Click on images
Pete Robinson: Truth or consequences
30 January, 2008
When I'm in need of a good laugh I turn to the ASH Daily News Bulletins and they rarely let me down. Anything that even remotely attacks the smoker is there, even the odd house fire.
Meanwhile any tobacco related item which could be detrimental to their cause is carefully censored. To read their garbage you'd think pubs were currently enjoying an unprecedented era of prosperity with their thronging customers ecstatic at the new state of affairs.
But it's the junk science and distorted statistics that truly defy conventional logic. Unless you happen to be an anti of course, in which case you'll believe anything they tell you.
For example new 'research' from Hawaii confirms that smoking gives you "both colon and rectal cancer". But smoke filter-tipped ciggies and you'll get "rectal cancer but not colon cancer". Hence filters apparently filter out colon cancer.
Yes, it's too absurd for anyone but an anti to believe, yet ASH preach such daft beliefs as if they were gospel.
ASH's latest report carries the story of a big rise in lung cancer in Australia. Despite Australian smoking rates falling to record lows, lung cancer rates have soared 21 per cent for women and 24 per cent for men in just five years.
Oh dear. Lung cancer up a fifth despite smoking bans as bad as ours? How do ASH explain that one away?
Simple. ASH says it's the "deadly legacy of an era of few restrictions on sales of cigarettes and where they were smoked." In other words it's non-smoking people who used to smoke a decade or more ago that are now turning up their toes en masse.
The report goes on to state: "More than 80 per cent of lung cancer cases are caused by smoking, and the disease takes about 20 years to develop."
Now I'd strongly argue with both those figures and can provide enough genuine medical evidence to back it up. But let's pretend for a moment that it's true.
Elsewhere on ASH's website they extol the virtues of quitting the evil weed, saying that the health benefits begin "within 20 minutes". Rather significantly ASH further states that after 10 years your "risk of lung cancer falls to about half that of a smoker."
So we have quite a contradiction there. Both here and in Australia lung cancer cases have, in fact, been rising disproportionately over the past 35 years while over the same period the number of smokers has more than halved.
Why? Because the stats are a put up job. Twisted, exaggerated and falsified to scare people out of their wits.
We wouldn't be human if we weren't concerned about our health but there's something wrong in a society that deliberately sets out to frighten the population with falsehoods and lies sponsored by the state.
Even worse is the way research grants all go to support this bunkum, so nobody is looking into possible alternative causes which might cause some embarrassment.
Like the fact that since WW2 there's been enough plutonium dumped into the atmosphere to give everyone on the planet lung cancer 155 times over. Plutonium has a half-life of around 25,000 years so it won't just fade away anytime soon. Inhale a single invisible, microscopic particle and lung cancer is inevitable.
Britain, incidently, conducted nuclear test explosions across Australia all through the 50's and well into the 60's, leaving behind thousands of tons of contaminated waste. Just imagine the potential compensation claims if the emphasis on smoking were to be disproved.
It's no secret that I have a very low opinion of Government politicians and even less of government scientists. The two enjoy a symbiotic relationship to force 'their' will and their control over the rest of us. They rarely tell us the truth so why do so many people continue to believe anything they say?
For the last 10 years we've been sleepwalking into a kind of quasi-democratic state control, meekly accepting thousands of new laws and 'thought crimes' without protest. To this regime pubs and social clubs could be seen as a threat. If that is true then the answer would be to do away with pubs as we know them.
The smoking ban is the most worrying example of what a cunningly contrived mixture of lies, politics and junk science can achieve. This socially devisive, unfair law will have dramatic social consequences and financial repercussions for many years to come.
Now they're after your wet-trade, and if the past year or two is anything to go by they are going to get away with it.
Readers' comments
Jon, I think you'll find it is you who are struggling. Of course, you're negating the fact that my post is not meaningless, given that Cyprus and Austria have always been nations of smokers, have, over the last 30-40 years always had higher percentages of smokers than the UK, and do so today. Yet they still have lower lung cancer incidence rates than the UK. Inconvenient, eh, Jon? Hepcat is correct that 25% in relation to individual studies is not significant. However, when studies are considered together, in one giant monolithic metanalysis, the results apparently are significant. I'm no expert, but this has always struck me as odd. Using such a method, one could 'prove' that almost anything is harmful. The fact still remains that for every study indicating that second-hand smoke is causative of lung cancer, there are six that conclude it doesn't.
Surely the most obvious reason for the dramatic increase in lung cancer fatalities is that it is still a largely incurable disease, whereas many other diseases which would have been fatal 30, or even 20 years ago, are no longer considered life threatening. It's not that any particular social or environmental factor is causing an increase in lung cancer, just that the risk of dying of something else is declining. At the end of the day, we've all got to die of something, and if we reduce the possibility of dying of a heart attack, then logically, we must be increasing the possibility of dying of something else such as lung cancer. Better not point this out to ASH or the Govt though ... it might not sit too easily with their social engineering experiment .....
Tim- you're really struggling here aren't you? Until you grasp that smoking prevalence rates TODAY have nothing to do with lung cancer rates TODAY, then you won't understand just how meaningless your post was. Hepcat- Your mashing of "Statistical Significance", "Relative Risk" and "causation" makes me wince! Atypical of a gullible person that's spent an evening reading "pro-smoker's epidemiology 101 for dummies" Better stick to the conspiracy that "research is done to make landlords bankrupt". Pete- Typical, diversionary, non sequitur response. "The government has lied in the past, therefore they always lie". Childish.....
Jon - How do you know your "9 out of 10" thing is true? Because ASH, CRUK and your fellow antis in the Government tell you so - despite the fact that genuine medical science disproves it. For 20 years the Govt has also stated that 21 units is your 'safe' alcohol limit, although they now confess this was “plucked out of the air” using no scientific basis whatsoever. You've heard of five-a-day to beat cancer? Originally they plumped for NINE-a-day but thought the public wouldn't buy it. The only reason they get away with such breathtaking audacity is because people like you vacuously believe and propagate such twaddle. BTW I'm *not* pro-smoking, I'm pro-CHOICE.
I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE. I SMOKE CIGARS ONCE IN AWHILE AND HAVE PROPERTY IN HAWAII I CAN'T EVEN SMOKE OUT SIDE AT A BAR SOON THEY WILL TRY TO STOP PEOPLE FROM SMOKING IN THE PRIVACEY OF THE OWN HOME AND THAT'S WHERE I WILL DRAW THE LINE
Jon, If you are so good with figures, tell us the reason why the studies on passive smoking are unique in that they can decide causation, at the 95% Confidence Interval, with Relative risks as pathetic as 25% and which the majority are not statistically significant as they include unity in the range meaning the results could show a reduction in risk, no risk or a minor increase in risk. If the same results were accepted as "causation" while studying anything else you could say that anything causes anything. Remember correlation is NOT, never has been and never will be evidence of causation. It is the manipulation and false presentation of so called "scientific studies" that resulted in the ban that is decimating the trade. Once the lid is lifted on this scandal the whole house of cards falls down and it is only a matter of time before the inevitable collapse happens. If you are so convinced by all the new reputable evidence you mention ask yourself this. Why keep studying something if the evidence was so compelling before the ban came in? Finally "They'd rather livelihoods suffer than support the pubs they are deserting" That's wrong Jon because the cult of ASH and there cohorts say there is no evidence to suggest that smoking bans harm businesses, do you honestly believe them?
Incorrect actually, Jon. A large proportion occur in ex-smokers. And a lot of the time, this is shortly after giving up smoking. It is inaccurate to say that 90% of lung cancers occur in smokers. An American lung cancer group claims that 1/2 of lung cancer victims have actually never smoked. My comment was, admittedly, a little facetious. If you look at the smoking incidence rates and lung cancer incidence rates country by country, you'll find a correlation lacking. In Cyprus, where 40% of the population smoke, with 76.1/100,000 lung cancer incidence, that gives them a better lung cancer prevention record than Britain (91.7 per 100,000). The most startling statistics are Austria. Between 40 and 50% of the population smoke, and they have 76.3 per 100,000 lung cancer incidence. The USA - the number of newly diagnosed is now spiking dramatically. In 2006 the number of newly diagnosed cases was 174,470. In 2007 the number is 213,380. That is indeed a historically remarkable increase. For every five cases in 2006 there were six in 2007. California - in 2006 the number of newly diagnosed cases reached 14,900. In 2007 the tally is 17,920. So, while anti-smoking zealots for the umpteenth time proclaimed that teen smoking rates are down to 15%, and that smokers generally are all but eradicated, the lung cancer tally rises by 20%. Good job, tobacco control. For every study that concludes there is a demonstrable statistically significant link between environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer, there are six that say it does not. If smoking were eradicated, almost every stat available indicates that lung cancer would not be. People had been consuming tobacco for hundreds of years prior to the lung cancer epidemic of the 20th-C.
So, much waffle and attempts to divert attention but NOTHING that detracts from the fact that 9 out of 10 cases of lung cancer diagnosed today occur in smokers. (We'll let Tim go off and think about the maths that are confusing him so much!) Each month, more and more reputable scientific studies around the world show that SHS causes death and disease in non-smokers. Even the tobacco companies agree (though the pro-smokers still hold up their outdated propaganda that everyone else understands was just a PR campaign). They'll be no more 'evidence' from the tobacco companies now, just conspiracy theories from the gullible. Such a shame that Pete and the pro-smokers rub their hands with glee whenever any pub closes; They'd rather livelihoods suffer than support the pubs they are deserting. Pitiful.......
We need to get this ban amended to include ventilation, freedom2choose.info -- need your support and donations are very welcome, large or small Warning: Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/4/1/13 http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/smokinglicenses/ ends in October 2008 These could do with some support please, http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn6zye0nh8w Love the article Mr Robinson, yours are the best in the publican I have to say. Well while all this was going on it was a good distraction from those who want to sign our Country away. Corruption is rife in there, and then there is that thieving MP, seems like we are all in the wrong job. Given the fines, in the last month on the brave publicans who are fighting it, it is a bit rich when the powerful ones who run us, not sure yet if it is still OUR Country or EU running it, seem to have some immunity to anything and everything. I know what you mean about the fire one also, probably, might have been, most likely caused from a discarded fag end. Even if it was a field that caught fire a mile away. I hope your paper will support innthecold.com also your publicans. I hope I am allowed to put in these links. freedom2choose.info You may have seen this one, if you can stomach the ash site – (spit) http://tinyurl.com/3ajqa7 Scroll down to negative players LOL, about half way down. We need to get this ban amended to include ventilation, freedom2choose.info -- need your support and donations are very welcome, large or small Warning: Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/4/1/13 http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/smokinglicenses/ ends in October 2008 These could do with some support please, http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn6zye0nh8w
Mr Robinson makes pertinent points. In the USA, the number of people smoking has remained steady at roughly 50m people since 1950 (it has declined percentage wise, but has remained the same in terms of number because of increases in population). Cigarette sales, equally, have remained static. Yet between 1950 and 2006, lung cancer incidence increased by 800%. One cannot help but ask, if smoking causes 90% of lung cancer cases, what about the other 710%? ;)
This article is absolutely spot on well said. Even if you hate smoking you should hate the fact that this government has totally trampled over Publicans Private Property rights. The only person that should decide whether smoking takes place on privately owned property is the owner, end of story. Here is a tribute to all publicans in their fight for freedom http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn6zye0nh8w
From 'Public/private health in the twentieth century': "In the late 1950s when the MRC proposed to include in a statement that up to 30 per cent of lung cancer might be caused by air pollution, there was political alarm. This would give air pollution, the minutes of the Cabinet committee record, ‘unwarranted prominence’. " http://www.dnms.no/index.php?kat_id=5&art_id=6 Much easier to target the soft option, eh?
It is so nice to read that their are people out there with a spine still. Peter, i couldn't have said it better but please lets go the next step. lets start to publish the true facts about this and not the lies and junk sicence from the likes of ASH & Co. lets show the people of this once great country how they have been lied to. Debera Arnott was on 5 live the other week telling the world that SHS is far worse than exhaust fumes. its lies like this that need to be stopped. go for it Peter, publish the lot.
Jon - Much depends on how you define "smokers". I seem to recall your oft-regurgitated figures were rubbished during our last discussion yet still you tweet them like a demented parrot. Strangely enough even I used to believe all that rubbish before the smoking ban caused me to review the evidence. If you'd like a scientific explanation of how UK & worldwide cancer incidence can be mapped to plutonium pollution go here - http://tinyurl.com/ytuned
I completely agree with the last two paragraphs in this article. The rest I can't comment on, but if you really can disprove the rantings of Government and Scientists if it is going to help all in this trade - should this not be published. Regarding the last 2 paragraphs - every day in our pub we have customers who voice their opinions on the 'dictatorship' (in their words) that this country has now become with our civil liberties gradually being eroded, our voices being taken from us. Yes they have hit the smokers of which I am one, they are now going to hit the trade we all struggle to survive in. All those do gooders out there watch out you will be next - even if it is through higher personal taxes to compensate for the losses incurred because people are buying more tobacco on the continent, and can't either afford to drink in their local or their local has closed so they go to the disgraceful supermarkets for their cheap booze. What happened to the definition of Economics!!! Our government certainly does not understand this word.
Good grief! Even more lunatic conspiracy rubbish! Now it's something to do with nuclear testing in Australia! Hmm...it's strange that 9 out of 10 cases of lung cancer occur in smokers and ONLY smokers? Maybe this is just a fluke?!!!! At least this latest jotting from Pete has some relevance to publicans though....err..well..at least the very last sentence anyway.....