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