Feed on
Posts
Comments

Free will

Feb 6th, 2012 by

I cannot understand this modern obsession with health.

Every day the papers carry some story, each one more ridiculous that the last claiming that picking your nose causes knee cancer or that using a telescope will cause your eyes to drop out.  Some claims are so patently absurd that you have to laugh, but they are still printed in that air of frenzy that would have you believe they have discovered the meaning of life.

Why?

What is the point of all this garbage?

In an ideal world, the WHO or whatever would inform us that Professor Fred has discovered a possible link between sugar and obesity, or that the University of Narnia thinks cigarettes may be bad for you, and they would then leave us to make our own decisions.  After all, it’s my body, my health and my life.  That’s called free will.

One of the latest bits of blindingly useless bits of information to emerge is that Ireland is to have a 72% increase in cancers by 2030.  Apparently Bulgaria is the place to be with a 2.2% increase.  What use is this information?  Instead of wittering on about future trends, why don’t they just devote their time to finding cures?

Why has the WHO published these figures?  What possible purpose can they serve except to cause depression amongst the gullible few who actually believe the claptrap?  Are we all supposed to suddenly change our lifestyles?  Are we all supposed to switch from high sugar to sugar free?  On second thoughts, sugar will kill you and so will sugar free, so you can’t win there.  It can serve no purpose whatsoever except to justify some grossly inflated salary somewhere.

Of course in the last few years, governments have taken it upon themselves to force us to live their lifestyle of choice.  Smokers have taken the brunt of the greatest “denormalisation” programme since Hitler decided he didn’t like Jews, and now they are turning their attention to drinkers and eaters.  They won’t be happy until we are all eating government regulated food, drinking government approved drink and exercising following an exercise regime laid down by… [you’ve guessed it] government.  Even then, people are still going to fall ill and die so what will they have actually achieved, apart from making society miserable?

Possibly the last paragraph in the WHO statement is the most telling -

“We need to urgently look at introducing fat and sugar taxes and how these unhealthy foods are promoted, and even greater restrictions on the advertising and sale of tobacco”

So having failed to “educate” us, they want reams of further government control on how we live our lives.  [Though I would love to know how they intend to further restrict tobacco advertising here in Ireland – the only places where you ever see any sight or mention of tobacco is in the breathless press releases by ASH and on the little signs in tobacconists about not selling tobacco to under 21s.]

I just cannot see the point to it all.

Posted in Letting of steam | 2 Comments »

More bullshit for the growing pile

Feb 1st, 2012 by

From yesterday’s Irish Times -

Irish officials may adopt UK scheme to cut smoking rates

There are quite a few questions I would have to ask about this.

For a start, I would love to know just what sort of magic bullet the gubmint seem to think this bloke has, that they invite the Gardai and Revenue along. Who is this bloke who seems to claim he can achieve what virtually every country in Europe has failed to do?

Actually, the answer is probably quite simple. He is an expert at bullshitting.

I have seen dozens of statistics that purport to prove without a shadow of a doubt that the rate of heart attacks has fallen dramatically after the introduction of a smoking ban.  And without exception every one of those proofs has proved to be a load of codswallop.  Heart attack rates have been falling steadily just about everywhere, and there isn’t a single case where smoking bans have caused the rate to vary, so the quoted figures, I can guarantee are the figures for the natural decline.  I notice he doesn’t hive a time period for this decline?  Is it since 2005?  2000?  1950?

I have tried to find the source of the figures he quotes, but I came up with a blank.  The nearest I could find was the crowd mentioned in the article called Fresh [Smokefree North East].  Reading through this site there is precious little in the way of hard figures.  It is full of innuendos and the glib clichés that the Righteous love so much -  “it is estimated that”, “a growing body of evidence that” and “the figures show” [which is never accompanied by the “figures”].

One of the claims is that “A campaign against tobacco smuggling has been very successful”.  Apparently this remarkable claim is based on a “survey” of 4000 people.  Now, how can a survey prove that smuggling has decreased? Unless the 4000 are all smugglers whining about their loss of trade, I can’t see how this “survey” can prove anything.  If some health freaks ring me up and ask my about my illicit tobacco supplies, do you really, honestly think I am going to give them the unvarnished truth?  Hah!  I will lie through my teeth just to confuse their figures.

There is one little statement though that really gets me going – “We know from the drink driving law that we can change people’s behaviour”.  Oh boy!  This is the Smug Righteous at their best!  Who is the “we”?  A group of smug little bastards who really sincerely believe that they know what’s best for us and believe they have a natural right to herd us into their way of thinking.

After all, we can’t think for ourselves.

Can we?

Posted in General | No Comments »

All roads lead to Pharma

Jan 28th, 2012 by

There are several ways of giving up smoking.

You can go “cold turkey”.  You decide one morning that this is it – you are no longer a smoker and you just stop.  You resist all temptations and that is that – you are no longer a smoker.

Another method that is becoming increasingly popular is to switch to the electronic equivalent – the e-cigarette, the e-pipe or the e-cigar.  While these have been marketed as smoking alternatives, increasing numbers of ex-smokers are reporting that they very successfully used the e-route to quit altogether.

The method we hear most about is the so-called “nicotine replacement therapy” – the patch, the gum and the nicotine inhalers.  Of the three methods these have been proved to be the least successful by far, over a long period.  They tout themselves as being successful but that is only measuring cessation rates after a month or less.  After a year, most smokers who have tried this route are back on the fags again.

The likes of ASH and the other Anti-smoker organisations would have you believe that the aim of their campaigns is to get people to stop smoking.  You would imagine therefore that they would chose the most successful route and would advertise that.  You would imagine that they would be delighted at the e-equivalent for a start.  Here is a method that has a proven high success rate and achieves their aims.  So why are they so desperate to have the e-cigarette banned or at the very least, subject to the same restrictions as cigarettes?  Does that make sense?

If you check any of the government quit smoking campaigns or look at the ASH cessation methods, they all suggest that the best way to quit is to “contact your doctor or pharmacist”.  Why would that be?  A doctor or pharmacist doesn’t sell e-cigarettes?  You don’t need a doctor or pharmacist to tell you to go “cold turkey”?  But what have doctors and pharmacists have in common?  Yup – the pharmaceutical trade.  They are both going to suggest the least successful method – the pharmaceutically produced patch, gum or inhaler.  They will even promote Champix, which has incredibly dangerous side effects.

Why is this?  Why do ASH et al insist on promoting the least successful method while attacking the more successful?

Surely you can come to the obvious conclusion?

Would it help if I mentioned pharmaceutical sponsorship and grants?

Posted in General | No Comments »

Sheer spite

Jan 24th, 2012 by

It’s an interesting concept.

An organisation whose primary aim is supposed to be the health and welfare of the nation is forcing smokers not just to leave hospital buildings but is now forcing them out onto the road.

There is no logic behind this move, as even those who believe in the myth of Environmental Tobacco Smoke will have to admit that smoke outdoors poses no health risk whatsoever?  Those same people will have to admit that standing by the side of a road in one’s pyjamas on a cold winter’s day is not exactly the healthiest of actions?  Even some of the more enlightened members of the medical profession can see that.

I am no expert on the individual hospitals around the country, but amongst the hospitals I am familiar with, leaving the hospital grounds will bring you out to a very busy main road, or else there is one hell of a long walk to get to the perimeter of the grounds.  Forcing either option is nothing short of dangerous and spiteful.

Of course, reading the first article above we find some telling pointers.

“The HSE’s director of public health policy, Dr Fenton Howell, who is a former chairman of Ash, the anti-smoking lobby group, …….”

So here we have The Righteous in plain view again.  This is not about health – it is about a single minded obsession with beating down and humiliating smokers at every opportunity.

“He added: ‘We need to recognise that there is almost a sense that cigarettes are not as dangerous as they are. Five and a half thousand people die from tobacco every year, and there are thousands admitted to hospital beds because of their addiction.’”

At least he is beginning to get the message.  Cigarettes are not the equivalent of a loaded gun.  What he is really saying here is that people are starting to think that cigarettes are not as dangerous as ASH claim they are.  And then he plays ASH’s favourite game of plucking figures out of the air. There is nothing like a spot of emotive figure-juggling!

“We can’t manage patients by letting them continue the thing that brought them into hospital in the first place.”

OK.  Apply that to the few cases where you genuinely think that smoking may have contributed to the problem, but then you also have to force all victims of sports injuries to renounce sport for life.  All road accident injuries must have their driving licence immediately revoked, or they must be banned from the pavements.  Patent rubbish.

Probably the most telling statement in the article is near the top -

“The introduction of the smoking ban is being staggered so professionals within the hospital can get sufficient training in smoking cessation therapies such as nicotine patches and gum.”

There couldn’t possibly be a connection between between the fact that the anti-smoking lobby are so heavily funded by Pharma, and the promotion of Pharma products that have been proven to be useless?

Could there?

Posted in Letting of steam | No Comments »

Plain garbage

Jan 18th, 2012 by

I had my usual little jaunt around the Interweb this afternoon.

Somehow I ended up on a site belonging to a British MP.  Now this little twat calls himself a liberal yet he is one of those idiots that believes that selling cigarettes in plain packaging is somehow going to stop people smoking.

He seems to be under the impression that the colour of a cigarette package somehow entices “children” to buy the things?  This must be one of the most deluded ideas that the Puritans have come up with yet.

When I started smoking, it was a case of nipping into a tobacconist and buying a cigarette.  Yes.  That’s right – one cigarette.  To this day I couldn’t tell you what brand it was or what colour its packaging was.  I know that practice of selling single fags has been stopped but it does indicate that packaging played no part in my choice.  Later on in life, I started buying them by the pack.  As far as I remember, I used to smoke Country Life which had a rather drab design, but was nice an cheap.

I have never heard of an instance where a twelve year old wanders into a tobacconist, sees the packs all stacked up behind the counter, and thinks to himself  “Wow! I must buy one of those.  They look great!”.  For a start, there is an age restriction on buying the things, so if he is under eighteen he shouldn’t be able to buy them anyway.

Plain packaging will have several effects.  It will make the tobacconists life far harder as he now has to read every label to make sure he is selling the right brand.  It is going to cost a fortune. The biggest consequence though will be a boom time for counterfeiters.  One outcome I can guarantee won’t happen though is that fewer people will buy them.

So far, the efforts of the Righteous have resulted in the closure of hundreds, nay thousands of pubs with the consequent loss of jobs.  It has divided society and stigmatised a large minority of the population.  The one thing it has failed to do is to reduce levels of smoking.  On the contrary, levels in Ireland have increased by 2% since the bans came in.

It’s worth reading that article.  It is a scary insight into the mind of a deluded bigot.  Here is a man on a mission to save people from themselves.

The best reading though is in the comments!

Posted in General | 4 Comments »

Think of a number

Jan 12th, 2012 by

There is a question that has been bugging me for some time.

I was reading Róisín Shortarse’s framework for tobacco control in Ireland and I came across That Figure again.  Incidentally, this is the same Róisín Shortarse who thinks raising the price of booze will cure all alcohol problems.

And what is That Figure you may ask?

“It is estimated that [smoking] related healthcare costs account for up to 15% of all annual healthcare costs here”

Strangely the paper then talks about “between 6% and 15% of all annual healthcare costs” which seems rather vague to say the least? And that would also assume that 85 to 94% of all healthcare costs are incurred by non-smokers?

But that’s beside the point.  The point is

How?

How do they estimate that smokers cost the health service €365 million a year?  What exactly incurs these costs and how do they know they are “smoking related”?

I have been smoking now for over forty years.  I have never been to the doctor with anything that could remotely be described as “smoking related”.  I have had my medical trials and tribulations but none of them had anything to do with smoking.  What’s more, I know a lot of people who smoke and they have the same story.  Sadly I did know a few people who died of cancer but the majority never smoked in their lives.

So what is this mysterious ailment that is incurring these huge costs?  Are they counting everyone who presents with a cough and assume that they are all smokers?  Are they assuming that all cancers are “smoking related”?  Is every child who presents with Glue Ear counted amongst the smoking casualties?

I would love to know where they get their figures from.

And why do I suspect that they are figures that are gleefully plucked out of the air to scare the sheeple?

Posted in General | 4 Comments »

The one in five

Jan 1st, 2012 by

Our beloved Nanny State is off to a good start.

The paint is barely dry on the New Year and they are banging on about smoking again.

Apparently 5,500 smokers die every year according to our HSE.

This is actually correct.

You see, to the best of my knowledge around 28,000 people die here each year from all causes. And seeing as around 20% of them will be smokers then that represents 2,700 deaths which is near enough. It’s very strange that the HSE ignores the 22,300 non-smokers who die each year. Are they not worth a mention?

Also there is the claim that “One in every two smokers will die of a tobacco related illness”.

The problem with this line is that I don’t know what a smoking related illness is, and nor does the medical world. They ascribe just about anything to smoking , from cot-deaths and glue-ear through to nipples falling off. The result is that anyone who dies from any illness which is considered to be smoking related is counted a victim of smoking. Their problem is that they have never discovered a disease that is uniquely caused by smoking so they will never know if that person would have died anyway. It’s much more convenient to compare the actual cause of death against the long list of “smoking related” and if they find a match then bingo – another victim of the evil weed.

Of course I dispute the claim that one in every two smokers will die. The truth is that all smokers will die. And so will all non-smokers.

Death is a sad fact of life

Posted in Letting of steam | 4 Comments »

Confounding the truth

Dec 20th, 2011 by

You will often hear extreme anti-smokers claiming that a large price increase in tobacco is the most effective tool in "encouraging" people to quit smoking. In the same vein, the bank robber finds that pointing a loaded gun at a petrified teller, encourages them to hand over the money. Encouragement my arse.

Proponents of this garbage will usually tell you that research has shown this to be true. So, I went looking for such research and found this (http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/6/419.full). Published in the British Medical Journal, this is what passes for Scientific Research currently. We have seen how hard figures can be skewed to tell any story the researcher wants. This is how so many epidemiologists can begin by stating their findings and then just construct the figures to reach that conclusion. But, for this type of reverse engineering, it’s handy to have a variable to play with. This is usually some kind of confounder which, if needs be, can used to minimize or exaggerate as required. If the researcher is not getting the answer he wants, whack the confounder up or down, whichever suits.

Uniquely in the research above, they opted for a very wishy-washy confounder, to help them to prove that smoking is price sensitive. These clowns claimed to have measured "sentiment". A sentiment is a thought, or a point of view, based on emotions rather than reason. So, it is not a hard fact, but an ever changing wishy-washy feeling, loaded with personal bias and changing circumstances. Indeed, once a month, half of the population suffer turmoil in the emotion stakes.

But, the determining factor in this new "PROOF", is an unmeasurable sentiment. That would be wild enough on it’s own, and good reason to dismiss this latest pile of junk. But, it gets better dear reader. In the detail, they explain that, "We exclude smokers from the construction of anti-smoking sentiment because smokers are disproportionately more likely than non-smokers to disapprove of smoking bans and would inflate the relationship between sentiment and smoking by virtue of their weight alone".

So, to measure the sentiment around smoking bans and tobacco pricing, they excluded the ‘sentiments’ of smokers because they might voice a disapproving sentiment and totally fuck up the pre-arranged conclusion of the research being conducted. This is almost unbelievable bullshit, and the white coats will, no doubt, call it irrefutable proof that increasing the price reduces the amount of smokers. You will then hear that the debate is over, science has proved without any doubt etc, etc.

Is it any wonder that smokers totally ignore the established opinions when they are based on purposely false nonsense like this. And if you think that’s bad, your should educate yourselves on the topic of Environmental Tobacco Smoke some time. There are nearly one hundred different research projects conducted on ETS over a forty year period. Copies of all of the originals have been collected in one place (the ‘Forces’ website), and though it’s heavy reading, I urge every smoker to do so, if only to clear your conscience.

Over 80% of these original research projects, find that ETS "Is of little or no concern, the danger being so small as to be immeasurable". About 20% of them report a minor risk. Like the research above, for official purposes, the 80% are simply ignored and laws are introduced based on the 20%. This is the big lie and the price sensitive research horseshit I mentioned, is a mere fib by comparison.

The anti-smoking lobby has it’s foundations in bare faced lies and anything they say is not to be trusted, by smokers and non-smokers alike.

Posted in Lies uncovered | 1 Comment »

Smokefree homes

Dec 15th, 2011 by

I see ASH in the UK are at it again.

They have produced a document – Smoke drift in the home and the workplace.

Let’s have a wee look at the document and some of the “facts” it claims.

A high level of support for smokefree homes is demonstrated by the large numbers of people who do not allow smoking in their own homes.

That’s fair enough.  People are hardly going to disagree with their own decision not to smoke in their own homes?  However, ASH interpret that as meaning that there is a high level of support for banning smoke in all homes.

However, some complain that they are badly affected by smoke seeping or drifting into their homes from neighbouring properties.

This is an interesting one.  How can somebody be badly affected by the distant odour of smoke?  At best all they are getting is an occasional faint whiff.  However this “smoke drift” as ASH are calling it is the basis for their next move – banning smoking in the home.

People living in flats or terraced houses are more likely to experience smoke drift than those in detached or semi-detached homes due to the way air is circulated within and between the buildings. Smoke may enter the home from a number of sources such as:

  • open windows or doors
  • through electrical ducting
  • via cracks and gaps around window frames, floorboards, skirting boards, ceilings
  • through shared ventilation systems

I like this.  They include detached houses and claim that smoke drifts across the intervening land.  And what is it with electrical ducting?  Are they seriously suggesting that is a possibility?

Thus tobacco smoke concentrations are likely to be so low, through dilution and filtration, as to be undetectable in most cases against other ‘background’ pollutants.

This is a strange one.  They are actually making an honest and reasonable statement here.  Smoke drift is undetectable except to those with hypersensitive noses or overactive imaginations.

The 2006 US Surgeon General report states that there is no safe level of exposure
to secondhand smoke and furthermore concludes that “the scientific evidence is now
indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that
leads to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults.”

Here we go again.  Ask any doctor or scientist – there is no such thing as no safe level.  Everything has a safe level albeit small in the case of some poisons and radioactive elements.  And is the Surgeon General says there is no safe level then the Surgeon General is a liar.  Similarly, saying “the scientific evidence is now indisputable” is also a lie.  There is a large body of doctors and scientists who do just that – dispute the evidence.

If there is still a smell of smoke after you have blocked up all the cracks and holes and if you are certain that the source of the smoke is from a neighbouring property, the next step is to contact the neighbour whom you believe is responsible.

If there is still a smell of smoke after you have blocked up all the cracks and holes then the only other way for the smoke to enter is through solid brick or concrete walls.  If you believe that is possible then frankly there is no hope for you.

The rest of the document is a decent into the realms of encouraging people to report smokers to their landlords, local MP and every other interfering busybody they can think of.  It is nothing less than open encouragement to harass bully and coerce smokers on the basis of an imaginary scent of cigarette smoke.

H/T Simon at Taking Liberties

Posted in Lies uncovered | 4 Comments »

Smoking in cars

Nov 18th, 2011 by

There has been a bit of a furore over the last couple of days in the U.K.

The British Medical Association wants smoking banned in all cars.

There are so many things that are wrong about this that I’m not sure where to start.

First of all, the figures used by the BMA [supposedly the medical authority] that smoke in cars is 23 times stronger that the levels found in a smoky pub are based on nothing more than junk science and have actually been retracted in a very quiet press release.  Of course the damage is done now and the Antis are gleefully quoting the original figure.

All that apart, I would ask what right anyone has to dictate what I do in my car?  Maybe an argument could be made for not smoking in a car with children present but what about when I am the only occupant?  Are they claiming that my smoking produces second hand smoke that may kill me?  My car is my own space.  I paid heavily for the car and each year I pay heavily for insurance, road tax and a car test.  Every time I pull into the pumps I give the government another great whack of my cash.  I pay dearly to run my car and no one is going to tell me what I can or cannot do in it.  As far as I am concerned, if I want to do something in my car that doesn’t affect the safety of my driving, I will do it.

There is not one single justification for this intrusion into privacy.  It is just another spiteful attempt to denormalise smokers and presumably to extort more money from them in fines.

You may wonder why I am so worked up about something that won’t affect me, but unfortunately Ireland seems to have signed up to the race to see who can produce the harshest anti-smoker regime.  What happens in the UK will inevitably happen here.

One aspect of this proposed ban which I haven’t seen mentioned is the effect of forcing drivers not to smoke.  Smoking has been proved to improve concentration, and also smokers find the odd cigarette to be soothing.  Both these benefits can only be an aid to driving.  Similarly, preventing someone from smoking can produce a shortness of temper and a distraction.

I would consider myself to be a reasonably good driver.  In the forty years I have been driving I have had many accidents – too many to count, but I was to blame in only one of those accidents when my brakes failed.  I consider myself to be a calm and considerate driver.  I may pass the odd comment when I witness bad driving but I’m not one to wave two fingers out the window or even to yell profanities.

Some years ago, I stopped smoking.  One of the things I noticed was the way my driving changed.  I admit that my driving became atrocious.  I became aggressive and angry, and shudder to think of the accidents that I very nearly caused.  There were a few reasons why I went back to smoking the pipe, and one of the major ones was because I literally terrified of my own driving.  Once I started smoking again, the old placid, considerate driver returned.

I would therefore make a simple prediction.  If this ban is imposed in the U.K. I predict that the accident rate is going to noticeably increase as will the incidents of “road rage”.

You have been warned.

-oOo-

This article also appears in Head Rambles

Posted in Letting of steam | 1 Comment »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »