The New Revolutionaries

People may wonder sometimes why I write not only about smoking bans but also about Brexit and ice ages and Covid lockdowns. The answer is: they’re all connected.

A video linked by Joe L helps explain. The gist of it is that the lockdowns resulting from the Covid pandemic provide an opportunity for a Great Reset to reduce global carbon emissions to Net Zero and prevent Climate Change.

They’re all tied together in the minds of the great and the good, the social elites.

For one of the odd things about our time seems to be that the new revolutionaries are now found at the top of society .rather than the bottom. So it’s the likes of Prince Charles and Joe Biden and Bill Gates and David Attenborough, not upstart Hitlers and Stalins and Mussolinis as in the past, who now lead the calls for the revolutionary reconstruction of the entire world.

Why do they all seem to think the same way? Why do they see threats of death and disaster – Covid. Climate change – everywhere? They seem to live in a separate reality than the rest of us.

The scary thing is that these new revolutionaries are already in power.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to The New Revolutionaries

  1. Mark Jarratt says:

    Totally correct and Joe L is very perceptive too. Not everyone has gone barking mad though – see for example – Mark in Launceston, TAS, a town of 75000 with some lovely old buildings, totally defaced by shouty NO SMOKING signs every few metres.

  2. Mark Jarratt says:

    Readers of this fine blog may also be interested in the latest fob off we know best reply from the local member of the Australian parliament, with an anodyne name as effective as his time serving sinecure. I will be responding asking that rather than regurgitate tobacco prohibitionist tripe, they do as requested and act on behalf of constituents. The so called Labor [sic] party joined the war against the recreational pastimes of ordinary citizens, their natural constituency, and do not deserve to be in government, not that there is much to separate them from the other dictatorial curtain twitching pearl clutching thieving bullies…if any readers have inspired suggestions I will happily include…

    From: McDonell, Tony (D. Smith, MP)
    Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2020 11:50
    To: Mark Jarratt
    Subject: FW: Bean Community Update | Federal Budget Edition | 13 October 2020

    Dear Mr Jarratt,

    Thank you for your response to the Bean Community Update, concerning the tobacco excise. Mr Smith has asked me to respond to you on his behalf.

    Whilst Labor appreciates smoking may well be a lifestyle choice it is, nevertheless, committed to reducing the consumption of tobacco in Australia. Each year in this country, tobacco kills more than 15,000 people and has more than $31.5 billion in health and economic costs. [utter BS zombie factoid, repeatedly discredited. $2.1M per person? Fat chance. MJ].

    There are 2.5 million Australians who smoke every day – this is too much. [because you say so? How astoundingly arrogant. MJ]

    A Labor Government will build on Labor’s strong record of policy actions to reduce the consumption of tobacco in Australia, by continuing to increase the tobacco excise [already at $1575/kg ex GST, $1.21 per single cigarette, or 86% of the retail price, when is enough enough, you sanctimonious thieving sh1theads. MJ]. Labor’s approach to tackling tobacco consumption is both evidence-based and in line with international [prohibitionist bullying. MJ] best practice.

    The World Health Organisation (WHO) considers that raising tobacco taxes is amongst the most effective and cost-effective tobacco control interventions. The WHO considers this also represents best practice health policy. [totally compromised by accepting bribes from bullies like the odious poison dwarf Bloomberg. MJ].

    I do hope I have been able to clarify Labor’s position for you.

    Thank you for writing to Mr Smith and for making your concerns known.

    Yours sincerely,

    Tony McDonell
    Electorate Officer
    T 02 6293 1344

    From: Mark Jarratt
    Sent: Monday, 26 October 2020 10:32 AM
    To: Smith, David (MP)
    Subject: RE: Bean Community Update | Federal Budget Edition | 13 October 2020

    Dear Mr Smith,

    Thank you for your message, and I share your concern at the absence of fiscal discipline, coherence, prudence and probity displayed by the current LNP coalition government in the most recent budget.

    A major related concern affecting me and millions of other Australian adults is the excessive and punitive taxes on tobacco.

    In that regard, please see the attached representations, seeking your assistance in obtaining justification from the relevant Ministers and agencies for the continued persecution, extortion and stigmatization of smokers.

    This is an issue which goes directly to personal autonomy and choice, free of petty official intrusion into lifestyle choices.

    Freedom is not an issue of popularity, or the tyranny of the majority. The true measure of a free society is how we protect minorities, even if they engage in behaviour the government dislikes.

    Thank you in advance for acting on my representations.

    Yours sincerely,

    Mark Jarratt

    • Timothy Goodacre says:

      My word Mark what nasty control freaks they are in Australia, even worse than the control pigs we have here in the UK. Of course it must be remembered that plain packaging originated in Australia.

      • Rose says:

        Most of the social engineering strategems did too, Tim.
        it makes for shocking reading.

      • Rose says:

        Oh good it’s still there.

        A more devious twisting of the facts based on small non-smoking areas I doubt you’ve ever seen, if you examine it in depth.
        Its where I first heard about VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control.
        I’d been studying what the Americans had been up to before.

        “The three independent studies, with declared funding sources and no links to the tobacco industry, found no negative impact of existing UK smoking bans in pubs and restaurants.”


        For example
        Publisher: Report by the Newcastle University Department of Epidemiology and Public Health for North East Against Tobacco (NEAT)
        Funding source indicated: NEAT
        Nature of relationship with tobacco industry: Funding source other than tobacco industry.

      • Mark Jarratt says:

        You are totally correct Mr Timothy, and thanks too erudite Rose. The control freak lifestyle bullies commissioned a “post implementation review” of so called plain packaging: not plain at all, appropriation of packaging as a vehicle for government propaganda, then predictably ignored any submissions including mine arguing this policy is pointless, illiberal and intrusive, forcing smokers to purchase defaced debased tobacco products at astronomical prices artificially inflated by punitive taxes. Predictably, about one fifth of all tobacco consumed in Australia is from the black market. Certain of my former Customs colleagues now languish in gaol at Her Majesty’s pleasure for assisting smugglers. Prohibitionists are one trick ponies, and slow learners…but you all know that!

  3. Dr. Sok says:

    Already in power is an extremely precarious position. Nobody knows what the future holds.

  4. Frank Davis says:

    The Great Reset has been trending on Twitter. Once you’re familiar with what it means for the future of our civilisation, you’ll understand why…

    Put simply, it is the blueprint for a complete transformation of the world economy. There will be no money, no private property, no democracy. Instead, every key decision — what you do for a living, how much stuff you consume, whether you can take a vacation — will decided for you by a remote, unaccountable elite of ‘experts’.

  5. Emily says:

    This is terrifying and yet I am fascinated. I have had a feeling almost since the beginning of the pandemic and lockdowns that something else was going on.

    • Joe L. says:

      It’s been pretty clear to me that ulterior motives have been at play since at least April. Nothing–and I mean nothing–has added up about this “pandemic.”

      The extremely faulty “gold standard” PCR tests (which, from the mouth of their creator, were not intended be used for diagnostic purposes).

      The fact that deaths are officially attributed to COVID-19 even if they are completely unrelated to the virus, just as long as an aforementioned PCR test produced a “positive” result (or in some jurisdictions, just as long as the deceased was “presumed” to be COVID-19 positive–no test required).

      The fact that the WHO has flip-flopped on whether or not the virus is airborne multiple times.

      The original official statements from the CDC and WHO (which align with all scientific studies to date) that face masks have no practical efficacy against the transmission of viruses and can create a false sense of security … which, in a matter of weeks, flipped 180°–without any scientific evidence–to become “face coverings of any kind are effective and necessary weapons to combat the spread from asymptomatic carriers.”

      The fact that Maria Van Kerkhove, the WHO’s technical lead for COVID-19, said at a press briefing on June 8 that asymptomatic transmission appears to be “very rare,” only to be “corrected” by another WHO official a few days later who claimed there were “misunderstandings” about her comments.

      Multiple studies have indicated that smokers are less likely to suffer severe symptoms from COVID-19, yet the CDC and WHO refuse to acknowledge these studies and continue to list smoking as a “risk factor.”

      The draconian lockdowns which force small businesses to close their doors yet allow big-box stores like Walmart, Target and Costco to stay open.

      Curfews which force bars (while they were allowed to reopen) to close by 10:00 pm (because … the virus only becomes contagious after 9:59 pm?).

      People who peacefully protest lockdowns and face mask mandates are labeled as selfish, careless “grandma-killers” who cause outbreaks of the virus, while people who riot, loot and burn buildings in the name of “social justice” are praised for their “conviction” and “bravery” and are never as much as mentioned when case numbers rise.

      The fact that lockdowns are currently being re-enacted in areas which have enforced face mask mandates for months (if face masks are as effective at preventing transmissionas they now claim, why is there a need to lock down again?)

      The claim that after one recovers from COVID-19, their immune system will only protect them from reinfection for a few months, yet they simultaneously claim that we now have a vaccine (from Pfiser, no less) that is “90% effective.”

      The fact that, despite decades of research, scientists have failed to create a successful vaccine for any coronavirus, yet less than a year after it was first detected, we have a “90% effective” vaccine for a novel coronavirus.

      The simple fact that we are forced to endure all of these restrictions and hardships–and more–for a virus that the CDC themselves claims has a 99.5+% survival rate for people under 70 and a 94.6% survival rate for those 70 or older.

      And the list goes on and on. Uncannily like that produced by the Antismoking crusade, the COVID-19 propaganda is inconsistent, riddled with contradictions and not based on empirical scientific evidence. It is designed to instill fear and generate hysteria over what is perceived to be a threat to “public health.” It should be clear to anyone who dares to take a step back and think critically that it is being used as a social engineering tool.

      • Mark Jarratt says:

        Excellent summary and very perceptive as usual Joe L. Bravo! 👏

      • Emily says:

        Great summary! As has been mentioned before on this blog, it is obvious that people are willing to sacrifice any numbers of freedoms if they can be made to believe their own health is at risk. So it seems like this yet another drawn out experiment to see how far people can be controlled by a threat to their health. In order to implement the Green New Deal worldwide, I have no doubt that we will be told that unless we all submit to socialism and give up all of our possessions we will get cancer or something equally ghastly.

      • Frank Davis says:

        Top pathologist Dr. Roger Hodkinson told government officials in Alberta during a zoom conference call that the current coronavirus crisis is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.”

        … Hodkinson remarked that “social distancing is useless because COVID is spread by aerosols which travel 30 meters or so before landing,” as he called for society to be re-opened immediately to prevent the debilitating damage being caused by lockdowns.

        Hodkinson also slammed mandatory mask mandates as completely pointless.

  6. Rose says:

    A little light relief.

  7. Mark Jarratt says:

    Aficionados of Frank’s fine blog may also be interested in the content of my initial representations (copied below) to the local member of parliament. This is about the fourth time I have written in similar terms to the groupthink so called “representatives” who clearly do not act on behalf of constituents. Change seems unlikely while the same lifestyle control bullies advise elected officials.

    26 October 2020

    Mr David Smith MHR
    Member for Bean
    205 Anketell Street
    Greenway ACT 2900

    Via email

    Dear Mr Smith,

    I write seeking your assistance as the Member for Bean in approaching the relevant Ministers and agencies for evidence supporting the excessive and punitive taxes on tobacco, and the rationale for the government policy implemented on 1 July 2019 to treat cigarettes shipped by post as prohibited imports.

    Home Affairs Notice 2020-036 of 18 August 2020 sets tobacco excise at $1576.57 per kilogram, or over $1.10 per “stick”, ex GST, an excessive punitive impost devoid of equity (see

    The prohibition on postal imports of cigarettes is set out in Home Affairs Notice 2019-013 of 25 March 2019 (see, including references to the “Black Economy”, a problem created by government imposing tobacco taxes which are now around 86% of the retail price.

    Tobacco taxation at such rates can fairly be described as extortion, and cynical exploitation of a significant minority of the citizenry, with smokers unfairly subsidising other taxpayers.

    I made representations to the Minister for Home Affairs on 9 April 2019 and was essentially fobbed off with platitudes direct from the tobacco prohibitionist script, as government apparently knows best what individual citizens value and how everyone should live.

    The draconian illiberal prohibition on importing cigarettes using the global postal system is directly interfering with and harming peaceful recreational enjoyment of a legal product, infringing and limiting consumer choice by restricting purchase to defaced, debased government “approved” inferior “plain packaged” products, at astronomical cost artificially inflated by government taxes.

    The intrusive and officious prohibition on cigarette imports by post and excessive punitive taxes are harming me and other citizens, a deprivation of liberty infringing free market consumer choice while creating deadweight regulatory and enforcement costs.

    Increasingly draconian Australian Government tobacco control social engineering policies have failed. The burden of proof rests solely with the proponents of yet more official prohibitionist meddling. If wide public support existed for such policies, ever-expanding hyper-regulation of tobacco products would be unnecessary, and the “illicit” tobacco trade and associated economic and social burden would not be continually escalating.

    In common with many Australian adults who choose to smoke, I reject and protest against being repeatedly targeted for persecution and extortion by my own government under discriminatory tobacco control policies based in greed, irrational hatred of smoking, intolerance, and elitist “we know best” coercive paternalism.

    Authoritarian tobacco control policies undermine respect for the rule of law by persecuting a significant minority of the citizenry. The associated growth of organised crime and official corruption, undermining civil society, personal choice and autonomy is ignored.

    The duties and taxes on tobacco must be reduced immediately, as grossly cynical exploitation of smokers, and the prohibition on cigarettes imported by the international postal system must be repealed, as should the failed illiberal “plain packaging” policy.

    Balance, perspective, equity and respect for personal choice is long overdue in Australian tobacco control.

    Against that background, could you please refer the questions at Annex 1 of this letter to the relevant tobacco lifestyle control decision making Ministers and agencies.

    Thank you in advance for seeking a detailed response, addressing the attached points 1 to 9, and any other rationale for the continued officially sanctioned persecution of Australian adults who choose to smoke.

    The response will be sent to Civil Liberties Australia and drawn to the notice of the wider public through both mainstream and social media.

    Yours sincerely,
    (Mark Jarratt)

    Annex 1: M. Jarratt representations via D. Smith MHR on tobacco controls

    1. In every area of “public health” other than tobacco lifestyle controls, the “my body my choice” principle of bioethics is respected as inviolate. Please state the bioethical reasoning supporting overturning that established principle of personal autonomy and consent.

    2. What consultation was undertaken with citizens directly affected by prohibitionist tobacco control imposts, when, and how? Please provide evidence of such consultation, and the government mandate for adopting hard coercive paternalism and prohibition as national policy. [Comment: On available information, unaccountable prohibitionists have lobbied for policies based in hard coercive paternalism with wilful disregard for the rights and preferences of those directly affected. Evidence is absent that vitally relevant issues were objectively assessed, including infringing consumer free choice, trampling civil liberties, interference in the legitimate market, and deadweight regulatory and enforcement costs].

    3. Where is evidence of the government mandate to prohibit personal cigarette imports by post? As per point 1. above, where is evidence of consent by those affected by such public health “treatments”? Please provide evidence that removing the option for individuals to import personal cigarette shipments but not cigars via the postal system has a direct and demonstrable causal link to “public health”. [Comment: In common with many adult smokers, I do not consent to such relentless petty official intrusion into my individual lifestyle preferences. Government tobacco tax, ban and censor prohibitions clearly violate the “harm principle” articulated by political philosopher John Stuart Mill, and no defensible basis for these officious discriminatory policies has been stated].

    4. A key claim of tobacco controllers is that high taxes reduce smoking rates. If that prohibitionist claim was true, nations with the highest tobacco taxes would have the lowest smoking rates. They do not. Has this fact been given sufficient weight, and the related Laffer Curve effect of revenue loss through excessive taxation, as both evasion and civil enforcement/punishment costs escalate? [Comment: Leaving aside the threshold issue whether government has standing and moral authority to interfere in individual lifestyle choices, the revenue evasion and social consequences of punitive taxation are ignored by tobacco prohibitionist zealots, who do not bear the costs of their failed policies and are never held accountable].

    5. Please provide proof that prohibiting the import of cigarettes, but not cigars, by post is necessary, proportionate, and effective, including supporting empirical evidence such as independent peer reviewed studies and copies of relevant submissions to legislators. Also, as for points 2. and 3. above, how were citizens including smokers consulted? [Comment: The burden of proof to justify treating cigarette imports by post as prohibited imports, but not cigars, rests solely with the proponents of such additional regulatory intervention. In the absence of such proof, this draconian impost has no legitimate foundation. How can individual personal cigarette imports by post, but not cigars, possibly affect “public health”?].

    6. As a matter of law and jurisprudence, how can tobacco cigarettes, but not cigars, be treated as prohibited imports like narcotics when the product is legal to purchase and consume? Tobacco cigarettes are either legal or they are not. [Comment: Prohibiting one type of tobacco product (cigarettes) and one method of import (international parcels post) is discriminatory, and exempting cigars indicates this regulatory intervention is based in snobbish elitism and social control, not “improving public health”].

    7. How does denying legitimate personal importers of tobacco cigarettes by post the opportunity to pay the excessive and punitive duties and taxes “protect” government revenue, as claimed in Home Affairs Notice 2019-013? If there is no option to pay the import duties and taxes, no revenue is collected. How can it be logical to claim that federal tobacco import revenue will be protected by declining to collect it?

    8. How will the effectiveness of the prohibition on importing cigarettes by post be assessed (e.g. the cost of border staff enforcement activity plus the cost of foregone revenue by withdrawing the option to pay) relative to the public health objectives claimed to be its foundation? Do these and other tobacco control provisions include a requirement for unbiased post-implementation or program evaluation review by the Australian National Audit Office or other relevant independent bodies? If so, where is evidence of such program audit and evaluation?

    9. Why are personal tobacco imports seized and destroyed without notice to the importer, as if they are prohibited narcotics, when tobacco products are widely available consumer goods? Why are importers denied the opportunity to challenge the seizure or pay the import duties and taxes? [Comment: Inspection by Border Force officers is required to assess and seize tobacco imports. Producing a debit note for payment of import duties and taxes involves a similar level of officer intervention, yet under the seizure regime, no debit note for payment of import duties and taxes is produced. This is a deadweight loss to the Commonwealth, evidence of the moral crusade behind tobacco prohibitionist policies, and unconscionable abuse of federal powers over imports].

    • Timothy Goodacre says:

      An excellent piece of work Mark. You wouldn’t think we would be terrorised by our own governments would you !

      • Mark Jarratt says:

        Thanks very much Timothy, esq, although attempting to apply facts, reasoning and evidence to challenge the ruling “we know best” prohibitionist bullies is like urinating while wearing a dark suit: might give one a temporary warm feeling but nobody notices. 🙄

  8. Rose says:

    Government ‘fixing health consultations’ with taxpayer-funded groups

    “The Government has been accused of fixing the outcome of public consultations on health policy after it emerged that reviews were flooded with block votes from groups funded entirely by the taxpayer

    Earlier this month the Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, announced that the display of cigarettes and tobacco in shops would be banned in England and Wales from 2011.

    Mr Johnson boasted that the display ban was favoured by an “overwhelming majority” of 96,000 responses to a six-month public consultation on the subject.

    Yet only a handful of those 96,000 respondents came from individuals submitting their personal views. Almost 70,000 came from those collected by pressure groups entirely funded by the Department for Health.
    Yet only a handful of those 96,000 respondents came from individuals submitting their personal views. Almost 70,000 came from those collected by pressure groups entirely funded by the Department for Health.

    Among the groups submitting block responses were SmokeFree NorthWest, SmokeFree Liverpool and SmokeFree North East, which were all set up by the Government to lobby against the tobacco industry.”

    “The finding has prompted critics to accuse the Government of spending taxpayers’ money on establishing groups designed merely to back the Government line on public health issues.”

    Ministers have effectively been accused of “astroturfing” – cultivating a fake grassroots movement in order to make a position appear more popular than it really is.”

  9. Rose says:

    SAGE used WIKIPEDIA to model Covid crisis in spring, did not have a single human coronavirus expert in its ranks, and wrongly predicted virus would peak in June rather than April, damning BBC documentary reveals

    Lockdown 1.0 – Following the Science? airs on BBC Two tonight at 9pm

    “No10’s scientific advisers relied on dubious data from Wikipedia to help steer Britain through the spring’s coronavirus crisis and wrongly predicted the peak of the first wave by two months, an explosive new documentary has claimed.
    Members of the Government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) admitted early virus modelling was based on unverified figures from the online encyclopedia, which can be edited and managed by members of the public.”

    Well that explains it.

  10. petesquiz says:

    You are quite right to talk about all of those issues because they are inextricably linked. The Tobacco Control measures were, essentially the ‘Trojan Horse’ that has led to the other attempts at control.

    Who could possibly argue (the thinking went) with a wide reaching policy to reduce smoking numbers and ‘save lives’? And, of course, the vast majority didn’t object…they thought it was a good thing. But it hit a snag…smokers were happy to take the risk and the general population also thought it was fair enough if smokers wanted to kill themselves.

    But then came the big breakthrough. Using spurious science, the anti-smokers managed to convince the majority of people that smoking was killing them as well as the smokers (and their children!). This was a stroke of genius because in an instant, it gave the anti-smokers the higher moral ground. Since then there has been no looking back for the anti-smokers.

    This tactic has now become standard practise in all subsequent campaigns. “Look how you are damaging the environment and how global warming will kill your grandchildren” is essentially the mantra of the climate change doomsayers.

    Then we move onto the latest scare and you are expected to wear a mask (and all of the other measures) to protect other people from you! If you don’t wear a mask you are labelled a ‘granny killer’…or worse.

    Why is all of this happening now? You make the point that the people behind it are the ones already in power and you are quite right…but many of them are reliant on democracy (directly or indirectly) and can be swept out of power on the whim of the people. All of this is designed to disenfranchise us from that power.

    For the globalists, everything was going along nicely and then along came the Brexit vote. At first, they thought that they could subvert and reverse this decision…and they almost succeeded. But then along came Donald Trump!

    All of a sudden we had a man who wanted the world to run on broadly capitalist lines with free trade betwen everyone. Years of painstaking work to weaken the American economy were suddenly being undone and the aspirations of the globalists were fast disappearing. Then along came the virus…in an election year!

    I do believe that China is behind it all (with absolutely no proof!) and this is how I think it went in the beginning. When China started to open up and trade with the rest of the world I believe that they thought that they could achieve global dominance through trade. It didn’t take too many years to become the world’s second largest economy, but they couldn’t overtake the USA.

    In previous times, they may have considerd the military option, but for any sensible politician, that isn’t a viable option these days. I reckon the new leadership that took over in 2012 went to the UN and made them an offer they couldn’t refuse along these lines. By working together we (China + UN) can control the world with the UN being in political/diplomatic control (with China’s guidance) and China will be in economic control.

    Using climate change to achieve this was working quite nicely (remember, it is is a long game) with the Western economies becoming less and less competitive by following the new rules and allowing China to prosper without having to follow the same restrictions. The Paris Climate Accords would have cemented this into place quite nicely allied to the fact that China has almost complete control over the sourcing of rare earth metals needed for the advanced batteries that will power the ‘green’ new world.

    Then, along came Donald Trump! They didn’t take him seriously at first, but since being elected they’ve done everything in their power to oust him (and may have finally succeeded by rigging the election). Was the emergence of a new virus at the beginning of a US election year a coincidence? Was the unprecedented strategy of lockdowns implemented to destroy the current world economy a deliberate ploy? Is it a coincidence that, just as Donald Trump appears to have been defeated, Boris Johnson dumps his Brexit advisors and announces a raft of new green policies? We’ll probably never know definitively, but I don’t believe in such large coincidences!

  11. Roobeedoo2 says:

    Frank! A special treat at 21:45 in the following vid :D

  12. Rose says:

    Topical Nitric Oxide Serum Improves Aesthetics for Aging Skin, Acne, Scars, and Wound Care

    This pilot study, published in the Journal of Surgery, demonstrates the effectiveness of N1O1 a topical nitric oxide serum to address a multitude of cosmetic concerns with 100% satisfaction

    “Without exception, every study population demonstrated clinical improvement. The aging skin population saw a reduction in fine lines, wrinkles, pore size, and unwanted pigment with enhanced tone and texture of skin. The acne population saw improved clarity of skin and up to an 84% reduction in pustules and nodules. Patients in the scar therapy population saw softening of atrophic and hypertrophic scars, striae, and keloids. Additionally, the wound healing population demonstrated faster and improved quality of healing. Patients in various wound healing scenarios saw less bruising and edema, while non-healing ulcers healed within 30-45 days.”

    “A group of Medical School researchers has discovered a bizarre twist on the harmful effects of car exhaust and cigarette smoke: nitric oxide, a component of both pollutants, can help treat a deadly type of pneumonia.

    The finding doesn’t mean anyone should start sniffing exhaust fumes or light up to avoid the flu. But according to Dr. Warren M. Zapol, Jenney professor of anesthesia at Mass. General Hospital, nitric oxide can improve lung efficiency in patients suffering from Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS).

    Pneumonia plugs up the lung’s air spaces, reducing the surface area available for the lungs to exchange gas with the blood. Nitric oxide, produced naturally by organ linings as a hormone to dilate blood vessels, works by improving gas exchange efficiency in the remaining unclogged spaces.

    ARDS is an often fatal form of pneumonia which claimed the life of Muppet originator Jim Henson.

    Zapol reports in today’s New England Journal of Medicine that after inhaling nitric oxide, eight of ten chronic ARDS patients survived. He said he has not yet observed any side effects, if low doses of the fresh gas are administered properly within seconds of its formation.”

    31 Mar

    “In short, I believe we are treating the wrong disease, and I fear that this misguided treatment will lead to a tremendous amount of harm to a great number of people in a very short time… I feel compelled to give this information out.”

    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.

    “I suspect that the patients I’m seeing in front of me, look as if a person was dropped off on the top of Mt. Everest without time to acclimate.”
    https: //

    Somedays I thank my lucky stars that I took up smoking or I would never have known all this.

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.