The Sacrifice of the Asthmatics.

It is very noble of all the asthmatics to throw themselves on the altar of the antismoking zealots, and to abandon all hope of any kind of permanent cure so that smokers can be demonised further.

You see, the antismokers have decided that the smoking ban has cured asthma even though that unfortunate devil called ‘Reality’ insists on using facts to show that it has done no such thing. In fact, there is no relationship between smoking and asthma at all. You don’t believe me, asthmatics? Well, it doesn’t matter now anyway. The High Priests of Antismoking have their sacrificial blades poised over you and you really can’t stop them now. Your asthma will one day kill you. You will blame the smokers, not the High Priest with the knife. You will never see the futility of your death.

Smokers did not cause your asthma but if you want to continue to believe we did, I am fine with that. You go ahead and join with the mantra that smoking, and only smoking, is the cause of your breathing problems. I have no breathing problems despite actively smoking for over thirty years but if you really want to believe that a miniscule fraction of what I have inhaled has utterly destroyed your airways, be my guest. I am really not interested in changing your mind. Believe fully in the antismoker agenda, accept all that they tell you, blame me for all your ills. I don’t mind.

It does mean that you accept that medical ‘science’ has stopped bothering to consider any other cause. It does mean that you accept that the only ‘research’ into your illness will be that which attempts to link it to smoking, by more and more tenuous and blatantly false means. It does mean that you accept that no other cause will be researched in any way at all, since that might distract the masses from the Holy Zealotry of the Antismoker.

I am, I admit, impressed by your noble sacrifice. You are willing to give up any hope of a cure in order to further the agenda of smoker-hatred, even though you know, deep down, that smokers are not the cause and are rarely (if ever) the trigger for an asthma attack. What is? What could be done to permanently prevent any further attacks? None of us will ever know, as long as the mad medics insist that everything is caused by smoking. But don’t let that shake your faith. Your faith will kill you, but you will die believing in the Smokeless Zone and you know that’s something worth giving up your life to defend.

You are willing to lay down your life for the antismoking cause, to wheeze with your last breath the bile-flecked propaganda of the antismoker, to pass away, perhaps knowing, in your final thoughts, that there could have been a cure. There might have been, if there was any real research left. Perhaps if it hadn’t all been hijacked by the NeoPuritans and the snarling medics, there might have been someone, somewhere, willing to actually find a workable solution. A permanent cure for asthma. Don’t look at me. I’m a smoker. I’m not even going to try.

And yet you didn’t want that chance anyway. No, far more honourable to die as a pawn of the Antismoking Inquisition, as a sacrifice on the altar of Righteousness. A willing and joyful offering to the Cause. To die as part of a vicious and spiteful denormalisation program is the surest route to heaven, isn’t it?

I salute your courage, and your sacrifice. As a smoker, I will light one in your honour.

I will feel no guilt at the end because I didn’t kill you. Those who did are incapable of feeling anything at all. They just move on to the next in line.

There is nothing I can do to persuade you of the madness of your faith, so I will not try. It’s too late anyway. The medics who treat you, the charities who keep you as pets, they own you now. They’ll use you as they see fit and you’ll accept it without question. Perhaps your lip is curling even now as you regard this smoker’s words as the deranged ramblings of a hopelessly addicted idiot. Curl away. Laugh, point at me and deride me. I don’t care.

Because in the end, I’m not the one being controlled. I’m not the one laying down his life for any cause at all, much less for one based on bigotry and hatred. I don’t have your single-minded blind courage. I am not willing to die for some imaginary ‘smoking cause’.

Once again, I am impressed that you are willing to die for your antismoking masters.

I hope you are fully convinced that it’s worth it, because it’s too late to change your mind now..

About these ads

42 thoughts on “The Sacrifice of the Asthmatics.

  1. Here’s some personal observations. I was asthmatic from the age of 7 to the present, although it hardly troubles me these days. My father smoked a pipe from when I was born, but rarely in the house. I smoked cigarettes, and the occasional pipe, from the age of 16 to 54. My own smoking never brought on an attack, but being in a smoky atmosphere was sure to. I haven’t smoked now for six years, and feel all the better for it. Pick the bones out of all that :) Common sense, and my own experience, tells me that environmental tobacco smoke can bring on asthmatic attacks in those prone to them. However, I see no link whatsoever between the presence of smoke in the air and children actually developing the condition. For that (and it is an increasing problem), I would look to something much more subtle, like toxins in the diet. There’s a lot of research to be done there, but as it isn’t easily attributed to Big Tobacco it won’t be done. The funding won’t be there.

    As an ex-smoker, I say to you – smoke as much as you please. Not in my house, and please don’t blow it in my face, but otherwise feel free. As you have said many times (and in my view correctly), you inhale far more harmful stuff standing next to a main road in the rush hour. But the antis will take any remotely-plausible evidence and link it with the smoking of tobacco, because that is what they are /paid/ to do. It’s their job and their livelihood.

    Like

    • The ‘research’ is especially interesting in that they link the ban on smoking in pubs, clubs etc (places where children were not allowed) with an imaginary decline in childhood asthma. This isn’t even a ‘correlation=causation’ issue because there isn’t a correlation!

      If there is any kind of decline in asthma in recent years, the first place to look would be the damp, cold summers of the last few years. Not much pollen flying about… I know, it’s not necessarily the cause but it’s a more likely place to look than the bars those kids were never in.

      When you say smoky atmosphere, would that be a specifically tobacco-smoke one or any smoke? If it’s the particulates, then a room full of candles would cause the same problem. The antis think tobacco smoke is special, they even believe bacteria can live in it! If that idea is drummed into people’s heads, even subconsciously, it could then act as a trigger for all kinds of respiratory problems. The antis could, potentially, create the problem they claim to be solving.

      Like

      • Thinking back, that would be any smoky atmosphere – tobacco, woodsmoke, exhaust fumes and so on. But it was in the pub that it was most noticeable, simply because I preferred boozing to bonfires or car parks. The curious thing, and it’s totally counter-intuitive, is that light concentrations were worse for me than a heavy fug. And I never understood why my own smoking never brought on an attack, whereas other people’s smoke, presumably at concentrations hundreds of times smaller in the atmosphere, frequently did.

        Like

    • lnteresting you say this Richard “and please don’t blow it in my face”. What’s that about? Did you blow smoke in peoples faces when you were a smoker? Somehow l doubt it, so why are you saying it now?

      Like

  2. They used to prescibe menthol cigs to asthma victims in the 60’s because it helped them breathe better…

    and on another note….

    This pearl of history may have escaped.

    History of the Condom

    I’ve always been a student of history but I didn’t know this.

    In 1272, the Arabic Muslims invented the condom, using a goat’s lower intestine.

    In 1873, the British refined the idea by taking the intestine out of the goat first

    Like

  3. I also had an in-law who insisted that my smoking irritated her asthma. Yet the five joints a day she smoked never bothered her at all. Kind of queer, huh?

    Like

    • I was told (by a fellow from a company selling, among many other things, refined lactose) about a bodybuilder he knew. The bodybuilder insisted he was lactose intolerant and scrutinised every chemcial protein concoction to check for lactose. If he had lactose in his diet, the world fell out of his bottom.

      Yet he had no problem with milk. He drank several pints a day. The label didn’t say ‘lactose’.

      Like

  4. Just read James Delingpole’s brilliant piece in the Telegraph yesterday (reproduced at my place) called “Obama declares war on reality”. What’s kept you, Barry? Is it a conspiracy theory to suggest that the government’s (Dept of Health) instructions to doctors are to increase disease, disseminate misinformation, instil fear, treat psychiatric patients with quackery so they never get better and restrict or outlaw cheap and effective medication which relieves pain and anxiety? I.e. keeping people distressed keeps them preoccupied – always a priority with rank rotten government?

    Who needs the SAS? Send in the NHS. They’re the expert killers these days.

    Like

    • OBlimey isn’t the only one. Our own dangling Cameroid has declared war on pretty much everyone in the world in order to defeat the threat posed by the terrorists he (and his predecessors) armed and trained. Meanwhile he is making enormous cuts to the British military, who he expects to fight the terrorists he gave their weapons away to…

      Reality? The political class wouldn’t know reality unless (or until) it smashes them right in the face.

      Like

  5. If those asthmatics would only give up wheat! Instead they insist it is us that need to give something up, yet ridding wheat (and gluten) from your diet will eliminate asthma. Try it for yourselves.

    Like

    • I’ve never had asthma, although I do get that undefined set of symptoms called ‘irritating bowel syndrome’. (It’s only called ‘irritable’ if it happens to someone else). Cheese on toast would set it off, or pizza, and a range of other things too.

      So i decided to experiment. Cut out lactose, no effect. Okay, try it the other way. Cheese without toast, cut right back on bread and pasta, avoid things heavily laden with wheat (I used to work alongside someone who worked on wheat lectins and what they did to gut lining so I should have thought of this part sooner).

      Bingo. No more problems. I can eat bread and wheat products with no effect unless I load up with them. I don’t think it’s an allergic reaction, I think it’s just an overload. So many things have wheat in them now.

      Hmm… I’ve never tested the effects of wheat on my gut simulation machine. It won’t be hard to do. All I need is a bag of flour and some time.

      Like

  6. If any of the figures can be believed:

    Asthma numbers increased from the late 50’s early 60’s on, smoking declined from then on.

    Asthma numbers increased from the late 50’s early 60’s on, so did the number of vehicles on the road.

    Asthma numbers increased from the late 50’s early 60’s on, so did improvements in housing – central heating, double glazing, decline in the use of open fires.

    Asthma levels out from 2000 on, smoking steeply in decline.

    Asthma levels out from 2000 on, catalytic converters mandatory on new cars from 1993.

    Asthma levels out from 2000 on, decline in the use of warm, blown air heating systems.

    What does this prove? Sod all! What does it suggest? Maybe that a lack of fresh air has more to do with asthma rates than any other particular cause.
    This rubbish is about as valid as most other studies, but at no cost to the tax payer!

    It should now be obvious that I am no scientist. But even a simpleton like me would expect any study to be based on information, and lots of it. It might then be found that a particular brand of toothpaste, washing powder, air freshener, pillow stuffing, or just bad luck is responsible. It might even be found that there is no single cause.

    Like

    • Different reactions experienced by different asthmatics might well suggest more than one cause. Nobody cares, not about asthma, eczema, ear infections or leprosy, not now they have The One Cause to Cause Them All.

      Like

  7. I had asthmatic tendencies and was on an inhaler for most of my early childhood. My father at that time smoked. I was off the inhaler though before he quit smoking, and right up until the ban I was hanging out in the smoking carriage of trains purely because I liked the atmosphere. I don’t think environmental smoke ever did me any harm, despite my childhood breathing problems.

    I don’t smoke myself at present but am entirely open to doing so in the future when I can either afford the habit or have somewhere to grow my own.

    Like

  8. The different types of asthma include attacks which can be induced by the ingestion route alone. But it is incorrect to infer that smoke particulate (aerodynamic diameter <7μm) from any source, would not elevate the expectancy of attacks in a given population of asthmatics.
    I have seen no NHS statement declaring 'the smoking ban has cured asthma'.

    Like

    • MTG

      An interesting choice of word – ‘expectancy’.

      Whilst asthma is an autoimmune condition, it has always been well known (and supported by research) that it can, and is, triggered not only by an allergen, but by the stress reaction.

      So the ‘expectancy’ that tobacco smoke causes an attack will, and does, lead to an attack (placebo effect in fact). As a professional with ‘mumble’ years in A&E, Admissions and Respiratory centres I have lost count of the number of ‘stress related’ attacks (I can recall one where the person experienced an attack sufficient to require ITU admission brought on by seeing the ‘smoke’ from another patients nebuliser?!? – ie. steam with asthma relieving medication in it for the none medical out there)

      If an asthmatic has been told constantly that smoke will cause/exacerbate their condition – then that is exactly what will happen.

      As to particulates, apocryphal I know, but the numbers of patients with coal/wood fires, barbeques, diesel cars or at least living/working near busy roads and even working on dusty building sites all without effect who then keeled over on seeing a small shredded leaf in a paper tube would be amusing if it wasn’t so sad.

      Just Sayin’

      Like

      • Good evening, ‘Able’. You might have spent ‘mumble’ years mastering English before challenging the Queen’s. It is a trifle foolish to ‘criticise’ armed with nothing more than an American spellchecker.

        Other dreadful errors on your part lead me to conclude that your time “As a professional with ‘mumble’ years in A&E, Admissions and Respiratory centres” were probably gained on a floor cleaning contract.

        Like

          • Ah yes ‘the last resort of the PC, leftist, incompetent’ insults. If you have no facts or arguements on your side return to type.

            For your information my comments were not an attack on your, obviously severely insecure, self but merely a comment on how appropriate the language used was.

            We won’t comment on your pretence (for the record both spellings are equally valid in the Queens English if you bothered to check s or c. The spelling of criticise is correct in the Queens English, however, you may be confused in that Americans use the Z – please try, at least, to ‘criticise’ the correct words!) at scientific knowledge in specifying a spurious diameter for the particulates “(aerodynamic diameter <7μm)" – did you think no one would notice you simply made that up? And making up words, "expectancy", will be given a pass as you obviously struggle to parse a sentence correctly.

            Oh, and yes, whilst I hold two Phds I do also, as part of my profession, clean floors (walls, cupboards and sundry parts of unmentionable anatomy). It is part and parcel of 'doing the job' which you patently have never even come close to. From that comment I can only assume you have no practical knowledge of health care other than you've gained from reading the Guardian.

            I've come across 'armchair/mall ninjas' before, but a 'armchair/mall medic' is a first! And such a sensitive one at that!

            Like

        • Ahem. I also have PhD and currently work as a cleaner. I have opted out of working for more than the basic amount of money I need in order to pay as little tax as possible to the corrupt government.
          Besides, Local Shop was only working to retail levels of clean. Not good enough. Not good enough at all. Soon the customers will pass through a disinfectant spray on the way in…

          Like

          • I empathise Sir. I’ve often considered general admissions policy to be sorely lacking here in Small-City Infirmary but the PTB won’t let me autoclave patients shoes for some reason (they did at least pause at my suggestion of a pressure-washer outside A&E. Oh, and I still think the ‘replacing all the overhead lighting with UV’ was a good idea).

            As to qualifications, I always find it amusing that the medical types have the lowest level of qualification in the multi-disciplinary team (the highest of course being the lab-rats – basic entry qualifications for most ‘experienced’ posts being a doctorate). During canteen breaks ‘the posse’ is assiduously avoided by medical ‘doctors’ since we make a point of calling them mr/mrs (rather like an episode of ‘The Big Bang Theory’ – “but I have a Masters degree, “Hah! Who hasn’t?”).

            Have you ever considered surreptitious irradiation?

            Like

          • I am impressed by your two Phds (sic) ‘Able’. I cannot speak for Leg-Iron but I doubt if I will ever distinguish myself with a Pizza hut delivery.

            Like

  9. “They used to prescibe menthol cigs to asthma victims in the 60′s because it helped them breathe better…”

    It’s a curious thing that folk remedies using tobacco, sometimes known for centuries, have, in the latter half of the previous century, been turned from cure to cause in the public mind, but when you look at the chemistry, including the recently discovered virtues of inhaled combustion gases (also made by the body itself),many of these previous beliefs and observations appear to be confirmed.
    It’s as if in times past before these discoveries were made, someone deliberately set out to reverse this old knowledge, apparently resulting in two opposing factions, one of which is a powerful orthodoxy and the other which seems to have to walk on eggshells,writing disclaimers at the end of their studies to deflect criticism.

    …we have found this wonderful new thing with marvellous properties which is essential to good health and prevents all manner of horrible ailments, but it’s also in tobacco smoke and Smoking is Bad so everyone should stop right now , regardless…

    Because I have no medical training, no scientific training and no preconceived ideas, the whole thing is quite fascinating and if I hadn’t been made unwelcome in every pub, club, hotel and coffee shop in England, I would never have known.

    Like

    • Before the smoking ban, I would never have dared question the quite reasonable assumption that smoking caused a range of respiratory ailments. Then they ramped up the claims – passive smoke, smoking causing bacterial infections, even, at one point, bacteria actually living in tobacco smoke!

      Now I don’t believe a word of any of it. If they are going to claim that smoking causes dandruff and middle ear infections, which are patently absurd, then all their claims must logically be absurd because they have revealed themselves to be idiots.

      However, I am not above terrifying the drones by expanding on their own beliefs. Never could resist it – but to be honest, I’ve never tried to resist. I suppose that makes me hopelessly addicted to drone-scaring.

      It’ll probably give me rabies or something.

      Like

  10. Then there is this.
    A 12% reduction is not enough to assume cause and effect.

    A 12% reduction would be an RR of 0.88, which is much greater than 0.5!!!
    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/RR.htm

    For these reasons most scientists (which includes scientifically inclined epidemiologists) take a fairly rigorous view of RR values. In observational studies, they will not normally accept an RR of less than 3 as significant and never an RR of less than 2.

    Likewise, for a putative beneficial effect, they never accept an RR of greater than 0.5

    Like

    • Well, I doubt anyone applying scientific rigour to their work would get past the interview stage for a tobacco control job.

      I also doubt any real scientist would apply for such a career-terminating position.

      Like

      • I read somewhere (but can’t remember the source) a couple of years ago that epidemiologists working in other areas wished to distance themselves from the TC mob because it was bringing the discipline into such disrepute.

        Like

        • Unfortunately the TC mob have infected many areas of science and are better funded and supported by the idiots in management. So the real scientists, if they want to keep their jobs, say little or nothing.

          TC have now brought the very word ‘science’ into disrepute.

          Like

  11. Sigh, Cigarettes causing asthma is sooo yesterday. That particular premise has worked. Cigs are now banned in public places and anyone lighting up these days is given the same treatment as former cyclists and DJs. Job done. Now what?
    Oh yeah, here’s an idea! It’s caused* by junk food now.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9799864/Junk-food-linked-to-asthma-and-eczema-in-children.html
    I’m appalled. The poor childrens. We must tax salt and fat and MSG asap. It’s the right thing to do.

    *(I liked the caveat right at the end -“The team of researchers warn that their results do not prove cause and effect.”. Since when has that stopped anyone?!)

    Like

    • Asthma, eczema and eye infections… it’s the same! How many times are they going to shift the blame for the same set of diseases?

      More to the point, if these have become common enough that there are enough cases to blame on whatever today’s Disapproved Thing is…

      …what’s really causing them?

      Like

  12. If a violinist goes onsatge to play a solo, convinced that they are going to fuck up the important bit…they will.
    If an ashmatic goes into a room where there is tobacco smoke, convinced that they are going to get an attack…they will

    Like

    • It’s not just asthmatics. You can get a perfectly healthy drone to experience shortness of breath and a tightening chest just by talking to them – because they have already been conditioned by the Antis to believe in the deadliness of smoke.

      Well, if they want me denormalised, I might as well enjoy it.

      Like

Comments are closed.