Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
[In the last post I nonchalantly suggested that cancer and tobacco are not linked. I copped a heap of abuse including demands that I qualify such a ridiculous statement. Okay, here it is. It's long and should only interest those who relish the truth.]
Before you read this, do me a favour and cleanse your mind of your previously-held convictions and beliefs. Because what you are about to read will shock you. Therefore, you will be tempted to dismiss it out of hand, and you may well do that. But it is this type of demonstrative indoctrination that has forced you to believe what is clearly wrong.
Everyone now believes that smoking is bad for you. If you disagree you risk being accused of insanity. The fact is, it matters not whether smoking is good or bad for you, it matters not whether the Earth is warming or cooling. What really matters is that we have been lied to... lied to over such a period with such repetition that misinformation becomes an accepted "truth".
Tobacco is just one of a long list of fibs.
The anti smoking lobby has been so successful that to say what I am about to say renders me bonkers. (At least global warming has its doubters.) If this can happen with the smoking debate, then it can and does happen with myriad other things our governments have decided we should believe.
It is not about tobacco; it's about the lies we are told about tobacco.
The dishonest anti-smoking lobby was gearing up to bring down the tobacco companies on the back of bullshit figures that showed smoking caused so many deaths.
The figures were false but struck a chord with governments who thought they could slash health budgets. They haven't, in fact health budgets have ballooned dramatically since the anti-tobacco lobby has had its way. Resultant obesity, heart disease and diabetes have replaced tobacco with devastating results.
Tobacco is a vegetable, formerly "snuff", brought back from the Americas by Columbus, or was it Sir Francis Drake, a mere 400 years ago. People were still dying from the same diseases they were dying from 1,000 years ago. (Except the ones we have been able to inoculate against.)
The nation with the highest incidence of smoking in the world at this time is Japan. The nation with the lowest incidence of lung cancer and heart disease in the world and with the highest life expectancy rate in the world at this time is Japan.
In fact W.H.O. figures show most countries with high rates of smoking have longer life expectancy rates. "What! This cannot be right! ", you say.
It is right!
Now that almost everyone has given up smoking, there is an obesity and diabetes epidemic. No figures whatsoever show a diminution in any "smoking-related" diseases.
They link lung cancer and heart disease to smoking. This is a fantastic lie. There is no linkage at all! In fact the reverse is true!
There are many old people who smoke. There are no old, obese diabetics.
The oldest person to have lived, an Indian lady who died at 122 years of age, smoked heavily all her life... but that's an unfair generalisation and without a scientific base.
The per capita number of lung cancer deaths in Australia continues to rise, despite a massive drop in smoking rates.
According to figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there were more than 7,600 deaths from trachea and lung cancer in 2007, up by about 900 on the number recorded in 1998. All this despite a fall in the incidence of smoking of almost 30%. So, who's telling fibs?
Surely these facts tell us something about the dishonesty of the rich Quit mob! The anti-smoking lobby is an unstoppable, cashed up, amorphous juggernaut intent on refinancing itself into permanency with outright lies.
It has certainly been a marketing coup, appealing to the gullible. And it has worked.
It breaks and ignores every consumer law ever enacted.
Glance at the hideous pics on a pack of tobacco and ask yourself if this can possibly be true. If you actually believe smoking causes your toes to drop off and your teeth to fall out, then don't bother to read any further. If they can lie about that, what else have they lied about?
Figures clearly show that high rates of smoking throughout the World are commensurate with longer-life expectancy rates, so the tobacco lie is not simply about cancer or heart disease but about health in general.
This can't be true you say? Don't trust me? Look it up, I have supplied enough links from truthful scientists to keep you reading on the subject for a week! The real facts are never promoted... but they are freely available to anyone who wants to view them!
There has never been any relationship shown between cancer and tobacco and there never will be. Because there is none. People who have never smoked die every minute from cancer, heart disease and from the same ailments they have always died from. Yet the anti-smoking lobby is allowed to attribute every death to tobacco. Cancer may be caused by burnt toast for all they, or we, know. It certainly has discernible genetic linkage.
Have you ever wondered why there are very few smoking statistics reported by the "Anti Smoking Council". Well here's why: The research was done all right, and not for the first time, using the Quit group and the smoking group.
Recent research involved five thousand people over five years. In the fourth year it was abandoned because there was a clear increase in contracted cancers in the Quit group. This was despite much earlier research showing exactly the same result. That research result was suppressed too.
They keep trying to find a research protocol that will show what they profess, but they continue to fail to do so.
Lauren A. Colby, a distinguished author and extensive researcher in this field writes:
"High rates of smoking translate, in many cases, to longer life expectancy and lower rates of lung cancer. For males, in 1994, the country with the highest life expectancy (76.6 years) was Iceland, where 31% of the men smoked. The next runner-up was Japan, where 59% of the men smoked, and life expectancy was 76.5 years. Other countries with high rates of male smoking and long life expectancies included Israel (45%, 75.9 years); Greece (46%, 75.2 years); Cuba (49.3%, 74.7 years) and Spain (48%, 74.5 years).
"Clearly, these figures rebut the hysterical claims of anti-smoking organisations. Figures bandied about in this country, and never challenged, estimate that smoking costs the smoker at least seven years of life expectancy.
"Figures circulated in Europe and cited on Mr. Van der Griendt's web page, claim as much as 20 to 25 years of loss of life expectancy. But the official vital statistics from countries with high rates of smoking fail to validate these claims. To the contrary, it turns out that some of the countries with the highest rates of smoking have the longest life expectancies. This is important, not only from the standpoint of lung cancer, but also from the standpoint of heart disease.
"If, as is frequently claimed, smoking leads to heart attacks, the effects should clearly show up in the form of greatly reduced life spans in countries where a lot of people smoke. They don't."
"The facts are simply these: People who smoke live longer, sustain fewer heart attacks and lung cancers, and suffer less from obesity and diabetes."
Hmmm... If you want to live longer, all available statistics curiously indicate that you should start smoking as soon as possible. If governments were fair dinkum about our health they should forget tobacco and consider this:
Vehicle emissions (only one poison of which is carbon monoxide) are ten thousand times more toxic than tobacco.
Sixty nine million tonnes of this cocktail of poisonous shit was dumped on Australian suburbs in one year (according to Federal Government figures). Now, this could have some carcinogenic connection with cancer. But then again, as with tobacco, cancer was prevalent long before the internal combustion engine was invented.
Governments would be kicked out if they tried to ban the internal combustion engine, or if they put health warnings and photos of sick children, rotting teeth, gangrenous limbs and affected lungs on petrol and diesel bowsers.
The anti-smoking lobby is where the big money is, and many have made millions by using our money for the false research results they want.
Ask anyone if smoking causes lung cancer. They will say, "Of course it does!" Yet all of the suppressed research data, and common sense, dictates that that is a lie!
If governments really cared about us they would ban us entry to all underground car parks without gas masks. Sounds a bit over the top, eh? Well, consider this: It takes as little as 20 minutes to die from lethal toxicity when you place a tube from the exhaust pipe of your idling engine into your car, okay, now try killing yourself with a cigarette the same way.
If you wanted to neck yourself, would you wind the windows up in your car and start smoking? Of course not! You'd be there for 90 years, slowly dying of boredom.
You can sit at a sidewalk café having lunch, not two feet from thousands of vehicles spewing tonnes of this poisonous crap on to your food and all over your clothes and your kids, yet you can't legally have an innocuous cigarette within 4 metres.
The bleating blonde looking for a million dollar pay-out for her cancer she says was contracted from working in an RSL club has a slim chance of settlement. But does the poor bloke working for years at a freeway toll station have a case? Not yet. The lawyers will love this one, at least the facts will make more sense to a judge and jury!
Application of Section 52-7 of the Trade Practices Act to the Anti Smoking Council is non-existent. They are able to tell the most blatant of lies and quote the most outrageous of patently false figures.
If they don't reduce smoking, their budgets will be cut. Authorities turn a blind eye. Courts are selective in their judgments. Advocates do not submit the facts. Therefore people actually believe smoking makes you blind, makes your teeth fall out and causes gangrene in your legs.
Anyone with an IQ above four should realise that this sort of public mass indoctrination is total frogshit!
Our taxes are used now to convince us of what governments want us to believe. We used to use our logic to decide ourselves what did and didn't make sense.
The anti-smoking lobby is allowed, somehow, to attribute every death, apart from in plane crashes, to smoking... yet people were dying more often and younger before tobacco existed.
Life expectancy, world-wide, steadily increased while smoking prevalence was busily reaching its highest levels.
The most effective of lies that has been perpetrated is "passive smoking". What frogshit! This lie is to enforce pressure on smokers from people who have stopped smoking or who have never smoked. And it works! Who complains more than a reformed smoker? Clever stuff.
But it's not correct! Smoke becomes inert the moment it meets the air (carbon monoxide doesn't). That's why people who smoke do the drawback and don't allow the smoke to escape.
When the cops find a crop of marijuana and burn 20 tonne of the stuff, do you notice birds falling out of trees or emus running around in circles bumping into spaced-out kangaroos? Of course not! The smoke is rendered inert. If it wasn't, those moronic, tree-hugging Greenies would be screaming about the poor animals' welfare and racing off to the bonfire to get a free hit of hooch themselves.
I'm not saying cigarettes are good for you (although figures suggest they do you no harm) but neither are a hundred other things we do daily, like eating a chicken that was an egg 29 days ago, crossing the road, red cordial, snow skiing or bungee jumping.
Vinegar will make you cough, red wine and pepper will make you sneeze, strawberries, peanut butter and bananas can produce wild reactions. Dairy products cause allergies and rashes.
The biggest killer in the first world is heart disease. The main cause of which, we are told, is stress. If smoking relieves stress (and it certainly does) how many heart attacks have cigarettes prevented? No figures on that?
Nor are there any figures on the therapeutic benefits of pure nicotine, now that it is successfully used on alzheimers patients to increase memory retention.
A Westminster imperative was that laws be framed to protect other people from you and you from other people, not you from yourself!
Doctors, one of the dumbest reactionary groups in the community, still lecture on the evils of smoking without having a clue what they're talking about. They only ever repeat, parrot fashion, what they read in the medical journals or see on TV ads.
Doctors are too busy causing severe breakdown in our immune systems by over prescribing all types of antibiotics to look closely at the idiocy of these so-called smoking "statistics".
Have you ever been to a doctor's surgery and walked out without a prescription? Ever? Ever wondered why? Has a doctor ever told you to go home and go to bed, that you will get better utilising your own inbuilt immune system, naturally, without his interference? Has he ever told you that, if you can recover in this natural way, you will have a tolerance for this same malady if you come in contact with it again?
Has he ever told you that, by taking the antibiotics he has just prescribed for you, you will destroy your ability, via white cell malfunction, to combat the ailment in future? No! People will recover from most illnesses if they are left alone for their immune systems to function normally.
Every time we take an antibiotic, we slowly kill our immune system because it has no role to play anymore. Use it or lose it!
The reason why you get prescriptions from doctors is that the chemical companies shower them with valuable incentives to prescribe certain drugs in preference to others. So, whether one drug was better or worse for you, more addictive or less addictive, or of no use at all, or positively injurious, is of no consequence.
A free trip to the Bahamas for the doctor and his wife supersedes by far the Hippocratic Oath of allegiance to your welfare.
We have become a nation of drug takers. We are even prescribed drugs to give our children when they refuse to behave. We invent fancy acronymed names for this bad behaviour to justify the cost of the drugs doctors prescribe. The chemical companies have manipulated and bribed naive GPs into changing our lives for the worse.
We tend to trust GPs. Chemical companies know that we do, and there lies a marketing bonanza ...and the problem.
Tobacco companies are mongrel bastards because they push a product that is addictive. How nice would it be to be able to market a product that people had to buy whether they really wanted to or not? So why not attack the breweries? The wine industry? The spirits manufacturers? Coca Cola? Red Bull? Shampoos and conditioners?(that's another story in itself), Chocolate manufacturers? Coffee importers?
Why not attack ridiculous "use by dates" or the thousand companies that purposefully in-build obsolescence to their products, ensuring you have to chuck their product out and buy another? Where is the logic?
I have never smoked tailor-made cigarettes, because of the chemicals in them, only tobacco. Roll-your-own Drum tobacco! I get it from a pilot friend, duty free. Pure, naturally grown, aromatic tobacco.
The following publication, in part, of "The Scientific Scandal of Anti-smoking", by J. R. Johnstone, PhD (Monash) and P.D.Finch, Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Statistics (Monash) shows in graphic detail how we are lied to. It is a condemnation of not only inaccurate information but the crass abuse of the integrity of scientific data itself:
"…Refusal to consider conflicting evidence is the negation of the scientific method. It has been the hallmark of fifty years of anti-smoking propaganda and what with good reason may well be described as one of the greatest scandals in 500 years of modern science.
"…So what were the results of the esteemed Whitehall tobacco study in 1968? They were contrary to all expectation. The Quit group showed no improvement in life expectancy. Nor was there any change in the death rates due to heart disease, lung cancer, or any other cause with one exception: certain other cancers were more than twice as common in the Quit group. Later, after twenty years there was still no benefit in life expectancy for the Quit group.
"Over the next decade the results of other similar trials appeared. It had been argued that if an improvement in one life-style factor, smoking, were of benefit, then an improvement in several – eg. smoking, diet and exercise - should produce even clearer benefits. And so appeared the results of the whimsically acronymed Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial or MRFIT, with its 12,886 American subjects. Similarly, in Europe 60,881 subjects in four countries took part in the WHO (World Health Organisation) Collaborative Trial. In Sweden the Goteborg study had 30,022 subjects. These were enormously expensive, wide-spread and time-consuming experiments.
"In all, there were 6 such trials with a total of over a hundred thousand subjects each engaged for an average of 7.4 years, a grand total of nearly 800,000 subject-years. The results of all were uniform, forthright and unequivocal: Giving up smoking, even when fortified by improved diet and exercise, produced no increase in life expectancy. Nor was there any change in the death rate for heart disease or for cancer. A decade of expensive and protracted research had produced a quite unexpected result." It was not only ignored, it was suppressed.
"…The rejection (by the anti-smoking lobby) of consistent results from controlled trials and the acceptance of far inferior data would not be countenanced in any other area of medical science. Anyone who suggested doing so would be met with howls of derision and questions as to their intelligence if not their sanity. But where smoking and health are being considered, this debasement of science is commonplace and passes without comment.
"…Faulty methodology, was used by the Australian authorities to deduce that smoking causes premature death to the extent of 17,800 per year in Australia. Their conclusions should be compared with the results of a survey by the Australian Statistician in 1991 of 22,200 households, chosen at random. This showed ‘long term conditions', including cancer and heart disease, to be more common in non-smokers than smokers.
"Again this vital information was suppressed.
"…During all this time health authorities have repeatedly and persistently lied to the public. Consider just one of innumerable examples. In June 1988, in Western Australia the Health Department in full page advertisements in local papers declared: ‘The statistics are frightening. Smoking will kill almost 700 women in Western Australia this year. If present trends continue, lung cancer will soon overtake breast cancer as the most common malignant cancer in women'.
"What was frightening was not the statistics but the fact that a Health Department should lie about them. In 1987 the same Health Department in its own publications had said: ‘Suggestions by some commentators that lung cancer deaths in women will overtake breast cancer deaths in the next few years look increasingly unlikely… female lung cancer death rates have fallen for the last 2 years.' Yet it was predicted that breast cancer would far outweigh lung cancer for the next 14 years.
"What the public were told was not just an untruth but the reverse of the truth. This is classic Orwellian Newspeak. The public are given what George Orwell in ‘1984' named ‘prolefeed' – lies. Orwell must have smiled wryly in his grave.
"…Above all, has been the repeated and world-wide directive that smokers should quit and live longer when every controlled trial without exception has demonstrated this claim to be false.
"…And who cares about smoking anyway... smoking is really a secondary issue. The primary issue is the integrity of science and that should have no use-by date. When the processes of science are misused, even if for what seems a good reason, science and its practitioners are alike degraded."
Full report, including numerous links to this subject: http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
Incredible as it seems, if you want to live longer, all valid available research suggests you should immediately take up smoking. Certainly don't quit.
I like the taste of tobacco and people at one time used to enjoy the aroma until they were convinced it stank. Sixty a day for well over half a century and I can still outrun most 20 year-olds. Never given up. Don't want to give up now and will never give up in future, certainly never because some lying bastard feeds me a load of illogical garbage based on purposefully skewed scientific data.
[But I do have to admit that an uncle of mine did die from tobacco. He was driving on a back-road from Mildura to Rufus River, trying to roll a cigarette with one hand. He went off the road straight into a fucking tree, stone dead!]