Wednesday, 24 March 2010


Anyone who grew up between the 1940s and 1970s has undergone what the Bigots' Action Group of the British Medical Association would term 'child abuse'. Upstairs on the bus, schoolchildren and smokers would share a journey in a thick fug of tobacco smoke; at school, the head's office leaked smoke from around the door and masters would stand chatting in corridors with ciggies in their hands. At the cinema, smoke writhed in wonderful swirls in the projector's beam, and on the tube the smoking carriages were packed with a score of smokers all competing to wreath the carriage in a dove-grey mist.

Since those days, smoking has dramatically declined, has disappeared altogether from public transport and buildings, to the extent that most children now never even get a whiff of a ciggie.

Yet over the same time, Asthma rates in children have increased exponentially. Indeed, one can convincingly correlate the decrease in childhood exposure to tobacco smoke and the increase in childhood Asthma.

In developing countries, where smoking is increasing and tobacco companies are expanding markets, there has been no increase in childhood Asthma. At all.

Honest scientists admit they have no idea why childhood Asthma has increased in the developed world, but that it's unlikely to have anything to do with tobacco smoke. An increase in antibiotics prescribed by doctors is statistically more significant than other causes.

Dishonest factions, such as the untutored bigots in the BMA and the medical colleges, will happily lie in support of their spurious claims as dishonestly as climate change experts or politicians.

Don't believe their lies.


lilith said...

Blanket vaccines? Any correlation there?

Anonymous said...

Increasing Asthma is all part of the results of the modern obsession with cleanliness, especially where children are concerned.

I remember as a child being basically filthy and covered in mud, snot, and farmyard grot throughout my leisure hours, at least in summer. No allergies to be seen anywhere.

Modern kids are kept indoors (because of the mad axeman and the next-door pedo) in hermetically-sealed houses where no speck of dust is ever allowed to get lost, and then carried (for all I know) to equally pristine cars to be transported to overheated squeaky-clean schools or holiday hotels. Result - asthma.

The immune system needs to develop, and all these allergies and sensitivities are essentially auto-immune malfunctions.

Blue Eyes said...

My dad smoked like a chimney. I had childhood asthma. I never considered there to be a connection.

It was mostly dogs that set me off.

Blue Eyes said...

Agree with anon wholeheartedly.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Great article, Raedwald. The blanket MSM coverage is well on its way today, quite ludicrous.

Anonymous said...

Yes, you can see what is going to happen next can't you. This will translate into another piece of useless, ineffective but intrusive legislation that helps no-one.

This government and its "advisors" are incapable of fixing anything of consequence, so they tackle the irrelevencies of our lives. Feckin morons!

Coney Island

Anonymous said...

Perhaps these doctors links to patch makers should be investigated

Anonymous said...

It is unwise to consider claims of “the science is strong” on health claims without checking the available research. The KOLs (Key Opinion Leaders) are all protecting their status; Big Pharma their revenues. I present the following example that anyone can check.

The Department of Health (DoH) has claimed that flu vaccination is good for the elderly. Challenged on that issue they were only able to provide to research studies in support; both inadequate on examination. I then came across the following review.

Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly (Review)
Jefferson T, Di Pietrantonj C, Al-Ansary LA, Ferroni E, Thorning S, Thomas RE
The Cochrane Collaboration an independent review organisation.

This review was able to identify 75 studies that might be of value. Only one study was a randomised ccontrol trial, an RCT. The remaining 74 studies were observational! The RCT study was statistically underpowered - ie it was too small for conclusions to be drawn. The remaining 74 studies were of poor quality.

Authors conclusions
The available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older. To resolve the uncertainty, an adequately powered publicly-funded randomised, placebo-controlled
trial run over several seasons should be undertaken.

Not surprisingly the DoH has failed to answer my comments on this study.

Incidentally, the use of large doses of Vitamin D seem to be good for protecting against seasonal flu. Check the research at the Vitamin D Council another independent research organisation. Vitamin D is not patentable and is therefore of NO interest to Big Pharma or probably the KOLs.

Tamianne said...

Living in an overly sterile environment does sound very likely.

The other thing that I think could be contributing to the increase in asthma is the fact that, in Britain, so many parents give their babies formula milk, even though breastfeeding is known to boost the immune system. My sister and I also have a theory that maybe feeding babies with formula milk has led to all these babies who look very pale and have unusually large heads (they seem to be peculiar to this country) - there's probably nothing in it, but you never know!

The whole vaccine business is also rather worrying. I feel like I'm taking a gamble every time my children have a jab.

Anonymous said...

Ah, the eternal whinging of the nicotine addict.

As an asthmatic and ex-smoker I can honestly say that my life has improved immeasurably since kicking the habit. I don't think tobacco was a cause or factor in the asthma, but while the triggers are still present the symptoms are much relieved.

DaveA said...


As an active smoker you may well be right, but children of smokers do seem to be protected by parents smoking, by up to a staggering 82%.

"We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.

"The harmful effects of cigarette smoke are well known, and there are many reasons to avoid it.” Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them."

Gareth said...

Spot on article, couldn't have been put better. Probably more free will in a prison in this day and age. Brings the question which unlikely link are they gonna make up next?

Goverment doesn't even exist to me

Demetrius said...

In the meantime we have replaced tobacco with "fragrances" of which the latest products are high powered pollutants designed to hit the brain hard, as well as the other organs. This stuff is far worse than tobacco ever was and is about to do far more damage.

Bessie said...

"We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens."

Ho hum. Could there possibly be a correlation between the disregard of the health risks of smoking and the possession of fully functioning lungs? The experience of being frequently unable to breathe tends to make a person rather protective of their lungs. Funnily enough, this health-induced aversion to smoking also tends to run in families.

English Pensioner said...

My father smoked, and none of the family, or our doctor ever suggested that there was connection with my childhood asthma. The asthma went when I reached my teens without any medical treatment (there wasn't any other than breathing exercises!) and I only had trouble when I wanted to start smoking, so I became a non-smoker. What brings it on now is perfumes, I simply won't go in those "posh" department stores which have the perfume section immediately inside the main entrance.
I think one of the problems these days is that children are given inhalers at the drop of an NHS prescription, and make no effort to overcome the root problem by deep breathing exercises and the like. We have to have our instant cure for everything!

Bessie said...

"Honest scientists admit they have no idea why childhood Asthma has increased in the developed world, but that it's unlikely to have anything to do with tobacco smoke. An increase in antibiotics prescribed by doctors is statistically more significant than other causes."

I'd agree that increasing use of antibiotics warrants investigation.

However, could it simply be that, in the past, asthmatics contributed to the higher incidence of infant mortality, and that now they are more likely to survive into wheezy adulthood? My husband is severely asthmatic, and reckons his family would have died out generations ago if they hadn't lived within a mile of the London Chest Hospital. Nonetheless, many aunts and uncles died young from chest infections. His half-brother, brought up in the healthy countryside, died from an asthma attack in his teens. His young nephew has had several lengthy stays in hospital, attached to an oxygen tank. On the plus side, none of them ever seem to get cancer, which may be one of the advantages of an overactive immune system.

Incidentally, I'm just as sceptical as you about the supposed dangers of passive smoking to the general population, and about the contribution of smoking to asthma rates. However, for many asthmatics, cigarette smoke is a trigger, and they really don't enjoy being in smoky rooms. For this reason alone, I can't be too negative about the smoking ban in pubs.

Anonymous said...

Increased vehicle exhaust fumes maybe? Lots more about than in the 40s.

William Gruff said...

Potter's Asthma Cure (in green tins with black printing) enabled my asthmatic brother to sleep many a time.

When was the last time anyone ever heard a 'doctor' (few of whom actually possess a doctorate) say anything other than 'I cannot find anything wrong', 'I don't know what it is' or 'I can't help you'?

Until recent changes to the relevant legislation veterinary surgeons were allowed to treat humans but 'doctors' were barred from treating animals. I'd trust a vet before a 'doctor'.

Anonymous said...

All this tends to assume good documentation of health back in the 50s and 60s.
I had asthma in 1947 -age 12 - coughing and wheezing especially with exercise. Back then doctors were 'busy' and young people were not so important.
And wheezy bronchitis was common too.