Saturday, January 10, 2009

Down the memory hole

(nb. I am not the Devil's Kitchen)

Regular readers will be aware that the ruthless swine at the Department of Health have been caught with their trousers down trying to rig the public consultation that led our beloved government to ban tobacco displays in shops.

You may recall that the views of 25,000 members of the Tobacco Retailers Alliance were ignored when the DoH published the results of its half-arsed consultation in December. The organisation was not even listed as a respondent, leading some cynics to suggest that this might be due in no small measure to the fact that every man-jack of them opposed the idea.

Now, via Taking Liberties, comes the news that the DoH has quietly issued a new version of the consultation document with the Tobacco Retailers Alliance added to the list of 'consultation respondents'. And they are not the only ones. The list of respondents has expanded from 7 pages to 10. No fewer than 80 organisations have miraculously appeared out of nowhere and are now part of the consultation.

In relation to the key question of tobacco display bans, the new version states:
Question 8: Do you believe that there should be further controls on the display of tobacco products in retail environments? If so, what is you preferred option?

We are particularly interested in hearing from small retailers and in receiving
information on the potential cost impact of further restrictions on display. What impact would further controls on the display of tobacco have on your business, and what might the cost be of implementing such changes?

Responses: 95,488

Around 84 per cent of respondents to this question favour stricter controls, with the vast majority of these preferring option three: requiring retailers to remove tobacco products from display.

The old version - the one that convinced the government to bring in this law - is no longer available. It doesn't exist. In time it will never have existed. But by a stroke of good luck, I happen to still have the original PDF. And in answer to the same question the old version states:

Responses: 95,488

Around 84 per cent of respondents to this question favour stricter controls, with the vast majority of these preferring option three: requiring retailers to remove tobacco products from display.

So no change at all then. Exactly the same number of responses and exactly the same outcome. In fact, despite the belated acknowledgement of these 80 'stakeholders', not a single word in the main text of the consultation document has been altered. Not one word.

And yet we know that one of these groups - the Tobacco Retailers Alliance - includes 25,000 respondents and that they are most definitely not in favour of "requiring retailers to remove tobacco products from display". Whether or not the 95,488 responses cited above includes the 80 groups overlooked in the original document, these 25,000 no votes alone would make it impossible for there to be an 84% majority in favour.

And that is just one organisation. Amongst the other respondents who were mysteriously absent from the original document are Gallagher Tobacco and The Free Society. It's fair to guess that they were opposed to this law and would have said so.

Most of the other new arrivals are regional PCTs and councils who can be relied on to toe the DoH line. Whether they actually submitted responses to the consultation we do not know. Other additions are just odd. What, for example, did Brobot Petroleum and the US Chamber of Commerce have to say about the proposal? God knows but there they are, large as life, in the list of respondents.

This has all the hallmarks of a clumsy cover-up. The farce of this "public" consultation has spread far beyond the blogosphere and the new version appeared on the DoH website just four days after The Telegraph became the first national newspaper to cover the story.

It looks very much as if someone at the Ministry of Truth Department of Health has hastily amended the list of respondents without bothering to include their responses or counts their votes. To have done otherwise would have demolished the "overwhelming support" that this measure was reported to have enjoyed.

By padding out the list with various PCTs and borough councils, the DoH may be planning to claim - if pressed - that there was some sort of administrative cock-up by an office junior and that the Tobacco Retailers Alliance was not singled out for special treatment. But adding so many new groups just seems like overkill. It would mean that a quarter of respondents were missed off the original document due to an "oversight". Surely even a government department cannot be so inept?

Whatever the truth - and it's nothing the Freedom of Information Act shouldn't be able to resolve - the smell of bullshit around this affair is now overpowering.




36 comments:

Dick Puddlecote said...

Great post as usual TFS.

This consultation has exposed Labour for the manipulative cretins they really are. The Telegraph article was only saying what those who look into these things properly already knew, but the fact that a journo was able to spot it shows how very blatant the false representation was. There is a dearth of investigative journalism these days as it is, and in the field of tobacco bans (or the nicotine supplier wars, as it should be called), it is almost non-existent, the stigma is too great it seems.

It's such a shame seeing as there are some incredibly rich pickings for a reporter or TV producer with the balls to tackle the subject matter.

If only Panorama wasn't so bloody dumbed down. Its previous incarnation would have revelled in this sort of stuff.

John B said...

"US Chamber of Commerce"

Lots of tobacco grown there, would be my guess for their relevance.

"the nicotine supplier wars"

You think tobacco bans are mainly driven by the manufacturers of smoking-cessation drugs? That's, erm, interesting.

(but yes, this is a rigged consultation that furthers the government's daft puritan agenda.)

Mark Wadsworth said...

It's a good job you saved the pdf.

@ John B, the original puritan drive may not have originated with the cessation product guys, but they have jumped on the bandwagon - they are allowed to advertise on TV but cigarette manufacturers aren't.

It's like when the EU declared all asbestos to be harmful, not realising that white asbestos, once in place and covered with concrete or plaster is as good as innocuous - but now we have a whole 'industry' engaged in stripping out perfectly good buildings, causing far more exposure to white asbestos powder, which is ever so slightly harmful.

Frank Davis said...

This isn't new. Exactly the same sort of rigged consultation was employed in the case of the original smoking ban. Antismoking groups were able, then as now, to mobilise their members and employees to create an impression of overwhelming 'public opinion' in favour of a complete ban, bombarding MPs with emails and letters and polls. This is what organised, well-funded pressure groups can do, when the opposition (the British people, in this case) is ignorant, disorganised, and almost entirely unrepresented. In 2006, public opinion polls showed that some 70% of the British people wanted either no change, or a partial ban, with only 30% in favour of a total ban. But ASH and CRUK and BHF's highly-organised campaigns succeeded in shouting them down.

It was, as ASH's Deborah Arnott gloated in the Guardian, a 'confidence trick':

It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we "knew" we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side.

In this manner, democracy is comprehensively subverted. I believe that Arnott now lectures other campaigning groups about how it's done.

Dave H said...

1) Tickle the back of the throat.

or

2) Drink a glass of warm water containing 2-3 teaspoons of salt.

or

3) Read the following Polly article on the poor and charity. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/10/polly-toynbee-conservatives-charity-welfare

(TBH I couldn't bring myself to read it, so I may be doing her an injustice. The possibility leaves me torn with anguish)

Dave H said...

Sorry, should have apologised for going wildly O/T.

saucepan said...

Once you see the response from Unite with 2 million members who were against the Government's proposals it makes the figures in favour even more ludicrous:

http://www.epolitix.com/fileadmin/epolitix/stakeholders/Tobacco_Control_Consultation_Document_June_2008.pdf

peter carter-fuck said...

The tobacco retailers need to take this to a judicial review. It is an abuse of a public office. It will cost them about £40k to do it, but given what this bullshit ban will cost them, it's well worth doing. Only the courts have the power to fuck these bureaucratic nazis.

Dick Puddlecote said...

John B: The anti-smoking movement ceased being a drive to solely decrease smoking prevalence a long time ago.

ASH, for example, were forced to apologise to the Allen Carr Foundation after rubbishing his highly successful books and seminars on quitting smoking. You'd think they would be happy that he'd helped tens of thousands quit smoking, but his method didn't involve nicotine replacement therapy from the pharma industry, just good old will power. So it wasn't an acceptable way of giving up according to ASH.

There is an estimated £50bn to be had in the UK nicotine supply industry, whether by the traditional method of delivery, or through patches, gum, inhalers etc.

The anti-smoking industry needs people to give up, but only if they give up the correct way. Hence their latest crusade to get e-cigs banned (hint: they're not made by big pharma either).

There is also currently a move by European anti-smoking bigots to stop tobacco manufacturers lobbying the EU.

It's like Burger King v McDonalds, or Coca-Cola v Pepsi, but instead of burgers and cola, it's nicotine. And instead of one side putting their view and it succeeding or failing on its merits, the anti-smoking lobby merely want the competition silenced, and the population who prefer the competition, being made to feel like social outcasts.

No opposing opinion escapes the label 'tobacco shill', or a simple vitriolic ad hominem attack.

None of the recent moves have resulted in a drop in smoker prevalence. The smoking ban has had no effect, the pictures on packets, no effect, and the hiding of cigarettes won't have any effect either - as it didn't in Iceland or Canada.

They know this, but as long as people keep feeling uncomfortable, and keep trying to give up, buying the NRT products, pharma gain more profits from the nicotine supply war, and the anti-smoking lobby get more cash from pharma.

OK? ;-)

Rob said...

Next stop will be the state licensing that only State outlets can sell ciggarettes. They will be open for about two hours a day, and you will have to submit yourself to interrogation by some state Nazi official about why you smoke.

Tenure said...

Hey angry Libertarian man,

You were mentioned in Times 2 in an article about Tony Benn's grand-daughter or something. Apparently, you called her a stupid shit or something.

Ah, here it is:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5452741.ece

"She was also receiving abuse on weblogs such as the Devil’s Kitchen, which wrote, “What makes this little s*** think that, at 17, she knows f***ing anything at all?”

I will have to side with you on this. I hate these people who want to be professional politicians from teenage. They're the kind of people who encourage raising taxes, whilst never working an honest day in their lives.

Neuroskeptic said...

"Next stop will be the state licensing that only State outlets can sell ciggarettes. They will be open for about two hours a day, and you will have to submit yourself to interrogation by some state Nazi official about why you smoke."

It's true. Everyone who wants to cut smoking is, in fact, a Nazi. They're Nazis. Nazis are bad. Nazis. Not smoking. Nazis. If you say it enough, it doesn't become true, but it gets associated in your brain and it's as if it were! Clever eh?

Shades said...

Good work, keep digging away at it.

Some very wriggly worms under that particular flagstone methinks!

Harry O said...

What you mean, Neuroskeptic, is that smokers aren't yet being murdered in their millions by antismoking Nazis, and so we shouldn't call them Nazis. But there are a lot of very good reasons why they should be recognised as Nazis, and called Nazis, before that point is reached.

Modern antismoking 'science' began in Nazi Germany with researchers like Lickint, Muller, Schairer, et al.

Antismoking 'science' is a pseudoscience, which operates by taking very small statistical risks (e.g. RR = 1.25) from passive smoking ('passivrauchen' was another Nazi term) and extrapolating inflated numbers of imaginary 'deaths' from these tiny risks, and attempting to pass off these 'deaths' as comparable to other genuine mortality statistics.

Modern antismokers advance their cause using the Nazi method of the Big Lie. Or rather the blizzard of small lies, piled one on top of the other.

The Nazis introduced a wide variety of smoking bans (although none as draconian as our present ban).

The Nazis were obsessed with 'health', in exactly the same way as today. Smoking, drinking, diet, exercise, etc. People had a duty to be healthy. Furthermore, then as now, doctors were among the Nazis most ardent supporters.

The current attempt to 'denormalise' smoking, and to demonise smokers, is exactly the same as the Nazi 'denormalisation' of racial/ethnic social groups like Jews, Gypsies. This includes producing public propaganda to show that that smokers 'stink', that they are degraded subhuman 'addicts'. Smokers are now being refused jobs, and refused medical treatment, and denied rights enjoyed by other 'approved' social groups, simply because they are smokers. Some politicians have even said that "smokers have no rights". Exactly the same happened to Jews and other disapproved social groups in Nazi Germany.

Modern antismoking even perpetrates a blood libel against smokers: that they are killing children.

Those are plenty of good reasons why modern antismoking Nazis should be called Nazis over and over again.

Dominic Allkins said...

I find it difficult to add anything that hasn't been said already about this bunch of illiberal fascists. But I have to query this:

You asked:

Surely even a government department cannot be so inept?

Please tell me that's not a serious question??

Neuroskeptic said...

"What you mean, Neuroskeptic, is that smokers aren't yet being murdered in their millions by antismoking Nazis,"

No, what I mean is that the "anti-smoking brigade" (i.e. the medical profession) are not Nazis. That's what I mean. It's quite simple.

If you believe that smokers are being set up for a Holocaust, as you sort of imply, I suggest you check yourself into inpatient psychiatric treatment (where, incidentally, 90% of people smoke - you'd fit right in.)

Or if you're really that worried about being gassed by Nazis you could just stop smoking. Novel idea I know.

Anonymous said...

The Nazi origins of the anti-smoking movement are well-known and the links in their philosophies have just been clearly outlined to you. If you can only recognise a Nazi when they are wearing jackboots, a comical moustache and herding you to a concentration camp. It's about comparing ideologies fuckwit, not saying "Oooh, they're not Nazis because they're not barking "Achtung, Schweinhund Tommy Englander!"

Harry O said...

No, what I mean is that the "anti-smoking brigade" (i.e. the medical profession) are not Nazis. - Neuroskeptic

I don't believe that "the antismoking brigade" is in any sense identical to the medical profession. ASH's director, Deborah Arnott, isn't a doctor. Nor is Richard Peto. Even Stanton Glantz, the high priest of the movement, isn't a doctor, despite being a professor of cardiology. I very much doubt that most antismoking activists are doctors either. Most doctors have better things to do. Quite a few doctors are smokers anyway.

What does seem to be true is that the medical establishment - e.g. senior doctors like Sir Liam Donaldson and Sir Charles George - does seem to contain quite a few antismokers who are able to exert a great deal of influence in government circles. I believe that there is growing disquiet in the medical profession that the BMA and RSP have been highjacked by unrepresentative activists.

Antismoking Nazis are hiding behind the good reputation of the medical profession, and using it to advance a divisive and discriminatory eugenic social programme aimed at the 'denormalisation' of smoking (and by extension smokers). If doctors don't act to reclaim the medical establishment, the likelihood must be that its reputation will suffer as grievously as it did in aftermath of the Nazi era.

If you believe that smokers are being set up for a Holocaust

I doubt that they are being deliberately 'set up'. It is rather that discriminatory programmes of the sort being conducted against smokers have a history of gradually gathering a terrible momentum of their own. In Nazi Germany, it wasn't as if the Nazis murdered all Jews the moment they got into power. Instead they conducted a mounting campaign of vilification and discrimination against a hitherto respected minority, which only culminated after 10 years of Nazi rule in the 'final solution', when every other solution to the 'problem' (e.g. the Madagascar plan) had been exhausted. And until it actually happened, Nazi apologists would have said anyone would have to be mad to think such a thing could happen.

What smokers are now experiencing is exactly the same process of state-sponsored vilification and discrimination directed against a once-respected minority (Churchill, Attlee, etc, were smokers). People are now being taught to fear and hate smokers, and to believe that they (and more importantly their children) can be killed by tobacco smoke. It is a monstrous lie, and it is based on the same sort of pseudoscience as used by the Nazis against Jews, and for exactly the same sort of eugenic 'healthist' reasons. And it is a lie, furthermore, that began in Nazi Germany. In the circumstances, it becomes difficult NOT to describe it as Nazi.

dastardly said...

Harry O.

Perfectly said.

Neuroskeptic said...

Do you know what eugenics is?

Thatcher's Child said...

What I would like to see is the whole lung cancer problem being looked at again.

There is a report floating around the net showing that lung cancer is being caused by diesel fumes. The evidence is quite strong - when you take out all studies which are being funded by the anti smoking organisations - it makes sense.

There is also evidence that the oil industry is very aware of it, hence the fact that the petrol attendant has become extinct - they were dropping dead from lung cancer much too readily!

So - with the big drug companies are at the final mile of getting all the relaxing drug sales - the next step will be alchohol. You have been warned!

Devil's Kitchen said...

"What I would like to see is the whole lung cancer problem being looked at again.

There is a report floating around the net showing that lung cancer is being caused by diesel fumes. The evidence is quite strong - when you take out all studies which are being funded by the anti smoking organisations - it makes sense."


Well, it wouldn't be a surprise: we were taught in Chemistry A Level classes that tetra-ethyl lead, an anti-bumping agent in petrol, was replaced with benzene derivatives.

Benzene is a Class 1 carcinogen, and cancerous on contact with skin.

The fact is that whilst the proportion of people smoking has fallen considerably over the last 60 years, the per capita incidence of lung cancer has been rising steadily. Whilst some of the latter may be put down to better diagnosis, much of it cannot.

DK

Large Melot Please said...

I will post more tomorrow but here are the basics.

"After Dr Little wrote the above paper, it found confirmation in a study of 6338 non-smoking men, aged 27-95, who lived in California between 1967 and 1992. This study, published in January 1999, (10) found that PM10 exposure was strongly associated with lung cancer, raising the risk by 2.38 times. PM10 exposure was also associated with all natural causes of death in men and with an increased mortality from non-malignant respiratory disease in men and women. PM10s are particles of less than 10 ?m in diameter exhausted from Diesel engines. David Abbey, leading author of the study noted that men who spent longer outside were at greater risk than men who spent most of their time indoors."

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html#N_4_

Dick Puddlecote said...

Thatcher's Child: You're not wrong. This may be what you were referring to.

The real cause of lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes. And the evidence here is much more persuasive. It includes the facts that:

. tobacco smoke contains no carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens;

. that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns;

. that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways;
that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades;

. and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more.

Pointing out that there has been evidence for over 40 years that smoking does not cause lung cancer, Dr Little says:


"Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself".

vincent1 said...

Well said Thatchers Child and DK.
Kitty Little had a lot to say about diesel, sadly she is no longer with us, but she did leave a lot of information around.
When you look at the elderly people, who still smok and are still ALIVE, they would not have been in the eras of heavy transport. The French lady who died a couple of years ago, who smoked for over a 100 years and was the oldest recorded person. she would not have been down the garage filling up her car, I bet.
Nor many of the elderly in the nursing homes now who are over 85.
This link does mention Kitty little, although she does like I have said, have a lot of information.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html

Here is another link - http://www.plymovent.com/templates/Page____296.aspx
Exposure to diesel exhaust cause serious health problems in humans, including cancer, cardiac illnesses, respiratory problems and other serious health issues.
Diesel exhaust contains over 100 individual hazardous chemical components, that when combined can result in as many as 10,000 chemical compounds.

http://www.inthenews.co.uk:80/news/education/science/new-pollutant-mirrors-smoking-damage-$1236769.htm
New pollutant mirrors smoking damage
The pollutants form when gases cool to form residues
Scientists have identified a new form of air pollutant which replicates the damage to humans caused by cigarette smoke.
snip~
H. Barry Dellinger of Louisiana State University is concerned by the impact of the persistent version, which form when gases cool to residues on car exhausts, household chimneys or in smokestacks.

"We found that persistent radicals can last indefinitely on airborne fine particles. So you're never going to get away from them," he explained.


So 40 years later, billions, millions of pounds and dollars later,

http://www.second-opinions.co......ancer.html
The real cause of lung cancer, according to another Oxford research scientist, Dr. Kitty Little, is diesel fumes. And the evidence here is much more persuasive. It includes the facts that:
 tobacco smoke contains no carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens;
 that lung cancer is rare in rural areas, but common in towns;
 that cancers are more prevalent along the routes of motorways;
 that the incidence of lung cancer has doubled in non-smokers over past decades;
 and that there was less lung cancer when we, as a nation, smoked more.
Pointing out that there has been evidence for over 40 years that smoking does not cause lung cancer, Dr Little says:



Sir Richard Doll was paid money from monsanta, an oil company I believe, so it is a little bit biased there I think.
mandyv
freedom2choose.info for smokers and non-smokers alike, fighting for choice and TRUTH
Sadly lacking in todays world.
If anyone can make it to TICAP it would be great.
http://www.antiprohibition.org/ticap_pages.php?q=6
1st World Conference Against Prohibition: "Smoking Bans and Lies"
Brussels, at the European Parliament Building, 27/28 January, 2009

sorry it is so long, I hope it is helpful

Dick Puddlecote said...

Sorry, forgot the link which includes thorough research references.

Are Diesels More Dangerous than Cigarettes as a Cause of Lung Cancer?

Frank Davis said...

What I would like to see is the whole lung cancer problem being looked at again.

Well, you can read the first 1950 Doll and Hill study here. And you can read the first paper on the second Doll and Hill study here, and the last one here. (although you may have to register with the BMJ to read them) And you can make up your own mind about them.

The first study was about 600 lung cancer patients in London hospitals shortly after WWII. Of the 600 patients with lung cancer, over 99% of them were smokers. Richard Doll gave up smoking midway through this study, as the results came in.

The second study, begun in 1951, was the flagship British Doctors Study, in which more or less every doctor in Britain was sent a questionnaire asking about their smoking habits. As these doctors gradually dropped dead over the next 50 years, the cause of their death was noted, and Doll and Hill (and later Doll and Peto, after Hill dropped dead) published updated results every few years on the data they'd received, starting in 1954 and ending in 2004. It found that smokers were something like 10-20 times more likely to die of lung cancer than non-smokers.

The studies were met with profound scepticism at the time, from the likes of Sir Ronald Fisher, the 'father' of statistics, and also a smoker. He managed to show, using the data from the 1950 study, that smokers were less likely to get lung cancer if they inhaled the smoke, and that inhaling tobacco smoke had a protective effect. In 1958 Fisher published a book, Smoking. The Cancer Controversy which is well worth reading.

But despite the scepticism, the conviction that smoking was the cause of lung cancer rapidly gathered acceptance. In large part this may have been because in 1950 three or four separate papers were published internationally on the relation of smoking and lung cancer, the first being that of Wynder and Graham in America, with Doll and Hill following shortly afterwards, in what amount to a knockout 'media blitz'. By 1964, the US Surgeon General felt able to lend his authority to the claim. The rest is history.

Frank Davis said...

Correction. The 1950 Doll and Hill study is here. or maybe here. Or, who knows, maybe even here too?

FlipC said...

DK You've missed the qualifier in the conclusion from the DoH - "of respondents to this question". If the TRA etc. weren't asked or their response was deemed illegible or was missing for some reason...

Thatcher's Child said...

I am glad I'm not the only person who is open minded enough to not take propaganda on face value!

I only wish kids were given the opportunity to do this, but unfortunately, with the funding of only one side of the story, it takes a confident thinker to ask the difficult questions - and look for the answers!

It does lead to the conspiracy theory that suggests that the education system is being dumbed down as a way of protecting the future of the political elite.

I hope this isn't my tin foil moment!

Neuroskeptic said...

"I am glad I'm not the only person who is open minded enough to not take propaganda on face value!"

Yes you are! You're taking tobacco company propaganda at face value! They're pissing on your brain and you think it's lemonade, jesus christ.

I don't have time to explain exactly why you're wrong but suffice it to say that I can tell from that the fact that you didn't query DK's ridiculous assertion that

"The fact is that whilst the proportion of people smoking has fallen considerably over the last 60 years, the per capita incidence of lung cancer has been rising steadily."

Jesus Christ. I mean what the hell is he smoking, and why the hell didn't anyone else pull him up on this?

Rates in males have fallen steadily over the past decade; rates in women are steady.

That's including better diagnosis.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/incidence/

I don't know about cancer but there's clearly a strong correlation between posting on DK and being very bad at epidemiology. The direction of causality remains to be determined.

Neuroskeptic said...

P.S The "Oxford research scientist" Dr Kitty Little had no association with Oxford University, so far as I can tell.

I believe she in fact worked at the "UK's Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell, Oxfordshire", at least according to that reliable source: Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real,"

Did I mention that she had an interest in the Turin Shroud and that (according to several sources, although to be fair, I can't find the original quote) in 1995 she claimed that the Rothchild's controlled 80% of the world's uranium?

Now seriously stop this or I'm going to have to keep kicking your beliefs in the balls, and I know that can be painful. Discuss them by e-mail if you must.

Frank Davis said...

Did I mention that she had an interest in the Turin Shroud and that (according to several sources, although to be fair, I can't find the original quote) in 1995 she claimed that the Rothchild's controlled 80% of the world's uranium?

Typical antismokers' smear tactics. Attack the person rather than the research.

And while CRUK's graph does indeed show UK lung cancer incidence peaking in the 1990s, these are the age-adjusted numbers. In the USA, the absolute numbers (as opposed to age-adjusted numbers) of lung cancer incidence are still rising. CRUK, furthermore, is one of the headquarters of antismoking science. And so whatever they say has to be taken with a pinch of salt, because they will always present information to suit their antismoking agenda.

You're taking tobacco company propaganda at face value!

Which tobacco company? When? Where?

Antismokers continually refer to Big Tobacco's propaganda. But I never see any.

Neuroskeptic said...

"Typical antismokers' smear tactics. Attack the person rather than the research... CRUK, furthermore, is one of the headquarters of antismoking science. And so whatever they say has to be taken with a pinch of salt, because they will always present information to suit their antismoking agenda."

You're beyond parody, Frank. You literally criticize yourself. I don't have to do any more.

Except to point out that lung cancer incidence is now falling in the U.S as well (and is strongly correlated with smoking). (To be fair this is age-normalized but there's a very good reason they do that.)

As I've said, I know this is painful for you, but if you stop smoking & accept that smoking causes cancer all the pain will go away. And you won't get cancer. Think about it.

Frank Davis said...

I don't have to do any more.

And nor do I.

Neuroskeptic said...

Er, touche...