Daddy Dalton and his agencies of "control"

Dalton McGuinty politics, versus Donald Duck in the real world.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZcs1SHVbz0

It is high time that the media party and similar propaganda agencies, expressed the other side of the argument, in respect to pseudo governmental organizations. These are legislatively empowered, taxation funded, "control boards", which hold the power of imposing behavioral laws, fines and imprisonment. All the while being responsible to no one, outside of their own organizational regime. The workplace insurance board of Ontario [or whatever they call it this week] is just such and agency, has highhandedly outlawed such tools as Bolson's chairs, under threat of fines, seizure and imprisonment, tools which were used to build the pyramids. Banned only because an unskilled and unqualified spectator, looks in awe and finds it unbelievable that anyone could use this tool confidently and live. Today they actually have many of the larger sign companies in Ontario, fearful to even allow their employees to carry a ladder on their trucks, or a bic lighter, or even to smoke, in a vehicle on the highway, of all places. An imposition of a pseudo-reality where micromanaged children of all ages, live with no right to make adult choices. They live within a mandate; which declares "there is no such thing as an accident". Or will any incidence exist, where an accident will go unpunished.

The principle empowerment of these Gulags is the entirely low to non statistically significant health and mortality risks, of working in an Ontario workplace. Being made to appear in the media by tax payer funded ad agency presentations, as though thousands are being slaughtered every hour. One of the safest places to work on the planet is what we saw, prior to the invention of the bubble wrapping, that is choking productivity and competition, right out of our workplaces, while offering up our jobs to China, who is now beating the hell out of our new coddled wimp workforce, in every perspective imaginable. Over "protection" by fines and seizures of private property, or banishment from workplaces, is a step too far. This constitutes direct and unreasonable interference, in someone's inherent rights to earn a living, or to house and feed their families. People who have always sustained themselves, by the skills and experience earned of real work. Within a regime that understood them to be; intelligent and capable adults and self sufficient human beings. The essential training of hands on life experience, that can not be found in a government published workbook. Earned Competence and skills are now being described as careless and brainless activities, by robber barons, who can only stand in awe, with no understanding of the work, or human compassion for the increased difficulty and expense, being placed in the road of getting any job done efficiently, with any measure of profit allowed.

I see roofers being protected against falling off a roof, not by their own instinctive cautions and common sense, rather by a guard-wall, installed around the edge of a roof, that it seems is illegal to construct, without a risk of substantial fines or imprisonment. If someone is in peril of falling off a roof and needs that guardrail to protect them, they are neither qualified as a roofer from the outset, or should they have ever have been allowed to travel more than three feet off the ground. To live in a highrise, walk or ski along a mountain trial, or be allowed to tend pigeons, sunbathe or barbeque, on any rooftop or balcony.

Is there much wonder that this Province can no longer compete in the workplace? With a overbearing mothering attitude, endemic in our legislatures, that won't allow us to accomplish real work, without the necessary paperwork, daily repeated safety meetings, over emphasis of the sound bite chantings, promoting fear of the consequences of a days work. There is always that duty to fear, that always arrives with every teenaged schoolbook trained inspector. Who has the sole voice that resides over all forms of superior experience, in what constitutes "safe enough". Workers are protected by hardhats, work boots and safety vests in an open muddy field against the showering of meteors or bird droppings, with no other sane reason to wear them, beyond the absolutes of compliance with pseudo fear law. Championed by the threat of being caught by the "safety inspector" who dutifully reports anyone who is getting too much accomplished, "stealing jobs" according to labor union sloganeering, as someone who obviously needs another blockage placed in their road.

There is only one justification or reasoned excuse for this over exuberance, of micro managed safety inspections, and that was seen in the regime of Adolph Hitler. Who also protected his people over the top, and imposed a responsibility to be healthy, safe and fearful, or to be scorned and punished. As a conditioning of the working class, to instill a new norm of an oppressive regime. A norm of "knuckling under, if you know what is good for you" in fear of those in control. They call this the nanny state, this mother is an abusive self sanctimonious sociopath, a frothing at the mouth bigot and a hypocrite. Who like all overbearing mothers, instills authority, by promoting exaggerated and improbable fear into all of her scoldings. The empowerment of such an agency existing as a mercenary force, to impose on the working class what the government hasn't the courage to do to them directly. Which is an outrage akin to the Taliban watchers on every street corner. With one important exception, the Taliban consider thievery to be a crime. If the government has the power to bestow the authority of fines and imprisonment on an independent organization, outside of the people's control and deliberately separated from our protections under the proper courts of criminal law that assume innocence, that regime is a dictator and democracy is dead, by the coercive contracts of their entitlement.

I would advise my peers in the workplace, or what little private space is still within our control, for the time being. If you value personal autonomy rights and believe yourself a free agent and an adult with an ability empowered by intelligence, to protect yourself, without forced bureaucratic assistance. Of a government that does not accept or recognize the existence of that intelligence, that ultimately is the only legitimate perspective that entitles their power. Or the power of an "inspector" to successfully solicit a cash bribe, in lieu of the alternative consequences. Resist this fascism, that stands against your right to make a living, without their interference.

We need to stand up and chase these so called "safety" inspectors off our job-sites, by refusal to recognize their false authority, to resist with abusive language, no co-operation and all forms of mutual disrespect, without limits, until they learn to be human once again and abandon their own employment, as cattle herders, for those who describe us all as "human capitol" and industry slaves, while promoting the Chinese version of the UN globalist campaign.

Stand free and proud today and defend yourself, or get used to bending over in servitude tomorrow. The government is legally our servant not the other way around, in spite of what daddy Dalton and the opposition members standing in compliance, still dare to believe. If the largest corporations in this country can be trusted and enjoy the "conveniences" of self regulation, so too should we, have that same trust, among those whom we hire, to do our bidding.

If it is legitimate to accept, as those who rule outside of the people's control will declare; "there is no such thing as an accident", we have to believe also, that mandatory "accident insurance" paid to this same enterprise, is a fraud and a criminal activity. No more than a mob styled protection racket, empowered and introduced by an illegitimate government, who are now only trespassing in our government buildings, in need of arrest and imprisonment, as traitors, by the theft of our democratic rights and freedom, within the wide-brushed "presumption of guilt" and a large scale theft of the public purse, that demands full compensation for everything they squandered, as the proceeds of organized crime.

Is it any wonder in so few years, we went from a Province of plenty, to a subsidized have not Province, with an economy collapsing under the force of it's own bloated bureaucracy and its duty to apply; our ever pressing, always media dramatic and ever urgent, protection of the "children".


"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. "
—
C.S. Lewis

Apple Computer and the 1984 commercial

In 1984 Apple computer ran an advertisement for a revolutionary new computer they called the Mac. It depicted a room full of completely docile and subservient people being led in to hear the daily dose of propaganda from the supreme leader. A woman came running in and smashed the screen which awakened the people from their slumber. The commercial was inspired by the Orwell novel by the same name.

You can view the 1984 commercial here. [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-715862862672743260#]

And a more modern rendition here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo]

What has this to do with smoking bans, regressive taxation and the lies of second hand smoke?

Read on and it will all become clear. Second hand smoke requires three components to become what they call a significant health risk, without which it posses essentially no risk. You need very large volumes, extremely long exposures per daily dose and a lifetime persistence of those exposures, to create even a slight risk, that there is a risk to non smokers. So if we reduce; the volume, the duration or the frequency of exposures, the risk is eliminated. Reducing the number of smokers by half over the past fifty years apparently had no effect. The experts will tell you today the evidence is irrefutable, that second hand smoke is much more dangerous than diesel exhaust, the chemicals in our genetically modified foods and pretty much any other factor in our environment. But does the evidence measure up to the propaganda? Common sense, if there is any left, will tell you to be cautious of your information sources, because following the money consistently leads back to the sources of major advocacy and the true nature of those investments.

In 2006 the American Surgeon General confirmed that the exposure frequency mentioned above had been reduced by 75%. His relenting claims of risk to non smokers were not substantiated by the report he offered. His claims seemed to confirm the opposite, because all the minor research he chose to include in his report was already reliant on worst case measures, which promoted the extremely rare to a possible outcome in the real world. His report was so grossly over stated in the ad promo leading up to it’s release, even the extremists lobbies promoting anti-smoker denormalization, distanced themselves from the media for months, for fear of being connected with a stance that would surely expose them all to a new reefer madness style of ridicule, if they were not extremely careful. Today they have gained confidence and actually cite his report in the promotion of anti-smoker bigotry, because the media remained onside and didn’t question the propaganda piece that was “the Surgeon General’s report on second hand smoke”. Since that time many supporting reports and made for media research studies have been produced, to hide the questionable science found in that report, however next to the reefer madness campaigns in the 60s, Second hand smoke is likely one of the largest lies ever promoted by the American Government and there have been many lies before and since that fall into that competition.

What do the extreme left find favourable with the anti smoking ruse? Well the same forward going personalities and the powers that be are consumed by something they call “productivity” which limits the number of sins we can allow in society, in order to maintain a work force, that matches the demands in the market for production and trade. If we allow, as many of them would prefer, that pot smoking were decriminalized and in light of the recent silent repeal of gambling prohibitions, with State and medical charity lotteries producing a much needed boost to tax revenues. Permitting more sins to come into the market, needs close scrutiny, lest the workforce is disrupted by the addictive nature of gambling and pot smoking, without maintenance of “the ethics of hard work as a virtue” the work force could slip into the “welfare reliant” posture, of all the other Marxist democracies found in the third world. The answer to the, too many sins at one time, dilemma is found in the elimination of smoking and tighter restriction of alcohol, although few in the political game would favor eliminating one of their largest cash cows, correcting the mistake of eliminating pot from the market, augmented by new gambling revenues, could well re-stack the deck and allow that elimination to happen.

I referred to the anti-pot campaign as a political mistake, for a demonstrable reason. When people smoke pot they become docile and if they are stressed out they rely on pot to keep them de-stressed. Smoking cigarettes has an effect of awakening the senses and making thoughts clear. The preference, for those who seek dominance by the state, should be obvious. The plan is simple yet complex; top down grass roots ad campaigns through health information ministries sell a state mandate, in obsessively “protecting the population”, in place of serving the population. Like the docile foot daggers in the 1984 commercial a population of pot smokers, in place of the number who smoke cigarettes, would be preferable in order to maintain control with minimal effort and expense.

You see, it was always about the money. By now it should be obvious, who is in control, by simply acknowledging who are actually being controlled. Democracy in its current rendition is just another cruel scam being played on all of us.

What are we to believe?

The Canadian CBC has been running Michael Moore's Sicko movie, all weekend long leaving me suspicious we are about to see another big media storm coming in the near future. With the audience or at least those of us who are still listening, being preconditioned to the sameness mindset, required to be accepting of a new stage, in our progressive evolution.

I sent in the following with little hope it will ever be published, however some of you might find it worth the read.


At lot has changed in Canada since the making of this film. American interest lobby groups, set out to Americanize our system and destroy it from within likely the strongest voices in opposition to Moore's demonstration of logic. At the Romanov commission with the Lalonde report firmly in hand they sought to elevate “Health Promotion” focused on forcing medical interventions on the much larger number of population target groups, who are not sick . Considered now on equal footing, with real bricks and mortar medical treatments, of those actually seeking treatments, a new deal, in turn sharing an equal bounty of the expenditures, primarily to fund lobby group dreams or nightmares with no stable oversight to define which. What DiPierri described as "Materialism Out of Control"

Canadians still don't understand how the healthcare system became so underfunded and so quickly. Or why an average wait in an emergency room, grew from the 15-20 minutes described in Moore's film to a norm described by the CMA of over 12 hours in 2009. How did the practitioners seemingly overnight form such a disdain and presumption of guilt, voiced in place of compassionate bedside manner we once thought to be universal. They call it among the lobby crowd, “leading by example”. I call it teaching us to blame each other for the costs associated with a new two tier system powered only by Politically Corrected downstream disgust. A system now carrying the burden of both top down imposed medicine and real clinical medicine in equal economic proportions.

Public Health, the industry, established a beachhead and an escalation above the practitioners they consider an obstacle, in the biomedical industry. They now largely command the Mainstream media and all of our information streams, which effect all of our autonomous and political opinions. No message is more predominant of late than the message of their own entitlement . A coercive regime of ad hominid command and control, defined by the knuckle-walker technologies, declaring no one else should ever be allowed an independent thought. Public health sets the precedent in all matters while all dissenters best beware the power of the press.

The full scope of control medicine, is styled to add a coercive element to make you well, or else!!!, as the keynote of healthscare reform. Depreciating us all to the bearers of guilt, in the Tobacco control model, and finally to that flaming place described by Moore in his description of the Cuban stereotype.

Health Canada has abandoned research in the form of investigation with physical research, which was once, only guided, by epidemiology. Today epidemiology is the predominant form of research, in spite of its huge shortcomings, which always end well shy of any evidential facts. The agency has adapted instead the wisdom of politically organized international medicine, defined by consensus, with cult factoids to enhance "new research" media releases. Originating most often from the American pork-barreled CDC and EPA. They even hired a professor of political science, as head scientist at Health Canada and set out with such inhumane degrading strategies as the Denormalization of smokers and the obese to make us healthy, or at least more obedient to mob rule among our own peers. In service of the entitled and ethically perfect people, who run Public Health, The UN industry.

The dominant voice of medicine in Canada is prepared by news release, abstracted of the reality; if it is truly science, it never needed a PR campaign, we would recognized it, far before the epidemiologists were hired to estimate what we should fear.

They say "You can't go back" I wish Michael would come back, and take a look at us now.

What should we say?

The new version of health care demands the official line, be the the only opinion available. Public Health in Canada has a long and painful history self described as advocacy to improve health conditions. That falls flat when their voices are raised above the voices of experience and logical analysis. H1N1 as with many of their campaigns of the past are not promoted with the kind of science the public is used to, measured by consistent reproducibility rather the statistical proof of pre-drawn conclusions said to be epidemiological. However the methods do not challenge the null but exaggerate the meaning of any chance reference above the null. By this slight of hand or redirection of the tongue with focus groups to maximize the effect. Enstrom and Kabat illuminates convincingly the measure of balance available when the numbers do not coincide with the prescribed agenda.

Public Health express promotional contempt for biomedical sciences, and as an industry has grown to a force which now dominates the airwaves, our government agencies and our information streams, which direct our responses and influence all of our decisions. None more predominantly than their own superiority and entitlement.

The 13 year old boy said to have died by H1N1 which sparked a media storm and terrified tens of thousands of parents. Was claimed in the media, long before it was even physically possible to discern what actually killed him, to have died of H1N1. Few Canadians [or those in the media apparently] are aware that "the H1N1 pandemic" was a planed exercise. To increase demand and grow capacity through emense profit taking by the manufacturers. Just in case, a real pandemic ever does occur. To increase our ability to produce the medicines we would need. Apparently in service to the common good, screaming fire in the theatre is not unethical, under certain conditions, according to the new rules of the game being played.

The options on the table which predominantly include viral pneumonia and Rye syndrome, were never investigated and the same advocates funded by both our taxes and the private drug company interests, who profit most as "stakeholders" in the process also decided no autopsy was necessary, because the cause of death was already established.

How much more corrupted can the heath care system become, before someone with enough influence to even be heard at this point, can be persuaded to say "enough" and successfully face the legions, who will attack with ad hominid insults by press release, against anyone who dares to attempt to, bring this insanity back under our control.

Toronto Public Health and its international ties direct the same type of rumor mill process used by the Catholic Church in the crusades which was intent on wiping the earth clean of the Pagan religion as though it were a disease. The same process which burned witches in Salem and the Same group precisely who promoted Eugenics and now pines for the loss of influence they sustained after Hitler was defeated. They are now busy advocating for the hatred of anyone who chooses to smoke a cigarette today. Using Hitlers very rhetoric and the same form of corrupted and cherry picked epidemiological "science" no less, to divide us upon ourselves.

The Public health groups at the forefront of tobacco scare mongering, include directly the RWJF charity who hold millions of shares in Johnson and Johnson. Who conveniently sell billions in ineffective alternative nicotine products, such as smoking patches and gum. Indirectly by the medical charities who are funded by similar Industrial charity foundations. Holding current assets in excess of 10 trillion tax exempted dollars and who also conveniently represent the interests of Drug, Oil and Petrochemical companies. Who are no doubt very relieved to see, that we all agree that all cancers and heart disease are caused by smoking or second hand smoke.

It goes without saying the persistence processes by Health Intervention Assessment[HIA] and Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] being taught and described at the World Health Organization [WHO], should be an issue of grave concern. That concern should be largely enhanced by the recent announcements of WHO partnerships with virtually every major corporate interest on the planet. Its where all the smart money is going.

You are enslaved by these partnerships, permanently, with legally binding agreements to never jeopardize your partners financial interests. Recent independent WHO reports have described the relationships as "institutional capture". I say this with the utmost respect of all parties involved, but I can not help but evaluate the once descriptive term of Mussolini's politics as "Industrial Socialism" and can no longer resist but to connect the dots.

Expression of medical advice belongs among those who are trained in medicine and should never be overshadowed by those trained only in communications or those connected to a larger fortune by which to communicate that information.

It is time the media took up it's responsibility to balanced journalism and left medical issues to those qualified to discuss them. Few of which, are among those with the largest voice today.


Reference sources; short list

Philosophical


http://www.rampant-antismoking.com/
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2009/12/godber-blueprint.html
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6573.html
http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.com/defense.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lalonde_report
http://www.healthcoalition.ca/romanow.html
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/btof/chap30.htm
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/chpt1.htm#2
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1226
http://www.toronto.ca/health/125th/pdf/keynote_speech_may28_2008.pdf
http://www.ismp-canada.org/index.htm
http://genesgreenbook.com/content/was-it-acetaminophen-not-swine-flu-killed-boy
http://www.q-net.net.au/~legion/legionnaires_disease.toronto.htm
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=38
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1986272/pdf/brmedj02095-0015.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2136696?cookieSet=1
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001282/128291eo.pdf
http://www.robertfulford.com/PolPot.html
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/05/09/Poverty050509.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16667
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/36/2006_summit_minutes.pdf


Physical

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/
http://www.airnowdata.org/pmfine/latest.html
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/9/2/208?ck=nck
http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/coc/dbp.htm
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es9904944
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18353537
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=NB07093.pdf
http://www.sbg.ac.at/ipk/avstudio/pierofun/mexico/air.htm#Energy
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/btof/chap30.htm
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/30/2/141.full.pdf+html
http://books.google.ca/books?id=hmt1tFDdFqEC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=Smoking:+The+Cancer+Controversy,+Edinburgh:+Oliver+and+Boyd+1959,&source=web&ots=mANXS-gz7I&sig=rcolRTUf8s15FPKV2I24Qeu3mPo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Smoking%3A%20The%20Cancer%20Controversy%2C%20Edinburgh%3A%20Oliver%20and%20Boyd%201959%2C&f=false
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/89/21/1580?ijkey=2129c135a6371f4d43d948255a3701e320469b26
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497344/?tool=pubmed
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n4/v25n4-15.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2369279?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2254375?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ahf/1000138569-8597.html
http://books.google.ca/books?id=PCU0RwDI6c4C&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=low+cancer+rates+shorter+people&source=web&ots=sxVM_jI7Um&sig=7azy8S5qlJtXPeAmjZiud5ZHIYI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#v=onepage&q=low%20cancer%20rates%20shorter%20people&f=false

Buyer beware; Read the labels…

Public Health and the charities have been using discrimination of smokers for years, as an excuse for ignoring the cigarette itself as the largest potential of health risk reduction.

If the product were the focus, in place of the ideological and moralist scold. We would see broad support for regulations to reduce health risks by reducing the most suspect toxins involved. The dilution of focus entitled by the 4000 and now the 10,000 and likely the 100,000 said to be "toxins" is only self service to consensus capitulation to the most obvious flaws in the "harm reduction" strategy.

We know we can reduce the tobacco specific carcinogens and by significant amounts, reduction of carcinogens and PAH is seemingly a no brainer. If Public health at very least, advocated for moderation in reducing the number of cigarettes one smokes they could precariously lay claim to some form of credibility in relation to their goals and ambitions.

What we see in place of a campaign to encourage smokers to reduce consumption by eliminating the cigarettes you light involuntarily is a promotion of the extremes of addiction, which likely results in higher personal consumption, by the implanted "unquestionable truth", the evidence supports that with reduced exposures the health risks would decline significantly. What we can not see currently is any explanation of a failure to consistency, beyond a; "who cares if they die its their own fault" consensus. Justification is found in a perverse sense of an application of punishment and Penance for their sins, by medical prescription no less?

If we controlled the manufacturing process by regulation, to reduce NAK and PAH as a matter of law, which is done in countries which demand it already. The products are currently exhibiting reduced risk by reduced exposures. Integrity and humanity which respects basic human rights principles, would dictate that policy be aligned with science and observation and more fundamentally with common sense in the target of your advocacy which logically does not currently exist.

If the fear of toxins is the strength of your advocacy and exists as an effect increasing fear in the public; By refusing to follow best practices of reduced risk by reduced exposures to the named secondary toxin exposures, your whole platform which demands "smoking bans to protect employees" falls flat, in a logical sense, fundamentally because the increased risk being mitigated by smoking bans and the unavoidable bigotry which is occurring, is a fault only of those who are demanding those huge concessions and financial loss, associated with the extremes of smoking bans, as any sort of intelligent solution or community respect.

If nicotine is taken from tobacco it makes no logical sense that the carcinogens that exist in the products that contain that nicotine could have a reduced concentration of Tobacco specific carcinogens. The same carcinogens and at the same level they are found in cigarettes are also pre-existing in any product which contains nicotine. The only difference being; when you burn tobacco the carcinogens are reduced by the burning and in significant amounts. So to claim the levels in an e-cig or in the chewing gum or incredibly in chewing tobacco are "safer" caries with it an obscene level of delusion in observation and the realm of possibilities even available. When you combine that thought with a battle cry that "there is no safe level of tobacco smoke" the hypocrisies abound.

It is obvious, or at least it should be obvious, that the cancer societies collecting billions of dollars over the years with markedly little progress in producing the promised "cures", and now "defeat of cancer", would be at a distinct disadvantage, if cigarettes actually were made safer and the risk was reduced in measurable amounts. Those who oppose such a development rail against safer cigarettes with the simple minded claims that; if smokers believed they were using a safer product more people would smoke.

The only conclusion anyone can draw from all of this is that public health covets increased fear much more than it seeks to reduce those fears or any levels of risk, and financial conflicts stand as the only viable explanation, for their crimes demanding an increased mortality risk by bigotry, as we see being promoted by the public health mafia.

And what is the most popular phrase among “Public Health” Lobby groups and their benefactor Politicians, purchasing the creation of our concerns and fears, with our own money?

“Follow us on Twitter”?

This brings forth a vision of mindless sheep following the ever familiar ass in front, to wherever it leads.

When Doctors become preachers

You can lay the blame wherever you like, but the top risk factors for “smoking related diseases” remain; Doctors, Prescription Drugs and stress.

When doctors act as preachers in a healthiness bandwagon fashion such as we are experiencing now, people are subjected to undue stress. When they promote that personal worth is tied to health, the level of stress increases, especially among the largest demographic at the bottom end of the socioeconomic scale. When they move to spewing moral dictates and impose regressive sin taxes, that demographic will always suffer the most. When they drive large numbers of people out of social settings, depression and isolation increase the risks. When someone is forced to quit smoking they are going to gain weight and there is little doubt in that department, the chemical shift and not their own actions demands it.

Every move the irresponsible and greedy medical prophets have made to date has increased not only the risks, but the number of those who are at risk. Commensurate with the number exposed to their swill and snake oil.

The constant level of dread and remorse associated with their daily lobby group bombardment has depressed entire nations. Isn't it time we felt proud and happy in some small part of our existence. We need to ban the scolds and the emotional blackmailers from the air waves and release people from the imposed medical dread. Happy people have less health problems, protected people die after a tortured life which is unnecessarily shortened and diseased.

Bring back hanging and the stocks to remind them of their shame, the last time these pompous leeches and moralist scolds pulled this crap. A few more community social events could only suit the situation and what we need to be healthy again, without all the greed inspired tinkering and interference.

Here is my proposal for health care reform; yes we can...

Tax dollars from the MSA deal can be utilized for the purchase of State convoys of forty foot trailers filled with stocks and rotten vegetables.

The convoys would visit every town in the nation and community involvement would have the municipal residents armed with news clippings and political minutes as evidence of healthiness scold, the real health pandemic. To make citizens arrests of the perpetrators; in wellness centers, Charity offices, Universities, government offices, ad agencies and media outlets. With the accused to be treated to the confines of the stocks for a 24 hour period, while the people assisted with old fashioned picnic lunches and candy floss vendors, could be treated to a dose of healthy medicine, and a rejoining in a common cause, which could only enrich them all.

We could then do a Helena like, heart study and see the levels of hypertension, depression and heart attacks tumble, as pride in community in a sense of unity and mutual trust does its work, making the entire nation feel better after they cast aside the effects of perpetual scold and gloom.

Nine of ten people polled don't believe Environmental Tobacco Smoke [ETS] will cause them to suffer cancer. In fact you would be hard pressed to find anyone who seriously believes ETS would cause them harm at all, although it makes an excellent excuse to force people to smoke elsewhere.

One of the largest miscues the Tobacco Control [TC] bandwagon pulled off was to declare ETS [a multitude of products with no scientific description] as a class one carcinogen. In direct comparison there is a large expanse of difference, between ETS and the other toxins on the list. This political decision not only protects industries who produce the other toxins by lessening the traditional perception of harm, but the longer it remains on the list; the less confidence anyone will have in the integrity or credibility of the American scientific community.

How frightened can one be, when told that; something is carcinogenic, but who cares even cigarette smoke is a carcinogen. With the entire population exposed for so many years and cancers didn't really start to rise in large numbers among non-smokers, until the exposures declined in equal proportions. It almost makes sense to seek out carcinogens to protect yourself against cancers.

The Cancer societies now declare half of the entire population will experience Cancer during their lifetime. The claims of immanent risk have never been so dire, after close to a 60% reduction in smoker prevalence since 1960 the parallels are painting the inverse of the picture they claimed would be seen and have continued to claim for almost 50 years.

Daily we are told by the cancer societies and their numerous franchised and specialized charities, which all connect smoking as the most significant cause, the need for funding has never been greater.

The more "good news" we receive from people our protectors in Public Health institutions, the more bad news we receive from those who should be praising the effort and downsizing their operations, yet that is not what they are telling us. At what point will the Health scare moralists be demonstrating any effects, which could legitimize the huge expense they deliberately imposed on the hospitality industry or the rising level of promoted bigotry and the regressive taxation of our sins?

The more we are "protected" the greater is our risk. Looking back in the history books, which seems to be the trend we have always seen. Science seems to be failing at ever increasing rates, or perhaps what we are listening to, is not scientific at all. It does become difficult to distinguish between the modern label as "scientist" and the traditional label as a "preacher".

Hype is as Hype does;

This is interesting in a total population study ordered by the surgeon general in 1964 the numbers are quite interesting. Prior to the politicizing of cancer, long before most TC advocates of today were out of diapers yet.


Go to page 8 and look at the chart;

What was found first; was that former smokers had twice the mortality risks compared to current smokers.

The more startling result saw smokers of less than 11 cigarettes a day, were at decreased risk compared to both non smokers and the general population risk.


Similar findings were seen in the Whitehall studies exposing beyond lifestyle choices including smoking and obesity 60% of total increased mortality risk was seen as a result of stress. So how do you describe a smoker or an obese person? How many of them have you killed “prematurely” today?


By the numbers 160,000 Lung cancers annually of the 2.4 million total mortalities, is less than 1% so even if smoking caused them all, you eliminate less than 1% of the total mortalities. In 1960 with the same number of smokers we see today [USA 60 million] there were only 1/6th the number of Lung Cancers we see today [26,000] among 1/3 the population [100 million]. As we should understand, smoking is only a related disease factor, there are many and many reasons all people will die. Any death believed by one cause, would now be realized by another cause of death and at the end of the day, we would still have 2.4 million total mortalities every year so the predicted reduction is a wash.

The same could be observed of every other “smoker related” disease because death is inevitable. John Banzash of ASH and dozens of others involved in the rent seeking fraud and hate promotion, which is the Tobacco Control movement today, as a lawyer, he claims that we will save tens of billions in healthcare expenses, by eliminating smoking. This should be seen immediately as a huge lie and misrepresentation of the facts at hand, if any measure of common sense were applied, however the product brand advertising seems to have eliminated all trace of reason, replaced by confidence in self anointed "experts" which is being grossly abused.

All of the so called “smoking related” diseases will still exist after smoking is eliminated. Smokers only actually represent 20% of the population and a maximum of 20% of the annual mortalities, as expected and representative of any group. The Public Health nuts tell us only “half of smokers die of smoking related diseases” when you look at the list, of diseases discussed; that makes them pretty much normal and dying of those diseases in the same proportions as everyone else. It should be obvious the only way to save a healthcare dime would be to eliminate all the smokers by immediate mass executions, thus avoiding the unavoidable costs they will eventually produce, whether they smoke or not.

So if the savings of healthcare dollars is the Holy Grail, executions are the only way to achieve the goal. How much will we be loosing in future tax dollars after the smokers are executed?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that, without smokers [with the theft of cigarette taxes aside] income taxes and productivity lost would quickly be seen to dwarf the savings achieved.

So Tobacco Control and the Public Health cartel in general, represent; much to do about nothing and the Emperor has no clothes, in spite of what you may have been told.

BTW it should be broadly realized the real cost of healthcare is out of the consumers control, therefore cost is not tied to personal lifestyle choices, rather cost is predicted as a direct factor of longevity. Longer life creates the larger cost. There is no larger factor of deficit health outcomes than personal economy which suggests the lobby promotions [reflective of those who pay them]have been on the wrong track all along, causing more death and destruction than was ever necessary.

If you seek reduction in healthcare expenses, that can only be found in dealing with the gross profiteering of the vendors. Forcing them to tie profit to production costs with a more realistic mark-up than the traditional 2000-10,000% we allow them now. One wonders how much the economy and our standard of living would improve if all products listed the production costs on the label? A smoking patch had almost no development cost, and the cost of production in real dollars is around a nickel. Let the facts speak for a change and we will find more efficient and immediate means of achieving the goal of cost reductions, only by eliminating the current "experts" from the discussion.

We could by the solution of executing them, see huge and sustainable cost reductions, but that is an argument for another day, after the hype is exposed.

Evaluating “no safe level”

“No safe level” is not sufficient; this term provides no information, we have a right to know more.

They say; second hand smoke exhibits a health risk


I would argue the following;

"It should never be as simplistic as declaring "no safe level exists" to which every opponent with half an ounce of common sense will counter "there is no unsafe level" either. Predictably Health Departments and Globalist politicians, who front for the lobby groups they hire, use this term all the time. They attempt to hoodwink us with framework or sustainable development, never clearly explaining what they are constructing, making their point with a lack of evidence, or understanding, which parallels cult belief, much more than their claims to legitimate science.

Epidemiology after all measures what people recall which is heavily influenced by what they believe so in fact what is measured is not risk but belief. They admit to ignorance themselves, in using the “no safe level” terminology. The large Whitehall studies both confirmed stress is the largest risk factor with obesity, smoking and all other major factors combined you can only account for a 40% offset, compared to a 60% factor presented by increased chronic stress. Stress such as that provided in the so called “public health” messages. A tremendously larger danger is invented by these bandwagon and profit bearing messages, than ever existed in the smell of a little cigarette smoke. In simplistic terms if you can not afford to live the high life demonstrated in beer commercials, you will die much sooner than those who can. The stress you apply to achieving that life while the cards are stacked significantly against you will kill you 3 times as often as smoking [Whitehall]. And at worst case 30,000 times as often, as the faint risk your demise would be caused by second hand smoke. Follow along and I will prove it.

The epidemiological research they use to package the fears implies you can define a risk and simply assume all the other risk factors, which make this risk believable, are in place and universal in total population. Meaning everyone is fat and lazy everyone has high blood pressure and afflicted by the list of thousands of other factors, which allow the risk to be a risk at all, a condition which describes everyone at all times. They then apportion offsets or confounders, and declare their identified risk is what remains to elevate our fears.

Otherwise if they studied only those at risk, of actually dying from ETS exposures; their risk factor would be so small even if you legitimately applied it to the population at risk or as they do the population as a whole, you couldn't find a single body, by calculation or prognosis. In the real world they haven’t found one yet.

By embellishing the dangers of "no safe ETS" you increase the general population’s health risk, among both the smokers, being forced to quit, but with a much larger potential for disaster, by a larger degree of stress invented among the general public, as the targets of these ads, people who don't smoke. People who might be exposed at one time or another, who are being forced to live with un-necessary fears and elevated levels of stress, not supported by the science. By this fear we have divided communities and declared some people are more important than others, by healthiest caste designations. Smokers cost “x” fat people cost “y” alcoholics cost “z”, pretty much any personal choice or activity when observed as excess, can rate your cost and net worth to governments, allowing advertisements with your own tax money to invigorate the levels of societal rage against you. Once they told us they sought the “cures” today it is all about laying the blame, to mask failure.
We need to do the work and find out if this ETS stuff is safe or not.

The lobbies should be told to do the work first, and demonstrate a reason to fear, in place of resting on ignorance, providing irresponsible promotions, inciting rage and hatred, as the only foundation for all of their arguments. You could then point out "no safe" nonsense, [which is an unknown in scientific perspectives], creates an accumulation of 4000 or 400,000 pages of ignorance delivered to decision makers by the so called “charity groups” as the political arguments they will be presenting in their defense of anti autonomy principles which delineate our most basic rights. [Increasing stress once again]


Whitehall;


From WIKI;


No safe?


“The right to health relevant information derives from the principles of autonomy and self direction and has been recognized in international declarations. Providing accurate health information is part of the basis for obtaining "informed consent" and is a recognized component of business ethics, safety communications, and case and product liability law.”



Related data for consideration;

Socialized theory and advocacy; A lack of information [fear of the unknown] resides as the best case for any healthism proposal, to adjust either social order or individual behaviors.


Mitigation of risk for smokers to a level no risk, is apparent after cessation; leading to the truth, the risk is mitigated over time and time dependent. Epidemiology is limited in its scope to provide useful evidence for policy making, because it can only produce a measure which demonstrates an instant in time. This denotes a rule being ignored by the lobbies, which demands a test of time line before a theory can be considered significant or relevant. By the massive reductions of both second hand smoke and smoking prevalence, but not the true number of smokers which has remained stable over the past fifty years. Observing the six fold increase of virtually every so called smoking related disease, we have to view all presentations by this process of estimations, with extreme caution.


The maximum risk in worse case scenarios; for maximum levels at a maximum continuous duration of second hand smoke, demonstrates a non significant health risk which remains controversial if a risk is evident at all [1.19] . By regressive modeling of all the selected research which indicated increased risk; the chart indicates a level 1000 times below the level of risk for active smoking of 25 cigarettes a day. For an exposure to second hand smoke at worst case the risk resides below 10% of even that risk well below 10,000 times that of active smoking, which is well below the 5% level accepted for tolerance or error in the calculations hence “no safe” and “no unsafe” level of risk. By the knowledge demonstrated in the research that time mitigates all risk of smoking, we can say with confidence any exposure risk to second hand smoke, would be sufficiently mitigated long before the next exposure occurs, therefore to the general public there is no demonstrable level of increased risk and “no safe level” remains non informative.

From the same study the risk of worst case at 1.16, bias is increased by elimination of ETS exposure bias, for the comparative group, without an identical elimination which should be warranted for the study group; creating a false impression, the maximum “risk” resides by accumulation of all statistical evidence in the 1.24 range. Even by accepting these formulations, the risk of casual exposures is reduced by 10% at minimum, seen to be at 1.024 or one half the allowance for error with a 95% confidence interval [1.05] and as we can see less than 10,000 times below the lifetime risks of active smoking. If as Doll predicted and no one has disputed; the risks of smoking can be successfully mitigated ten years after cessation to a level equal to that seen in the general population. The risk by a factor 10,000 times lower should be mitigated in a time frame 10,000 times as efficiently. By calculation 1000 times a year or .365 days [roughly 8 hours] which coincides with the mitigation of all suspected toxins found in the smoke and measures of blood quantities over time, regardless of bio marker utilized to gauge the levels of toxins by exposures among non smokers.


By comparison the “clean air” demanded by lobbies who seek smoker free spaces by advertisements claiming elimination of cigarette smoke would produce clean air. The inescapable risk of that clean air is much more deadly than any semblance of increased risk, which exists in ETS exposure which could be measured by credible scientific methods. The advocacy for smoker free fear promotions, works as a placebo treatment for an imagined disease, this increases the real risk, of all other pollution risks which are minimized seriously by lobby and political promotions, taking our focus away from what really does us harm.


The Oil companies and their conflicted statisticians don’t like the numbers, but there they are, and by rough calculation if you apply the risk to those actually at risk for direct comparison, the six cities studies might well have proved, primary smoking is far from the largest cause of lung cancers, heart and cardiovascular disease. While we are so absolutely focused on second hand and soon third hand smoke?

“In their recent article, Laden and colleagues have added 8 more years of follow-up to the Harvard Six Cities study of air pollution and mortality (1). They suggested that total mortality, as well as mortality for cardiovascular disease and lung cancer, were associated with ambient fine particulate air pollution (PM2.5), and that the results were consistent with other cohort studies.”

“The overall effect estimate of 1.16 for the total follow-up is based on a linear model. The model is incorrect and overestimates risk since the relationship is not linear, as observed when the data are plotted”

Sounds like tobacco industry execs are not the only execs; living in denial while selling us poison.

“Conflict of Interest Statement: J.F.G. is retired from full-time employment with ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc. M.J.N. is currently employed full time by ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc.”