A Billion Lies

There has been a fair bit of comment on the Royal College of Physicians report on vaping in recent days.

People have been justifiably delighted with the announcement that vaping is officially as safe as they have always claimed it is.  

I have read several views on the report but the one that stood out for me was one written by an anti-smoker – Michael Siegel.  While he is a professional anti-smoker, he at least has the saving grace to be honest about it.  One paragraph in particular stood out for me –

It is also a breath of fresh air that helps to clean out some of the stench we have been getting from the completely non-evidence-based rhetoric and propaganda we have been getting for the past six years from anti-nicotine organizations and researchers in the U.S. and from numerous health agencies and regulatory bodies, including the FDA and the CDC.

Now smokers have known for years that the Tobacco Control Industry can be economical with the truth, but here is a report that not only contradicts the TCI but essentially proves that they have been lying all along.  So having been called out on their lies, just how far back in history to we have to go before we see a bit of honesty in their outpourings?

I would contend that it all started with Godber's statement that they must “foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily”.  Now this wasn't the first lie, but it was a direct call to action to produce "evidence", as is shown by the word "perceived" as distinct from "proved". 

So the lies started then.  We had study after study, where the evidence was manipulated and distorted.  "Good" results were published and "bad" reports were buried.  The Great Lie about second hand smoke had begun.  Having been emboldened by their success they dropped the pretense of using science to back their claims and just stated blatant lies as fact.  How else would you explain such gems as smoke traveling through solid walls and down telephone cables?  How else could they claim that a whisp of smoke in the open air can damage children's health?  Opening a car window blows smoke into the car?

Over the years these lies have become the truth purely by virtue of constant repetition.  How often do we hear of the hundreds of thousands who have "died from second hand smoke" or the thousands of kids who take up smoking because they have seen it in a film?  I am not saying that all anti-smokers know they are lying but those at the top definitely do, unless they are totally deranged.

Then along comes the e-cigarette.

They had no answer to this device which threatened not only their livelihood but also the profits of their masters in Big Pharma.  Their only answer was to spin more lies in the hope that the momentum would carry them over the bump.  E-cigarettes are leading kids into smoking real cigarettes.  E-cigarettes are carcinogenic and are more dangerous than real cigarettes.  E-cigarettes reduce smokers' chances of quitting.  E-cigarettes explode without warning.  The list is long and tedious.

Even after the report was published, we had a desperate attempt at back pedaling from our own Pat Doorley who said that "while e-cigarettes are safer than tobacco products, there are still some concerns around their use, particularly long-term." 

He then goes on to say “The Royal College of Physicians of Ireland recommends that people who need help with smoking cessation speak to their GP or pharmacist to get advice about all treatment options such as nicotine replacement therapies and psychological supports,”  We must keep our paymasters in Big Pharma happy, mustn't we?

They have been called out on their lies in public.

Maybe now people will see they have been lying through their teeth all along?


It's only fair to share...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponShare on Tumblr


A Billion Lies — 20 Comments

  1. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good argument. It's a joke but unfortunately it won't change the laws


    The "Smoke" is out of the bottle and no putting it back in

  2. True, e-cigs have truly thrown a spanner in the works for TC, but that won't stop them. They will just keep spinning the spin, collecting e-cigs up in the vortex and hoping that nobody notices. 

    They've been lying for so long that it is second nature to them now, so e-cigs, despite being a hiccup in the grand plan, won't derail the gravy train just yet.

    But interesting times ahead. The evangelistic, born-again-now-non-smoking vapers are pissed off that despite having done what they were told, they are still being harangued by the prohibitionists, and they don't know why. That's because they they thought it was all about health, but now the truth is dawning on them. TC lie about everything. That's what they do. That's what they are paid huge amounts of our money to do. To expect anything other than that is to live in a fantasy world.

  3. Apart from a small group of vapers, mostly dual users, the rest are antismokers, some even more rabidly antismoking than the rabid antismokers that we’ve long been familiar with. These antismoking vapers are the vocal ones. They, too, will use any contorted information to advance vaping. These believe that everything that has been said about smoking (and even secondhand smoke) for the last few decades is absolutely true and that Tobacco Control only started lying when vaping came on the scene.  

    The crunch time will come on May 11 when a documentary (A Billion Lives) by vapers, set to “revolutionize” the world, will be released. From the pre-release information, it advances the most baseless and highly inflammatory claims made by TC as fact.


    Vaping could have been another blow to the prohibitionist nut cases. But that’s not the way it’s going. And, again, it’s antismokers that are the problem, this time as vapers.

    • “Apart from a small group of vapers, mostly dual users, the rest are antismokers, some even more rabidly antismoking than the rabid antismokers that we’ve long been familiar with.”

      Sorry, but this is nonsense, if anything it is the other way around. It's very rare to find a rabid anti-smoking vaper on Twitter and the ones you wil find on forums are generally in the newbie category and soon grow out of it once they see how 'public health' is lying about e-cigs too. 

      • DP, we must be looking at very different things.


        I used the following google search:


        “Acetone (nail varnish remover) cigarettes e-cig”


        Take a look at the e-cig blogs/sale sites yourself. They’re antismoking. Be saved: Take up vaping and quit the “evil weed”. Vape and you won’t harm people around you with secondhand smoke. And they parrot the Chapman Trick with monotonous regularity [Yet vapers have conniptions when the Chapman Trick is used against e-cigs]. Vapers generally being informed about the history of Tobacco Control pre-e-gadgets? You must be kidding.


        As far as I can see, e-cig sellers use the standard antismoking rhetoric to “save” smokers and get them onto e-cigs [rather than Pharma products]. They’re as bad as Big Pharma peddling its NRT wares.


        It’ll be very interesting to hear your take on “A Billion Lives” in a few weeks time.

      • Dick, as you know, this issue has been debated for a while, but I think Pontiac may have a point we're not seeing.  We, here online, are in touch with other vapers online who tend to be more activist-oriented and open to and aware of antismoking lies.  That group of vapers is willing to work with those of us who've been into the battle for years against the Antismokers.  

        However, there are three other distinct vaping groups out there: the commercial sellers, particularly the smaller/newer ones trying to establish themselves; the non-internet-connected vapers (or poorly internet connected vapers) who still buy into the Tobacco Control mythology completely; and the vapers who had become Antismokers themselves while still smoking as part of their efforts to quit — self-hating smokers.  Those are the three groups that Pontiac is seeing and I think even the vapers who are our friends are aware of (and unhappy about) their existence and power. In New Orleans last year our vaper friends (Juliette Tworsey is a standout there that I think folks may recognize for her music) were quite frustrated with the willingness of a good part of the local vaper community in their throwing of smokers under the bus during the ban battle.  Of course the Antismokers, once they'd worked up enough steam, made sure that vapers went right under the bus as well.

        How big a group do the antismoking vapers represent?  I don't really know, but Pontiac's perception may not be as far off the mark as our internet contacts would make us feel.

        – MJM

  4. I would contend that it all started with Godber's statement that they must “foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily”  

    The root of the current prohibition crusade was in the 1970’s at the antismoking gatherings, the “World Conference on Smoking & Health”. George Godber was the leader of this antismoking pack who viewed smoking as akin to head lice that needed to be eradicated. There wasn’t anything peculiar about Godber. He was a typical prohibitionist nut case. He assumed leadership of the crusade because he was the most aggressive and domineering and, as his antismoking buddies at the time noted, he came up with all the “good” slogans such as the “merchants of death”.  

    Godber didn’t actually make the statement above. It’s a summary, and a good one at that, by other authors of statements made by Godber and others at these World Conferences on Smoking & Health.  

    For actual statements made by Godber and other antismoking miscreants you need to read the “Godber Blueprint” (it’s the long web page – worth the read – at http://www.rampant-antismoking.com ).

    For example, Mike Daube was the first director of UK ASH back in the early 1970s. Not long after he moved to Australia where he has been a long-time, high profile, very influential antismoking activist. He is very familiar with the intent of the current antismoking crusade given that he’s been with it from the very early days.  

    George Godber – 1975: “I imagine that most of us here know full well that our target must be, in the long-term, the elimination of cigarette smoking…… We may not have eliminated cigarette smoking completely by the end of this century, but we ought to have reached a position where a relatively few addicts still use cigarettes, but only in private at most in the company of consenting adults.” [Remember, this statement was made 6 years before the very first, forced study on secondhand smoke by the antismoker Hirayama and 18 years before the flawed EPA(1993) Report that declared secondhand smoke as a “hazard” to nonsmokers. Godber was also referring to smokers as “addicts” even though tobacco use was not then considered an addiction. It was incoherently redefined as an “addiction” in 1988 by the Office of the Surgeon-General, an organization that had long been hijacked by the very same antismoking zealots]

    Here’s an article of only a few years ago (2012) where Daube reiterates the Godber Blueprint:

    “Extending restrictions on smoking in any environment so that it essentially becomes a practice only for consenting adults in private.” http://theconversation.com/bring-on-the-end-of-tobacco-use-but-not-a-total-ban-tomorrow-8881

    Prohibition has been the intent from the very outset of this antismoking crusade (just like most previous crusades over the last 400 years), even when the prohibitionists were claiming (lying) that they weren’t trying to force people to quit smoking, that they were only trying to “educate” and protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke “danger”.

  5. The antismoking goal has always been prohibition, not on the sale of tobacco but where people can smoke. There were very few interested in prohibition in the 1970s. Most didn’t like the ranting and raving of prohibitionists. With their prohibition crusade essentially stalled before it began, the prohibitionists surmised that the only way forward was the promotion of secondary smoke as a danger to nonsmokers. I think that even the prohibitionists were shocked at the ease of convincing nonsmokers that secondary smoke was a hazard to their health. Secondhand smoke “danger” has been a means to the prohibition goal.


    From the 5th World Conference on Smoking & Health (1983). [Remember that in 1983 there was only 1 wonky “study” on SHS by the antismoker Hirayama (1981)]


    A recommendation from the "Health Consequences" rapporteur called for more research in this [passive smoking] area, noting there was conflicting evidence in regard to lung cancer. Nevertheless, "passive" smoking will continue to be stressed, not only in connection with lung cancer, heart disease, effects on children, etc., but also as a major source of annoyance and irritation for nonsmokers. The "passive" smoking theme will be used even more strongly, particularly in the political-legislative arena. It is something that people generally find easy to believe. (p.4)


    …..US activist Dr. Stanton Glantz, attacking the US tobacco industry's recent "free choice" advertising campaign, said "passive" smoking "probably holds the key to controlling and reducing primary smoking". (p.4)


  6. Here’s a sampling of the recommendations from the 3rd World Conference on Smoking & Health (1975) that very few were interested in at the time. When reading the “Godber Blueprint” it’s important to keep dates in mind. Godber was referring to smokers as [nicotine] addicts years before tobacco-use was redefined as an addiction in 1988. Godber was recommending regular tax hikes on tobacco years before “studies” on the cost burden of smokers to society/health care system. Godber was referring to secondhand smoke “danger” a few years before the first study on secondhand smoke.


    A sampling from the “Conclusions” section of the 3rd World Conference (1975)


    [Remember the following statements were made years before the forced enquiry into secondary smoke and non-smokers. In 1975 there were very few interested in the ranting and raving of prohibitionists. Yet by 2015 most of the recommendations (or more severe) made in 1975 have been implemented in many countries around the world]


    Programs aimed at creating a social environment in which smoking is unacceptable.

    An educational emphasis on the exemplar role of female adults (especially) as it relates to children.

    The utilization of the women's liberation movement to encourage rebellion against the old social systems by the act of not smoking .

    The utilization of tobacco tax revenues for smoking education programs.

    All organizations and associations concerned with matters of smoking and health should set an example for the societies they serve by taking and enforcing all necessary and appropriate measures for the protection of non-smokers including the prohibition of smoking in their offices, or their conferences and workshops and on the part of any persons representing them professionally or officially at any function or activities .

    All organizations and associations concerned with matters of smoking and health should utilize their resources for, and provide their wholehearted vigorous and unequivocal support to, legislative, administrative and other measures or initiatives for the protection of the health of non-smokers.

    That professional obstetric associations make their members aware of the scientific evidence that the non-smokers rights of the unborn children are being violated and their health impaired by the involved smoking mothers .

    That more time be allocated to the rights of the non-smoker at the Fourth World Conference on Smoking and Health .

    That there be no areas for smoking for teachers or students in schools .

    A coordinated world-wide campaign against cigarette smoking would dramatize and emphasize this health problem . Therefore, to the extent possible, we recommend that a common theme be adopted internationally . Such a theme should be based on the positive aspects of enjoying freedom from cigarettes . . . that it's fashionable to be free from smoking .

    In order to start a new generation of health professionals who will provide a medical environment free of smoking, present health professionals must adopt good health practices themselves specifically not smoking .

    This sub-section believes that the combined efforts of health professionals can help make the use of tobacco socially unacceptable.

    Much public education is needed to help create the ideal of a non-smoking oriented society .

    Exposure to tobacco smoke is aggravating and sometimes harmful to non-smokers and adds to the problems of those who have recently stopped smoking . Restricting areas where smoking is permitted in public places will provide important incentives to those who are trying to stop smoking and to others who have stopped and require support to remain free of tobacco . Therefore, it is recommended that as a part of national health policy the use of tobacco should be viewed as behavior that is destructive to self and to others and to implement this aspect of policy by appropriate legislation, regulation, and voluntary action, there should be a deliberate and systematic enlargement and guarantee of non-smoking areas in all public places including places of employment . Non-smokers should always have the right to work in smoke free areas .

    That Governments be urged to develop comprehensive programs directed against the smoking of cigarettes and based on the recommendations of this conference and those of the WHO expert Committee on Smoking and its Effects on Health.

    That Governments be urged to introduce legislation to require the production of cigarettes of low tar and nicotine content .

    That there be progressive and regular increases in the tax on cigarette tobacco .

    That it be recognized that unrestricted tobacco smoking in closed areas create a health hazard for millions of persons with a wide variety of medical susceptibilities and conditions and causes physical irritation and discomfort to the majority of nonsmokers and therefore, THAT legislation be introduced and that existing legislation be enforced to protect the right of the nonsmokers and to shield them from the hazards and irritations of passive smoking and THAT such legislation include the banning of smoking in public places such as cinemas, libraries, shops, trains, buses, and conference rooms .

    That senior government officials be urged to refrain from smoking in the exercise of their duties .

    That all organizations and associations concerned with the matter of smoking and health set an example by taking and enforcing all necessary and appropriate measures for the protection of the health and comfort of the non-smokers, including the prohibition of smoking in their offices, at

    their conferences and workshops, and on the part of any person representing them .

    That general or family physicians be encouraged to take the initiative in anti-smoking activities in their role as exemplars in their communities .

    That it be recommended to members of the teaching profession that they accept their role as exemplars in the campaign against smoking .

    That it be recognized by all organizations and associations concerned with smoking and health that the campaign against smoking is political and economic in character and requires decisions based on political and economic factors .

    (emphases added)



  7. More of Godber’s recommendations from 1975:

     “Every smoker is a promoter of other smokers. The practice ought to be an enclosed one, not to be endured by the non-smoker in ordinary social intercourse; and no one should be allowed to use advertisement or any indirect means to suggest otherwise.”

    “If we start with the view that we can begin to get rid of cigarette smoking from many communal occasions and that we can and should make it more and more difficult for the individual to smoke cigarettes in public, and if we can eliminate the false message of the advertisers, I believe we could have a rapidly cumulative effect…..There are plenty of weapons of persuasion, of restriction, of financial penalty by price and tax increases with which we could seriously hope to reduce the consumption of cigarettes by a substantial portion within 5 years.

    “A longer-term target would make cigarette smoking an undesirable and private activity within ten years after that.”

  8. There has been a lot of talk about the film "A Billion Lives".  I haven't seen it naturally so I cannot comment on its content.  However, I [and many others] have more than a suspicion that this film is not so much an exposé of the Anti-Smoker rhetoric, rather an attempt to draw a line between smokers and vapers, saying "look at us – we have found the ultimate solution to the evil smoking problem and these are the reasons why they should stop lying about e-cigarettes".

    Vapers are hailing this film as being the truth that lifts the veils of lies, but from what I have gathered it merely exposes the lies about vaping and reinforcing the lies about smoking.  If this is the case then almost by definition, they have to rely on the old Anti-Smoker rhetoric to prove their case.

    The point I was trying to make above is that the publication of the RCP report exposes the incredible flood of lies, bias and blatant self interest that has driven the Anti-Vaper crusade.  Vapers have been aware of this all along but the report confirms it.  My point is that the Pro-Vaping Anti-Smoker crowd if they had a modicum of intelligence would see that the lies about vaping are merely an extension and continuation of the lies told about smoking.

    What is needed is a film along the lines of "A Billion Lives" which exposes the whole charade, going back to its roots an exposing the lies promulgated by the fanatical, quasi-religious hysterics who are Anti-Nicotine in any form [unless of course it's produced by Big Pharma, in which case nicotine is a great thing].  There is no science behind any of it, merely theories, statistics and mathematical models based on foregone conclusions.

    Apart from al that, I wonder just how many people are going to see this "A Billion Lives"?  Presumably a few dedicated vapers will see it but is it going to take the television world by storm?

    I doubt it. 

  9. Don't remember now where I saw this, but it's my understanding that, buried away in the small print on the packaging, there's a warning that nicotine patches are contra-indicated for folk with certain medical conditions. I don't know now if this was because they could be highly carcinogenic if, say, you had some allergy or skin condition, or perhaps it was because they could aggravate things like heart problems.

    Whatever – but the thing is these patches are being touted as a cure-all, and I don't recall any PR or advice leaflets from the professional anti-smokers which mention such dangers.

    Maybe you lads could ask the RCPI why these warnings aren't more prominent? Surely a failure to warn is professional misconduct.

    We wouldn't want to think the good doctors are taking back-handers off Big Pharma again, would we? That sort of behaviour has caused a bit of a scandal in the past, so you'd be only be doing your public duty to kick up about it happening again.

    • Many many years ago, in a moment of madness I bought some of those patch yokes. 

      Anyhows, I was driving into work, having stuck on the patch first thing.  Suddenly I felt distinctly sick, and the road ahead started to spin.  It was a really horrible sensation.  I managed to pull over to the side of the road without hitting anything which was a miracle [a very busy dual carriageway].  The nausea got worse and I put two and two together.  I ripped off the patch.  A couple of minutes passed and the dizziness and nausea subsided.  Obviously I had received a Nicotine overdose.

      Yes, there should be strong warnings but I never saw any.  As I discovered, patches are extremely dangerous even for someone who doesn't have allergic reactions.  I really could have been killed that day. 

      I suppose it would have been a "smoking related death"?

      • You too Grandad? I thought it was only me, I was driving at the time too and had to pull over sharpish.

        I later discovered that nicotine patches were invented by Murray Jarvik and Jed Rose, two scientists investigating Green Tobacco Sickness in harvesters drenched in tobacco sap from picking wet leaves.Not being smokers they thought that the effects of dermal nicotine poisoning was what smoking was all about.

        "We put the tobacco on our skin and waited to see what would happen," Jarvik recalled " Our heart rates increased, adrenaline began pumping, all the things that happen to smokers"




        • Welcome Rose!  So I'm not unique with my reaction?  One could therefore reasonably assume that there are many others [a bit of a weird coincidence if we're the only two?].  How many accidents have been caused by patches and indeed how many deaths?  In all my years of smoking a pipe while driving I have never had a comparable dice with death or injury.

          • I didn't realise that had posted.

            <i>In all my years of smoking a pipe while driving I have never had a comparable dice with death or injury</i>

            It was a horrible experience for me too, I was driving down the street with the kids in the back and suddenly the trees and houses on both side of the street loomed over me, like I was driving down a tunnel.

            It's something I've never forgotten and years later, thanks to the internet, I was able to find out why.


            Green Tobacco Sickness in Tobacco Harvesters — Kentucky, 1992

            "Green tobacco sickness (GTS) is an illness resulting from dermal exposure to dissolved nicotine from wet tobacco leaves; it is characterized by nausea, vomiting, weakness, and dizziness and sometimes fluctuations in blood pressure or heart rate"


            Obituary: Murray E. Jarvik, 84, UCLA pharmacologist, nicotine patch inventor

            "I would say that Murray's greatest impact was advancing the proposition that nicotine was the key addictive component in tobacco. In short, he was able to largely answer his question. Having done so, though, he kept at it, further generating support and caveats to the proposition. As the long-faded banner in his office read: 'Nothing is simple.'"
            "Thinking back, Murray was always looking for simple answers he knew he would never find," Olmstead said.
            In the 1990s, Jarvik, along with Jed Rose, then a postdoctoral fellow at UCLA and now the director of the Center for Nicotine and Smoking Cessation Research at Duke University, were curious about "green tobacco illness," a malady striking tobacco farmhands harvesting the crop in the South. That led to research on the potential positive implications of absorbing tobacco through the skin, which resulted in the creation of a transdermal patch that delivers nicotine directly into the body.
            When the researchers could not get approval to run experiments on any subjects, Jarvik, in an article in UCLA Magazine, said they decided to test their idea on themselves.
            "We put the tobacco on our skin and waited to see what would happen," Jarvik recalled. "Our heart rates increased, adrenaline began pumping, all the things that happen to smokers."

            Dr. Murray Jarvik, 1923-2008: He helped invent nicotine patch

            “Dr. Murray Jarvik never puffed a cigarette, but battled lifelong heart ailments to co-invent the nicotine patch and lead research into smoking addiction.”

            “”The ironic twist is that he never smoked a day in his life. He was one of the most rabid anti-smokers you can imagine,”

            And they've been trying to poison us ever since.












          • Nicotine is a poison [as are a whole load of things we ingest in the normal course of life] but of course the dose makes the poison.  In a lifetime's exposure to Nicotine, that patch was the only occasion where I had any side effects.  Somewhat ironic that the only smoking related near-death experience I had was with a Big Pharma patch?

            Incidentally, I note that Jarvik was a "rabid anti-smoker" yet still got lung cancer?  A twist of irony there?

          • Nicotine is a poison, but as you say the poison is in the dose, what I worry about is that the zealots don't seem to care.

            Take a look at this, can you imagine that kind of arrogance to even consider banning food?


            "Many commonly and widely consumed vegetables of the nightshade family (Solanaceae) such as potatoes, tomatoes, eggplants and capsicums naturally contain low levels of nicotine.
            Nicotine has also been detected in cauliflower and tea – two non-solanaceous plants.
            Recently there have been a number of attempts overseas to deliver nicotine medications presented as food, such as in bottled water or in lollipops.

            A concern expressed by health authorities is that the addition of tobacco or nicotine in food may promote or legitimise the smoking of tobacco or the use of smokeless tobacco products.
            VicHealth proposed a modified Option 2 – Allow the use of Nicotiana species in all foods but restrict the level of nicotine to the level demonstrated to be safe and not to be therapeutic or psychoactive." ?

            "The option was raised to prevent foods such as the nightshades, known to naturally contain low levels of nicotine, from being banned"

            I've know that since I was a young gardener, but it seems to have taken them by surprise.

          • The implication is that if we eat a few potatoes or tomatoes, that we will somehow become addicted to cigarettes!  It shows the kind of twisted logic they are so fond of.

            The one that amuses me is Vitamin B3.  It's classed as an essential vitamin.  Its alternative name is Niacin [can you see where this is heading?]  It was called Niacin when they decided its original name – Nicotinic Acid – was a tad Politically Incorrect. The original preparation remains useful: The oxidation of nicotine using nitric acid.

          • Oh I know where it is going, Grandad, it took me years to work it all out and find the evidence.

            Some years ago, I was sitting on the back step idly wondering what happened to nicotine when it burned, and I saw a rusting garden candlestick  and suddenly remembered that rust is iron slowly burning in air and the word I had been looking for was oxidized.

            Then the internet just opened up for me.

            Several years later when I'd finally found the last piece in the jigsaw I copied it all out in sequence on Frank's blog, if you haven't seen it already.


            They changed the name in 1942 so that the antismokers of the day would allow them to put nicotinic acid in the bread to prevent Pellagra a now almost forgotten disease, not realising that the tobacco companies had already done the experiments in 1941 and knew there was nicotinic acid in cigarette smoke and how much of it there was

            Those documents lay hidden in the tobacco companies archives until they were put online by the antismokers as part of the Master Settlement Agreement in America in 1998, or I could never have been truly sure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *