Somehow the following passage seems to indicate C.S. Lewis had an incredible eye for the future, or more likely learned well the mistakes of the past.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victim 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 our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis. "
Recent research studies[1][2][30] describe the political nature of “healthcare advocacy”, a method of creating need through artificial fears, with the only acceptable solution to those fears in hand, primarily involving huge government expenditures[35], in effect a license to steal from the public purse. In reality the goal of the advocacy from the start. Much more dangerous to population risk is the political nature and growing credibility of the junk science[38] they produce. The efficiencies found in use of ad agencies[3] to produce compelling media reports which dominate discussions and indeed recreate public opinion, is a matter which is urgently in need of public scrutiny. Health Canada over the past decade was transformed into a political voice[7][37]which has already been seen to be detrimental to public health and a failure in it’s purpose and legislated mandate.[6]
The inability of Health Canada to investigate public Health concerns in a timely fashion precipitated the use of information from outside sources as outlined in the audit[6] adoption of borrowed science demanded the acceptance of the politics of it’s sources. Today the sum of Health Canada knowledge is a reflection primarily of American ad agency directives. The under reported CSPI lobby group[31] scandal which brought us to the Pan Canadian Strategy adaptation[], will soon have us paying exorbitant prices for traditional fare, while industries who promote healthy food as yet undefined will enjoy 300% tax credits for advertising healthy food they produce. Forced political subservience[28] across all party lines to new policies through political correctness extortion tactics leaves little room for balanced discussion and undermines the very essence of democratic process. That being the ability to debate freely without interference all issues and form opinions based in the most compelling arguments which suit the greater public good.
Credibility up in smoke; defining legitimate objectives
Environmental tobacco smoke as a prime example of the effectiveness of media campaigns and should be a warning to all, of the relative ease with which public opinion can be controlled. Examples of the effectiveness of these agency campaigns can be found in the agency advertising literature.[4][5][14] [16]Well heeled Public Health groups who for the most part are staffed by individuals with little or no training in medical or scientific fields. Successful advocates require intimate knowledge of media manipulation. Lobbies currently deliver the lion’s share of scientific knowledge the public is allowed to consume. In most cases when non randomized studies[8] are reported the methods are not revealed, or is it common knowledge the differences between methodology and result found when assessing personal potential risks. Although this contravenes the basic human right to health relevant information[9][12], regulatory bodies continue to ignore human rights violations[22]. Indeed the Federal Government departments openly promote such activities.[10][11][13] Agencies promote denormalization of industries however in actual practice the product users or their environments remain the only planned target[15] Little affect is seen in repercussions to the tobacco industry targeted, unless you count the steadily rising stock values as lobbying increases the value of the product sold[36]. Penalties, settlements. lost sales and legal fees are all swiftly passed along to the consumer.
So many advocates so little compassion; Greed buys a lot of concerned warriors
If health promotion were in fact the “Healthcare” objective, simple regulation could have the potential of reducing significant risk[24][25] Suggestions of this nature have been met with enthusiastic opposition citing futility in the face of an impossible level of safety. A level of risk which has been allowed to increase with lowered trade restrictions and little scrutiny of the primary carcinogens touted as the most prevalent danger of smoking. The levels of NNN and NNK vary as much as 90%, levels are known to be controlled by the manufacturers. Yet incredibly Government agencies have never asked them to control those limits to protect the general population.
The products of; phosphorous soil conditions and Fertilizers [Mentioned often by Glanz in his tirades some tobacco contains radioactive isotopes or radon daughters one of his favorite assertions. His awareness of the cause of the radiation has never motivated him to suggest regulations to eliminate the problem, either in Tobacco or other consumed organics. So much for the perception of concerned humanitarian motivation[41]] and most significantly in the selection of tobacco plant varieties, the use of leaves only, as opposed to use of roots and stems. Curing processes now all but abandoned in Canada were effective in reduction of 90% of histamines. Unrestricted tobacco is now reclassified as equal risk to regulated products in simplistic “no safe level exists” promotions despite Biological research, above the designer calculations, has consistently proven the significant correlations and reproducible measurements[26],
Real science has been ignored for fear someone may believe safer cigarettes are possible, reducing the fears of advocacy with their adoption. This of course would also remove all fear of possible harm in ETS in the same effort[42]. A state of public fear is apparently an acceptable government approved condition. The lobbies certainly lost little sleep in it’s creation. Current smokers are at increased risk due to failures to bring forth regulation of a known unsafe product or in an effort to reduce lung disease. The use of alternate cheap smokeless replacement products which are available would be highly beneficial. The assertion Second hand or environmental tobacco smoke is a threat to hospitality workers is enhanced in kind by a failure to protect population in an effective way. The obvious promotions of taxation and fines for non compliance appear to be much more motivational than actually protecting the health and reducing of fear, hatred or inspired violence in the general population.
Coercion and how it could affect you
The following passage describes a crime,
A description not unlike the media campaigns we are subjected to daily, financed with the public purse.[28]
How does Coercive Psychological Persuasion Differ from Other Kinds of Influence?
“Coercive psychological systems are distinguished from benign social learning or peaceful persuasion by the specific conditions under which they are conducted. These conditions include the type and number of coercive psychological tactics used, the severity of environmental and interpersonal manipulation, and the amount of psychological force employed to suppress particular unwanted behaviors and to train desired behaviors.
Coercive force is traditionally visualized in physical terms. In this form it is easily definable, clear-cut and unambiguous. Coercive psychological force unfortunately has not been so easy to see and define. The law has been ahead of the physical sciences in that it has allowed that coercion need not involve physical force. It has recognized that an individual can be threatened and coerced psychologically by what he or she perceives to be dangerous, not necessarily by that which is dangerous.
Law has recognized that even the threatened action need not be physical. Threats of economic loss, social ostracism and ridicule, among other things, are all recognized by law, in varying contexts, as coercive psychological forces.”
Why are Coercive Psychological Systems Harmful?
“Coercive psychological systems violate our most fundamental concepts of basic human rights. They violate rights of individuals that are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and affirmed by many declarations of principle worldwide.”
“By confusing, intimidating and silencing their victims, those who profit from these systems evade exposure and prosecution for actions recognized as harmful and which are illegal in most countries such as: fraud, false imprisonment, undue influence, involuntary servitude, intentional infliction of emotional distress, outrageous conduct and other tortuous acts.”
Have you fallen for the spin? Conned like the rest of us.
How many times have you heard a story broadcast beginning with
"The World Health organization predicts by the year 2020...[Insert disease and pestilence exaggerate at will, always look extremely concerned]"
Your not alone if you think this sounds familiar. Similar preparations are being replicated around the globe. Listening to foreign news reports is amusing when you hear the bylines they plug in. [Amputations caused by second hand smoke is very popular in Europe.]
Few, when listening to the evening news or the 15 minute spools broadcast 24-7 on so called news networks, stop to consider the source of the information being broadcast. Nor are they able to ascertain which articles are legitimate news and which originate as paid advertising campaigns. In contrast skilled practitioners who approach science with an open mind and form conclusions post experimentation, are largely dismissed when not producing information which compliments the political pre-determined view. Tax sheltered funds in American charity foundations are currently controlling trillions in liquid assets[32]. Enough to end starvation world wide if they so wished. Charity begins at home is a scandalous reality which exists in some of the largest corporations on the planet and the philanthropy groups they control. Many due to media supplanted realities fail to realize this is in fact our money. For decades the general population has paid a disproportionate share of taxation which subsidized the creation of these huge funds. The obscenity of using the same funds to take large sums from the taxation purse and manipulate stock markets to fuel inflation is unconscionable If you must advocate, demand politicians commence with the nationalization of those funds to feed the poor to buy books and infrastructure more importantly to eliminate personal taxation which was never needed and certainly no longer required in a balancing of the books. The efficiency of advertising with little restriction has grown a political behemoth which may already be beyond our power to control as demonstrated in difficulties prosecuting large industries such as Enron, Microsoft and the ongoing investigation of the Oil for food program at the UN.
Lobbies are instructed by such self serving industry interests as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation[18]
To make use of real media events advocacy promoting the exception as the rule. How else could we form an opinion as the current public believes smoking patches and gum are acceptable replacements for tobacco smoking? whereas Snu or chewing tobacco essentially identical competing products are unacceptable. The difference in products remains in the labeling and the considerably generous price charged for the former so called cessation devices. The use of child mortalities in SAMMEC research[19][17] funded by the same groups[20][23] as a tool of coercion[28], speaks volumes as to how dedicated and irresponsible these industrial lobbies have become.
Research has shown consistently patches and gum are ineffective in use as cessation devices, despite this the products are advertised through government agencies and paid policy promotions as viable alternatives to assist a smoker in quitting. The only substantially proven successful method of quitting remains through personal will power, cold turkey. Political leaders have been given the idea and many have voiced it; restricting a smoker from use of the smoked type of delivery systems is not cruel or inhuman when flying on an airplane or in a movie theatre because the gum and patch replacements can be used short term to alleviate the cravings.
WHO is in favor of giving the smokers another kick?
Advocates find credibility in large health related institutions and in political statements originating at the World Health organization.[21] Healthcare is a deceptive term having little to do with population health or the care of others. Medical research and the application of medicine have been deceptively co-opted as public perception would agree. In fact Healthcare has little to do with your health more honestly describing a tending of the public psyche in an effort to exert control by a minority over the majority who should be in control in a democratic state. Healthcare is based in fear and intimidation applied liberally. Success is highly dependant on inspiring intolerance and misdirection. Intolerance is in fact an employment prerequisite the most successful in the field are those with the lowest respect of integrity or compassion of their fellows. Much like the dog eat dog world always associated with other advertising agencies. Healthcare can more realistically be seen as a force of control through intimidation and inspired fears in manipulating it’s victims. The World Health Organization states; “Health is defined in WHO's Constitution as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”[30] Permanent charitable institutions as of late have found donations and media popularity are much improved in adoption of advocacy roles, abandoning the role as promoters of physical research, in favor of self promotion and in collaborating with coercive industry sponsored advocacy campaigns.
The Foley of the Kyoto accord falls squarely into this category. Promoted as the saving grace and the only option available in protection of our environment. What those in the general public convinced of the virtues in Kyoto do not realize are the eventual repercussions of such a plan. Industries including Power plants which burn coal, Metal refineries, Oil and Petro chemicals industries who produce the bulk of toxins in our environment can all pay for a free pass to continue; business as usual, while our environment continues to deteriorate. The cost of those credits are simply to be passed along to consumers who will suffer a double edged assault. Increased costs will deteriorate an already struggling standard of living in North America. In addition to the increased costs directly in the products produced and indirectly when the products are used to produce other products. The financial toll of poverty shortened lower quality lives inspires cost beyond reason. How do you quantify deliberate mortality and morbidity cost, when the media sponsors have already painted the victims as solely responsible for such eventualities. When the government is finally forced to step in and clean up an ecological mess at additional cost, once again the price will be passed along to the same consumers. Large polluting industries applaud the exaggeration of smoking risk in media advocacy, in order to avoid the human health responsibility now believed to be caused by smoking alone.
Science versus Politics
The idea of use of epidemiology calculations[48] to substantiate political cause is anything but unique. The many references to Hitler’s use of epidemiology research to legitimize his own Healthcare movement is described in a book by Robert Proctor[27]. A well known anti smoking advocate who was given an award by the medical community for his research on the subject. It can be safely assumed many of the parallels we see today in connection with smoking ban promotion[43], Fat pandemics and other advocacy strategies found their roots in the same methodology.
Fascism was after all defined by Mussolini as an industrial socialism. founded in leftist socialist doctorate primarily with the most popular of right wing ideology adapted as well. [we know it as politically correct, how many of us really think about who really defines the “correct”?] A centrist positioning as a swastika signifies a spinning scythe drawing both camps to the center. Political science divides left and right and always avoids the center a place which traditionally indicated failure to define a political position. The narrowing of positioning allows an opponent to adapt any opponent’s position as a policy objective.
Former Prime Minister Paul Martin was able to define Liberal party policy according to the daily poll results this allowed a continued public support despite many actions behind the scenes which the public would not accept under normal circumstances. Personal attacks of all opponents are indicative of a floating position with no credible argument to counter credible positions. The hate George Bush or American ideals strategy has garnered many allies while at the same time and never reported in the media, the party was heavily involved in complete adherence to American politics in support of globalist positioning. Over the past decade consumer protections, national product safety standards and reasonable access to the courts along with a number of other obstructions to free trade have been eliminated to the detriment of all. Still the concentrated media groups protected the status quo along with their own greatly enhanced bottom line, controlled media voices made excuses for a corrupt government party caught stealing millions from the public purse. While savaging the only viable political option with again personal attacks not related to government business much more related to personal appearance.
Defining a deadly carcinogen
The validity of second hand smoke as a deadly carcinogen is almost laughable were it not for the extreme measures taken in advocacy to create such an unlikely scenario and give it validity. The plausibility of protecting hospitality workers by implementing bans goes well beyond the limits of science and common sense[49]. Biological and timeline observations bear this out. With more than a 50% reduction in smokers as a percentage of population since 1960 and quoting the American Surgeon General an 80% reduction in exposures along with substantial innovations in medical technology over 45 years we saw no substantial reductions in mortality or morbidity in so called smoking related disease categories. The 50% increase in population base should have grown a proportional 50% increase in disease the aging of a baby boom generation and the disease categories most likely to affect most in the declining years is a much more significant indicator of disease categories when considering all perspectives; the numbers show huge reductions in primary smoking actually had little or no effect on the deceptively labeled “smoking related” disease categories. The real effects of primary smoking remain a mystery for the most part in biological assay and over 50 years of research, although the determinants mentioned previously in selection of products and regulation in the production stage could eliminate in large part the levels of disease we can identify. In comparison to the six cities study and follow-up; environmental tobacco smoke can be seen to have little if any credible effect. Surely no effect which can be accurately calculated or measured. Remaining well beyond current scientific abilities and certainly beyond the resources of ad agency spin doctors who currently drive our opinions.
The assignment of media based indoor air quality standards and particulate measurements limited to nanograms[billionths of a gram] per cubic meter of air and Picograms[Trillionths of a gram] per cubic meter of air. [Normally in hazardous material measurements, a timeline is also expressed, this component has inexplicably been eliminated] Ridiculous and unsubstantiated standards promoted to eliminate a co-operative ventilation solution allowing enclosed smoking areas. By comparison; when setting particulate matter outdoor standards 20-30 micrograms[millionths of a gram] per cubic meter measurements in outdoor air, none of us can avoid, are said to be safe. The US EPA refuses to reduce particulate acceptable levels significantly, despite the science[34] which demonstrated mortality reductions paralleling particulate reductions along with a 25% real mortality and hospital admissions increase, in so called “smoking related disease categories” in more compared to least polluted cities. It seems reasonable if indoor air quality is to be maintained at levels hundreds of thousands to millions of times lower than outdoor air quality; banning smoking would have less of an effect than sealing windows and doors perhaps bans would be more appropriately aimed in that direction. Could we fine anyone who opened a door or window following the logic of the radicals. All these years we have been opening windows and ventilating to reduce smoke levels when all the time, risk was significantly increased by allowing much higher concentrations of outdoor particulate to enter a room.
5000 deadly ingredients, how may safe ingredients were found?
In a “poison is in the a dose” reality,
all of them are known to be safe at the levels found.[33]
It is said the smoke which has never been categorized or properly identified contains 5000 deadly ingredients however the majority of the list of deadly ingredients seems to be missing[50]. In a recent email a representative of Physicians for a smoke free Canada, explained the list is a result of a spectral analysis done years ago which identified the number of ingredients but not specifically what they were. Since all elements are toxic in quantity apparently it seemed fair to state they were all deadly. Another member of this group Neil Dollywood[45] was formerly with Health Canada and later was assigned to the World Health Organization when they completed major research into the effects of environmental tobacco smoke[46]. The insignificant findings did not deter his obsessive dedication[44]. To this day he swears a significant risk exists, which was not reflected in the substantial W.H.O. research[39]. The research actually showed a negative or curative effect among children exposed to tobacco smoke which exceeded the level of a slight positive correlation in spousal exposure combined with employment exposure. The child results were described as insignificant and the spousal exposures although insignificant as well are to this day described in the news as proof of an increased risk[40].
Insignificant in real terms means either result could easily be reversed and statistically has no meaning in drawing conclusions of risk[47]. The new lowered standards in assuming risk opened the flood gates to legitimizing similar inconclusive evidence allowing thousands of similarly flawed or inconclusive research studies to be reported in ad agency terms as a cannon of proof in the deadly effects of second hand smoke. The fact physically this has absolutely no merit did not stand in the way of cowardly politicians caving to media pressures and the introduction of smoking bans around the globe. Bans implemented in answer to a signed agreement at the W.H.O. created prior to the cannon of so called science which promoted it. How many in the general public are aware of the real danger which exists at every self serve gas bar. The known safe level of Benzene is well beyond known safe limits and known to cause Cancer[33] yet a level thousands of times beyond known safe limits is permitted throughout North America. The danger far exceeds the dangers of not only Environmental tobacco smoke but primary smoking as well. Generally we believe the smell of gasoline or diesel fuel is harmless when in fact if you know what either smells like you may have exceeded the known safe dose. This will often not be realized for decades, when you fall prey to of course a “smoking related disease”. How many mothers think little of sitting at a bus or train station with their children never realizing the harm. Do you have an air miles card in your wallet? Jet fuel is substantially more dangerous yet Healthcare advocates so concerned with your welfare seem to be asleep at the switch. Who will protect airline passengers and employees in the future? The first “public health” group who figures out how to profit from the advocacy will have us all grounded.
This article from the UK describing a book by the former editor of the British medical Journal makes my point:[29]
Medical Journals Slammed By Former Editor
Tuesday, 19th September 2006, 07:57Category: Healthy Living
Medical journals have become "creatures of the drug industry" rife with fraudulent research and packed with articles ghost written by pharmaceutical companies, an ex British Medical Journal editor has claimed. In a highly critical book Dr Richard Smith, who edited the BMJ for 13 years, said: "Medical journals have many problems and need reform. The research they contain is hard to interpret and prone to bias and peer review. The process at the heart of journals and all of science, is deeply flawed." Dr Smith, author of a new book entitled 'The Trouble with Medical Journals' and now chief executive of United Healthcare Europe, said the book was an honest analysis of trends in medical journal publishing and a frank account of his own experiences as editor of the BMJ. He said: "It is increasingly apparent that many of the studies journals contain are fraudulent, and the scientific community has not responded adequately to the problem of fraud."He added: "I went away to Venice to write this book and I was rather taken aback by how negatively it turned out. When I put together all the evidence on journals I was surprised by the extent of the problems." Dr Smith went on: "Medical journals have increasingly become creatures of the drug industry. The authors of studies in journals have often had little do with the work they are reporting."The use of ghost writers by pharmaceutical companies is rampant and many studies have conflicts of interest that are not declared." He estimates that research fraud is probably common in the 30,000 or so scientific journals published throughout the world.The book, published by the Royal Society of Medicine Press, cites a number of dramatic cases of questionable research including Dr Andrew Wakefield's MMR paper published in the Lancet in 1998 that cast doubts on the safety of the triple vaccine which protects against measles, mumps and rubella. The same journal published a study six years later concluding there was no evidence to support a link between MMR and autism.Dr Smith says a study funded by Vioxx maker Merck and Co and published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2000 failed to mention that three patients suffered heart attacks while using the now withdrawn painkiller. And earlier this year, South Korean human cloning pioneer Hwang Woo-suk was fired from his professorship at Seoul National University following allegations he faked some of his research. The Trouble with Medical Journals examines the important relationships between journals and patients, the mass media, pharmaceutical companies, open access and the developing world. Dr Kamran Abbasi, editor of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, said: "Medical journals influence policy makers, doctors, and ultimately patient care, the best example is the MMR crisis. Richard Smith's book tells it like it is and the truth hurts — money can corrupt science and medical research." Matthew Worrall, of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said they took research fraud "very seriously indeed."He said: "We support the need for quality peer-reviewed journals and the full publication of trial results. Last year there was an international agreement for clinical trial registrations so all trials would be registered and not only those that made it into medical journals. "We have a stringent code of practice and are the leading detector of research fraud. In the last five years we have taken more cases to the General Medical Council than anyone else."Dr Smith worked for the BMJ for 25 years, and was editor and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group between 1991 and 2004
Research
1] Silencing science: PDF
2] http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/defense.html
3] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/marketsoc/index_e.html
4] http://www.cmpmedia.com/resources/res_whitepapers_main.jhtml
5] http://www.dna13.com/about_library.html
6] http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/c903ce.html#0.2.2Z141Z1.NBS3AG.68WQBF.V
7] http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/vs-sb/voluntarysector/voice/#snav
8] http://www.hta.ac.uk/execsumm/summ727.htm
9] Not safe" is not enough
10] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/tobac-tabac/media/tidc-cdit_e.html
11] http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/vs-sb/voluntarysector/publications/national_inventory/index.html
12] http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/14/suppl_2/ii38
13] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/marketsoc/socmar-hcsc/tobacco-tabac_e.html
14] http://www.cigi05.org/news/warm_reception/
15] http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/06/smokefree_womb.shtml
16] http://www.grassroots.com/;jsessionid=VRF33EGZRKHX0CQQPABCFEY
17] http://www.whsc.emory.edu/_releases/2002april/smoking_costs.html
18] http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/08/rwjf-actual-local-smoking-ban-grants.html
19] http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/20-3/b_e.html
20] http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sammec/overview.asp
21] http://www.who.int/hia/en/
22] http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1445
23] http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/BMSG_AccelerationReport.pdf
24] Tobacco-specific nitrosamines in European and USA cigarettes.
25] http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/20/1/133
26] Tobacco-specific nitrosamines
27] http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html
28] http://www.factnet.org/coercivemindcontrol.html
29] http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=RO1929177J
30] http://www.who.int/about/en/
31] http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/13
32] http://www.activistcash.com/index_foundations.cfm
33] http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/
34] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press03152006.html
35] 35 Billion Dollar expenditure
36] Phillip Morris company
37] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/marketsoc/whatis-qui_e.html
38] http://www.junkscience.com/news/sws/sws-introduction.html
39] http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
40] http://cantiloper.tripod.com/canti2.html
41] http://www.antibrains.com/
42] http://www.thetruthisalie.com/
43] http://www.davehitt.com/nov02/nicotine.html
44] http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110002624
45] http://www.davehitt.com/may99/modest.html
46] http://www.davehitt.com/toc.htm
47] http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html
48] http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/collections/epidem/epid.shtml
49] http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/9/1/95
50] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tobac-tabac/legislation/reg/indust/index_e.html
