Friday
Oct082010
The Free Society at the Conservative conference
Friday, October 8, 2010 
Above (left to right): Paul Staines (aka Guido Fawkes), Alex Deane (Big Brother Watch), Claire Fox (Institute of Ideas), Philip Davies MP and me at The Free Society fringe meeting at the Conservative party conference in Birmingham earlier this week.
Reader Comments (9)
This post is by way of asking a favour of Dave Atherton!
I'd like to send my MP an 'info pack' to educate him in the spin and downright deceit of ASH. You have a wealth of material, Dave. Would you consider putting together a pack for me, enough to alert him to the lack of compelling evidence for a ban, its consequences, the strength of anger and the handling of bans elsewhere in the world but compact enough for him not to lose interest? I would, of course, meet the cost involved. I think everyone posting a pack to their MP would be a good idea - but then I woud say that :)
I could give you my address either via Simon, if he doesn't mind, or PM it through F2C
Actually, it's a lot to ask of you Dave and I know there is a wealth of information in your book and in other places (such as Forces) but perhaps a downloadable pdf of 2 - 4 pages that just summed up the big lies of the whole debate would be a good idea anyway, both for interested individuals and as an MP "primer pack". Best keep it simple though, bearing in mind the target audience ;)
Here's one for the bag the ritcheous knives (sharp prodding noses)will be out for Felicity.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1318994/STRICTLY-COME-DANCING-2010-Felicity-Kendal-lights-cigarette.html
Hi Joyce I hope you are well you can PM at F2C.
I wrote a letter to Andrew Lansley on 1st Sep 2010. I received a reply from ‘Customer Services Centre (DoH)’ 28th Sep. My letter (a REAL letter) to AL was, primarily, a complaint about the ‘Take 7 steps out’ adverts which appeared on the TV recently. For those who have not seen this ad, I should remark that the ad shows a mum, standing on the doorstep of her house, smoking. The ad says that it is not sufficient merely to stand on the doorstep. It says that the mum should ‘take 7 steps outside’, in order to save her children from the toxic effects of the smoke from her tobacco which floats back into her house. It says that the smoke drifts inside and is damaging to her children’s health. My complaint was that the science supporting the ad was wrong (the children would not and could not conceivably come to any harm in because the mum was smoking on the doorstep). I also said that all these organisations – the NHS, the EU, the WHO, etc were wasting masses and masses of taxpayers money, and that it should be stopped.
Here is the reply that I received from the NHS ‘Customer Services’:
“”Thank you for your letter of 1st September [2010] to Andrew Lansley about the 'Take 7 Steps Out' campaign. I have been asked to reply. The 'Take 7 Steps Out' campaign is a local NHS initiative rather than a Department of Health national campaign. It is funded jointly by the 24 primary care trusts across the North West region and commissioned by Smokefree North West to respond to the needs of their local communities. If you would like to discuss this matter with Smokefree North West, the contact details are:
I am sorry that you feel that anti-smoking advertisements are a waste of money. Smoking kills over 100,000 people in the UK every year, and is the single greatest cause of preventable death. To address this, the Government has used advertising very successfully to increase smokers' motivation to quit, and encourage them to take the most effective action to beat their addiction, with support from the NHS. It is also a highly efficient way of communicating a powerful emotional message to millions of smokers to promote the Government's anti-smoking message.””
For reasons of space, I have reproduced only the significant bits – I have left out the addresses and the ‘if we can be of further assistance...’ waffle.
This response is so silly that I am not quite sure how to respond, It is silly because, in the first place, it seems to deny that secondary organisations are not part of the NHS; in the second place, briefly, in the second paragraph, it implies that death is preventable. It also states in words of one (or several) syllable that 20% of the 500,000 deaths per annum are caused by smoking (20% of the population smoke, therefore 20% of deaths are preventable – numerically, 100,000). It also says that smoking is an addiction. Further, it says (by implication), that any untruths are justified because of ‘the highly efficient way............’.
The letter was from a person who says that ‘he has been asked to reply’. If he has been asked to reply, the he must have been asked to reply by the representatives of Andrew Lansley.
I am not sure how best to respond to this insult to my intelligence, but I must respond, and this is where we come to the requests which have been made to Dave Atherton above.
But there is more to the ‘problem’ than immediately meets the eye.
We constantly hear criticisms of Deb Arnott from ASH (is that correct?). But I ask myself, is Deb Arnott the correct target for our wrath? Sure, she is a zealot ‘par excelence’, but is she the ORIGINATOR of the untruths?
Having pondered this question, it seems to me that the originator of the untruths, and, in fact, the co-ordinator of all anti-smoking propaganda, is THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER, along with the Chief Medical Officer’s department of the Health Dept. – how else could NICE become involved in the denormalisation agenda?
I have in mind to write to the Chief Medical Officer and COMPLAIN in both specific terms and in very general terms, especially about the crap science. I want to throw the cat among the pigeons. I want to use the Freedom of Information Act if possible.
I would be grateful for any information or advice which could be useful. I am away for 10 days from the 12th Oct. If people respond on this topic, I will look back on my return – Simon permitting, of course.
Junican, it is very easy to challenge their statistics:
1. What is the formula for the "estimate" of 100,000 deaths?
2. How many of the 100,000 on their death certificates stated the cause was the result of smoking?
Answers:
1. From the public relations department.
2. None
Junican you may also want to sensd them this on passive smoking.
The second hand smoke argument invented by Sir George Godber former Chief Medical Officer in 1975:
"..foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to the smoke in the air." (1) and admitted by Dr. Alvan Feinstein
"Yes, it's rotten science, but it's in a worthy cause. It will help us to get rid of cigarettes and become a smoke-free society" Yale University epidemiologist writing in Toxological Pathology in 1999 on passive smoking." (2)
“The world must protest the ongoing deceit and the squandering of public monies for rigged and incompetent ETS studies. And people should feel offended by the complicity and sham paternalism of health authorities and of profitable tax exempt charities. Such an officially imposed tyranny has no place in countries that claim and presume to be free, enlightened, and just. We are not children, nor bumbling simpletons who need to be deceived for our own good — a deceit that is doubly grating when the wilfully flawed surgeon general’s report on ETS runs against statutory requirements of “ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by a government agency.”
Dr Gio Batta Gori, Former Deputy Director of the National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Causes and Prevention.
The 1992 EPA report is an example of the use of epidemiology to promote belief in an epidemic instead of to investigate one. It has damaged the credibility of EPA and has tainted the fields of epidemiology and public health. In addition, influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas.
The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty "scientific" outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money.Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers.
Dr. Jerome Arnett Pulmonologist. 2008
1. http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/2007/10/17/1028570-secondhand-smoke-mirrors
2. http://www.lcolby.com/colby.htm
3. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv30n1/v30n1-5.pdf
4. http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23399/Scientific_Evidence_Shows_Secondhand_Smoke_Is_No_Danger.html
Thank you, Dave. I will ponder the matter while I am away
Dave - thank you very much, I'll PM this evening.