Correlation is not causation

Is there a connection between smoking and suicide?

Off the top of my head I would imagine that there could be a tenuous relationship.  After all, a person contemplating topping himself  is pretty likely to be somewhat depressed, and a fag at a time like that can be a moment of temporary relief.  So yes, I would say that there could be a remote link.

I would also say so what?  Tackle the depression and forget about the cigarettes, they are a mere incidental to the main problem.  Depression is a real and serious problem with more people killing themselves here in Ireland than die in road accidents.  To even mention cigarettes in the same breath is a sign of a disgusting twisted mind.

Of course the bovine masses out there who have sucked up all the crap from the Tobacco Control Industry are all convinced that cigarettes are a quick way to death anyway, so not only are we all destined for imminent departure but we are killing everyone who comes within half a mile of us.  They fail to grasp the simple and obvious fact that the entire human race would have been obliterated last century, but then simpletons tend to believe what they are told rather than believe the evidence of their own eyes.

So why do I mention this?  Surely there isn't anyone sick or twisted enough to actually think that cigarettes are a cause of suicide?

Oh, but there is.

There is sufficient evidence that smoking is associated with an increased risk of suicidal behaviors. Therefore, smoking is a contributing factor for suicide.

They go on to agree that this doesn't imply causation, but then ignore the fact in the same sentence.

Although this association does not imply causation, however, smoking prevention and cessation should be the target of suicide prevention programs.

How sick are these people?  Do they really believe their own shit or have they completely divorced themselves from reality?

"Now John, I know life is desperate at the moment.  I know you've lost your job with no hope of another, and that your wife has run off with the kids and the bank is repossessing your house.  But look on the bright side – I'm going to tell you to quit smoking!"

"Here's a prescription for Champix."

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

Comments

Correlation is not causation — 19 Comments

  1.  "How sick are these people?  Do they really believe their own shit or have they completely divorced themselves from reality?"

    The anti-smokers are very sick according to a book I am currently reading, Rampant Antismoking. The author, Vincent-Riccardo Di Pierri is a PhD Psychologist. He describes the anti-smokers as "a deluded group of misfits" with "acute pathological fixation", "tyrannical tendencies" an"obsession with control" and displaying symptoms of "god complex".

    Anti-smokers should be segregated from society, they are a menace. They are incapable of empathy and isn't the ability to empathize with others one of the things that separates humans from animals?

     

     

    • I thought they had reached an all time low when they started telling parents that they were to blame for killing babies who had died of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.  But then they decided that psychiatric hospitals had to force patients to quit.  Now they want to force the suicidally depressed to quit as if it was the cause of their depression.

      There really isn't a word adequate enough to describe these people.  They really are the very dregs of the cesspit.

  2. Antismokers are opportunists and having caused the problem in the first place will unhesitatingly capitalise on the result.

     

    From the study

    Results

    "We identified a total of 8062 references and included 63 studies with 8,063,634 participants. Compared to nonsmokers, the current smokers were at higher risk of suicidal ideation"

    Comparing apples to housebricks, non-smokers have not been subjected to intensive, government sanctioned campaign of "denormalisation", rendering the entire study meaningless except as an example of the depths to which TC will stoop.

     

    2008
    "A taxman killed himself after the smoking ban left him a virtual recluse, an inquest heard yesterday.
    Lawrence Walker, 61, barely went out when cigs were barred from his local pub.

    Friend Robert Lye said: "He felt insulted to have to stand outside and smoke.
    "We think the ban killed him. He was so depressed about it he hardly went out.
    It made him very solitary."

    Mr Walker, of St Columb, Cornwall, leapt to his death from cliffs at Porth beach, Newquay, in June. Coroner Dr Andrew Cox recorded a verdict of suicide."
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/taxman-kills-himself-over-smoking-363784

    And I'm sure that he won't have been the only one over the last few years.

     

    How to turn formerly respectable citizens into social outcasts.

    A short course by one of the main perpetrators.

     

    Denormalisation

    "However, internationally, the term is also used to encompass efforts challenging notions that smoking ought to be regarded as routine or normal, particularly in public settings. Hammond et al state that “social denormalisation” strategies seek “to change the broad social norms around using tobacco—to push tobacco use out of the charmed circle of normal, desirable practice to being an abnormal practice”.

    Several authors have suggested that Erving Goffman’s classic analysis of stigma and its resultant “spoiled identity” is consonant with how the meaning of smoking has changed in societies with widespread tobacco control.

    Goffman described stigmatisation as the transformation “from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one”, writing that “Stigma is a process by which the reaction of others spoils normal identity”.

     

    THE SPOILED IDENTITY OF SMOKERS

    Headings

    Smokers as malodourous
    Smokers as litterers
    Smokers as selfish and thoughtless
    Smokers as unattractive and undesirable housemates
    Smokers as undereducated and a social underclass
    Smokers as addicts
    Smokers as excessive users of public health services
    Smokers as employer liabilities
    http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/17/1/25.full

    It's unpleasant reading, but I wanted to know what had happened to me.

     

     

     

     

    • I am really sorry I followed that link!  It is the greatest load of self congratulatory bullshit I have read in a long time.  It's like some kind of strange throwback to the Spanish Inquisition, or McCarthyism.

  3. The more lost the cause, the more desperate the measures to save it?

    And the more desperate the "study" measures, the more people will realize that they're being lied to?

    • They really are grasping at straws now.  I sincerely hope that people will begin to see the light and see these people for the pathological liars that they are.

  4. I expect the result is correct. Smokers do commit suicide more often. In all probability telling them they are addicts, that they smell, that they kill babies, that they are uneducated and stupid, and all the othrer belittling crap makes many of them depressed.

    • I have read about a few of those cases.  There was one girl [if I remember correctly] in the States who was caught smoking in school and when the school told her they were informing her parents, she killed herself rather than face the wrath.  And I think there was a case in India recently of some kid who threw himself off a bridge after being caught with a cigarette? 

      And then of course there is the death toll from Champix – the Anti-Smoker's Friend!  How many hundred have died as a result of taking that little piece of nasty?

      • And it's still advertised as if it was paradise lost.
        Oh, wait, if a public health foundation says it's a good little pill, that's not called advertising but "advice", isn't it?

        • Smokers urged to keep taking pills…
          2008

          "It has now emerged the drug is being monitored by the Government’s watchdog Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) after users documented a number of possible side-effects, while there were fears it was linked to the deaths of seven people.

          Ailsa Rutter, director of Fresh — the campaign for a Smoke Free North East — said: “We are talking about a fairly unhealthy section of the population anyway . . . one in two will die because of smoking."
          http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/smokers-urged-keep-taking-pills-1465336

          This " one in two will die because of smoking" is an interesting thing, they all use it as an excuse when someone has died after following their advice, so where does it come from?

           

           "Smoking kills one in two of its users."1
          http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/3-28-health-benefits-of-smoking-

          1. Doll R, Peto R, Boreham J and Sutherland I. Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' observations on male British doctors

          Conclusion
          "Among the men born around 1920, prolonged cigarette smoking from early adult life tripled age specific mortality rates, but cessation at age 50 halved the hazard."
          http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7455/1519.abstract

          It's one of their articles of faith, so the acceptable rate of attrition is anything under 50%, which means that they can think of doing pretty much anything they like to smokers with a clear conscience. It lifts them out of the ordinary bounds of common decency because they believe they are doing good.

           

           

           

  5. I was recently in rehab after surgery, to regain strength and learn how to walk again, typical after a major double surgery. However, the physical therapy persons were all very much younger and when they took me outside in the walker or cane to try walking outside on the nicer days, if a group of smokers were huddled on the side patio, minding their own business and talking among themselves, they would purposely steer me far away from them. And one day, this very young therapist, newly trained, in his early to mid 30’s, told me he just “hated” smokers and they were “so disgusting” and he “could not even express the amount of hatred he feels”, and so forth. And I had the feeling the others, all of recent college age, were of similar attitudes. I was afraid to speak much about anything at all after hearing that, because what all else must they have been taught to “hate” so much, in these colleges worldwide under the control of the international communists who run them. Smokers were probably the first they were taught to hate, now they are taught to hate a lot more and as people begin noticing, they would have done well to wake up and notice a decade earlier when all this sh*te first began, by the anti-smokers who helped usher it in.

    • Welcome T_O_M! [You don't mind me calling you that, but brevity is the soul of something or other]

      Sadly a whole new generation is being brainwashed into hatred of smokers.  Supposedly these groups are supposed to be "educating" kids on the "dangers of smoking", but in practice they are teaching them intolerance and hatred for their fellow man.  I can only hope that in the future this purge against smokers will be seen for what it is – a despicable display of intolerance and hatred towards any group who displeases their puritanical creed.

      Hope the surgery was a success!

       

  6. Grandad,

    Sorry to tell you I am not, and never have been, a smoker. When my father died from lung cancer when I was young, I had no desire to try the “filthy weed”. He had fought in France and in Italy, being badly wounded twice at Monte Cassino, and in later life turned to a pipe. Have no idea what he smoked, but it was always a delightful smell in the house and very pleasant.

    However, that does not justify the stupid, irrational and utterly unwarranted out-pourings of complete bildge by the lunatics. You are completely correct to defend the freedom of choice which I had thought to be everyone’s right. Whilst I would prefer to stay some distance away from people smoking, I know they have every legal and human justification to live life as they see it. Long may they – and you – enjoy one of life’s remaining pleasures.

    Please keep up the constant defence of real people.

    • I've never smoked either, but I don't need to, to despise the anti-smoking zealots. For where smoking is today, tomorrow it will be something else and sooner or later they will come for something you do.

      Liberty means defending everyone's freedom to live as they see fit, whether we like their choices or not.

    • What on earth are you apologising for?  There is nothing to be ashamed of in not smoking or smoking – it's a personal choice and I will always respect that.  There are quite a few things in life that I dislike [including, strangely enough, cigarettes] but I would never dream of complaining to a stranger, or even thinking differently about them.

      While most of my rants are about the smoking, seeing as it's the one that affects me the most, my attitude to all these "health campaigns" is a simple "fuck off, mind your own business and leave us alone".

  7.  "Smoking kills one in two of its users."

    Before Champix there was Zyban.

     

    Zyban
    Anti-smoking drug given go-ahead

    "There is now no excuse for health authorities to refuse to prescribe these important cessation products. If properly implemented this guidance will help to noticeably cut tobacco deaths."

    Clive Bates, of Action for Smoking on Health, said: Clive Bates director of the anti-tobacco campaigning group Action on Smoking and Health said: "This should end any doubt or hesitation about prescribing these life-saving drugs that still persist in the NHS."
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1921338.stm

     

    Anti-smoking drug deaths triple – 2002

    "The number of people who have died after taking the anti-smoking drug Zyban has more than tripled in a year, official figures show.
    By January 10, 57 people had died following suspected adverse reactions to the drug, compared to 18 the same time last year, the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) found.

    But the MCA said a direct link between the drug, which was launched in June 2000, and the deaths was unproven.

    And anti-smoking campaigners said most of the deaths would have occurred anyway"
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1767758.stm

     

    Smoking pill link to 35 deaths

    "GlaxoSmithKline, the world's second largest drug company, conceded yesterday that the anti-smoking drug Zyban was suspected of causing adverse reactions in 35 people who have died in the UK since it was introduced last June.

    The acknowledgement came at the inquest of Kerry Weston, 21, a British Airways air hostess who was found dead in a hotel room in Nairobi, Kenya, in January, two weeks after she began taking the drug to help her quit her 15-a-day habit.

    Giving evidence on behalf of the pharmaceutical giant, Dr Howard Marsh, senior medical adviser on Zyban to Glaxo, said that while there had been 35 deaths following adverse reactions to Zyban, there was no conclusive proof that any were directly linked to the drug.

    "Although there has been this number of reports of fatal events, it has to be said these are suspected adverse reactions," he told the inquest at Hertford coroner's court. "We are very keen to look at each and every one of these cases very, very carefully to see if there is a contribution from Zyban to any of these deaths. But the contribution of Zyban to any of them remains unproven."

    "Zyban is used in a population of patients who are put at risk because of smoking and, therefore, reports of deaths of patients receiving Zyban are to be expected," said Professor Alasdair Breckenridge, CSM chairman
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/apr/26/smoking.medicalscience

    Zyban death link inquiry is 'flawed'

    "A Government inquiry into the controversial anti-smoking pill Zyban has been seriously undermined after it emerged that campaigners against the drug have not been asked to give evidence.

    The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), the Government body which rules on whether to prescribe drugs on the NHS, is expected to make a decision later this month on whether Zyban is a clinical and cost-effective way of treating nicotine addiction."

    "But a Mail on Sunday investigation has revealed that only supporters of the drug – including its makers, Glaxo-SmithKline, and the Department of Health – have been asked to submit evidence.

    Campaigners concerned about the 57 British deaths linked to the drug and the 7,297 users who had suffered suspected side-effects, including chest pains, fits, seizures and depression, have not been contacted."
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-102905/Zyban-death-link-inquiry-flawed.html

     

    "Zyban is used in a population of patients who are put at risk because of smoking and, therefore, reports of deaths of patients receiving Zyban are to be expected,"

    At 21?

    • Isn't it very strange that they are allowed sell Zyban/Champix because there is "no proven" link between drugs and suicide, yet there is no proven effects of secondhand smoke yet they can use their imaginary link to impose worldwide bans?

      And as for their callous attitude that "they would have died anyway because they're smokers" is so far beneath contempt….

      • It's hard to understand, isn't it, and quite sickening to read, but I don't think we are meant to take it personally, they are fighting Big Tobacco you see.

         

        "Certainly there are people within the public health community who believe that they are stigmatizing a behavior and not smokers themselves, and for them this distinction is crucial."
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470446/

         

        Don't hate the smoker
        Deborah Arnott
        8th January 2007

        "In the BMJ today it's argued that smokers should be denied operations unless they quit. And recently there have been cases of people being refused jobs or are being sacked just for being smokers even though they promise not to smoke at work. This is not what Action on Smoking and Health is fighting for – we are anti-smoking, yes, but not anti-smoker and in today's climate we think that there is a very real danger that smokers are being marginalised in our society.

        When the smoking ban comes into force in England in July smokers will be exiled to the outdoors. Ash campaigned for the new law because we now know that second-hand smoke is a killer and it is only right that smokers should not harm those around them. Smokers should be allowed to carry on smoking if they want to, as long as the health of others is not put at risk, and the only way to do that is not to allow people to smoke in enclosed places. But we don't want to see smokers marginalised, because there's a danger that they'll begin to see their habit as a badge of honour, a sign of individuality, something to be proud of."
        https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jan/08/post877

         

        By the way, Champix is called Chantix in America.

        2006

        “Chantix sales could help Pfizer on its comeback trail, as it tries to fill its impending, multibillion-dollar sales vacuum that will result from some of its older blockbusters losing patent protection. This year, Pfizer’s patent is expiring on Zoloft, the antidepressant with $3.3 billion in 2005 sales, and in 2007 it loses blood pressure treatment Norvasc, with $4.7 billion in 2005 sales. Also, the arthritis painkiller Bextra from the same drug class as Merck’s (up $0.01 to $34.68, Research) beleaguered Vioxx, was pulled off the market in 2005 because of health risks, wiping out $1.3 billion in annual sales.”
        http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/11/news/companies/pfizer/

         

        Pfizer Did Not Report Chantix Side Effects Correctly?
        20 May 2011

        "Notably, the ISMP found 150 cases of completed suicides, some of which dated back to 2007, that were not reported promptly as suicides within 15 days as required. Instead, the drugmaker apparently coded the suicides as “expected adverse events” among 26,000 such events, and added these to a quarterly periodic report, which is how less important, non-serious side effects are sent to the FDA.

        What ISMP calls a “breakdown in safety surveillance” meant that, until July 2010, FDA analysts were not aware of more than half of the reported suicide cases in which Chantix was the primary suspect. And the agency also did not have available hundreds of other reported cases of serious psychiatric side effects, including psychosis, depression, or attempted suicide."
        http://www.laleva.org/eng/2011/05/pfizer_did_not_report_chantix_side_effects_correctly.html

Leave a Reply

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