The Sick and Ugly Face of our Modern Health Service

The Sick and Ugly Face of Modern Medicine was predicted by Petr Skrabanek over 20 years ago (24) but events have gone way beyond this prediction too - Skrabanek's 'paralysed system' is all too clear. The NHS is seriously struggling to cope. We are now in the absurd position of using vast amounts of scarce resources in 'treating' the healthy while denying treatment to those who really need it; the injured, the ill, and the vulnerable who do not comply with the current public health dogma!

Oh, there are certainly vast amounts of money to be made with this system - when the healthy are called in to discover they may not be as healthy as they thought (as measured by the current medical prevention yardstick). The myriad of pills and potions available to reduce cholesterol(1), lower blood pressure, body weight (BMI) and quit smoking etc. etc. are more profitable than a gold mine - but most of that money goes to the big pharmaceuticals. Some refer to this system as the 'sickness industry', and while it is relevant on another level to this invidious development of causing harm to another by omission - that's another story.

NHS England rightly intervened to prevent the first attempt to callously ration healthcare and impair the health of 'the unworthy' as defined by NHS Vale of York CCB (2) - according to current lifestyle dogma. 

A proposed restriction by the NHS Vale of York Clinical Commissioning Group would have seen non-life threatening procedures delayed by a year for those with a body mass index exceeding 30. The rule would also apply to smokers.

While the York Commissioning Group agreed to rethink the move, only a month later, a few miles down the road and despite the earlier debacle, the public outcry and censure by NHS bosses, another one raises its ugly head; NHS Harrogate and Rural District CCG. (3)  (Does this come under the 'common purpose' club mantra of 'leading beyond authority'?); "SMOKERS and obese patients will be banned from surgery for six months to cut costs."

Harrogate and Rural District CCG chief officer, Amanda Bloor, who appears to be the lead proponent of this institutionalized discrimination and bigotry, published this CCG report as late as 4th February 2016  (4).

         Governing Body Annual Equality Performance Report and Equality Objectives

Page 1 of Appendix 1 :
Legal Duty

The public sector equality duty created by the Equality Act 2010 requires the CCG to pay due regard to the need to:

• Eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct    prohibited by the Act.

• Advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

• Foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not

'Protected characteristics' are those few specified minorities who are protected from discrimination by law (eg race, religion, sex, age, etc.). Many other minorities are not so protected eg smokers or the obese. The Equality act 2010 (5) is supposed to protect everyone from discrimination, as defined above. Bloor has chosen to ignore this but when we look deeper at the 2010 Act and see that the original premise is later qualified (contradicted?), we can understand why;  

 2. How you can be discriminated against;

eg. "harassment - unwanted behaviour linked to a protected characteristic that violates someone’s dignity or creates an offensive environment for them" ...

"It can be lawful to have specific rules or arrangements in place, as long as they can be justified." 

Read another way; Harassment is legally mandated for anyone who is not 'protected' - Everyone other than 'the protected' can legally have their dignity etc. violated with impunity. The law gives permission for the bigot and bully to ill treat others IF they can 'justify' such ill treatment!

Do not forget that everything Hitler did to the Jews in the 1930's was LEGAL. (Justified in the mind of a abnormal brain based on a debase ideology)

Bloor and her entourage may be legally correct but they have dismissed out of hand the moral case for equality. Do they not realise they are being exploited by anti-smoker nutters? Physically or mentally harming anyone even by omission can NEVER be justified.

How stupid can this get? One disaster compounded by another and another... becoming ever more desperate, because no one, with the power to do so, is willing to admit that the whole anti-smoker/healthism kit and caboodle is wrong and has been/is an unmitigated failure. People are dying in the face of this failure for goodness sake! Does anyone really believe that failing to treat minor problems that could easily turn into major problems will save money?

It is frightening that some in the medical profession are going along with it, pandering to the demands of a few brainwashed anti-smoker nutters. The pedigree of these nutters can be traced back to those crazed individuals and organisations that preached hell and damnation, wanted to burn witches at the stake, lock up all sexually active females with chastity belts (and hold the keys to them). The same nutters railed against sinful fornication, and claimed overwhelming proof that masturbation made you go blind, caused cancer etc. The same nutters who were behind alcohol prohibition a hundred years ago and are trying the same today along with demonising salt, sugar, red meat etc. Who in their right mind (ie. those not indoctrinated by this hate-fest) thinks that humiliating those who are obese or even a bit overweight will have any positive outcomes? They have enough to deal with without suffering the wailing of self-satisfied, puritanical, nutters. Stress and chronic depression are killers too!

These hubristic nutters have always been amongst us and it seems incredible that they are given so much freedom today despite this well established history lesson. Why would some medical professionals put their competence and trust under serious scrutiny for these nutters? Do they really think that if they just keep their heads down it will all go away? It beggars belief.

This is not about health nor is it about 'helping' smokers or other targeted groups. It is about the  puritanical mindset of a few noisy, callous individuals and the power of pharmaceutical industry, it is about a failing health service, social control (coercion), money and greed.

The dogmatic demand that smokers quit for six months before surgery is patently absurd given that there is much evidence that doing so will IMPAIR their treatment and recovery. Look at a few of many research facts that are relevant to the denial of medical treatment for smokers, and quitting smoking problems, information that they don't want publicly exposed;

The majority of lung cancer cases are now in NON smokers (includes never smokers but mainly affects former smokers, after a mean 18 years of forgoing the health benefits of tobacco smoke):

Quitters usually gain weight - sometimes substantially, hence one of the main reasons we have an 'obesity problem' in the first place:

Smokers may have a small increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes but that risk increases to 91% for quitters, (6) only returning to normal after 12 years. (Yeh HC et al 2010; John Hopkins Uni. Baltimore):

Tobacco (nicotine) prompts the growth of new blood vessels (vascularisation / angiogenesis) (7). Very Relevant to diabetes patients at risk of possible lower leg amputation due to bad circulation. It also aids in the wound healing process; Angiogenesis plays a major role in wound repair - Nicotine significantly accelerates wound healing (Jacobi et al 2002) (8)

Quitters substantially increase their risk of developing Ulcerative Colitis eg. Harries et al 1982, here (9) and some personal experiences here (10).

Most people are aware that non smokers are more likely to suffer from Parkinson's disease and other CNS problems such as Alzheimer's (Birtwistle et al 1996) (11) but it has many efficacious benefits for a wide range of mental health issues such as ADHD, Tourettes, and schizophrenia (Grinshpoon et al 2004) (12). About 90% of schizophrenics are heavy smokers BUT they are LESS likely to develop cancer than the general public, including lung cancer!

BUT smoking also improves the cognitive abilities of the healthy brain (13)

Research shows that smoking can tone-down excessive auto-immune responses and is anti-inflammatory eg. (Zuckerbraun et al 2007) (15) (This research is related to carbon monoxide, a key component of tobacco smoke).
Those who quit smoking had a 6-fold increase risk for autoimmune thyroid problems. (21) (Carlé et al 2012)  There seems to be a complex interaction between smoking and the immune system in that the authors of the paper were speculating that “transition from current to ex-smoker may lead to limitation in activity, to chronic health conditions, to physical and psychological symptoms and to a higher hospital admissions“. Smoking is associated with a low prevalence of thyroid auto-antibodies, and autoimmune thyroid problems is a huge problem in the world today.

Smokers are LESS likely suffer osteoarthritis or to need knee or hip replacement surgery (arthroplasty) (Mnatzaganian et al 2011) (16) Data from Health in Men Study (HIMS)1996-99 and 2007.

Tempering the body's autoimmune and inflammatory responses may also be the reason why lungs donated by a smoker are MORE successful, than those from a non smoker, in lung transplant operations (17). 47% of all lung transplants were from smokers (bear in mind only 20-30% of UK population are smokers). While long term survival rates were about the same, non-smokers performed relatively poorly in the short term with 77.7 per cent of transplant patients surviving one year compared to 90.8 per cent with smokers' lungs. There was no significant difference in the overall effectiveness of the lungs, time spent in intensive care and in hospital, in addition, smokers' lungs do not show a higher incidence of lung cancer (Harefield Hospital 2014)

Smokers are MORE likely to survive hospital admission with better outcomes for Heart attack (MI) (18)

The same applies to Ischemic stroke where smokers more likely to survive, again with better outcomes. (19)

A recent study went further and actually showed that smokers were SIGNIFICANTLY LESS likely to die during a hospital stay for general trauma and LESS likely to develop a major complication than nonsmokers. (Bell et al 2014 Indiana) (20)

Many quitters report respiratory problems, increase in chest infections, anxiety/depression, brain fogging - to name but a few, (read some personal experiences here) (14).  These forums also demonstrate how anti-smoker brainwashing, deception and propaganda has captured many into holding the vain belief/hope that all the present debilitating depression, low level suffering and ill health would be worth it and provide some form of immunity for future ill health. They have been wrongly led believe that, say, lung cancer or COPD are only smoker illnesses.

Conversely, smokers typically report that their habit improves their moods, calms and relaxes the troubled brain, increases pleasure, reduces anger and alleviates stress. Unsurprisingly, research has suggested that cigarette smoking may have effects on the human brain similar to those of antidepressant drugs (22). Stress is arguably one of, if not the biggest causes of illness. No wonder that the market in synthetic antidepressants (another boon for big pharma), is booming as smokers are coerced into shunning the natural stress reliever - tobacco.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist to understand that denying medical treatment to specific minorities is not just grossly callous and inhumane, but will also cost the NHS far far more in the long run - in more ways than one! Minor (relatively cheap) surgery not carried out could develop into Major (expensive) surgery. But the victims will probably be unable to work for extended periods while drawing unemployment or sickness benefits or their productive output would be curtailed. The costs are not just financial and economic but would extend to society and wider family who for instance, may be forced to be long term carers that in turn will curtail their economic and social activities.

While not yet officially endorsed as such, these actions to impair the health of others (and other discriminatory practices of anti-smoker nutters and their drones) ARE hate crimes.(23) It is worth remembering that those who are protected from hate crime by law today, were subjected to such hate crime for many years before those laws were enacted!

The RCS / NHS England need to stop waffling! Those responsible for this and their supporters should be rooted-out and if not prosecuted as criminals, at least sacked ASAP and barred from ever setting foot in any 'caring' medical facility thereafter - except to be allowed treatment for their own cancers etc. that they are at increasing risk of developing as they grow older!  Everyone should have access to medical treatment, including the neurotic righteous!

****

Links;
1)   www.jpands.org/vol20no2/miller.pdf

2)   www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-37265752

3)   www.thesun.co.uk/news/1928717/smokers-and-obese-patients-to-be-denied-surgery-until-        they-make-a-change-under-new-cost-cutting-measures/

4)   www.harrogateandruraldistrictccg.nhs.uk/data/uploads/equality-diversity-human-rights/7.2-hard-ccg-gb-equality-performance-report-equality-objectives-appendix-1-v2-ah.pdf

5)   www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/types-of-discrimination

6)   www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20048267

7)   www.wired.com/2007/06/nicotine/

8)  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1850685/

9)   www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1496690/?page=1

10)  www.ihaveuc.com/the-battle-of-a-lifetime-quit-smoking-then-diagnosed-with-colitis/

11)  www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9006184

(12) www.schres-journal.com/article/S0920-9964(04)00213-0/abstract

(13) www.dengulenegl.dk/English/Nicotine.html

(14) www.steadyhealth.com/topics/quit-smoking-a-year-ago-sick-ever-since?page=1

15)  www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-03/foas-hau031307.php

16) www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110708084002.htm

(17) www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550424/Smokers-lungs-just-likely-transplant-patients-alive-non-smokers-organs.html#ixzz4MbPvWSjC

(18) www.nature.com/nrcardio/journal/v11/n7/full/nrcardio.2014.73.html

(19) www.neurology.org/content/84/14_Supplement/S5.006

(20) http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/03/04/ntr.ntv027.abstract

(21) http://health-matrix.net/2013/01/21/nicotine-the-insular-cortex-and-empathy/

(22) www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1172948/

(23) www.gov.uk/report-hate-crime

(24)  euract.woncaeurope.org/sites/euractdev/files/documents/resources/documents/thedeathofhumanemedicineandtheriseofcoercivehealthismpetrskrabanek1994.pdf



 

Prop 56 - another anti-smoker money grab - if they get away with it!

'Healthism' (with anti-smoking as its main cause célèbre) is one of today's modern religions

It appears that every time there is a presidential election in the US, the anti-smoker industry tries to grab a slice of the action to enrich themselves and promote their agenda. This year is no exception but there is a new source they want to tap into this time too - vapers and e-cig users;

"The proposal that will be on the ballot in November as Proposition 56 , the California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tobacco Tax Act of 2016" (1)

The proposal is to increase cigarette tax by $2 Per Pack and to include e-cigarettes in the definition of 'other tobacco products' for purposes of taxation. Changing the definition in this way causes the $3.37 equivalent tax to apply to these products as well. 

The website lobbying for the tax grab (2). lists three main emotional propaganda appeals;
1, 'Protect children' - The old favourite emotive propaganda slogan - ie. The despicable and callous   exploitation of children. Works every time on their drones.
2. 'Fight cancer'. Why does this sound so insincere - such an empty gesture to get their way. Over  years, these people have diverted $billions AWAY from cancer care and research for cures - into their deep pockets and anti-smoker war chest, while cancers have increased to epidemic proportions.
3. 'If you don't smoke, you don't pay' - This is an appeal to the lowest of all human instincts - Do they really think that all non smokers are this bigoted, greedy, self-centered and so easily bought?

Stanton Glantz, he of anti-smoker arrogance personified, is almost certainly the lead driver of this money grab, as he was in the previous attempts - The last attempt (Prop 29) was rejected by the people in 2012. (3) 

Glantz Authored an article in 'The Conversation' - 'Big Tobacco aims its guns to kill California tobacco tax', (4) promoting his proposal (August 2016). The content is much the same as the ones before - same old, same old; propaganda, hyperbole, fear-mongering etc. It is just another attempt to take as much money from smokers as possible while trying to deceive the public into thinking it is not for his insidious cause, but 'for California', and it is only the Big Bad Tobacco companies who will pay. Hopefully the people have grown wise to Mr Glantz (his pedigree is well documented) and will treat this money grab attempt with the same contempt as the previous one. Anyone considering supporting this should be aware that when you vote to give some authority the power to take away the rights of someone else  you give them the right to take away your rights too. Be aware also of the law of physics (and fact of life) that every action has an equal and opposite reaction!

On 'The Conversation' webpage, Mr Glantz is described as  a 'Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco' and it further points out that "the University of California provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation US." I suggest it is a good bet that Mr Glantz has a fair bit of clout when it comes to what content/comments are allowed in this publication.

When I first read the article I noticed, in the comments section, a long list of 'comment removed by moderator' entries. Apparently, one commentator, Daniel Hammond, in his inimitable style, had blitzed the section with several comments containing numerous facts etc that were not complementary to the tobacco CONTROL agenda. One or two were however still visible at that time.

I decided to make a comment in the almost certain belief that, as it would not support the proposal, it would also be removed to keep the true 'believers' ignorant of alternative points of view.  I also find it difficult to hide my contempt for anti-smoker nutters and commented under my pseudonym, which is against the website rules (Purported to prevent trolls etc., but in reality works as a form of censorship) viz;

This article is full of scary health and financial statistics and appeals to authority that are intended to reinforce learned anti-smoker propaganda and sway politicians to hand over the cash. Just about all of these are illusory, based NOT on real life but on assumptions and projections of those assumptions extrapolated from old statistical data. There are no bodies, just lots of figures on spreadsheets and computer projections derived therefrom.

This is the 'pigs might fly' hypothesis. If pigs could fly then statistically if only 1% of them fell out of the sky, the death toll of innocent bystanders, hit by falling pigs, would be massive and the cost of preventing these deaths would be substantial. All you have to do is to convince an unsuspecting public/politician that pigs might indeed fly and a lucrative income stream for the 'flying pig control' industry is ensured.

In fact this sort of statistical 'proof' is all the anti-smoker industry has to depend upon in order to claim that smoking is harmful (and plead for more funding). No other research using different methodology has supported the statistical correlations of the 1950's and repetitions of the same (eg. Prof Doll and others).

There ARE bodies however, and millions of them! Despite the reduction in smokers since the 1950's, cancers have increased manifold, and top of that list is lung cancer that has grown to become the biggest cancer killer. 80% of those new lung cancers are now diagnosed in NON smokers (ex and never smokers). When Glanz claims a reduction, he is using 'adjusted' statistics, but if we use the same 'adjusted' statistics in other parts of the world where smoking has NOT reduced or has even increased - the SAME sort of reduction is evident (eg. Russia).

The anti-smoker agenda has diverted much needed cash away from real research to find real causes and cures as well as the care and treatment of victims of these illnesses. It has stigmatised not just smokers but lung cancer itself and deceived many into believing that lung cancer and other illnesses such as emphysema can be prevented merely by quitting. This is false!

The anti-smoker industry is a major part of the problem of public ill health - NOT part of the solution.

I was wrong! My comment remained in situ, in full view, however the remaining comments from Daniel Hammond had gone, but one from Art Fertig, the editor (moderator) appeared,  justifying their removal; I added a reply to him;

Oh dear!! all comments that criticize anti-smoker propaganda have been  "removed by moderator."!!! I hope the lawmakers in Ca. are not so stupid to think that they were all removed  because of your 'community standards', but a means to stifle dissent and keep them in the dark about the REAL character of the average anti-smoker fanatic. (is this web page just a front for anti-smoker propaganda?)

I read one or two of the comments before they were removed (on the orders of Mr Glanz himself ? ) From what I could see the comments were relevant but tended to show anti-smoker rhetoric up for what it is and there was no robust rebuttal forthcoming from the anti-smoker community.

I could go on to expose the misinformation and absolute rubbish contained within this piece of 'Academic rigour, journalistic flair' myself, but I have no doubt that my comment will also be removed so I would be wasting my time. Suffice to point out that tobacco CONTROL has had its day and will soon be confined to history like the burning of witches at the stake, claims that masturbation makes you go blind and ugly women prohibitionists stating that 'lips that touch liquor will not touch mine'!

Ordinary people AND much of the political community have woken up to the damage and injury that the anti-smoker agenda has caused. Shame that the great state of California has been degraded and humiliated by anti-smoker nutters - It will take many years for it to recover on the world stage.

Art Fertig did not reply, but my comment did motivate a response from a Robert Molyneux, Citizen, the tax-grab-from-smokers supporter who claimed he had a Ph.D in Chemistry. His earlier comments were still visible. He did neither himself, nor his position/profession (if true) any favours, demonstrating the obnoxious mindset of the typical indoctrinated 'groupthink' anti-smoker.

The following are comments that I made in response to bobs comments. I have not included his comments here, you will need to go over to the article to read them if you feel the need. Some of his comments were removed but you can probably guess from my comments, the gist of what he had written. No doubt to the delight, spiced with relief of both Glantz and Molyneux, all of my comments apart from the very last one, added afterwards, were removed by moderator.  They are reproduced here for reference;

It is always sad to see someone like yourself, bob, so comprehensively brainwashed by the anti-smoker deception yet apparently of reasonable intelligence. There is plenty of information out there where you could use your intelligence and logic to understand the contradictions in anti-smoker rhetoric and 'science', yet for some reason you are unable to do so.

Your hatred of smokers is palpable - you cannot even refer to them other than as 'addicts'. This is a psychological defence mechanism to self justify inhumane or discriminatory treatment of others. Smokers have become non-persons, dehumanized in your modified thinking. In addition. almost every comment of yours is laced with emotion and hyperbole eg. - "Poisonous Weed"; 'Murderous Drug'; "Smokers and their Excretions"; "Tobacco companies flog their murderous crap.". These are symptoms of someone who has been indoctrinated into hatred by propaganda. We saw this same phenomenon in 1930's Germany. 

This is a personal problem that you need to address but you can only do so if you have the will power to break free from the propaganda chains that restrain you. This means looking at views, that oppose your own learned propaganda, with an open mind. Difficult maybe, but not impossible, many have already done so.

This may sound somewhat condescending but it is meant only to educate, raise awareness and hopefully get you (and others who have been similarly brainwashed) to THINK for yourself rather than being a victim of 'group-think'. Have you never wondered why your attitude and those of your cohorts need to be so 'angry'? Surely if the evidence is clear there would be no need for it?

                       **

Now here is a plea for help if ever I saw one; “Kin Free (note that The Conversation requires real names),” translated- “Quick Mr Moderator, remove Kin Free’s comments cos he is pointing out relevant facts that I don’t like”!

Take a look at the last attempt to squeeze money out of the Ca. taxpayer (Prop 29 in 2012- see frank davis; https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/?s=prop+29 ) to fund their nefarious prohibition campaign, and impoverish vulnerable smokers. (Fortunately prop 29 was rejected by the people). Look at the response of ‘health advocates’; blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/05/on-hold-brown-to-eliminate-doctor-from-state-health-board.html (5)
“Under pressure from health advocates, Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday removed a controversial physician from a state health board after she appeared in an industry-funded ad against a tobacco tax hike on the June ballot.”
(one less opponent for this time). Note that the ‘controversial physician’, La Donna Porter, was removed merely because she was associated with a big bad tobacco company NOT for what she brought to the debate. She was added to a long list of  victims, summarily ‘bloodied’ by the anti-smoker mafia.

Do you think that having Dr or Prof in front of your name (even this is not a ‘given’) is some sort of antidote to brainwashing - as you credulously believe that not smoking guarantees good health? Profs may well be very clever in their limited field, but as a group, some are very naive and can fall easy victims of well crafted propaganda. Why do most anti-smokers have a phobia about smokers being cool - Is it some sort of inferiority complex?

Instead of “it’s complete nonsense” Maybe you can try to explain how so many intelligent Germans revered a psychopathic nut case and were so easily brainwashed into fearing that Jews represented such a threat to their health/race? Why did apparently intelligent people support, even encourage the gross treatment of Jews etc. in 1930’s Germany? Now tell me what the difference is with the present day cult following of psychopathic anti-smoker nutters and the similar treatment of smokers today (apart for degree) and why this will not result in the same inevitable failure!

Don’t you see how an increasing proportion of normal, decent people hold anti-smoker nutters in contempt?

                      **

 It's a "given" - really, is that the best you can do to explain the health realities today (my earlier comment went straight over your head)?  It was once a 'given' that masturbation made you go blind, and the Earth was the centre of the universe, but while the 'experts', for many years, were reluctant to admit it, these 'givens' were comprehensively de-bunked as knowledge expanded. Claiming that something is a 'given' or is 'complete nonsense' without explaining why, is a sure indication of dogma and has no place in any scientific discussion.

"Debating the proposition that inhaling carcinogenic tars does not cause harm to health is outside the scope of this article." Again, really? Nicely slipped in, but 'carcinogenic tars' is a propaganda slogan for goodness sake and, NO,  inhaling so-called tobacco 'tars' does NOT cause harm to health - proven time and again by 'hard' scientific research. (as opposed to 'soft' statistical epidemiological study, that, by its very nature, cannot do so)

When truth is no longer relevant and the anti-smoker agenda supersedes the original (apparently, health) reason for the campaign the result will be to the inevitable detriment of public health.

Discussing facts about the BENEFITS of smoking, for you I guess, is also outside of the scope of this article too? eg. Facts such as; Smokers are less likely to die after a stroke or heart attack and have better outcomes than non smokers! Facts such as; Quitting smoking INCREASES the risk of developing illnesses such as Diabetes, Ulcerative colitis or Gout. Facts such as; Smoking substantially increases cognitive function in the healthy brain and ameliorates debilitating symptoms in the not-so-healthy brain, improving / preventing illnesses such as Parkinson's.

For the record; smoking does NOT kill and passive smoke is effectively harmless, but to admit such would stop the anti-smoker bandwagon in its tracks. It would halt the very lucrative pecuniary advantage it has enjoyed since the deception was first perpetrated on an unsuspecting public. Fortunately, the power of anti-smoker propaganda is waning as people begin to identify the many anti-smoker contradictions.

                     **

Good of you to demonstrate how well you have been conned and infantilised by the anti-smoker deception, albeit in a poor attempt at sarcasm; Quote;"Shame about the yellow teeth and cancers. How’s your cough?" ( You missed off the; 'what big eyes, big teeth, green skin and horns' they are supposed have too'!) You have swallowed whole the anti-smoker defined, fallaciously manufactured, smoker stereotype, when a little thought might have prevented your embarrassment.

Many people naturally have varying shades of yellow teeth, the rest of us use the wonders of technology to prevent yellowing - toothpaste.

Cancers? - did you not see my earlier comment that points out 80% of lung cancers are now diagnosed in NON smokers? (How's the short term (learning) memory Bob - could be early signs of Alzheimer's! (prevented/delayed by smoking tobacco)). Or that all cancers are now at epidemic proportions! It is estimated that one in two persons under the age of 65 (in UK but probably the same in all developed countries) will be diagnosed with some form of cancer in their lifetimes; (David Kerr, professor of cancer medicine at the University of Oxford: April 2015) ( Bear in mind that smoking prevalence has more than halved since the 1940's).

Cough? Yet another manufactured fallacy! Do only smokers cough? A cough can indicate a number of major problems like lung cancer or COPD, but usually they are only minor such as a bout of cold or flu, or maybe asthma. Are you aware of the massive increase in asthma, particularly of child asthma, over the last few years - when smoking (and SHS exposure) reduced the most? or, Did you know that; “Despite there being an estimated 120 million NEVER smokers with COPD worldwide, these patients have been systematically excluded from drug trials, leading to a complete lack of knowledge about how they should be treated.” (Janice Leung and Don Sin from the University of British Columbia, Canada)

These are clear examples of why/how the anti-smoker industry is BAD for public health - particularly for NON smokers!

Read your study that finds smoking prevents Parkinson's again Bob; "...experts CANNOT be sure that it is the nicotine that is neuroprotective, but lead researcher Harvey Checkoway states, “MY OPINION ... is that nicotine is the clear candidate.” So, nicotine MAY be the issue, then again it may not (it could be some other constituent or combinations of constituents in tobacco smoke) - BUT - there is little  profit in naturally occurring organic tobacco leaf that is not already being harvested. You can be sure however, that tobacco research is NOT to confirm that tobacco smoking is the best means of harnessing the wonder drug - nicotine, but to find patentable substitutes that WILL be very profitable. There is, I believe,  much research ongoing to find a means of matching the effective delivery system of the simple cigarette for so many health benefits. Come now Bob, did you credulously think that the pharmaceutical industry has invested $billions in tobacco CONTROL, partnered the WHO, and funded 'scientific' research, through a sense of philanthropic or civic duty?

quote;"... the state imposes penalties on people who drive at excessive speed..."  Can you explain why no one is penalised in Formula 1, or say, the TT races in IOM, by the state? If this question is too subtle for you, I suggest you read John Stewart Mill's 'On Liberty' that outlines the generally accepted relationship between the state and individual freedoms (until anti smoker nutters were erroneously and tragically given the time of day)

                    **

 I know, I know, you're angry that I have challenged your indoctrination so you want to lash out with abusive language (a link throughout your comments). It's like telling an ISIL suicide bomber that there will not be 70 virgins waiting for him after he detonates his bomb in a shopping mall full of children - he KNOWS that they will be waiting for him after his glorious act.

I'm sure, after reading earlier comments, that you are capable of working it out for yourself, but I doubt you will want to. It will take a certain level courage to admit to yourself that you have been had by anti-smoker nutters, and I don't think you have that courage nor the willpower to look at the evidence objectively. Anti-smoker learned propaganda is too entrenched in your conditioned brain. Carl Sagan explains the phenomenon;

 “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

Sad, but you are not alone!

Out of 144 comments apparently made on the Glantz fairy story,  I have today counted only 17 that have NOT been 'comment removed by moderator'.

*
ps.   This blog entry from 5 years ago (6) is very appropriate to this new money grab;

***
Update Nov 2016;
Anti-smoker nutters in California did indeed get away with this one using their tried and tested tactic of never taking 'no' for an answer, coming back again and again until they get what they want. Their coffers will again be stuffed with loads of money taken from smokers to squander on more propaganda to continue their war on the poor (not just smokers) - and to lobby for even more money. A little red flag has been hoisted however, for those who credulously think they can sit back and watch 'someone else' pay the bill.  Those who drink soda or vape have been targeted this time too, but who knows who else will be in the frame to be shaken down in the future.

Fortunately, three other not-so-greedy states rejected the money grab from smokers (Colorado: Missouri: North Dakota);

Ref; http://taxfoundation.org/blog/guide-tax-related-ballot-questions-updated-results?mc_cid=52347ffcfd&mc_eid=76c27dd09d (7)

 Sin taxes are grossly regressive, yet so many Democrats in US and Socialists in UK still don't seem to understand that these taxes affect them the most. California has shown it is behind the curve somewhat, in terms of public opinion and the growing power of the silent majority - evident in the Brexit and Trump victories. The working classes and SMOKERS have shown that they have teeth and can bite pretty hard. Any politician who is stupid enough to have blind faith in anti-smoker nutters and thinks he/she can ignore smokers or others who have been sidelined/discriminated against by healthism ideology, will soon be consigned to history - or maybe sent to the dystopia that is California where they can live out their smoke-free, alcohol-free, sugar-free, red meat-free and freedom-free, cannabis enhanced, fantasy dreams. 

***
links;

(1) yeson56.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Prop-56-Voter-Guide.pdf
(2) yeson56.org/
(3) https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/?s=prop+29
(4) https://theconversation.com/big-tobacco-aims-its-guns-to-kill-california-tobacco-tax-63750
(5) blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/05/on-hold-brown-to-eliminate-doctor-from-state-health-board.
(6) https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/antismoking-wolves/
(7) taxfoundation.org/blog/guide-tax-related-ballot-questions-updated-results?mc_cid=52347ffcfd&mc_eid=76c27dd09d
(8)  ukippolicyforum.com/papers/15/download/Sin+Taxes.pdf

Anti-Smoker Parasites:- Cull needed

 

Human Tapeworm; Credit: Science Picture Co 

Similar to the genus; 'capnotaeniaendoparasite' 

(capnophibic parasite that, left untreated, destroys it's host society from within)

 *

As a very young child we had a lovely 'Heinz 57 variety' dog called 'Lady', and I loved her dearly. I noticed, over a period of time, that she was becoming progressively hungry, began to look somewhat emancipated, lost the gloss in her coat, as well as her previously abundant vitality.  It was discovered that she had been infected with a big tape worm. Apparently, tapeworms don't normally cause a dog to be sick or lose weight, so maybe the worm was just having a free lunch, dinner and breakfast in Lady's gut and the rest was a child's imagination. I imagined this horrible thing lodged in her intestine, hijacking the nutrients in the dogs food, growing long and fat, while Lady got thinner.

In those days we didn't have the access to worming tablets that we do today so my dad had to revert to an old remedy to eradicate this parasite. It was necessary to starve the poor dog, and in so doing starve the tape worm, for three days. Then the dog was fed a home made concoction, the contents of which I cannot remember, but I believe it mainly consisted of castor oil. The logic apparently is that by starving the worm it would lose some of its bulk, and be so hungry that it would readily eat the castor oil, and that oil would also lubricate the intestine. It worked (but don't try this today when proper worming tablets do the job much better with no risk of adverse effect). We took the dog for a walk in the country where Lady excreted the worm. Like something out of 'Alien', the worm, about a half inch across and about 2 -3 feet long not unlike the picture above but of a slimy, dirty off-white colour, was slowly pulled out of her anus by my dad. Lady went on to have a long healthy life.
 
Tapeworms are passed on via a dog's faeces and then sometimes through an intermediate host like a flea or other animal. The successful parasite is one that can feed off and suck the life out of its host without killing it.   

It struck me that the typical parasite and our Lady's experience with a tapeworm are analogous to the anti-smoker industry that sucks the life and soul out of their host (ie. tolerant settled society), without killing it. They lodge themselves in various scientific, medical and political organisations, who are not only victims in their own right but intermediate hosts used as a stepping stone to infect victims in wider society. They get fat on the various forms of sustenance that their victims supply, then pass on the infection to other societies in other communities and countries via excrement.
It is good to see that tolerant society is identifying the parasites within its midst and are implementing the first stages to eradicate the problem - starve them of funding;

Dick Puddlecote: "I can reveal that hundreds of thousands of pounds of your taxes are being spent lobbying in favour of plain packaging for tobacco. "

Telegraph: "A new clause to be inserted into all new and renewed grant agreements will make sure that taxpayer funds are spent on improving people's lives and good causes, rather than covering lobbying for new regulation" 

Velvet Glove Iron Fist : Beginning of the end for sock-puppets. “At every level - local, national and European - people have been subsidising political campaigns that they may not know about and might disagree with." “Campaigning is an important part of a thriving democracy but charities and pressure groups should not be doing it with taxpayers’ money.” 

Taking Liberties: "eleven councils in the south west are to stop funding the anti-smoking campaign group Smokefree South West which will close in June." ... a spokesman for Cancer Research UK claimed it was a "disaster" 

It's a start that can be built upon, but it is not the complete solution to the anti-smoker parasite problem just yet. 

 
The Dutch parliament starved 'Stivoro' of funds (equivalent to ASH UK)  and it collapsed in 2014 as did ASH in Australia when its funding was removed. However, while weakened, the anti-smoker industry has not been eradicated and continues to suck funding into other areas. Like the Lernaean Hydra in Greek mythology, you cut off one head and another grows. 

The original mythological Hydra was slain by Heracles either by using a firebrand to cauterize the neck stumps after each decapitation or after cutting off one head he dipped his sword in its neck and used its own venom to burn each head so it couldn't grow back. While there is plenty of venom in the anti-smoker version that can be used, having a burning cigarette handy to cauterize their necks may be just as effective... eh? (Ha!)

In fact we are seeing the anti-smoker prohibition industry really struggling today and failing. Hardly anyone is quitting smoking anymore and many obtain their smokes from tax free sources, so tax revenue is reducing. More and more sensible places in US are repealing, amending or refusing to implement smoker bans, as they realize smoke bans only ever cause harm to business, society and individual health of their residents. 

While the anti-smoker industry will list lots of smoke bans worldwide with the intention to demoralise proud smokers and influence lawmakers (inferring all the world is following the UK lead with comprehensive, rigid, intolerant bans), many of them are actually reasonable, inclusive restrictions that cater for all including smokers, non smokers and vapers. It is also normal to see the anti-smoker industry crowing about how successful they have been in reducing smokers but this provides just another indication of how they are failing. They do claim that smokers are declining and '75% -85% want to quit' (or whatever large percentage they decide upon). They may have done so a few years ago, but today this is no more than biased wishful thinking and a psychological tactic to try and isolate smokers. 

Before the anti-smoker industry turned nasty it was possible to find out accurately who did or did not smoke, but it has now created such an oppressive culture surrounding smoking that any measurement of smoking prevalence or estimates of who wishes to quit is impossible to ascertain. They unsurprisingly and inevitably claim 'success'! ("Resistance is futile I tell you- everyone is complying!" - Lord Haw Haw tried the same tactics). Yet; "Most smokers 15 and older around the world aren't even thinking about quitting" and there are other ways to ascertain how smokers are NOT quitting.  Unsurprisingly, given the extortionate taxation levied, legal sales (used as one measure to suggest that smoking is reducing) are declining rapidly BUT illicit tobacco sales are booming. 'They' tell you that they can control illicit tobacco too but the facts, as usual, tell a different story.

However, there is one major problem that needs to be addressed ASAP. When we have a chronic infestation of anti-smoker parasites as we do today and we keep feeding them money, they will inevitably just keep re-emerging, with a newly grown Hydra-like head complete with large, noisy mouth. Unless their necks are cauterized! Not only that, but this is also actively used, by anti-smoker nutters, to intimidate public figures. They make a point of telling those who have told them "NO" that they will be back again and again and again until they buckle under and say 'yes'. While governments and local councils should be dealing with important issues that affect the community, society or country, they are having to constantly fight off these nutters, knowing that they will have to do the same next year and the year after that... It is psychological bullying and intimidation that needs to be eradicated. 

Kentucky: "The main sponsor of a statewide smoking ban pronounced her bill dead... Stumbo said the smoking ban proposal would have a better chance of passage in 2015, and Westrom said anti-smoking advocates would continue pushing the bill in the future" (it failed again in 2015): 

Montgomery: "Legislation to ban smoking in many Alabama businesses has died... American Cancer Society's, Ginny Campbell, says... the organization will start over with another bill next year. "

 The spurned stalker who continues to harass his love target should and can be sent to prison for his stalking; The rapist who denies rape because he knew that when she said 'NO', she really meant 'YES', should and would normally be sent to prison, but these parasites aren't just defiling one person, they are raping whole communities as well as those public figures who represent them, and indeed the democratic process. They are a vocal minority who can harass and intimidate public figures over and over again at will and with impunity!

The majority of the public are actually decent people who are sick of hearing a small minority of anti-smoker nutters stamping their feet and screaming ME ME ME - it's all about ME!! (Note: There is a world of difference between a non-smoker and an anti-smoker who thinks he/she speaks for everyone - in their deluded brain). These nutters are making a mockery out of so-called democracy   but, of course, some places are still faithfully following the nutters in tobacco CONTROL. They usually give some good incentives for compliance and have taken callousness to a new level for those who refuse to do so. There are on-going anti-smoker hate campaigns to effectively torture the mentally ill, evict smokers from their homes, deny them medical treatment and create deep rifts between friends, families and neighbours etc. These are tactics that were last effectively used in 1930's Germany. Anti-smoker nutters however, are finding more and more resistance to their corrupt practices and destructive agenda. Despite all their power and the money they throw around, the anti-smoker campaign is failing as rational people/doctors/politicians etc become aware of and refuse to lie down and surrender to what is effectively covert tyranny. They are slowly coming to realise that it is not just a smoker problem but a precedent that WILL affect THEM too. 

BUT it is no good for Politicians, Representatives, Councillors etc (ie those people with the power to actually reign them in), wringing their hands and pleading 'its not fair'; 'someone needs to do something' ... These nutters need to be eradicated - cut off their funding, find a way to stop them intimidating, bullying and returning year after year to harass the public and public figures. STOP them side-stepping the will of the people. It is public figures who must act. Unfortunately there are some who believe politicians are the main targets to be duped and demoralised  and I agree! The general public are irrelevant in this power struggle over who controls whom. Hopefully this is no too widespread.  Fundamental reform is needed and a good dose of castor oil, stuffed down the throats of anti-smoker nutters, would be a welcome next stage. 

The anti-smoker agenda is all exaggeration, hyperbole or trivialisation,  and is mainly defined by mendacity, working on the flawed principle that 'no one asks the victor if he told lies'. Their only answer to incessant propaganda is MORE incessant propaganda - you need to ask why that propaganda (costing a fortune) is necessary and why there is so much resistance to it? Surely no logical brain still thinks that all those people who are rejecting anti-smoker rhetoric are tobacco company shills and it can all be explained away as a tobacco company plot, as anti-smokers would have you believe? It is unsustainable and will inevitably collapse. The only variable is how much damage these nutters will wreak on civilised society before it is eventually eliminated.

Heartland: history shows smoking bans likely to be repealed; "Many smoking bans have been adopted in the past, often for reasons that appear ridiculous in hindsight, and they were repealed when cooler heads prevailed." 

Today's anti-smoker campaign is no different, cooler heads will again prevail, and 'they' will eventually also appear ridiculous with hindsight. Apart from allegedly being based on 'science', have thousands employed to push it and $billions spent on it this time around, the principle is exactly the same and the end result will inevitably be the same.  One positive outcome however, will be a greater appreciation of the health and cognitive benefits of tobacco smoking that have been suppressed in pursuit of tobacco prohibition. These ironically, have been discovered as a result of the examination of, and being motivated by, anti-smoker mendacious rhetoric and biased scientific anti-smoker research. 

Nurses in1930's

***

ps. There is no such thing as a 'capnotaeniaendoparasite'. I made it up, but it does describe capnophobic anti-smoker nutters pretty well and there are indeed such parasites as 'taenia' genus 'endo parasites'.

pps; Yes, I'm delighted these parasites are losing their jobs. I will be even more pleased if the rest of them had to go get a proper productive job like peeling radishes for a pig farm - and I am not alone in being delighted ;

Dick Puddlecote;  Following Friday's fantastic news that Smokefree South West have lost their funding and are to close in six months, it seems there are many tobacco controllers who are rather piqued that some of us are delighted.

*

Links;

http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/government-lobbying-government.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12143479/Charities-to-be-banned-from-using-public-funds-to-lobby-ministers.html 

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-beginning-of-end-for-sock-puppet.html

http://taking-liberties.squarespace.com/blog/2016/2/5/smokefree-south-west-to-close-in-june.html#.VrRz66DQU1Y.twitter

 

Bloomberg News; http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-17/most-of-the-world-s-smokers-have-no-plans-to-quit

Australia (anti-smoker paradise); http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/the-illegal-tobacco-business-is-booming-across-australia/story-fni0cx12-1227333175420

New York (another anti-smoker paradise); http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/new-york-loses-400-million-after-imposing-the-nations-highest-cigarette-tax/

Kentucky: http://www.wave3.com/story/24909075/smoking-ban-bill-declared-dead-by-sponser

  
Montgomery: http://www.sandmountainreporter.com/article_0e84d19c-aa38-11e3-8dc6-0019bb2963f4.html

Politicians duped and demoralised: https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/duped-and-demoralised-politicians/

Heartland: http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2008/07/01/history-shows-smoking-bans-likely-be-repealed

http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/why-its-right-to-rejoice-at-smokefree.html

More Selective 'Success'

 Uma Thurman 

from;http://famouspeoplesmokingcigarettes.blogspot.com/

Anyone notice the statistical jiggery-pokery in this article, intended to give the impression that the current/recent anti-smoker campaign is ‘successful’? The reduction the anti camp report is for ADULT smokers over a period of 10 years - I wonder why no mention of youth smoking ? What we really need to know is how much reduction since smoke bans were put in place in 2006. More importantly, is that reduction good enough to warrant this regression to a society more akin to 1930’s Germany than 21st century Britain involving the subjugation of minority groups such as smokers, and increasingly drinkers, the overweight, the inactive etc AND are there any resultant benefits? 

It is a fact that most smoke bans have resulted in the halt of a decades long decline in smoking and have often heralded an INCREASE.  (eg.The percentage of young people smoking [in Scotland]  fell from 31% to 25% between 1999 and 2004, but soared to 30% in 2007.) It would actually be reasonable to expect a decline, not because more people have quit, but because of the oppressive methods employed by anti-smoker fanatics, effectively forcing any reasonably astute smoker ‘off the radar’.

If you believe that any of those selective figures are representative of reality today, you must be living in the same land of abundant clouds and cuckoos as those who suggest them. Who, in their right mind is going to admit to being a smoker in todays climate? ... Only the most gullibly who believe the rubbish that the anti-tobacco industry spews out and who fail to appreciate the consequences of trusting the untrustworthy! 

“Oh yes, I’m a smoker, now you can treat be like a child abuser and a modern day German jew. You can refuse to treat me on the NHS; You can refuse to allow me somewhere to live or work or adopt a needy child; you can fine me £000’s for dropping a bit of fag ash, or send me to jail because I won’t comply with righteous diktats; you can incite the local Hitler youth to assault me while shouting ‘ciggi busters!‘ (just for their ‘harmless’ bit of fun of course). Oh yes, treat me as a sub-human cos I smoke, I love being abused and humiliated” 

Anti-smoker ‘Health campaigners’ (now there’s one of the best examples of euphemism), should give their heads a slap as they know as well as I that those figures cannot be anywhere near accurate!

Anti-smoker ‘Health campaigners’ have not, from what I can see, improved health one bit, on any level using any measure! The opposite is more likely to be true! While life expectancy has improved as it has done for centuries, regardless as to the prevalence of smokers/smoking, almost all ‘smoke related’ disease incidence is spiraling out of control while smoking has reduced consistently over a generation. In USA, Lung cancer increased by over 30% over a period of 8 years (2000-2008) (ACS stats copied in appendix), while over the same period US population increased by a mere 8%. A marvelous success there? Heart disease has been reducing over a number of years, but why this is classed as a ‘smoke related’ disease is slightly baffling, when it not only kills smokers but is the BIGGEST killer of non-smokers. Improvements here are down to better treatment of hypertension etc! 

For men who never smoked, heart disease was the single largest cause of death from age 50 on. The death rates for heart disease (for male non-smokers) were higher than the combined death rates for lung cancer, colon cancer and prostate cancer at any age. .... It is the number one killer for non-smoking men from age 50 and for non-smoking women from age 60”.(source:

JNCI 2008 - Stibich Ph.D (2009)) 

This certainly puts into sharp perspective the alleged link between smoking and heart disease - in fact there is NOT ONE smoke related disease that DOES NOT affect non-smokers too - food for thought for anyone with a rational brain!


Some anti-tobacco drones actually believe that their cause is just and that everything they are told by their high priests is unquestionably true, they dutifully go out into the world to spread their word! These people are dangerous! The more they fallaciously blame smoking for every ailment under the sun and cast smokers as murderers etc the more they encourage the gullible to oppress and abuse others and the more society is degraded. The more they perpetuate the myth that lung cancer (LC) is a self inflicted smokers disease, the more people will die from it. LC heads the cancer leader-board but because of the righteous, it has become a ‘non-persons’ disease and as a result gets only around 5% of all funding. Anti-tobacco and their lackeys fill their boots and bank accounts - diverting valuable resources away from research into causes and cures. result:  MORE non-smoker and smoker DEATHS FROM LUNG CANCER! The anti-smoker movement IS causing deaths!!

Why are we seeing these ‘success’ figures at this time, along with a frantic campaign to indoctrinate an increasingly skeptical public in narrow negative stereotypes of smokers and a despicable exploitation of the emotive responses to protect the children by use of false or grossly exaggerated ‘harm’ allegedly caused by SHS? …. Because they are losing the initiative and are frantically trying to re-establish it! ... Those Politicians worldwide, who were easily manipulated by the fanatics in anti-tobacco to vigorously support them are being kicked out of office and replaced by those not so easily deceived who are just beginning to question the wisdom of such a destructive and socially divisive so called ‘public health campaign. 

It is clear to me, and I'm sure many others, that anti-smoker freaks are just beginning to realise that their gravy train is struggling and the tracks ahead look unstable. They are beginning to realise that their enemy is no longer the big tobacco companies whose only real interest is bottom line profit,(which is doing very well at the moment) BUT PEOPLE; honest, law abiding, ordinary PEOPLE who have got their measure. PEOPLE who are not motivated by money but the realisation that their freedom and their childrens future is at stake. I think they realise that those PEOPLE are increasing in number every day, from all walks of life, from all over the world and THEY represent a far more formidable enemy. 

It is not all done and dusted just yet - BUT - the writing is on the wall!