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.