Sunday, 9 October 2016

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!



3)        they-make-a-change-under-new-cost-cutting-measures/























Sunday, 18 September 2016

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; ) 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’; (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; (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. 



Sunday, 7 February 2016

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.


Bloomberg News;

Australia (anti-smoker paradise);

New York (another anti-smoker paradise);


Politicians duped and demoralised:


Friday, 15 January 2016

War Against The Weak - Eugenics Evolution

Eugenics Evolution - The next level in USA - courtesy of
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

This proposed rule would require each public housing agency (PHA) administering public housing to implement a smoke-free policy, in all living units, indoor common areas in public housing, and in PHA administrative office buildings and all outdoor areas up to 25 feet from the housing and administrative office buildings. (paraphrased).

Note; Comment Due Date: January 19, 2016.  
There is still time to submit YOUR comment, even at this late stage. 
(If nothing else, "I object to this proposal" will do!

Here are the relevant links ;
To Comment:!searchResults;rpp=25;po=0;s=FR-5597-P-02;fp=true;ns=true
"Eugenics was the pseudoscience aimed at "improving" the human race. In its extreme, racist form, this meant wiping away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. [In USA],  elitists, utopians and so-called progressives fused their smoldering race fears and class bias with their desire to make a better world." Preying on the weakest minority members of society was their hallmark. During the 20th century's first decades, California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement, pre-dating and strongly influencing Hitler's infamous eugenics program, but this type of original bigotry was outlawed several years ago. These eugenic nutters were given a bloody nose those many years ago and they ran off to hide under their slimy rocks. But they never went away, they just changed tack, evolved, and came back wearing a different face mask and a new con trick; Health!

Today, California has more than its fair share of eugenic-style nutters as well as substantial homelessness and wide inequalities in wealth and it is now the epicentre of the tobacco CONTROL movement, the modern temperance (anti-alcohol) movement, the healthist and anti-obesity movement. California may be the 'poster boy' state for the new puritanical 'progressives' but much of the remaining US has been infected with this Californian cancer too, and much of the western world is now also in the grip of this insidious culture.

Traditional eugenics considered race, ethnicity ('weak' genes) and physical/mental imperfection to be their defining 'unfit' characteristics, but modern-day eugenicists define the new 'weak' to be  lifestyle related. While racial bigotry still simmers under the surface, hidden in a dark place tentatively peeking out every now and then, the new 'weak' are those who are too 'weak' to maintain what is defined as a (Nordic stereotypical?) 'healthy lifestyle' ie. unable to control their food intake, alcohol consumption, quit smoking or do sufficient exercise. 

In reality the real 'weak', are not the infirm, the aged, the mentally ill or others who may be  dependent upon the goodwill of their fellow man (There but for the grace of god go I - OR YOU)! Nor are those who smoke, drink, may be a bit overweight or not so fit. It is those who suck it all up, allow themselves to be treated like sheep so they can be (or conned into believing they can be) part of the 'superior' class, or to coin an old phrase, part of the supercilious 'in-crowd'. The weak are those who allow themselves to be controlled by exploitation of their ego, pride, envy and greed. They are those who are mentally weak, easily influenced and deceived. They are those who haven't the wherewithal to realise they are being conned or the strength of character to stand up and be counted if they do. Instead, they choose to take the path-of-least-resistance and con themselves into believing that they are 'doing the right thing', as long as it does not inconvenience themselves. The weakest by far however are not even these gullible fools who can be easily conned.

ANYONE, and I mean anyone - not just the credulous can be conned if the 'con' is persuasive enough and apparently credible enough. The distinction of weakest goes to those who realise, or suspect that they have been victims of a 'con' and may have prematurely nailed their colours to the mast, but do not have the strength of character to accept that fact.  Ironically, these victims of deception will deny being victims (often to themselves as well as others), to avoid thinking of themselves as being weak minded, foolish, or being thought of as weak or foolish by others. Admitting such is too painful for them to handle. Some will even support, aid and abet their deceiver in the similar exploitation of others, rather than admit they were foolishly deceived themselves.

The most effective con trick, such as with the anti-smoker deception, begins platonically and may seem perfectly reasonable to begin with but grows ever more sinister as it develops.  The knack is in getting the victim tied in as early as possible - while it still appears reasonable. Once signed-up to it however, the con has the victim by the short and curlies. The original freely given support becomes strained as the pressure is ramped up to each new level. The 'reasonable' becomes slightly unreasonable to very unreasonable to grossly wrong. The victim becomes increasingly uncomfortable but is mentally committed and convinces him(her)self each time that it is still reasonable. At sometime during this process it becomes obvious that they have been had and that the parameters they thought they signed up to had been grossly exceeded. The victims response following this self-realisation is what separates the weak from the strong.

The anti-smoker agenda is the quintessential example of this type of con trick. It is one of the largest mass deceptions and the most successful use of herd psychology in human history. It demonstrates how weak minds can be controlled by exploiting human emotion, ego and greed. Today we see these parameters stretched way beyond 'grossly wrong'. Anyone who thinks it is still reasonable today surely has deep seated mental problems (eg. chronic smokerphobia)- OR they are being well paid to think it is reasonable.

As the anti-smoker deception unravels however, many good people are standing against anti-smoker nutters and many places in USA are halting the Goose-stepping march of those anti-smoker nutters. Many are refusing to implement new intolerant, destructive smoke bans or relaxing, rescinding, amending existing bans to ameliorate existing social and economic damage. eg; Indiana: Kentucky: Nevada: But there are even more places where common sense is prevailing and anti-smoker coercive 'ordinances' are being ditched, such as the appropriately named Liberty, Texas or Cleburne, Texas or Preston County in West Virginia. In other places, and not just US, there is evidence that smoke bans are being ignored (eg Greece), not or lightly enforced and smokers are finding ways of stymieing anti-smoker nutter prohibition efforts.

It should also be clear, or at least strongly suspected to those who have looked, that smokers are not quitting anymore! In order to justify their existence and avoid suggestions of failure, anti-smoker organisations do claim that smokers are declining in numbers (except when they want more funding). Their figures however, (worked out on the back of a fag packet over a few pints in one of the few remaining pubs?) are no more than wild guesstimates plus wishful thinking coupled with a psychological tactic to try and isolate smokers ("Resistance is futile I tell you- everyone is complying"- Lord Haw Haw (in WW2) tried the same tactics.) Who, in this oppressive climate, is daft enough to admit being a smoker, while probably getting their tobacco from illicit sources?

'They' tell you that they can control illicit tobacco too but the facts tell a different story. Legal high tax sales (used to suggest that smoking is reducing) are declining rapidly BUT illicit tobacco sales are booming;

eg. Australia (apparent anti-smoker paradise); ILLEGAL tobacco is booming across Australia with a 30 per cent increase in black market trade in the past two years costing taxpayers more than $1.35 billion, a new report has found. Illicit tobacco continues to fund international crime syndicates with record tax increases and plain packaging fuelling the demand for cheap counterfeit and contraband cigarettes,

and New York (apparent US anti-smoker paradise); New York’s revenue from cigarette taxes has plunged by $400 million over the past five years. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine shows the state lost a hefty $1.3 billion in uncollected taxes each year. Smokers responded to higher prices by turning to the black market, crossing state lines and buying cheaper brands from Native American outlets. The last 10 years have a been a boon to organized crime, with 58 percent of New York’s cigarettes supplied from out-of-state, according to the Tax Foundation. The number of packs bought paying the full tax has also collapsed by 62 percent.

In UK; "According to Prof West, research suggests that smoking rates in the UK have increased in 2015." Then lo and behold - They do indeed want more funding; ASH begs Government for more money!

While in the rest of the world; Most-of-the-worlds-smokers-have-no-plans-to-quit.

However, there are still places where anti-smoker extremists, intent on slash and burn tactics and a scorched earth policy before they are fully exposed, have far too much influence on some public servants and some in the medical community - who should all read, mark, learn and inwardly digest this simple but relevant quote;

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”      Edmund Burke.

In USA, a consultation is proposing state legislation that is effectively De-facto tobacco prohibition, purporting to be concerned for the health of residents and to 'help' them quit smoking for their own good. However, Smokers are not that easily bullied or cowed - and individuals within the anti-smoker industry know that.  (This is the reason they have to increase the coercion and bigotry by use of ever more extreme measures). Remember too that it is NOT organizations but INDIVIDUALS hiding within organizations who are responsible and who should ultimately be held to account! The reality is that this proposal effectively seeks to degrade, isolate and ultimately EVICT smokers from all social housing, most likely resulting in them becoming homeless - or is the intention to move recalcitrant smokers to ghettos?  Either way, this is reminiscent of Hitler's re-location of Jews in the 1930's - before they implemented their end-game solution. I have little doubt that this proposal will ultimately be supported given the amount of effort/money that has clearly been thrown at it. The views of the public will likely be ignored once again, in preference to the dozens of tobacco CONTROL industry employees who have their parasitic lifestyle and salaries to protect and extend. Ultimately however, this sort of excessive state intrusion into the lives of the general public will fail - it always has, but if resistance to this is not forthcoming NOW, it will take much longer before the anti-smoker deception fails and the damage/injury caused, on many levels, will much greater.


This is the comment I submitted;

I have been fascinated for years as to why and how easy it was for Nazi ideology in 1930's Germany to convince normal, intelligent, rational Germans to hate Jews and other minorities with such vicious fervour. I have met many Germans and found them no less sane, intelligent, nor immoral than, say, British or Americans. Why did those apparently normal Germans allow, even encourage a pathological psychopath to treat the Jewish race etc. with such disdain that eventually led to such a disastrous and tragic end-game solution? Please take a minute to consider this and try to explain, to your own satisfaction, how this happened. Also, in terms of basic human nature and susceptibility to influence by dark forces, what makes us any different today?

I have to say that I am aghast to see a similar scenario being played out in modern-day USA (and UK) and this proposal is a pretty good example of that process. Reading some of the comments, It becomes clearer to me how apparently normal people can be led into supporting evil, without them realising it.

While I appreciate that the majority of comments on here are from representatives of the wealthy tobacco CONTROL industry in all its forms, I am sure that there will also be many lay-persons who have been led to believe that smokers do represent a threat to their health. The threat of ill health caused by Jews was the central plank of the de-normalization campaign aimed at Jews in the 1930's too. In BOTH cases that threat was false / grossly exaggerated, manufactured in order to invoke irrational fear amongst the unsuspecting. (and no doubt those same people will want to invoke 'Godwin's Law' to discredit any such comparisons). But there is more to this than just manufactured irrational fear. People have been deceived by 'experts' into wrongly believing that the 'science' behind smoking is settled and that their actions are promoting 'good', not evil. I suggest that the Milgram Experiments in the 1960's, replicated in 2009 (should be viewed on YouTube) provides part of the explanation of this human frailty.

I have attached a copy of my consultation response to the British government (2014) regarding a proposal to ban smoking in cars (The issues are basically the same). I examine anti-smoker rhetoric and 'science' that has been reduced to nothing more than an political advocacy tool to promote their dogma. You may note that I predicted this attack on peoples freedoms, homes and private lives nearly two years ago but I am no clairvoyant, this is an obvious progression in salami-slice prohibition.

Make no mistake, this proposed ordinance WILL cause much hardship and probably much much worse, amongst those who refuse to be bullied. Wider society and other minority groups will also be adversely affected as a result of the precedent this would set - with worldwide implications. This should NEVER be tolerated in any civilised society. The main proponents, of this attempt to segregate and degrade the identities of certain minorities in society (it is NOT about health), think that they are untouchable. With the current experts-can-do-no-wrong blind culture that currently pervades western society, this is probably the case - for the time being at least. It could however, be a good time for good people to collate relevant evidence so that those individuals responsible can be called to account WHEN this insidious culture eventually collapses.


Note; Hitler's anti-smoker campaign;
While Winston Churchill puffed away on his cigars throughout the war, Hitler had a deep-seated, pathological hatred for tobacco smoking. Fortunately for the World, Hitler's hatred of smoking/smokers and the fact that he quit as a young man allowed the development of his Parkinson's disease (CNS diseases are prevented or delayed by smoking). He developed heart problems too. If he had continued to smoke and thereby maintained his full cognitive ability and physical health, the outcome of the 2nd World War may have been quite different.

Kin_Free; 15/01/16