The acidity of some!

Long have I held the view that cancer is in our genes and long have been put down for that opinion by the anti smoking brigade, although exactly why I do not know as nine of my wife's family (aged between 34 & 92) have all succumbed to various strains of the disease (only one of them smoked too!). Even the family Dr declared that the only explanation was that it must 'run in the family'. 
Well of course, according to the most bigoted tribe ever, cancer simply HAD to be attributed to smoking & second hand smoke-after all, ASH said so! But who are ASH in reality? They are simply a state funded organisation made up of those that abhor the smell of smoke, and who want to impress their anti smoking views on everyone else. They couldn't even find it in their pitch black hearts to accept that choice, in a democratic country, should prevail. Oh no, they had to bludgeon their evil way to a total ban and even used whatever scientific junk they thought necessary to do so. Un-amazingly they still employ whatever junk science is available to suit their miserable purpose!

        Konrad Jamrozik Junk Science

1 + 1 = 11 !

There have been many studies completed over the years showing that SHS has little or no harm factor, indeed, in an outdoor area it has absolutely none but that hasn't stopped the likes of ASH indoctrinating idiots such as Cllr Taylor in Blackpool who now decrees that smoking in various parks is banned! What can he, or the council, do about this legally is totally beyond me but they obviously feel that they can keep smokers out of the nominated parks. Pat Nurse is quite correct when she raises the 'active smoking' idea of a 'sit/smoke in' as smokers should NOT be treated this way.
We also have the lunatic from down under popping up to back the idea in Tasmania of making it illegal to sell cigarettes to anyone born after the year 2,000. So, in his eyes (Simon Chapman if you hadn't already guessed) it is perfectly OK do deny kids, the next generation, their democratic right to choice! What an absolute dreg of dingo society the man really is.
One study that has been constantly ignored over the years is the fantastic work done by Dr Kitty Little who correlated the rise of cancer rates alongside the rise in industrialisation & the usage of diesel. She was ignored, but with the growing concerns about air pollution worldwide, some politicians are actually waking up to the fact that our transport systems is causing medical mayhem. Having written to ASH some 5 years ago about this matter, and still not had a response, I can only conclude that they don't want to answer the questions posed-perhaps I didn't (or Dr Little didn't) include enough junk science for them to be able to answer in their roundabout junk response way!
Two articles to suddenly appear in most reputable tabloid (The Daily Telegraph) will have thrown ASH into a frenzy of denial and the acolytes to find even 'more compelling "evidence" ' for the articles totally denounce smoking as the leading cause of cancer and place the disease firmly at the door of AGE. Now there's a thing folks!
According to the report, this concerns people between the ages of 35 & 65:

 "Aged between 35 and 65? You may want to sit down. According to statistics from a new study, 4.1 million over-65s will be living with cancer in 2040, compared with 1.3 million in 2010. And nearly one in four older people will receive a cancer diagnosis in 2040, almost double the proportion in 2010," say researchers at King’s College London.

Kings College, London eh? So we are not talking about some backwater organisation in the health service looking for their five minutes of fame; in fact we are talking about research done by a front line organisation who seek only to find truth (I doubt that ASH would qualify as members of this mob then!) and are not afraid to publish such. We have this gem from a leading oncologist:

 Professor Karol Sikora agrees: “We have an ageing population – and the biggest single risk for cancer is age, not smoking or lifestyle. Improved treatments are having an impact on survival. The next generation, the 35-65 year old's, will be more determined to get the best treatment, and will be more likely to survive as a result.”

 A survey, reported yesterday, shows that the average person wants to live until 83 and that a quarter of us wouldn’t mind hanging on until we notch up a century. In my mind, especially in this country now, that is the most morbid thought I could possibly entertain! What on earth will these anti democracy purists be like in another 39 years? Severely dead I hope! If they are so anti smoking, should they not be automatically banned from being cremated? Should they not be dissolved in vats of acid, Haigh style so that no trace of their evil being is left?
So, isn't it about time that the nanny state backed off and that these super expensive quangos went AWOL-permanently? 

Have you all noticed how much poorer the country has become  since the smoking ban became law? Has anyone taken any notice of just how many once viable businesses have now closed for ever? 12,500 and still rising - if you are at all interested. Have you noticed how 'CamerCleggs' bang on about promoting small businesses when in actual fact they are hell bent on continual destruction? Has anyone noticed how cancer rates are still rising, even though a smoking ban was certain to slow the situation down? In the first year of the ban alone cancer cases rose by 4% (M) & 3.75% (F) - that worked then Mr B Liar! Have you noticed just how corrupt our legal system has now become as smokers and business owners are more highly punished that thieves & burglars. This is simply because smokers are now the new cash cows, propping up the impoverished judicial system.

Have you also noticed how so many smokers look a damned sight better than those ugly, repulsive reptiles in power trying to banish a legal pastime? 

Do you need any further proof? OK then!

I'll take 'CD' anyday over the "3 witches of Eastwick" pictured. They smile (It think) for the camera but inside they are mere dungbeatles, killjoys, only interested in earning as much money as possible whilst destroying the pleasures of millions of people. They don't care about job losses, loss of government income, loss of personal securities such as homes, finance & emotional turmoil so long as government keeps paying their wages, listening to their crap and stopping someone from smoking! 

Do you know something, I really do think that Haigh had it right-just the wrong people!

 

 

It's all unscientific balls!

Just when you think that Tobacco Control (TC) has sunk to its lowest ever, yet another little gem rears its ugly head. We all now know that the previous atrocity, known as the Blairite years, were well and truly conned by ASH et al and also that the 'schoolboy in long trousers' made a complete ass of himself by introducing an online reformation page only to backtrack on smoking simply because the idiot didn't research the situation properly. He immediately lost whatever political credibility he may have had with that single interview!
It is also well known that despite continuous attempts to whitewash politicians, the truth is beginning to surface, much to the chagrin of Arnott, Duffy, Bauld, Dockrell etc for although they all conspired to force this evil, spiteful & socially destructive law through parliament none of them, nor anyone else, can prove that the ban has saved a single life! Yes, my old friend and fellow 'quizzer' David Taylor stood on the green, green grass outside  parliament one fine day and proclaimed that it was 'estimated' that the ban would save 40,000 lives in the first 10 years, and then promptly collapsed and died from a heart attack on Boxing Day, 2009! But how can they possibly prove that statement to be true? Estimated this, estimated that, for God's sake they rely on estimations of everything to hoodwink all & sundry. Do they actually think that should tobacco become illegal, cancer cases will magically drop to zero? If so, they are very sadly mistaken!
For now we get the long awaited news that "(It is true,) smoking does not cause lung cancer.  It is only one of many risk factors for lung cancer." What has happened is quite simple really. ASH et al, wanting to impress their desire upon whoever  was willing to listen, initially simply altered the wording to suit their agenda; ie, leave out the word NOT and there you have it-'smoking causes lung cancer'. It was very simple to build the so called 'science' around the newly formed sentence, especially for a community hell bent on destroying a perfectly legal product simply because they did not like the smell of tobacco !
 Thanks to the media and the unimaginable amount of junk science & statistics fed to them by ASH, You Gov and other government paid lackeys it is no surprise that people now think that if you smoke you are destined to get lung cancer. They would be wrong, completely wrong for the actual figures are (quote):

  Yes, a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer.  In fact, the data used is biased in the way they are collected and the actual risk for a smoker is probably less.

Now that is a considerable difference to the figures banded about by ASH, CRUK etc!
Here's something even more astounding for all you statistical genius's:

"when we actually look at the data, lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US.**" 

Now I know these figures are for the USA but we will assume that as they have rather a large number of people to base things on ( 311,591,917 - Jul 2011,Source: U.S. Census Bureau), we will transfer similar figures over to this country. On that basis we only have, based on a population of 65,000,000, and a tally of  493,242 deaths registered in England and Wales in 2010, it would mean that a maximum of 14,800 deaths would have been by the means of lung cancer. The question of course is how many of those deaths would have been smokers and how many were non smokers? And when you then consider that "About 100,000 people in the UK die each year due to smoking" you have to wonder what all the other 393,242 deaths were and why they overwhelmed the smokers figure by a 4 to 1 ratio?
And why have the remainder of the 100,000 suddenly became attributed to smoking/SHS/smokers when we we have our most erudite MPs declaring that air pollution  is killing 50,000 people per year in this country alone! Indeed, how have the other 81,200 been attributed to smoking/smokers/tobacco etc and not included in the MPs evidence of air pollutions?. Mind you, in saying that, it is unbelievable just how many deadly ailments have been placed at the humble smokers door. You have to note the first word of the quotation - "about". "About" means any number desirable. It could be 10, it could be 132 but 'they' have decided that 100,000 suits their purposes, simply because 100,000 is a massive number and also a fairly significant percentage of the actual 493,242 deaths. And remember this folks: More non smokers die than people who do smoke! Also, 100% of non smokers die, just as 100% of smokers die-or have ASH et al conjured up some different figures courtesy of YouGov?

"When we look at the data over a longer period of time, such as 50 years as we did here, the lifetime relative risk is only 8. That means that even using the biased data that is out there, a USWM smoker has only an 8x more risk of dying from lung cancer than a nonsmoker."  

 It surprised me too because I had always heard numbers like 20-40 times more risk. Statistics that are understandable and make sense... it may be a new avenue of scientific inquiry. Isn't it funny how distorted the figures have seemingly become, but then it's all to suit the crusade!

"The process of developing cancer is complex and multifactorial.  It involves genetics, the immune system, cellular irritation, DNA alteration, dose and duration of exposure, and much more. Some of the known risk factors include genetics, asbestos exposure, sex, HIV status, vitamin deficiency, diet pollution , shipbuilding and even just plain old being lazy. When some of these factors are combined they can have a synergistic effect, but none of these risk factors are directly and independently responsible for 'causing' lung cancer!"

Well, well, well, so even laziness can be a factor! That doesn't bode well for the Arnott who spends most of her highly publicly paid time sitting on her 'aristotle' in either the Hof L, anti tobacco meetings or lounging about in the Shoreditch offices does it!
"CAUSING" - Take a look in any dictionary and you will find something like, "anything producing an effect or result".  Question: At what level of occurrence would you feel comfortable saying that X "causes" Y. For myself and most scientists, we would require Y to occur at least 50% ; ie, 51% of the time. Yet the ignorant media would have you believe that X causes Y when it actually occurs less than 10% of the time. Haven't the TC mob done a marvellous job of brainwashing the people they needed to brainwash!

"Everything in life has risk; just going to work each day has risk. Are we supposed to live our lives in bed, hiding under the blanket in case a tornado should come into our bedroom? We in science, have a duty to give the public accurate information and then let them decide for themselves what risk is appropriate. To do otherwise is to subtly impose our biases on the populace."

This is exactly right! Do we not venture out of the house for fear of being hit by a tornado, or a bus, or a dive bombing wasp? Do we stop playing sports or going on a beach to play? after all, the humble flip-flops cost the NHS £40m in treatments so are all forms of sandal/flip-flops to be banned because they cost the NHS money? Should we ban climbers from climbing just because 'falls' cost the NHS £11m per annum in the Highlands? So, do we now ban every activity that may cost the NHS money or do we simply ban things that might raise objections over smells? Talking of which, I was stood at the bus station the other day, struggling to breathe in the heat, and this stupid woman produced a large bottle of spray perfume and proceeded to not only spray herself, with many sweeping movements of the arm, but smothered me with this stinking liquid as well. I soon retired from the scene. So let's ban all hairsprays, body sprays, fresh breath mouth sprays etc etc. Let's ban dogs, they stink. Let's ban eating take-aways in the street, they stink too - and overeating will definitely kill you! Let's make it illegal for chip shop doors to be left open, the stench is overpowering, in fact, where does it end?
Now we know that the so called proof has been obliterated, the cretins at ASH, RCP, CRUK etc have absolutely nowhere to hide their shamed faces. I can only imagine that Sandford et al, when interviewd on TV or radio, will remove themselves somewhat rapidly from the studios when faced with some of these facts! After all, if the tide turns and radio/tv presenters get wind of the real truth are they going to give Sandford et al as hard a time as they do smokers and those who stand up for smokers rights? Perhaps 'they' ought to read this, digest the truth and then reverse all the unscientific balls on ASH!

More "Smoking Golds"

Well, after the mini uproar of my last blog that almost caused radio hosts to have an apoplectic fit in disbelief, it transpires that another hero of the Olympics has been spotted having a nice, quiet, relaxing cigarette. Not only is our sporting hero a fellow gold medallist, he also happens to be the only Briton to outgun all others in the worlds greatest cycle race -the Tour de France. Yes folks we are talking about the worlds greatest cyclist, Mr Bradley Wiggins!

 

How our 'smoke free' mad politicians can possibly cope with this latest revelation is totally beyond me for if we take a quick trip back we will find that Diane Abbot was proclaiming that we should have a 'smoke free games' to set an example to the rest of the world! The silly woman is obviously deranged and obviously feels that people should not have the right to do something they enjoy..... if others don't happen to like it! Herr Lansley has now no doubt completely disowned 'Wiggo' as some  sort of anti social loon. It doesn't get much more crazy does it!

We salute our greatest pedal pusher ever for having the balls to let the world know that he doesn't care if others see him smoking, he doesn't care about the 'establishments' freakish efforts to control people's enjoyments. He's a fit, lean mean cycling machine that smokes AND wins gold medals-you can't really fault that now can you!

Meanwhile up in Blackpool (or "Smackpool" as many are wont to call the place) we have the most idiotic nonsense ever from a local council as Councillor Ivan Taylor (happens to be chairman of Blackpool’s Health and Wellbeing Board,) has decided that children need a whole park, which happens to be outdoors, to be smoke free. He obviously doesn't realise that cigarette smoke rises  upward and instantly disappears into the atmosphere, never to be seen again! It is scientifically proven that SHS in an outdoor environment simply doesn't exist-but I doubt that this geriatric porker has any knowledge about smoking bans apart from the fact that he feels they are good because he doesn't like the smell of smoke! In his radio interview this morning he mentioned the cost ('they cost a fortune') of smoking related treatments to the NHS-stupid boy Pike! He shot himself in one foot immediately as smokers cost the least of the 'big 3'. He then went on to describe parks as public, recreational areas-stupid boy Pike (again)! Indeed, they are public places which is exactly why 'Jo Public' goes for a wander round a section of our 'green & pleasant land'! Exactly why some people simply wander off to a park, find a bench and sit in solitude to contemplate whilst enjoying that which is legal-and gets this government about £11bn per annum in revenue. Cllr Taylor fails to mention any council tax rebates for those who smoke and also wish to use the 'public' park facilities. Perhaps you would like to email this geriatric numpty at cllr.ivan.taylor@blackpool.gov.uk and let this fool know exactly what you think of this idiotic policy for it is total discrimination against those who choose to smoke. I have already written, politely I might add, but I doubt very much he'll be able to reply.
His second aim of this park ban that he wants children to avoid espying people smoking-now we are getting to the nub of it! Why don't the local council go the whole hog and ban smoking on the beach, on the promenade and in the town itself? That way they can do to themselves exactly what this country is slowly doing to itself-approaching bankruptcy, except, with holidaymakers avoiding the cheerless dump, the local economy is going to suffer horrendously. Have they got the balls to do this? I don't think so.
Cllr Taylor is obviously just another that fails to see beyond the end of his snout as Layton WMC has just announced its final event-closure. Reasons quoted? Tha smoking ban has lost them membership, thus customers, thus revenue. Can't get much simpler than that can it!
Meanwhile, despite our loony Labour controlled council deciding that smoking in Smackpool Blackpool must not be seen it seems that our Olympians are simply "Smoking Hot" in the Balearics! Proof yet again that smoking is considered by millions as nothing more than a relaxant.

Smoking - Goldstyle

Isn't it amazing how birds come home to roost!
Several months ago I was informed of a party of 40 sporting enthusiasts wanting to attend the Olympics. They had been saving for 4 years and accrued about £5,000 apiece to spend in London whilst this two week sporting extravaganza took place. There was only one proviso - they wanted to know where they could smoke.
Here started their problems. despite numerous letters to 'LOCOG' they got no sane or sensible replies apart from the fact that a certain dark skinned lump of humanity wanted smoking banned OUTSIDE the Olympic complex as well as inside!

Diane 'Bunteresque' Abbot

                  

Billy Bunter

Diane Abbot, a killjoy if ever there was one, had asked Lord Coe:

“I think it would send out a great message if the Olympic Games were completely smoke-free. We have worked hard to bring the Olympic Games to Britain. It should be a time in which we take a lead and showcase what Britain is about to the rest of the world. Hackney will host a third of the Games area, and I am determined that this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity is something that the people of Hackney will be proud of.

“I think that people can manage without a fag for the few hours that they are in the Olympic Park. Some people do not get to smoke all day because their offices are smoke-free zones.

“Will the Olympic park be tobacco-free indoors and out? Public health advocates have been urging LOCOG to make the London Olympics tobacco-free since 2009.

“LOCOG has so far done nothing to publicise a commitment to this, and the opportunity to promote a tobacco-free Olympics is slipping away. LOCOG must take the lead on this, urgently.”

Thankfully Lord Coe and the power crazed officianado's at LOCOG realised that banning smoking OUTSIDE was not a possibility-but they still never replied to the 40 strong group waiting to book their fortnight at the Olympics. In fact, they gave up waiting for a definitive answer  and booked flights to Bulgaria instead! When 38 out of 40 people smoke it is not too difficult to realise that maybe all this Olympic hype about smoke free is wasted on people hell bent on enjoying themselves. People like Diane Abbot simply want to stifle people's freedom of choice yet no one has stifled HER freedom of choice to keep eating until becoming 'Bunteresque'! Strangely, not one of the forty now in Bulgaria are overweight and Bulgaria will benefit greatly from the £200,000 taken with them (less air fares of course).
Imagine then the sheer delight at the news that Britain's gold medallists enjoy a fag or two! Oh the joy that must bring to faces of all such as the 'Bunteresque' Abbot et al. Can you imagine her face and that of the Arnott as  our 10,000 mtrs gold medallist, distance runner supreme, Mo Farah collects his gold medal whilst thinking about nipping out the back for a cigarette!
  Just imagine that, enjoying cigarettes and still being able to run 10,000 metres faster than anybody else-ASH, eat your hearts out!!!
But it gets better as the darling of   'Team GB', Jessica Ennis was also spotted out back enjoying a cigarette-and why the bloody hell not I ask?
                 Jessica said, after quitting the Olympics so as to be able to smoke in peace (a peace pipe maybe?),

  “Last week I only had roll-ups and I really wanted a straight. This amazing hurdler from Finland offered me one and we got chatting, now we’re friends. Smoking brings people together, which should be what the Olympics is all about.”

Well, err, yes Jessica. Millions of people would agree with you but we have the anti tobacco bigots, the killjoys, the Abbots, the Arnotts, the Duffy's, the Dockrell's, the Lansleys etc who just cannot seem to leave people in peace to enjoy life as they see fit to enjoy it. Even Andy Murray, after winning the tennis (very benevolent of Roger!) 
        saw his favoured 'briar pipe' confiscated by over zealous officials! Now I'm afraid that if that was my property they would have had to arrest me for defending my own property before I allowed them to steal my personal possessions. They may ask you not to smoke but they have no power to remove your goods-that is theft.
Mo Farah summed it all up when he said:

  “When you’ve got the hopes and dreams of a nation on your shoulders, that’s when you really need a fag. Personally it’s the only thing that sorts me out before a race.”

And  Doctor Stephen Malley said: “There is some evidence that cigarettes are detrimental to the health but it has never been proved".
Of course the good Dr is absolutely right and the anti tobacco mobsters need to realise that the fact is that three of our top athletes enjoy smoking, are not in the slightest bit repentant about smoking OUTSIDE the Olympic venue, and are quite happy to leave the games behind to enjoy a peaceful drag or three. In fact, Mo Farah informs us: “When I was twelve I saw Daley Thompson having a cig outside a stadium and because of how cool he looked I decided to take up athletics.”
Tomorrow will show us just how crooked government, in cahoots with ASH, Avaaz & other anti tobacco groups around the world, really are as they will ensure that the general public's 235,000 "NO" votes to plain packaging are dwarfed by their paid lackeys.
Meanwhile our group of forty sporting fans are still celebrating Britain's fantastic medals haul in Bulgaria, probably enjoying themselves immensely with a fag and a beer whilst the likes of the 'Bunteresque' Abbot can sit back and count the financial cost of these games knowing that she has played a major part in denying our capitals economy of circa £200,000! Politicians are not very clever at times are they!
I will try and contact our one time hopeful Olympic sporting fanatics when they get back and see what they have to say.