Nicotine replacement therapy, like virtually every aspect of the antitobacco crusade, is essentially a fraud.

I read with interest a news report [stored] recently written by my colleague and friend at Freedom To Choose, Colin Grainger, about smokers' quit rates relative to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). The report rightly highlights the fraud of the criminals who promote this therapy because it has a 98.4% failure rate but after four decades of health scare terrorism from a global community of hate groups blaming smoke for everything from acne to climate change why is there still even a market for it? Why hasn't every smoker conformed?

The answer is that very few intelligent people believe anything the tobacco control movement says anymore which is unsurprising after the last few years of unbelievable garbage and fairy tales they have used due to their frustration over non-conformity.

When they tell us that nicotine is an evil, deadly substance that is more addictive than heroin but in the same breath tell us to buy their nicotine to help us quit what are we to make of it? Well those of us who can read know that not a word of it is true, the scientific literature clearly shows that nicotine in the doses experienced by smokers is completely harmless, a fact that is acknowledged by the highest medical authority in the world — the Institute of Medicine. Nor does the literature support their claim that nicotine is highly addictive, in fact quite the opposite is true; the tobacco control archives are littered with evidence of anti-smokers attempting to bully scientists into saying that nicotine is as addictive as hard drugs but behavioural scientists have reported again and again that it isn't. In fact tests on animals show that during nicotine deprivation they don't even bother to get out of their sleeping places when offered nicotine during the night. This is not true for any of the rightfully named addictive substances and not even true during mild food deprivation. So if nicotine is not as "addictive" as food clearly it is not very addictive if at all let alone "more addictive than heroin." All of the empirical evidence shows that smoking is habitual and humans are creatures of habit; many of the things we do each day are not conscious decisions but force of habit. Smokers don't hunt down their next "fix" in a cold sweat, they reach for their next cigarette without even thinking about it. Clearly and purely habitual. When smokers quit they don't exist from moment to moment in perpetual need of nicotine. Their desire for a cigarette is only ever triggered by an habitual moment when they would normally have smoked while they were an active smoker.

The 98.4% failure rate of NRT is less surprising with this knowledge; firstly how can it be possible to treat dependence of a substance by administering that very same substance? Of course it can't which is presumably why they don't hand out Vodka at AA meetings. Secondly it doesn't work because it is treating something that is non-existent, namely, a dependence on nicotine. Of course tobacco control advocates turn all of this completely on its head — they would never use the obvious term of a 98.4% failure rate but instead use the somewhat ridiculous term of a 1.6% success rate. Most disturbingly they use the "failures" as "evidence" to "prove" that nicotine is highly addictive.

In plain: they promote and profit from a useless product by attacking smoke, smokers and the tobacco industry with health scare headlines and then use the inevitable failure of that useless product to reinforce their completely unsupported claims of addiction. All very convenient!

The nature of habit is worthy of further examination considering the failure of the anti smoking circus to achieve anything like their declared vision of a non-smoking society despite the criminal promotion of the product they peddle to achieve that socially engineered Utopia. The importance of habitual nature became apparent with Darwin when he observed that those creatures that instinctively learnt to make good choices were more likely to progress via natural selection. Habit has therefore played a crucial role in evolution and that progression has led to the familiar label of humans as "creatures of habit." In The Physiology of Mind, 1868, Henry Maudsley, MD, noted that if the direction of consciousness were necessary for the tasks of humans: "A man might be occupied all day in dressing and undressing himself, the washing of his hands or the fastening of a button would be as difficult to him on each occasion as to the child on its first trial."

In much of the scientific literature the word "habit" is interchangeable with the word "addiction." Although the word "addiction" is almost solely used in everyday language to describe the abuse of substances, the word habit can be used as an informal noun meaning "an addiction to drugs" but there are distinctions that need to be observed as explanation for the reason special interest groups readily interchange these two words. Primarily, withdrawal responses occur during any deprivation of habitual activity; even habitual runners have been shown to demonstrate psychological and physiological withdrawal symptoms following the cessation of running (Glasser, 1976). Clearly then if habit is one and the same as addiction we are all addicted to many things whether it be smoking, running, eating or even getting dressed in the morning. Under such a strict definition of the term a person who catches a bus to work every day, fully dressed, is an addict! It is again very convenient for tobacco control to blur the distinction between the everyday usage of the terms habit and addiction; the latter of course suggests a psychological or physiological dependence upon a substance and the former a merely sub-conscious, everyday routine.

Little wonder then that NRT has such an impressive rate of failure, a pharmaceutical "remedy" is as unlikely to remove your habit of smoking as it is to remove your habit of recreational running or putting on your shoes before leaving the house.

The second reason for the outright failure of NRT is also interesting and it is apparent from a sentence within Colin Grainger's report: "Folks, if you feel you really must quit, (it means nothing to us either way), we think you should perhaps take a look at the Allen Carr Method." The interesting part of this sentence is "If you feel you really must quit". This is the surest recipe for failure because it implies that the person doesn't actually want to quit but that they "really must", and as any psychiatrist will tell you, "You really have to want to" is the reliable criterion for change, never "You really must". Here then lies the main reason for the failure of NRT and the need for its promotion within a vicious cycle instigated by the anti-smoking hate groups. After a person starts to smoke, they continue to smoke because it is enjoyable, the smoking becomes a natural and sub-conscious everyday routine, then:

Anti-smokers terrorise the person with tales of death and disease in every newspaper, magazine, and TV commercial break, the person is persecuted in a state-sponsored variant of apartheid, the person is refused employment, health care, and social activity, basically every trick in the book is used to get the person to the point that they think "I really must quit", the person is then bombarded with NRT (often supplied at the expense of the taxpayer), the NRT fails but the person is told "It's because you are an addict", the solution to this is to try again and take more NRT ... and on and on.

This psychological bombardment of smokers cannot be understated in the examination of NRT failure.

We constantly hear statements from anti smokers such as "70% or more of smokers want to quit their habit." What this really means is that after being told that they will lose limbs, go blind, become impotent, get cancer, and die a slow and painful death, they give the desired answer when being asked if they want to quit. There is however a world of difference between wanting to quit and being engineered into a situation where they feel they must quit.

The two reasons for the 98.4% failure are then:

All of this highlights perfectly the lies and corruption within the anti-smoking movement, why would they promote and argue for such a blatantly useless product, in many cases to be paid for by the taxpayer? If the profits from the product didn't line their pockets, if they didn't benefit from the endless stream of biased junk studies pumped out by the pharmaceutical industry as a marketing strategy, if they were really interested in the health and welfare of smokers, would they still promote this garbage?

One final thought, if someone released a pill tomorrow that had a 98.4% SUCCESS rate for quitting smoking do you think that these criminals would grab their opportunity for a non-smoking Utopia and give up their high-paid jobs and positions of power? Never in a million years! And for that reason alone they can never be trusted.