The Pros and Cons

Road rage


Road rage is a competition between two dictators. Public Health Intervention is built on the same foundation. Do as I demand or I will make you pay for your insolence and disrespect.


Insanity on the road begins with a thoughtless act, inviting another in a series of escalations between two ballooning egos to a point of insanity, which more often than not ends in tragic consequences. We can see the same predicament rising out of competing self-interests who describe themselves as Public Health stakeholders, demanding legislation so that their paying clients may be punished and criminalized, for not following the Doctor’s orders. Personal health and it’s vested interest starts and ends with an individual, to the chagrin of many pumped up lobooist roosters, who dare to steal that right, as though it were their own. Autonomous authority is once more under attack by well-financed dictators and con men who conspire to depreciate all of us, along with our right of authority.


How did we allow ourselves to loose so much and walk away from our basic rights without a murmur? The answer to that question is multifaceted, the most significant reasons fall within deceptions apathy and allowing ourselves to believe we need to be mothered, in place of standing on our own. Communities have lost their moral compass, their connectivity and all sense of confidence. As protected sheep we now line up for the slaughter. In the majority, we are referred to as human capitol a term taken well beyond a figurative context. The livestock raised with a single perspective, of cost versus profit analysis. The slaves of the Industrialists who have captured us all once again.


I believe the statisticians who create “science to order” which has empowered the irresponsible fear mongers who dare to call themselves “scientists”, “Doctors” and “professionals” have had it all delivered “their way” for far too long. The lies and exaggerations have grown too large to sustain and the costs to all of us have grown far too extreme.

So as my contribution to setting things right I have decided to expose them for the frauds and opportunists they really are.

Smoking related diseases.

We have been told many times and in many ways, that “smokers” cost the rest of us huge health and productivity costs. The rally cries of “ending premature mortality and morbidity” as you will soon see, is delusional and poorly considered. It is said “smoking related diseases cause 450,000 premature mortalities annually” and this is seen by many as shocking and unacceptable. Closer examination reveals, this is actually quite normal and a fortunate event [It could be a lot worse] if the figure is legitimate

[Research tells me, you cannot actually trust anything you are being told, so I allow Public Health lobbies nothing any more]

First, we have to consider the rush hour on the way to and from work. If everyone started work at Eight AM and finished at Four Thirty PM, the roads would be understandably overcrowded twice a day. Many years ago, people realized if we rotate start schedules; between Seven AM and every half hour up to Nine AM, we could reduce the congestion on the road by upwards of eighty per cent, both coming and going.

Now consider in nature how well balanced the variety of species have evolved. If insect eating birds are too plentiful, insects would become extinct and with them the birds which eat them. Balance plays a part in many aspects, which allowed the survival of both the birds and the insects, who have other roles to play. For most species of the most plentiful birds, who have multiple offspring, as luck would have it they also have shortened life spans. Insects that reproduce by the hundreds in one egg sac have a lifespan sometimes of only a few months. If we tampered with the cycles, we may end up fighting for our own survival standing in three feet of bird guano, which would have covered the planet thousands of years ago, without the natural balance seen in nature.

Today in the industrialized countries, the average lifespan of a human being is somewhat close to seventy years of age. Meaning for every one million people we should expect to see .7% or 7000 people dying each year offset by 1.3% or 13,000 being born every year.

The average population today can be forecasted into the future, if the maximum lifespan is considered to be 100 years;

[[[number born plus the number of deaths] divided by half] times 100], will maintain a balanced population at the current growth pattern.


This sounds strange at first glance until you realize the lifespan of a human varies, and if we eliminated all causes aside from age, we should see, a distribution which is consistent and which results in the approximate and normal numbers we see in mortality and morbidity figures today; even with a fast growing population offset by an aging population.

An average lifespan of seventy years means half will die before seventy and half after. If as we are told; smoking shortens a life by ten years and as we know smoking has been around for many more than ten years, our mortality numbers have found a balance point in exit numbers.

If we have a 320 million population which includes 20% [64 million] to 30% [96 million] current, and 60% [192 million] ever smokers. We should see, by multiplying 64 million by .7%, an expected mortality number of 448,000 smokers dying every year, regardless of smoking with no expectation of a reduced lifespan, which is quite likely, exactly where the 450,000 figure originated.

I have questioned the “Professionals” for a few years now, asking if we have the same number of smokers today, as we had fifty years ago, how is it; the smoking related, or smoking caused, disease figures continue to grow? Lung cancers for instance which are believed to be primarily caused by tobacco use have increased six fold and heart diseases have grown in similar proportions. There is an obvious reluctance to answer, because an explanation would reveal their slight of hand, when making other more insidious claims.

The number of those who use cigarettes and the consistency can be confirmed by calculating prevalence versus total population quite easily. In the United States close to 55 Million people, using cigarettes has been consistent. Despite what the medical community has been telling you, in use of prevalence figures to deliberately create a bigoted misconception, they have obviously taken every advantage of.

They are coning the politicians and the public into believing disease management reduces the cost of healthcare, when we all should understand it never could. At a time such as this with a huge population bubble moving into old age, the bubble would only be increased, exaggerating the financial problem tremendously. The reality is, if disease management is 100% successful and all of us give up our sinful ways; If living fast and dying young falls out of fashion over night, we are all doomed to witness a painful disaster.

If the average life expectancy is suddenly increased from 70 to 100 years of age, the increased costs of health care would rise by 30 percent as a compounding figure [like the interest on your mortgage] over the next 30 years. The resulting effect of the new numbers, with over 60% of the population over 65 years of age would cause catastrophic global depression [Along with a severe hatred of the elderly] Even if that problem was solved, in a mere three generations at the current rate of growth, we would have a person standing on every square meter of ground on the planet. Of course the possibility of that happening, would be reduced by the length of time food was available, the population was held back from slaughtering each other, or by the increased risk of plague which rises [in potential deaths and potential incidence] right along side of the population increase [Mother nature looking after the balance as usual]


Global Warming

The hockey stick of computer modeling precludes the actuality of physical realities which should be obvious to anyone with an unbiased iota of intelligence. Carbon gasses cause a heating of the environment The glaciers melt. Science tells me water expands when it freezes so water lines would receded not expand as Al Gore contends in his version of fear-mongered events. If the environment increased in temperature, the increase of evaporation rates of water would also occur meaning more clouds less sun on the earth and as more rain occurred the carbon and carbon gases, would return to earth with the heavy rain as temperatures declined. Of course, moderated temperatures would result in global cooling, for a period well capable of replenishing the ice caps at the poles and once again, Mother Nature rules, with moderation once again.

Fat pandemics

Similar to Second hand smoke inspired power grabs describing obesity as a contagious disease, fashioned after taxing addictions, we now find the moral obligation by and for governments, to tax our eating habits toward the 1984-styled common gruel. A common pot of Communism, with paternalists competing on their soap boxes, for control of the ladle and what little remains in our wallets.

Cult over State.

Perhaps it makes some people feel a little better about them selves if they can dismiss all those around them as just a bunch of drug addicts and gluttons.

The question has to be; would they feel as confident as they do, in categorizing and discriminating against others, had the Government and the medical institutions not given their blessing and deliberately promoted an encouragement to divide us?

When Industry through their Lobooists [Fear mongered advocacy] advertising, dictates the rules of morality, in turn industry rules over governments by moralist coercions and the medical community dictates morality issues over their patients, we are in real trouble, both as a community and as a civilization.

Of late, it is harder to dismiss, than to believe, that all three relationships, do not exist.


Philanthropy

I does seem more and more true, that the nationalization of all Charity foundation assets would be the most charitable act a government could ever support.

Taking tax exempted funds and the power they enlist, out of the political arena. Diverting them instead to legitimate acts of charity.

This would solve both a tremendous charity need and a financial crisis in one grand act of kindness.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comme...ed-is- love.html

Just as the moralist crusades of Industrialists work to their advantage, they can also be made into their worst nightmare when the tables turn. It really would not take a large number of people to accomplish tremendous change with such a heavy burden focused on moralities today.

If Politicians grow to realize they are threatened with carrying the title of bigot and Nazi they will be forced by process "best practices" to act quickly and start shifting the blame.

The convictions will come fast and furious by those who can not take the risk of paying the political price should they delay. Y2K for the masses.

Leadership in a democracy does not fit well with the designation of promoting hatred violence and bigotry. It does make you a fine target, for any opposition parties, who denounce such actions and ask for the people's forgiveness.

Placing democracy back on track, as a buyers market.

Loboo taboos

WE need to register a new word at Webster’s.

Lobooing as opposed to lobbying, the promotion of fear to illicit profit from those effected by any social marketing strategy.

If Lobooists can divide us, establishing their demands as reasonable, only by the stolen proxy of the largest group. We need to divide them as well, just so everyone understands whom they are siding with.

Arguably, the largest problem facing the world today has to be found in the realization; the promotion of fear has become far too profitable. When we look to the media questioning if the American president elect will be smoking in the white house, we fail to realize, if he did, he would be aligned with some pretty impressive company among those who smoked there in the past. Common sense is turned on its head when we fear tobacco smoke more than we fear Diesel exhaust or when people can be viewed as deficient somehow, simply because they seek the comfort of a cigarette.

When discussing the horrors of crimes against humanity proliferated during the Second World War. What we fail to realize is that anti Semitic attitudes were initially created in the USA, with the ignorance of Eugenics promoted wide brush, by public health organizations and the mainstream scientific community. Hitler only hastened it along, to its only logical conclusion. Galton predicted racial genetic mixing, or over population of any one “defective race”, would eventually result in the destruction of the entire species. This lead to a forced medical practice involving “sterilization of Jews and Imbeciles”. What he and the scientific minds of the day failed to realize, was the large difference between race and ethnicity as explained by Galton’s cousin, a fellow named Darwin who had an alternate explanation, science accepts as the origin of the human species.

By treating our genes as a State owned commodity, which required paternalist protection, Galton sought to eliminate the possibility of damages by the identical "Disease management" principles used today. Promoted by the Surgeon General's office, at the UN and widely embraced by Public Health agencies, in promotion of only themselves. The isolation to extinction tact we denounce in Hitler's plan or in the communist isolation of AIDS patients is well understood. Yet we can allow a lapse of integrity when there is money to be made. Moreover, yes, I am suggesting; money is the most significant motivation of public health interventions, which create foolhardy enterprises such as smoking bans. A step backward in cultural evolution.

When society rejected McCarthy, most failed to realize; this was not an endorsement of communism, but an embrace of individuality. That confusion continues today with the embrace of paternalism and logically flows to the ignorance of smoking bans and fat pandemics, which in the most basic terms embrace only hatred and isolation.

Science denounced the eugenics theory, after the war, with a simple reality, by admitting; if we all came from the same primordial ooze, we all carry the same genes already. Declaring, all ethnic and cultural variations are strictly a matter of environment.

Not unlike the no safe level of tobacco smoke nonsense, or the global warming ad campaign, decrying there is no alternative only disaster can ever result from continuation. Profiting by the sale of fear.

When the simple reality is examined; if smoking is believed to kill only half of those who smoke, what is actually killing them is environmental. Unless science is back peddling and declaring those who died are believed to possess a genetic variation, they developed by purchasing their first package of cigarettes.

As for lobbying to the max? By utilizing the extremes, you become an extremist and by narrowing vision in mass distribution, all you create is a culture of narrow-minded people.

Very much Orson Wells or Rod Sterling type story-telling, entertainment most of us understand as science fiction. This is not real science or remotely scientific, it is simply a sheep like regurgitation, of self-important fools who cannot differentiate, fact from fiction.

As for smoking? No one including the W.H.O. can predict the future, unless you eliminate all hope of progress by innovation, by declaring we know it all, when in fact we know very little.

Moralist fads tend to gain their power by isolating all focus and torturing the extremes within that narrow scope, restricting it even further. Small-minded people demanding others share their ignorance who become offended when others do not.

Freedom rejects the "common good" and establishing "the norm" because historically the truth is always consistent; humanity is enriched by variation, while stagnated only by moralist restrictions, which defile individuality or choices.

Questioning the little big man complex

Here is a point, which comes close to Dave Hitt's "name three" In asking “Public health officials” to name three people killed by environmental tobacco smoke [ETS] which always leaves them speechless.

I have asked a question a number of times and in a number of venues asking the "experts" it is always the same; either I am treated to the insolent pup style of ad hominid attack, or simply afforded silence with no answer available. They either change the subject or pretend they did not hear it at all. The little big man complex is pretty well set in the field of public health and any dissenters should beware. The public health industrial complex, are not people you should trifle with, yet they leave themselves so open to criticisms and obvious contradictions it is getting very hard to ignore.

The question is very simple;

"Describe environmental tobacco smoke in a physical way so that we can distinguish it from ambient air."

They can't, because in the way it is described; IT IS AMBIENT AIR!!!

The multiple sources or tobacco products which might produce it and the number of those who may partake in one place compared to another, leaves the recipe absolutely astounding in the number of combinations of ingredients it may contain. So how do you find such confident “irrefutable” numbers, which predict disease and death so precisely? Found internationally with such a wide range of products and such a diversity of lifestyles? The truth is you cannot, so we did the next best thing, we simply estimated how many injuries could possibly be caused by inhalations of any substance, we defined them as “smoking related” and the ad agency tested talking points, flowed like a river into the public domain.

You see the level of tobacco smoke exposure is not a legitimate biomarker of disease genesis, The PM2.5 levels in a room without specific investigation of what is contained could well be a measure simply of a number of non-related substances. A biomarker has to reflect both a level of exposure and a measure of adverse health effect equitably. A PM 2.5 measurement does neither even loosely. Does it make any reasonable sense one substance could generate parallel and predictable levels of a number of diseases in such a consistent manner when the constituents of; tobacco smoke plus ambient air, plus foreign particulate which comprise the feared “environmental tobacco smoke” and the individual’s levels of exposures to the product vary so adversely?

Used loosely as it was, in meticulously examining the possibilities in precision to the trillionths of a degree, to predict cancers or cardiovascular effects, with equally irresponsible statements, made in press releases. The bulk of information provided resulted largely from phrases read to focus groups, in search of the strongest reaction. We now have nothing available in the public realm we can trust, with which to make reasonable considered choices. What we have instead is invention and provocation, which targets individuals, in place of; investigations of the product at hand which could make it safer, no cures, and no treatments. Hardly a positive progression from a scientific standpoint. Although it does serve to invent some excellent old wives tales and seeds the paternalist movements quite well.

Ambient air works splendidly as a promoter of intangible fear; Ventilation as a solution doesn't work any more, because you are only increasing the volume. "There is no safe level" because it can never be diluted by itself. If you declare it a hazard, the hazard still exists outdoors, where there is more of it. It can seep through light sockets into a neighbour’s home. ETS can never be avoided, and most importantly, ETS cannot be eliminated as a legitimate term, which exists in all environments and without boundaries, as long as smoking exists.

The problem comes when we consider what it is, they have been telling us to fear, Breathing!!!

Is 5000 deadly ingredients really an official scientific term?

There are 43,000 unresolved chemicals in use by industry today most of them are also found in ambient air. What are the effects and health risks of breathing them, compared to ETS? There is no increased risk, because as one product the risks are now the same.

If there are numerically the same number of people smoking today, or even if there are less, and smoking kills 450,000 of the 2.3 million who die in the United States every year, disregarding all the medical and environmental improvements over the last 50 years, why did it not also kill 450,000 of the less than one million who died in 1960?

Ripley's believe it or not, needs to resolve the largest hoax in world history; DDT, Ulcers, Freon, ETS or Global warming and indeed the term “Public health”.

Dr. Michael Siegal a long time anti-smoker advocate, recently use a term, which forms the major part of that river of “new study” information, when describing, "Organized complaining". To deliberately create an appearance of public mood, which does not otherwise exist. for the rest of us, it is known as "Astro-Turfing" which is in a real sense is simply a co-ordinated form of self flagellation, which hopes to find support among those believed to be; less educated, more numerous and more likely to join in, with any campaign which legitimizes picking on someone else.

"While activists dedicated to eradicating smoking in children’s movies engage in organised complaining about such closely monitored incidents, it seems improbable that many ordinary citizens would spontaneously rise up in community protest about such minor usage".

When you over act, while pretending something does exist, while everyone else who know better, pities your state of denial and try very hard [out of pity or embarrassment for you] not to see it.

It is effective as a lobby tool, only in a sense; most tend to ignore it, so without opposition, the deliberately dumbed down politicians, are allowed to present a new age reality or theological rule. Remember the term “politically correct”? By who’s politics?

Make anything up you like, and they can sell it as a gang to any co-operating politician who employs them, no one argues with the more deliberate imbeciles, because it is like arguing with a five year old and that lowers you to their level. As a political activity, it seeks to rule and form ideology by those standards and talking points, devised among the imbeciles. It simply makes anything possible, no matter how morally perverse it may sound today.

Running the numbers scam on us.

Have you ever been challenged to explain why 80% [or 90%] of lung cancers are found among those who smoke or those who have ever smoked? depending on the expertise of those making the claim.

The statement 80% of lung cancers are among current and ever smokers is cautiously the closest to reality found in credible [accepted] research, other versions of the phrase, are most predominantly a result of aggressive lobby group misquotes along with outright deceptive statements to gain political advantage.

“So say one, so say them all” is tightly connected to groups such as we witnessed with the anti smoker scandal. Tightly associated partners who have been known to turf their brightest and most convincing members directly into the spoiled identity, denormalization process, along side it’s other victims, simply for speaking critically or out of turn. Although they describe themselves a grassroots movement, nothing could be further from the truth. The structure is solidly top down and is applied as an act utilized against communities, as opposed to an act stemming from the community.

Getting back to the popular phrase in point. If we examine the actual people who have lung cancers one striking physical attribute, can immediately be seen; the vast majority of them are elderly this promotes a large part of the 80% ratio. A ratio which mirrors another ratio; cancers above 65 years of age and cancers below 65 years of age. Remember the phrase current or ever smokers? If we examine the time when smoking was in the majority of the population back in 1958 we saw the ratio expressed as 54% in total population choose to smoke. A number which of course included 25% of the population, who would be much less likely to smoke at the time although the majority would eventually start, because for lack of a better description; they were simply too young to smoke.

The numbers are further lopsided by the fact women used tobacco much less than men, by proportion a pretty substantial confounder which is hidden in the research numbers when evaluations of male only groups are compared to female only, or mixed groups. The moral standards at the time were much more forcefully regulated among teachers and parents, with corporal punishments accepted in the schools. To see a child under the age of 15 who smoked was quite rare. So if we take that perspective into consideration; we have to eliminate the children because it has yet to be determined what their status will be when the choice is available to them. We adjust the ratio to reflect those over the age of 15 and we arrive with a ratio of 54% versus 21% or 61% versus 39% in the over 15 group.

So naturally we would expect to see 61% of cancers among current or ever smokers by their numbers alone without considering any health risks. And we see a good number of them among those who survived and comprise the majority over 80% of those afflicted with cancers today. With an aging population that figure is only more likely to grow.

Now we have to get into knit picking to explain a number of other factors unique to our current cancer patients. The factors are applicable to all in the population however if we take the popular view, the split identifying those who smoke will also produce higher numbers by compounding, similar to how they calculate your mortgage interest, because they represent a larger slice of those being discussed when, assessing each known cause for distribution. For example, those exposed to asbestos in younger years would represent a certain percentage of cancers today, for every 10 of those people regardless of the fact all their cancers were caused by asbestos, because we choose to assign cancers by smoking status the split would be 6 smoking and 4 not, add that to the original percentages of one hundred people and you now have 67.1 ever smokers versus 43.9 never smokers. 65% versus 35% Notice how we now have a compounding factor, which increases the ratio? Continue adding other known causes 10 people at a time and eventually the ratio is notably spread farther apart eventually finding 80% versus 20% when realistically the increased risk, assessed by the “experts” is said to be only 15-20% above the norm.

It is the distribution by preordained status, which assigns a larger number to the total group, as opposed to simply counting heads and making an evaluation of each group separated by known primary cause, in common sense terms. Lung cancers among people who smoke are in the 1-5% range and in total population the incidence numbers have risen six fold above what they were in 1960, which suggests the largest factors are not being clearly explained, in the common belief defined as simply “caused by smoking” The one factor, few in the lobbies like to look at destroys the myth. There were almost a stable number of smokers over the past 50 years span between 55 and 60 million people smoked, although as a percentage of a growing population the numbers appeared to decline according to the funny papers and ad agency spin. We seldom heard the real figures just the “appropriate figures”. They declined in almost exactly the same percentages as the population total increased, allowing the 80% of lung cancers figure to be maintained for decades with the real investigations into growing causes allowed to be stalled, with a lack of public concern. The gentle cooing of the cancer societies shored up by the medical institutions; funds were never deemed to be necessary, to research a forgone conclusion.

Recent studies precariously dance around the numbers, knowing if a research study is to be approved for publication; it must fit with the status quo. Similarly because the funds for research are tightly controlled by a small group of connected industries, the possibility to receive funding is tightly dependent on participation in avoiding the possible risk to the parent organization contributing the funds. In a similar way to what is described by the lobby groups; the tobacco industry can influence a conclusion. It follows all other major industries have the same ability, otherwise the medical institutions would never admit this to be possible, a stance which undermines their own credibility and an admission this is unavoidable, within the confines of what is additive to common cult beliefs.

If we examine the numbers we see that if lung cancers exist among those who do not smoke in the range of 20%, it stands to reason among those who do choose to smoke or have ever smoked, a similar number of non related cancers would also occur within the larger group; 60 versus 40 in smoking status. It is fair to say 20% of the group who do smoke would have to be deducted from the number of those in total, defined as having ever smoked. Reducing further the causative nature of; the original sensationalist, yet quite reasonable and expected 80% figure.

Thus the ratio of 60/40 regardless of health risk can once again be demonstrated as the norm. The only division is therefore gained only by their status of division and provides no evidence smoking is a causative factor in their cancers.

Yes, it is fair to say half of those who smoke will die of smoking related diseases, as long as you agree; so too will everyone else.

Citations;

Risk reductions

Poison in the dose 1

Poison in the dose 2

Poison in the dose 3

Cancer identification and rates

http://scienceweek.com/2005/sc050128-4.htm

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/1/24

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080925214831.htm

http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/62/4/231

http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/reprint/30/2/141

According to Thun...

Secondary smoke exposures

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

Smoking Prevalence figures

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1779270#B17

Second hand smoke; Is it all in your mind?

The evidence is mounting that the existence of Environmental Tobacco Smoke ETS is more a creation of fiction and Cult worship, than anything tangible you could possibly describe and accurately connect with science or observation.

In a recent article the author went so far as to define ETS as a drug.


"I hope the cabinet will take the decision to limit the harmful effects this drug can have on them."

In this article they claim if cigarettes are provided with the words slim they are being advertised as weight loss products or if provided in Pink packages they insult women who have suffered breast cancers, along with a litany of misguided and opportunistic statements with no basis in fact or common sense. The same groups appear to be attacking PM while in fact they are partnered with PM in moving forward legislation PM helped to write.

Please see update section below


Bill Goshall in a thread on Michael Siegal's blog insinuated higher ETS volume could be used to demonstrate increased risk. [ETS particulate measurements of 1000 MG/M3 of air were mentioned???] This of course attacks his alternate claims; smokeless tobacco is harmless or could possibly negate smoking risks if everyone switched. [99%=100%]

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/

According to the NOSH handbook his claims can be proven to be misinformed quite readily in examination of just two of the said to be thousands of toxic ingredients found in tobacco smoke. Benzene [PEL= 1PPM or 3.6 MG/M3] and Toluene[PEL= 1PPM or 3.77 MG/M3] are both flammable liquids and any increased volume measurement of either found in ETS measures, would be largely due to inefficient burning at lowered temperatures, as we would see in second hand smoke, as opposed to primary smoke decreased levels of toxins results from oxygenation increasing the temperature of the tobacco being consumed.

With no burning the original full force of toxins pre-existing in the tobacco, would be the exposure volume and following logic more toxins means more effect. From the exposure routes in the PEL descriptions; we see no differential in exposure methods, indicating more or less risk is associated to any means of exposures [inhalation, skin absorption, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact]

While small amounts of both can be identified in ETS the volume would require the burning of thousands of cigarettes at the same time to come close to breaching known safe levels. Whereas in chew tobacco the exposure volume would be incredibly increased [like comparing a log to the ashes] direct exposures reaching unsafe levels, would be considerable more realistic to assume

That along will Bill’s assertion that, ETS causes lung cancers takes us away from the fact both cause other more likely concerns. For Benzene the highest risk is Leukemia and for both toxins the target cancer sites are; Eyes, skin, respiratory system, central nervous system, liver, kidneys. Not exactly the number one mentions on the smoking related hit list but concerning all the same.

Both are classed as carcinogens primarily because of their increased ability when certain conditions are met to evolve into mutagens such as when we mix other carbon based elements and sunlight to form Ozone. The hole in the Ozone layer was demonstrated in a similar fear mongered fashion to reduce our use of Freon which can disassemble ozone into more basic components. What they failed to inform us of, was the fact; the holes occur every year, after six month long nights, after which exposure to sunlight fills in the holes as new Ozone is produced.

Ozone at ground level is much more of a concern because it causes lung cancers and would be considerably more voluminous with lowered offsets at ground level as a result of the current ban

There is an excellent article here which slices to ribbons the ideas of TC, that the risk of ETS could ever be explained in the clumsy and unscientific terms they have been riding on for years;

The ban on leaded fuels without the inclusion of catalytic converters in all cars reduced the risk of aerated lead, however it vastly increased the lung cancer risk due to respiratory aerosols and particulates.

This quote is particularly interesting;

“Unfortunately, current PM-detectors register only particle mass. However, studies have hown that particle number is much more relevant than their mass. Thus, standard detection equipment focuses on mass only, thereby detecting only a fraction of the particle inventory. State-of-the-Art equipment (such as ELPI and SMPS) shows that even when ultrafine numbers are high, their mass is practically zero. Hence, PM-inventories recorded by weighing machines such as TEOMs - used by governmental health authorities - go largely undetected.

Diesel fumes are especially problematic as they contain nitro-aromates; a group of chemicals that are used to accelerate the combustion process of diesel fuel. Nitro-aromatic compounds are known for their potentially mutagenic effect within the GIT(gastro-intestinal tract). Initially they cause diarrhoea (fig.3.10).”


Has anyone in TC or the many public health agencies; ever attempted to define the fictitious; element, compound, drug, aerosol, liquid, solid or particulate matter which all of the lobby groups describe as ETS in one campaign or another?

We can apparently define or necessitate fear and mortality rates incredibly in an absolute void of information, a lack of surface description, chemical formation or any unique characteristics which could allow us to understand what it is they are describing, with the term ETS.

With such a wide variety of composition materials there has to be one unique description they all share which is such a motivator of fear. Legislation must be written to protect us from “it” and no one knows what “it” represents or how “it” could possibly harm children although the loose Epi. Claims are to numerous to count. ETS suffers from lack of description beyond the cult knowledge, responsible for driving communities into disarray and mistrust. What are the comparisons of risk; according to atmospheric pressure or relative humidity? What offsets might render it safer or more dangerous?

The one thing they will never do is to provide a PEL or surface description which encompasses the many compounds being described, because to simply say, "there is no safe level" avoids the obligation of defining one. Which proves their campaign is a promotion of ignorance with ignorance as its foundation.

Here is a fun conversation with the expert in front of TC claims

Here is a sample of his dirty work.

I get a kick out of watching Repace ratchet up the facts in plain sight and none of the so called “experts in Public Health” caught on, nor did they notice his including them in an embrace of ignorance. When we observe a death rate we are observing the momentary result of cumulative lifetime risk, in total population or in an exposed population. Any measure is simply the difference between one level and another, in most cases we assume the difference between zero and the measured level.

In the link [above] Repace takes the lifetime risk among those exposed to tobacco smoke and assumes without explanation ETS killed them all. He then takes the norm at 225 per million and multiplies it by 45 to find a number he claims to be a lifetime risk, at 1 in 1000. This would be a risk level 45 times the total number observed from all factors and no one caught on? He then takes the average level of PM10 particulate [211ug/M3] measured in a smoking environment and placed a respiratory risk, only one ng/M3 above the risk for dioxin onto the particulate, as equal to what he measured, again by his own say so. What did he leave out? The fact ½ of PM10 is PM2.5 and ½ of the PM2.5 is carbon soot not to mention Tobacco smoke particulate resides in the 1 Micron range; above ultra fine particulate he describes and below the vast majority of what he measured.

His summation states according to his figures;

“In fact, Repace (2004) measured an RSP concentration of 205 ug/m3 in the Delaware Park Casino in the U.S., with a corresponding carcinogenic particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PPAH) concentration of 163 nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3) before a State wide smoking ban, and corresponding RSP and PPAH concentrations after the smoking ban of 9 ug/m3 and 4 ng/m3 respectively. As Table 1 shows, measurements in the Burswood Casino are consistent with these values.”


And this is Tobacco Control’s cannon of proof?

"There is no safe level of tobacco smoke"
is a given, because the consensus of medical authorities world wide agree.

Next time you are in a crowd; ask that everyone who does not know what tobacco smoke smells like, to please raise their hands.

I have yet to see anyone raise their hands, so I assume they have all been expossed.
If there is no safe level all have been expossed to the maximum risk.

If increased risk is determined, as all measurements are, between point a and point b, and there is no difference between those two points; We must conclude there can be no increased risk.

Second hand smoke is therefore harmless, just like smokeless tobacco as Bill Godshall concludes in his research.

Autonomy is about personal choice and management over your own body.

Cigarettes are self medication which allows one to avoid many more expensive products including Drugs and food smoking can be used to replace. A human right to choose is exactly described in a choice to use cigarettes and alternative nicotine products. Advertising is one thing coercion fear mongering and any attempts at minimization of autonomy laws, by the same medical profession which made them necessary is inexcusable and quite likely prosecutable.

Non smokers have no right to breathe clean air, because non means nothing and affords no basis to establish a right, for people who don't actually exist. People are just people and any one of them may choose to smoke so, there is no defined category created by a "non" prefix attached to some of them, at least not without legalizing bigotry.

There, but for the grace of God go I, Sound familiar?



New Development Update

A recent post in Michael Siegal's blog, discussed the hypocrisy of major public health groups denouncing the acts of Philip Morris marketing strategies, to sell the validity of new legislation, arguments supporting co-authored legislation Philip Morris Helped to write. Apparently both long time anti smoker activists; Michael Siegal a doctor and university educator, and Bill Godshall who runs an international anti smoker lobby group, although they constantly disagree on other points; both seem to echo my assessments almost verbatim.

The major medical charities and Public Health agencies are in bed with Big Tobacco and have been running a deceptive good cop bad cop routine on the public for years. The perception of a good versus evil battle to "protect" smokers, bar staff, children and all the defenseless little animals in the great outdoors, is actually more accurately described as a power brokered shift of blame and responsibility; from the product and it's suppliers to the consumers who learned to use the same products, coached [[in plain view of all of the now claiming to be innocent and deceived legislators]] by Fred Flintstone and the Lone Ranger when they were kids. Now those children as adults are being painted as child abusers and mass murderers for simply doing, what to them has always been normal, attacked primarily by their own governments no less?

The Government has always been a paid partner in the Tobacco trade and now they sound entirely unconvincing by the use of our taxes and the taxes stolen out of smoker's pockets to shirk their own responsibility for the blame with numerous and blatantly obvious, misleading advertising campaigns. The divisions in once peaceful communities by deliberate denormalization and propaganda which would make Pol Pot beam with envy, is not a solution we should be ignoring a disease management strategy to deal with the medical costs of an aging population. It is a reprehensible act which should be prosecuted in the courts as a human rights abuse.

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/mbsiegel/1677048722626478792/

Bill Godshall;

"Similar to virtually every other press release issued by CTFK/ACS/AHA/ ALA, Friday's press release also stated:

"This latest attempt to market cigarettes to women and girls demonstrates the need for Congress to pass pending legislation giving the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to regulate tobacco products."

But in fact, the FDA legislation (that was negotiated and agreed to by Philip Morris and CTFK) does nothing to stop PM from marketing cigarettes to women, does nothing to ban pink colors, and specifically prohibits the FDA from banning cigarette sales to high school seniors.

Besides, the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution protects the right of cigarette companies to market their products to adults (including women) as long as it is legal to sell cigarette to adults.

Long ago, CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, AMA, etc. decided that it is perfectly OK for them to lie about and mislead the public about the FDA tobacco legislation in order to get it enacted into law.

That's because very few health organizations or professionals would support the legislation if CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, AMA told the truth about the legislation.
Bill Godshall | 11.05.08 - 3:49 pm | "

Michael Siegal;

"I think Bill's analysis is spot on. The health groups cannot tell the truth about this legislation because very few health organizations would support it if they did. They are deceiving their constituents (and the public) about the legislation specifically because it is the only way to garner the support necessary to pass the legislation.

That they have succeeded is unfortunate. But it does show how much power you can obtain if you are willing to throw out a commitment to honesty and the truth.

Thanks, Bill, for being willing to stand up and tell it like it is with regards to what these groups are doing.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 11.05.08 - 4:34 pm |"

Michael Siegal;

"Kevin wrote: "Isn't the manipulation being proposed human experimentation and as anti smoker organizations who promote hatred and direct slander against an identified group; does this not amount to a human rights abuse, word for word verbatim?"

I agree in principle with Kevin's suggestion that the FDA legislation amounts to human experimentation. The key point is that the experimentation is going to be taking place WITHOUT the informed consent of the smoker. In fact, the average consumer will believe that by virtue of FDA regulation, the product has been made safer, when in fact it has not. While I wouldn't describe this as a human rights abuse, I would describe it as FRAUD, which it is.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 11.06.08 - 9:29 am | "

Related links;

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001282/128291eo.pdf

http://www.law.harvard.edu/stude.../ docherty.shtml

http://www.robertfulford.com/PolPot.html

http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/rico-cases.htm

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001961----000-.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

A Right to factual information

The product?

A matter of perspectives

When we say epidemiology is a crude form of calculation which reveals nothing beyond direction. Many, if not most, don’t comprehend what is being said.

We can visualize life and risk factors on a geometric plane, lessening the complication, deliberately introduced, to avoid scrutiny above all else. Intimidation has worked well in reducing the critics of statements which defy common sense and grow the power of irresponsible fear mongering dividing society upon itself in far too many ways.
Picture life as box existing for only an instant in time, with four 90 degree angles at the corners. If we divide the box into smaller identical squares each representing a person, the size of the population group always determines the size of the box; no other factor can change that dimension. If we draw a diagonal line from the top left corner to the lower right we define the average risk of all members within the group, the area above the line defines those already dead as a result of the total of all risks in a lifetime, including old age and the number below the line defines the living who for the most part fear the line, although eventually all will cross it. No one gets to move beyond the confines of the box and no one can be added without adjusting the size of the box and the relevant geometry within the box, which would capture a different instant in time.

Hucksters armed with epidemiology studies will always attempt to confuse the issue, by implying other instants are equal to the instant they actually examined. If the size of the box changes the geometry within it changes. Sub groups are compared this way by including their numbers, as the vertical and horizontal lines of height and length. Every person within the box will have a unique life and a unique set of risk factors which might or might not determine eventually the date and time they will cross the line. By multiplying them together, we find the total area of the box and by dividing that number in half we find the area occupied in equal and average area divisions, by the living group to be observed. If we know the numbers of the two groups we know the dimensions of the box by ratio. The line of risk average can be manipulated by adjusting the numbers included in the respective groups however the true average and absolute risk is always found at the center of that line dissected by a line of average and ultimate longevity.

We complete the picture with the opposite diagonal line representing longevity between lower left and upper right corners. Risk is oriented in a clockwise perspective more risk would move the lifespan line down creating a distortion or a longevity curve, demonstrating those who will theoretically die “prematurely” represented by the increased number of those above the risk line about to cross the end of life line in larger numbers. We quickly see the largest number of all those who will die will be closest to the line of average risk where it naturally intersects the line of average life expectancy at the center of the square; which represents the norm including everyone and the decreasing or increasing numbers as we move away from center line of maximum and average risk, those farthest away from the center represent the exception and not the rule.

It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to understand how slight variations of risk demonstrate huge effects among a large population group in relation to demonstrating how many will die and when. Neither does it take a lot of imagination to understand; any level of misclassification or miscalculation among small groups, would also demonstrate huge variations in the numbers when applied to larger groups. For this reason; anyone with any modicum of integrity would absolutely reject the glamorization of “insignificant risk variations” to represent anything more than fear mongering and irresponsible exaggerations to promote unscientific politics which prey on the fears of others.

The preference in use of epidemiology in place of precise numbers, as you can see has obvious advantages in producing or eliminating any fear or promotion you can imagine, by simply demonstrating association and expressing that association as a credible level of risk variation, or in making claims beyond that, in describing a theoretic risk as a cause, which could affect the overall outcome, a level of effect which was never actually observed.

The average of maximum risk includes all risks and is not moved easily to any significant degree which could be detected beyond this instant, when only a change the line of life expectancy would be evident to a far lesser degree, even if there was a large change in lifestyles within the group, because by decreasing risks in one category you simply increase the number of those who will succumb by the risks in another risk category, as the constant tendency is, to maintain balance as geometry demonstrates, at any instant in time ever observed. It would therefore be impossible even within this instant, to determine if the average mortality number will even be affected, even if we attempt to change the line of risk by manipulating personal choices, without knowing the instant everyone should die from the ultimate risk of aging, so we have to estimate for the value of that unavoidable effect as well.

Medicine defines all mortality in disease management initiatives as requiring a cause, which is not aging. The charities and the medical institutions promote fear to promote self interest, in the elimination of age as a risk despite the fact it represents the sum of all risk. In deflating their own credibility they have never defined what now constitutes natural death and what percentage they believe to be premature and caused by another factor. By furthering the illusion they now distribute blame for large risks to personal lifestyles, in total numbers which count many people multiple times, expanding the box well beyond its boundaries, expanding fears proportionately.

The effect of coincidental mortality by other causes is thought to be contained within the level of allowance for error, although even that notion, by the law of averages, is found to be wrong as often as it is found to be right with many unknowns yet to be discovered subsequently many past assumptions are demonstrated to be inaccurate, marring current perspectives, which rely on historical findings, with no revisions being applied to published research when those facts are revealed.
Misclassification is often admitted in the studies as having an effect on the validity of the results, more as an excuse for limitations in the observational model designed or the personal assumptions made, than a description of any unforeseen events. Risk itself is a misnomer when expressed only in a negative perspective, because human activities known as risk factors which will reduce longevity for some, will also increase longevity for others, the combined effect further distorts all observations and significantly limits the precision of the conclusions.

The perspective that; eliminating smoking will have only an upside, is deflated by the realities of such effects as; reduced exchange of personal economies, which will have an effect of diminished economic growth. At a personal level think of eliminating smoking in prisons in another example, if we extend the life and fitness of violent criminals we increase the risk to society when they are released. By the extension of their lives and the increased fitness levels increasing their abilities to do harm, if smoking does have a significant effect and if the prisoners affected, do endanger society.

The statement “one half of smokers will die because they smoke” seems to produce a highly unlikely equality, between smoking balanced equally against all other risks in life, including age. This would tend to imply either smoking has zero effect, or it will eliminate all other risks on balance, which should be much harder to sell than the original idea that smoking actually does decrease an average life expectancy. Alternatively by the balance within the smoking group, we see in the equal division also equating average numbers, in real observations. From this we could understand smoking has little effect on average lifespan, in spite of its implied effects. A smokers choice to smoke, other than being punished by a moral a restriction, applies little to average life expectancy, by means of smoking related diseases, because of the duration of time between exposures and effect, seem to be balanced quite well against the effect of other risks which could end a life first. That is true of course, if we believe the numbers guiding our perspectives as they stand. Making smokers the same as everyone else, in spite of the fears created in advertisements, depreciating their integrity and worth, guiding the hatred which convinces most of us otherwise.

If we wish to measure risks on an equal scale; describing someone as defective because they smoke, could be countered by a smoker with much more credibly, who defines you as defective by your display of intolerance. In the overall perspective of defining which factor historically reduces life expectancy to a larger degree; smoking or intolerance?

The answer should be obvious; Tobacco Control is a defective and divisive process with its foundation only strengthened by fear, intolerance and the misconceptions empowering both.

Public health, by definition or by belief?

When most people think of public health expenditures we think of doctors and hospitals and medically necessary treatments. That misconception has gained a huge advantage, in establishing a beach head of an Ideological crusade which can only be comparable to the eugenicist crusades in the 1930s. Are we electing Fascist governments today, without realizing it? Is it ethical or simply bad taste driving many to use the term Fascist at all, in describing Quite Honorable representatives of the people?

Unesco was created after the second world War as a UN agency dedicated to combat the enabling forces within societies, of paternalist methods, which enabled the atrocities of the death camps. An extreme and reprehensible example of how cruel man could be, if driven by government encouragement, promoting political mandates which declared any group of human beings, was superior to another. The group to be targeted of course was also defined by that same government. From all perspectives it seems we are falling into the trap of promoted industrial socialism once again.

We don’t need to wait for the extremes to develop, we can learn from mistakes of the past. You can never find virtue by replicating the actions of tyrants, you simply gain a reputation as a tyrant yourself and today that tyrant is reflective of all of us, who seek to be mothered by a healthism process which despises autonomy and the validity of personal choices, only we, as grown adults who are being treated as scolded children, have any legitimate right to make.

Anyone who has bought into this corrosion of communities, even to a small degree, has been trapped by the threat of being described as hypocritical, if you resist buying into the complete package and the unbridled hatred, we have all witnessed in the past, as the certain eventuality of this process.

The question for the modern era, and one which requires immediate attention before this develops further; Can the policies of racism and bigotry be morally justified by simply redefining our target groups?

The Global Diocese of Public health, is gaining power by collusion, coercion and media news wire releases in disinformation campaigns. A paternalist band wagon campaign which seeks to attack our moral fiber and ethical oversight and they are proving to be quite successful of late. Considering Anti smoking campaigns as the poster child, leading to fat pandemics and global warming and how those play out in your costs and depreciated standard of living, while the promoter’s profits soar Protection rackets are gaining profits at record levels, which would make even Al Capone “Green” with envy.

Public health has found a domination strategy described as HIA “health intervention” which is advocated through the auspices of the World Health Organization. It is a highly efficient living process of advocacy persistence and progressive escalation, which “seeks out partnership with any group who will profit from the advocacy campaign”.

The creation of politicized or “cherry picked science” to promote fear and enable protectionist action, is at the foundation of any so designed “intervention”. Industry profiteers utilizing ad agency spin, traditionally used to sell us their products, are being employed to sell the intervention strategies and their products in the same publicly funded efforts. By the modern efficiencies gained in promotional media and by utilizing the public purse dispensed largely through medical charities and enabled by promotions of highly irresponsible and unregulated political fear campaigns. Promises of large government expenditures further suit the purpose, to buy the elegance of our mainstream journalists.

The media have dropped the ball in the application of their most effective test of legitimacy. Consider the source and always follow the money. If they are no longer up to the task of those simple rules, perhaps it is time the public did the task on their own and included the mainstream media groups and their columnists in that task, because it becomes more apparent by the day they can no longer be representative of our best interests more so the interests of unbridled greed.

From A very dated Unesco document, we see the following problems described, which are entirely similar to what we face today.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001282/128291eo.pdf

“The preamble of Unesco’s Constitution, adopted in 1945, specifically named racism as one of the social evils which the new Organization was called upon to combat. Moreover, the Constitution declares that; “the great and terrible war which has now ended was a war made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men, and by the propagation, in their place, through ignorance and prejudice, of the doctrine of the inequality of men and races “

“Knowledge of the truth does not always help change emotional attitudes that draw their real strength from the subconscious or from factors beside the real issue. Knowledge of the truth can, however, prevent rationalizations of reprehensible acts or behaviour prompted by feelings that men will not easily avow openly.”

“Racism is a particularly vicious and mean expression of the caste spirit. It involves belief in the innate and absolute superiority of an arbitrarily defined human group over other equally arbitrarily defined groups. Instead of being based on scientific facts, it is generally maintained in defiance of the scientific method. As an ideology and feeling, racism is by its nature aggressive. It threatens the essential moral values by satisfying the taste for domination and by exalting the contempt for man. Concern for human dignity demands that all citizens be equal before the law, and that they share equally in the advantages assured them by law, no matter what their physical or intellectual differences may be. The law sees in each person only a human being who has the right to the same consideration and to equal respect. The conscience of all mankind demands that this be true for all the peoples of the earth. It matters little, therefore, whether the diversity of men’s gifts be the result of biological or of cultural factors.”

In its final conclusions in the opinion of Scientists world wide, it was stated;


“Man is born a social being who can reach his fullest development only through interaction with his fellows. The denial at any point of this social bond between man and man brings with it disintegration.”


C.S. Lewis described the process currently being adapted internationally, by starry eyed politicians, who I have to believe; apparently don’t know any better, because I would hate to think they do;

"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. “

How much is too much?

Smoking bans are empowered only by the fact; most non-smokers do not like the smell of tobacco smoke; sum and total. A political win by the majority rules, although most don't care, they never did, beyond the perspective of what brings them comfort as the ruling perspective.

The truth in respect to the legitimate "fear" can be seen by how many actually run away from what is said to be a mortal danger with no safe level? How many have been prosecuted, or could be, for attempt murder or common assault with a deadly weapon by smoking in the presence of others?

There is no legitimate danger or fear, the lie supports comfort, nothing more.

There are other perspectives, despite what you may have be taught by the advertisers and promoters, who pay a lot of money to convince you their is a legitimate harm found, in normal exposures seen in respect to second hand smoke.

Tax exempt RWJF for instance, gambled a half a Billion [with a B] dollars, confident they could convince us, "smokers" are different from the rest of us. The profits and increased stock values of a large block of stock they hold in Johnson and Johnson [their protected tax adjusted parent] demonstrates the investment paid off large. As does the increased value of Philip Morris stock, since the Tobacco Papers and the Tobacco settlements saw them at an all time low, shows clearly they are dong pretty well, reinvigorated by the anti smoker movement as well.

What is really wrong with smoking bans?

Beyond the lies, lies by omission and exaggerations, the statistical deceit, the financial costs and incredible levels of profiteering, or the long list of other damages to otherwise peaceful and co-operative communities. Realization of huge mistakes made, shortly after they were made, the last time this nanny state theology was popular, might help to refresh our memories.

The scientific community was never humbled by the realization of the horrors they inflicted on the world, they simply pointed at others. Just as they do today, shamelessly protecting their benefactors, they blame the users, to deflect our contempt away from the product.

As good cop bad cop routines play out, not a single raised eyebrow of concern is seen, by the realization the same hated industry executives [as the dragon] also supply the bulk of processed foods on your child’s dinner plate under the alias of Kraft or Nabisco. Enticements sold with the same targeted methods, being used now to present themselves as your protectors and as your proxy, which permits the same targeting of your children, through carefully worded advertising and politics, which in large part is now also seen in their classrooms.



From the document UNESCO and its program, 111

The race question.

From the preamble we find;

“The great and terrible war which has now ended was a war made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men, and by the propagation, in their place, through ignorance and prejudice, of the doctrine of the inequality of men and races."

And of course;

“Knowledge of the truth does not always help change emotional attitudes that draw their real strength from the subconscious or from factors beside the real issue.”

In its final conclusions in the opinion of Scientists world wide, it was stated;

“Man is born a social being who can reach his fullest development only through interaction with his fellows. The denial at any point of this social bond between man and man brings with it disintegration.”

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001282/128291eo.pdf

It really is worth the read. If for no other reason, to help understand what is inherently wrong with smoking bans. The same promotions of inciting hatred utilizing incredibly the identical slogans and catch phrases, which should have caught the attention of all of us.

Divisions are being formed by comparing groups of people, to claim superiority, or harms to be feared. Degenerative advertisements are being employed by large well heeled groups, identifying themselves only as Public Health Authorities, operating as a cult movement and spreading the same gospel targeting groups of otherwise innocent and normal human beings with; denormalization “”campaigns””.

“A particularly vicious and mean expression of the Caste spirit. It involves belief in the innate and absolute superiority of an arbitrarily defined human group over other equally arbitrarily defined human groups”

Anyone who has bought into this corrosion of communities, even to a small degree, has been trapped by the threat of being described as hypocritical, if you resist buying into the complete package and the unbridled hatred we have all witnessed in the past.

J’accuse.

I could make this plea in a number of tones we have seen numerous times, and once again, I would likely be ignored. I could declare “the emperor has no clothes” or as with the end of McCarthyism; scream defiantly while shaking a fist at the heavens; the single word “Enough”

The simple truth of the matter is, this oppressive tyranny runs so deep and is so well entrenched in the receivables departments of our nations press, even if by some miracle my single voice was heard, Damage control by the protectors of the great lie would swiftly move to action. My plea would quickly be set aside by a multitude of voices attacking credibility, my sanity or level of education as unqualified to make such an observation. Words like conspiracy nut and uneducated would resound before the silence, during which time all would forget such a claim was made, until the next time someone snuck past their defences, only to be dealt with in a similar manner.

The lie of healthism, which has arisen as the new international détente is a UN reality described in cryptic phrases specifically as “Disease management” in support of “sustainable development”. In plain English this would read; passing responsibility to the people for the expenses of an aging population, for which the funds have been squandered buying votes in elections past. Cowardice will develop lies to avoid the inevitable, Huge funds will be needed, so we have a necessity to create; the global warming crisis, disease pandemics and as a wedge issue to join the forces required to sell it all, we will reinvent second hand smoke.

A convenient lie, which is readily understood, by anyone with the time to open their eyes. I fear we are all in a slumber or a great depression, which allows our denials to exist; beyond resolution, or merely to be acknowledged. Are we so fearful of our public servants and the power of the state we will watch in open view as corruption percolates and unbelievably it is praised and enabled by journalists who support, profit over the trust of the people.

Is the State so weak that tenuous threads of propaganda are all which remains substantive in their moral authority to rule? Should we erect new signs at Canada’s boarders declaring “”Welcome to Canada if you are not in excellent health you are not welcome, our children must be protected”” Or “If you dare to smoke a cigarette, you will be punished” Quoting Dalton McGuinty in a run up to his smoking ban legislation. How about a Quebec Health Minister’s proud words “smokers have no right to speak” in response to complaints smokers were not being allowed to give submissions at the public hearings, leading up to his smoking ban legislation. What these confident public servants fail to realize is, if only 25% of the population smokes and they each found just one person to stand at their side, they could effectively end the careers of every hate mongering politician in this country. If your credibility or your truths are based in lies you are standing on very shaky ground.


In many ways the story of Alfred Dreyfus draws disturbing parallels to the politics of the day both within Canada and around the world. We see a targeted group, by state demand and approval, being discriminated against, openly and without remorse. We see the indictments to be speculative and exaggerated beyond reasonable proportion. Each exaggeration expanded upon the last. Most amazingly when the guard changed a new leadership who once claimed they understood an injustice existed, yet they let it stand, making Mr. Harper just as guilty as the former corrupt leadership, in light of the fact “Social Marketing” [Propaganda] is still an integral part of Health Canada’s process, delegating the entire ministry as nothing more than an agent of Industry promotional, of cherry picked, health reliant information, purchased from the public purse and distributed to the peril of us all.

We are being lead to believe, cigarette smoke is a huge health risk to non smokers, yet when we examine the evidence in its most basic sense, by physical description we hear most often the danger is due to particulate matter being trapped in the lungs of non smokers, resulting in damages many years later. Nothing found in cigarette smoke, on its own, or in the quantities presented, are beyond known safe levels or dangerous on their own, nor can they remain in the human body long enough to cause the described long term damages or at least not according to physical sciences.

Cigarette smoke particulate measures .15 to .25 Microns. It is classed as fine particulate which because of its size and weight; it is among the least likely to get trapped in the lungs or accumulate. Smoker’s lungs when examined do not demonstrate any visible differences to non smoker’s lungs, and are known as acceptable for human transplant. The same could not be said of a coal miner’s lungs for obvious reasons. We are in the majority, entirely well served in a comfortable lie, of the dangers of second hand smoke, however in that comfort, we have enabled more lies supporting the “common good”. We are left to only imagine, who decides what that good will entail? Or what we can believe any more.

Just as one observation, which should say a lot in comparing a mother with a stroller at a bus station and her level of concern, compared to the claims of child abuse by government sources, when smoking around your child; Although many studies measure “particulate matter” claimed to be cigarette smoke in a bar, as anything less than 10 microns, the imprecise measure is known to be lying by omission.

Ten Micron particulate includes all three physical dimensions of particulate matter; coarse such as coal dust [2.5 to 10 microns], Fine [.1 to 2.5 microns] such as cigarette smoke or any burned organic material including the smoke from a fire log, and last but not least, the category described in the threat of traveling to the smallest vestiges of the lung, where it is permanently trapped. Ultra fine particulate, measuring less than .1 microns. The category includes such things as diesel exhaust or many industrial emissions such as burned coal or degenerating asphalt, or a host of materials we know are carcinogenic by physical observation in laboratory studies. The one characteristic no one has observed or demonstrated, in respect to tobacco smoke, in over 60 years of trying.

The term second hand smoke actually had it’s origins in 1930s Germany and as Hitler tended to do the speculative evidence [propaganda] found twenty years before Sir Richard Doll [who was financed by Monsanto] and to the glee of his financiers, made his famous discovery using identical theoretic means. Now the craze has moved to finding “evidence” hardly a day goes by when we don’t hear of a new study defiling the intellect of anyone who would dare to smoke a cigarette with their beer.

This of course begs the question; what the hell have the charities been doing with all of our money all these years, when it appears so obvious now, cigarette smoke is causative of so many diseases, what took them so long to figure it out? It is however very fortunate to see so much information comes to light, just when it was needed, to support an international anti smoking treaty with compulsory deadlines, at the World Health organization. Way back in 1972, as the British delegate to the World Health Organization Sir Gober stated; if we are to make substantial gains in the reduction of smoking, it will be necessary to convince others they are being harmed by the smoke. Although I hardly think this had much to do, with anything happening today [wink]. Similarly Patrick Moynihan author of the much maligned 1965 Moynihan report, in the same era as the American delegate to the UN, [early 70s] suggested; in order to expedite international agendas, the public service should be mandated to create problems for the Government to solve. Again; this would have nothing whatsoever to do with the sustainable development process, or the insulated realities politicians of late have created for themselves, or the unexpected issues in the media, which always seem to dominate our election processes, while the real and substantial problems most of us face in the real world are almost always avoided.

An English translation of an excerpt, from the famous article entitled “J’accuse” in the Paris newspaper L’Aurore in March 1898. This was an article which deeply embarrassed the French government, in full view of the world. In retrospect; a statement which could have described a world also indicted with complicity, in creating the comfortable lies enabling the hatreds of anti Semitism.

“It is a crime that those people who wish to see a generous France take her place as leader of all the free and just nations are being accused of bringing turmoil to the country, denounced by the very plotters who are conniving so shamelessly to foist this miscarriage of justice on the entire world. It is a crime to lie to the public, to twist public opinion to insane lengths in the service of the vilest death-dealing machinations. It is a crime to poison the minds of the meek and the humble, to stoke the passions of reactionism and intolerance, by appealing to that odious bigotry that, unchecked, will destroy the freedom-loving France of Human Rights.”

I can not describe the contempt I felt, for a recent statement by opposition leader Stephan Dion, in making self serving use of the word “denier” in reference to the government taking a moderate approach to the climate change swindle. The word holds great power although the source of that power, draws a linkage to a horrific act, the use disrespects those who perished, using the denials by apologists and bigots who increased the insult in denying that the death camps ever happened. Mr Dion owes us all an apology; any encouragement by the media has been viciously slow in emerging.

Our gyration toward stock market appeasement as the enabling principle of credibility, finds our “encouraged behaviour” primarily among something which rushed across the land, of unknown origin we know it as “political correctness”. Just who sets the standards of what we should think, or how we should conduct our lives, is equally bewildering although every news agency seems to know the rules all too well, particularly in respect to a rash of news wire releases presented to us as the “news” although by closer examination they appear as corporate service infomercials with lab coats and talking heads, thrown in to finalize the sale. Commercials dressed up and read in discerning tones, in a way leading by example and stimulating discussion among those who can only believe what they are being told.

Journalists today seem to be working under the veiled restrictions of what is news “worthy”. Moving in baby steps, if any hope is seen in being published, any article which strays from the more popular belief systems, you have to roll with the flow or fade away. Banished to exist among the other silenced voices and conspiracy nuts. Can you handle the truth? Or do you trust the Government to protect you, from that as well?

Do we fear the smoke, or the freedom?

The controversy of second hand smoke could be ended quickly by a simple act of legislation. Anyone presenting information represented as “science” or “health reliant” information, which is later found to be false or misleading, would be rewarded with a mandatory ten year jail sentence. And yes I do believe the punishment fits the crime, but only because I have a forgiving nature.

I can guarantee the bandwagon of promoted smoker hatred and fat pandemics would end overnight and the profiteers would be making deals in self preservation, convicting each other. Similar to the last time their ilk rose to prominence and Doctors were hanged at Nuremberg. The laws of Autonomy created in the wake of one of history’s most horrific tragedies, are largely being minimized by the bigots and zealots of Public Sector Healthism, they are laws we found at the expense of millions who died without them. No one has the right to make or deceptively coerce those health choices for others and no one has a right to demand rights to the detriment of others, especially with the convenience of a popular lie, as we find in the "toxic effect of second hand smoke". A theoretic invention promoted in gossip empowering gossip, which absolutely finds no consistency in real physical science.

Governments who seek to hide cigarettes from sight or remove smoking from movies and cartoons are consistent with the well known phrase “sweeping their embarrassments under the carpet”. The fact remains their own lack of credibility and consistency, is the largest reason most people smoke today. The fact the product remains on the shelf, despite their assertion the health risk of it’s aroma, is well beyond the harmful nature of mustard gas, is only consistent with the moral deficits of taxing an addiction. Punitive taxation to the point it creates budgetary receipts and projections, at triple the cost of treating all, of the so called “smoking related disease” in all of community, regardless of where those harms actually originate. The diesel buses of public transit certainly are no cause for concern. If we were to enact a legislation to outlaw air miles cards which promote one of the largest contributions to pollution in our environments we would be promoting public safety. If we outlawed the use of mercury filled light bulbs, which are currently destined [by fraudulent environmentalist, posing as light bulb salespeople] to add thousands of gallons of mercury and phosphorous chemicals into the landfills and our watersheds. We would be protecting public health and the environment.

Smoking bans are punishment not protection, as the Ontario Premier admitted numerous times publicly, in advance of the smoker bans “smokers better get out their carrot sticks or be punished.” [Normally a responsibility of the courts] Punishment is being used as a tool for illegal acts of coercion. The use of government authority, to force personal autonomous decisions out of their range of government jurisdiction, in respect to the management of ones own body.

Which of the following is thought to be true?

1] A woman has a right to an abortion based in autonomy rights, or

2] Rape is really just an inconvenience.

Both can not be consistent with each other, and neither can be consistent with taxing an addiction or implementing smoking bans in place of a sign on the door, which affords choice.

When governments foolishly tread into regions, of restricting autonomous decisions, that footprint, by international law has to leave the least amount of impression possible, to achieve a stated goal or suit a significant need, while at the same time being extremely careful, to not diminish or jeopardize the universal importance of those fundamental rights. Signs as warnings fit that description as do designated smoking areas. Smoking bans by the redefinition of public spaces, eliminating without compensation, a right to property and its management, does not leave the least intrusion possible, it is being applied to the maximum possible intrusion, as a punishment, to the detriment of those laws and the rights they support.

Further amendments to anti smoker legislation are seen clearly, to further intrude on personal rights, to the maximum level possible or imagined by the pitchfork and lantern cabal, of partnered lobbies promoting them. Moving decisively, a step at a time toward management of your home and your body as though they were owned property of the state.

The paternalists have the control of the press and can be easily shown for the frauds they actually represent. If you were to light a cigarette in the Ontario or Quebec Legislatures, does anyone seriously believe it would set off a panic and rush to the door, of politicians fearing for their lives? Would the police arrest you wearing gas masks and protective suits and dutifully charge you with attempted murder or political assassinations? Or do we as reasonable people see anti smoking laws, as a convenience, to suit the comfort of the majorities today, who enjoy the unearned profits taken from their minority victims, who are being forced to pay the health costs associated by statistics alone, to smoking by a majority of smokers who existed in our past?

Ontario Public Health Minister George Smitherman used one of his favorite sound bites, to explain how growing federal transfers, are being dumped into general revenues, while medical patients continue to suffer by callous indifference, “all things affect public health, so investment in roads, are issues of public health”.

I have to say he got it partially right; all things people do, affect public health. What few realize is; society by focusing on that statement can be enslaved by public health protectionists. The forces of discrimination led by another government lobby group; the Eugenics Society and now the Galton Institute, currently partnered and a leader in policy making at the United Nations, World health Organization, once sought to protect the gene pool with best babies contests and race enabled theoretic research, progressing to, direct government actions, delegating the value of personal rights, below that of “the greater good”. Action was represented by castration of “Jews and imbeciles” sold as their empowerment of creating the perfect race. Later Hitler riding on that very bandwagon, sold his “protections” claiming he was going to save the world and improve the excellence of the human condition. Some of his followers at the time believed he was owed a Nobel Peace Prize. The power of the message was so ingrained into society, it resides to this day in something we call bigotry and something I call multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism a word no one had ever experienced or given much thought to, in Canada, prior to it’s inclusion in our Constitution. Multiculturalism as a catchy Politically Correct, inspirational euphemism, defines us as many groups and denies our ability to be one. Promotions of sustaining division based on race can never be more than the precise definition of racism. Sadly the authors of our constitution failed to understand and respect the fact Canadians were until the moment of the signing; a race unique unto themselves, who had until that moment existed in unity as one nation and one race we knew, and the world knew as Canadians.

I tell young people today stories of my youth and they stare in amazed disbelief, when hearing of a time a family with seven kids was raised by a cab driver in Cabbage town. A working guy who supported his wife and family, owned his own house and a cottage. While the pile of presents under the Christmas tree [A term I still use, in spite of anyone who claims to be insulted] often extended beyond the confines of our living room. We jumped our bicycles over ditches fearlessly without helmets or elbow pads, yes we broke bones, skinned our knees and all of us survived, none the worse for the wear. We had fights with bullies and sometimes we even won. No one had a knife or gun in their pockets in search of revenge, when it was over the matter was settled often resulting in a handshake and I don’t recall anyone “psychologically traumatized” for life, as a result of the experience. But we were obviously built with a much harder shell back then. In a time no one thought it prideful to be seen as the victim of the week. The amazing thing, with almost no punishments being enforced for not paying your taxes, most paid dutifully and proudly paid because we actually saw value for an insignificant and meager investment, something few of us who don't own media outlets or Insurance companies can claim today.

The past three decades have seen an importing of political support through immigration, while the dead beat dad’s campaign and promotion of non traditional families, criminalized parenting. Two significant sales campaigns alone which changed the landscape of Canadian politics, to one more subservient to socialist values. By restrictions on hate speech, we have attempted to avoid the voicing of derogatory racist statements, which the importers expected and sought to avoid. Sadly although people are restricted in what they are allowed to say in public, the divisions of Multiculturalism will always inspire that hatred, in the consciousness of jealousy and mistrust among groups of people separated, by demands of political divisions. We are witnessing increasing incidences of turf wars and ghettos dividing our streets, servicing the political monopoly control game, of playing defined groups against each other. Disputes are promoted and their self serving solutions are depicted, standing on soap boxes taking credit for fine humanitarian efforts, which ignore that the victor has taken a right by denying freedom.

Hypocrisies and inconsistent political policies were formed, primarily by our Constitution, which demands our division with no mention of a right to property or safeguard defense against criminal government regimes. Many people who lived in oppression having no clear perspective of an alternative, were lured to Canada by the inclusive reputation earned in our past. Similarly the younger generations today have never experienced the superior quality of life and freedom which formed our pride and reputation. A place as Martin Luther King described in his dream, that place or a very close representation of it, actually existed in a time when the Government was of the people and reflected the people who were Canadians.

The Majority of young people today never witnessed the power and the freedoms we once enjoyed before the fears of society were exaggerated in promotion of paternalist governments. A time when we were confident to rely upon each other and the basic tenant; people when not driven to something less, are basically good and caring and respectful of each other. Such a society does not have to purchase alarm systems or lock their doors when mowing the lawn. Or do they suspect negative intent, when a stranger says hello, while walking past you on the street.

Police are no longer an integrated part of community greeted with genuine respect. Largely they are now seen as an armed force, that send fear into people, making them nervous, simply by their sight. Today far too many law abiding people would consider themselves as guilty of some unknown criminal act, by automatic impulse, even if a police officer simply needed to ask them the time of day. That should tell you Police and Justice Systems have grown by our micromanagement of each other, to a force to fear and dread as opposed to our champions and protectors. They are now our mothering agents of robotic perfection. Their motivations for not giving in to the empathy of understanding which would make them a part of community, are found in competitive career pathways and the modernization, of the equipment they are given to perform that micromanagement of communities. Both appeasements rely on their level of criminal convictions, as a numeric expectation, evaluating their worth. Evaluations of competence by political mood, long ago ruled out the more humane side of policing. One which included the expectation of innocence and an opinion; does the punishment truly fit the crime in all cases?

It always instills a feeling, of something not quite right, and not as an embarrassment, rather as a feeling of resentment, when being dressed down by a police officer half your age, as though they were speaking to a careless child, being scolded for something as trivial [in a real world perspective] as not wearing a seat belt or a bicycle helmet.

In a free society people accept the risks of their own actions and govern themselves accordingly with respect, that those freedoms are the very tenet of values, which make society strong, productive and confident. Equally important a unified community, who are allowed the freedom of their opinions and politics based in thousands of years of historical grown values, not the deflating features of ad agency spin, supported by focus groups for maximum effect and crafted opinion polls promoting false perspectives. Those who tell us we are not happy with where we are, as a promotion of change, are always lacking of an opinion, in where we might go instead. That lack of planning, and has left us all in a lesser place today, as the prisons of communities continue to grow, with a path back to community values in unity, are thought to be too embarrassing to consider.

Poll sitting governments can always appear to be popular, defined by the wording of the polls they purchase and later forward to us in the form of press releases. One has to assume they are receiving good value for their money and make choices of vendors, based on the value and worth they apply to what they purchase.

The self same pollsters and profiteers, who market the wisdom of the people, reside in ad agencies, such as we witnessed in the sponsorship scandal, which the media, doing some damage control of their own, portrayed a unique crime which only existed in Quebec. Separating by sensationalism and guided focus, the related [although not officially linked] gun registry program.

We remember Gun Registry? Inflated ridiculously from the original cost estimates, in search of acceptance, it was to going be acceptable, to make our farmers into a new raft of “potential criminals”. Costs of promotion soared from two million to two billion and still people resisted vehemently. Hardly in our Auditor General Sheila Frasier’s terms “good value for money spent”.

The expenditures of smoking bans and fat pandemics dwarf that of gun registry, public sector political expenditures, which will always raise the suspicion of kickbacks, in a direct monetary sense or in a washing of each others backs, by joining common interests, among all the media groups with their more than apparent “small L [wink] political perspectives” and a government, who invented Social Marketing campaigns at Health Canada, purchasing sponsorship style politics from those same vendors. Do we expect now, the corrupted perspective of criminal impropriety, can be explained away by the common news anchor defeatist opinion “what are you going to do? It’s the government.”

Similarly the ad campaigns purchased by Health Canada directly or through paid Lobbies [who can go where the government fears to go publicly] are defined as “Social Marketing” which divines Healthism campaigns which parallel a government theft of our rights and freedoms as a coercive underbelly in unnamed consequences. Of intrusion into autonomy rights or the governing of one’s own body, we impose upon ourselves while railing for bandwagons which restrict the choices of others.

Foolishly we believe as a standard and a promotional example, we will not similarly restrict ourselves and allow those intrusions, by governments to continue, anywhere they decide to shore up their power over communities, with the thought now lost; they represent us, more than we represent them.

As efficiencies of systems improve and the level of personal earnings decreases, as aggressive taxation takes larger and larger proportions of what you earn, a growing level of normal people, are now judged as criminals. Normally honest hard working people, who only seek to stay ahead of their bills and live a modest life, providing food and shelter for their dependents. For many, that existence is now entirely dependent on the amount of those earnings they can hide from the government, avoidance and fear of detection, making them fearful, tortured and depressed, which causes a rising level of Health deficits, requiring more efficient means of decreasing the costs, through more severe restrictions and impositions into our freedoms and our evaporating quality of life. The Tax man's reputation is being used to sell legal agency, by revealing the oppressive nature of governments, in the level of oppressive power, exerted against anyone who can not afford to pay a tax related debt.

We afford the largest most profitable businesses in the nation, self regulation and forgiveness in dealing with much larger debts owed by those who can afford to pay those debts. We allow them to avoid most of their tax debt, by charitable contributions made to, directly controlled non profits and foundations or associated agencies, who promote the reciprocal corporate image, keeping charity at home.

Political lobby organizations are posing as the nation’s largest medical charities, accepting goodwill donations by claiming to be searching for cures. That search would now conflict with disease management strategies, which required a promise, to end the search and blame the victims instead.. Trust and compassion are expectations no longer afforded to the people, governments are supposed to be working for, but always found in infinite supply when toasting good deeds, while wearing tuxedos and drinking celebratory champagne at awards ceremonies.

For most of us the same reaction is heard again; ”What can you do, It’s the Government” In a reasonable and common sense perspective we have to understand the government is the people’s representative and we only have ourselves to blame for allowing the ad campaigns we know as the evening news, to redefine us and enslave us.

Government agendas empowered by “Social Marketing” they used our money to create, as a stated government policy at Health Canada [See WIKI Propaganda] has led to cloned Provincial and municipal “Health Information” ministries and offices opened, in a massive expansion of bureaucracies. A process of “disease management” shifting responsibility for diseases and injury from the government, to the people, enforced with prisons, taxes guns and tasers. When it was their responsibility, how many of them paid fines for their shortcomings, or actually went to jail?

“Social Marketing” allows Governments to create problems [real or fictional; see global warming] to solve, while avoiding the real issues we need addressed, always being pushed to the back burner as carrots of enticement, to find support in election campaigns. “Sustainable Development” was derived to sustain a corporate profitability system, and is absolutely not a promotion of individual health, or the needs of communities. Corporate greed is at the helm, which deceptively steals funds, known as “Health Care” investments, away from the bricks and mortar facilities which actually provided research, treatment and care. Health care facilities where the line-ups, inexplicably, continue to grow, despite the huge increased investments, spoken of constantly on soap boxes, for political gain. The expansive demands of empowered government lobby henchmen and their eternal lust, is expressed in ceaseless demands to increase funding and impositions, A cult of public health which will not cease, before the people understand; Fascism is not a conspiracy theory or a right to dispose of an opinion, solely by it’s inclusion, in a description of what one sees, it is a disease of governments who are evolving to something less than the traditional political party policies, your parents and grandparents had in mind. Freedoms and expressions of thousands of years of community values, they protected, many by sacrificing their own lives.

The deterioration of personal rights and freedom is indeed, the genesis of genocide.

Governments and the people have lost an understanding of who serves whom, we need to demand more from the contractors we hire. It is time to chase the fattened and overly confident pigeons from the roost, to make room for just a few of the doves.