Hmmm

But, the bottom line is can we – and should we – be making laws against cancer? In my opinion, given the clear upwards trajectory of cancer worldwide, it is the hallmark of an informed and caring society that we do.

It’s my opinion that a liberal and free society would tell prodnoses like this to fuck off.

32 comments on “Hmmm

  1. Which means they can label us freedom-loving liberals as uninformed and uncaring. How do we stop losing these?

  2. Sorry but how do you pass laws against cancer? And what good would it do? You can pass a law requiring the lamb to lie down with the lion. But a smart zoo keeper would put a new lamb in every day.

    The Guardian can sit like Canute in front of the ageing world population (because this is what is causing the cancers) and say stop. But why would the cancer, like the tide, listen?

  3. To be fair to Cnut, he knew the sea wasn’t stopping for him.

    It was his equivalent of Guardian comment writers who thought government was all powerful that made the error.

    Sadly, all these twats have learned in the intervening 1000 years of alleged progress is that flattering monarchs/politicians as to their omnipotence does work if the monarchs and politicians are of sufficiently low grade.

  4. Blimey – have just read the orioginal piece. This tit doesn’t see what’s wrong, or even contradictory, in this position:

    ‘Most adult cancers are a consequence of personal choice. It is regulations and laws to influence behaviour that will likely prove our most effective weapon.’

  5. Interested – “To be fair to Cnut, he knew the sea wasn’t stopping for him.”

    I will agree that Cnut seems a lot smarter than the cnuts who work for the Guardian. I don’t want to give them the clicks, but I gather this is an effort to ban sugar and alcohol.

    Hang them all. Anyone who gets between some Scouse git and his vodka-favoured Mars Bar is asking for a slow death.

  6. Currently the mortality rate (all causes) stands at the scandalously high level of 100%.
    But you can’t expect a Tory government to bring in the legislation to lower the rate.

  7. If he actually meant what he was saying it would be like passing a law against gravity.

    But he doesn’t – he is just using a scary word to justify banning people’s freedom to do unPC things he doesn’t approve of but which would have little or no effect in reducing cancer.

  8. Cancer is a great disease and should be encouraged. As Sir Humphrey Appleby pointed out in relation to smoking and lung cancer, cancer tends to strike late in life. Thus if people are encouraged to smoke, they contribute to the Exchequer while buying cigarettes in their youth, then they die early, so the Exchequer doesn’t have to support them in their old age.

  9. Pingback: Totalitarian Fucktards | Longrider

  10. This country is drowning under a tsunami of authoritarian fuckwittery. Every day I wake up and the place has got even more alien.

  11. Cancer is a disease of age. You live long enough, you’ll get cancer. The fact of the upward trajectory of cancer is a proxy measure of the fact that we’re living longer and when cancer treatments improve (breast cancer in large part behaves more like a chronic disease than a killer) we’ll start dying of something else (dementia, heart disease, whatever)

    These idiots think we can legislate against death. Good luck with that, morons.

  12. “Cancer is internalised capitalism”

    LOL

    Now off to your sociology lecture. Don’t forget your kaffiyeh! Cockwomble.

  13. Dear Mr Worstall

    I suspect they’re laying the groundwork for legislating against old age. That’s the logical endgame: everyone dies at 50.

    How’s that for equality? Except for the really dedicated people who have to make all the decisions.

    DP

  14. Without the media (especially the BBC) portraying their bollocks as unchallengeable fact these nut jobs and fanatics would be practically invisible.

    That’s the issue. An unbiased and scientifically literate media would tear these fuckers a new arse and then dump them in the bin.

  15. there’s always going to be something that kills more people than anything else – it used to be heart disease, now that’s become more treatable/preventable, it’s cancer, if we reduce cancer deaths (and remember that the NHS’ record on cancer is so poor that there are ten of thousands of excess deaths a year) then it’ll be something else for the Puritans to get bent out of shape again. Reminds me of the old joke about the man who goes to the doctor and gets told he had a very short life expectancy:
    “so I want you to give up sex, smoking, drinking, fatty food and watching TV”.
    “Oh, OK. Will that make me live longer?”
    “No, but it’ll seem like it”

  16. Rob: Thanks for the idea.

    Cancer as internalised socialism. The more of one the more of the other. That explains the rising “epidemic” as well.

    Shut all university humanities/art depts. now in the name of public health.

  17. Well, the ban on DDT stopped cancer in sub-saharan Africa for generations, though I understand that alternative treatments for malaria are now being introduced, thus lowering the death rate from that and increasing it for cancer.
    Perhaps a wordwide ban on antibiotics, possibly combined with a ban on antiseptics would similarly reduce cancer deaths? Outlawing vacination would also be effective.
    What I don’t understand is why it is worse to die of cancer rather than heart didease, diptheria typhoid etc..

  18. BIF>

    “Currently the mortality rate (all causes) stands at the scandalously high level of 100%.”

    It really depends on your sample. I just asked around the office, and none of my colleagues are dead, so our mortality rate is 0%. Obviously, we can save lives by working out why the two rates differ so greatly…

  19. We could just ban people, thus taking the death rate to zero in a single generation (after an initial peak).

  20. Dave
    The mortality rate has actually increased over the last 2,000 years. 2,000 years ago it was actually about a million of a percent below 100%.
    I blame the Tories!

  21. The sheep must be herded into the pens already built for them. Any pretext will do. Global warming, ‘obesity’, sugar (giggle)…

  22. @Pat ‘What I don’t understand is why it is worse to die of cancer rather than heart didease, diptheria typhoid etc..’

    Same reason it’s worse to die from capitalist cluster bombs or US drone strikes than it is good old Soviet era ricin or a Maoist bullet behind the ear.

    (Though actually, I think I’d rather die of typhoid than cancer.)

  23. As John Brignell at Number Watch pointed out, we can do a thought experiment on death rates. We postulate that all mortality is due to four causes: 30% heart disease, 30% cancer, 30% stroke and 10% Alzheimer’s for a total of 100% (natch). Now medical science comes up with wonder drug X that completely eliminates Alzheimer’s. How is this spun by the shrieking fuckwits at the Dragunia and the Daily Wail (for fuckwittery is by no means confined to the Left)? “Drug X causes 11% increase in heart disease, cancer and stroke!”

    This Stewart creature is of course an axe-grinding cunt. Even if his heavy-handed nonsense were practical it would not be desirable. But it would give bell-ends like him another arrow in their quiver. You can just see the arrogance and condescension oozing out of him. If we could end the self-deification of doctors it would make the world a better place.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.