The obligation of hatred

This was a letter directed at a news editor, but it may also be a warning to be sent to all members of the participating and financing groups, connected to tobacco control. A template, to put on notice; this or many of the other Public Health interventions currently underway, in applauding the savaging of the individual. This new legalized form of hatred is, by an over reaching perspective, targeting of racial minorities and the poor once again, with back door prohibitions and back room bigotry, incredibly portrayed as an obligation to the state and to political correctness.

Hello;

A commentary, in regard to the Article; The DNA Age

Fear of Insurance Trouble Leads Many to Shun or Hide DNA Tests by Amy Harmon

Published: February 24, 2008

“All civilized systems of law confer upon the people, as against their governments, the right to be let alone.
That is the most comprehensive of rights and the most valued by civilized men.”

— Justice Louis D. Brandeis


The article indicated the situation described is rare, yet according to S. Chapman in his recent paper published at the British Medical Journal discussing the “spoiled identity” the situation is not as rare as one may think. At least 60 million people in America he described, currently share the discrimination she fears. No longer just normal people who smoke but now evolved to a sub human species, we have been encouraged to detest.

How in retrospect could anyone fail to see the linkages to those in the past who sought to protect the gene pool and modern day science, targeting personal responsibility for all disease? Just as Hitler created his "spoiled identities" while “protecting” his realm. Modern medicine is replicating the process by inwardly discriminating against genetic predisposition, linking genetic variances to a detestable person, just as the outward associations Hitler defined in describing how those predispositions occurred more predominantly among racial variation.

The woman in the article; if she contracts emphysema, whether she smokes or not; will be assumed by the stoked public, to be a victim of smoking. If she smokes, a master of her own destiny. Otherwise she will be assumed to have been exposed to 30 seconds of tobacco smoke at some time during her life, which would explain the horror in realizing "she never smoked a day in her life" we hear so often in media banter, which only solidifies the bigotry and fears being created. In ether case, she will be viewed as a questionable or lesser person.

A legal perspective; of what the medical HIA health intervention, contravenes?

The promotion of smoking bans targeting individuals, identified as smokers or the fat pandemic describing those who are overweight, or the lobby against any other personal characteristic when individuals are identified as a group, with unfounded broad brushed accusations, coupled with the intent to destroy reputation and their public acceptance, is likely illegal for a number of reasons; "The spoiled Identity" admitted by S. Chapman and others is cause, to seek legal action, on behalf of those who are the targets of organized and deliberate state bigotry.

Complaints could include any or all of the following;

"Invasion of privacy is a legal term essentially defined as the unlawful intrusion into the personal life of another person without just cause and includes a non-public person's right to privacy from: a) intrusion into solitude or into private affairs; b) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; c) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; d) appropriation of a person's name or picture for another person's gain or commercial advantage.[1] The right to privacy is the right of a person to be secluded and not seen, heard, or disturbed and involves freedom from observation, intrusion, or attention unless there is a "reasonable' public interest in personal activities, the right to stop police and other government agents from searching person or property except when there is "probable cause", the freedom to make certain decisions about our own personal bodies and private lives without interference from the government, and protected in the due process clause of the 14th amendment of the United States Constititution, the right to privacy regarding family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing.[2] However, public figures have less privacy, and this is an evolving area of law as it relates to the media."

"Intrusion of solitude occurs where one person exposes another to unwarranted publicity. In a famous case from 1944, author Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings was sued by Zelma Cason, who was portrayed as a character in Rawlings' acclaimed memoir, Cross Creek.[4] The Florida Supreme Court held that a cause of action for invasion of privacy was supported by the facts of the case, but in a later proceeding found that there were no actual damages."

"Intrusion upon seclusion occurs when a perpetrator intentionally intrudes, physically, electronically, or otherwise, upon the private space, solitude, or seclusion of a person, or the private affairs or concerns of a person, by use of the perpetrator's physical senses or by electronic device or devices to oversee or overhear the person's private affairs, or by some other form of investigation, examination, or observation intrude upon a person's private matters if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Hacking a computer is an example of intrusion upon privacy.[5] In determining whether intrusion has occurred, one of three main considerations may be involved: expectation of privacy; whether there was an intrusion, invitation, or exceedance of invitation; or deception, misrepresentation, or fraud to gain admission. Intrusion is “an information-gathering, not a publication, tort…legal wrong occurs at the time of the intrusion. No publication is necessary"

"Public disclosure of private facts arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person[7]. "Unlike libel or slander, truth is not a defence for invasion of privacy."[8] Disclosure of private facts includes publishing or widespread dissemination of little-known, private facts that are non-newsworthy, not part of public records, public proceedings, not of public interest, and would be offensive to a reasonable person if made public."

"False light is a legal term that refers to a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. For example, the privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to privacy from publicity which puts them in a false light to the public; which is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech.

False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being."[10] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading then a tort of false light might have occurred.[10]

The specific elements of the Tort of FALSE LIGHT vary considerably even among those jurisdictions which do recognize this Tort. Generally, these elements consist of the following:

1. A publication by the Defendant about the Plaintiff;
2. made with actual malice (very similar to that type required by New York Times v. Sullivan in "Defamation" cases);
3. which places the Plaintiff in a false light; AND
4. that would be highly offensive (i.e., embarrassing to reasonable persons)"

"Invasion of privacy is a commonly used cause of action in a legal pleading. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ensures that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The amendment, however, only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government. Invasions of privacy by persons who are not state actors must be dealt with under private tort law.


A notable quote regarding the United States Constitution and privacy in the case of Dietemann v. Time Inc. (9th Cir. 1971): “The First Amendment has never been construed to accord newsmen immunity from torts or crimes committed during the course of newsgathering. The First Amendment is not a license to trespass, to steal, or to intrude by electronic means into the precincts of another’s home or office"

In conclusion;

It would seem to be a duty of every American citizen; individually or as organized groups to copy the legal descriptions of these reprehensible and illegal acts, and deliver them with demands for public retractions and apologies, in an effort to avoid legal demands, which could proceed.

The demand should be addressed to any and all partners of Public health organizations who have distributed, or by their silence as partners in the coalition allowed, false and misleading information to exist in the public perspectives, which detracts from the rights of the person and could [and likely will] endanger their security. Partner lists can be found at; The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, ASH, The American Cancer Society, The Heart and Stroke Foundation, The American Lung Association or at a host of media branded darlings, who recently replaced the "Flintstones selling cigarettes" and now promote and protect the sales of other perspective driven and branded products. which trend to be; as, or much more, dangerous to the health of the same targeted individuals claimed as "protected" by Public health Associations who tend to protect their financing sponsors to a much higher degree.

The "spoiled Identity" is a deliberate act of personal denormalization, which has gone well beyond the description of making "not normal" the act of smoking and now has defamed humiliated and encroached on the civil and human rights of millions who chose to use, a thus far, legal product.

As a benchmark in public health advocacy this can not stand, as an acceptable model for future campaigns. Too many died as a consequence of these promotions in our past, to even consider this, as an appropriate action to protect our futures.

"In 1975 Sir George Goober, British delegate to the World Health Organization presented his blueprint for eliminating tobacco use worldwide by changing social attitudes;

"..it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their families and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to EST..""

Minor reference list;

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/17/1/25

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1523368

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

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

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

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

http://thesuburban.com/content.jsp?sid=14787592909217016673552527312&ctid=1000002&cnid=1014440

Promoting action with ethnic numbers

The practice of managing diseases, can not avoid the underlying reality; you have to micro-manage the personal lives of individuals and promote segregation, hatred and bigotry in order to make it effective. Ignorance of human rights and personal freedom can never be overlooked or simply ignored in hopes they will just go away.

Medical interventions are in effect; the treating of patients, who neither asked for, or ever wanted to be treated, by politicians acting as Doctors, who are trained and determined to treat individuals as the disease. Taking us right back to witch burning campaigns, protections and paternalisms in three easy lessons.

While investigating the overreaching effects of Public health reforms, in sustainable development efforts, a disturbing reality is starting to emerge. Can we separate personal allotments of blame, in "managing disease", from the eventuality of bigotry and enhanced stereotypical racism as a result of biological reference, which we know will always result?

Can we interpret "disease management" as an admission of failures in abandoning the search for causes and cures, at a time with new technology available today, we might finally accomplish those goals. We seem to be on a track which proposes; we know enough and physical science can offer us no more knowledge. Is in now sufficient to say; lofty calculations are sufficient proof to provide us with a stance, we know what causes all diseases. By pretending the matter is settled, we find justification enough, to now allot the blame and the punishments.

Can a Social Marketing [See Propaganda] effort, aimed at adjusting health outcomes avoid the charges; that they punish some cultures and communities with scorn and exclusions, which are unequal in both application and in the resulting divisions, among those being targeted and of course, those being "protected".

A negative campaign of hatred and isolation is defined by Simon Chapman and B Freeman in a recent report as the creation of a "spoiled identity". The study seems to laud the efficiencies gained, in promoting the personal negatives. Associating, in the campaign process, a negative perspective to all aspects of a smoker’s life, recognition of any claim to equitable human rights, security of the person or even a basic "normal" identity.

Lobbyists are defining a negative judgment, demonstrated in the act of smoking alone, as a huge barrier to the enjoyment of life, which should be deliberately maintained. Scientific certainty with no alternate views allowed, is implying; smoking will lead and should always lead, to poor health, poverty, ill repute and social ostracism. Many references are applauded in the study demonstrating how those defined as "smokers" have been punished and driven to isolation. A pattern which apparently by all medical interpretation, should aggressively continue.

Today many smokers avoid medical treatments, which will almost certainly include demeaning and insulting paternalist lectures. Many similarly will avoid mental health treatments, simply because the institutions demanding smoke free status would be a further challenge to an already difficult situation to face. Inflexibility by legislation, results in a reality that many will refuse to voluntarily accept beneficial treatments
Further the numbers of reality are distracted, when we realize the non or poor application of other variables tremendously delineate the numbers discussed.


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1523368

"Disability weights reflect the relative severity and impact of a disease and theoretically range from 0 (no disability) to 1 (death)"

"Making no adjustment for comorbidity is equivalent to assuming that effects of comorbidity on disability are additive. Thus, if a person has more than one disease his total disability weight equals the sum of the disability weights for those diseases. However, in this interpretation individual disability weights may add up to more than one. This cannot be interpreted in a plausible way because it would imply that more than one year of health is lost when living for one year with those diseases."

“Comorbidity complicates estimations of health-adjusted life expectancy (HALE) using disease prevalence’s and disability weights from Burden of Disease studies. Usually, the exact amount of comorbidity is unknown and no disability weights are defined for comorbidity.”

“Comorbidity, defined as the presence of two or more diseases in one person, complicates HALE calculations for two reasons. The first one is that the exact amount of comorbidity is unknown since all data on disease incidence, prevalence and mortality gathered in Burden of Disease (BOD) studies are disease specific [6]. The second reason is that there are no disability weights defined for comorbidity”

"Then, patients decide for themselves how the total disability that is caused by all concurrent diseases influences their functioning and quality of life. Therefore, empirical results of studies using self reported generic measures could be used to develop a more general theory as to how comorbidity influences disability. For instance, a question that needs to be answered is whether two comorbid diseases from different "disease clusters" (such as a physically limiting disease combined with a mental disease) leads to more disability than two or more diseases from one "disease cluster""

Medical research is largely dependent on stores of analytical numbers, such as the SEERS Stat database. When those numbers only reflect a narrow scope, defining human populations absolutely as Black, White or Hispanic how beneficial can the research be when evaluating total populations? The numbers are utilized religiously, despite the obvious omissions of major population groups, significant groups which do not fit well, biologically or socially in any of these descriptions. The immediate questions which arise would be in what classification would an Asian National fit into? Would African cultures in the third world have similar health perspectives to Caribbean or Asian Blacks? Does the perspective remain constant after residing in the Americas as second or third generation populations?

The reality found in a compressed view, is an ignorance of the diversities which exist in real populations with mixed diversity, which should be obvious. What we are told, in relation to disease pontificating, has to be weighed; in not only the view of what is divulged but what is not divulged or worse what is being consciously withheld,

Those deliberate and almost demanded withholdings can be found gratuitously, in epidemiology research complimenting the views of its financiers. Calculations representing opinions which are no longer chained to biological or even time line viability, but are now driven by demands of convenient purpose, to sensationalize what can never be more than the researcher’s limited or limiting scope. Those observations are utilized in dramatic media declarations, of “new” science discoveries almost daily, to empower a dangerous process of divisions and social change. That dominated process should also be examined in minuet detail. In the larger perspective; can such efforts, as campaigns against smoking, which prescribe, by a medical community no less, a punishment to find the end goal, be seen as anything more than a deceptive promotion of bigotry" Rekindled in the medical hierarchy is an ill advised effort to cleanse our genetic pool.

The cold clinical realities we see consistently in medical observations are biological impediments in some groups which by medical demands, should be punished, which we know ethically is a crime against humanity no matter the purpose or the advantage gained. If we allow the example to be set, how then can we deny the furthering of such actions? The population view conveniently disguises what is actually happening in the real view of community interactions. The increased violence and poverty can not be simply cured by interventions into diverse communities with linear perspectives.

Health care interventions, evaluating the Anti smoker campaign as a perfect example, seek to marginalize portions of the community, utilizing majority groups of communities in agreement with the stated goal. Lobbies have been deliberately and irresponsibly using smoking as a cultural wedge to separate once much more harmonious communities. Compared to perspectives only 20 years ago, the effect is truly frightening by its unbridled international scope alone. The pressures of fear and a duty to the protection of children are employed as legitimate tools, even when no harm can be, or could ever be demonstrated. This has an effect in producing biologically sustainable and scientifically acceptable racial lines, drawn by instigating fears. Once again science explores promoting the stereotypes of eugenics, with racism quietly acceptable and under wraps. Already the smoking bans have been announced as a resounding success and a model for further interventions.

The questions to be asked would be; if Asian communities who comprise the highest smoking prevalence and the lowest incidence of smoking related diseases had been included, how fearful would the resulting numbers look? And how successful would the anti smoker campaign have been? The questions which would have to come next would have to do with the reasons, Asian populations were left out of the perspectives or how much power to shame smokers would have existed had those numbers been included in the research which is claimed today as irrefutable and consistent.

The Bigots used to call them “Human Ballast” today they are called "spoiled identity". Those who will not be driven by fear mongering, will now become the victims of it. Law abiding citizenry are currently redefining themselves as criminals, in the eyes of unjust albeit targeted laws, which support the very worst in all of us. The realities of disease management and the RIO Summit defining what is termed as “Health care reform” can not elevate itself above the measures of bigotry as the final solution regardless of media partnerships and broad campaigns of deceptions. Governments attempting to reform communities are always held at the will of those communities. If Bigotry is at the heart of community want, that civilization is one in desperate decline. That civilization needs to be challenged as one more failure, among many in history, at the hands of irresponsible although financially expedient, human experimentation.


Proof, is not even difficult to find;
"In 1975 Sir George Goober, British delegate to the World Health organization
presented his blueprint for eliminating tobacco use worldwide by changing
social attitudes.

"..it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that
active smokers would injure those around them, especially their families and
any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to EST.."


http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/17/1/25
S. Chapman and B. Freeman et al; Tobacco Control, BMJ report 2008,
“As smoking becomes increasingly denormalised and communities vocal about their dislike of smoking, there is abundant evidence that smokers internalise this negativity. In nations with advanced tobacco control, smokers have almost universal regret about having commenced smoking.19 After health concerns, the social unacceptability of smoking is nominated by most ex-smokers as their main motivation for quitting.20 Denormalising smoking is also associated with protecting others from second-hand smoke. Among factors that positively predicted having a smoke-free home was "believing smoke free was normative" (high acceptance of denormalising beliefs about smoking)”


http://omega.twoday.net/stories/297097/
"In his first Rock Carling Fellowship Lecture in June 1967, Richard Doll stated clearly that prevention of cancer was a better strategy than cure."


Prevention in action; assigning the blame…
http://www.imt.ie/news/2008/02/polish_smokers_need_help.html
“The dramatically high prevalence of heavy smokers among Poles will result in an ‘economic disaster’ for Ireland, a prominent respiratory physician has told Irish Medical Times. Prof Luke Clancy said rates of heavy smoking in the Polish population — the largest group of immigrants in Ireland - means they’ll lose productive years of their life while requiring increased care for chronic respiratory and cardiac problems. Prof Clancy, Director General of the Research Institute for a Tobacco Free Society, directed a study on Polish smoking rates. The study, which looked at more than 1,500 Polish smokers and ex-smokers, found that 61 per cent of males and 47 per cent of females have smoked at least once a day for the last six months. “These are not casual smokers,” said Prof Clancy. The study also found that while women between the ages of 20 and 25 were most likely to want to quit smoking, only eight per cent had sought advice. Prof Clancy said there ought to be more Polish-language help for quitting, such as a Polish-language ‘quitline’. “It’s not just a Polish problem. It’s our problem,” said Prof Clancy, who said that the loss in productive years of their lives, coupled with the resources it will take to keep people with chronic diseases and health problems alive, will result in an ‘economic disaster’.”


http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/93/4/642
“Important potential gains in understanding both tobacco risk behavior and immigrant adaptation have been forestalled by the lack of suitable data. The primary deficiency has been the absence of large data sets that include questions on both smoking behavior and immigration status. The tobacco use supplements of the CPS, which were sponsored by the National Cancer Institute in a series of data waves collected in 1985, 1989, 1992–1993, 1995–1996, and 1998–1999, allow such analyses to be conducted. Standardized immigrant status questions began to be included in the main CPS questionnaire in 1994, and the subsequent tobacco use supplements provide the data needed to link smoking behavior and immigrant status.27,28 Using the CPS tobacco use supplements from 1995–1996 and 1998–1999, we sought to calculate smoking prevalence estimates by race/ethnicity and by immigrant status. We decomposed these estimates further, by country of birth, for Asian/Pacific Islander immigrants to illustrate the heterogeneity that exists within race/ethnicity and immigrant groups.”


Lying defined as more prevalent by ethnicity.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/80/9/1057
“To compare self-reported cigarette use with a biological marker of smoking behavior, we evaluated the serum cotinine levels in 547 Mexican American smokers who participated in the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (HHANES) in the South-western states.”
“Differences in cotinine metabolism and extremely efficient smoking are alternative explanations that can not be ruled out with these data. We believe, however, that a proportion of Mexican American light smokers may under report the quantity of cigarettes smoked per day, and may truly be moderate or heavy smokers. (Am J Public Health 1990; 80:1057-1061.)”


Biological observations in many other perspectives, avoiding what should be obvious.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/84/9/1439
“In a study of young Black and White smokers, Wagenknecht et al. found that Blacks had cotinine levels that were 83.3 ng/mL higher than those of Whites after controlling for several characteristics, including number of cigarettes, inhalation frequency, age, and education.6 After controlling for similar factors in our study of pregnant women, we found that Black smokers had cotinine levels that were 27.4 ng/mL higher than those of White smokers. Like Wagenknecht et al., we also found that Black smokers had higher serum cotinine levels at each level of self-reported cigarette consumption.”


Again;
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/2/135
“cotinine concentrations were substantially higher among black smokers than among white or Mexican American smokers at all levels of cigarette smoking. Whites and Mexican Americans had similar serum cotinine levels when they smoked up to 5 cigarettes per day, but serum cotinine levels increased significantly more for whites than for Mexican Americans with each additional cigarette smoked.”


The Battle lines are drawn.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/153/8/807
“Compared with self-reported smokers, self-reported non-smokers comprised a higher proportion of persons who were female, were aged 65 years or older, had 13 or more years of education, and did not live below the poverty level”

“We can also postulate a number of explanations for the discrepancy between self-reports and the results of biochemical assessment among self-reported non-smokers. First, Blacks, as compared with Whites, may be highly exposed to environmental tobacco smoke or may differ in terms of nicotine pharmacokinetics. These two possibilities would help to explain why Blacks who reported themselves to be non-smokers were more likely to have a cotinine level greater than 15.0 ng/ml. Indeed, several studies have found differences in serum cotinine concentrations between Black and White non-smokers. In these studies, Blacks had higher cotinine levels than did Whites, even after environmental tobacco smoke exposure and other factors were taken into account. Because racial differences in nicotine pharmacokinetics and genetic polymorphisms involved exist, different cut-off points are probably needed for each racial group”


NHAINES ethnic numbers omitted to enhance the prognosis;
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/2/135
“Our study sample was limited to participants aged 17 years or older who described themselves as non-Hispanic blacks, non-Hispanic whites, or Mexican Americans, who had a serum cotinine measurement and provided tobacco use information in the MEC, and who did not use any other significant sources of nicotine in the previous 5 days. Of the 12391 persons selected, 2271 refused the interview; 1315 were interviewed at home and did not visit the MECs; 281 did not answer the MEC tobacco questionnaire; 682 had no cotinine measurement; 434 reported using other significant sources of nicotine in the previous 5 days; and 226 were other than non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and Mexican American.”


Acknowledged, yet applauded; Public health devolving to a cult of “normal” by decree.
A “normal” perspective, which delegates by ethnic divisions, genetically superior races.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/17/1/25
“Several authors have suggested that Erving Goffman’s classic analysis of stigma and its resultant "spoiled identity" is consonant with how the meaning of smoking has changed in societies with widespread tobacco control. Goffman described stigmatisation as the transformation "from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one", writing that "Stigma is a process by which the reaction of others spoils normal identity". Writing in 1963 before the first US Surgeon General’s report on smoking was published, Goffman did not list smoking as a stigmatized behavior but did list "blemishes of individual character" that included addiction and alcoholism.”

In discussions of increased health risk if we take the perspective that risks are additive we would have to believe risks can exceed the level of the highest listed risk available. On a scale of 0% [no risk] to 100% [Death] as consistent with the general public interpretation, additive risk would easily surpass 100% which can make no sense.

In claims casual or even lifetime risks of second hand smoke increases health risk by 30% [immediately or long term] in this perspective we can see when added to other risks such as the increased lifetime risk of smoking 89% the total would exceed 100% making any amount of casual exposures of second hand smoke, to a smoker immediately fatal. How is it in the same promotion the lobbies tell us only half of smokers die from smoking related diseases of all causes regardless of smoking? You can imagine where that would place the notion of risk from second hand smoke yet the public has been conditioned to believe much more.

For the general public it is not well understood the difference between risk and cause which is definitive. There are thousands of risks you will encounter through an average lifespan, which if taken literally would end that life immediately by theoretic calculations. It is no miracle the estimates so many times miss the mark, the nature of the process and the odds of probability tell us they should be wrong many times more than they are right, when using a linear model to calculate non linear data, The amount of variables in play some not even realized as yet, leaves more room for error than we could ever have for certainty.

By promoting the idea second hand smoke could impose an immediate and permanent health risk based on current methods and to such a degree it could ever be seen to rise above the other risks available, which we can not avoid is mischievous at best, and delusional fanaticism at worst. The risk of second hand tobacco smoke can never truly exist when it can be demonstrated a comorbidity factor of higher value is present. Such values by direct comparison would be outdoor pollution, Fireplaces, Cooking, Fragrances and colognes, and a host of thousands more, which if compared by identical methods would exhibit risk increases which would dwarf any enthusiastic numbers we see in the media every day, primarily produced by the Lobby inspired numbers of smoking patch salespeople.

What is being established in dividing communities in use of fear and coercion is the promotion of a conscious norm, which includes justification for laying blame for health costs of community. The back room efforts are forming a new set of calculations which demonstrate how those extra costs can also be assigned to racial groups, who will be allotted blame and exclusions in the same way as we now afford generally to smokers. That reality is growing and becoming much more public, within the Tobacco Control Lobby as we see already in the trial balloon in Ireland, permission is being given, to take a step too far.

Now consider what people really believe;. Governments and lobby groups who are supposedly convinced of the deadly nature of this risk factor, are pushing hard to have smoking in a car where a child is present made illegal. The demands made of protecting children from the dangers of child abuse as claimed, presuming all smoking parents are guilty, to such a degree a law is necessary. Those promotions are somewhat questionable, when observing the sentence proposed for child abuse, in limiting the courts to a fine of twenty five to one hundred dollars on average. What does that say to the victims of real abuse and the anguish they suffer? Will we be asked to allow the same leniency to child rapists soon? No one including the lobbies really believes what they are claiming. What is evident, many who don’t like the smell of the smoke are simply latching on to a proposal of child protection, which makes their lives more comfortable, in a way that they can justify their own angst of conscience, with plausible deniability, conveniently leaning on the words of others.

Fools Gold

Alas my friends if you hitched your wagon in support of smoking bans or global warming, you are more than obviously another willing victim of statistical fraud.

Hysteria and fears which are more closely related to your discomfort with the smell of the smoke, than any realistic harm originating from it. It is your fear which allows increased production of bureaucracy inspired fools gold, a growing epidemic which creates huge holes in the public purse and generously rewards those who play the game.

In the 50s and 60s more than half the population smoked in North America 54% in fact, now that those same people are getting older in an evolving population bubble, they are naturally dying from what has always been known as diseases of the elderly, such as cancers and heart disease which occur in the vast majority beyond 70 years of age. A population bubble actually predicted at birth and for many years after, to die at 65.

With an aging population it was expected we would see disease increases in these categories. Because more than half the population smoked and the fact slightly more than half of the so called smoking related diseases are found among smokers is only in reality a reflection of population norms in an aging population, and exactly what was known and expected for decades.

Half of smokers in this age group it is prophesied “will die of smoking related diseases”. Half of those who did not smoke will take up slightly less than half of smoking related diseases [4% less than half or 46%] close to 25% of each population group reflecting less than 25% of total mortality figures in both cases, so what is so scary? What we did not expect as the bubble moved was; despite the drastic reductions of smoking prevalence, little reductions of the disease numbers ever occurred, which we had always believed, were primarily caused by smoking.

No one thought to test other realities once our collective mind was made up, we just stuck to the belief system. Recently Stanton Glanz an avid anti smoker advocate citing information gleaned from his favorite list of research papers, implied; the increased risk of second hand smoke was .3 or 30%. He also stated second hand smoke was more dangerous than primary smoking, but that’s another story. If we look at the numbers that 30% fits quite nicely in the expectation of 4% less non smokers numerically would result obviously in 4% less mortalities from smoking related diseases. 30% of [4% reduction of the 25% of total mortalities classed as smoking related] This apparently demonstrates an elimination of any increased risk due to second hand smoke above population norms. It would also illuminate a tendency of the fanatics, to zero in on research limited to the population bubble, while attempting to present an increased risk in the past still applies to the current population today which creates much larger numbers. With absolutely no credit given to medical innovation in over 50 years and the numerous environmental changes we were told would afford us large benefits over the years, significant factors they seem to be glossing over when distributing ever increasing numbers in mortality predictions.

Statistical research studying population patterns often fails to recognize the split of smokers and non smokers as an evolving percentage number and the majority figure has changed significantly with no apparent effect according to the research. They also fail to realize; few don’t know what cigarette smoke smells like, so virtually all in the population have been exposed. In aging groups all were exposed in much higher volumes and for much longer durations than anything we would see today. Realizing this, how do you develop an increased employment risk with no non exposed control group to measure against?

The answer; You can’t!!!

No disease has ever been determined to have been caused by second hand smoke; there is simply a slim statistical association among 10s of thousands of other statistical associations. What was determined by calculation was; it might be possible. If we choose to ignore the other possibilities anything could be made, more possible. Similarly an association exists between breast cancers and an increased risk of 25,000% if a woman wears a bra, a much more definitive possibility we can ignore, for obvious reasons.

No cause is ever legitimately stated, just a possibility of increased risk. The claims of actual “cause” are a result of the exaggerations and deceptive ad agency spin produced for lobby groups, with obvious financial interests in their sights. Epidemiology is the science of speculation. Nothing is reproducible or even sustainable for long, as perspectives change with media hype driving popular opinions. Nothing grows beyond what a researcher believes, or more accurately; what the researcher wants others to believe. It is a system dominated by an old boy’s network, with strict control over public perspectives with research funding as a reward for the obedient, which serves to sustain the credibility of their promotions of the past, at the pleasure of enormous industry funded Charity foundations. [The guys who write the largest cheques]

People driven to fear will demand to be protected. Lobbies were funded to create political pressures. Gratuitously exaggerated fear did the rest. You now have smoking bans, global warming and fat pandemics, and who could forget the mad cows which destroyed the cattle industry and drove the prices of beef through the roof. SARS pandemics were used as a Whip in Canada who was resisting UN demands at the time. Canada was declared a risky destination by UN lobbies who eventually won, Canadian government obedience. Bird flu preaching pandemic fear from disease strains which do not even exist, resulted in stock piling of vaccines which can offer no protection, from an as yet, undetermined target disease. Irresponsible reporting is driving huge Health Scare expenditures with irresponsible claims. We have as a result a global expression of hypochondria. Hysterics and high drama in the media spotlight are claiming statistical victims wherever it can find them.

Bodies are being claimed now, in many instances multiple times, by multiple competing lobbies. The sum of risk calculations which are always stated as; predicted by the World Health Organization, realistically far exceeds how many are actually dying.

We have a duty to pay taxes, how many lives a government duty or obligation actually saves, by huge investments, is none of our concern. It just sounds so good, while promoting a political brand, when a politician reminds us how many lives they saved today, our level of gratitude in poll numbers actually measures how well we are being conned.

No one has caught on to the idea, surprisingly, that we will all die eventually and no death is really preventable. Nor has anyone considered, what is actually being said when claiming “there is no safe level of tobacco smoke” which is actually saying nothing at all, however the fear produced by that statement places it atop the many historic ad agency creations, as a legend in its own time. We could say there is no safe level of air, water or just about anything you could imagine the placement in relation to cigarette smoke has served its purpose admirably.

The real crime found in all this? The fear in our communities is driven by tax expenditures in support of professional radicals, resulting in the financing of highly deceptive media promotions, no more real than the fanatical sky is falling routine. Fears are then forcing legislators to make much larger expenditures in protecting us from what we believe to be much more dangerous than physical science could ever sustain.

Fools gold!!!

You really do; have nothing to fear but fear itself. Get it?

The Science of Intimidation

The greatest threat to our society, our cultures and to national security today, rests in the significant and unrestricted promotions of scientific fraud and terrorist acts, being echoed and indeed promoted in the media daily. A tool of industrial lobbies and UN domination strategies, by unelected officials no less. Dictators who seek to protect only the financial interests of their partners. A financial motive which pays a lot, to promote political domination.

Political leaders of all parties are attacked in media campaigns constantly, while demanding funding or power which politicians in seeking to preserve reputation, have little choice but to comply. They are not able to argue of course with the perspective saviors and protectors of the populace, Medical charities and health scare organizations, who masquerade as the voice of the people as well, through invented and purchased reputations, with absolutely no authority to do so. The evidence points consistently to top down actions to the people campaigns as opposed to the claimed grass roots of the people. Fear wins and terrorists are allowed to rule.

Reality today is controlled conspiracy creation, as outlined in many Lobby group promotional materials following the mold of HIA [health / wealth], interventions originating at the World Health Organization. HIA Blue prints instruct partners, in the facilitation of domination principles. [Yea and I'm a conspiracy nut, yawn].

Reality is purchased by financial advantages of Health Scare Prophets, in describing and accepting epidemiology as "the one true science” when in fact, it can only be judged legitimately as nothing more than the science of speculation. That speculation is controlled completely by what the researcher believes, or more correctly “what he wishes others to believe”, in spite of real science which, more often than not, proves them to be absolutely mistaken.

"Confounding effects" are always a matter of speculation and will always control the "risk factors produced" by the statistical model. With human intervention evident, all epidemiological conclusions will remain as always “Speculative" and "Subject to change as perceptions change"

To end all discussion, when you find, what you want to find, is absolutely ignorant of the process and absolutely deceptive in passing that information to the public in self serving press releases. A public who largely will never fully comprehend what is being presented. Although in time they will catch on, regardless of media credibility which will be lost, along with the credibility of scientific institutions that play this irresponsible game.

The considerable increased mortality and morbidity numbers produced directly by the lies of epidemiology will one day be calculated and those responsible held to account. Let’s hope they are tried in jurisdictions where the death penalty is an option, as appropriate justice, for extreme crimes against humanity. As the death toll of “disease management” and “Tax exempted, Industrial Philanthropy” continues to climb."

It is surprising with an analytic view of the world, anyone could be so naive as to buy into the Cult of Public Health. A theology of directed calculations in denial of time line and biological evaluation.

The Rio Summit took the benificial search for "cures" into a more controlled version of science known as "disease management" which provides protections for the larger industrial interests of this planet, who could never be held to account for the damages they do to societies. Management assumes all disease can be eliminated by controlling personal behavior. This all sounds perfectly reasonable at the surface, but when you look where it leads, ultimately we will have to punish disease outcomes and the recipients of those punishments will exist among the elderly and cultural groups decided by consensus evaluations to posses inferior genetic qualities.

We are of course talking about a re-emergence of the eugenics movement. A mistake in the past and still a mistake today. The dysfunctionalities of comparing one group to another, in theoretic research of epidemiology promoted of late by such questionable scholars as Stanton Glanz [Below] has only one endpoint, we saw once before, as six million perished because they did not meet cultural or physical expectations.

Image courtesy of smoke free Ohio

We are talking of hatred and divided societies here, with only one choice offered align or be punished in every conceivable way. When speaking of an addiction they also tell us is one of the most severe addictions known to man, that choice and the options offered are substantially reduced. Leaving one to wonder if they are being asked/told to quit, legitimately, or if they are being tortured to eliminate the possibility for many of them they ever could quit. The comfort of those who don't like the smell, is compensated indefinitely as the largest cash cow of our society will continue to produce indefinitely.

Those who are irresponsibly promoting fear and high drama, are far beyond any credible claims of protecting anyone. If judged in scientific terms; observing the true level of poison and the dose, with the absolute refusal to distinguish the many varied sources and varieties of the so call demon smoke. The kind of "science" being claimed is more than obvious not science at all we know it more simply as promoted hatred.

Anti smoker anti-fat, anti-alcohol all challenge individual rights and freedoms, that, from a scientific standpoint, negating religion, is still a morally reprehensible act.

Science does not support witch hunts or bandwagons because it is a pursuit of discovery, not a control of what might be discovered, in ad hominid attacks against the messenger who may step out of line. Or is it cherry picking what you want to believe, while denying the existence of what you don't.

The clear evidence claimed by the fanatic, is proof in itself of the deceptive nature of that clarity. If we knew what caused diseases we could cure them, which would reduce the health risks far more than limiting the exposures.

Do the fanatics actually believe; by eliminating cigarette smoke we will eliminate all the major diseases?
Even they wont allow the exaggerations to go that far.Calculated conclusions of population research are so very rarely consistent, without a lot of help along the way.

You are free to call the "cannon of proof" what you want, it remains as always speculation, elevated by fear to systemic fraud.

We have really moved along quite quickly on the anti smoker campaign, perhaps a little too fast for anyone to catch a breath and consider where we are going. Smoking Bans in cars is a big step moving from public spaces to personal spaces and the intrusions on parental rights. Once we open that box what else will we find as rational to support?

Where will all this lead we can look to the UK who have traveled a little farther down the road of disease management with a health care crisis much like our own. The costs of health care is the topic on everyone's mind of late, a growing crisis with an aging population. ASH an international ant smoker lobby group has aggressively pursued the notion of making smokers lives as difficult as possible in a promoted "hope" they "may" be forced to quit.

ASH have supported exclusions from medical treatments, employment and housing, bans in all public buildings and private businesses, in cars in in homes, Increased taxes for medical dependencies and recently; went one step too far in my opinion, by actually presenting documented evidence that Polish citizens living in Ireland have higher smoker prevalence than others while stating, the result would have significant impacts on the health care system.

Once we have been lobbied successfully and accept the car and home bans, will we too be lobbied to punish minority groups as well? Only time will tell, and the lobbies armed with their media bullhorns, will have the final say as they always do.

Genetic markers and the inevitable reduced facilities due to aging or disabilities [those once referred to as human ballast] are by far the most significant factor of predicting diseases and mortality figures. Now that we are well along on the road to personal responsibility judged by risk factors, for community costs, with apparently little regard to personal rights and freedom, it is hard to understand how we can avoid segmenting and punishing disease cost, by cultural identity, disability, or by age to illicit public scorn for growing old or as a result of those unfortunate enough to be born with the wrong type of genetic mappings. This was known once in a darker place in history as "the final solution". Will that be the end road of our solutions in managing the burden of disease as well?

Or have we already gone, quite far enough?



Polish people living in Ireland smoke much more than Irish people,
the results of a new study have found.


http://www.irishhealth.ie/index.html?level=4&id=12987


Number crunchers?

The Research Institute for a Tobacco Free Society

http://www.tri.ie/ResearchResults/tabid/61/Default.aspx

http://www.tri.ie/

"According to the findings, 61% of Polish males and 47% of females who live in Ireland are smokers. The majority of Polish people living here are aged 20-40 and in both countries, smoking prevalence is highest within this age group. However just 31% of Irish people in the same age group smoke.

RIFTFS director, Prof Luke Clancy, described the findings as ‘alarming’ and said that they would have ‘implications for our public health policy’."

More number crunchers?

The following can be judged entirely by how many would actually be exposed "long term" [Meaning 8 hours a day-7 days a week-for more than 40 years] to second hand smoke. In community as it stands? Very few including bartenders who work at bingo halls, would see the exposures discussed. As fear is an effective tool of advertising, they use it far to generously to maintain any level of credibility. On a linear scale your risks decrease or are eliminated according to your real life situation.

The largest perspective studies, which should be judged as much more reliable and credible than the sum of the tiny ones with varying results, [which incidentally when all are included tells us a contradictory story], in absolute opposition to what is being distributed here.

http://medjournalwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/doing-math-on-secondhand-smoke.html



"The evidence is overwhelming. In a review of 29 studies, Barnoya and Glantz (Circulation 2005) have calculated a relative risk of 1.3, that is an increase by 30 percent, for coronary heart disease, caused by long-term exposure to secondhand smoke."



This one pretty much sums it up..,

"Despite the fact that the dose of smoke delivered to active smokers is 100 times or more that delivered to a passive smoker, the relative risk of coronary heart disease for smokers is 1.78,⁵ (Figure 1). Rapidly accumulating evidence, however, indicates that many important responses of the cardiovascular system (Table 1) are exquisitely sensitive to the toxins in SHS. These mechanisms, rather than isolated events, interact with each other to increase the risk of heart disease. compared with 1.31 for passive smokers"

IS SECOND HAND SMOKE ACTUALLY MORE TOXIC THAN SMOKING?
SHOULD WE ALL START SMOKING, TO REDUCE OUR HEALTH RISKS?

Don't head for the smoke shack just yet.

What is not disclosed here? An elevation of 30% represents not a total risk elevation but an increase above the starting point. representing all in society, which has nothing to do with your personal life or mine who's actual disease factors would vary much more than our fingerprints.

Glanz in conjuring up a new demon; may well have destroyed the credibility of most of his other evidence. Sorry Stanton with all due respect realized.

He reduces a condensed list for various reasons, to focus on a select few which support his hypothesis and establish a risk of ETS at .3 which he proceeds to allude is much lower than what actually exists. His interpretations twist and turn like a roller coaster, primarily focussed on the endothelial effects, which could never be separated from the effects of stress or someone working in a cold climate moving into and out of heated spaces, or someone working in a warm climate who varies their body temperature daily when ever they walk into an air conditioned building or car. All of which by interpretations described in the research significantly increases the coronary risks of all the cases mentioned.

One of his studies, he points out some subjects included in the comparison group who were found to have low levels of cotinine in their blood, he surmised was proof of an increased effect, which should increase the risk. Never once considering as the researchers likely did, in confounding effects, if the levels are too low to be the effects of cigarette smoke, it could be assumed, the effects of ingestion of nightshade fruits or vegetables such as tomatoes or potatoes and egg plant.

In summation he deduces the population risk should be applicable to the entire population which would seem to be recognition; few in North America don't know what cigarette smoke smells like. If the exposures are so pervasive, by such minuscule amounts as would be encountered in 15 minutes. Everyone who knows what cigarette smoke smells like are as likely as a smoker is to die of a heart attack. Meaning smoking decreases your chances or at very least; does not increase your risk above that of the general population.

One has to realize the process of case control research and cohort studies, compare the exposed to the unexposed and compare disease outcomes. If we were to compare unexposed to unexposed groups we should see no difference. if those assumed to be unexposed, were actually exposed the research would have to be invalidated. If a non linear risk exists any increased risk found [including increases among his favorite studies] would naturally have to be the result of confounding errors or assumed to be associated with other factors. Which would dismiss all proof, a risk exists at all.

And in this corner....


The author below believes he has it bad; imagine being a defenseless smoker up against this lot. It would be interesting to see the reaction if someone actually pretended to light a cigarette in front of these lunatics. Do you think they would be holding their breath and running for the exits? Not likely because when you know the nature of the risk involved you can be confident you are not actually in harms way. Which has many of them doing human testing with no fear of harming the subjects, and machine testing in smoky bars personally yet, never once requesting a respirator.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2173898

"Enstrom cites the reign of terror over biology under Stalin as one example of politics trumping science. Though the Soviet case is rather extreme (we North Americans who dare question the scientific orthodoxy only have our careers threatened; not our lives, at least so far), it is not the most extreme. Many cultures were hobbled for centuries because of religious adherence to pseudoscience, and damage to people's health was one of the many results.

To conclude, I will offer a footnote to the Enstrom story, related to the session he hosted at the Congress of Epidemiology/Society for Epidemiologic Research, "Reassessment of the Long-term Mortality Risks of Active and Passive Smoking." Enstrom was not aware, at the time he wrote his article, that Jonathan Samet suggested to conference participants that they boycott (Samet's own word) that session. While this is hardly startling when mentioned at the end of a series of papers that describe exclusion, censorship, blackballing, and blackmail by the anti-tobacco establishment in their attempts to stifle dissent, its implications are darker than they seem at first blush: This was a real scientific meeting, not an anti-tobacco conference. A call for a boycott is not merely speaking ill of a researcher or study (time-honored traditions in science); it is a suggestion that others avoid even listening to presentations of evidence and analysis that those in power do not like. This is not legitimate scientific argument, or even a mere petulant protest. It is an attempt to promote the kind of self-censorship of thought examined by Orwell and mastered by Stalin. This took place at a premier scientific meeting in the field of epidemiology, and yet the suggestion did not appear to be denounced by anyone. This suggests that epidemiologists lack respect for their field as a legitimate science, and accept its role as a tool to be manipulated for advocacy, an attitude which seems attributable in no small measure to anti-tobacco activism and similar forms of advocacy."

Analysis

The physical toxic risk? they did test it themselves, in many workplace investigations; Never found a legal problem.

This information courtesy of Mark Wernimont; With my thanks.

You may be interested in air quality testing of secondhand smoke conducted by such names as Johns Hopkins, American Cancer Society, a Minnesota environmental health department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......of course all these groups originally conducted these tests to prove how "hazardous" secondhand smoke is in the workplace.....however, in fact the air quality testing proves that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/11/johns-hopkins-air-quality-testing-of.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/04/bmj-published-air-quality-test-results.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/02/air-quality-testing-and-secondhand.html

Additionally, there is a more urgent reason to oppose such anti-business legislation, here in the Twin Cities, smoking bans have closed down 155+ bars and restaurants eliminating thousands of jobs. As a frame of reference, in 2004 the last year without a ban, only 14 closed:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html

Around the country smoking bans have eliminated 1,000+ establishments

http://www.smokersclub.com/banloss3.htm

Can anyone doubt that smoking bans are fueled by inaccurate and exaggerated data, and more importantly have contributed to the economic downturn we now experience.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2008/01/economist-at-federal-reserve-declares.html

Disease Management

Hello all;

I wrote this in response to a recent promotion of the Canadian Lung Association at the CBC selling this car ban nonsense. I have little confidence anyone at the Liberal centric CBC will ever have the courage to publish it though. I have been studying the larger perspectives in play for quite some time now. Readers, if they take the time and really look, may well find an alternate truth. But only if they can get past the fear and have the courage to look beyond, what they have been taught to believe.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2008/01/31/smoking-cars.html


It is really unfortunate to watch as the Canadian Cancer Society and the Canadian Lung associations are willing to sacrifice, once, fine reputations by promoting targeted hatred in this way. "No brainer" is declared in the latest CBC article, describing the idea to ban smoking in cars with children. To "lower their health risks." Where coincidentally if you took the time to really look, no evidence can can be found any harm actually exists beyond the emotional, which could be appeased entirely by opening a window, just a crack. No Brainer is entirely an appropriate conclusion in this situation. Certainly not a lot of thought is required when riding high atop a lobbied band wagon. We need to ban smoking because a sign just wouldn't send a strong enough message, choices are never a guarantee, and there is no safe level of anything. Intention is found in the "no safe level of tobacco smoke" chant, which affords no useful information, the truth is unearthed in it's true intent of creating fear which it does admirably..

I take exception to the consistent practice of these groups who put forward a heavily lobbied town council in one small municipality in Nova Scotia to represent the views of an entire Province. In other representations elsewhere they added a list of New Jersey, Maine and California in a similarly deceptive way. The original anti smoker advocate was Hitler who was the original promoter of the political ideal, that second hand smoke could harm others irregardless of, if it ever could. Hitler in fact invented the term "second hand smoke". Would the Lung Association add that name to its list and ask me to follow the same logic stream?

There is actually another third hand kind of smoke, being gratuitously employed here, its the kind people refer to as being gingerly blown up your backside.

It is no small secret the Lung association and the Canadian Cancer Society have long abandoned the search for cures, in spite of their misleading advertising. favoring the approach of "disease management" as a higher theological ideal. This affords no abuse to their largest donations from industrial interests, who might, in lieu of real scientific advances recently, actually be held to account for the damages their products do to communities. While affording all blame for disease to "individual choice" which they claim can be eliminated with fear and targeted hatred.

The realities of what was sold at the Rio Summit, in all the impassioned drama presented there, are finally coming home to roost. People are starting to understand the level of fraud involved by the promoters and the arrogance of domination consensus among unelected decision makers.

It is entirely unfortunate pseudo-government agencies promoting Global rule, have chosen to govern themselves in the national socialist mold. They started out with much more noble intentions [or so we are told].

The practice of managing diseases, can not avoid the reality you have to micro-manage the personal lives of individuals and promote segregation, hatred and bigotry in order to make it effective. Ignorance of human rights and personal freedom can never be overlooked or simply ignored in hopes they will just go away.

State Paternalism only produces abusive parents. Bans can only serve to separate us and disease management can not possibly accept or even seek a cure.

Think about smoking bans and fat pandemics, even SARS or AIDS. How much extremely expensive media pro-[motion/paganda] has been expended [Who is paying for this stuff?]in controlling peoples lives by promoting the high drama of fear and hatred to direct all decisions, as opposed to finding cures and compromises which could eliminate all of the fear mongers largest complaints.

I don't need to be protected by the illegitimate church of pubic health. In the real world, parents do an excellent job of protecting their own children on their own. I don't believe industry promotional lobby groups, would make very good parents. But hey, thats just me...[Me and billions of others around me I would hope]

The kind of protections offered by Hitler and his Neo-Nannies we could all do well without.

Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty in Ontario is quoted as stating "smokers need to quit or be punished and as with McCarthyism, that punishment will continue, until the proud day someone stands and says; "Enough". His hatred is clearly defined in a protection of the children at a website targeting them, he appropriately called stupid.ca[Canada]reflecting his views in respect to a quarter of the electorate. What will he call the website to make fat people feel bad about themselves? Another, No Brainer?

No one stands against the wind with confidence, to earn political power or financial gain.
People will stand and say "enough" in Canada, because to put it quite simply; that is just what real Canadians do.

Operational Process in play

http://omega.twoday.net/stories/297097/

"In his first Rock Carling Fellowship Lecture in June 1967, Richard Doll stated clearly that prevention of cancer was a better strategy than cure."

An all to obvious and deliberate attempt to conceal the truth.
Medical Charities have been paid Billions of dollars to avoid the causes and the cures ever since.
I have invited them to demonstrate I am wrong, the silence is deafening. How many have died over all these years as a result of criminal indifference, premeditation and greed.
Those above the law will likely never be punished.