When contaminated by pesticides such as Gaucho ® or Regent ®, a bee becomes disoriented and can no longer find its hive or its wild flowers of choice. We cannot solve a problem if the messages are muddled. Undeniably, disturbing one’s sense of orientation and muddling communication hinders rational thought and behavior. Lies and manipulations are the weapons of choice for political and economic gains without regard for the well-being of people or the survival of the planet.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Why do so many of these people look so unfit? They also swing between extremes. You will all remember Liam Donaldson's bulimic lifestyle when, in a sweat of guilt he went from this:
Posted by Gasdoc at 1:34 pm
Sunday, November 14, 2010
The European Commissions Special Eurobarometer Report of May 2010 contains information on smoking prevalences from Oct 2009. The UK's prevalence was 28% more than two years into the enaction of the smoking ban in The Health Act 2006.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Dear Ms Morgan,
We the undersigned appeal to your conscience and common sense to reconsider the eviction of Philipina Schergevitch for her smoking habit.
Philipina is a long-standing tenant of a decade, during which time the Francis Klein Centre has become her home and she has provided the Bishop O'Byrne Housing for Seniors Association a lot of money to live there. At 88 years of age, the stress alone could cause the demise of this lady who has done nothing wrong to deserve such treatment. While the association states smoking is permitted in designated areas outside, it must be recognised that subjugating an elderly woman to the harsh weather conditions Calgary experiences is unacceptable and her human rights must be considered. The argument for the ban is of health, but that is clearly not the case because no harm is posed to other tenants by her smoking and a direct, large and immediate health threat is posed to Philipina through the extreme weather conditions of winter. It is startling to note that the Bishop O’Byrne Housing for Seniors Association deems it acceptable to put tenants at risk of pneumonia, flu, unprecedented stress and the possibility of attack from passers-by under the pretence of “health” and care for other, non-smoking tenants. The Calgary Herald reported in January 2009 the case of Juliette Bombardier, who died outside the Kamloops, B. C. seniors care home the day after Christmas as she went out for a cigarette and got locked out. This was a preventable death and yet the Bishop O’Bryne Housing for Seniors Association is fully prepared to run the risk of its tenants suffering a similar fate.
Posted by Gasdoc at 5:01 pm
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Posted by Gasdoc at 6:42 pm
An interesting video. I don't doubt that drug companies are in the business of making money. I think however that Gwen Olsen is not being completely fair, notwithstanding that she is also trying to sell her product, a book! Her example of antidepressants is particularly unfair, as it does not take into account the very significant benefits of these drugs. She also exaggerates the withdrawal effects. So, in summary, she is as biased as the drug companies.
Posted by Gasdoc at 6:39 pm
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
There are several suggestions put forward asking you to consider amending the smoking ban. They have provoked many comments and much interest. Despite this I hear you are in danger of ignoring widespread public opinion on this matter. You will be seen to prefer listening to vested interests and bigoted self interest groups. In doing so the Your Freedom initiative will be exposed to ridicule and as a thinly disguised sham, created to convince you that you have some sort of influence as a minority segment of a Conservative government. Conversely if you listen to the outcry you will see that the courageous action, the common sense stand and one that carries massive public support is to control the influence of unrepresentative and unscientific self interest groups. The amendment of the smoking ban to allow smoking in ventilated, segregated areas in hospitality venues where the owner chooses is an idea for Our Freedom that does not merely encompass but engulfs the three aims stated within your initiative.
Amending the smoking ban will:
- Restore A Civil Liberty
- Repeal An Unnecessary Law
- Cut Business and Third Sector Regulations
My wife and I are now socially isolated as a result of the smoking ban. We are only allowed to smoke in our home, which fortunately we own, as otherwise it might not be so clear cut. Oddly, business owners are not allowed to permit smoking in their property. How can that be right in a democratic modern society? We voted Tory in the hope that free market ideals would return, that the erosion of civil liberties would be reversed and that common sense and rational use of science would prevail.
Terrorists have more protection under the human rights act than smokers.
We have done nothing wrong.
It is claimed that smoking causes harm in non-smokers. As a result of expensive government funded media campaigns, the public has been fooled or scared into believing that this is so. It is far from the truth that environmental tobacco smoke causes "passive smoking" in non-smokers and resultant ill health. On the contrary, scientific methods have been unable to demonstrate any consistent figures supporting this claim. An equal number of studies demonstrate statistically insignificant harm and statistically insignificant benefits from ETS (evidence freely available and gladly supplied). The key studies used to support the claim have been shown to be lacking in scientific rigour (evidence freely available and gladly supplied). Somehow and for some reason the balance of these studies has been presented to the public in a biased way. One can only guess at the motives for this inaccuracy. This is dealt with at length by other commentators. Time and time again it is recorded that the self proclaimed motives of ASH and the WHO, are to reduce smoking rates, which their actions have failed to do. They self admitted methods used for this reduction are to engender a fear of smokers and to socially isolate smokers. This could otherwise be described as deception, scaremongering and at worst social engineering or brainwashing.
A strange anomaly exists in government and public health policy. Mental health is rightly being given increased priority and smoking is prevalent in higher numbers of those with mental health problems opposed to those without such issues. Social isolation is a known cause of increased mortality as is mental illness and lower social class, so how can it be a sensible goal to isolate smokers, those with mental illness and the socially less fortunate. Would it not be more appropriate to target mental illness and social deprivation. Smoking has become an easy target and real issues are being ignored.
Smokers have long known of the risk they take and could not be in a better position to make an informed choice. Sadly that is the only choice we have left, having been deprived of the choice to meet up with non-smoking friends for uninterrupted discourse.
Smokers are exposed to the risk of leaving venues to smoke outside. This comes with particular risk to women, who are exposed to rowdy torment on the street and spiking of their drinks left in the establishment.
The very sad thing is that there is no justification for these measures and that the concerns of those who dislike the smell of smoke and may erroneously believe the smoker is doing them harm, can easily be alleviated by adequate ventilation and segregation and the choice to avoid businesses where smoking is permitted. I am not given the choice to smoke where I cause no offence, instead I am forced to cause offence in doorways. I am not given the choice to go to a venue where smoking is permitted and I can minimise my exposure to anti-smokers. Instead this legislation brings me and anti-smokers into conflict. Surely a policy of live and let live would be a preferable alternative.
No other area of legal human behaviour has been targeted like this before and the sordid history of prohibition is well known to all. This legislation causes social unrest, social isolation and persecution of a significant (20-25%) minority of the population. It is dishonest, scientifically unjustified and probably rooted in petty corruption.
It is no secret that the SCOTH committee who advised the government prior to this legislation was predominantly comprised of members with pharmaceutical company interests. It is no secret that pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation are big money spinners. It is no secret that the mainstay of pharmaco-therapeutic manipulation of smokers' physiology is nicotine replacement and it is no secret despite widespread publicity to the contrary, that NRT is abysmally hopeless at stopping people smoking and extremely expensive. Why therefore is the NHS spending our money on it. Surely, NICE should have concluded by now that it is not financially viable. Why hasn't it? Your guess is as good as mine.
Nicotine addiction is widely used to explain smokers' behaviour and a useful tool to depict smokers as weak "crack whores", even imply a form of criminality, certainly label us as undesirables. The poor efficacy of NRT belies this belief and reinforces the idea that smoking is a smoker's choice not the consequence of a smoker's weakness against the nicotine receptor.
All these points further prove that government policy is informed not by science and noble intentions to improve our health but by the sinister and corrupt agenda of interested parties and the bigoted opinions of self interest groups.
In short the government is either incompetent or corrupt. Point made!
Friday, July 16, 2010
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
about tobacco display bans’ harmful effects
SPEAKER – DR PATRICK BASHAM
COAUTHOR, HIDDEN IN PLAIN SIGHT:
WHY TOBACCO DISPLAY BANS FAIL
ROOM SPONSOR – PHILIP DAVIES MP
1.00PM – 2.00PM
TUESDAY 15 JUNE 2010
COMMITTEE ROOM 15
HOUSE OF COMMONS
LONDON SW1A 0AA
DR BASHAM’S TALK TO BE FOLLOWED BY COMMENTS FROM AN EXPERT PANEL
PLEASE ALLOW PLENTY OF TIME TO PROCEED THROUGH SECURITY
BEFORE MAKING YOUR WAY TO THE COMMITTEE ROOM
PHONE 0845 310 4144 EMAIL firstname.lastname@example.org
Posted by Gasdoc at 3:10 am
Friday, April 09, 2010
Saturday, February 06, 2010
So the government says smoking rates are down in the UK. Liars! Read this and find out the truth!
Add this news about the cost to the UK from cigarette smuggling and the governments' "smokers are down to 21%" is total bullshit!
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Hello Everybody. This is to remind those who wish to attend the next TICAP Conference at The Hague on March 15h, 2010, to make their registrations here please.:
This will be an important event and presents another real opportunity to kick Aunty up the backside. So please make the effort to be there. Remember attendance is free.
We thank you.
Phil and Blad.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
by Blad Tolstoy
In case you thought the story that 49 percent of last year's lung donors in the UK being smokers took the top prize for describing establishment hypocrisy, then think again, for here is another story to rival the former. This time, it's about New York.
Yes, New York, the city of Mayor Bloomberg, the man responsible for introducing its smoking ban, has hit the headlines with its Department of Health spending $32,000 on 70,000 fliers that tell you how to shoot heroin,complete with detailed tips on "prepping the dope" and injecting it into your arm.
Well, why should this be a surprise? Bloomberg is himself an advocate of marijuana and, moreover, it today's anti-smoking politically correct world lunacy rules. You can't smoke but you will receive detailed information
on injecting smack safely. “Warm your body (jump up and down) to show your veins,” and “Find the vein before you try to inject.” The Health Department handout then goes on: “If you don’t ‘register,’ pull out and try again.”
Anyway, read on and snigger...
Posted by Gasdoc at 8:19 pm
Sunday, January 03, 2010
by Blad Tolstoy
Well, just kicking off the new year with a story that the mainstream British media didn't want you to read. Indeed, this story was left to CNN to break, and so, if you weren't watching CNN anywhere, you'd have missed it. Nevertheless, as the details reveal, 49 percent of last year's lung donors in the UK were smokers.
Yes, the story came to light because one of the recipients of a smoker's lung transplant - Corporal Matthew Millington, 31 - died less than a year after receiving a double lung transplant from a donor who may have smoked more than 50 cigarettes a day.
This story raises many issues, many of which can be read in the above linked article. However, there are also a number of issues that aren't raised.
One of these is given that out of 49 percent of lung transplants undertaken, only one turned out to have an obvious negative result. Another issue is that despite the castigation of smokers and the
refusal by a number of hospitals to treat them even for non-smoking related diseases and problems, it remains sickening to discover just how great a percentage of smokers' lungs were "harvested" when it suited the convenience of the medical profession to do so.
There have been numerous stories from America over the years about the use of smokers' lungs for transplants, but now we have the proof for ourselves just how handy we all are when it comes to our body parts being used to save lives.
The last issue is that this story also illustrates how much exaggeration goes on with regard to the number of smokers who contract lung cancer. If the risk were anything like as great as is portrayed by the government, the medical authorities and the NGOs of tobacco control, then under no circumstances could one imagine any responsible surgeon taking the risk of transplanting smokers' lungs.