A new version of an old story — Anti is a blithering liar — emerges from Scotland. The only surprise is the media source.
Anti-smoking’s playbook circulates world-wide. A recurring tactic is manipulating data based on selected and segmented population samples within particular localities and within cherry-picked time intervals to suggest that heart attacks have disappeared in some place at some time amongst some population category or other, somehow, in some way, somewhat proximately with the imposition of a smoking ban. The implication is, always, that if the smokers are not killed immediately, everybody else dies, and soon. The patent falseness of this tactic recalls the similarly-directed vaudevillian research of James L. Repace, the most recent manifestation of which FORCES — and FORCES alone — reported just days ago. Politically correct media are always eager and delighted to trumpet unconscionable propaganda from anti-smoking sources and always retarded in recognizing the fraudulence and evil of it all.
FORCES readers are very familiar with anti-smoking’s endlessly recycled heart attack routine. The slapstick tactic has been exposed repeatedly when used on both sides of the Atlantic. So here comes the re-run, the plain story with the plain figures, from the British article we link with here. Scotland imposed a draconian ban, in 2006, ahead of Britain as a whole. A couple of months ago a prohibitionist group called Study of Public Place Intervention on Tobacco Exposure, or "StopIt" for short, announced with much fanfare and little detail that Scottish heart attacks were down seventeen per cent. All other prohibitionists, including of course most of the press, unquestioningly sent out the call to eradicate tobacco smokers entirely from the face of the Earth. (That is the implication, and the eventual intention, dear readers.)
Last week standard government reports appeared. We are told that, based on comparison of hospital and overall figures for heart attacks, incidence in Scotland has declined every year variably by four to eleven per cent since 1999. In the year following the Scottish ban imposition incidence declined not by seventeen per cent but by seven to eight per cent. In other words the post-ban decline is perfectly in sync with a long-term trend, and smack in the middle, in terms of proportion over the past eight years. The government reports have been developed and published in standard form for years. We are told incidentally that: " … because the data on which the StopIt study was based has never been published, and nor has the study itself, it is impossible to say exactly how it was done. Attempts to obtain it or to talk to the lead researcher have gone unanswered."
Our consistent readers are not at all surprised at any of this. The media article’s title: "The facts in the way of a good story," is apt, surely more-so than the writer realizes. It’s not just that this tired and dismal tactic of anti-smoking groups has been exposed over, and over, and over again. The writer misses that, and that prohibitionist evasion when thus exposed is just as typical, and furthermore that the decline in heart attack incidence lies amongst the best-known medical phenomena of the past half century and more. Note the chart shown here, reflecting US heart attack mortality, from 1900 to 1979. The prominent rise and fall is internationally typical, climbing rapidly in the first half of the twentieth century, declining since, and beyond 1979 right up to the present, as the article we link with further illustrates. Variances from year-to-year are what one would expect while the overall trend is clear and dramatic. This pattern, as Doctor James Le Fanu has pointed out in his book The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine, "is strongly suggestive of an underlying biological cause such as infection." Anyone can have a heart attack — it’s among the very most common causes of death — but as Le Fanu further describes, the rise and fall of specific cardiovascular chlamydia infections over the past century has definitively influenced this stark pattern.
The fact is a steep and continuing decline in heart attacks dating from an apex occurring in the mid-twentieth century is positively famous amongst researchers. The fact is smoking bans of the type we see today were undreamt of until very recent years. The fact is anti-smoking repeatedly tells the same transparent lies, and is repeatedly debunked, and repeatedly evades, and repeatedly lies again and the same way, and repeatedly gets quoted and venerated, by prohibitionist writers who do not care to know facts. All of this dismays. None of it surprises anymore. The British article acknowledges the facts under its nose, but remains dumb about all the rest, and it still equivocates, even while admitting a long and widespread history of "wishful political thinking and uncritical journalism." The only surprise is that criticism of the Health Reich, even inadequate criticism, should appear from this source: the intensely smoker-loathing British Broadcasting Corporation. In the USA, similarly hedged criticism of the Reich, from similarly goose-stepping sources such as the Boston Globe and Washington Post, have recently appeared. Anti-smoking’s follies are too fantastic to be entirely ignored even by her disciples’ publications. Nevertheless these journalistic surprises are small puddings. We must speak out forcefully and we must fight forcefully. Anti-smoking, the eugenics of our age, must be destroyed. Her weaknesses are great but they must be effectively exploited. Her powers are the powers of corruption and these too are great. She shall only succumb to total resistance exhibited with extreme force.