Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
Like Tree65Likes

Thread: Consequences of Ideological Prats

  1. #1
    AVF Newbie | Be nice to me
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Mid North Coast NSW
    Posts
    47

    Consequences of Ideological Prats

    I am so angry about this
    Suicide due to Champix

    The focus of this article seems to be on the pharmaceutical company and quite rightly so, their product has been known to have serious side effects for some time now but is still being promoted as a valid smoking cessation method.

    But what is being ignored is where the blame for this really lies. That is, largely in my opinion, with the vile parasites who make their living from perpetuating the grossly exaggerated harms from smoking (and now vaping) to fulfil a ‘public health’ agenda that is now totally divorced from both science and health. Simon and Becky, I’m looking at you.

    If the ideological motives of the anti-smokers hadn’t concentrated on stigmatising and demonising smokers in their disgusting propaganda to ‘denormalise’ smoking; had they not made smokers and non-smokers feel that to light up was tantamount to a death sentence for everybody within sight; had they not, consciously and by design, employed tactics that made smokers feel guilty and ashamed, nobody would have felt the need to take such a drastic action that involved swallowing this drug.

    There are a lot of guilty parties in this boy’s death.

    You can’t get this drug over the counter so who wrote the prescription? Was the doctor swayed by the overwhelmingly accepted impression that smoking is so bad that the risks of this drug were better in comparison? How did this impression come about so that a doctor might think that the science was settled and they need not weigh up the evidence themselves? Had they done so, they would have found huge great gaps in the epidemiological records where relative risk factors that are meaningless in other branches of medical knowledge are somehow given great credence in this particular field. So who is responsible for the doctor’s actions?

    Not, I would suggest, the doctor alone but those that have created this impression. Those that have found a nice little niche in academia whereby they can pontificate on the best way to influence legislators to produce ever more regulation over tobacco use whilst at the same time finding a never ending reason why they need more money to keep researching the problem. It’s easy money. They produce ‘science’ to ‘prove’ this or that or the other which is never questioned, stooges in the media are happy to produce click-bait headlines that bear little resemblance to the actual findings, thin as they usually are, and politicians lap it up to bask in the glory of moral righteousness – and then pass more regulations.

    The only losers in this process are the smokers who pay for it all but have absolutely no say at any stage of the process. Economists refer to the demand for certain products as inelastic. That is, people will pay whatever is demanded to gain them. Tobacco is an inelastic product and politicians have long realised that increasing tax has only a minimal impact on demand. This tax is a gold mine for a lot of people and it attracts parasites.

    Don’t think for a second that vaping will be any different. The main drivers in all of this are the ‘public health’ crusaders who initiate the cycle. There are many who gain from it and they are very motivated. Electronic cigarettes may have a valid role in harm reduction but the parasites aren’t interested in this, they see it as a way to keep the cycle revolving. It was flagging as people got bored with the smoking scare; e-cigarettes gave it a new lease of life. Becky Freeman has recently declared that she is physically sick because Philip Morris International has committed to invest $1bn into research harm reduction over the next 12 years. Are Tobacco Control so blinded by their hatred of Tobacco Companies that they don’t see this as a positive contribution? Or are they concerned that this will spoil their pitch and undermine the game they are playing?

    This isn’t a game though is it?

    It wasn’t a game for Timothy John and I wonder how many others.

  2. #2
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    North East Victoria
    Posts
    517
    "...grossly exaggerated harms from smoking..."?

    It was there, at that moment, your angry tirade lost any semblance of sensible discourse in my eyes...

    Sent from my HTC 2PST1 using Tapatalk
    DocM, 1ynne and Wombats1 like this.

  3. #3
    AVF Newbie | Be nice to me
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Mid North Coast NSW
    Posts
    47
    I've often been mystified at the willingness of vapers to denigrate the junk science about vaping but believe the junk science about smoking.

    I can see the attraction. The conversion to vaping can make us feel so much better that we may have dodged the bullet. In doing so there is the desire to confirm the dangers avoided. Unfortunately this has the effect of vapers becoming partners with Tobacco Control against smokers. My point is that it is the same battle. TC need something to fight against and it isn't particularly important whether this is smokers or vapers.
    gert, Fatman, Christian R and 5 others like this.

  4. #4
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    1,409
    Quote Originally Posted by WoopiFumes View Post
    I've often been mystified at the willingness of vapers to denigrate the junk science about vaping but believe the junk science about smoking.

    I can see the attraction. The conversion to vaping can make us feel so much better that we may have dodged the bullet. In doing so there is the desire to confirm the dangers avoided. Unfortunately this has the effect of vapers becoming partners with Tobacco Control against smokers. My point is that it is the same battle. TC need something to fight against and it isn't particularly important whether this is smokers or vapers.
    The greatest gift placed in the hands of people like Chapman was the invention of "passive smoking."
    What a Godsend this has been to the prohibitionists.
    And if everyone stopped vaping/smoking they would suddenly not only lose a common enemy,{smokers}they would be out of a job.

  5. #5
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    North East Victoria
    Posts
    517
    Ah... so evidence based studies linking cigarette smoking to various forms of cancer, emphysema, immune system disorders etc are just "junk science"? Fascinating...

    Same with evidence based studies on the air quality issues of passive smoking?
    Sent from my HTC 2PST1 using Tapatalk
    DocM and 1ynne like this.

  6. #6
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Marrickville NSW
    Posts
    2,759
    I managed to listen till half way through this program before I had to turn it off.

    Apparently 50% of us are dual users. Instead of smoking 20 cigarettes a day we vape and smoke 10.

    When they said that I turned it off.

    https://soundcloud.com/user-91749584...alia-session-1

  7. #7
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    N/E Vic
    Posts
    1,105
    One study can contradict another with relative ease as can statistical research analysis. It is reliant upon evidence based approaches to the thorough investigation and dissemination of the result to be accurate.
    Also, the manner in which it is studied, controlled, blind or double blind testing etc. Statistics rely on the quality, intent and voracity of the posed questions. Logical.
    1ynne and staceman101 like this.
    A misguided Ape with delusions of grandeur & a chop on its' head thought it was a Griller

    Killed the nails before they killed me. 10/02/15 Thanks immensely to AVFers!

  8. #8
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    SA
    Posts
    232
    If you chose to open your eyes and do some reading, you might discover that there is, in fact, some "junk science" regarding smoking. Here's a clue - "passive smoking" - I think if you read Siegel's blog, you might find the answer.


    Quote Originally Posted by staceman101 View Post
    "...grossly exaggerated harms from smoking..."?

    It was there, at that moment, your angry tirade lost any semblance of sensible discourse in my eyes...

    Sent from my HTC 2PST1 using Tapatalk

  9. #9
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    South West ( WA )
    Posts
    384
    Quote Originally Posted by disley View Post
    I managed to listen till half way through this program before I had to turn it off.

    Apparently 50% of us are dual users. Instead of smoking 20 cigarettes a day we vape and smoke 10.

    When they said that I turned it off.

    https://soundcloud.com/user-91749584...alia-session-1

    I hear you dis ...

  10. #10
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    North East Victoria
    Posts
    517
    Quote Originally Posted by FXVaper View Post
    If you chose to open your eyes and do some reading, you might discover that there is, in fact, some "junk science" regarding smoking. Here's a clue - "passive smoking" - I think if you read Siegel's blog, you might find the answer.
    Ah... there's a blog that tells us we can discount decades of peer reviewed science? Awesome.
    If blogs are where we find the "truth", I guess I can also be certain that the earth is flat, vaccines cause autism and the Illuminati exist - and, with the last, they're a covert group of reptilian aliens...

    Sent from my HTC 2PST1 using Tapatalk
    DocM and 1ynne like this.

 

 
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 11:01 AM.