CMO promises more anti-smoking measures
Sunday, June 24, 2007 
Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson (left) today gives an interview to the Observer in which he pledges a "further sustained crackdown on smoking after the ban comes into force in England next Sunday".
Plans include removing cigarettes from public display, putting graphic picture warnings on cigarette packets, outlawing the sale of packets of 10 cigarettes, and reducing the number of cigarettes that we can bring into the country from inside the EU from 3,200 to 200. (That's a laugh. The Chancellor had to increase the number from 800 to 3,200, a few years ago, because high taxation in the UK had sparked a smuggling epidemic. Do you think the CMO spoke to Gordon Brown before he came up with this crackpot scheme?)
Donaldson also wants advertising campaigns to "educate" parents about the 'dangers' of smoking around children. How long before smoking in the presence of children is officially declared a form of child abuse? Full story, including a short quote from me, HERE.
Reader Comments (147)
As a matter of fact Robert, I have lots of good things to say. On the very few occasions I have needed the NHS, my treatment has been fantastic. I know, like you do, that 95% of these wonderful people are driven. We know that the work is vocational, and most are truly dedicated.
We part company when NHS managers get involved in politics. We part company when they decide to offer treatment selectively. Their job is to care for sick people and nothing else. I would also expect them to offer information and education on particular lifestyle choices, but political lobbying is out of order.
We part company when they deny that the jury is still out on the SHS issue. I remain convinced that it is no more than an irritant that can be dealt with effectively using ventilation or air filtration, or at the extreme, separation.
I now know more about the science than my own GP who told me that SHS kills. I said "prove it". He shrugged and said "I cant". I asked him how many of the (75) primary studies he had read. He said "None". I said I would be happy to talk to him again about the subject once he had educated himself. He told me he didnt have time, and he doubted that the majority of doctors had time to read all the material. If they dont read the evidence, how in the name of all things holy can we expect them to offer sensible advice? Just how many of these professionals are simply agreeing with the very unscientific "consensus" because it seems to be the path of least resistance? And do you think that is right and proper, or should they bone up on the science?
I hope this explains some of my skepticism for the health industry.
Colin
What is the procedure today with the high court. Not being a leagal person, could you tell me when this would be heard.
Excuse error, legal.
I only have scant details Andrew, but what I do know is that we will present our action at the Court, we expect the judge to say that he cannot make a decision and that he will grant us a Judicial Review based on the case merits.
I will know more as the day rolls out and will report back here so you can follow progress.
Colin
Thank you. How long would a Judicial Review take.
I don't know. I will see what I can learn and get back to you shortly.
Colin, in the absence of some sort of conspiracy of silence I would expect credible and serious reports challenging the link between smoking and morbidity and mortality to be reproduced in the British Medical Journal or The Lancet etc. Doctors should then take the time to keep their knowledge up to date and form an objective opinion.
How can you trust anything, no matter where you read it? See:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/1/19/2578
Colin
The incredible article posted briefly last night is so damaging, I hope you will broadcast it to the world, everyone must know.
Doctors are obligate to form own opinion in accordance of World Health Organisation and any disobedience will be on one way or another punished.
Being Doctor and in same time to speak out against established thought is like in medieval time to speak against church’s dogma.
That is one of reason why illnesses and diseases of all kind skyrocketing in last 25 years.
Reports challenging the link between smoking and morbidity and mortality can be credible and serious only if doctors are not afraid for own carer and live hood.
I agree Luke. I've read many articles on the subject of people being hounded and damaged for challenging 'received wisdom'.
Its back.
Colin
What's back. How did the hearing go.
The Article. On F2C.
I will update you on the hearing later.
Colin
You must get this article to the press.
Is there anyone out there.
I'm here Andrew and I found Colin's article very interesting and thought provoking. I'm quite interested in the idea of the 'safer cigarette' and there does seem to be some logic in the theory that if you double the nicotine content them smokers would be satisfied for longer and therefore smoke fewer cigarettes but with less carbon monoxide and other toxins. I do wonder whether the body would take twice as long to metabolise the double dose of nicotine. It would be interesting to know if the tobacco companies had carried out trials on this.
One other assertion in the article was that the government stands to gain from smokers dying early by saving on pensions etc. There may be some truth in this but it would be unethical for them to rub their hands together in glee or to actively pursue such a goal.
The BBC this morning in their gleeful reporting of the smoking ban commencing at 6.00am this morning, included some statistics from Imperial College on the number of people who still smoke - they said amongst the adult population of this country ONE THIRD STILL SMOKE! By my rough calculations that is 20 MILLION PEOPLE. This does not include the under-age smokers in their teens who are coming up to 16. So this so called dwindling number of smokers they keep telling us about is another lie. With the country on a critical terror alert I would have thought smoking should come well down on the list! Is it any wonder people smoke. I smoke because I am very highly strung. I have not had an easy life and smoking has helped me cope when other people would have just had a nervous breakdown. I wonder how many non or anti smokers have time off work suffering from stress. I bet they don't know what stress is. I could tell them.
I am feeling stressed by the constant bombardment of anti smoking propaganda. Every time I switch the tv or radio on it is full of it.
On Friday my husband and I were travelling from High Wycombe to where we live in Kent. It took us two and a half hours to get around the M25 because the traffic had been slowed down to 40mph eventually taking us 4 hours to get home on a journey which only took us just over 2 hours going. No doubt the traffic was slowed down by the police looking for the terrorists who planted the car bomb in Haymarket - I don't know. What I do know is that it seemed that every 5 minutes or so on Capital Gold there was an anti smoking commercial. If it wasn't the Government telling us to "stub out" (a ridiculous cliche) it was Boots the Chemist or Cancer Research. Surely this is harrassment! I really wanted to throw something at the radio. When we got home and swiched on the tv - guess what - more anti smoking ads. How much of our money is the government paying for these commercials or are they getting them for nothing (maybe threatening tv company's broadcasting licences is they do not show them (remember the demise of Thames TV re Death on the Rock!).
I think the media have been told not to report any defiance of the ban today. Brown doesn't want another problem.
Robert,
There is an abundance of evidence that says nicotine (in and of itself) is beneficial. Health lobbies just cant stand the delivery method. No surprise there, given that the "accepted" method of delivery provides wholesale slaughter. Without this slaughter anti-smoker groups are out of a job. Finished. Kaput.
I have since received emails about my piece, one from a scientist complaining that I dumbed it down. He said that the story is much much blacker than I painted it. He said that I was too conservative with my numbers, and concluded by saying my "50%" fewer deaths was out by 40%. He demonstrated to me that the correlation is not linear, and that the real figure of lives saved would be around 90%. (Which explains Big Pharmas almost total loss of profits). He went on to say that he firmly believed tobacco to be a minor contributor to lung cancer, rather than a major cause. He said there is a growing band of scientists that are moving towards his viewpoint. He said I did not list enough confounder's.
I don't really imagine the government to be "rubbing their hands with glee" either. They are guilty by association. They are guilty because they did not force the tobacco companies to produce the safer cigarette. But please, dont even try to link any government with the word "ethics". That is just too much of an expectation.
Colin
Some Ash idiot has said the freedom to choose JR hasn't got a cat in hell's chance. Any comment on this Colin.
Andrew,
Its to be expected. ASH are also fond of saying that "smoking is the single most preventable cause of death". In light of the article I produced, I now know why.
HMG said that they would "defend the action rigorously". Despite these brave words, I have it on the highest authority that they are extremely concerned. They (ASH & HMG) both know that the science "supporting" the dangers of SHS will not stand up in court, and that we have the truth on our side. The science will win this fight on its own. I have never yet lost a debate when I stick to the science. Human rights, property rights, the fiscal argument, all are emotive and this distracts people from the real debate. Science is black and white, its true or false, its right or wrong, and no emotions are required. This is why ASH et al avoid the science. They lose every single time. They cannot produce a single body, their numbers are fabricated, and they lack any consistency.
What I like about the JR is this: ASH and their money from Big Pharma are not involved. They are neither invited, nor wanted in the court room. It will be just us and the government.
They don't stand a chance.....
Colin
So what is the procedure from now for the JR.
Colin
Yout article was brilliant. I note Robert Evans has made no comment.
Thanks Andrew. Writing it brought no pleasure.
We now have to wait for two weeks while the judge makes a decision. He has to investigate and consider the case based on our arguments. The court will then decide if the case merits a Judicial Review.
Colin
Do you think (honestly) they will consider it merits a JR.
Colin
Can I also ask this. If they decide not to go with a JR. How will you ever get ASH and HMG in court.
Our legal team are confident. They believe that the case has merit. We can only hope and pray that the judge is able to exercise free thought. I think if that is the case, we will be moving ahead.
We are not interested in getting ASH into court. They are meaningless. Their statements are meaningless to anyone with a modicum of common sense.
My personal belief is that if we do not get permission to pursue a JR in England, we should maintain the fund-raising efforts, and focus our legal attention on the Scottish Executive. I believe we should call for a JR in Scotland.
Colin
Sorry I didn't word my comments correctly. I meant how will you ever prove ASH and HMG are wrong, and have no evidence, if you are never granted a hearing.
With three JR's in the works, and Lord Wests action with Cherie Blair/Booth QC, we believe that at least one will go ahead. We will simply team up with whoever is granted a JR. One way or another, HMG will hear our side.
And if we dont get to court in England?
Freedom to Choose will be appearing before the Scottish Executive's Health Committee when they re-convene after the summer recess. This will allow us to present the scientific evidence that we have. I ask you to believe me when I say we are swamped with real scientific evidence. We have more than we need, but we gather more and more with each passing week.
Andrew, I did make comment on Colin's article and I found it quite interesting. The underlying suggestion that there is quite a lot of money at stake is probably correct. The government gains a huge amount from tobacco taxes and if everyone suddenly stopped that would cause the Treasury a huge problem. As for the tobacco companies, they naturally want to make as much profit as possible through keeping sales high.
I'm not sure about the pharmaceutical companies though. It's true that they benefit through provision of smoking cessation therapies and drugs to treat the illnesses associated with smoking. But if you accept, just for a moment, that smoking does contribute to morbidity and mortality then pharmaceutical companies are losing out by people not living longer. Diseases associated with old age such as Alzheimers, dementia, cancer and heart disease draw on many drugs that big pharma is only too pleased to supply. I would have thought they have a vested interest in people living longer.
Robert
Is this also a lie, from scientist.
He went on to say that he firmly believed tobacco to be a minor contributor to lung cancer, rather than a major cause. He said there is a growing band of scientists that are moving towards his viewpoint
Extract from email sent to Colin.
The discrimination gets worse. Some medical idiot in the Independent, wants smoking banned in the home. Colin please tell me they won't get this.
Only if we let them Andrew, only if we let them...
Banning smoking in the home is silly. How on earth do they intend to enforce it? I for one HOPE they try to push it through, the more extreme the legislation the more it pushes the need to fight back into centre stage.
I have my fingers crossed for the JR.
Colin, Please be careful not to give too much info away on here. I am sure that the enemy also read this site, and as I am sure you are aware, surprise is always a great tactic.
I read today, by the way, that the National Centre for Social Research, conducted a poll which found that fewer than half the population support the extension of the smoking ban into pubs. Which is yet more proof of all the lies we are being bombarded with daily.
Peter
Colin has been of great help in answering some legal questions, surely we all need to know the fight goes on.
Peter,
Please rest assured that I have not mentioned anything that is not in the public domain anyway.I am all too aware that we are constantly watched by ASH. They have much to lose, so it comes as no surprise.
We watch them as well.
Sun Tzu said it best in The Art of War:
"Know your enemy. It is only when you know his strengths, and his weaknesses, that you can defeat him".
We know their strengths, and we are fully aware of their Achilles Heel.
We will defeat them.
Another famous quote to remember is
"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer"
From the film The Godfather
The letter below was cut & pasted from Daily Telegraph 9/7/03 and is from Dr. K. W. E. Denson of Thame Thrombosis & Haemostatis Research Foundation. A man who, unlike Sir Liar Donaldson, knows what he is talking about.
The facts laid out in this letter represent just some of the facts about smoking and passive smoking which are being suppressed.

Re: Smoking is not all evil
Date: 9 July 2003

Sir - Sir Liam Donaldson (report, July 4) is misinformed.
A recent study of 118,094 Californian participants of the American Cancer Prevention Study concluded that non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) had no greater risk of heart disease or lung cancer than those not exposed.
The largest and most recent assessment of ETS exposure by the US National Centre for Environmental Health showed that exposed non-smokers had on average only 1/500th of the exposure of the active smoker. How, then, does Sir Liam substantiate a 70 per cent increase in risk of heart disease for an active smoker and 30 per cent for an ETS exposed non-smoker?
Cot deaths are weakly linked to passive smoking, but much more strongly linked to low maternal age, low maternal education and paternal unemployment, which are highly linked to parental smoking. It thus becomes impossible statistically to say whether passive smoking has any effect on cot deaths. The association between ETS and middle ear disease is equally tenuous.
Far from it causing asthma, many studies have shown a reduced incidence of eczema, hay fever and atopy with maternal or pre-natal smoking. In the largest study of its kind, involving 56 countries, those with the greatest air pollution (and ETS exposure) had by far the lowest incidence of asthma, and those with the cleanest air had the highest.
How does Sir Liam explain the more than twofold increase in childhood asthma in Britain during the past two decades, when active smoking has been halved and ETS exposure reduced even more?
Smoking is not all evil. Compared with non-smokers, smokers have half the risk of Parkinson's disease and a reduced risk of Alzheimer's disease. Women who smoke after their first full-term pregnancy have half the risk of developing breast cancer. Would it not be more honest to allow smokers the choice of an increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease, or an increased risk of Parkinson's or Alzheimer's diseases?
From:
Dr KW E Denson, Thame Thrombosis and Haemostasis Research Foundation, Thame, Oxon
And this:
"Passive smoking is an example in which [government] policy demonstrates a disproportionate response to a relatively minor health problem, with insufficient regard to statistical evidence."
House of Lords' Economic Affairs Committee Report, July 2006
Also this:
"Anti-smokers like the director of ASH can go on worrying themselves sick about other people daring to smoke in their presence, but the fact remains that according to the expert of experts, (Sir Richard Doll), the effect is so small it doesn't bother him. Yet such is the sensitivity and severity of the anti-smoking faithful that if any appear for an instant to depart from the strict party line, the record must be - might we say - doctored! I leave you to draw your own conclusions."
Lord Harris of High Cross.
Joe Jackson exhorts us to unite and fight back, but will he be our Leader? If not, who will put themselves forward?
Cathy
Brilliant post Cathy!
Well said oh it seems so long ago!
Cathy (et al) -
Yes - many thanks for that post. Glad to see that Scientific Objectivity is not entirely dead.
Contrast the above with the response I've just received from the BMA to the question, 'What are the possible medical BENEFITS of smoking ?'
Reply is as follows:
Thank you for your query.
There are no known medical benefits associated with smoking.
Yours sincerely,
M Darvell
Public Information Manager
Well, THAT certainly put ME in my place !
Do you think we should let Dr Denson know...... ?
PS: I notice that one possible anagram of 'Sir Liam Donaldson' is DROLL SAD INSOMNIA. I've seen better, admittedly - but it'll do.....
Reading all the comments re the JRs etc. something has occurred to me. Labour won its 2005 election campaign fought on the lie that they did not intend to bring in a blanket ban. This was not in its manifesto. Could it not be challenged in court that any of the laws that it subsequently passed in this term of office are invalid due to misrepresentation as they lied through their teeth to get into office? Reminds me of dodgy car salesmen.
Another thought is (with the cash for honours fiasco in mind) is that they fought the 2005 campaign on "dirty money" and therefore the result should be declared null and void and they should be kicked out of office and another mandate sought from the electorate, i.e a general election. The whole thing I think is worse than Watergate. Any chance of a JR in this case?
We also have an unelected Scot as PM which is undemocractic.
Come on you lawyers who support Forest there must be something we can do.
Re Martin's comment on 4 July about benefits of smoking
A few years ago there was some research into Alzheimer's disease, the result of which was that smokers were much less likely to suffer from it. Let the antis put that in their pipes and smoke it!
As for Robert Evans assertion that the pharma companies want us to live longer if that is true it seems to be in total contradiction with NICE (I prefer to call them NASTY) who are denying patients a £2.50 drug to treat Alzheimers and Herceptin for breast cancer. What do you make of that (answers on a postcard please).
Excellent point, Sylvia.
I think the NHS is strapped for cash because so much money is going to obsessive testing of people who are perfectly *well* because the DoH wants to meet it's goddamned targets. The other aspect is that the media keeps publishing scare stories based on nonsense statistics rather than real science, and the public (at least the public that believes everything they hear in the press and on TV) is being constantly fed with more and more to fear and worry about. This then turns into paranoia about every little twinge and itch, and off they go to the doctor's.
If the government and the media would just stop. Step back. Remember that the NHS is supposed to heal the SICK, then maybe the drugs that some people actually NEED might be made available to them.
Message to the NHS and the DoH. HEAL THE SICK. THAT is your remit for God's sake. Leave the well alone!! Put the money where it's NEEDED.
Get the message. NEED is the key.
Hello, All -
Just in case ANY of you out there were rather hoping that a future Conservative Government might provide us with some relief from all this tyranny, you might care to read the following reply to a recent e-mail I sent to 'The Office of David Cameron'.
It could just as easily have been penned by the icy fingers of the now-sadly-departed Patricia Hewitt herself:
Dear Martin,
Thank you for your e-mail to David Cameron about smoke-free legislation - I'm replying on his behalf.
The Government's ban on smoking in public places has now come into force. Whatever one's own views, it is very clear that public opinion has demanded a ban on smoking in public places for some time. There is also a considerable body of scientific evidence to point to the harmful health effects of second-hand smoke.
While the smoking ban certainly does place restrictions on where people can smoke, it does not ban what is still a lawful activity and people are free to smoke in their own homes and outdoors where the impact of their smoke on others will be minimal. The Government has now published five sets of regulations which set out the detail of smokefree legislation. You can view these within the policy and guidance section of the Department of Health website: http://www.dh.gov.uk/PolicyAndGuidance/fs/en.
They are all currently being considered by Parliament, where we have raised some reservations, for example about smoking in vehicles, prisons and mental health units. Nevertheless we hope that the Bill and its regulations will play a positive role in reducing exposure to second-hand smoke and, in turn, help to improve public health.
It is clear that we need to tackle smoking, just as we need to tackle the other causes of ill-health. Without action, what should be preventable ill-health in its various forms will cost the country an extra £30 billion a year by the 2020s.
It is important to remember that we're all in this together - individuals, families, communities, and Government, as well as employers, have a social responsibility to ensure that we do not place unnecessary pressures on our stretched NHS services in the years to come. Of course, employers will have to come to their own decisions about whether it is worth their while to provide stop smoking support.
While stop smoking advice at work is a matter for employers, we can say what a future Conservative Government would do. Three-quarters of NHS bodies are currently cutting their 'stop smoking' budgets as a result of the NHS financial crisis, so we would ring-fence these budgets to ensure that they are used for what they were intended: helping people to stop smoking.
Thank you again for taking the time to write.
Yours sincerely,
Alice Sheffield
'Nuff said.....................??