Friends make you die

Pubs are wrecked, all other meetingplaces are wrecked, the smokng ban saw to that. And yet smokers are only 20-odd percent of the population.

How, then, to destroy the social lives of the nonsmokers? Many of them are nondrinkers too since those vices go so well together.

Well, how about telling them that having friends will make them die sooner?

You will all believe yourselves individuals in the future. Every one of you unique and free while in reality you will be all the same and owned. Those who now apologise for 200-years-ago slavery intend to make you all slaves tomorrow.

You will not dare to have friends. Friends will be the new smoking.

It has already started.

 

 

(short posts this month – three projects on the go!)

Advertisements

37 thoughts on “Friends make you die

  1. Added this li’l nugget o’ wiz o’er thar, though their comment system lumped it all into one unreadable paragraph. :/

    =

    It’s not just the alcohol that will do you in. Your mates have four ways of getting rid of bodily waste products and poisons: defecation, urination, perspiration, and respiration.

    Every time they exhale in a nice smoke-free pub that’s ditched its high end ventilation system to survive in the impoverished smoke-free world, you are being treated to a pleasant mix of up to 3,000 VOCs (Volatile Organic Chemicals), all of which are poisonous in sufficient concentrations. It’s not all that much different from the secondhand smoke you’ve been warned all your life about: it’s got formaldehyde and acetone and acetocholine etc … stuff used to preserve corpses and all manner of other goodies.

    BUT… if you’re in a smoke-banned pub, you’ll never KNOW just how poor the ventilation is! So you’ll sit there, happily dying in ignorance, inhaling the waste products your mates exhale, as well as their viruses and bacteria!

    So, have fun and enjoy the nice, clear, deadly air while you can!

    – MJM

    Liked by 1 person

    • Pitiful when with smoking it likely killed off bacterial and viral components too,just like ecig juice is an EPA FDA approved airborne disinfectant smoke has the same capabilities…….

      Medicinal Smoke Reduces Airborne Bacteria – 2007

      “This study represents a comprehensive analysis and scientific validation of our ancient knowledge about the effect of ethnopharmacological aspects of natural products’ smoke for therapy and health care on airborne bacterial composition and dynamics, using the Biolog® microplate panelsand Microlog® database.

      In this study, we have designed an air sampler for microbiological air sampling during the treatment of the room with medicinal smoke. In addition, elimination of the aerial pathogenic bacteria due to the smoke is reported too.

      We have observed that 1 h treatment of medicinal smoke emination by burning wood and a mixture of odoriferous and medicinal herbs (havan sámagri = material used in oblation to fire all over India) on aerial bacterial population caused over 94% reduction of bacterial counts by 60 min and the ability of the smoke to purify or disinfect the air and to make the environment cleaner was maintained up to 24 h in the closed room.

      Absence of pathogenic bacteria Corynebacterium urealyticum, Curtobacterium flaccumfaciens, Enterobacter aerogenes (Klebsiella mobilis), Kocuria rosea, Pseudomonassyringae pv. persicae, Staphylococcus lentus, and Xanthomonas campestris pv. tardicrescens inthe open room even after 30 days is indicative of the bactericidal potential of the medicinal smoke treatment.

      We have demonstrated that using medicinal smoke it is possible to completely eliminate diverse plant and human pathogenic bacteria of the air within confined space.
      Work has implications to use the smoke generated by burning wood and a mixture of odoriferousand medicinal herbs, within confined spaces such as animal barns and seed/grain warehouses to disinfect the air and to make the environment cleaner.
      Work indicates that certain known medicinal constituents from the havan sámagri can thus be added to the burning farm material while disposing unwanted agriculture organic material, in order to reduce plant pathogenicorganisms.

      In particular, it highlights the fact that we must think well beyond the physical aspects of smoke on plants in natural habitats and impacts heavily on our understanding of fire as adriving force in evolution.
      We have demonstrated that using medicinal smoke it is possible to contain diverse pathogenic bacteria of the air we breathe.

      The work also highlights the fact about medicinal smoke and that a lot of natural products have potential for use as medicine in the smoke form as a form of drug delivery and as a promising source of new active natural ingredients for containing indoor airborne infections within confined spaces used for storage of agriculture comodities.

      The dynamic chemical and biological interactions occurring in the atmosphere are much more complex than has been previously realized. The findings warrant a need for further evaluation of various ingredients present in the complex mixture of odoriferous and medicinal herbs, individually and in various combinations to identify the active principlesinvolved in the bactericidal property of the medicinal smoke, applied in the above discussed fashion.”
      Formerly http: //www.agri-history.org/pdf/Medic…

      Abstract
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu

      Medicinal smokes

      Abstract
      “All through time, humans have used smoke of medicinal plants to cure illness.
      To the best of our knowledge, the ethnopharmacological aspects of natural products’ smoke for therapy and health care have not been studied.
      Mono- and multi-ingredient herbal and non-herbal remedies administered as smoke from 50 countries across the 5 continents are reviewed.

      Most of the 265 plant species of mono-ingredient remedies studied belong to Asteraceae (10.6%), followed by Solanaceae (10.2%), Fabaceae (9.8%) and Apiaceae (5.3%). The most frequent medical indications for medicinal smoke are pulmonary (23.5%), neurological (21.8%) and dermatological (8.1%).

      Other uses of smoke are not exactly medical but beneficial to health, and include smoke as a preservative or a repellent and the social use of smoke.

      The three main methods for administering smoke are inhalation, which accounts for 71.5% of the indications; smoke directed at a specific organ or body part, which accounts for 24.5%; ambient smoke (passive smoking), which makes up the remaining 4.0%. Whereas inhalation is typically used in the treatment of pulmonary and neurological disorders and directed smoke in localized situations, such as dermatological and genito-urinary disorders, ambient smoke is not directed at the body at all but used as an air purifier.

      The advantages of smoke-based remedies are rapid delivery to the brain, more efficient absorption by the body and lower costs of production. This review highlights the fact that not enough is known about medicinal smoke and that a lot of natural products have potential for use as medicine in the smoke form.

      Furthermore, this review argues in favor of medicinal smoke extended use in modern medicine as a form of drug delivery and as a promising source of new active natural ingredients”
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu

      Courtesy of Miss Rose awhile back

      Like

      • EPA & FDA: Vapor Harmless to Children

        April 3, 2014 matt black

        In the continued war on e-cigarettes, we hear about the “potential dangers” of e-cigarette vapor and the “unknown public health risks.”

        First, I find it absolutely absurd that we’re attempting to pass laws based on unknowns, but what makes it even more absurd is the fact that there’s very little that isn’t known about e-cigarette vapor at this point. The primary ingredient of concern to those who wish to see e-cigarettes banned is the propylene glycol vapor, which has been studied for over 70 years.

        I recently came across a document titled, “Reregistration Eligibility Decision For Propylene Glycol and Dipropylene Glycol“, which was created by the United State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

        Catchy title. I was intrigued.

        This quote caught my eye:

        Propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol were first registered in 1950 and 1959, respectively, by the FDA for use in hospitals as air disinfectants. (page 4, paragraph 1).

        In a previous post, I had shared the summary of research that had been done in 1942 by Dr. Robertson regarding the antibacterial properties of vaporized propylene glycol, but I had never heard that the FDA wound up approving it for the purpose of an air disinfectant in hospitals.

        Indoor Non-Food: Propylene glycol is used on the following use sites: air treatment (eating establishments, hospital, commercial, institutional, household, bathroom, transportational facilities); medical premises and equipment, commercial, institutional and industrial premises and equipment; (page 6, paragraph 2)

        Continued…

        Method and Rates of Application

        ….

        Air Sanitizer

        Read the directions included with the automatic dispenser for proper installation of unit and refill. Remove cap from aerosol can and place in a sequential aerosol dispenser which automatically releases a metered amount every 15 minutes. One unit should treat 6000 ft of closed air space… For regular, non-metered applications, spray room until a light fog forms. To sanitize the air, spray 6 to 8 seconds in an average size room (10’x10′). (page 6, paragraph 6)

        A common argument used to support the public usage ban is that, “Minnesotans have become accustomed to the standard of clean indoor air.” However, according to the EPA and FDA, so long as there’s a “light fog” of propylene glycol vapor in the air, the air is actually more clean than the standard that Minnesotans have become accustomed to.

        General Toxicity Observations

        Upon reviewing the available toxicity information, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. This conclusion is based on the results of toxicity testing of propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol in which dose levels near or above testing limits (as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines) were employed in experimental animal studies and no significant toxicity observed.

        Carcinogenicity Classification

        A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies conducted up to the testing limit doses established by the Agency; therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required. (page 10, paragraphs 1 & 2)

        Ready for the bombshell? I probably should have put this at the top, as it could have made this post a lot shorter, but I figured the information above was important, too…

        2. FQPA Safety Factor

        The FQPA Safety Factor (as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996) is intended to provide an additional 10-fold safety factor (10X), to protect for special sensitivity in infants and children to specific pesticide residues in food, drinking water, or residential exposures, or to compensate for an incomplete database. The FQPA Safety Factor has been removed (i.e., reduced to 1X) for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol because there is no pre- or post-natal evidence for increased susceptibility following exposure. Further, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol based on the low toxicity observed in studies conducted near or above testing limit doses as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines. Therefore, quantitative risk assessment was not conducted for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol.

        In a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health by Dr. Robertson in April of 1946, Robertson cites a study published in the Edinburgh Medical Journal, which was conducted in 1944:

        The report of the 3 years’ study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapors in a children’s convalescent home showed a marked reduction in the number of acute respiratory infections occurring in the wards treated with both propylene and triethylene glycols. Whereas in the control wards, 132 infections occured during the course of three winters, there were only 13 such instances in the glycol wards during the same period. The fact that children were, for the most part, chronically confined to bed presented an unusually favorable condition for the prophylactic action of the glycol vapor.

        An investigation of the effect of triethylene glycol vapor on the respiratory disease incidence in military barracks brought out the fact that, while for the first 3 weeks after new personnel entered the glycolized area the disease rate remained the same as in the control barracks, the second 3 week period showed a 65 percent reduction in acute respiratory infections in the glycol treated barracks. Similar effects were observed in respect to airborne hemolytic streptococci and throat carriers of this microorganism.

        I don’t expect the prohibitionist lawmakers to delve this deeply into this subject on their own, but I certainly hope that when presented with this data that they reevaluate their stance on the subject and consider what science has to say. If they don’t, they’re simply basing their judgement off of rhetoric, misinformation, and personal bias and we all know where that gets us.

        http://mnvapers.com/2014/04/ep

        Like

  2. Hmm, and just last week Esther Rancid was telling us that lonlieness was as bad as smoking 15 cigarettes a day.

    That’s O.K. I smoke a pipe. NO problem!

    Like

    • Fester Rancid really can’t see that elephant in the room, can she?

      The main reason the elderly are lonely is that the idiotic smoking ban killed all their pubs, clubs and bingo halls.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Yes, I thought we men were huddled in our man caves all alone and sad and just counting the days until we succumbed to darkness forever? It must be true because Esther says so. She knows stuff.

    I’ll stick to what I think is best for me and everyone else, of the male persuasion, can do likewise. I think we men are very able to live inside our heads without needing other chaps to validate our very existence.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. gosh another study based on peoples self reporting of consumption – and based on asking people out on the town and in front of their mates – that’s going to produce accurate results for sure. Also based on the study it would seem that women have fewer friends (male group rose to 6.4 friends female 5.7) – which is obviously an example of male privilege and the study needs to be adjusted to account for such blatant sexism. I’d also suggest that maybe Swiss students aren’t the most typical cases. So really it is following the very best practices of prohibition science

    Some this comment may be sarcastic.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. I now look forward to the impending zombie apocalypse. After that starts all these useless fucknuts will have actual issues to worry about. And their rent-seeking ways will earn them only a baseball bat to the kneecap so that a sane guy can escape the chasing horde while the righteous prat provides lunch.

    Like

  6. According to studies, not only do friends make you die but they make you fat as well.

    Obesity Is Socially Contagious, Study Finds

    July 25, 2007

    “Are your friends making you fat? Or keeping you slender? According to new research from Harvard and the University of California, San Diego, the short answer on both counts is “yes.”

    Appearing in the July 26 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, a study coauthored by Nicholas Christakis of Harvard Medical School and James Fowler of UC San Diego suggests that obesity is “socially contagious,” spreading from person to person in a social network.

    The study – the first to examine this phenomenon – finds that if one person becomes obese, those closely connected to them have a greater chance of becoming obese themselves. Surprisingly, the greatest effect is seen not among people sharing the same genes or the same household but among friends.”
    http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/soc/07-07ObesityIK-.asp

    Like

  7. ‘Sometimes it is useful to show in a well conducted study something which one suspects could well be true,’ the researchers said.

    ROFL

    Like

  8. Surely the type of friends you keep would be the determining factor. If your friends are all cardiologists and surgeons you will probably live longer than if your friends are hobos and crack heads.

    Like

    • “If your friends are all cardiologists and surgeons you will probably live longer than if your friends are hobos and crack heads.”

      Dunno about that…. Remember, iatrogenic disease is an important contributor to death stats!

      – MJM

      Like

  9. Endgame: the Islamic State approach to tobacco control

    Posted on 4 March 2015 by Carl V Phillips |

    Ruth Malone (editor of Tobacco Control) among others, took to Twitter to praise Islamic State for pursuing beheading-based anti-tobacco policies, and lamented when they backed off. When you start feeling all right about “this choice might kill you, so we must stop you from making it, even if we have to kill you ourselves to do so”, it is probably time to rethink your life’s work.

    http://antithrlies.com/2015/03/04/endgame-the-islamic-state-approach-to-tobacco-control/

    Like

  10. TC nanny friends will cause you to be more likely to die from the diseases caused by smokiing.
    .
    Cancer Research, UK(CRUK) has data on their web site that proves that: compared to smokers, never-smokers are 70% more likely to die from a ‘smoking related’ disease.

    Published in 2004, the Summary of Doll’s Doctor Report showed that 84% of never-smokers’ deaths were from the diseases related to smoking.

    This what CRUK says:

    http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/smoking-and-cancer/

    “The fact is that half of all long term smokers eventually die from cancer, or other smoking-related illnesses.”

    Half = 50%

    84% is 70% greater/higher than 50%.

    Soooo:
    ” Compared to smokers, never-smokers are 70% more likely to die from a ‘smoking related’ disease.”

    Like

  11. I have no friends, so I suppose I will live forever, in a miserable world with no friends.
    I’m from Wick a place of miserable folk, a far flung town in the North East. Its so far flung that BBC Scotland seem confused as to whether Caithness is in the Highlands and Island Region or the North East, Orkney and Shetland Region.

    Like

First comments are moderated to keep the spambots out. Once your first comment is approved, you're in.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s