Thinking of the children

I read Fatso Reilly's speech yesterday.

I will lay to one side the fact that he seems to think he is Winston Churchill.

I will ignore the fact that he is deluded in his thinking that he has won anything except a major victory for the counterfeiters.

I will even overlook the fact that the little tyrant is just crawling up the backsides of his playmates in Tobacco Control and is preaching to the already converted at a back-slapping-fest.

I will concede however that I share in his desire to protect the cheeeldren.

[Is it my imagination or do children seem to figure unnaturally prominently in his thoughts and dreams?]

You see, he proposes to cover cigarette packs with large images of medical pornography – photographs of cadavers, hypodermic needles and grizzly growths that have fuck all to do with smoking.  I am concerned for my grandchildren's sake that they don't see these images. 

Do we really want to be giving them nightmares? 

Do we really want to fill their little brains with images of death and disease?

Do we honestly want to bring children up in a world where the grown ups will leave ghastly images lying around the house?

Of course we don't.

Fortunately there is a simple, elegant and cheap solution at hand.

Just buy a cover for those images.

While they give a large selection of images for their boxes, they also allow us to upload our own.

My simple plan is to choose an image which won't scare the kids; one that will make them fell happy and contented in the knowledge that their parents are protecting them; one that they will feel comfortable with.

I have selected a few that I think would be eminently suitable to adorn any cigarette packet.

Smarties Spongebob Frozen

I'm not particularly a fan of Spongebob, or Frozen but then I'm not a child.  I would tend to go for the Smarties cigarette box.

Which would you prefer?



All aboard the Gravy Train


It's PARTY time…..

You are all cordially invited to the luxurious bash of a lifetime at the Hyattt Catpital Gate in Abu Dhabi.

No expense has been spared to ensure the break of a lifetime [don’t worry – all expenses will be paid by the tax payer].

Don't miss out of the fabulous highlights…

James Fatso Reilly of Ireland being awarded Cunt of the Year for his work on plain packs.

Michael Bloomberg being awarded Tyrant of the Decade, for being.. well.. a tyrant.

Simon Chapman receiving his Mensa Award for the lowest recorded IQ in history.

Other highlights will be special training sessions for journalists to show them how to lie through their teeth without laughing, and for those who know sweet fuck all about Limited Liability there will be a hilarious discussion on suing company executives.

This is an opportunity you cannot afford to miss.  You would be mad to miss out on a chance of joining a profession that pays well and whose only requirement is to be as ignorant as pig shit.  No qualifications are required, in fact, scientific training and logical reasoning are the only barriers to membership.

Do you feel you need a new religion?

Is your penis so small that you feel a need to bully?

Do you need a reason for your grey, bland, dull life?

Do you love spouting arse-dribble?

Get your visas!

Join us NOW!

You know you want to.


The leading preventable cause of death

I have recently been delving into the murky waters of Iatrogenesis.

Iatrogenesis as you may [or may not] know is any consequence of medical treatment or advice to a patient.

The waters are indeed rather muddy as presumably the medical profession and Big Pharma aren't too proud of the facts, so figures are not that easy to come by.  The problem is not in finding figures [there are dozens/hundreds of sites out there all to happy to throw numbers around] but in finding accurate figures.

Just out of interest, I thought I would compare the number of Iatrogenic deaths with the number of deaths attributed to smoking.  I took two sites – One was a study entitled "Death by medicine" and the other site was our friends in the Centers for Disease Control.

According to the CDC, the number of deaths attributed to cigarettes is around 480,000.  This figure includes apparently 40,000 who died from second hand smoke.  As second hand smoke never killed anyone I think we can safely subtract this figure.  They also for some reason throw in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome [actual cause unknown], Influenza [a virus], Tuberculosis [a bacterial infection] and Pneumonia [caused by bacterial or viral infection].  Seeing as none of the viruses or bacteria that I know are smokers, I'm not quite sure why they included these.  We can also safely assume that a very high percentage of those deaths are attributed to smoking, where the person actually would have died anyway through sheer misfortune or genetic cause.  However, I will be extremely generous and allow them a figure of 400,000 deaths per annum from smoking.

Now we come to Iatrogenic deaths.  These deaths are actual deaths with known cataloged causes, and are not some airy fairy figures plucked out of the ether.  The figure given is 783,936.  Wow!  And that is a conservative figure.

So here we have the Tobacco Industry which is accused of all sorts of mass murder [the only industry which kills half its customers blah blah] and is so evil that anyone who has ever had anything to do with it is tarred with the same brush, possibly kills 400,000 a year while our so called "health system" kills twice as many.

Tobacco is the world's biggest preventable killer?

Think on.



Running the asylum

This has gone way beyond a joke.

That insane fool Fatso Reilly is now demanding that the gubmint sell all shares in Big Tobacco!

Listen, you overweight fuck!

1.  It is none of your fucking business.  You are Minister for Children and have fuck all to do with finance.  You were demoted from Health because you made a right bollix of the job.  Live with it.

2.  The pension fund managers are morally, if not legally compelled to get the best return on investment.  It's tough shit I know, but Big Tobacco happens to be a damn good investment and the only people you would be harming are those that rely on the pension fund.

3.  Big Tobacco doesn't give a flying shite if the gubmint sells every single share.  There are more than enough buyers out there who would be only too happy to purchase them.  You seem to think in that megalomaniac pea-brain of yours that you can single handedly bring down Big Tobacco by selling a few shares?  You really need a few basic lessons in company finance.

Will someone please commit this insane gobshite to some nice secure comfy padded spot preferably for life?

The Harpy from Hell

I was poking around in Twitterland yesterday when I came across a link to a page.

It was a letter from a woman who wants to nag her husband into giving up his e-cigarette and was looking for "ammunition" to use against him.

What an insufferable bitch!

Needless to say the "doctors" she wrote to were only too happy to help.  In fact they can't wait to ply her with the greatest load of bollox in the guise of "expert opinion" and "research".

Dear "doctor"….

E-cigarettes are not harmless, although they are currently unregulated.

Of course e-cigarettes aren't harmless.  You could poke someone's eye out with one.  You could actually kill someone by slamming one up their nostril and into their brain.  Apart from that, they are as harmless as any other item you'd find lying around a house.  They are a lot less harmful than spouting a load of bilge under the guise of being a "doctor".

Different brands and types of e-cigs contain varying levels of toxins.

Again, this is true.  Those buggering toxins get everywhere – into your electrofag, into your food, into your water supply and into the food you eat.  So what's your point?

A new study for the Japanese Ministry of Health found that some e-cig vapors contained 10 times more formaldehyde than regular tobacco smoke, and formaldehyde is a very potent carcinogen. Puffing a lot on the device can overwork the heating element, releasing additional toxins

Isn't it amazing?  Someone does some "science by headline" and even though the study was ripped to shreds the old scare story remains.  Listen "doctor" – the fag that gave off the formaldehyde was overheated to the point where it nearly melted.  It would have been nearly impossible to use at those temperatures.  NO formaldehyde was found under normal conditions.  And anyway, if formaldehyde is so fucking toxic, why is it used in vaccinations?

there even have been reports of e-cigarettes exploding

Oh boy!  Nothing like a bit of drama?  I have never heard of an e-cigarette exploding and I doubt you have either.  There have been cases of batteries exploding, usually when they were being charged.  That doesn't have quite the same ring to it though?

A University of South California study found that some e-cigarettes contain four times more nickel than tobacco cigarettes, plus chromium (which is not found in regular smokes). Replacement cartridges may contain lead, zinc and other toxic metals. Although they are found at lower levels than in tobacco cigarettes, they're still not good for you!

Here you go again on the "toxic content" bandwaggon.  "Cartridges may contain"?  And what levels?  Don't forget – four times an insignificant amount is still an insignificant amount, but you'd know that if you were a real doctor.

E-cigarettes have been around for only seven years, so we don't have long-term study results on smoking them or on the dangers of second- and third-hand e-vapors. (Even so, the World Health Organization has called for an indoor ban on e-cigarettes.) Until we get that solid data, you can bet there are going to be lots of dubious claims about e-cig virtues.

So how long do you want to wait?  Ten years?  Fifty years?  Should we never use anything that has been invented in the last seven years because there are no "study results"? 

I wouldn't rely on the WHO too much if I were you.  An organisation that will bury their own study results because the results didn't fit with their agenda are not exactly trustworthy, though I doubt that would bother you.

Lots of dubious claims about e-cig virtues?  How about lots of dubious claims about e-cig dangers?  Pots and kettles and all that?

I don't know if you remember, but before studies proved conclusively that all brands of tobacco cigarettes caused lung cancer and other health problems, advertisements claimed, "More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette," and "20,679 physicians say Lucky Strikes are less irritating."

What the fuck?  What the hell has that got to do with anything?  I'm sure a lot of doctors [real doctors] used to smoke Camels, and possibly Lucky Strikes were less irritating.  I'm confident Lucky Strikes were a lot less irritating than the bilge you're spouting.

Quit-smoking techniques help with e-cigs and nicotine addiction, too. So ask your husband to look at the smoking-cessation help offered online.

Ahhhhhhh!  Here we go.  The only way is Big Pharma's way.  You've got to keep the old paymasters happy, don't you?

Hopefully your husband can use this move away from tobacco as an opportunity to slam the door on his smoking habit for good.

Hopefully the husband can use this move to slam the door on his nagging bitch of a wife.