Lying bastards

There is now strong evidence that smoking in vehicles exposes non-smokers to high levels of second hand smoke which is known to be damaging to heath, the BMA said.

Because of the small enclosed space inside a car, smoking creates 23 times more toxins than found in a smoky bar, it was claimed.

This is simply flat out lying by these puritanical bastards.

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the BMA’s Director of Professional Activities, said: “Every year in England there are over 80,000 deaths that are caused by smoking. This figure increases to a shocking six million worldwide.

“But behind the stark statistics, doctors see the individual cases of ill health and premature death caused by smoking and second-hand smoke. For this reason, doctors are committed to reducing the harm caused by tobacco.

There is not a single doctor in the country who has observed, identifiably, the effects of second hand smoke.

Direct smoking, sure. Passive or second hand? The actual numbers and harms are too trivial to be seen in anything other than the most sensitive of population statistics: and there are arguments even there.

We are calling on UK governments to take the bold and courageous step of banning smoking in private vehicles.

Note that they\’re not even calling for a ban when others are present, just a flat out ban on people being allowed to smoke while sitting in their own property.

The actual truth of the matter is here:

The chances are they will claim that a cigarette smoked in a car exposes passengers to either 23 or 27 times more secondhand smoke than they would get from a whole night in a smoky bar. Both of these statistics are obviously absurd. The \”23 times\” canard comes from an unpublished, non-peer-reviewed study presented at a conference nine years ago. It was heavily rigged towards getting the \”right\” result and finally concluded

The calculated exposure for a five hour automobile trip with the windows closed/ventilation off and with a smoking rate of 2 cigarettes per hour is 25 times higher than the same exposure scenario in a residence.

We\’ve really got to start hanging these lying bastards right now.

12 comments on “Lying bastards

  1. A vet has observed the effects of second hand smoke.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3530334.stm
    “A couple decided to stop smoking after learning their habit was killing their parrot.

    Kevin Bartley, 41, and partner Sharon Wood, from Shoebury, quit smoking after their pet Jay Jay was put on a nebuliser to help him breathe.

    He was so ill that they had to rush him to the vet for a series of tests and treatments costing £600 until the cause of his illness became apparent. ”

    If you had been a miner in the 19th century would you have left the mine when the canary started feeling ill? Or would you have carried on?

  2. G Orwell; the parrot didn’t get cancer, it just reacted to the smoke.
    Don’t forget that we started cooking very roughly 250,000 years ago, so human lungs have become accustomed to smoke. Parrots, as far as I’m aware, have never managed to tame fire.

  3. Hanging’s too good for them.

    This Nathanson grockle is a market leader in the Puritan movement. Here she is bragging away in a truly odious manner about their propagandist wankery-

    http://youtu.be/vOhWItI-PXU

    -in particular from around 2:55 onwards, boasting how “public health” work is an excuse to get into a minister’s office to do trade union (“pay and conditions”) lobbying.

    Nasty, nasty woman, fronting for a nasty, nasty organisation.

  4. “G Orwell; the parrot didn’t get cancer, it just reacted to the smoke.
    Don’t forget that we started cooking very roughly 250,000 years ago, so human lungs have become accustomed to smoke. Parrots, as far as I’m aware, have never managed to tame fire.”
    You should tell the fire brigade that they are wasting money on breathing appartus.

    True it didn’t get cancer but it was harmed, Tim said
    “There is not a single doctor in the country who has observed, identifiably, the effects of second hand smoke.”

  5. I hate to be a killjoy on this parrot thing, but do we actually know that the parrot became ill because of the smoke? Was there any proof of cause and effect? I’m thinking of the vasty number of caged birds who were kept in tiny little one-up-one-down working class living rooms, surrounded by people smoking like chimneys, back in the Good Old Days.

    I mean, I don’t want to say I don’t trust medical experts or anything, but my mum’s doctor insisted she didn’t need a colonoscopy because she just had “old lady’s tummy”, and when she finally bludgeoned him into booking her one, they found her (second) giant colon cancer tumour, and she died from that. So, when they make fuck ups like that, I think the chances of a vet being able to reliably ascertain that a parrot has suffered some kind of respiratory disease due to passive smoking is totally miniscule, frankly.

  6. Pingback: Smoking in cars. - PPRuNe Forums

  7. Oh yes, the disinformation spreading BMA who I made a formal complaint about after their “spokesman” was quoted in the Times saying that oseltamivir has no use as an influenza prophylactic. This despite it having FDA approval for exactly that purpose. They are a joke, a bunch of medics playing at being scientists.

  8. There is plenty of good research about the dangers to smokers of smoking cigarettes and this has helped to guide millions of people.

    But the misuse of dodgy studies and statistics about “second-hand smoke” or “passive smoking” to justify one or another legal ban , which is really designed to bear down on smokers, has done more than anything else to discredit the statements of scientists and “scientific proof” across the board.

    Widespread disbelief in the “settled science” of “global warming” or “climate change”, for instance, is largely down to people knowing how scientific studies and projections have been lied about, misused and deliberately manipulated by doctors and other health lobbyists who think that the end justify the means.

  9. If it’s my car, I will do as I please in it. If you don’t like that, you are welcome to leave. If it’s your car, then your rules apply.
    But the nub of this situation, is that the prodnoses are lobbying for restrictions on personal freedoms, in order to protect non-existent people. Those other people who aren’t in your car, who have no business being in your car, because it is your private property. No matter, to them, any excuse for harassment will suffice.
    Our society has changed as the smokers and drinkers have deserted the public domain. We have retreated to our private zones, in search of peace and quiet, and predictably, the nags are trying to follow us home.

  10. Monty,

    I think the problem is they have not had their throats slit in a quiet alley the moment they turned up. No, they have been humoured, pandered and now are so confident that they push this junk.

    The Monopoly* probably sees it as a useful way to remind everyone who is boss…

    p.s. surely you mean Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the BMA’s Director of UNprofessional Activities?

    * for that is what I now call the State, or at least the vast bulk that is a tumour upon us

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.