For far too long, the public health industry has gotten away with unfairly claiming that all who oppose it do so solely for financial reward from “big” tobacco, food, alcohol etc. Coming from people who make their living as charity spin doctors or professional activists I find this tactic sickeningly hypocritical.

In a few short decades, public health activism has achieved very little, undermined thousands of years of rational progress, damaged science, created social divisions and contributed to the widening gap between politicians and those they allegedly represent.

As a former Liberal Democrat voter I could never support Stephen Williams and I currently choose not to support the party he represents. I am only one voter but I suspect that I am not entirely alone because the mendacity and unpleasantness of the public health crusaders is only one symptom of a wider malaise that afflicts our society. That is why this issue really is important.

I think this is a post which might have been better written in a calmer tone.

If only that were possible, Stuart!

For example, suppose that I say to you, Stuart, “Don’t take this the wrong way, Stuart. I don’t mean anything personal, honestly – I’m just trying to illustrate a general point. I’m sure that you understand what I mean. But, let’s face it, the reality is that: YOU ARE A DISGUSTING, FILTHY, STINKING SMOKER AND KILL AND MAIM BABIES AND YOU STINK AND STINK AND STINK AND YOU ROB THE NHS AND, ALL IN ALL, THE WORLD WOULD BE BETTER OFF IF YOU GOT CANCER AND DIED” But, nothing personal, you understand” All the above while wagging a finger in your face!!! Well, yes, ‘adopt a calmer attitude’……

That is what ASH ET AL have been doing for years – “We are reasonable. It is not smokERS who kill babies, it is smokING”

How have they got away with this nonsense for so long?

There is an answer, and that is the Media. It cannot be other than so. Only the Media, especially the BBC, have the resources to twist and spin and promulgate. The messages from ASH ET AL could be demolished in an instant, if the Media decided to do so – easy-peasy. It is only because the Media (the Big Beasts) has ceased to abide by its ‘raison d’etre’ that the persecution has happened. The ‘raison d’etre’ of the press is to be ‘the fourth estate’ – the balance AGAINST propaganda; the balance AGAINST Holy Zealots; the balance AGAINST statistical mumbo-jumbo; the balance AGAINST persecution. The Media became part of the problem. How shameful!

ASH ET AL pronounce. The Cabinet complies. MPs comply. The ‘Fourth Estate’ complies. Welcome to THE TOTALITARIAN STATE.

http://daveatherton.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/an-anti-smoker-speaks/

The specific concern appears to centre around the fact that he advises the government on regulatory matters. There is half a case there, but I think only half: government advisors are not barred from having views – indeed, the opposite is true.

There is a legitimate question about the independence of the research described in the article, but not one which is particularly specific to this case: as Mark Littlewood has himself pointed out in the past, organisations which like the sort of research an individual or team produces are likely to fund future research, whereas those who do not are unlikely to do so. Accordingly, all research should be taken with a substantial pinch of salt, and considered in the proper context of other work.

The article in the Independent reads to me as an attack article, which is disappointing.