No entertainment is so cheap as reading, nor any pleasure so lasting.|
-- Lady Mary Montagu (1753)
|Velvet Glove Iron Fist: A history of anti-smoking by Christopher Snowdon.|
Velvet Glove Iron Fist is brilliantly documented with firsthand sources to chronicle the rises and falls of antitobacco movements through the centuries. Of course, antismoking movements lead to other temperence movements that also morph into prohibitionist states. Using his thorough documentation, the author shows how the inability of healthcare professionals to cope with various conditions, primarily diseases, leads to "preventative medicine" type mentalities that might or might not actually be preventative but will temporarily mask incompetence in healthcare professions.
Webmistress:Where preventative medicine is concerned in the passive smoking issue, consider modern experts from antismoking organizations who testify that people will die of diseases from passive smoking in forty years. So...experts have testified that the disease(s) they are paid obscene amounts of money to fight will still be killing people in forty or fifty years, ie those experts are testifying that they aren't doing any good in the fight aganist those diseases. Also, I happen to know that the author initially began his research with the idea that secondhand smoke probably carried some degree of risk but that the risk was negligible; but the time he'd finished his book, he was convinced that the accusations against people who smoke were based on epidemiological fraud.
|In Defense of Smokers by Lauren A. Colby.||This is a very good book with some eye-opening facts and illustrations. There is also some very revealing supplemental material. For example, the Epilogue from October 2006, written ten years after Colby published Defense. (Webmistress: He makes a comment on this page that hits home--HARD--for me.):|
Also, recently, there have been hospital studies showing that 60% of lung cancer patients were NOT smokers at the time their disease was diagnosed. But even that figure is too low because lung cancer victims from the "higher" non-smoking classes generally die at home, and not in the hospital. That was true of three friends of mine - all lifelong never smokers - who recently died from lung cancer, in their homes.
|SMOKING: THE CANCER CONTROVERSY: SOME ATTEMPTS TO ASSESS THE EVIDENCE by Sir Ronald A Fisher, Sc.D., F.R.S.||From "Smoking: The Cancer Controversy", Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd 1959, pp. 45-47 (276A: INHALING): |
If, following the method of the Medical Research Council, these differences were ascribed to inhalation as a cause, then inhalers may congratulate themselves of reducing the cancer incidence by over 10 per cent.,using a very simple, and even enjoyable, method of prevention. This is indeed an under-estimate, for pipe smokers seldom inhale, and have a low cancer incidence, so that their inclusion has lowered the apparent advantage of inhaling. .... The fact, however, and it is a fact that should have interested Hill and Doll in 1950, is that inhalers get fewer cancers. and the difference is statistically significant.Note: Sir Richard Doll has been exposed as having worked for chemical companies; see"Industry 'paid top cancer expert'". Doll's objective was to effectively shift blame from cancer-causing chemicals to tobacco. Fisher eventually worked for a tobacco company in Australia, but that employment was not a factor at the time he criticized the Hill/Doll studies. In fact, he repeatedly exposed the main point that Doll repeatedly omitted from his studies--namely, the fact that smokers who got cancer did not inhale!
From "Cancer and Smoking," Nature 182 (1958 August 30), 596"
There is nothing to stop those who greatly desire it from believing that lung cancer is caused by smoking cigarettes. They should also believe that inhaling cigarette smoke is a protection. To believe this is, however, to run the risk of failing to recognize, and, therefore failing to prevent, other and more genuine causes.Note: This is the same RA Fisher of the "Fisher's Exact Test" fame. In other words, he really was a great statistician. Honestly.
|The Smoking Scare De-Bunked by Dr. William T. Whitby||This is a relatively short book of about 61 pages. The controversy surrounding his publications in this area are substantial. Supposedly, he was merely a shill for Big Tobacco or a delusional nicotine addict, both of which are patently false accusations. Whitby was a practicing lawyer and doctor--yep, licensed in both. He shunned tobacco because he was diagnosed with a "weak chest" as a youngster and "experts" firmly warned him of the dangers of smoking. He had bouts of bronchitis and whatnot into his adulthood until a friend told him the secret to recovery was pipe smoking. He tried it, against prevailing "knowledge," and--voila!--his ailing chest recovered. See this review for his background. Also, see a memo circulated at Phillip Morris concerning the book; the memo contains information from the book but it's almost sarcastic in its tone, which doesn't jibe with the accusation that Whitby was some sort of shill for the "Kraft Macaroni and Cheese" company. Whitby wrote Smoking is Good for You in 1978 and re-released the book in 1986 as "The Smoking Scare De-bunked. This is a caustic albeit accurate indictment against antismokers and the antismoking movement.|
|Dissecting Antismokers' Brains by Michael J. McFadden||Although the title sounds rather harsh, this first section of this book is a compassionate look at the people fueling the antismoking movement. At the risk of pigeon-holing real people, the antismokers in society can be consider to fall into nine categories:|
The remainder of the book is somewhat less compassionate in dissecting antismoking tools and tricks and the true costs of the antismoking crusade. McFadden is an excellent writer, smart and has some humor about him! So, this is one good read that needs to be sent--or forcefully read--to every politician and every person who has not yet fully realized the chicanery behind antismoking.
|The Trouble with Medical Journals by Richard Smith||ISBN 1-85315-673-6|
See Medical Journals Slammed By Former Editor in Lifestyle Extra (Tuesday, 19th September 2006, Category: Healthy Living). WebMistress: Yes, that name...Dr. Smith...in my mind's eye, I see Robot waving his arms yelling, "Danger, Will Robinson! Danger, danger!"
|The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking by J. R. Johnstone, Ph.D. (Monash) and P.D.Finch, Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Statistics (Monash)||This is one of the early and short exposes of the perversion of science thanks to the antismoking movement. It's concise and rich with information. More from Johnstone can be found on his website. (Notice his impressive "Publications" list! See the "missing" 1964 Surgeon General's report which was supposedly the first big government denouncement of tobacco products; note that the second big government ploy was to re-name secondhand smoke to environmental tobacco smoke to allow/fund a report to be drawn-up in the Environmental Protection Agency, which was denounced by three congressional agencies and a Federal Judge in a lawsuit filed by tobacco companies. Interestingly, Table A of that notorious Surgeon General's report clearly shows that moderate smokers were in better general health than never smokers. The progression takes a downturn with people who have more chronic illnesses. I can attest to the fact that, when I don't feel well and get stuck in bed for a sustained period of time, I get stir crazy. I do things to occupy my time but don't require getting out of bed such as crossword puzzles, watching TV, reading, writing and, yes, smoking. Ergo, this correlation is nothing more than a documentation of a habit of people who are stuck in bed for a while--but that first revelation of moderate smokers to never smokers is in stark contrast to what the Surgeon Generals have been telling us ever since!
Of course, more perversion of science--often dubbed "Junk Science" even though it is accepted as absolute truth in the general population no matter how absurd--can be found from simply googling phrases like "secondhand smoke scam". However, a particularly notable website, The Hittman Chronicle: A Journal of One Man's Opinion which has a very educational and enlightening section on The Facts About Second Hand Smoke (Finally), which has a primer on statistics and how they can be/are illegitimately manipulated. If nothing else, read the Hittman's hysterical and most revealing Name Three, especially the part about James Repace!!! Definitely one for the "Funnies File."
|Slander by Ann Coulter||WebMistress: Slander by Ann Coulter was recommended to me by a friend and, now, I am recommending the book. He wrote an informal review that I believe is very helpful. (Thanks SanFrancisco from Freedom2Choose!)
I found at the end a direct reference she made to the smoking bans, along with a lot of other things. Smoking bans are just one of many issues addressed because her book is based on the liberal left hating anyone not un-American enough to blindly follow what they are told in the sound bites of the press. She shows how the press, virtually controlled by liberals, uses a LOT of propaganda - smoke banning would be among this classification. However, in her book, the thrust of liberal fanaticism is primarily anti-Republicanism, anti-Mainstream in fact if you get the gist of what she is saying. She backs it up with LOTS of FACTS too - it's not just "made up" fantasy.
If you get the book, then you may find some GOOD quotable information - some of which you just replace the word "Republican" with the word "smokers" - and it will tell EXACTLY what is happening to smokers right now.
It's the liberals doing this too. It's not the conservatives - though they don't really help much, do they. In essence, reading her book, we learn the source of the mythology and propagation of junk science.
Quickly, some pages and paragraphs, and from the hard cover book, softcover may be different, but if you do get a hold of it, check out:
There are footnotes galore to qualify everything she quotes, all of her facts and all of her data.
Thinking about the problems associated with smoking bans might be very difficult for some people but if one doesn't, then one might not be able to craft a strategy and from the strategy then the best tactics. People need to root it out and bring it to the attention of normal thinking people, who use logic, not mythology about SHS, to get that out of their brains so to speak.
There are some, mainly those who have left San Francisco, who call it a "liberal cesspool. " One shameful example of how the liberal elite are "cleaning things up" is that they are going to put all the homeless now into "camps" or send them packing. That is NOT the "liberal" I remember, from just 30 years ago even. It has transmogrified into something horrible - into Orwell's Brave Nu World Order - like what is happening overseas too.
The fight against it isn't just smoking bans - it has to encompass all these other things as well I think - but w/o at the same time putting off anyone of the liberal mythology. That is the tricky part of it I think. How do you break through, once someone has received the constant propaganda campaign? How can this be achieved without immediately making them "tune out" for fear they wouldn't in fact be following, doing what "Big Brother" has indoctrinated them to think in the first place?
|The NAZI War on Cancer by Robert N. Proctor||Read Amazon's "Search Inside" feature. Proctor extols the progress made by Germans, particularly in the area of cancer research. He distinguishes between true, applied, natural science and ideologically-driven "science." He does not assert that the "science" behind the passive smoking scare was ideologically driven; however, he uses that familiar cautious language of so-called science trying to be taken for actual science. A quote from page 18 (italics added): |
Germans were also apparently the first to suggest that secondhand tobacco smoke might be a cause of lung cancer--in 1928.
Many of the problems of the "passive smoking science" that plague today's research studies were the same for the NAZIs, e.g.recall bias of those who tell surveyors what they believe they should say and the impossibility of measuring secondhand smoke especially when the studies are based solely on recollection of exposure to secondhand smoke (often of a third party's exposure to secondhand smoke). However, no mention is made as to statistical manipulation of figures in the NAZI antismoking campaign.
The Publisher's Weekly quotes Proctor:
"My intention is not to argue that today's antitobacco efforts have fascist roots, or that public health measures are in principle totalitarian," he writes.The Amazon.com review also quotes Proctor:
Can an immoral regime promote and produce morally responsible science? Or, in Proctor's words, "Do we look at history differently when we learn that ... Nazi health officials worried about asbestos-induced lung cancer? I think we do. We learn that Nazism was a more subtle phenomenon than we commonly imagine, more seductive, more plausible."*************************
WebMistress: The term "passive smoking," or passivrauchen, was coined by a NAZI, Fritz Lickint; see Passive Smoking. For the record, like many Americans, I have some German heritage of which I am proud. However, the antismoking-NAZI connection is more than words--it is historical fact and the NAZI regime used antismoking propaganda to strengthen the indoctrination of the masses into blindly following a regime that was supposedly for their good health. Moreover, as noted by people such as Proctor, the NAZI regime espoused the belief that a person's body was the property of the state, which is the idea of universal, government-controlled healthcare. Again, this is more than words and is painfully obvious when Money Trail. Also see:
|Science Without Sense by Steven J. Milloy||The very fact that Milloy coined the term "Junk Science" should tell you that this is worth reading!|
|What's missing from the Big Picture by Stephanie Stahl||This short story is more about the slippery slope down which we are now coasting on the banning craze. The story was initially intended to parallel the antismoking hysteria as manifested in the banning craze. (For a picture that illustrates the result of banning crazes, please see a sign of the times.) Sadly, the idea is not so fictional. Beloved pets and other animals are slated to be outlawed, i.e. exterminated. In particular, the danger is very real for animals who are not purebred. For reference, see PetPAC Opposes AB 1634 to Eliminate Mixed Breed Dogs and Cats in California and Next the anti-smoking Guardianistas will be coming for dogs and cats. (Update: And We're Off! See Huntington Beach looks at mandatory pet laws: City would be the first in Orange County to have such an ordinance. (Tuesday, September 4, 2007) The mindset of outlawing animals that are not purebred is quite frightening. Of course, other aspects of the antitobacco frenzy are equally frightening, such as denying medical treatment to people who smoke and people who are obese. For thin nonsmokers, this will result in higher medical expenses but, frankly, this is a minor unintended consequence when compared to the horrifying effects on society. Hopefully, this little story will remind people that we are, in fact, human and our humanity is worth saving.|
The greatest pleasures of reading consist in re-reading.|
-- Vernon Lee, "Reading Books," Hortus Vitae (1904)
Return to Main Page
Return to Previous Page