Search This Blog

Friday, 31 January 2014

Something different about China?

In China, there are 350 000 000 smokers. That is, three HUNDRED and fifty million smokers. I have wondered before whether there is something different about China. The death rate from smoking is quite different to ours!

Unless major cancer prevention and treatment programs are put in place, the current figure of about one million Chinese dying each year from all smoking-related illnesses will rise to two million by 2025, and three million by mid-century, CCTV reported.

Of all forms of cancers, those of the lung, breast, liver and colon had risen “most clearly” over the last 30 years, experts at the meeting said, with deaths from breast cancer recording an increase of 96 percent

The Tobacco Control Cartel/Corporations/Industry is needing a profitable new  stamping ground. What better one than China!? It has three HUNDRED and fifty million smokers - wow - and a one million smoking related death rate. I am sure very shortly that figure will be adjusted so it comes in line with the West where, we are told HALF of smokers die from smoking. Does half of three HUNDRED and fifty million equal one million?

You can see that "lung, breast, liver and colon had risen “most clearly” over the last 30 years, experts at the meeting said, with deaths from breast cancer recording an increase of 96 percent" . Women smoke less than men in China, so the increase in breast cancer can be attributed to Second Hand Smoke surely? Ah well, lets just say it is - we don't need real science here, we just need guesstimates, yes?

China's income from cigarette production is vast - if I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say the Antis will have their economy toppled in a trice and maybe it's a China takeover. They will get smoking banned and electronic cigarettes demonised. The Anti's could even get their grips on the electronic cigarette market there and produce millions of nice little white lookalikeees with impunity. What a thought!

Monday, 27 January 2014

What can we DO for vaping? God only knows! Know the enemy first.

We are having a conversation over on Facebook about what vapers can DO for vaping. I believe our enemy is the same enemy that so successfully put their program in place against smokers. This post is to show you how they did it. I believe the same prohibitive tactics will be used against vapers because we could completely destroy "The Industry". The  tobacco control movement has generated an enormous profit for itself, employing millions of people. It is a partner to the pharmaceutical industry. It's drive has cost Governments more financially in putting their ideology in place, than if smokers had been left alone to smoke.  It has cost greatly in terms of money and suffering. It will fight for it's life.

Some vapers think we have the moral high ground because vaping is not as harmful as smoking. We do not have the moral high ground because though vaping is not burning tobacco, it is a filthy dirty nicotine addiction. To an ideology like I present below, vaping IS smoking and needs to be stamped out. These people do not think harm reduction, they think extermination. There's a big difference. Tobacco control has already infiltrated every area of society - none is free of it. The anti smoking cult is vast.

I point out that smokers were not able to defend themselves from this onslaught because they were filthy stinking addicts and all aspects of society were made to think that too - including smokers themselves. It was deliberately engineered. We are nicotine addicts - in the eyes of the ideology, that is no better  - we are nicotine "addicts" and they are, as we speak, making plans to eradicate vaping. The delight to me is that despite the goal of eradicating smoking by 2000 - it didn't happen. Smoking is still normal for the millions of smokers that still smoke. We know that vaping will survive too. Our problems stem from the goals of the enemy.  Know the enemy!

By the 5th  Conference the anti tobacco movement had come of age, they became confident in their BEST weapon - the one everyone believes, even though the evidence at that time (and still isn't) was not available. Quote - A recommendation from the "Health Consequences" rapporteur called for more research in this [passive smoking] area, noting there was conflicting evidence in regard to lung cancer. Nevertheless, "passive" smoking will continue to be stressed, not only in connection with lung cancer, heart disease, effects on children, etc., but also as a major source of annoyance and irritation for nonsmokers. The "passive" smoking theme will be used even more strongly, particularly in the political-legislative arena. It is something that people generally find easy to believe (my underline) My source Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger: Materialism Out of Control

Read below the aims of the 3rd World Conference on Smoking and Health, June 2-5, 1975 (New York, USA)“The Worldwide Campaign Against Smoking” and its conclusions and you can see how they did it.

1975 Sir George E. GodberChairman, Expert Committee on Smoking and HealthWorld Health Organization (original document)

“I imagine that most of us here know full well that our target must be, in the long-term, the elimination of cigarette smoking…… We may not have eliminated cigarette smoking completely by the end of this century, but we ought to have reached a position where a relatively few addicts still use cigarettes, but only in private at most in the company of consenting adults.”

“First, I think we must ask ourselves whether our society is one in which the major influences exercised on public opinion are such as would convey the impression that smoking is a dirty, anti-social practice, spoiling the enjoyment of youth and accelerating the onset of the deterioration of age.”

“Need there really be any difficulty about prohibiting smoking in more public places? The nicotine addicts would be petulant for a while, but why should we accord them any right to make the innocent suffer?”

“…..described the way in which education against smoking was to be incorporated into the general programme of health education which is so well presented in the USSR.”

“Every smoker is a promoter of other smokers. The practice ought to be an enclosed one, not to be endured by the non-smoker in ordinary social intercourse; and no one should be allowed to use advertisement or any indirect means to suggest otherwise.”

“If we start with the view that we can begin to get rid of cigarette smoking from many communal occasions and that we can and should make it more and more difficult for the individual to smoke cigarettes in public, and if we can eliminate the false message of the advertisers, I believe we could have a rapidly cumulative effect…..There are plenty of weapons of persuasion, of restriction, of financial penalty by price and tax increases with which we could seriously hope to reduce the consumption of cigarettes by a substantial portion within 5 years.”

“A longer-term target would make cigarette smoking an undesirable and private activity within ten years after that.”

From the “Conclusions” section of the 3rd World Conference (original document)

COMPRESSED! More effort must be devoted to  pregnant women, medical schools, hospitals and in health insurance structures, anti-smoking education programs should be increased to include the non-smoker, business, industry, and employee organizations, international airlines, programs aimed at creating a social environment in which smoking is unacceptable .the utilization of the women's liberation movement, tobacco tax, all organizations and associations concerned with matters of smoking and health to set an example for the societies they serve, including the prohibition of smoking in their offices, or their conferences and workshops and on the part of any persons representing them professionally or officially at any function or activities, professional medical practitioners concerned with the health of children , the non-smokers rights of the unborn children, voluntary non-smokers associations be supported by all of the sponsors of this Conference, there be no areas for smoking for teachers or students in schools, a coordinated world-wide campaign against cigarette smoking would dramatize and emphasize this health problem that it's fashionable to be free from smoking, efforts be made to have tobacco manufacturers and smokers support an educational anti -smoking campaign, the purchase of mass media -- time and space, to create and produce anti-smoking material for mass media .start a new generation of health professionals who will provide a medical environment free of smoking, present health professionals must adopt good health practices themselves specifically not smoking, no cigarette smoking in the course of professional duties should be a condition of employment in health facilities those seeking admission to health career training facilities should agree not to smoke in the course of professional duties. health professionals as exemplars should use their influence to establish a "no smoking" policy at all professional health meetings, health professionals can help make the use of tobacco socially unacceptable,all forms of health (including prepaid health plans), accident, life and fire insurance be granted to non-smokers at rates appropriately adjusted to reflect their reduced risk status,  public education is needed to help create the ideal of a non-smoking oriented society, schools which train physicians nurses and other health professionals develop course materials on smoking and health the benefits of cessation, and methods for helping people stop smoking, students who smoke should be strongly encouraged by faculty members to stop, hospitals ban smoking in all semi-private rooms, wards, clinics waiting rooms cafeterias and other public places within the hospital and prohibit the sale of cigarettes on hospital property, restricting areas where smoking is permitted in public places will provide important incentives to those who are trying to stop smoking and to others who have stopped and require support to remain free of tobacco, as a part of national health policy the use of tobacco should be viewed as behavior that is destructive to self and to others and to implement this aspect of policy by appropriate legislation, regulation, and voluntary action, there should be a deliberate and systematic enlargement and guarantee of non-smoking areas in all public places including places of employment, non-smokers should always have the right to work in smoke free areas, the sale of cigarettes in vending machines drugstores, public transport and supermarkets, and other commercial outlets should be banned and restricted to government licensed tobacco shops, to develop comprehensive programs directed against the smoking of cigarettes and based on the recommendations of this conference and those of the WHO expert Committee on Smoking and its Effects on Health, Governments be urged to introduce legislation to require the production of cigarettes of low tar and nicotine content, there be progressive and regular increases in the tax on cigarette tobacco, to protect the right of the nonsmokers and to shield them from the hazards and irritations of passive smoking and  legislation include the banning of smoking in public places such as cinemas, libraries, shops, trains, buses, and conference rooms, senior government officials be urged to refrain from smoking in the exercise of their duties, general or family physicians be encouraged to take the initiative in anti-smoking activities in their role as exemplars in their communities, smoking by hospital visitors to non-smoking patients be prohibited .
That it be recognized by all organizations and associations concerned with smoking and health that the campaign against smoking is political and economic in character and requires decisions based on political and economic factors . As a consequence each government should appoint a special committee whose members have expertise in these areas .

Sunday, 26 January 2014

You're the watts in my pv, You're the juice in my tank - sing along please! Music supplied.

You're the watts in my pv
You're the juice in my tank
You'll always be my necessity
I'd be lost without you

You're the wick in my attie
You're the coil in the wire
You'll always be my necessity
I'd be lost without you

Vapers all tell love tales
And each phrase dovetails
You've heard each known way
This way is my own way

You're the sail for my nicotine
You're the captain and crew
You will always be my necessity
I'd be lost without you

Saturday, 25 January 2014

Muzzle the public and your anti smoking message gets heard

Why not muzzle the public? - they're a bloody nuisance - they spoil the effect of the Anti-Smoking message! Frank Davis came to the same conclusion here

Of course you need SCIENTIFIC proof and HERE IT IS! 

Online comments can undermine anti-smoking PSAs

Commentary accompanying anti-smoking public service announcements (PSAs) in online forums like YouTube has an impact on the PSA's overall effectiveness. Both negative and positive comments accompanying PSAs degrade the persuasiveness of the videos.

"One thing is very clear: It is no longer possible to consider the influence of news or other messages in the public information environment apart from the comments which follow them," write Rui Shi, a doctoral candidate at Annenberg, and Profs. Paul Messaris and Joseph N. Cappella. Their research is covered in their article "Effects of Online Comments on Smokers' Perception of Antismoking Public Service Announcements," appearing in the Journal of Computer Mediated-Communication, a publication of the International Communication Association.

"The most surprising finding from the study is that positive comments failed to improve PSA evaluation over the no-comment exposure to ads," the team writes. They theorize that the pure existence of comments reduces the effects of the PSA in part because comments distracted the audience from the PSA's message. Those who watched the PSAs without any commentary had better recall of the PSA's content than those who read comments. "The detrimental effect of comments […] seems to suggest anti-smoking PSAs would be better off without comments, especially if the PSAs are strong or if the target audience is somewhat ready to quit smoking," they write. The power of audience participation via social media is clearly a double-edge sword. They note that a concerted effort to understand the influence of online commentary and social media is necessary to understand the way emerging media affect the public for good and for ill.

The public must not get distracted from the message -  I think the public are just plain bored of it all. What can an anti smoking PSA tell us that we don't already know?

As soon as the media is controlled by banning discussion/promoting vaping as the EU Parliament will surely pass into law in March, we will probably have to watch tedious anti-vaping propaganda.

I bet the comments on those will be fantastically entertaining!

Electronic cigarettes are consumer products, not tobacco products and not medicines. Please support EFVI

Friday, 24 January 2014

My notes on "The rise of the e cigarette" ITV shambles of a program

Chris Choi presented "The Rise of E cigarettes" on ITV last night - the "New nicotine". You can find it on catchup.

Right from the start we heard that toxins in e cigarettes had not been adequately researched, but that e cigarettes might be the "Greatest opportunity to reduce tobacco smoking"

So far so good - I was pretty calm. I was calm until I saw the diagram of what an e cigarette is and then I knew this report was going to be shit! The cartomiser was labelled a battery and the battery, the cartomiser!  Even if no one took note of the diagram, this showed profound ignorance in the team putting the show together ("hurriedly" was Choi's excuse on Vapourtrails TV).

There was a moment in an interview with a Chinese Manufacturer who had seen his sales explode and that recently 10 million e cigs were sold by his factory alone. This means to me that Choi's question "Do they work?" shows they really actually do. People are not idiots buying a consumer product that doesn't work!

On the suggestion that e cigarettes are a smoking revolution for young people, I want to point out that they are a revolution FOR SMOKERS.

The vendor made me cringe! Nuff said.

Chris Choi's interview with Dave Dorn disappeared in a flash, and I found his suggestion that "Can you believe it? - a TELEVISION STATION for vapers !" pretty patronising - especially as he hardly showed it.

My distress level was now on the increase - I can recognise lazily researched "let's find the creepiest examples of something to put on display here" attitude.

But I was absolutely incensed by  the story of "Terry". Terry switched to e cigs - his doctor said it was oil blended with nicotine - he died. He died of Lipoid pneumonia by inhaling oil in his e cig. Terry's wife was adamant.  This should never have appeared in an e cigarette report. It was chosen for its gasp factor - vapers don't inhale oil and it showed what an ignorant idiot his doctor was to even say such a thing. If the doctor mixed the e liquid, that's another matter. Neither propylene glycol nor vegetable glycerin is oil. It's GLYCERIN! It's been inhaled medically for a very long time.  This was an irresponsible unforgivable segment for a report on e cigarettes - no evidence of any kind to back it up, but burned in the brain forever. Shame on you!

So, back to serious questions (again) toxins in e cigarettes haven't been researched and people from Public Health tell us that to shore up the fear factor! Discussion goes onto advertising and that  Big Tobacco are right there regarding e cigarettes - but I have to point out they came in late and are trying to catch up. They are still stuck on 1st generation stuff and vapers have moved on from that. 

The only e cigarettes discussed were 1st generation, though egos, tanks and mods did make a fleeting appearance with no mention of the variety, so the public watching the program will know that an e cigarette consists  of a cartomiser that is called a battery and a battery that is called a cartomiser and it looks like a cigarette!

Having got over Terry, we came to the "Cheeeldren" in the car who's Mum was shocked by them hearing an e cigarette ad on the car radio.  Oh wow!  There is a generation of kids who have never seen smoking. But there is a growing knowledge amongst cheeeldren about e cigarettes. The marketing is targeting the young. And I point out, Chris Choi, that children under 18 can't buy them in UK because they are so regulated!

I was told that Elites are at the CENTRE of the e cig industry in the UK - they are? News to me. I reckon, it was easier to interview them because they are in your face everywhere so it looks that way and the research team doing this program did it the easy way, regurgitation of stuff from Public Health antis and choosing the closest vendor and the most sensation story of possible e cigarette toxins that killed poor old Terry.

Shame on ITV. A more inaccurate and biased program couldn't have been made. I am very sorry that your viewers will believe it to be true!

Professor Robert West  (names mixed up here, can you believe?) threw us a bone in the end - e cigarettes might give the opportunity to end the era of tobacco in his lifetime.

But THAT is not what viewers will remember!

And as a vaper, I found it totally disappointing.

Thursday, 23 January 2014

Tobacco Control - Chapman calling the kettle black!

Simon Chapman has no "competing interests" in writing this blog for The British Medical Journal except he is  professor Chapman AO PhD FASSA of public health at the University of Sydney and for 17 years was deputy editor and editor of the BMJ’s Tobacco Control.

Simon Chapman: When will the tobacco industry apologise for its galactic harms?

I believe Tobacco Control is in cahoots with Big Pharma and Chapman is one of their spokespeople. They have been profoundly deceitful since they came together in the sixties.

He says in his blog post

Tobacco companies are widely regarded as corporate pariahs whose conduct over many decades has set the ethical bottom feeder benchmark. If you Google “just like the tobacco industry”, thousands of examples cascade down the screen of writers reaching for the tobacco industry as a way of calibrating the deceitful, duplicitous, irresponsible venality of a large variety of industries. It is not difficult to explain why such a reputation is so deserved. 

It struck me that The Pharmaceutical Industry is similarly amoral.  To paraphrase "If you Google “just like the Big Pharma”, thousands of examples cascade down the screen of writers reaching for the pharmaceutical industry as a way of calibrating the deceitful, duplicitous, irresponsible venality of a large variety of industries. It is not difficult to explain why such a reputation is so deserved."

Google search -
“just like the Big Pharma”About 764,000 results (0.40 seconds)
“just like the tobacco industry”About 328,000 results (0.49 seconds) 
"death by Doctoring" About 1,300,000 results (0.41 seconds)

Death by Doctoring nice links and statistics here.

Simon Chapman says Globally, different legal, moral, and religious codes tend to share basic principles when it comes to how to deal with those who have done serious wrong. Sentencing often takes note of evidence of contrition, and civilized societies and judiciaries tend look for five broad pre-conditions in considering punishment:

Full public acknowledgement of the misdeeds and harms caused
(by The Tobacco Companies)
Apologising for these harms
Promising never to repeat them
Making good the damage done, and
Undertaking some form of public penance to symbolise your changed moral status.

I think it's the pot calling the kettle black! I believe Big Phama should be made to offer a similar apology. And I believe Simon Chapman is part of Big Pharma.  Can you believe public health and The Tobacco Control Industry has the nerve to legislate against VAPING?!!!!!!!

 Electronic cigarettes are not Tobacco Products, nor are they medicines.      

Please support EFVI

Tuesday, 21 January 2014

Smoking bans are for quitters - not for SHS then?

Here is a new report put out by scientists from Maastricht University (CAPHRI), Maastricht, The Netherlands Alliance Smokefree Holland (ASH), The Hague, The Netherlands University of California, San Diego, California, USA

Do smokers support smoke-free laws to help themselves quit smoking? Findings from a longitudinal study

A growing number of smokers support smoke-free laws. The theory of self-control provides one possible explanation for why smokers support laws that would restrict their own behaviour: the laws could serve as a self-control device for smokers who are trying to quit.

Objective To test the hypothesis that support for smoke-free laws predicts smoking cessation.

Methods We used longitudinal data (1999–2000) from a US national sample of adult smokers (n=6415) from the Current Population Survey, Tobacco Use Supplements. At baseline, smokers were asked whether they made a quit attempt in the past year. They were also asked whether they thought smoking should not be allowed in hospitals, indoor sporting events, indoor shopping malls, indoor work areas, restaurants, or bars and cocktail lounges. At 1-year follow-up, smokers were asked whether they had quit smoking.

Findings Smokers who supported smoke-free laws were more likely to have made a recent quit attempt. At 1-year follow-up, those who supported smoke-free laws in 4–6 venues were more likely to have quit smoking (14.8%) than smokers who supported smoke-free laws in 1–3 venues (10.6%) or smokers who supported smoke-free laws in none of the venues (8.0%). These differences were statistically significant in multivariate analyses controlling for demographics.

Conclusions Support for smoke-free laws among smokers correlates with past quit attempts and predicts future quitting. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that some smokers support smoke-free laws because the laws could help them quit smoking.

So there it is - the justification for keeping bans in place is for QUITTING smoking - this is just so we don't get the wrong idea that any bans were put in place to PROTECT WORKERS from Second Hand Smoke in hospitals, indoor sporting events, indoor shopping malls, indoor work areas, restaurants, or bars and cocktail lounges.

Bans in hospitals, indoor sporting events, indoor shopping malls, indoor work areas, restaurants, or bars and cocktail lounges is a far cry from the bans that exist now. Its SO OLD FASHIONED! This study used longitudinal data (1999–2000) - not sure what that actually means? But here we find a new justification for never reviewing smoking bans. The bans are there for the quitters!

Now if we actually re-assessed the bans and Tobacco Control was made, like the Tobacco Corporations are having to, admit they lied and twisted science to promote their agenda, we could take a new view of how the bans have altered their grip since "in hospitals, indoor sporting events, indoor shopping malls, indoor work areas, restaurants, or bars and cocktail lounges." and have constricted now to mean everywhere.

"Do smokers support smoke-free laws to help themselves quit smoking? Findings from a longitudinal study" seems so frightfully old fashioned - but, be aware it will be used to justify Tobacco Control ideology.

Vaping has hit the dust now too. I am sure there will be a study sometime to show that vaping bans are justified because they help nicotine quitters to quit nicotine.

But of course vaping, if it overtakes smoking tobacco as is predicted, could be a quitters best friend. Persecuting vapers would make lots of nice work for the future of Tobacco Control which might even change its name to Nicotine Control. However, nicotine is being shown in a new light nowadays - a benevolent light, and "Nicotine Control" as a new name for Tobacco Control would look very silly indeed.

Electronic Cigarettes should be removed from The Tobacco Control Directive. So please support the EFVI

Monday, 20 January 2014

Obsequious twaddle by the TVECA

Thank you Clive for your constancy in the matter of e cigs.

Confused e-cigarette trade association supports e-cigarette regulation it opposes

"This is a letter sent to MEPs today in which an e-cigarette trade association displays its naivety and contempt for its customers, whilst not actually understanding the process it is involved in (2nd reading isn’t inevitable). Let me put a question to TVECA – all those things you list that you don’t like and make no sense… how are they going to change if the directive passes unchanged?"

Please read Clive's blog -  it got my blood up and my response is this following

This matter is so absolutely convoluted that few can actually figure anything out at all. It has embittered vapers like me, and engendered complete scorn for EU legislators AND MP'S here in UK who tell us we "should be pleased" with what we will be given! As I have said before, it all stems from the tunnel vision of Tobacco Control and the past skullduggery which they continue to practice currently.

Quote from the TVECA " We would like to use this opportunity to personally thank you for your efforts in reaching the trilogue agreement.
We are aware that certain stakeholders continue to lobby the Parliament to amend Article 18 or try to apply procedural tricks that would undermine the credibility of the agreement. Any amendment at this stage would automatically lead to a 2nd reading and mean an unhelpful step back. We believe this would be an insult to the co-legislators who have worked hard to reach this compromise

This is the most subservient, obsequious twaddle. It's about time people called a spade a spade. I think hand wringing in the face of blatant Tobacco Control ideology should stop and it should be exposed as the corrupt and vile thing it is.

Electronic cigarettes should have no place in the TCD.

Please support

Thursday, 16 January 2014

Sod it! Save vaping

This is a collection of little thoughts that crossed my mind  whilst watching tweets and reading stuff -

"Even the most oblivious non-smokers are beginning to ask questions when a vaper tells them that he/she, too, is “exiled to the outdoors”. I wondered how many people ACTUALLY would support the smoking bans if they were ever consulted. And how many think the vaping ban is totally wacky. Why vaping is becoming clamped down on is "because it looks like smoking". It's not vaping that's the problem - it's the denormalising of smoking that's the nub.

"Would Hon Lik have invented the electronic cigarette if not for the smoking ban?"  Well of course he would! He was responding to the death of his father from smoking and not feeling good himself. There was no smoking ban in China.

"Official statistics show that there are in excess of 300 million tobacco cigarette smokers in China and more than 1 million people die each year as a consequence of smoking-related illnesses. Indeed there are also in excess of 100,000 deaths which are directly attributable to secondary smoking which is obviously an alarming statistic." Well, to anyone with basic math, this statistic is not nearly as alarming as the statistics on smoking the Western world presents! Is there something different about the Chinese?   No - I think OUR statistics are Chinese whispers!

"Prohibitionism is a legal philosophy and political theory often used in lobbying which holds that citizens will abstain from actions if the actions are typed as unlawful (i.e. prohibited) and the prohibitions are enforced by law enforcement. This philosophy has been the basis for many acts of statutory law throughout history, most notably when a large group of a given population disapproves of and/or feels threatened by an activity in which a smaller group of that population engages, and seeks to render that activity legally prohibited."  Well nowadays it's a "small group" that controls the larger group. Complete reversal actually.

"Bhutan is the only country in the world to completely outlaw the cultivation, harvesting, production, and sale of tobacco and tobacco products under the 'Tobacco Control Act of Bhutan 2010'. However, small allowances for personal possession are permitted as long as the possessor can prove that they have paid import duties." Yup - Import duties.

"The Pitcairn Islands had previously banned the sale of cigarettes, however it now permits sales from a government run store." Well I never, fancy that! 

"Iceland is also proposing banning tobacco sales from shops, making it prescription only and therefore dispensable only in pharmacies on doctor's orders." Uh huh, Doctors and pharmacies hey? 

"In 2012, anti-smoking groups proposed a 'smoking licence' – if a smoker managed to quit and hand back their licence, they would get back any money they paid for it." This would mean buying cigarettes with your birth certificate after you had BOUGHT your licence? Maybe we'll have to BUY a licence for nicotine e liquid ad produce our birth certificates?

These random thoughts bring me to the idea that vaping might be doomed because it's like smoking and the prohibitionist Tobacco Control/Pharmaceutical Corporation "Chinese Whispers" are going to kick the shit out of us.

Have you not reason then to bee ashamed, and to forbeare this filthie noveltie, so basely grounded, so foolishly received and so grossely mistaken in the right use thereof? In your abuse thereof sinning against God, harming your selves both in persons and goods, and raking also thereby the markes and notes of vanitie upon you: by the custome thereof making your selves to be wondered at by all forraine civil Nations, and by all strangers that come among you, to be scorned and contemned. A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse.— James 1604

Sod it!

Support Please!

Tuesday, 14 January 2014

EFVI Initiative - Expressing the will of the many vapers in the EU: Please support it and share, share and share

I am supporting the EFVI Initiative I like it because it is dead clear. Vaping needs to be left alone as a consumer product so that we can continue "to live our rich vaping lives". THAT is what vapers want without doubt. That's what I want. That's the nub!

Also, there is no arse creeping, or brown nosing in this initiative. Smokers aren't stomped on either. It has one year to collect a million signatures. I think they can do that if they have helpful people like me and you to share, share and share.

By the time all signatures are collected, the European Parliament, no doubt, will have passed its hideous deformed Tobacco Control Directive. Other people like Clive Bates are fighting that from a corruption angle. But the European Free Vaping Initiative will be presented at a later date. This might be what is needed if the warped monster TCD  has taken us hostage by then. I am looking into the future.

Please read from the top of the page on the EFVI site and you can decide yourself if you, like me, likes the clarity and directness of it. It translates to many different languages. You need to fill in the form FOR YOUR COUNTRY. And submit. If you are living abroad, supply a valid address for your home country.

Here are some links - THE INITIATIVE
This is a wonderful active MAP - IT'S PROGRESS BY COUNTRY
(remember to refresh it) 

Our goal is to express the will of the many, who are already vaping, plan to vape, have a loved one who is vaping or someone who simply respects the values of private sphere and personal rights."

Monday, 13 January 2014

Do we want Vapeasys or do we want FREEDOM?

A smokeasy (also spelled smoke-easy or smokeeasy) is a business, especially a bar or drinking venue, which allows smoking despite a smoking ban enacted as a criminal law or an occupational safety and health regulation. The term is also used to describe locations and events promoted by tobacco companies to avoid or evade bans on smoking. The word was added to the New Oxford American Dictionary in 2005, although it was used as early as 1978. It is a portmanteau of smoking and speakeasy. (Wikepedia)

The more I hear of the insanity of banning vaping, the more I think, in the end, well have to be using vapeasys. These would be venues that allowed vaping even if it should become illegal by law because "It normalises smoking" and therefore should be done in private. Smokers are not even safe in their own homes nowadays, yet smoking is "normal" to almost a quarter of people.  Smokers have no rights, no voice, are never consulted by Public Health and are today's lepers. It's a modern crime.

Tobacco companies in the USA are going to have to publish apologies for the lying and cheating they have done in promoting their killer product. And I think their product IS a killer. It is not tobacco, it is a fake thing with added chemicals and manipulated into a poisonous item.  It partly got that way with the nagging of Big Tobacco and so filters and "Lights" were evolved. Real tobacco is a pretty rare thing and not something easily obtained by the public.

I think Tobacco Control should also be forced to apologise for THEIR lies and THEIR cheating too.  They have been as devious and immoral as Big Tobacco in their drive to eradicate smoking and their lies about Second Hand Smoke. And the activities at the EU are disgusting.Thank you Clive Bates for fighting for us.

So they are  doing it with vaping. It must be terrible indeed to admit that all your hard work since the 1960's has been in vain and accept that people still like smoking. We like it so much that we have a new kind of smoking that is just as satisfying, friendly, shareable and fun as smoking ever was. If the Vaping Police ever ratchet up their persecution of vapers, they'd be in deep shit. A Vapeasy  would be odourless. People could simply stick their PV's anywhere comfortable in an instant. There would be no smoke on the breath or clothes to give us away. In Smokeasys there are no ashtrays, only cups of "tea" into which you drop your butt in times of emergency. We wouldn't even need that!

In the UK, the need for a normal social life for smokers where you can relax and be yourself has resulted in the growth of "Smokey Drinkies" on private property in people's sheds. Invitation only affair. When I go out, I usually vape discreetly and even stealthily - but it's MUCH nicer to be your normal self, in a halo of vapour. I can understand how smokers enjoy "Smokey Drinkies".

I loved smoking - and smoking with smoking friends was socially delightful. I love vaping just as much. I know smokers, so I vape with them, but I know no vapers - I am all alone. If the shit hits the fan for vaping, I hope someone will invite me to their vapeasy. In the meantime, if you are in the EU please sign this Initiative  and please share EVERYWHERE!

Sunday, 12 January 2014

Vapers, is our gold too pure? The healing power of nicotine

When the battle for electronic cigarettes is over as it will be, and science can sensibly sum up the benefits of vaping, we might get to know more about nicotine. My blog yesterday offered reasons why our rapaciously envied goldmine of vaping nicotine might be beneficial for our health in more ways than just not inhaling combustible leaves. But a long comment on that post brought up an intriguing idea that the tobacco plant could offer more than just nicotine. It suggests that the nicotine we vape might be too pure and that the very old fashioned benefits of tobacco as it was used in the old days as a medication occurred because other chemicals in tandem with nicotine are what makes nicotine work. I am interested to see, in the presence of a ban on nicotine strengths being imposed on us by the European Parliament, whether making our own nicotine from real tobacco might reveal more of its healing power. It seems to me that smoking as it used to be is very different from what it is now. This last week I posted a video called "The wisdom of the Crowd " on Life on an Alien Planet ". It really is worth a watch. I have embedded it at the end of this post as it follows the topic. I am posting the comment on yesterday's blog here as it really is worth a read. Enjoy!


It is refreshing to see a vaper who doesn't malign smokers or smoking. While I agree with much of what you wrote about medicinal properties of tobacco, nicotine and pharma's major role in the rise of "scientific" antismoking, you are attributing too much therapeutic power to the single component of tobacco, nicotine.

Emphasis on nicotine is a typical one dimensional view of "active" and "inactive" or "accidental" ingredients in medicinal plants. To see the problem with such one dimensional oversimplification, consider a recent experiment on anti-inflammatory effects of nicotine vs tobacco smoke for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) described in this post:

The RA is one of those diseases which is statistically associated (on _non-randomized_ samples) with smoking, hence smoking is a risk factor for RA and doctors will urge (force) RA patients to quit smoking. It turns out that hard science, such as experiments, shows exactly how such association arises. In the above mice experiment, the mice with induced RA is randomly split into 3 groups -- the "smoking group" (inhaling tobacco smoke), pure nicotine group and untreated controls. The result is probably surprising to most people, even in this group -- the smoking group did the best, had the RA onset delayed the most and had the least damage to cartilage. The nicotine group was second and untreated group did the worst.

So, the origin of positive association between smoking and RA observed on _non-randomized_ samples in humans is result of instinctive self-medication -- those susceptible to chronic inflammation smoke more than general population since tobacco smoke provides perceptible relief and protection against RA flareups, pain and damage.

As with the above anti-inflammatory effects, there are many other medicinal effects of tobacco smoke that are not replicated by nicotine. For example, MAO B inhibition (similar to that of 'youth elixir' and nootropic, aka smart drug, selegiline or deprenyl) is due to something else in tobacco smoke.

Similarly, some component/s in tobacco smoke (not nicotine) strongly upregulates (nearly doubling each) the three main detox and antioxidant enzymes in human body - glutathione, catalase and SOD (superoxide dismutase), which are also hailed in life extension circles as youth elixirs. As with the above RA example, people exposed to environmental toxins (miners, physical laborers, truck drivers, etc) would find that smoking provides relief by virtue of near doubling of their detox rates. Hence these people smoke more than general population, as a form of instinctive self-medication.

But those toxins they are exposed to (which include heavy metals, solvents, paints, carcinogens, etc) that these enzymes help neutralize and clear out, will still cause harm in the long run, since the protection isn't perfect. Therefore, these people suffer disease caused by the toxins and carcinogens, which will be attributed by the present antismoking junk science to tobacco smoke, even though tobacco smoke is protective (via upregulation of those detox enzymes) against the very diseases it is blamed for (see item #7 at the link above, where this is shown for association of COPD with tobacco smoking).

In conclusion, while vaping is certainly useful to get around antismoking regulations and hypertaxation of smokers (at least for time being, which likely will not last very long, the way it is moving), one should keep in mind that you are comparing medicinal plant honed for over eight thousand years for medicinal properties of its smoke, tested on billions of life-long test subjects vs. one-dimensional "active" ingredient (nicotine), which has far shorter track record of use in isolated form. For example, nicotine is vasoconstrictor by itself. But full tobacco smoke contains compensating vasodilating components (including low dose Nitric Oxide plus unknown others), which limit the constriction of blood vessels and help bounce-back when you sleep. Similarly, while pure nicotine upregulates cholinergic system (acetylcholine receptors), which in turn suppresses dopaminergic system, the full tobacco smoke, via MAO B inhibition, upregulates also the compensating dopamine neurotransmitters, offsetting the imbalance from pure nicotine.

You should also recall that the same tobacco control, which you now see as lying scumbags, since they are unfairly attacking vaping, is the same tobacco control, same people and same organizations same pharma sponsoring them, which scared everyone away from tobacco smoke over previous few decades. Do you believe that previously truthful people suddenly turned into lying scum when vaping came on the scene, or is it more plausible that these same guys were the same lying scum all along?

-- part 2 --

Keep also in mind the recent history lesson from butter vs margarine flip-flop -- for decades doctors, scientists, health groups were advising everyone to stop eating artery clogging butter with its toxic saturated fats and switch to clean, pure heart saving margarine with its healthy, pure transfats. Today of course, the story is exactly opposite -- the margarine and transfats are so harmful for arteries they are being increasingly banned -- news story:

How could that be? As always, to see what is going on, follow the money. The pharma came up with early broad spectrum cholesterol blockers and wanted a disease to cure, so cholesterol rich foods, especially saturated fats (butter, eggs, etc) were blamed and pharma had a fix. The chemical and oil industry (which often overlaps with pharma) had lots of junk fats that they needed to get rid of as industrial waste, preferably to someone who will pay them for it. What's better than add some coloring and flavoring to it and dump all the waste fats into arteries of stupid consumers, by convincing them that it replaces those harmful saturated fats from butter.

Coincidentally, the story flipped upside down, despite evidence all along for ineffectiveness of both, substitution of butter with margarine and general cholesterol suppression, when pharma discovered more specific cholesterol blockers, statins (by reverse engineering of medicinal red yeast rice), and suddenly there was "bad cholesterol" that needs to be blocked, and "good cholesterol" that needs to be promoted, and as luck would have it pharma had just the drugs that selectively block only the "bad" one. The old stories became inoperative and the new stories were fed to the gullible public, by doctors, media and "health" bureaucracies and organization (i.e. the sickness industry).

You may be falling for the same trick again, now with tobacco smoke tars (analogue of arteries clogging butter) vs clean pure nicotine with PG that leave no cancer causing tar (analogue of margarine & transfats).

Tobacco smoke is a far more balanced medicinal substance, harmonized and optimized with additional medicinal ingredients over millennia by huge numbers of test subjects (smokers). I mentioned few compensating or additional effects available from tobacco smoke which offset some downsides of pure nicotine (there are many more, see brief summary in item #17 at previous link).

If you check items #1,#2 #3,#6, #7, #11, #12 at the earlier link, you will see that in animal experiments, which is a hard science, tobacco smoke not only doesn't cause lung cancer and COPD, but protects against them (due in part to anti-inflammatory and detox effects of tobacco smoke). It also extends lifespan of test animals by ~20%, while keeping them thinner and sharper into the old age.

There are no comparable experiments about effects of inhalation of pure nicotine vapor + PG/VG, hence we don't know whether vaping is as beneficial as real tobacco smoke, or even that it is harmless in the long run at all. In direct comparisons of pure nicotine vs tobacco smoke, such as those RA experiments, the tobacco smoke proved more beneficial than nicotine alone. Of course, if you buy into the lies of tobacco control about 4000 toxic chemicals in tobacco smoke, then one could leap to conclusion that vaping is much healthier. But as with butter vs margarine cautionary tale, one has to take the health advice from the Sickness Industry with large dose of salt (I usually flip them upside down and do exactly the opposite). After all, their profits are in you getting and staying sick, not in you being healthy (that would be a financial disaster for them). Would you listen to advice which shell to pick in order to win from a street shell game hustler who just shuffled them? It is the same kind of incentive at work in both cases.

Note that I am not suggesting that commercial junk cigarettes, with filters and fire retardants (mandated in USA, as "Fire Safe Cigarettes") are good for you. Filters, which are result of early fear mongering campaign by tobacco control, will leave non-biodegradable fibers in your lungs which need to be coughed out, usually every morning. Light cigarettes have imbalanced the proportions of medicinal components of previously perfectly harmonized medicinal smoke from "oldfashioned" (or plain, natural) tobacco smoke. Myriad of additives, optimized to boost shelf life and cost to manufacture (such as tobacco sheets) are likely harmful as well, or at least not optimized for you but for big tobacco.

In short, the mass produced commercial cigarettes you find at gas stations and supermarkets are to real tobacco, what mass produced junk food found in those same places is to home grown natural/organic food. The former will ruin your health, the latter will keep you healthy.

End Quote

The Wisdom of the Crowd Video

Saturday, 11 January 2014

The old war becomes new for vapers. What you might not know about our goldmine!

The war on smoking is fascinatingly perverted. Big Money indeed. Bloomberg Territory in fact. Investment and profit, wealth and riches unimaginable - and power.

Big Drug's Nicotine War

The PDF link I have posted here is an interesting read. This history of NRT only goes to 2001 - what a pity! However, it is also a history for vapers. Nicotine has been a most profitable industry for the Cigarette Industry AND Pharmaceuticals. There's GOLD IN NICOTINE.  Big Pharma have been inside Tobacco Control from the beginning. Their involvement in the anti-smoking drive has been so deep they must be absolutely horrified that electronic cigarettes, not invented by themselves, and so utterly disruptive to the whole smoking/pharma symbiosis have taken off. Many vapers prefer vaping to smoking, and millions have dropped tobacco smoking. It makes Tobacco Control, and all its minion lobby groups like Ash look old fashioned and redundant.  The whole Industry must be in crises.  No wonder they don't want VAPERS to VAPE. We might discover more benefits to vaping than meets the eye. It's our alluring 2nd and 3rd generational delivery systems that is making them retch because it's OUR goldmine not theirs!

III - Gold In Nicotine
Publication date July 13, 2001
“It helps digestion, the gout, the toothache, prevents infection by scents; it heats the cold, and cools them that sweat,feedeth the hungry, spent spirits restoreth, purgeth the stomach,killeth nits and lice; the juice of the green leaf healeth green wounds, although poisoned; the syrup for many diseases; the smoke for the phthisic, cough of the lungs, distillations of rheum, and all diseases of a cold and moist cause; good for all bodies cold and moist taken upon an empty stomach; taken upon a full stomach it precipitates digestion.” John Josselyn on the medicinal uses of tobacco, 1675 (quoted in .A.Weslager, Magic Medicines of the Indians, Signet, NY: 1974)

“Nicotine is an amazing chemical.”Jack Henningfield, 1998 (quoted in “Smoking Aside, Nicotine Remains an Amazing Chemical,” Scott Shane,The Seattle Times, 1/11/98, p. A10).Henningfield, a pharmacologist at Johns Hopkins and former National Institute of Drug Abuse scientist, is also a consultant to SmithKlineBeecham.

Tobacco was used medicinally by the indigenous populations in the Americas long before the arrival of European settlers. After the Europeans began to colonize the New World, they too used it to treat numerous physical diseases and complaints, a practice which continued in American folk remedies until well into the 20th century.

However, as the anti-tobacco movement gained strength and momentum in the 1980s, both tobacco and the nicotine it contained were excoriated by public health officials. And in 1988 the U.S. Surgeon General’s report for the first time asserted that nicotine was an addictive drug, chaining smokers to their cigarettes. This claim has become a favored weapon not only of the anti-tobacco establishment but also of trial attorneys attempting to win huge sums of money in lawsuits against the tobacco industry.

Pharmacolgists and other scientists, who had been investigating the physiological effects of nicotine since at least the 1950s, began to find that nicotine could have significant therapeutic applications, both as a stop-smoking aid and as a medicine for treating various diseases. Their interest in nicotine increased as new discoveries about the substance emerged.

A time-specific online search of the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed database demonstrates quite well the pattern of increasing scientific interest in nicotine. Between 1963 (the earliest publication year PubMed indexes) and 1970, 1092 articles on nicotine are listed; between 1971 and 1980, 2346 articles are listed; between 1981 and 1990, 3771 articles are listed; and between 1991 and 2000, 6919 articles are listed. In other words, in thirty-seven years, published research involving nicotine multiplied by more than a factor of six.

The pharmaceutical industry had seen for some time the potential profits in developing nicotine-based smoking-cessation drugs. In 1962, Pharmacia’s scientists began working on such nicotine delivery devices,  and by 1971 they had perfected nicotine-laden gum, which was later marketed by SmithKlineBeecham as Nicorette. As the anti-tobacco movement grew, other pharmaceutical companies became interested in the potentially huge market for smoking-cessation products. When researcher Jed Rose developed the transdermal nicotine patch in the early 1980s, the pharmaceutical industry was quick to begin steps to bring it to market. It wasn’t just the smoking-cessation applications of alternate nicotine delivery systems that interested the drug companies, of course, but a multitude of other pharmacological applications as well.

Thursday, 9 January 2014

Death by toothpaste - How toxic is e liquid?

Us vapers need to be a bit careful with our e liquid. Don't try suicide, it seems useless for that!

All vapers should read this entertaining but serious post How Much Eliquid Does It Take to kill You? Essential Knowledge for All Vapers Thank you James Dunworth and your Ashtray Blog!

I couldn't find e liquid on the UK National Poison's Centre database, which doesn't mean it might not turn up there some time in the future. Fluoride is scary stuff, yet you can buy it in any shop and it is in more than just toothpaste! Its not there either - you have to register and log into a different website when you're in a panic and you need to know stuff  QUICKLY. You can phone. Wonder how quick that would be? They'd send you to A&E probably.

On toothpaste -

“WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a poison-control center right away.”

Between 1990 and 1994, over 628 people, mostly children, were treated after ingesting too much fluoride-containing toothpaste. "While the outcomes were generally not serious," gastrointestinal symptoms appear to be the most common problem reported. In 2011, 21,513 incidents of exposure to tooth paste containing fluoride were reported to the National Poison Data System.

Symptoms (The New york Times)

Swallowing a large amount of regular toothpaste may cause stomach pain and possible intestinal blockage. These additional symptoms may occur when swallowing a large amount of toothpaste containing fluoride:

Difficulty breathing
Heart attack
Salty or soapy taste in the mouth
Slow heart rate

All Grannies like me are probably aware of how dangerous the world around us really is for children. and I found the list below interesting. I would have liked more information.  For REALLY DANGEROUS stuff you have to join Toxbase to find out real stuff. But we are allowed to know about Low Toxicity Substances. Nicotine is not covered for anonymous public information or fluoride either for that matter. But we all already know that nicotine KILLS smokers - the myth that was invented by Tobacco Control - must be a bit awkward now to find it's not true - yet doctors still believe it, and the public too!

Here is the list I found quite interesting -  was amazed to find Homeopathic preparations on the list because we are told they absolutely are completely useless - little sugar pills. Not on this list is antifreeze - but maybe it appears on Toxbase, which I'm not going to register for. Antifreeze poisons doggies and pussycats, hedgehogs and other little animals as they lap it up off the tar under our vehicles. But it is not in e liquid.

National Poisons Information Service UK Low Toxicity Substances
Health Protection Agency Second Edition 2012 Prepared by NPIS Cardiff on behalf
of the NPIS and HPA


African violet (Saintpaulia ionantha)



Carnation (Dianthus)

Christmas cactus (Schlumbergera bridgesii)


Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale)

Daisy (Bellis perennis)


Geranium (Pelargonium species)

Hawthorn (Crateagus monogyna)

Holly (Ilex aquifolium)

Honeysuckle (Lonicera species)


Marigold (Calendula officinalis)

Nasturtium (Tropaeolum majus)

Pansy (Viola tricolor)


Primrose (Primula vulgaris)

Rose (Rosa species)

Rowan (Sorbus aucuparia)

Snapdragon (Antirrhinum majus)

Spider plant (Chlorophytum comosum)

Star Gazer Lily (Lilium speciosum)

Violet (Viola tricolor)

Animal and Plant Food

Bird seed

Cat and dog food

Cut flower food

Fish food

House plant food (e.g. Phostrogen® and BabyBio®)



Antacids (e.g. Rennie®)

Aqueous cream

Calamine lotion

Cough sweets/lozenges

Emollients (e.g. Diprobase®, E45 Cream and


Evening primrose oil


Folic acid

Guaifenesin-only cough preparations

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT)

Homeopathic preparations (not herbal remedies)

Hydrocortisone cream


Nappy rash cream

Oral contraceptive pill

Petroleum jelly (e.g.Vaseline®)





Vitamins B, C and E

Zinc oxide cream

Witch hazel

In the Garden

Animal urine/faeces

Bird faeces


Dog and cat faeces (less than 2 weeks old)



Slugs, snails and worms

Small dead insects or spiders

Cosmetics and Toiletries

Baby wipes

Bubble bath*

Deodorant, non-aerosol

Hair conditioner/shampoo* (not insecticidal or medicated)

Liquid soap*

Moisturiser/hand cream/body lotion

Nail glue

Shaving foam

Shower gel*

Solid cosmetics (e.g. lipstick, ChapStick® and foundation)

Solid soap*

Suntan lotion and cream


Craft Items

Ball point pen ink

Blu Tack® and similar preparations


Children’s paints (including face, powder and poster)

Crayons (wax)

Crepe paper

Felt tip pen ink

Gel pen ink

Glue (water based or PVA)


Pencil lead (graphite)

Cleaning Products

Air freshener, non-aerosol (including plug-in)

Household liquid carpet cleaner*

Fabric conditioner (not concentrated) (less than 10% cationic surfactants)*

General household cleaning liquid

Washing up liquid* (notmachine dishwasher products)


Artificial sweeteners

Bubble liquid*


Chewing gum (nicotine - free)

Coal and artificial coal

Food packaging/sweet wrappers

Human urine/faeces

Indoor emulsion paint

Luminous glowsticks/necklaces

Mouldy or out-of-date food





Silver paper/foil

Silica gel (desiccant sachet)

Teething rings

Substances marked * may produce foam if ingested in large amounts. There is a small risk of aspiration into the lungs if vomiting occurs.

What to do:

A small glass of water (or milk or juice) may be given if there is mild gastrointestinal upset

You should consult TOXBASE® if considerable quantities are ingested or persisting or worrying symptoms are present

( or contact the NPIS on 08448920111 (24 hours)

Wednesday, 8 January 2014

Dear Mr Cameron - a marvellous plan for the UK! Do share to Downing Street.

The Government is short of money I believe. I've thought of a brilliant solution!

Why not get The National Health Service of the UK to STOP buying useless NRT pharmaceuticals which they vainly dish out free to obstinate smokers, and allow the consumers of tobacco to simply continue smoking and deal with themselves, themselves, by having the opportunity to buy their own 2nd and 3rd generation electronic cigarettes and so ease your financial problems? You will save the Government TONS! And you can still tax smokers.

"In the 2011-12 financial year the Government spent £88.2 million on the stop smoking services in England plus an additional £66.4 million on medicinal aid" (ASH fact sheet)

Oh, I forgot! Disband ASH too and all the other expensive front men for corporations that you pay for - ASH alone would save £210,000. I'm not sure how much in total you give out to Lobby Groups. Don't you think they should all be abolished - they are
very expensive and not democratic are they?

And another idea that might help, would be to reassess the smoking ban. The economy might resuscitate itself - it's been in the doldrums since then. And back off of introducing the very expensive "plain packaging"scheme whose shameful pictorial self fulfilling prophecies will make us all sicker quicker. And imagine the VOTES you'd get for the next election! You might even win.

That way, you would save oodles of money,  and stop wasting ours. We could get back on track in the UK and perhaps attend to important things like happiness and Flood Defenses.

Isn't that a MARVELLOUS plan? 

Monday, 6 January 2014

Fake Charities ASH - Smoking must be eradicated. Vaping is smoking. Smoking must be eradicated. Vaping is smoking. Smoking must be eradicated. Vaping is smoking.

 In the UK. we have an incredibly strange system of Lobbying Government by "Charities". If you want to know how this works, SOCK PUPPETS is worth a read. This is the PDF that took me several days to get through. It's absolutely worth the time for education if you are that way inclined! It will stop your heart bleeding every time someone asks you to give to their cause and induce sense into your charitable giving. Cancer Research UK and the British Heart Foundation send their(our) money to ASH.

The Tobacco Control "Charity" ASH has just been disbanded in Australia and Holland. It's about time it met that fate here in the UK. Trouble is the Tobacco Control Industry, like a virus in the body of society, has picked up an immunity to the antibiotic of truth, and cannot be eradicated. The mania of it that underlies anti vaping is the example of how Tobacco Control, needing to protect its future must invent more and more “conflicts” with which it must "battle" in an attempt to more deeply infect the societal body that it has already weakened. Smoking must be eradicated. Vaping is smoking.

I would celebrate if ASH UK was disbanded here. They've been a really evil bunch for smokers - are they wolves in sheep's clothing too in that they "appear" kinder to vapers? I don't put any hope in them. They are Tobacco Control and they will HAVE to toe the line and promote e cigs as NRT. Smoking must be eradicated. Vaping is smoking. Smoking must be eradicated. Vaping is smoking. Smoking must be eradicated. Vaping is smoking.
This is the situation on ASH UK. Enjoy!

"Fake Charities" is a very interesting read! "We define a Fake Charity as any organisation registered as a UK charity that derives more than 10% of its income—and/or more than £1 million—from the government, while also lobbying the government. That lobbying can take the form of calling for new policies, changes to the law or increases in (their own) funding." I

Fake Charities (Scroll down the web page if you go to it)

Alias: Action on Smoking and Health Limited (old name )
Activity: ASH is an organisation which provides information on all aspects of tobacco and works to advance policies and measures that will help to prevent the addiction, disease and unnecessary premature death caused by smoking.

Income: £935,093
Accounts: 31 Mar 2010
Registrar: Charity Commission 262067

ASH was created (and funded) by the UK government in 1971 to campaign against smoking, since no significant grass-roots organisation existed to do so. In the period 2004-06, they led the SmokeFree Coalition which successfully lobbied the UK government to overturn its manifesto commitment to exclude ‘wet’ pubs and private members’ clubs from the smoking ban. This coalition included real charities such as Cancer Research and the British Heart Foundation alongside other fake charities such as SmokeFree North East and D-MYST.
Currently campaigning for plain-packaging of cigarettes and a ban on the display of tobacco in shops. E-mails released under the Freedom of Information revealed that ASH colluded with the Department of Health and Cancer Research UK to mislead politicians about the likely cost to shop-keepers of the display ban (PDF).
ASH employs YouGov to conduct its opinion polls. YouGov’s president, Peter Kellner, is a trustee of ASH and has publicly campaigned for the tobacco display ban.


[chart percent=22.5]
Its 2009/10 accounts show a total income of £935,093, of which:

  • Department of Health: £210,000
  • Total £210,000 (22.5% of all income)
The remainder of its income comes from ASH International (part-funded by Pfizer), Cancer Research UK and the British Heart Foundation.

Sunday, 5 January 2014

Mayor Bloomberg! Not gone - but EVERYWHERE!

To Tobacco Control, Bloomberg is a hero. His millions will keep the Industry going, and going, and going.

His last act before stepping down as Mayor of New York will reverberate around the world. He banned e cigarettes.

Fiona Godlee, editor of the BMJ that "helps doctors make better decisions"! says in
Hold the line against tobacco 
"How should we view e-cigarettes? As a safe and effective way to quit tobacco? (There is some evidence in support of these claims for harm minimisation.) Or as a grave risk to public health because of their potential to renormalise and glamourise smoking, especially among young people? New York’s mayor Michael Bloomberg has made his own view clear. In one of his final acts before leaving office, he has banned the smoking of e-cigarettes in indoor public places (doi:10.1136/bmj.f7677).Bloomberg’s track record on public health has been extraordinary. Although his critics charge him with failing to tackle New York’s rampant social inequalities, there is no doubt he has provided global leadership in public health. "

Bloomberg established the Bloomberg Initiative with billions to keep the fire of Tobacco Control burning.

About the Bloomberg Initiative 
The four major objectives of the Bloomberg Initiative are:
1. To refine and optimize tobacco control programs to help smokers stop using tobacco and to prevent children from starting.
2. To support public sector efforts to pass and enforce key laws and implement effective policies, including taxing cigarettes, preventing smuggling, altering the image of tobacco and protecting workers from exposure to secondhand smoke.

3. To support advocates’ efforts to educate communities about the harms of tobacco and to enhance tobacco control activities that work towards a tobacco-free world.

4. To develop a rigorous system to monitor the status of global tobacco use.
The Bloomberg Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use is implemented though five partner organizations: the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Foundation, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, the World Health Organization and the World Lung Foundation.

The Bloomberg Initiative Grants Program is co-ordinated by The World Health Organisation and provides funding to government ministries and agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (aka Lobby Groups), civil society organizations, and universities in more than 40 countries. Bloomberg has not gone, he LIVES - everywhere!

WHO "This initiative, funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies, is committed to the scaling up of tobacco control efforts in developing countries where the health burden from tobacco use is highest. Working with other partners in the initiative, WHO is playing an important leadership and coordination role in assisting countries with the implementation of effective tobacco control interventions in line with best evidence and policies.

All the "evidence and policies" will stack up AGAINST US. I point out AGAIN, that to promote Tobacco Control IN ANY WAY, is committing suicide for vapers. I will not promote the lies and ideology.

Enjoy this video! Watch to about 15.58 min. It's a 2002 video on Dodgy Science - and since then, things have got a whole lot WORSE but I see Audrey Silk there - thank you Audrey for your recent courage on our behalf.  Bloody Bloomberg!

Saturday, 4 January 2014

What WAS the nasty thing that happened after 1999? Well, here is the way it was, from Rose

My recent post  "That's the way it SHOULD have been in 1999 - what ...": has very very interesting comments to it - please read them - and I will use them in future. But I said "something nasty happened" after the 1999 ASH letter to the Pub industry which showed clearly that protection for workers in the UK against SHS was already in place  The smoking bans seemed superfluous to me - the "something nasty" which is the problem that vapers find themselves entangled in now. Vapers problems are BUILT on the Tobacco Control drive against smokers. We cannot ignore this fact. Tobacco Control came for the smokers - now they come for US. If how it was for smokers is EXPOSED, then vapers are empowered. Many younger vapers/ordinary people/ non smokers and smokers do not know the story. They, unwittingly are the minions produced by the Tobacco Control industry.

But the "something nasty" that happened after 1999 is explained by Rose who left this comment on my post. I reproduce it here.

 "What happened then? Something really, really nasty"

Six months before that letter was sent to the Publican.

30 January 1999

"The strength of the Partnership Project lies in the fact that it has brought together three major pharmaceutical companies, Glaxo Wellcome, Novartis Consumer Health and Pharmacia & Upjohn, all manufacturers of treatment products for tobacco dependence"

Highlights from a letter to GlaxoSmithKline from Clive Bates

7th March 2001

"ASH has worked closely with both Glaxo and SmithKline Beecham staff and always welcomed the active collaboration. I hope to continue this with the merged company. We have worked with GSK under the auspices of the WHO-Europe Partnership Project on tobacco dependence and at various one-off opportunities. ASH was instrumental in securing greater government commitment to smoking cessation products in the NHS National Plan and we have helped with PR for both Zyban and Niquitin CQ."

"Every time a smoker switches to ‘lights’ as an alternative to quitting the market for smoking cessation is diminished.
Most of the measures that drive people to want to quit smoking and use GSK products are exactly those that are opposed by tobacco companies.

Such measures include:

Restrictions on smoking in public places and workplaces"

"ASH has a small shareholding in GSK and I will be attending with others to question you and the Chairman on this situation."

Yours sincerely

Clive Bates

WHO Europe evidence based recommendations on the treatment of tobacco dependence - 2002

"This was a three year project, funded largely by three pharmaceutical companies that manufacture treatment products for tobacco dependence,.."

"They were commissioned by the World Health Organization and have drawn on the experience of a number of European countries, including the four original target countries of the partnership project: France, Germany, Poland, and the UK."

Though the aim was to get people to use pharmaceutical smoking cessation products, you can't stop people allegedly harming themselves if they don't want to, so governments had to be given a compelling reason to explain and implement the bans and only the alleged perils of secondhand smoke would do.

Article 8.1 of the FCTC, the UK ratified the treaty on the 16 Dec 2004

‘Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability’. Parties therefore agree to adopt and implement, in areas of national jurisdiction , effective legislative, executive, administrative and/or other measures providing for protection from exposure to tobacco smoke in indoor workplaces, public transport, indoor public places and, as appropriate, other public places. Such protection must be in place five years after the FCTC comes into force for a Party."

Here's the official announcement, one line hidden in mass of text.

"On the same day as these statistics were published, the UK ratified the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control."

It's taken years for me to find out what happened to us.


Friday, 3 January 2014

BAN, BAN, BAN! Vapers - Little lies build up to big lies!

    BAN, BAN, BAN. Banning is the new Public Health creed in action, "Thou Shalt Nots" - Commandments for the Modern age from those experts who know  -  Epidemiologists - who speak from their "studies" and guesstimates. The media spread the word, lobby groups lobby parliament and  the politicians BAN. And Public Health GROWS.

    We might end up in a world like Demolition Man, the1993 movie that has not been given the credit it deserved for prophecy. It's well worth a watch if you are one, like me, who looks upon all intrusions into our private life with mounting horror. Here's a snippet - it will make you feel great! and the movie is fun and thoroughly thought provoking.

    The way to stop BANS is to question, question and challenge them.

    Why for instance are smokers banned from smoking in parks infused with traffic fumes? For perfection, all cars should be banned. Diesel fumes cause cancer it seems. The ban on smoking in the open is not logical by any measurement and the ban on vaping is a ludicrous insanity.  It is a symptom of a very sick kind of democracy that is now controlled by minority lobbies able to manipulate society.

    Bloomberg, the ex New York City mayor  was a BANNING adept. He's famous for them. His most astonishing BAN is the new e-cig ban everywhere. But, lest we forget, this was built upon the foundation of the smoking ban.

    Unfortunately, the new Mayor seems set on the same path - Mayor Bill De Blasio Promises To End Horse-Drawn Carriage Rides

    I believe vapoteurs should be alert to the incongruities of all the banning going on around them. The BANNING mentality of Public Health and Governments is the behaviour we should challenge. every action they take should be questioned vociferously.

    Has anyone written to The Advertising Standards Agency to complain about the visual inaccuracy of smoke chemicals being black in the new anti smoking advert put out by Public Health and what a nocebo it is? Quit smoking adverts highlight toxic risk to brain.

    Here's the link  for complaints - please complain. Little lies have huge consequences - will people worry about blood received in transfusions?  Will smokers be banned from donating it? How many people will have that image implanted in their psyches every time they approach a smoker or a vaper? Little lies build up to big lies!

    Details are important! Watch this from Demolition Man...

    For your interest -