You can read the whole story here, which details madness towards alcohol learned directly from the tobacco control template.
So many astonishing quotes in there, but here's a taster.
[Professor Peter Anderson, of Newcastle University, said:] “Alcohol is a carcinogen and I doubt that the alcohol industry would want to be caught out producing and selling a carcinogen without warning its consumer.
“We know cigarettes cause cancer, and cigarette packets carry warning labels that cigarettes cause cancer.
“Consumers surely deserve the same information on drink bottles."
Let me, at this point, remind you of something Deborah Arnott said last year.
The “domino theory” i.e. that once a measure has been applied to tobacco it will be applied to other products is patently false.
Of course, dear. Nurse!
10 comments:
Was Arnott lying or simply being deluded? Perhaps she has mixed feelings upon seeing the consequences of TC's success in denormalising smokers - in that others are copying the hitherto unprecedented template and making the entire puritanical agenda appear totally incredulous and overbearing in the eyes of the general public.
She was lying.
To be fair, that keeps her 'domino denial' in line with her general dishonesty regarding tobacco control policies and 'groundbreaking research'.
I guess you're right - she's paid to lie and mislead. And TC has been offering advice to other loony groups. But there are limits - as the net is widened it it is going to get much harder to deceive/control the public. Perhaps Chris Snowdon or Dave Atherton might be able to corner her in future media joint interviews.
Looks like they're jumping the shark with the claim that two beers gives you cancer. Just like the claims that fourth hand smoke can give you cancer. Little do they realise that even stupid people have realised that everything gives you cancer, what with all the other campaigning groups trying to get their fingers in the grant money pie and saying that this and that give you cancer. The more they do this, the more they diminish the strength of their arguments.
In the past we had the cold war and the threat of nuclear armageddon to scare people, now we have cancer.
jumped the shark... oversteped the mark...overplayed one's hand... pushed one's luck... call it whatever you want!
Even the dumbest should have understood: They've gone too far!
Anderson is WHO through and through. It is high time that we stopped paying for that vile organization to spread its sickness and corruption. Anderson is a medic rather than a scientist as one would expect. He is also of course a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, another organization that our society would be much better off without.
The European Classification and Labelling Inventory - the legal definition of substance risks - quotes ethyl alcohol (100%), index number 603-002-00-5, as a highly flammable liquid and vapour. No hint of carcinogenicity. I don't know if changes are in the pipeline, though.
I guess that "wannabe regulatory toxicologists" have done what they usually do: taken data from animal tests; determined an "effect level" for cancer that might or might not have significance for humans; invented a "no effect level" at least an order of magnitude below that; and then imposed a "safety factor" of a thousand or so, to comfort themselves.
That's what they often do with pesticides, anyway.
I don't suppose you fancy writing a guest post to explain that more fully, do you? Serious question.
Anti-smokers played a similarly clever trick to come up with the 'no safe level' claim for passive smoking which was based on no science whatsoever.
Hopefully big front page splashes like this will wake some up to how ludicrous these people have become.
Yes, that could indeed be an interesting post.
Post a Comment