haven’t noticed or even discovered yet.

      *I* believe smoking causes lung cancer. I’d be happy to bet that it’s so at ten to one odds or even 100 to one odds. Risking $1,000 against the benefit of a single $1 (with the bet being decided by God, the big guy who really DOES know all the answers in this scenario), well, at 1,000 to 1 I might hesitate. At 100,000 to one, and looking at spending the rest of my life in wage slavery to pay off the bet…. heh, sorry. I’ll pass on the “almost sure chance” of winning that dollar. And at a million to one, with not just their own finances that the finances of their family and offspring all held in potential ransom… I bet a fair number of cancer docs would be reluctant to take the bet no matter HOW strongly they might believe that “Smoking Causes Lung Cancer.”

      You have the right to make that bet and believe you’ll win, and that belief may help spurt you to reading and thinking and writing a lot of stuff that brings you closer to the Real Truth on a lot of other aspects of smoking … EVEN IF you were completely wrong about that one central belief. That core disbelief frees up your mind of all sorts of prejudices that might otherwise lean you so strongly toward believing that fourth-hand smoke MUST be a deadly killer, that your open mind is then able to gather convincing evidence that fourth-hand smoke worries are simply craziness.

      OK… hope that’s clear enough to follow!

      – MJM, gotta go now… news report that fifth-hand smoke may be approaching the city…

      • Fredrik says:


        I am perfectly happy to state that smoking does not cause lung cancer because it is true.

        1) The animal models predict that smoking does not cause lung cancer

        2) We have billions of subject years of data that proves conclusively that smoking does not cause lung cancer. Efforts in countries to reduce the numbers of people smoking have not yielded different results from countries that have not. The test for the hypothesis has failed.

        3) The differences between smokers and never smokers is not only explainable by detection bias but is predicted by detection bias. And the difference is these days only about three fold. The dose response is also predicted by detection bias.

        4) No causal mechanism has been identified for smoking and lung cancer because smoking does not cause lung cancer.

        The problem is no one has ever published any of this in a coherent way in the literature.

        • Vlad says:

          Agree with Frederik above. If you, MJM, who is well read on the subject, believe that smoking causes lung cancer, what hope is for the indoctrinated masses?
          May I ask what makes you believe it?

        • Fredrik says:

          @vlad, he will not he never does.

        • Smoking Lamp says:

          I agree smoking is not actually a cause of cancer. It is also falsely implicated in every manner of disease by manipulated data that obscures the biases and amplifies the role of smoking. The problem is that few ae familiar enough to counter the propaganda and the numerate few that challenge the assertions are shouted down by the mob.

          The antismoker propaganda needs to be exposed for the lies that are. Tobacco control must be destroyed!

        • RdM says:

          This 109 yr old veteran smoking cigars

          109-Year-Old Veteran and His Secrets to Life Will Make You Smile

          Ahem~ The Overton Window?

          Makes a mockery?

      • Joe L. says:

        After ~80 years of modern Antismoking research (i.e., since the Nazis first claimed that smoking caused cancer), there have been exactly zero studies which have empirically linked tobacco to cancer. That is, no experiment has ever been conducted that can reliably induce cancer in a human or any other living creature solely because of exposure to tobacco smoke.

    • EG says:

      I think that smoking and second hand smoke do not cause any health problems. It’s a superstition. Some people might not like a smell but I think that even that is a superstition for most people. Stick with what you feel ):

  8. Rose says:

    Continuing our discussion above

    Albert Donnay was worried about the ventilators killing people, and so was a NYC doctor whose very urgent plea to the world I watched.

    Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell
    “COVID-19 lung disease, as far as I can see, is not a pneumonia and should not be treated as one. Rather, it appears as if some kind of viral-induced disease most resembling high altitude sickness. Is it as if tens of thousands of my fellow New Yorkers are on a plane at 30,000 feet at the cabin pressure is slowly being let out. These patients are slowly being starved of oxygen.”

    New Data Suggests It’s Ventilators That Are Killing People
    April 11th 2020

    “The media for weeks has been throwing a fit over President Trump touting “unproven,” potentially “deadly” hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for coronavirus but they’ve been hyping the clear and present danger of America not having enough ventilators without ever questioning their effectiveness.
    It turns out ventilators appear to be killing coronavirus patients en masse.

    Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell, an ER and critical care doctor from New York City, concluded that ventilators were doing more harm than good over a week ago and suggested oxygen as a superior treatment.”
    The Italians have reportedly come to a similar conclusion.

    British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who many speculated may have to be put on a ventilator, was in fact given oxygen. His condition is reportedly improving.
    The US has ordered tons of ventilators, which can cost anywhere from $30,000 to $60,000.
    https: //www.eutimes.net/2020/04/new-data-suggests-its-ventilators-that-are-killing-people/

    So when he said “altitude sickness” I immediately thought of nitric oxide and the smoking mountaineers. First introduced generally by Simon Clark on Taking Liberties in 2011!

    Smokers’ lungs can help at high altitude says climbing expert
    December 29, 2011
    Which being entirely wrong needed correcting

    Study Finds Benefits of Pollutant
    “Instructor in Anaesthesia Dr. Jesse D. Roberts, Jr., a member of Zapol’s research group, said the discovery also explains why mountain climbers short of breath often claim that smoking cigarettes makes them stronger. The seeming paradox may be due to the presence of nitric oxide in cigarette smoke”

    According to Zapol, it all reduces to one simple thing. “Good things hide in pollutants and cigarettes,” he said”
    https: //www.thecrimson.com/article/1993/2/11/study-finds-benefits-of-pollutant-pa/

    You see, not knowing quite where to start in 2007, I went looking to see if there were any health benefits in the things that anti tobacco had been trying to scare us with all these years and nitric oxide and carbon monoxide were two of my first ports of call.

    Now I’m looking for all those missing smokers that were predicted to be in the Corvid-19 statistics that TC is trying all manner of ways to explain.

  9. Philip Neal says:

    When is the webinar and where do you register? I enjoyed the last one.

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.