frank_davis4

frank_davis


Frank Davis

Banging on about the Smoking Ban


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Physician, Heal Thyself
frank_davis4
frank_davis
Via JRed on Facebook:

America is the fattest nation on earth. About 68 percent of American adults are now classified as overweight, including the 30 percent designated as obese.

Classified as obese. Any percentage of Americans can be classified as overweight or obese, simply by arbitrarily redefining what's 'overweight' or 'obese'. Which is how it's done. Quite arbitrarily.

Along with an increase in the American waistline has come an increase in obesity-related diseases, especially diabetes. The plumping of America has become our second greatest public health problem, behind only tobacco, claiming 300,000 lives a year.

No, it doesn't claim that many. In fact, it doesn't claim any at all. 300,000 is just someone's guess. It's a fiction.

The author - Dennis Gottfried MD - next suggests employing the same tactics against the arbitrarily-defined-as-unhealthy fat people as has been used against arbitrarily-defined-as-unhealthy smokers.

The policy of levying heavy taxes on tobacco products was a win-win. Each time the cigarette tax was increased, the government raised more revenue and more people stopped smoking. Public opposition to these taxes was minimal and even smokers themselves, who were aware of the foolishness and danger of their habits, paid the inflated prices with little protest.

Either that, or they started buying black market cigarettes, or shopping elsewhere. And their protests are just ignored. The protests of excluded nonpersons like smokers are always ignored.

Restricting smokers to designated areas and outlawing smoking in public places also became national policy. The social isolation of smokers had a similar beneficial result as raising cigarette taxes — less smoking and more lives saved.

At least there's a recognition here that smokers get socially isolated. But social isolation is good thing, it seems.

There's nothing that these people won't stoop to doing to get their way. They'd beat smokers with lead pipes if they thought it would result in 'less smoking and more lives saved.'

Not that less smoking saves more lives. All the smoking numbers are fictional too.

The rationale for designated smoking areas was based on the stated premise that secondhand smoke is medically dangerous to nearby people who might inhale the fumes.

There is no question that secondhand smoke can be unpleasant; few nonsmokers want to sit in a cloud of tobacco dust or have tobacco smell on their clothing or hair. But is it dangerous to your health? A study of 35,561 spouses of smokers followed for 38 years published in the British Medical Journal in 2003 showed that second-hand smoke is an irritant, but does not cause life-threatening disease.

So the admission here that the so-called threat of passive smoking is based on a lie. But that's no problem. You can tell as many lies as you like if it results in 'less smoking and more lives saved.'

A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in July 2007 clearly shows that each of us is at an added personal health risk of gaining weight if our friends or associates become obese....

Regardless of the cause, it is in our personal and economic interests to make sure that our friends, neighbors and relatives remain thin — for obesity is a contagious disease.

No, it isn't a contagious disease. That's just a lie. Nor is it necessarily in people's personal and economic interests to remain thin. That's a choice for them to make. If they can choose whether to be fat or thin at all.

America needs to do with obesity what it did with smoking: to encourage healthy life habits through societal pressure and tax policy.

No it doesn't need to do anything. That's a lie too.

Business offices and hospitals, for example, could designate "healthy snacks only" areas and discourage people from bringing unhealthy treats for employees.

Instead of coffee breaks, workers should be given "exercise breaks." Health club memberships could be subsidized.

No, they shouldn't. They should be left to make their own choices.

What a filthy little bastard Dennis Gottfried is. He condones the lies that were told to get smoking banned. And he knows it was a lie. He knows that tobacco smoke is, at most, an irritant. But that doesn't bother him in the least. If these sorts of lies can reduce smoking, that's OK. And if that sort of dishonesty is OK, then any amount of dishonesty is OK too. Absolutely anything goes.

No, the only lesson he draws from it is that the same thing can be done to fat people. They too can be lied about. And restricted. And taxed. And isolated.

And what a lie to tell about obesity, that it's contagious disease! What a terrible lie! There's a strict medical meaning to contagion, and obesity is not contagious in that strict medical sense. But Gottfried wants to make it seem like it is. He wants to make it seem like children might catch obesity if a fat person touches them. Because that would drive fat people into forced isolation. Which would be a 'win-win policy'.

Or would it? What if obesity actually is a disease, albeit not a contagious disease? What if it's genetic in nature? Fat people wouldn't get any thinner. The isolation and the restriction and the taxation would just make life harder for them. It might even kill them.

And really the only reason that these health freaks want fat people to slim down is because they think that fat people are unsightly. Just like they want people to stop smoking is because they think that smoking is unsightly.

If it was down to me, Dennis Gottfried would be struck off the medical register tomorrow morning, just for writing this single article. Because he has described, with perfect clarity, just how unprincipled he really is, and just what depths he's prepared to plumb to enforce his particular notion of 'health'.

But he won't be struck off, because the AMA and the BMA and the RCP and all the other medical associations are made up almost entirely of the same kinds of unprincipled, unethical, unscrupulous doctors as he is. He won't get struck off. In fact he'll probably be promoted.

And this is why the entire medical establishment is going to have to be torn up, and completely dismembered, and reconstituted with a strict new code of ethics. And every single perverted Nazi doctor like Gottfried fired. And it's not just in America and Britain that this is going to have to be done, but all round the world. From the WHO at the top to humble family doctors at the bottom.

In our world it's not smokers and drinkers and fat people who are sick. It's the medical profession that is terminally sick.

  • 1
"The policy of levying heavy taxes on tobacco products was a win-win. Each time the cigarette tax was increased, the government raised more revenue and more people stopped smoking."

But it isn’t really a win-win situation is it? I’ve never quite been able to understand why anti-smokers think that higher taxes on tobacco are such a good thing. For sure, I can see how they get some measure of “that’ll teach ‘em” type satisfaction at a personal level, but can’t they see that the more tax the Government gets from tobacco sales, the less able they are to ban it completely – which presumably is the ultimate goal of all anti-smoking groups?

I’ve long said that one of the reasons that there is such a rash of fines these days for such irritatingly daft things (like overfilling your bin), and also the fact that these days we have to pay for many services which used to be offered for free or at a very small extra cost (such as taking your fridge away for safe disposal) is due at least in part to the fact that the authorities are actually trying to wean themselves off tobacco – in terms of the money it brings in – which is ironic, when you think about it. Of course, being such a dim lot, they haven’t at the same time stopped increasing the tax on tobacco, so ultimately they’ll just end up getting used to taking (and spending) all the tobacco tax money and the fines/charges, so we’ll be lumped with both.

“Instead of coffee breaks, workers should be given "exercise breaks.”

I remember a long time ago posting somewhere that once they’d done with banning all the things that we enjoy in our free time, it’d be only a short step to moving on to making us do things that we don’t enjoy in it. Funnily enough, exercise was the example I gave at the time. Winston Smith’s compulsory morning “physical jerks” in front of the telescreen in 1984 springs to mind ......

a short step to moving on to making us do things that we don’t enjoy in it.

Well, it's the whole point really. I never stop pointing out that it's always things that people enjoy doing that get fingered as 'health threats', never things that they don't enjoy. It's a threat to public health to sit in a pub and drink a beer and smoke a cigarette in three separate, different ways. Firstly you're sitting. Secondly you're drinking. And thirdly you're smoking. But there's absolutely nothing wrong sitting in a traffic jam in a crowded bus in an atmosphere laden with fuel combustion products. Oh no.

Anyway, after they've got people doing physical jerks, then the next thing must be to get them whip themselves with chains, or don painful hairshirts and the like.

Frank

From Junican.

As they keep ratcheting up the tobacco tax in order to cut down on smoking, one wonders how much the last smoker will be paying for the last packet of fags. Of course, that is before the whole thing goes underground. Curiouser and curiouser.

I had a little giggle the other day. I went onto the Middletown City, New York, USA local newspaper website in connection with a new byelaw forbidding smoking in certain parks. I accused the a
Americans of being 'obese, burger-scoffing hypochondriacs' and do you know what? Not a single person contradicted me.

I think that the best way to combat these ridiculous claims is to exaggerate them. Take them to their logical conclusion. Essentially, this means that we must keep on battering away at their media edifice. Time will tell, but I think that the more people who are attacked by the Righteous, the better.

I accused the a
Americans of being 'obese, burger-scoffing hypochondriacs' and do you know what? Not a single person contradicted me.


Well, since they're being accused of this all day every day, perhaps that's not very surprising. After all, us smokers are being told all day every day that we're filthy drug addicts with incipient lung cancer.

Frank

how dirty these nazis are

(Anonymous)
Frank the dirty basterds at the hartford courant deleted my 2 posts and another guys,besides deleting my account. Absolutely amazing.......I didnt even say nazi......lmao shoulda. I basically told the doc he had destroyed the very basis for the bans from his statement and led into doc when are you going to hit us with 3rd hand eating like 3rd hand smoking with link to the louisville paper.....then I led onto how tobacco control was bankrupted from an article in the bmj and that all funding was going into creating the new anti=obesity propaganda as was done with second hand smoke studies/propaganda. Then I led it into the mississippi proposed law against obese people eating in restaraunts.

Title: AN ACT TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FROM SERVING FOOD TO ANY PERSON WHO IS OBESE, BASED ON CRITERIA PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO PREPARE WRITTEN MATERIALS THAT DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS OBESE AND TO PROVIDE THOSE MATERIALS TO THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO MONITOR THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

I guess the facts and truth are to much to bare when your pushing lmao second hand obesity disorders.......harleyrider1978 aka john erkle

Re: how dirty these nazis are

It's why I wrote this post. I tried to sign up, but they were asking for so much info that in the end I just thought WTF. And I could sort of see that they would delete my post anyway, because I intended to call Gottfried a cunt.

Frank

Re: how dirty these nazis are

(Anonymous)
Miracles of miracles,they put them back up! Funny how I post what happened here and then bam this morning there back up.Same thing at a south carolina paper 3 weeks ago,plus a nasty email.....I bitched back about it and an editor says oh it was a mistake and puts my account back up and my posting.

On the same day antis are pushing the obesity trash

(Anonymous)
S.F. proposal would limit kids’ meals toys

http://www.indystar.com/article/20100813/LIVING01/100813006/-1/NEWS/S.F.-proposal-would-limit-kids-meals-toys

harleyrider

When deception becomes deadly

(Anonymous)
Interesting post as usual. I would like to point out that it is not just the weight ranges that can be adjusted to generate more overweight and obese people overnight, the WHO has done this twice. This trick can also be played on normal values for things like blood pressure, plasma cholesterol and blood glucose. It has been done, normal blood pressure has now been reduced with no adjustment for age, normally it goes up with age, the same has been done with blood glucose and serum cholesterol. Overnight hundreds of thousands if not millions of people become candidates for medications to bring down blood pressure, glucose and cholesterol. Yesterday you were fine today you are diabetic and a shiny new recruit for the pharmaceutical industrys "better living through chemistry" programme.
Anti diabetic drugs, statins and artifically lowering the blood pressure of elderly people are all resulting in severe side effects and in some cases, deaths. Good huh?

Heretic

Re: When deception becomes deadly

I'm aware of some of this. It's one reason why I no longer go to my doctor.

And blood pressure doesn't just vary with age. It also varies throughout the day, and depending on what you've just drunk or smoked. If you drink tea or coffee, your blood pressure goes up. Same if you smoke cigarettes. So patients should be told to not smoke anything or drink any tea or coffee for an hour or two before having their blood pressure checked. But increasingly this isn't done. And the result is that blood pressure figures are higher than they should be.

Which suits the pharma companies, for the reasons you give.

Frank

For anyone interested:

IATROGENESIS or IATROGENIC EFFECT (any harm produced by medical conduct)

“We estimated that in 1994 overall 2216000 (1721000-2711000) hospitalized patients had serious ADRs [adverse drug reactions] and 106000 (76000-137000) had fatal ADRs, making these reactions between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death”.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9555760?dopt=Abstract


Including more sources of iatrogenesis:
Doctors Are the Third Leading Cause of Death in the U.S.
Cause 250,000 Deaths Every Year
From Starfield, B. (2000) Is US Health Really The Best In The World? Journal of the American Medical Association, 284 (4), 483-485.
http://www.naturodoc.com/library/public_health/doctors_cause_death.htm

Including even more sources of iatrogenesis:
Null et al. (2003)
DOCTORS ARE THE LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE USA.
Cause 780,000-1,000,000 Deaths Every Year
http://www.webdc.com/pdfs/deathbymedicine.pdf

Adding in the destructiveness of the aggressive promotion of eugenic ideology (e.g., antismoking) – promoting irrational belief, fear, and hatred (and all of the psychological, social, moral, economic, political, and physical ramifications thereof) – the contemporary medical establishment is clearly the most organized, mainstream, destructive entity in the world at this time.

P.S. The annual death toll in the USA is 2,400,000.
The estimated “death toll” from tobacco is 440,000
Note: The tobacco death toll is erroneously argued from population level to individual level (next to impossible to coherently demonstrate causation). Alternatively, iatrogenesis is causally demonstrable at the individual level. There is then an extrapolation to the population level to estimate prevalence. Of the two – the tobacco death toll or the iatrogenic death toll – it is the latter that should be taken seriously given that causation of the phenomenon is demonstrable at the individual level. Yet the public rarely hears of the iatrogenic toll and hears incessantly of the tobacco “toll”.

Anon1

(next to impossible to coherently demonstrate causation)

I don't think it's ever possible to demonstrate causation, given a variety of 'risk factors'. And particularly when these risk factors are arbitrarily established.

I think that some day the whole statistical basis underlying studies of this sort are going to be called into question by mathematicians, a bit like climate science is being called into question by mathematicians and physicists. Sooner the better.

Frank

And the result is that blood pressure figures are higher than they should be.

Figures are also higher when caused by going to the doctor - it's called White Coat Syndrome.

After my father suffered a stroke a few years ago, I bought him a blood pressure monitor, which he used 3 times a day at home, to measure his levels. His levels were good at 140/60 but as soon as he visited the doc his level shot up to 200 - stroke risk territory! My father presented his home results to the doc who insisted on testing the blood pressure monitor as he didn't believe the difference in the results. Sure enough, the blood pressure monitor gave exactly the same reading as the doc had just taken. The doc has now given up on making my father go to the clinic every 3 months to have his blood pressure taken due to the risk to my father's health in just going there in the first place for unnecessary readings to be taken.

With regard to diet I do recommend that people read Gary Taubes' The Diet Delusion. The lies about diet are as big as the ones regarding smoking. BigAg and Big pharma and the medical profession have a lot to lose by you knowing correct information regarding what you are eat (and its the opposite of what the iatrogenic medical profession is telling you).

Snakey

I've never ever believed anything I've read about diet. Not ever. Not once. I seem to be immune. Either that or some sort of vitamin deficiency.

So I was cheered to read in DP's link tank about some adventurous Americans:

The Hoosier family behind last year's chocolate-covered bacon at the IndianaState Fair is at it again.

Their newest offering? A burger served between two Krispy Kremes, known simply as the doughnut burger...

Visitors through Aug. 22 can sample a hog's trough of oddball fair foods: deep-fried sushi, deep-fried dill pickles, deep-fried candy bars, chocolate-covered popcorn balls, root-beer marinated ribs and the garbage burger -- a pork patty covered with pulled pork on a bun, the Signature Food in the fair's "Year of Pigs." But it was the deep-fried butter and doughnut burgers that drew the customers and the "just curious" on Friday.

Blake Reas freezes the butter and covers it in cinnamon before cutting it into cubes and frying it in something that's been at the fair for years: funnel cake batter.

And what about that chocolate-covered bacon?


That's one in the eye for the killjoys.

Frank

Quite right Frank, never worry about what you eat. The worry is far worse for you than the hamburger could ever be. There is only one kind of bad food, none at all. Far more people have died of starvation that are likely to die of overconsumption.

Regards

Heretic

Doctors and Lawyers

(Anonymous)
Doctors and Lawyers.
Scum of the earth.
Untouchable.
The American disease spreads around the world.

"The policy of levying heavy taxes on tobacco products was a win-win. Each time the cigarette tax was increased, the government raised more revenue and more people stopped smoking."



Strategic Thinking on State Tobacco Tax Increases

"For the most part, this unprecedented success can be attributed to state fiscal crises resulting from the downturn in the national economy.
State policymakers were desperate to find new revenues to plug growing deficits in state budgets.

In many states, public health advocates were ready and able to partner with policymakers in developing tobacco tax strategies that advanced public health goals and filled budget holes."

This document is designed to assist public health advocates in recognizing and weighing the strategic decisions that must be made before beginning a campaign to increase tobacco taxes at the state level."

"After answering the questions above and examining polling data,choose the highest increase that is politically viable"

"From a strictly economic standpoint, tobacco taxes fall under this definition because the same amount of tax is charged to all individuals regardless of income.
This means the tax is a greater percentage of the income of low-income persons than those with more income.
Critics charge that regressive taxes are easiest to raise because they place the heaviest burden on those without a political voice"
http://www.rwjf.org/newsroom/SLSTobaccoTax.pdf

Rose



BigAg and Big pharma family history

“Without I.G.’s immense productive facilities, its far-reaching research, varied technical experience and overall concentration of economic power, Germany would not have been in a position to start its aggressive war in September 1939.”
Such was the judgment rendered by a team of civilian and military experts assigned by General Eisenhower at the close of World War II to make an exhaustive investigation of I.G.’s contribution to the Nazi war effort. Extravagant as this conclusion may have sounded, the record sustains its accuracy."

"Mere indispensability, however, was not enough. As the war progressed, I.G.’s embrace of Hitler became more passionate. With the help of the Wehrmacht and the Nazi bureaucracy, I.G. looted the chemical properties of the defeated nations (Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, and France).

Moreover, it had similar plans to bring England, the United States, and the Soviet Union into its orbit.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_igfarben02a.htm#Preface

Its beginning to like they finally succeeded.

Monday, 17 September, 2001
IG Farben to be dissolved
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1549092.stm


Here's a NYT article about the study on 2nd hand obesity

(Anonymous)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/health/25cnd-fat.html?_r=1

Here's a NYT article about the study on 2nd hand obesity - from 2007!

Here's the study
http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMsa066082
The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network over 32 years.

This study should be added to the Mississippi law on comments(which I think was a forced farce legislation- a teaching moment in stupid laws)

There's no safe level of 2nd hand obesity

from gil at smokersclub

From Henry North London

(Anonymous)
As a former member of the medical profession, I have to agree with your last line. Wholeheartedly. The Medical profession have sold their souls to the Pharmaceutical companies. I emailed the physician behind the statin and MacDonalds story in the daily mail.

I will reproduce his comments.

Processed food is not safe for humans, adding in a statin which are known to cause all manner of side effects is adding poison on to already adulterated food.
Statins cause memory loss and HMG Co A reductase deficiency in every cell in the body, including brain cells.
Frankly you must be in the pockets of the drug companies to suggest such stupidity.
Thank you for writing. As a scientist, I am always open to criticism of my methods or reasoning. But criticising a conclusion in isolation, solely because one does not like it, is not a helpful way forward. Science is a means of resolving disputes.

I think you have failed to appreciate what I have said.
I am not disliking your statement I am biochemically opposed to statin drugs primarily because they are not of any benefit in heart disease prevention. Also that their biochemical action upon the body is injurious to health, and the health of all the cells in the body that use HMG co A reductase.
If you are basing your work on Ancel Keys cholesterol hypothesis, you maybe unaware that certain countries were taken out of his graph because they did not fit with what he wanted to show.
Statin drugs have been shown to lower cholesterol that much is true, but their effects are much more widespread than that.
What I have issue with is the handing out of statin drugs to combat poor quality meat, laden with omega 6 fats from feeding cattle with grain at the feedlot prior to slaughter, the use of chicken skin and other mechanically recovered parts for the nuggets, the use of cheap white flour from which all the nutrients have been removed whilst milling and storage, the use of factory processed vegetable oils and excessive amounts of salt with no minerals, along with the use of high fructose corn syrup and other such processed ingredients in the manufacture of fast food, which you have been quoted as saying that a statin drug would prevent damage from these ingredients.
No it wouldn't, There is no scientific basis for a statin which is based on HMG co a Reductase solving the problems that are inherent in the food, if you eat it alongside such rubbish.
I do agree that junk food is very, very unhealthy, but I cannot see why you think heart attacks cannot be prevented by statins. A wealth of randomised controlled trials consistently show this preventative effect, that is very powerful.

I welcome any criticism of the method, analysis or reasoning within the actual paper.

But a recent study published in the British Medical Journal tells a completely different story: For every heart attack prevented by the drug, two or more people suffered liver damage, kidney failure, cataracts or extreme muscle weakness as a result of taking the drug.

Statin drugs, in other words, harm far more people than they help.

Julia Hippisley-Cox and Carol Coupland led the study which examined data from over two million patients, including over 225,000 patients who were new statin drug users.

They found that for every 10,000 women being treated with statins, there were only 271 fewer cases of heart disease.

And yet, at the same time, the statin drugs caused 74 cases of liver damage, 23 cases of acute kidney failure, 39 cases of extreme muscle weakness and 307 cases of cataracts.

Statin drugs, in other words, helped 271 people but harmed 443 people. This demonstrates how they are wreaking havoc with the health of those who take them, causing damage that far outweighs any benefit they might offer.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64J7B820100520

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/340/may19_4/c2197

The meta-analysis reported that the effects of statins on major coronary events and cerebrovascular events were not significantly different according to age, sex, or diabetes status.2

He hasnt been able to reply to that because I've disproved him with a study based on 10000 people.

The tax increases accompanied by outdoor smoking bans and hefty fines for smoking outdoors only goes so far in increasing tobacco and sales tax revenues. After a point, it decreases proceeds and government suffers.

Only, if you read how the loss of hundreds of millions, nearly a billion dollars in tax revenue has affected the bankrupt state of California, USA, you will notice that the MSM is persistent in portraying this loss as a "good" and not a bad thing. After all, "lives are being saved".

Here, see for yourself:

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/28/2919217/plummeting-cigarette-sales-cut.html

Plummeting cigarette sales cut California tax revenues

Cigarette sales in California plunged to their lowest level in a decade last year as smokers were squeezed by new taxes and restrictions on where they could light up.

While tobacco use has been steadily declining, the 8.1 percent sales drop was the largest year-over-year decline since 2000, according to the state Board of Equalization.

The number of cigarette packs sold in the state fell to 972 million – down from from 2.8 billion in 1980.

"As smokers go to the checkout counter and pay that higher price, they've reduced their smoking," said Anita Gore, a spokeswoman for the state Board of Equalization.

"It's definitely a bit of good news and bad news for us," said Diane Levin, chief deputy director of First 5 California, which gets most of its funding from state cigarette taxes to pay for anti-smoking education services and other programs that promote healthy living among Californians with young children.

"Declining revenue isn't a new issue for us. We've been expecting it, and we've been planning for it," she said. "We're having to strategize to do more with less, to concentrate our focus in these tough times."

Still, it's a "double slap" – a decline in tax revenue and a state budget that is struggling to fund health services, said Robert Phillips, director of health and human services for the California Endowment, a private health advocacy foundation.

While cigarette sales have declined, "there's still a lot of work to do" to vanquish cigarettes from the state, Phillips said.

Tax revenues from online sales have also declined in recent years, Gore said. In 2007, the state collected $2.2 million in tax revenue from Internet sales. A year later, that amount fell to $960,000. In 2009, the tally further dropped, to $785,000.

The state now bans smoking in workplaces, restaurants, bars and other indoor places, while an increasing number of communities ban smoking in outdoor spaces such as parks and beaches.

The result, state officials said, is a healthier California.

Last year, just 13 percent of the state's population smoked – down from nearly 23 percent two decades earlier, according to the California Department of Public Health. Only Utah has a smaller percentage of smokers.

---

Bankruptcy is now called "success".

Hooray!!!

Interesting numbers, but unless all cause mortality in California has declined in line with the drops in tobacco sales the claim of a healthier California is just so much bull. I am going to take a look at the CDC month on month statistics. I am willing to bet there has been no such decline in deaths.

A few years ago due to heart disease in my family i was prescribed statins because my cholesterol was slightly high, i took the statins home and even renewed my prescription a couple of times but never took the statins, i lost a little weight and ate porridge every morning and drank a couple of glasses of red wine every night both of which are good at getting rid of bad cholesterol,when i next visited the doctors amazingly my cholesterol levels had returned to a completely normal level all thanks to the statins said the Doc,he went blood red with embarassment when i told him id never touched the fucking things!

  • 1
?

Log in