Superb read on the anti smoking movement and Nanny state

[kibbster]

www.joejackson.com/pdf/5smokingpdf_jj_smoke_lies.pdf

A year ago I would ignored most of this as tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist stuff.
Now after being involved in a fight with tobacco control against E-cigs which I know without any shadow of a doubt are a great idea and seeing all the lies published by the same people, so much of this rings true.

I always suspected Passive smoking was bollocks (It just didn't sit right with me, never has) and I certainly know Tobacco control has become to evangelical for me to take anything they say seriously.
If they are lying about E-cigs what else have they lied about is my question.

[markm]

Very good read,
And it gave a name to our nemesis,
Novartis, who coincidentally make patches, fund the labour party and the WHO!

[kailey]

Thanks for the link, kibbster. Some things don't seem right to me either. It is very difficult finding the truth in all of this so my search continues.

[4madcats]

Excellent find, I really liked the description of the Antz as a modern day equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition best analogy I ever seen.

[lal]

Interesting read, particularly given that our current gov is stating that smoking is one of the biggest contributors to health inequalities, and that if we could stop all these bad poor people smoking then everything would be rosy....

[giles]

Good on the demonising culture and the way that ASH operates.

Trouble is, he misuses the stats in just the same way as ASH do. For instance "The World Health Organisation insists that 'ETS kills' even though its own major study proved that it doesn't" No, Joe, the study just failed to prove that it does.

And all those non-smoking Chinese women who got lung cancer? A study by Wen et al followed 65000 non?smoking women for seven years and found that smoking by their husbands increased the risk of cardiovascular disease (consists mainly of IHD and stroke) by 52% (OR=1.52, 95% CI: 0.92 to 2.50), and exposure to SHS in childhood increased the risk by 82% (OR=1.82, 95% CI: 0.96 to 3.43).

Originally reported by the Harvard school of Public Health. The authors of that study found no elevated risk from workplace SHS exposure, which is probably why I can't find the link any more

I don't know when Joe wrote this. I do not think that there is any good reason to believe that workplace smoking causes any noticeable damage, but it seems to me that the evidence that smoking causes your spouse to die younger is now incontrovertible. Which I don't like any better than Joe does.