Legal disclaimer

The opinions expressed by the authors on this blog and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of the Freedom2Choose organisation or any member thereof. Freedom2Choose is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the blog Authors.

Saturday, 13 March 2010

Alzheimer's and Smoking-By guest author Kin_Free.

Playing down the benefits of smoking in preventing,
or delaying the onset of Alzheimer's disease.

A response to Guardian CIF article by Ben Goldacre.

The CIF article  by Ben Goldacre is a comment on a recent analysis of the science relating to studies that find tobacco smoke to have a beneficial effect on Alzheimer's disease. The analysis on which he bases the comment is simply an anti-tobacco establishment argumentum ad hominem, bulled up to sound like ‘science’. I am pleased this article has been put under the ‘bad science’ series, because this is about as bad as it gets and a lesson to anyone who thinks that anti-smoking science now has ANY credence whatsoever. It is not about ‘bad science’ more like promoting and celebrating bad science that serves a pre-determined agenda, which begs the question what affiliations does Goldacre have?  I make no suggestions, but whats good for the goose....

Goldacre fallaciously suggests that the media do not give smoking ‘science’ a fair crack of the whip when in reality they routinely report any anti-smoker rubbish, often apparently without the most basic validity checks. Examples of this ‘science by press release’ include Dr Winickof’s ‘Third hand smoke’ touted in the press as ‘science’ but which boiled down to ‘ringing around’ a few people for their inexperienced opinions, and Jill Pell’s Scottish Heart attack study  that was totally discredited when objectively examined using real, complete, hospital statistics. Pell’s ‘science by press release’ was devoured by the press and used to justify anti-smoker demands for smoking restrictions worldwide and anti-smokers still quote these ‘studies’ to further their pernicious agenda, ignoring the clear, indefensible flaws. The media, with a few notable exceptions, are very supportive of the anti-smoking agenda and if one looks at the value of anti-smoker and pharmaceutical advertising revenue compared with that which could be generated from the tobacco industry, or those who oppose the anti-tobacco deception, one can understand why.

Goldacre does not link to his ‘systematic review analysis’ reference, so I will do so for the purposes of accuracy. He actually refers to an ‘analysis’ authored by Janine K. Cataldo, Judith J. Prochaska and Stanton A. Glantz from the University of California, San Francisco, reported here; Abstract; the Journal of Alzheimer's Disease; While the first two authors are instantly forgettable, the third is instantly recognisable to anyone who is conversant with the anti-tobacco campaign. That Goldacre avoids mentioning Glantz, is an indication of his relevance to the validity of this ‘analysis’. If he wasn’t such a powerful figure and strong influence within the anti-smoker movement, it is my opinion that Glantz would have been put out to grass a long time ago, bearing in mind his well documented antecedent history. His infamy even warrants a full page here.  And another revealing article on Glantz here;

The anti-smoker industry which is run on lots of money and generous funding may well be inherently corrupt and Glantz has done very well, financially, out of it; For example. and through his ‘Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights’ organisation; RWJF reports (appendix 5). This also describes how Nicoderm manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson's private foundation, RWJF influenced the political community to attract public funding (tobacco tax) to the anti-smoker campaign but NOT using RWJF funding for direct lobbying(as this is against the law) but through its ‘smokeless states’ initiative. However, I would suggest Glantz is one of several dedicated fanatics who is neither motivated nor corrupted by cash, but by a pathological hatred of smoking. His authoring of any analysis that considers which studies are good or bad on any smoking issue, has as much validity as an analysis, authored by an avid, lifelong, dedicated and fanatical Manchester Utd. Fan, that analyses which is the best premier league football team.

The analysis, according to Goldacre;

“... because they are scientists, not homeopaths – to make sure that they found all of the evidence, rather than just the studies they already knew about, or the ones which flattered their preconceptions. ... found 43 in total.”

If we look at the abstract of the analysis however, it states;

“... AFTER controlling for study design, quality, secular trend, and tobacco industry affiliation of the authors, electronic databases were searched; 43 individual studies met the inclusion criteria.”

So, apart from insulting homeopaths, in fact this indicates there were MORE studies, but they were only interested in the ones THEY considered relevant. They ONLY included those that met THEIR inclusion criteria.  I wonder how many studies which did not flatter their [anti-tobacco] preconceptions were ruled out! We are not treated to a list of those studies, nor why they failed to meet the criteria, so we just have to trust the integrity of the authors and ‘believe’ they did not meet the criteria, that the criteria was valid and thats that.

Glantz, commenting on the analysis in The Science Daily; states;

"We know that industry-sponsored research is more likely to reach conclusions favorable to the sponsor,"

Out of the 43 studies the authors deemed suitable for inclusion, 11 were disqualified because of some perceived connection with the Tobacco industry, in order to eventually come up with the conclusion that smoking represented a small increased risk for alzheimer’s disease. Glantz’s ‘analysis’ states;

“The researchers used an inclusive definition of "tobacco industry affiliation" and examined authors' current or past funding, employment, paid consultation, and collaboration or co-authorship on a study with someone who had current or previous tobacco industry funding within 10 years of publication.”

Did anyone notice the deliberate mistake?

Yes, Glantz’s ‘Industry-sponsored research’ is actually limited only to ‘Tobacco Industry sponsored research’! If we look at historic public health related research, various industries such as Nuclear, Chemical, Asbestos and others have sponsored research that, with the ‘right’ results would be ‘favourable’ to their industry. Most apparently unconnected tobacco related research has also been indirectly favourable to them, however. in this specific area of study, one omission is very relevant - the Pharmaceutical Industry!

This industry is arguably the greatest current beneficiary of anti-smoker research, and they have been major sponsors for years, yet there is not one mention of their input or involvement? In the past the pharmaceutical industry has made a killing on nicotine replacement therapy products and anti-depressants as a result of the anti-smoker campaign (possibly in a literal as well as abstract sense, when we consider Champix etc.). In relation to Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s Disease, and many other diseases that presently benefit from smoking, there is potentially a massive profitable future market for Big Pharma eg.  nicotine, the wonder drug : Pharmaceutical companies are keen to develop safe nicotine-like substances. If only they could eliminate their competition in the nicotine market - the simple cigarette;  Of course Pharmaceuticals also need to protect their present Alzheimer’s drugs market until such time as they are able to find a better way than smoking to deliver their nicotine wonder drugs. With Big Pharma, profit apparently trumps health every time;

So why were studies that had any Pharmaceutical affiliations NOT identified and controlled for, when the ‘right’ results would clearly be favorable to the sponsor! Is it possible that any ‘impartial analysis’ can be valid when such basic but essential information is ignored and excluded? If none were used, a simple note to that effect would have clarified their position.

To give the impression of ‘balance’ in his comment, Goldacre refers to other “research that comes from people who disgust us” - Nazi science! What he actually intends is, not only to psychologically  link the tobacco industry with Nazis, but also to provide some sort of positive corroboration of present day anti-smoker science. He achieves the opposite.

Prof Karl Astel, (who eventually committed suicide rather than face prosecution for his atrocities.) mentioned by Goldacre, was the Dean of the University of Jena  He headed The Scientific Institute for Research into the Dangers of Tobacco that produced what Goldacre describes as “a well-conducted study”. This institute was Hitler’s ‘baby’ and he, as we all know, was not only a militant anti-smoker but also the master of propaganda. Astel had earlier (before the Jena institute was opened or any tobacco research initiated) described abstinence from smoking as a ‘national-socialist duty’ and was himself a militant non-smoker. What sane person will believe that any tobacco research that this person is affiliated with, could be even close to impartial, yet his research is at the very foundation of present day anti-smoker science, pre-dating (even influencing?) anti-tobacco’s original high priest, Richard Doll also a critique of his work.

Astel’s comment has an uncanny similarity to the 1975 George Godber comment urging anti-smoker activists to “foster the perception” that smokers were harming others - again, well before any research was done on passive smoking ‘harm’. This seems to be a common thread within anti-smoker movement;  ie. Decide what the outcome should be and set the agenda then make the ‘science’ fit that agenda.

This is not the only similarity, there are others. In the Nazi era we had the University of Jena’s ‘Scientific Institute for Research into the Dangers of Tobacco’ and today we have the University of California’s  ‘Tobacco related disease research program’ (TRDRP). Can anyone not identify the inherent bias in the very similar names of these institutions (a process of natural evolution or just a complete coincidence)?

Both Glantz’s Alzheimer’s analysis and Winickof’s third hand smoke studies were supported by the TRDRP and so are many others. Now look at what the TRDRP  includes in its mission;

“TRDRP funds research in all relevant scientific disciplines designed to improve
tobacco control...”

Does anyone believe that ANY ‘scientific’ study originating from this source would ever have the intention to search for the truth? Will it be impartial in any way, shape or form when its openly stated aim is simply to, ‘improve tobacco control?

I suggest that this analysis was never produced to provide an objective view of the science relating to the benefits of smoking and Alzheimer’s disease. It is not unique, but only one small part of a well established trend and well oiled machine that maintains a well used tactic to compromise and keep impotent any opposition to the anti-tobacco agenda allowing them freedom to disseminate their unchallenged version of the ‘truth’. Sadly, impartial science is being systematically choked to death and starved of funding by anti-tobacco cuckoos. Expect to see a future flood of ‘studies’ like this one of the same quality, with the same purpose and following the same agenda. For some perspective, here is a published list of research grants, involving $millions, awarded by the TRDRP for 2009 only.

This is an aggressive cancer that will continue to spread, infecting all other areas of genuine scientific research. As long as ethical scientists and honest politicians remain silent and continue to do nothing then impartial science will remain chronically ill! Fortunately, the almost moribund response to agenda science from ethical scientists and honest politicians, with a few notable exceptions, is compensated for by an increasingly disenchanted and vocal average ‘man on the Clapham omnibus’ and the San Francisco streetcar.


Nothing in this document should be taken as either medical or legal advice, but instead should act as a resource in providing general information that may be useful to the general public, and a basis for further research. While I have no reason to believe any of the links and references I provide are inaccurate or vexatious, I do not warrant the quality, accuracy or completeness of any information on this or any linked site. Such information is provided "as is" without warranty or condition of any kind and I add them in good faith on the understanding that the reader verifies the content to their own satisfaction
Clapham omnibus


Anonymous said...

wah wah wah. suck it smokers! hahahahahahahahaha you've already lost :D

Anonymous said...

"So, apart from insulting homeopaths, in fact this indicates there were MORE studies, but they were only interested in the ones THEY considered relevant. They ONLY included those that met THEIR inclusion criteria."

They do explain their inclusion criteria though, and it's certainly not based on whether or not the authors agree or are likely to agree with them. Besides, pointing out that the source of the data is biased is not a defense without identifying how their bias manifested itself in the study.

On a lighter note, insulting homeopaths is fair game, they insult the intelligence of everyone else.

Anonymous said...

So seeing as governments are making lots of money from taxing tobacco, why, unless the anti-tobacco scientists are right, would they want to stop people smoking?

Milton Mermikides said...

I'm interested in purchasing a "Freedom to Choose" T-shirt but concerned that it will be delivered smelling like one of Anthony Worrall-Thompson's stinky waistcoats.
Can you comment on the odour of your T-shirts and other merchandise?

Anonymous said...

Oh dear. You seem to have attracted some of the sillier element of Goldacre's Bad Science forum. It helps to remember that most of them are very young and have had their heads pumped full of anti-smoking nonsense since infant school. They don't know any different, bless 'em. I'd like to think that with a few years' experience they may develop the faculty of independent thought but, with standards of education such as they are, I don't really hold out much hope.

If it's any consolation, they believe in AGW, too!!

Unknown said...

And you don't believe in AGW Anon? It must be true if the govermint says it is, surely?

And yes Milton, I wear the T-Shirts for a couple of nights before sending out the orders and they are rank. It's a rotten job but someone has to do it!

Anonymous said...

Ben Goldacre directed me here. I can see why.

Anonymous said...

this is funny. hahaha. SMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKE. Give up and you'll be calmer

Unknown said...

Maybe Goldacre recognises his faults and needs to send you here to wise up Anon.

Mike Hoffman said...

As with all conspiracy theories, the anti-smoking "conspiracy" relies on too many parties who can't really be relied on to organise a piss-up in a brewery, never mind a global collusion to surpress the truth. Explain again exactly how it is in the goverment's interest to stop us smoking if it does no harm? And those poor old tobacco companies being picked on by Big Pharma, with barely two cents to rub together. Must be tough for them. I'm glad we have an objective source of information on this blog, so quick to spot others' biases, yet curiously blind to his/her own.

Anna said...

Yeah, that's not the right use of the phrase "beg the question", for a start. Not understanding "inclusion criteria" as well - you're showing your ignorance a bit too clearly. Still, well done for having a try (that wasn't meant to be sarcastic, either).

Anonymous said...

If anything Ben Goldacre's article is even worse than this.
Looking at the abstract of the study (given above) and also at it seems the 43 studies were arranged in groups and all of the groups except one group of 14 suggested a protective effect(OR<1.00).

Ben Goldacre's final statement on the subject is positively bizarre, he states:

"If you exclude these 11 papers, and look only at the remainder, your chances of getting Alzheimer's are vastly higher: comparing a smoker against a non-smoker, the odds are higher by 1.72 to 1."

This bears no relation to the abstract which states:

"The average risk of AD for cohort studies without tobacco industry affiliation of average quality published in 2007 was estimated to be 1.72"

Which also begs the questions:
1. What on earth does 'average quality' mean?
2. Why only mention studies published in 2007 and ignore all the others (of the 43) that were published in different years?

In any case the figure of 1.72 has nothing to do with the 11 papers that might have been influenced by the tobacco industry.


Dr JG said...

Hee Hee! I should post a link to this on the theoretical physics sites, as proof of parallel universes - because you sure don't live in the usual one!

Thanks for a good chuckle on an otherwise grim day. I'll leave it to others if they want to bother to start the lengthy task of pointing out the errors in your post, personally I've never found shooting fish in a barrel enough of an intellectual challenge to be worth the effort.

Anonymous said...

@Mike Hoffman 18:31

"Explain again exactly how it is in the goverment's interest to stop us smoking if it does no harm?"

Is the government stopping us smoking?

It's true that that the c£10bn revenue from 'those poor old tobacco companies' dwarfs the measly c£2bn creamed off pharmaceutical profits. On the other hand, British pharmaceutical companies employ around 72,000 people; the last British-owned tobacco company, based in Southampton, closed in January 2007. Furthermore, the pharmaceuticals enjoy a close relationship with the health service which has, in turn, enormous influence on political policy-makers.

The balancing act for government is to keep both its revenue providers (BAT and the PCs) happy by maintaining a steady supply of smokers and aspiring ex-smokers, while legislating around the edges in order to convince the health service that they're making every effort to reduce that supply.

On the whole, I think they're doing very well.

Hope this helps.

Anonymous said...

So let me see if I have this straight, smoking isn't the largest preventable cause of early death and even if it is then you should have the right to choose to make other people inhale your stinking smoke ?
Sorry, you aren't having that, moan all you like.

Anonymous said...

What an incoherent, poorly-written stream of diarrhoea. Does your caps lock key have a mind of its own? Why is pharmaceutical sometimes capitalised and sometimes not? Is it a proper noun? How anyone can write (poorly) in defence of smoking is remarkable.

Cybergibbons said...

I can't be bothered reading the whole piece as it seems verbose and incoherent, but I get the idea - you think that smoking can prevent Alzheimers Disease.

Thing is, I'd rather live to an non-smoking old age with a slightly increased risk of Alzheimers, compared to dying young and living a life of ill-health.

Euan said...

"The anti-smoker industry which is run on lots of money and generous funding"

Yes.. you really have a grasp of proportion here.. 'tis the non-smoking fans that have the capital to launch powerful campaigns... Poor poor manufacturers of tobacco products....

I just don't understand how people can even type such bollocks no matter how much they're paid... People die from lung cancer, smoking has been proven to be an effect, how can you ever claim that people make such shit up?

Even if you didn't believe the evidence and thought the correlation of smoking and cancer was unrelated, surely one wouldn't care about what the non-smoking types said. After all, if one person is saved from cancer that's a good thing?!

Anonymous said...

'After all, if one person is saved from cancer that's a good thing?!'

There's one hell of a lot things that'd we'd need to avoid using this criterion. Hell, if only enough money , effort and prejudice was thrown at other risk related lifestyle choices. Next you'll be telling us that alcohol is bad. After all, if one person is saved from cancer that's a good thing?

No Vested Interests said...

Pharmaceutical use of Nicotine:

Nicotine salts / derivatives generally used in Pharmaceutical application are Nicotine Sulphate, Nicotine Salcylate [MP: 117-1180c], Nicotine hydrochloride, Nicotine Tartrate, Nicotinic acid 98% [Niacin: MP 236-2390C – MW: 123.11], b-Nicotyrine 95% [3-(1)-Methyl pyrnol-2-gl-pyridine]. Nicotine used is generally with purity of 99% and above [MW: 162.23].

Nicotine based drugs is proposed as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease because patients with this disease have fewer nicotinic cholinergic bindings sites than control subjects, and nicotine is known to stimulate acetylcholine receptors. The results of a small pilot study conducted by Wilson AL and others using Nicotine patches suggest that Nicotine can improve cognition in some patients with Alzheimer’s disease. [Nicotine enhances brain cell release of the neurotransmitter acetycholine.

Although, the neuropharmacological interest in nicotine and Parkinson disease is very new, nicotine was first tried clinically about 75 years ago. Injections of nicotine to 13 post encephalitic Parkinson Patients 3 times /day over two weeks, helped patients to some extent. Ulcerative colitis is predominantly a disease of nonsmokers. A controlled trial of 15 to 25 mg of Transdermal nicotine for active ulcerative colitis reported that 49% of patients responded to nicotine, whereas only 24% responded to placebo. A subsequent trial of 15 mg of Transdermal nicotine used to maintain remission of ulcerative colitis reported that 45% of patients receiving nicotine had remission compared to 50% of patients receiving placebo.

Tobacco Giants like RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company themselves are in the process of searching for alternate use for tobacco and in the process have taken up medicinal use as one of the potential area for the future.

Anonymous said...

The global population is growing at an unsustainable rate anyway, I see no problem with allowing smokers the right to smoke themselves to death. What we should do is tax them more to pay for the inevitable cost of cancer treatment that will be borne by the state. Oh wait, we already do. Perfect. Same goes for alcohol.

Old Holborn said...


Then salt. And food.

The state wants you to live longer. That is why the age of retirement is going up. You are not a citizen, you are a "resource" to be harvested.

Old Holborn said...

Unknown said...

I only wish I lived in London OH, (please don't spread that around, as a northerner I'd be hung, drawn and quartered) so that I could participate in the survey. I have a particular intrest in the Alzheimer's debate as my wife, a moderate smoker (seven or eight cigarettes a day,) has been diagnosed with the disease.

Some of the commentators on here have not read the blog item by Kin_Free with an open mind and just want to push their denormalisation of smokers instead of analysing what Kin_Free is saying, they are blinded by their faith, because anti-smoking is a new religion to them.

There is no way I am going to deny my wife here little luxuries in life, a smoke with a glass of sherry every day just because some fuckwit does a survey saying this is going to knock ex number of years of her life, which I know it hasn't already as she's smoked and drank since she was 21 years old, she is now more than a pensioner, that's all I will say about her age on fear of an untimely end.

Live long and prosper as tomorrow you might win the lottery, but don't hold your breath you righteous bastards.

I'm 57, drink like a fish, smoke like a chimney and as hard as fucking nails and just awaiting my first smoke and drink induced heart attack...that should save you a few bucks eh.

budgie said...

A lot of the youngsters from 'Bad Science' believe that smoking is 100% bad, even after deducting the things that might be good. To be fair, we old codgers simply do not understand modern science. In a nutshell, if you don't get the result you want, ignore it. It you do, exaggerate it.

Unknown said...

A lot of the youngsters from 'Bad Science' believe that smoking is 100% bad, even after deducting the things that might be good. To be fair, we old codgers simply do not understand modern science. In a nutshell, if you don't get the result you want, ignore it. It you do, exaggerate it.

And oh boy do they exaggerate it budgie.

Anonymous said...

"This is an aggressive cancer that will continue to spread" - is it an agressive second hand smoking related cancer?

Anyho', I agree about having the freedom to choose and that pubs and clubs should allow smoking.

@Biy Yin, I doubt very much that a heavy drinking and smoking individual is as hard as nails. I doubt you could punch for more than 10 seconds before suffering your inexpensive to treat heart attack.

Unknown said...

I thought I was being droll Anon, drink and tobacco induced wit I'll admit, well it was Sunday after all. I'm as fit as a flea though.

Anonymous said...


Yeah. My sister, who got a PhD from a prestigious university and smoked like a chimney from her student days would probably agree with you.

Well, she might if she hadn't died of cancer aged 46.

She smoked right up to the day she died, when my mother, weeping, wheeled her outside, together with all her drips and associated medical paraphernalia, just so she could puff a few more pennies of profit into BAT. Still, who are we to deny her her little pleasures, eh?

Incidentally I'm not a "youngster" but I'd rather read than the dross posted on this blog.

Kin_Free said...

If the promoting bad science deniers looked a bit closer, they may realise that this is a BLOG. It is neither an English grammar test, part of a TV quiz show (“Can I have a Pee for Proper please Bob”) nor is it a scientific paper, clinical study or anything resembling such, it is a BLOG (note the capitals). It seems that some commentators have failed to grasp this very basic point or is it that pettiness is the best they can do. I see the usual idiotic jokers have made an appearance with the absurd “if one person is saved that's a good thing “ Ha Ha!! and “ then you should have the right to choose to make other people inhale your stinking smoke? - It always amazes me that there are still idiots who are unable to comprehend that they have responsibility for their own welfare??!! Would they drive on the wrong side of the road because they should have the right to do so or swim in a crocodile infested river because they want the right to swim wherever they want?? Please think before speaking (or typing) you are under the delusion that the world revolves around you - it doesn’t!

For the record, I am not associated with any tobacco company; I am not a condescending scientist or pseudo scientist; I am not part of the medical community but I do have a good nose that can not only appreciate the smell of tobacco smoke but also identify bullshit when I smell it. I need to be in close proximity to a smoker to smell tobacco smoke, but the reek of bullshit can be detected miles away from its source.

Kin_Free said...

The more astute reader will have realised that this blog is not so much a criticism of Ben Goldacre, as the heading would suggest, more a realistic view on the demise of medical science that is becoming more self evident by the day. (others may cynically refer to this as verbose - more likely too much bad science to deal with at once methinks!) Fortunately there are still some genuine scientists who agree with this view in principle. Eg. (Bruce G. Charlton, Professor of Theoretical Medicine)à_nella_Scienza.pdf. Charlton argues that truthfulness in science should be an iron law, not a vague aspiration but that “there has been a progressive and pervasive decline in the honesty of scientific communications for more than a couple of decades.” I suggest it goes back to the conception of current anti-tobacco agenda; the Nazi Jena Institute.

“Pointing out that the source of the data is biased is not a defense without identifying how their bias manifested itself in the study.”

So you expect me to point out the bleedin obvious when Glantz can exclude studies in his final analysis purely on the basis of some perceived, possibly far removed, ‘inclusive’ affiliation with a tobacco company? (It would appear that the author has mistakenly put ‘inclusive with’ instead of ‘exclusive to’) The bias is openly and arrogantly displayed

Apart from not understanding how ‘beg the question’ can be used, maybe Anna would like to explain what ‘inclusion criteria’ means in relation to Glantz’s ‘study’? While digressing slightly, but still relevant, maybe she could also explain inclusion ‘criteria’ in relation to other bad science studies, albeit relative to subjects; eg. One of Glantz’s other ‘jobs’; the ‘Helena study’. A critique picked at random explains in detail; One scientist comments; “This is, in my opinion, gross misrepresentation designed to provide maximal public impact in furthering the biased and unscientific opinions of these authors. . . This so called study does not even come close to meeting the basic criteria of a properly executed scientific study.”- Henry F Mizgala, Emeritus Professor of Medicine, University of British Columbia. Or maybe the anti-smoker analysis explained in this document; where the ‘inclusion criteria’ was, well, every smoker of any age - in order to be able to claim that 400,000 die in US due to smoking. However, when the data are examined using the same methods with a different set of inclusive criteria, then we find they also show smokers to be healthier with a mortality rate 3 times less than never smokers, that in comparison, 504,000 die because of lack of exercise and nearly 650,000 die of poor nutrition? This ought to be sobering information to all those deluded people who think that not smoking will allow them to live forever. It is never as simple as what it says on the anti-smoker tin!

Kin_Free said...

“how it is in the goverment's interest to stop us smoking if it does no harm?”- You may be able to understand if you can answer how it is in the governments interest to spend zillions to prevent global warming if there is no GW or to invade Iraq if there are no weapons of mass destruction?

To Dr Who Likes the shooting fish in barrels computer game. ‘Parallel universe 2’ is much better, give it a try - it is a multiplayer game though!

Anon 12.35; I only personally ever knew two young persons who died of cancer; both in mid 30's, BOTH never smokers. From those facts, do I make the same absurd assumptions as you - that they died BECAUSE they DIDN'T smoke?

P.s. is this verbose enough for the rude, ignorant superior beings (Ha) with sufficient diarrhoea to satisfy their fetishes - did they even read this far? HeeHee!

opinions powered by


Related Posts with Thumbnails

Pages on this blog