Smoker Bans /Federal dictates

Daddy Dalton and his agencies of "control"

2011-09-20T19:07:00.000-07:00

Dalton McGuinty politics, versus Donald Duck in the real world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZcs1SHVbz0

It is high time that the media party and similar propaganda agencies, expressed the other side of the argument, in respect to pseudo governmental organizations. These are legislatively empowered, taxation funded, "control boards", which hold the power of imposing behavioral laws, fines and imprisonment. All the while being responsible to no one, outside of their own organizational regime. The workplace insurance board of Ontario [or whatever they call it this week] is just such and agency, has highhandedly outlawed such tools as Bolson's chairs, under threat of fines, seizure and imprisonment, tools which were used to build the pyramids. Banned only because an unskilled and unqualified spectator, looks in awe and finds it unbelievable that anyone could use this tool confidently and live. Today they actually have many of the larger sign companies in Ontario, fearful to even allow their employees to carry a ladder on their trucks, or a bic lighter, or even to smoke, in a vehicle on the highway, of all places. An imposition of a pseudo-reality where micromanaged children of all ages, live with no right to make adult choices. They live within a mandate; which declares "there is no such thing as an accident". Or will any incidence exist, where an accident will go unpunished.

The principle empowerment of these Gulags is the entirely low to non statistically significant health and mortality risks, of working in an Ontario workplace. Being made to appear in the media by tax payer funded ad agency presentations, as though thousands are being slaughtered every hour. One of the safest places to work on the planet is what we saw, prior to the invention of the bubble wrapping, that is choking productivity and competition, right out of our workplaces, while offering up our jobs to China, who is now beating the hell out of our new coddled wimp workforce, in every perspective imaginable. Over "protection" by fines and seizures of private property, or banishment from workplaces, is a step too far. This constitutes direct and unreasonable interference, in someone's inherent rights to earn a living, or to house and feed their families. People who have always sustained themselves, by the skills and experience earned of real work. Within a regime that understood them to be; intelligent and capable adults and self sufficient human beings. The essential training of hands on life experience, that can not be found in a government published workbook. Earned Competence and skills are now being described as careless and brainless activities, by robber barons, who can only stand in awe, with no understanding of the work, or human compassion for the increased difficulty and expense, being placed in the road of getting any job done efficiently, with any measure of profit allowed.

I see roofers being protected against falling off a roof, not by their own instinctive cautions and common sense, rather by a guard-wall, installed around the edge of a roof, that it seems is illegal to construct, without a risk of substantial fines or imprisonment. If someone is in peril of falling off a roof and needs that guardrail to protect them, they are neither qualified as a roofer from the outset, or should they have ever have been allowed to travel more than three feet off the ground. To live in a highrise, walk or ski along a mountain trial, or be allowed to tend pigeons, sunbathe or barbeque, on any rooftop or balcony.

Is there much wonder that this Province can no longer compete in the workplace? With a overbearing mothering attitude, endemic in our legislatures, that won't allow us to accomplish real work, without the necessary paperwork, daily repeated safety meetings, over emphasis of the sound bite chantings, promoting fear of the consequences of a days work. There is always that duty to fear, that always arrives with every teenaged schoolbook trained inspector. Who has the sole voice that resides over all forms of superior experience, in what constitutes "safe enough". Workers are protected by hardhats, work boots and safety vests in an open muddy field against the showering of meteors or bird droppings, with no other sane reason to wear them, beyond the absolutes of compliance with pseudo fear law. Championed by the threat of being caught by the "safety inspector" who dutifully reports anyone who is getting too much accomplished, "stealing jobs" according to labor union sloganeering, as someone who obviously needs another blockage placed in their road.

There is only one justification or reasoned excuse for this over exuberance, of micro managed safety inspections, and that was seen in the regime of Adolph Hitler. Who also protected his people over the top, and imposed a responsibility to be healthy, safe and fearful, or to be scorned and punished. As a conditioning of the working class, to instill a new norm of an oppressive regime. A norm of "knuckling under, if you know what is good for you" in fear of those in control. They call this the nanny state, this mother is an abusive self sanctimonious sociopath, a frothing at the mouth bigot and a hypocrite. Who like all overbearing mothers, instills authority, by promoting exaggerated and improbable fear into all of her scoldings. The empowerment of such an agency existing as a mercenary force, to impose on the working class what the government hasn't the courage to do to them directly. Which is an outrage akin to the Taliban watchers on every street corner. With one important exception, the Taliban consider thievery to be a crime. If the government has the power to bestow the authority of fines and imprisonment on an independent organization, outside of the people's control and deliberately separated from our protections under the proper courts of criminal law that assume innocence, that regime is a dictator and democracy is dead, by the coercive contracts of their entitlement.

I would advise my peers in the workplace, or what little private space is still within our control, for the time being. If you value personal autonomy rights and believe yourself a free agent and an adult with an ability empowered by intelligence, to protect yourself, without forced bureaucratic assistance. Of a government that does not accept or recognize the existence of that intelligence, that ultimately is the only legitimate perspective that entitles their power. Or the power of an "inspector" to successfully solicit a cash bribe, in lieu of the alternative consequences. Resist this fascism, that stands against your right to make a living, without their interference.

We need to stand up and chase these so called "safety" inspectors off our job-sites, by refusal to recognize their false authority, to resist with abusive language, no co-operation and all forms of mutual disrespect, without limits, until they learn to be human once again and abandon their own employment, as cattle herders, for those who describe us all as "human capitol" and industry slaves, while promoting the Chinese version of the UN globalist campaign.

Stand free and proud today and defend yourself, or get used to bending over in servitude tomorrow. The government is legally our servant not the other way around, in spite of what daddy Dalton and the opposition members standing in compliance, still dare to believe. If the largest corporations in this country can be trusted and enjoy the "conveniences" of self regulation, so too should we, have that same trust, among those whom we hire, to do our bidding.

If it is legitimate to accept, as those who rule outside of the people's control will declare; "there is no such thing as an accident", we have to believe also, that mandatory "accident insurance" paid to this same enterprise, is a fraud and a criminal activity. No more than a mob styled protection racket, empowered and introduced by an illegitimate government, who are now only trespassing in our government buildings, in need of arrest and imprisonment, as traitors, by the theft of our democratic rights and freedom, within the wide-brushed "presumption of guilt" and a large scale theft of the public purse, that demands full compensation for everything they squandered, as the proceeds of organized crime.

Is it any wonder in so few years, we went from a Province of plenty, to a subsidized have not Province, with an economy collapsing under the force of it's own bloated bureaucracy and its duty to apply; our ever pressing, always media dramatic and ever urgent, protection of the "children".

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. "
—
C.S. Lewis

Apple Computer and the 1984 commercial

2010-01-27T08:04:00.000-08:00

In 1984 Apple computer ran an advertisement for a revolutionary new computer they called the Mac. It depicted a room full of completely docile and subservient people being led in to hear the daily dose of propaganda from the supreme leader. A woman came running in and smashed the screen which awakened the people from their slumber. The commercial was inspired by the Orwell novel by the same name.

You can view the 1984 commercial here. [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-715862862672743260#]

And a more modern rendition here [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo]

What has this to do with smoking bans, regressive taxation and the lies of second hand smoke?

Read on and it will all become clear. Second hand smoke requires three components to become what they call a significant health risk, without which it posses essentially no risk. You need very large volumes, extremely long exposures per daily dose and a lifetime persistence of those exposures, to create even a slight risk, that there is a risk to non smokers. So if we reduce; the volume, the duration or the frequency of exposures, the risk is eliminated. Reducing the number of smokers by half over the past fifty years apparently had no effect. The experts will tell you today the evidence is irrefutable, that second hand smoke is much more dangerous than diesel exhaust, the chemicals in our genetically modified foods and pretty much any other factor in our environment. But does the evidence measure up to the propaganda? Common sense, if there is any left, will tell you to be cautious of your information sources, because following the money consistently leads back to the sources of major advocacy and the true nature of those investments.

In 2006 the American Surgeon General confirmed that the exposure frequency mentioned above had been reduced by 75%. His relenting claims of risk to non smokers were not substantiated by the report he offered. His claims seemed to confirm the opposite, because all the minor research he chose to include in his report was already reliant on worst case measures, which promoted the extremely rare to a possible outcome in the real world. His report was so grossly over stated in the ad promo leading up to it’s release, even the extremists lobbies promoting anti-smoker denormalization, distanced themselves from the media for months, for fear of being connected with a stance that would surely expose them all to a new reefer madness style of ridicule, if they were not extremely careful. Today they have gained confidence and actually cite his report in the promotion of anti-smoker bigotry, because the media remained onside and didn’t question the propaganda piece that was “the Surgeon General’s report on second hand smoke”. Since that time many supporting reports and made for media research studies have been produced, to hide the questionable science found in that report, however next to the reefer madness campaigns in the 60s, Second hand smoke is likely one of the largest lies ever promoted by the American Government and there have been many lies before and since that fall into that competition.

What do the extreme left find favourable with the anti smoking ruse? Well the same forward going personalities and the powers that be are consumed by something they call “productivity” which limits the number of sins we can allow in society, in order to maintain a work force, that matches the demands in the market for production and trade. If we allow, as many of them would prefer, that pot smoking were decriminalized and in light of the recent silent repeal of gambling prohibitions, with State and medical charity lotteries producing a much needed boost to tax revenues. Permitting more sins to come into the market, needs close scrutiny, lest the workforce is disrupted by the addictive nature of gambling and pot smoking, without maintenance of “the ethics of hard work as a virtue” the work force could slip into the “welfare reliant” posture, of all the other Marxist democracies found in the third world. The answer to the, too many sins at one time, dilemma is found in the elimination of smoking and tighter restriction of alcohol, although few in the political game would favor eliminating one of their largest cash cows, correcting the mistake of eliminating pot from the market, augmented by new gambling revenues, could well re-stack the deck and allow that elimination to happen.

I referred to the anti-pot campaign as a political mistake, for a demonstrable reason. When people smoke pot they become docile and if they are stressed out they rely on pot to keep them de-stressed. Smoking cigarettes has an effect of awakening the senses and making thoughts clear. The preference, for those who seek dominance by the state, should be obvious. The plan is simple yet complex; top down grass roots ad campaigns through health information ministries sell a state mandate, in obsessively “protecting the population”, in place of serving the population. Like the docile foot daggers in the 1984 commercial a population of pot smokers, in place of the number who smoke cigarettes, would be preferable in order to maintain control with minimal effort and expense.

You see, it was always about the money. By now it should be obvious, who is in control, by simply acknowledging who are actually being controlled. Democracy in its current rendition is just another cruel scam being played on all of us.

What are we to believe?

2010-01-03T23:09:00.000-08:00

The Canadian CBC has been running Michael Moore's Sicko movie, all weekend long leaving me suspicious we are about to see another big media storm coming in the near future. With the audience or at least those of us who are still listening, being preconditioned to the sameness mindset, required to be accepting of a new stage, in our progressive evolution.

I sent in the following with little hope it will ever be published, however some of you might find it worth the read.

At lot has changed in Canada since the making of this film. American interest lobby groups, set out to Americanize our system and destroy it from within likely the strongest voices in opposition to Moore's demonstration of logic. At the Romanov commission with the Lalonde report firmly in hand they sought to elevate “Health Promotion” focused on forcing medical interventions on the much larger number of population target groups, who are not sick . Considered now on equal footing, with real bricks and mortar medical treatments, of those actually seeking treatments, a new deal, in turn sharing an equal bounty of the expenditures, primarily to fund lobby group dreams or nightmares with no stable oversight to define which. What DiPierri described as "Materialism Out of Control"

Canadians still don't understand how the healthcare system became so underfunded and so quickly. Or why an average wait in an emergency room, grew from the 15-20 minutes described in Moore's film to a norm described by the CMA of over 12 hours in 2009. How did the practitioners seemingly overnight form such a disdain and presumption of guilt, voiced in place of compassionate bedside manner we once thought to be universal. They call it among the lobby crowd, “leading by example”. I call it teaching us to blame each other for the costs associated with a new two tier system powered only by Politically Corrected downstream disgust. A system now carrying the burden of both top down imposed medicine and real clinical medicine in equal economic proportions.

Public Health, the industry, established a beachhead and an escalation above the practitioners they consider an obstacle, in the biomedical industry. They now largely command the Mainstream media and all of our information streams, which effect all of our autonomous and political opinions. No message is more predominant of late than the message of their own entitlement . A coercive regime of ad hominid command and control, defined by the knuckle-walker technologies, declaring no one else should ever be allowed an independent thought. Public health sets the precedent in all matters while all dissenters best beware the power of the press.

The full scope of control medicine, is styled to add a coercive element to make you well, or else!!!, as the keynote of healthscare reform. Depreciating us all to the bearers of guilt, in the Tobacco control model, and finally to that flaming place described by Moore in his description of the Cuban stereotype.

Health Canada has abandoned research in the form of investigation with physical research, which was once, only guided, by epidemiology. Today epidemiology is the predominant form of research, in spite of its huge shortcomings, which always end well shy of any evidential facts. The agency has adapted instead the wisdom of politically organized international medicine, defined by consensus, with cult factoids to enhance "new research" media releases. Originating most often from the American pork-barreled CDC and EPA. They even hired a professor of political science, as head scientist at Health Canada and set out with such inhumane degrading strategies as the Denormalization of smokers and the obese to make us healthy, or at least more obedient to mob rule among our own peers. In service of the entitled and ethically perfect people, who run Public Health, The UN industry.

The dominant voice of medicine in Canada is prepared by news release, abstracted of the reality; if it is truly science, it never needed a PR campaign, we would recognized it, far before the epidemiologists were hired to estimate what we should fear.

They say "You can't go back" I wish Michael would come back, and take a look at us now.

What should we say?

The new version of health care demands the official line, be the the only opinion available. Public Health in Canada has a long and painful history self described as advocacy to improve health conditions. That falls flat when their voices are raised above the voices of experience and logical analysis. H1N1 as with many of their campaigns of the past are not promoted with the kind of science the public is used to, measured by consistent reproducibility rather the statistical proof of pre-drawn conclusions said to be epidemiological. However the methods do not challenge the null but exaggerate the meaning of any chance reference above the null. By this slight of hand or redirection of the tongue with focus groups to maximize the effect. Enstrom and Kabat illuminates convincingly the measure of balance available when the numbers do not coincide with the prescribed agenda.

Public Health express promotional contempt for biomedical sciences, and as an industry has grown to a force which now dominates the airwaves, our government agencies and our information streams, which direct our responses and influence all of our decisions. None more predominantly than their own superiority and entitlement.

The 13 year old boy said to have died by H1N1 which sparked a media storm and terrified tens of thousands of parents. Was claimed in the media, long before it was even physically possible to discern what actually killed him, to have died of H1N1. Few Canadians [or those in the media apparently] are aware that "the H1N1 pandemic" was a planed exercise. To increase demand and grow capacity through emense profit taking by the manufacturers. Just in case, a real pandemic ever does occur. To increase our ability to produce the medicines we would need. Apparently in service to the common good, screaming fire in the theatre is not unethical, under certain conditions, according to the new rules of the game being played.

The options on the table which predominantly include viral pneumonia and Rye syndrome, were never investigated and the same advocates funded by both our taxes and the private drug company interests, who profit most as "stakeholders" in the process also decided no autopsy was necessary, because the cause of death was already established.

How much more corrupted can the heath care system become, before someone with enough influence to even be heard at this point, can be persuaded to say "enough" and successfully face the legions, who will attack with ad hominid insults by press release, against anyone who dares to attempt to, bring this insanity back under our control.

Toronto Public Health and its international ties direct the same type of rumor mill process used by the Catholic Church in the crusades which was intent on wiping the earth clean of the Pagan religion as though it were a disease. The same process which burned witches in Salem and the Same group precisely who promoted Eugenics and now pines for the loss of influence they sustained after Hitler was defeated. They are now busy advocating for the hatred of anyone who chooses to smoke a cigarette today. Using Hitlers very rhetoric and the same form of corrupted and cherry picked epidemiological "science" no less, to divide us upon ourselves.

The Public health groups at the forefront of tobacco scare mongering, include directly the RWJF charity who hold millions of shares in Johnson and Johnson. Who conveniently sell billions in ineffective alternative nicotine products, such as smoking patches and gum. Indirectly by the medical charities who are funded by similar Industrial charity foundations. Holding current assets in excess of 10 trillion tax exempted dollars and who also conveniently represent the interests of Drug, Oil and Petrochemical companies. Who are no doubt very relieved to see, that we all agree that all cancers and heart disease are caused by smoking or second hand smoke.

It goes without saying the persistence processes by Health Intervention Assessment[HIA] and Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] being taught and described at the World Health Organization [WHO], should be an issue of grave concern. That concern should be largely enhanced by the recent announcements of WHO partnerships with virtually every major corporate interest on the planet. Its where all the smart money is going.

You are enslaved by these partnerships, permanently, with legally binding agreements to never jeopardize your partners financial interests. Recent independent WHO reports have described the relationships as "institutional capture". I say this with the utmost respect of all parties involved, but I can not help but evaluate the once descriptive term of Mussolini's politics as "Industrial Socialism" and can no longer resist but to connect the dots.

Expression of medical advice belongs among those who are trained in medicine and should never be overshadowed by those trained only in communications or those connected to a larger fortune by which to communicate that information.

It is time the media took up it's responsibility to balanced journalism and left medical issues to those qualified to discuss them. Few of which, are among those with the largest voice today.

Reference sources; short list

Philosophical

http://www.rampant-antismoking.com/
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2009/12/godber-blueprint.html
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6573.html
http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.com/defense.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lalonde_report
http://www.healthcoalition.ca/romanow.html
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/btof/chap30.htm
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/NaziMedEx.html
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/chpt1.htm#2
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1226
http://www.toronto.ca/health/125th/pdf/keynote_speech_may28_2008.pdf
http://www.ismp-canada.org/index.htm
http://genesgreenbook.com/content/was-it-acetaminophen-not-swine-flu-killed-boy
http://www.q-net.net.au/~legion/legionnaires_disease.toronto.htm
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=38
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1986272/pdf/brmedj02095-0015.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2136696?cookieSet=1
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001282/128291eo.pdf
http://www.robertfulford.com/PolPot.html
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2005/05/09/Poverty050509.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16667
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/36/2006_summit_minutes.pdf

Physical

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/
http://www.airnowdata.org/pmfine/latest.html
http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/9/2/208?ck=nck
http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/coc/dbp.htm
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es9904944
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18353537
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=NB07093.pdf
http://www.sbg.ac.at/ipk/avstudio/pierofun/mexico/air.htm#Energy
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/cooray/btof/chap30.htm
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/30/2/141.full.pdf+html
http://books.google.ca/books?id=hmt1tFDdFqEC&pg=PA205&lpg=PA205&dq=Smoking:+The+Cancer+Controversy,+Edinburgh:+Oliver+and+Boyd+1959,&source=web&ots=mANXS-gz7I&sig=rcolRTUf8s15FPKV2I24Qeu3mPo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Smoking%3A%20The%20Cancer%20Controversy%2C%20Edinburgh%3A%20Oliver%20and%20Boyd%201959%2C&f=false
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/89/21/1580?ijkey=2129c135a6371f4d43d948255a3701e320469b26
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497344/?tool=pubmed
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv25n4/v25n4-15.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2369279?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2254375?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ahf/1000138569-8597.html
http://books.google.ca/books?id=PCU0RwDI6c4C&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=low+cancer+rates+shorter+people&source=web&ots=sxVM_jI7Um&sig=7azy8S5qlJtXPeAmjZiud5ZHIYI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#v=onepage&q=low%20cancer%20rates%20shorter%20people&f=false

Buyer beware; Read the labels…

2009-08-21T08:07:00.000-07:00

Public Health and the charities have been using discrimination of smokers for years, as an excuse for ignoring the cigarette itself as the largest potential of health risk reduction.

If the product were the focus, in place of the ideological and moralist scold. We would see broad support for regulations to reduce health risks by reducing the most suspect toxins involved. The dilution of focus entitled by the 4000 and now the 10,000 and likely the 100,000 said to be "toxins" is only self service to consensus capitulation to the most obvious flaws in the "harm reduction" strategy.

We know we can reduce the tobacco specific carcinogens and by significant amounts, reduction of carcinogens and PAH is seemingly a no brainer. If Public health at very least, advocated for moderation in reducing the number of cigarettes one smokes they could precariously lay claim to some form of credibility in relation to their goals and ambitions.

What we see in place of a campaign to encourage smokers to reduce consumption by eliminating the cigarettes you light involuntarily is a promotion of the extremes of addiction, which likely results in higher personal consumption, by the implanted "unquestionable truth", the evidence supports that with reduced exposures the health risks would decline significantly. What we can not see currently is any explanation of a failure to consistency, beyond a; "who cares if they die its their own fault" consensus. Justification is found in a perverse sense of an application of punishment and Penance for their sins, by medical prescription no less?

If we controlled the manufacturing process by regulation, to reduce NAK and PAH as a matter of law, which is done in countries which demand it already. The products are currently exhibiting reduced risk by reduced exposures. Integrity and humanity which respects basic human rights principles, would dictate that policy be aligned with science and observation and more fundamentally with common sense in the target of your advocacy which logically does not currently exist.

If the fear of toxins is the strength of your advocacy and exists as an effect increasing fear in the public; By refusing to follow best practices of reduced risk by reduced exposures to the named secondary toxin exposures, your whole platform which demands "smoking bans to protect employees" falls flat, in a logical sense, fundamentally because the increased risk being mitigated by smoking bans and the unavoidable bigotry which is occurring, is a fault only of those who are demanding those huge concessions and financial loss, associated with the extremes of smoking bans, as any sort of intelligent solution or community respect.

If nicotine is taken from tobacco it makes no logical sense that the carcinogens that exist in the products that contain that nicotine could have a reduced concentration of Tobacco specific carcinogens. The same carcinogens and at the same level they are found in cigarettes are also pre-existing in any product which contains nicotine. The only difference being; when you burn tobacco the carcinogens are reduced by the burning and in significant amounts. So to claim the levels in an e-cig or in the chewing gum or incredibly in chewing tobacco are "safer" caries with it an obscene level of delusion in observation and the realm of possibilities even available. When you combine that thought with a battle cry that "there is no safe level of tobacco smoke" the hypocrisies abound.

It is obvious, or at least it should be obvious, that the cancer societies collecting billions of dollars over the years with markedly little progress in producing the promised "cures", and now "defeat of cancer", would be at a distinct disadvantage, if cigarettes actually were made safer and the risk was reduced in measurable amounts. Those who oppose such a development rail against safer cigarettes with the simple minded claims that; if smokers believed they were using a safer product more people would smoke.

The only conclusion anyone can draw from all of this is that public health covets increased fear much more than it seeks to reduce those fears or any levels of risk, and financial conflicts stand as the only viable explanation, for their crimes demanding an increased mortality risk by bigotry, as we see being promoted by the public health mafia.

And what is the most popular phrase among “Public Health” Lobby groups and their benefactor Politicians, purchasing the creation of our concerns and fears, with our own money?

“Follow us on Twitter”?

This brings forth a vision of mindless sheep following the ever familiar ass in front, to wherever it leads.

When Doctors become preachers

2009-07-22T06:14:00.000-07:00

You can lay the blame wherever you like, but the top risk factors for “smoking related diseases” remain; Doctors, Prescription Drugs and stress.

When doctors act as preachers in a healthiness bandwagon fashion such as we are experiencing now, people are subjected to undue stress. When they promote that personal worth is tied to health, the level of stress increases, especially among the largest demographic at the bottom end of the socioeconomic scale. When they move to spewing moral dictates and impose regressive sin taxes, that demographic will always suffer the most. When they drive large numbers of people out of social settings, depression and isolation increase the risks. When someone is forced to quit smoking they are going to gain weight and there is little doubt in that department, the chemical shift and not their own actions demands it.

Every move the irresponsible and greedy medical prophets have made to date has increased not only the risks, but the number of those who are at risk. Commensurate with the number exposed to their swill and snake oil.

The constant level of dread and remorse associated with their daily lobby group bombardment has depressed entire nations. Isn't it time we felt proud and happy in some small part of our existence. We need to ban the scolds and the emotional blackmailers from the air waves and release people from the imposed medical dread. Happy people have less health problems, protected people die after a tortured life which is unnecessarily shortened and diseased.

Bring back hanging and the stocks to remind them of their shame, the last time these pompous leeches and moralist scolds pulled this crap. A few more community social events could only suit the situation and what we need to be healthy again, without all the greed inspired tinkering and interference.

Here is my proposal for health care reform; yes we can...

Tax dollars from the MSA deal can be utilized for the purchase of State convoys of forty foot trailers filled with stocks and rotten vegetables.

The convoys would visit every town in the nation and community involvement would have the municipal residents armed with news clippings and political minutes as evidence of healthiness scold, the real health pandemic. To make citizens arrests of the perpetrators; in wellness centers, Charity offices, Universities, government offices, ad agencies and media outlets. With the accused to be treated to the confines of the stocks for a 24 hour period, while the people assisted with old fashioned picnic lunches and candy floss vendors, could be treated to a dose of healthy medicine, and a rejoining in a common cause, which could only enrich them all.

We could then do a Helena like, heart study and see the levels of hypertension, depression and heart attacks tumble, as pride in community in a sense of unity and mutual trust does its work, making the entire nation feel better after they cast aside the effects of perpetual scold and gloom.

Nine of ten people polled don't believe Environmental Tobacco Smoke [ETS] will cause them to suffer cancer. In fact you would be hard pressed to find anyone who seriously believes ETS would cause them harm at all, although it makes an excellent excuse to force people to smoke elsewhere.

One of the largest miscues the Tobacco Control [TC] bandwagon pulled off was to declare ETS [a multitude of products with no scientific description] as a class one carcinogen. In direct comparison there is a large expanse of difference, between ETS and the other toxins on the list. This political decision not only protects industries who produce the other toxins by lessening the traditional perception of harm, but the longer it remains on the list; the less confidence anyone will have in the integrity or credibility of the American scientific community.

How frightened can one be, when told that; something is carcinogenic, but who cares even cigarette smoke is a carcinogen. With the entire population exposed for so many years and cancers didn't really start to rise in large numbers among non-smokers, until the exposures declined in equal proportions. It almost makes sense to seek out carcinogens to protect yourself against cancers.

The Cancer societies now declare half of the entire population will experience Cancer during their lifetime. The claims of immanent risk have never been so dire, after close to a 60% reduction in smoker prevalence since 1960 the parallels are painting the inverse of the picture they claimed would be seen and have continued to claim for almost 50 years.

Daily we are told by the cancer societies and their numerous franchised and specialized charities, which all connect smoking as the most significant cause, the need for funding has never been greater.

The more "good news" we receive from people our protectors in Public Health institutions, the more bad news we receive from those who should be praising the effort and downsizing their operations, yet that is not what they are telling us. At what point will the Health scare moralists be demonstrating any effects, which could legitimize the huge expense they deliberately imposed on the hospitality industry or the rising level of promoted bigotry and the regressive taxation of our sins?

The more we are "protected" the greater is our risk. Looking back in the history books, which seems to be the trend we have always seen. Science seems to be failing at ever increasing rates, or perhaps what we are listening to, is not scientific at all. It does become difficult to distinguish between the modern label as "scientist" and the traditional label as a "preacher".

Hype is as Hype does;

2009-03-23T04:56:00.000-07:00

This is interesting in a total population study ordered by the surgeon general in 1964 the numbers are quite interesting. Prior to the politicizing of cancer, long before most TC advocates of today were out of diapers yet.

Go to page 8 and look at the chart;

What was found first; was that former smokers had twice the mortality risks compared to current smokers.

The more startling result saw smokers of less than 11 cigarettes a day, were at decreased risk compared to both non smokers and the general population risk.

Similar findings were seen in the Whitehall studies exposing beyond lifestyle choices including smoking and obesity 60% of total increased mortality risk was seen as a result of stress. So how do you describe a smoker or an obese person? How many of them have you killed “prematurely” today?

By the numbers 160,000 Lung cancers annually of the 2.4 million total mortalities, is less than 1% so even if smoking caused them all, you eliminate less than 1% of the total mortalities. In 1960 with the same number of smokers we see today [USA 60 million] there were only 1/6th the number of Lung Cancers we see today [26,000] among 1/3 the population [100 million]. As we should understand, smoking is only a related disease factor, there are many and many reasons all people will die. Any death believed by one cause, would now be realized by another cause of death and at the end of the day, we would still have 2.4 million total mortalities every year so the predicted reduction is a wash.

The same could be observed of every other “smoker related” disease because death is inevitable. John Banzash of ASH and dozens of others involved in the rent seeking fraud and hate promotion, which is the Tobacco Control movement today, as a lawyer, he claims that we will save tens of billions in healthcare expenses, by eliminating smoking. This should be seen immediately as a huge lie and misrepresentation of the facts at hand, if any measure of common sense were applied, however the product brand advertising seems to have eliminated all trace of reason, replaced by confidence in self anointed "experts" which is being grossly abused.

All of the so called “smoking related” diseases will still exist after smoking is eliminated. Smokers only actually represent 20% of the population and a maximum of 20% of the annual mortalities, as expected and representative of any group. The Public Health nuts tell us only “half of smokers die of smoking related diseases” when you look at the list, of diseases discussed; that makes them pretty much normal and dying of those diseases in the same proportions as everyone else. It should be obvious the only way to save a healthcare dime would be to eliminate all the smokers by immediate mass executions, thus avoiding the unavoidable costs they will eventually produce, whether they smoke or not.

So if the savings of healthcare dollars is the Holy Grail, executions are the only way to achieve the goal. How much will we be loosing in future tax dollars after the smokers are executed?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that, without smokers [with the theft of cigarette taxes aside] income taxes and productivity lost would quickly be seen to dwarf the savings achieved.

So Tobacco Control and the Public Health cartel in general, represent; much to do about nothing and the Emperor has no clothes, in spite of what you may have been told.

BTW it should be broadly realized the real cost of healthcare is out of the consumers control, therefore cost is not tied to personal lifestyle choices, rather cost is predicted as a direct factor of longevity. Longer life creates the larger cost. There is no larger factor of deficit health outcomes than personal economy which suggests the lobby promotions [reflective of those who pay them]have been on the wrong track all along, causing more death and destruction than was ever necessary.

If you seek reduction in healthcare expenses, that can only be found in dealing with the gross profiteering of the vendors. Forcing them to tie profit to production costs with a more realistic mark-up than the traditional 2000-10,000% we allow them now. One wonders how much the economy and our standard of living would improve if all products listed the production costs on the label? A smoking patch had almost no development cost, and the cost of production in real dollars is around a nickel. Let the facts speak for a change and we will find more efficient and immediate means of achieving the goal of cost reductions, only by eliminating the current "experts" from the discussion.

We could by the solution of executing them, see huge and sustainable cost reductions, but that is an argument for another day, after the hype is exposed.

Evaluating “no safe level”

2009-03-15T10:35:00.000-07:00

“No safe level” is not sufficient; this term provides no information, we have a right to know more.

They say; second hand smoke exhibits a health risk

I would argue the following;

"It should never be as simplistic as declaring "no safe level exists" to which every opponent with half an ounce of common sense will counter "there is no unsafe level" either. Predictably Health Departments and Globalist politicians, who front for the lobby groups they hire, use this term all the time. They attempt to hoodwink us with framework or sustainable development, never clearly explaining what they are constructing, making their point with a lack of evidence, or understanding, which parallels cult belief, much more than their claims to legitimate science.

Epidemiology after all measures what people recall which is heavily influenced by what they believe so in fact what is measured is not risk but belief. They admit to ignorance themselves, in using the “no safe level” terminology. The large Whitehall studies both confirmed stress is the largest risk factor with obesity, smoking and all other major factors combined you can only account for a 40% offset, compared to a 60% factor presented by increased chronic stress. Stress such as that provided in the so called “public health” messages. A tremendously larger danger is invented by these bandwagon and profit bearing messages, than ever existed in the smell of a little cigarette smoke. In simplistic terms if you can not afford to live the high life demonstrated in beer commercials, you will die much sooner than those who can. The stress you apply to achieving that life while the cards are stacked significantly against you will kill you 3 times as often as smoking [Whitehall]. And at worst case 30,000 times as often, as the faint risk your demise would be caused by second hand smoke. Follow along and I will prove it.

The epidemiological research they use to package the fears implies you can define a risk and simply assume all the other risk factors, which make this risk believable, are in place and universal in total population. Meaning everyone is fat and lazy everyone has high blood pressure and afflicted by the list of thousands of other factors, which allow the risk to be a risk at all, a condition which describes everyone at all times. They then apportion offsets or confounders, and declare their identified risk is what remains to elevate our fears.

Otherwise if they studied only those at risk, of actually dying from ETS exposures; their risk factor would be so small even if you legitimately applied it to the population at risk or as they do the population as a whole, you couldn't find a single body, by calculation or prognosis. In the real world they haven’t found one yet.

By embellishing the dangers of "no safe ETS" you increase the general population’s health risk, among both the smokers, being forced to quit, but with a much larger potential for disaster, by a larger degree of stress invented among the general public, as the targets of these ads, people who don't smoke. People who might be exposed at one time or another, who are being forced to live with un-necessary fears and elevated levels of stress, not supported by the science. By this fear we have divided communities and declared some people are more important than others, by healthiest caste designations. Smokers cost “x” fat people cost “y” alcoholics cost “z”, pretty much any personal choice or activity when observed as excess, can rate your cost and net worth to governments, allowing advertisements with your own tax money to invigorate the levels of societal rage against you. Once they told us they sought the “cures” today it is all about laying the blame, to mask failure.
We need to do the work and find out if this ETS stuff is safe or not.

The lobbies should be told to do the work first, and demonstrate a reason to fear, in place of resting on ignorance, providing irresponsible promotions, inciting rage and hatred, as the only foundation for all of their arguments. You could then point out "no safe" nonsense, [which is an unknown in scientific perspectives], creates an accumulation of 4000 or 400,000 pages of ignorance delivered to decision makers by the so called “charity groups” as the political arguments they will be presenting in their defense of anti autonomy principles which delineate our most basic rights. [Increasing stress once again]

Whitehall;

From WIKI;

No safe?

“The right to health relevant information derives from the principles of autonomy and self direction and has been recognized in international declarations. Providing accurate health information is part of the basis for obtaining "informed consent" and is a recognized component of business ethics, safety communications, and case and product liability law.”

Related data for consideration;

Socialized theory and advocacy; A lack of information [fear of the unknown] resides as the best case for any healthism proposal, to adjust either social order or individual behaviors.

Mitigation of risk for smokers to a level no risk, is apparent after cessation; leading to the truth, the risk is mitigated over time and time dependent. Epidemiology is limited in its scope to provide useful evidence for policy making, because it can only produce a measure which demonstrates an instant in time. This denotes a rule being ignored by the lobbies, which demands a test of time line before a theory can be considered significant or relevant. By the massive reductions of both second hand smoke and smoking prevalence, but not the true number of smokers which has remained stable over the past fifty years. Observing the six fold increase of virtually every so called smoking related disease, we have to view all presentations by this process of estimations, with extreme caution.

The maximum risk in worse case scenarios; for maximum levels at a maximum continuous duration of second hand smoke, demonstrates a non significant health risk which remains controversial if a risk is evident at all [1.19] . By regressive modeling of all the selected research which indicated increased risk; the chart indicates a level 1000 times below the level of risk for active smoking of 25 cigarettes a day. For an exposure to second hand smoke at worst case the risk resides below 10% of even that risk well below 10,000 times that of active smoking, which is well below the 5% level accepted for tolerance or error in the calculations hence “no safe” and “no unsafe” level of risk. By the knowledge demonstrated in the research that time mitigates all risk of smoking, we can say with confidence any exposure risk to second hand smoke, would be sufficiently mitigated long before the next exposure occurs, therefore to the general public there is no demonstrable level of increased risk and “no safe level” remains non informative.

From the same study the risk of worst case at 1.16, bias is increased by elimination of ETS exposure bias, for the comparative group, without an identical elimination which should be warranted for the study group; creating a false impression, the maximum “risk” resides by accumulation of all statistical evidence in the 1.24 range. Even by accepting these formulations, the risk of casual exposures is reduced by 10% at minimum, seen to be at 1.024 or one half the allowance for error with a 95% confidence interval [1.05] and as we can see less than 10,000 times below the lifetime risks of active smoking. If as Doll predicted and no one has disputed; the risks of smoking can be successfully mitigated ten years after cessation to a level equal to that seen in the general population. The risk by a factor 10,000 times lower should be mitigated in a time frame 10,000 times as efficiently. By calculation 1000 times a year or .365 days [roughly 8 hours] which coincides with the mitigation of all suspected toxins found in the smoke and measures of blood quantities over time, regardless of bio marker utilized to gauge the levels of toxins by exposures among non smokers.

By comparison the “clean air” demanded by lobbies who seek smoker free spaces by advertisements claiming elimination of cigarette smoke would produce clean air. The inescapable risk of that clean air is much more deadly than any semblance of increased risk, which exists in ETS exposure which could be measured by credible scientific methods. The advocacy for smoker free fear promotions, works as a placebo treatment for an imagined disease, this increases the real risk, of all other pollution risks which are minimized seriously by lobby and political promotions, taking our focus away from what really does us harm.

The Oil companies and their conflicted statisticians don’t like the numbers, but there they are, and by rough calculation if you apply the risk to those actually at risk for direct comparison, the six cities studies might well have proved, primary smoking is far from the largest cause of lung cancers, heart and cardiovascular disease. While we are so absolutely focused on second hand and soon third hand smoke?

“In their recent article, Laden and colleagues have added 8 more years of follow-up to the Harvard Six Cities study of air pollution and mortality (1). They suggested that total mortality, as well as mortality for cardiovascular disease and lung cancer, were associated with ambient fine particulate air pollution (PM2.5), and that the results were consistent with other cohort studies.”

“The overall effect estimate of 1.16 for the total follow-up is based on a linear model. The model is incorrect and overestimates risk since the relationship is not linear, as observed when the data are plotted”

Sounds like tobacco industry execs are not the only execs; living in denial while selling us poison.

“Conflict of Interest Statement: J.F.G. is retired from full-time employment with ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc. M.J.N. is currently employed full time by ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc.”

Fear of the truth is a top down venture

2009-03-02T05:26:00.000-08:00

Hello Johan;

In response to an article; comparing those who challenge the conclusion that secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer with those who deny the Holocaust.

I understand the Editors obvious insult taken, by the length of my initial response. Perhaps if I condensed it to include the most relevant points, he might well understand more precisely, what was being said. Understanding this is an effort of repeating myself, I believe the message might become more clear the second and now the third time around.

First and foremost; the article is offensive and promotes hatred targeting individuals. In a crass attempt at ad hominid logic, in the very worst of insensitive design. Supported by ideology and fundamental extremism, in regard to normal and casual exposures to second hand smoke [which are not known to be harmful] much more than credible ""science""", which is reported to be the context of your publication. Secondly there is an undisclosed conflict which should be obvious to anyone reading this discussion of DENIALS no less.

I would like to report a failure to disclose personal conflicts of interest, on behalf of the authors. Provocative details which would not be apparent or obvious to the reader. Details which would add support to the authors credibility in a failure to disclose; who these people are and what they devote so much of their time and efforts to support. In my opinion; not entirely without compensation [both financially and in direct support of their other Medical Journal publication proposals], one would also have to assume. Disclosures which are relevant and require notation.

Evidence?

Diethelm as a Career?
http://www.tobacco.org/resources/rendezvous/diethelm.html

"During the 1980s and early 1990s, I gradually developed a sense of anti-smoking advocacy, mainly for two reasons: first, because it caused me pain to see obvious signs that friends and people around me were ruining their health by smoking; second, because I grew more aware of the discomfort and health risks of secondhand smoking.

As an anti-smoking advocate, I follow two tracks.

One track is in my capacity of WHO staff member.
I volunteered a few years ago to develop a computerized system aimed at producing and retrieving country profiles and regional profiles of tobacco consumption.

Since then my interest in helping WHO in its fight against smoking has continued.
I was delighted when Dr Brundtland declared tobacco one of her top priorities, created the Tobacco Free Initiative, and asked Derek Yach to lead it.

In my capacity of Team Leader, Networking and Telecommunications, my role is to provide IT support to the project. "

McKee By his own hand?
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057
"Competing interests: As editor of the European Journal of Public Health, MM published another paper by authors funded by the Center for Indoor Air Research. This publication was the centre of a long-running dispute between the journal and the authors concerning undeclared conflicts of interest. It led to his involvement as a witness in a lengthy legal dispute that has recently been resolved (referred to in response). He has received funding from several national and international agencies for work on tobacco control. "

Hypocracy?
http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2004/tobaccopmorris.html
"Professor McKee concludes: "we believe that it is essential that those involved in reviewing evidence on smoking and health should be aware of what appears to be the selective nature of what is eventually published by some scientists with links to the industry, and the evidence that sometimes mechanisms appear to have been used to disguise these links. Any research in this field must involve full disclosure of competing interests and any involvement of the tobacco industry in the instigation, design, analysis or interpretation of findings. Specifically, Philip Morris should be required to explain why it took the steps documented here to maintain what appears to have been considerable secrecy about its role in research on the effects of sidestream (passive) smoke and consequently its knowledge of its effects, effects that appear at odds with its public statements."

Lancet Editor Richard Horton comments: "Given the continuing debate about the way governments should respond to calls for a ban on smoking in public places, we have published this work early online to inform that discussion as a matter of urgency. Pascal Diethelm and his colleagues reveal attempts by one company-Philip Morris-to conceal their links to a research centre in Germany studying the health effects of smoking. The research conducted in that facility appears to have been selectively reported in order to favourably shape public impressions about the safety of passive smoking.""

From my submission;

The anti smoking movement is largely indebted, in trust and in league with conflicted Industrial interests who are profiting tremendously just as the brokers of that partnership predicted they would. The Lobby never denied it and proudly congratulate their Industrial partners openly in UN forums and at the many anti smoking conferences internationally. Industry partners represent an obligation to produce profit; not as a duty to communities, but as a duty only to their own stakeholders. Although not as well examined as the Tobacco industry, fully of the same educational standards operating procedures and community values, as any other industry executives in current communities. The problem with this continual oration of “the evil tobacco industry” described often in context as a single person on trial for decades is that society has evolved, and the current executives, would not dare to travel, where their predecessors felt comfortable in a much less restrictive world.

Chasing pseudo-dragons is a great talking point, however in real world evaluation, some of the stuck in the sixties mentalities, simply have to grow up and move on, to more current problems and perspectives. Connecting “debaters” or “dissenters” instinctively? First as advocates of “the evil industry”, and now as something as repulsive or detracted as a “Holocaust denier” is self serving, without the necessary credibility of truth or evidence. If this is a scientific discussion and not, one of theology in a dark age’s reign of superstition; this declaration is not helpful and has no place in scientific evaluation. It has become common knowledge the use of certain buzz words in Internet connected documents, will increase the readership, because they attach the article to unrelated searches. Does credible science, in an age of expanded access to our knowledge base, truly wish to define its own integrity or credibility so casually?

This publication demands apology and retraction, for those who take insult by the casual ignorance expressed by self service, in an outrageous connectivity, we see a failure to respect the emotional tragedy, by the memory of those who perished, or what is still experienced by those who survived them.

Best Regards;

Johan Mackenbach wrote:
Is this the same person whose letter we have rejected earlier? Let's be
careful. I think this letter is too long, and difficult to follow, so I am
not inclined to publish it, but please check first.
Johan

Original submission

Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee in their article herald the absolutes of scientific reason, as a measure of the biggest dog in the yard. The renaissance foundation of modern science; while standing on the slippery slope of the next dark age. The halt of all further investigations as they describe it; because if the largest group can form consensus; even if that consensus excludes all recognition of selected voices, the discussion is over? This should form the basis for protecting what has been achieved or determined, in place of science, for all time? Real science is normally found outside of a group think atmosphere, as a result of effort, and not an ideology in opposition to that legitimizing work, the preordained or scientific antithesis. We have achieved a level where we can declare we know everything and we can prove it, with advertising campaigns? Does the strength of a Lobby partnership now presume to undermine the reproducibility measure of science, as secondary to theological evaluations, which only allow group think results?

The Lexis on which they rest their case, by revisiting the flat earth theologies immediately suggest a huge obstacle in the foundation of integrity or freedom to investigate without restrictions or disdain. This article is entirely consistent with the reasoning; if a being is capable of speech, intelligence and logic can automatically be assumed. The parrots, who call for nationalization of the science as a cultural reality, have yet to pass further investigation.

Science in its traditional sense is not determined as a beachhead, to be held in dictatorship as a nationalist or fascio ideology. If it is, we have to ask who rules this nation and where are this nation's boarders? Beyond the prophesies of would be; UN partnered despots dealing out “Public Health Protections”. While protecting us only from ourselves; while exaggerating the levels of fear and apprehension to solidify only their own prominence.

If second hand smoke and or environmental tobacco smoke carries a larger degree of risk than we once believed, where is the offset? Are we to believe religiously as Thun has attested; Enstrom and Kabat are in error, because they fail to realize the large exposures of the non smoking public. Inexplicably this exposure in its minor or casual level, would not be an offset by universal exposure, but would have to increase only the health risk among non smokers?

This alternate form of logic can be found in the belief that all, so called “clean air” is and was always absolutely harmless. Air which comprises the vast bulk of ETS with no recognition ETS might ever be diluted in air. Reinforced now by claims of “no safe level”. The “clean” air in high demand, by their presentations which affirm its actual existence; is now thought to be harmless and of no concern by any evaluation or comparison. Or at least until the next Thunesque statement arises, to use the “clean” air similarly.

We have to now concede this promotes the idea; because smokers themselves are far more exposed; that primary smoking is not as dangerous as we once believed? Those determinations of risk were initially made on the basis of comparing non smokers to smokers directly, without any risk of ETS considered. If in fact we now have two significant risk factors to be examined separately, a new perspective must be followed to its logical conclusion without the preposterous rating of detractors by ad hominid evolution in place of legitimizing science to examine the new proposals. I for one do not deny the Holocaust happened and the entire scientific community had the largest hand in creating the atmosphere, which made it possible; when Science, Industry and Politics became as one. (Fascio)

Let’s take a look down that road shall we and follow this new logic? If smoking is now believed less toxic, how toxic are the constituents of the smoke; which present themselves in Pico grams and Nano grams, far below levels of the same toxins found in ambient air. How do we now differentiate the effects of one compared to another? The Tobacco Industry is already avoiding civil actions, by the failure to produce proof of which brand of cigarette caused an injury, and further what air toxins as confounders could logically result in similar damages. With the new reduced risk of smoking, compared to increased risks of ETS their case is solidified. As the risk ETS is elevated, so to will there be an elevated prominence, by such observations as the six cities study, to a degree that no one could possibly link smoking to any diseases outcome directly. Is this the intent of protagonists and politicians who declare themselves as scientists, to in effect protect the tobacco industry’s historical claims that cigarettes are not that dangerous?

Look to simple pie chart logic and understand how the public is measuring credibility;

In 1970 close to 50% of the population smoked and 60% were ever smokers. During the span between 1960 and 2005 population tripled. Cancers increased six fold and heart disease climbed along side population numbers. While the actual number of smokers remained almost consistent.

How does anyone ever hope to assign the following information as proof of smoking causation? I see no evidence proving smoking caused anything beyond systemic hysteria?

Legitimate evaluation, seems to indicate for lung cancers smoking is curative rather than causative.

In the American populace .7% of a 320 million population is 2.24 million. Now we see by a subset of that population “smoking causes 450,000 smoking related mortalities every year”. Surprisingly by evaluation to determine the effect we multiply .7% by the 20% of current smokers or 64 million and we find 448,000 almost but not quite the identical number we expect to see in total population. So is this “smoking related mortality” or “smoker related mortality” in search of a sound bite?
We go on to the always popular 80% of current lung cancer patients are ever smokers or “smoking causes 80% of lung cancers”.

We have to understand cancer does not happen overnight and the cancers we see today by the most significant group affected are those who smoked for many years and indicative of the population who started many years ago. 160,000 lung cancer deaths annually in a 320 million populace or .0005 today however the observations are skewed, because the effects today are results of lifestyles yesterday.

100 million population

60 % ever smokers 40% never smokers.

Divide a pie into 10 pieces each representing 10 million people

Smokers get 8 pieces [80%] and non smokers get 2 pieces [20%].

Take away 2 from the non smokers to represent cancers from other causes take away 3 from the smokers to reflect their 50% larger population.

What do you have left?

5 pieces and by comparison we concluded 50% will be affected by smoking and among non smokers 50% will be affected by not smoking, as represented in the two pieces they were allotted in addition to the number you took away from the smokers believed to be not caused by smoking.

As a risk you have a balance, and no conclusive evidence of increased risk despite how it originally seemed.

No one has ever resolved the largest problem with Doll’s research, so many years ago which connected smoking with cancer. When it was revealed a larger risk existed among those who claimed they did not inhale, than the smokers who claimed they did. Observation reveals at the time, smoking was fashionable and many who described themselves as smokers to gain popularity, could not smoke in the traditional sense, without choking. So they did not inhale. Proof can be seen in many of the post 1960s movies were the actors can be seen in the majority, doing a not very good imitation of smoking. When they never did really inhale smoke, how could it cause the diseases we commonly refer to as smoking related? So were the diseases really all simply “smoking related”? In retrospective studies, what was the actual smoking prevalence, long determined to cause so much harm and how much harm was assigned to the wrong side of the balance sheet? Doll never defended his failure to fully disclose this reality, in the numerous news conferences to follow, however he did fix the problem. By removing the question in further studies, to determine who actually inhaled and who did not. Politics is a matter of promotion and opinion, but is this really science or remotely scientific?

The epidemiology processes itself, by well known structural weaknesses, will always develop many contrasting figures and conclusions, as a sheer reality of randomization, confounding balances and chance. If there is a complete void of those findings, it encourages a perspective of impropriety that the process is being interfered with. Credibility and randomization is lost. By the fact people chose to start or stop smoking, or not to start at all, suggest we never truly had randomization in the post study separation, based in smoking status, this defeated the claim and the legitimacy of randomized control evaluation. Further those who have a specific disease compared to groups who are not so afflicted are also defined correctly as a non randomized trial.

Declared consensus while attacking any alternate result, opinion or even discussion as discourse, now preposterously viewed as a cultural norm in science? Tossing aside a reality by social marketing and irresponsible oration, their absolutely conflicted HIA group, created the poll counting culture deliberately, as described in the HIA process of stakeholder partnerships. Social Marketing as it was employed, by divisive policies not targeting smoking or the Tobacco industry, but the smokers themselves. To have the audacity to declare no conflicts in this social experiment is nothing short of a contemptible act.

The anti smoking movement is largely indebted, in trust and in league with conflicted Industrial interests who are profiting tremendously just as the brokers of that partnership predicted they would. They never denied it and proudly congratulate their Industrial partners openly in UN forums and at the many anti smoking conferences internationally. Industry partners represent an obligation to produce profit; not as a duty to communities, but as a duty only to their own stakeholders. Although not as well examined as the Tobacco industry, fully of the same educational standards operating procedures and community values, as any other industry executives in current communities. The problem with this continual oration of “the evil tobacco industry” described often in context as a single person on trial for decades is that society has evolved, and the current executives, would not dare to travel, where their predecessors felt comfortable in a much less restrictive world.

Chasing pseudo-dragons is a great talking point, however in real world evaluation, some of the stuck in the sixties mentalities, simply have to grow up and move on, to more current problems and perspectives. Connecting “debaters” or “dissenters” instinctively? First as advocates of “the evil industry”, and now as something as repulsive or detracted as a “Holocaust denier” is self serving, without the necessary credibility of truth or evidence. If this is a scientific discussion and not, one of theology in a dark age’s reign of superstition; this declaration is not helpful and has no place in scientific evaluation. It has become common knowledge the use of certain buzz words in internet connected documents, will increase the readership, because they attach the article to unrelated searches. Does credible science, in an age of expanded access to our knowledge base, truly wish to define its own integrity or credibility so casually?

This publication demands apology and retraction, for those who take insult by the casual ignorance expressed by self service in an outrageous connectivity, we see a failure to respect the emotional tragedy, by the memory of those who perished, or what is still experienced by those who survived them.

What got lost in the fine print

2009-02-21T22:23:00.000-08:00

I know everyone is heavily into this debate about what a little smoke can and cannot do. Is there a serious unbiased mind left, who would admit; in purely scientific terms second hand smoke does not actually exist?

That sounds like a pretty wild statement, considering what we have been told for a number of years. In the strictest sense second hand smoke, is a creation of the human mind and the fear being promoted is a reaction to a wedge issue which satisfies the majority of self interest. The costs of healthcare, is often cited as a societal detriment however the real numbers simply don't support such poorly informed claims. Oh we all know what cigarette smoke is and many don't like the smell or the atmosphere when smoke is present, but the "Risk" factor nonsense, is the worst kept secret since the emperor was informed he was unclothed.

Why do we continue to lie to ourselves? If smoking prohibition is the target, why has no politician the courage to stand and announce it? The cost of this process of oppression by increment is extreme and wasteful. The resources wasted should be expended treating patients hands on. Our economies are being made to suffer largely by the cost of cowardice. This backdoor prohibition charade only attacks our claims to a civil and equitable community. The way this is being played out is a promotion of bigotry and stereotyping, more than any claimed interest of public safety or compassion for our neighbors. Public Health CONTROL groups are a collection of cowards, prostitutes and well connected terrorists, who haven't the courage to don the appropriate Nazi uniforms, and stand up for the principles they believe in.

People need to know what they are dealing with and decide whose camp they actually support.

Does anyone seriously believe that by allowing governments to create laws which target law abiding citizens, we are moving in a positive direction? Or does anyone believe a government afforded that ability, will not use the example to legalize other similar campaigns. Or worse that they will easily surrender that ability, without major unrest in our communities, which will only occur after major damage, is already done. Dalton McGuinty expressed his beliefs on the eve of his smoking ban implementation when he stood in front of the cameras and stated clearly and proudly;” If smokers don’t quit, they will be punished” Distinguishing his ideal, that punishments for personal legal behavior is his to deal with, without any mention of the courts. Smoking bans are extortion and an affront to the security of the person and the rights of autonomy, in every context human rights abuse. In place of a traditional sign and equitable compromise, seeking respect in all of the community.

We as the broader community are being controlled by the “social marketing” campaigns [Health Canada] much more than anyone who chooses to smoke, drink or eat to excess; being programmed into the school of divisions. Taxes are purchasing a media campaign promoting intolerance, regressive taxation [or theft by moral edict] and divided communities at the behest of a UN Industrial partnered agency, which undermines by lobby, the spirit of democracy and the legitimacy of all elected officials who don’t bend to every lobby demand. People, who deserve respect, are being driven wide brush out of our communities, by this nickel and dime Nazi movement. People don’t like the harshness of that word, so seldom used of late, but can it be different than a scientist claiming anyone, who doesn’t agree with,the promotion of the day, purely ignorant. Science by edict with no discussion or debate doesn't sound like science, rather something else.

The fog

It is, after all, only a theoretic proposal and not a stable product, which could always be described or quantified precisely or consistently.

With all the renditions of calculations and broad assumptions we see every day. Logically, should a little smoke we have always ignored, suddenly provoke so much fear? Why did the millions invested in the medical charities for so many decades, miss a toxin so significant, if it really exists. Where did all the research money go? The alternative would be acceptance that; while we watched Heather Crowe die of lung cancer; as the poster girl for the anti-smoker lobby, the charities stood silent, while knowingly letting it happen?

It falls to the incredible, we are on our knees trembling, fearful of a product known only, and defined only, as "smoke" which is realistically; only a product of the imagination, much more than it could ever be claimed to be a product of traditional reproducible science.

The Facts

Can anyone define Second Hand Smoke according to its physical composition or reactions in consistent terms; relative to half life, barometer, humidity or temperature?

Can anyone even list, what the "smoke" might contain and in what levels or how the components compare to their own known safe levels, already accepted by traditional assessments by legitimate quantities and reproducible science?

If we can not be offered a stable comparative sample, taken from more than one location, the smoke seems to be a product which varies more than fingerprints, DNA or the patterns of snowflakes.

Can anyone define a surface description so we can differentiate it from other smoke products?

Do that investigation first and then come to us with your evaluations of "risk" that would be consistent with normal science and process. Otherwise you’re only a politician, resting on speculation and moralist propaganda.

Nothing we haven't seen done before, and nothing has happened since, other than improvements in advertising efficiencies, to increase the probability that the prophesies are any more believable today than they have ever proven to be in the past.

This theological element, is then taken to have a physical quantified value based entirely in biological variances, between one group and another;
measured constants of averaged mean values even when the groups are less than ten people in number? With other biological features which could explain a multitude of plausible variations of the separate etiologies. Individual elements of smoke vary as much as the compound products, in their consistencies as a whole separately within the product with changes occurring within nano-seconds of its production.

What remains suspect beyond the fact the “smoke” is considered to exist at all, in physical terms as a constant, is that a process exists to precisely measure its variable effects, over a lifetime of variations a body would experience and the reactions of variable defenses within, predicting [we are told consistently] what would evolve.

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/19/1/2

Sorry I simply don't buy it. In a recent article published in The European Journal of Public Health this month; Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee et al; make a unforgivable pronouncement, that the debate is over with a claim to victory, despite the science which indicates otherwise; either I am to accept a designation as a Holocaust denier or should agree the debate is over, designating the smoke in all forms and regardless of dilution levels, as the most deadly toxin ever discovered with “no safe level”?

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/14/suppl_2/ii3

I find a third more logical option is available; that it is the "science” which should be dismissed as a defective when it surpasses all reasonable bounds of credibility.

“The right to health relevant information derives from the principles of autonomy and self direction and has been recognized in international declarations. Providing accurate health information is part of the basis for obtaining "informed consent" and is a recognized component of business ethics, safety communications, and case and product liability law. Remarkably, anti-tobacco and pro-tobacco sources alike have come to emphasis the message that there is "no safe cigarette" or "no safe tobacco product". We propose that the "no safe" message is so limited in its value that it represents a violation of the right to health relevant information. There is a need to go beyond saying, "there is no safe tobacco product" to indicate information on degree of risks.”

To demonstrate the problem with“no safe” risk claims;

50,000 in a population of 320 million is an absolute risk of .016% in a population virtually all exposed to some degree. But who will be effected or killed by heart attack, due solely to their exposure, in that 320 million population? With no safe level, they should all die, whether they smoke or not. The same lobby group tells us if a smoker quits smoking, his level of exposure will be nullified over the years, to a level of risk not detectable beyond the norm? Who could be exposed to the “Smoke” more than a smoker? Are smokers in possession of some internal curative ability no one else has?

If death is a result of quantity and/or duration of exposures, we should be able to just collect all the bartenders and bingo operators and give virtually everyone else a clean bill of health.

That doesn't seem to work very well either because there are far too many bartenders alone, to prove the “prophesy” is consistent, while leaving over any risk to distribute among the public, so we have to assume the risk is non linear.

A lack of linear dose response relationships eliminates any possibility to predict any outcome with any hope of precision, by simply comparing one group to another, so the "science" or the evaluation process is the problem. Legitimately ETS never was a problem and the promises of potential “lives saved” are irresponsible and ill advised.

You can confirm that level of logic, with visual observations. Theoretical tobacco smoke has killed no one that we can identify in the physical world.

When Doctors mistakes kill more people than smoking, who is really left, we can believe?

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/death/what.htm

How credible is the opinion, in regards to risk and so called significant risk.

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/lists/deaths.htm

50,000 compared to total figures of heart attack death at 460,000 annually, represents 50/460 which suggests a 10.8% increased risk but only if we can agree the entire population knows what second hand smoke smells like, so they are all exposed. Are they all permanently damaged by that exposure and will they all die in the specified 10.8% of the total .27% of total mortalities [.88% of population] which will always occur every year, even if no one smokes?

What is causing the other 90% is the larger issue. Even smoking in its totality [assuming 450,000 is caused by smoking and not more realistically; 1/5 of total mortality seen in 1/5 of the population] only increases the annual population risk @ .88% by .16% representing 20% of the population.

Chronic exposure among non smokers as a more credible claim would eliminate many of the 50,000 predicted and reduce the 11% figure drastically in current risk perspectives. Of course, the control freaks don't ever want to talk about current risk applicable to the current population; It blows away all the fear...

In the current diatribe "there is no safe level of second hand smoke" if we believe it, the increased risk for second hand smoke 10.8% is far below the most moderate insignificant estimates at 19% in population increased risk.

Few can escape the 100% death rate within 100 years. By comparison in realistic terms the .88% we see annually is minuscule. .16% as the worst case, when it only affects half of those who smoke is the real figure to consider and how much does it really matter when every person beyond 35 years of age has a higher risk of dying, whether you smoke or not?

Who is really considering the risks exhibited these truly shocking numbers? Certainly not the "deniers" who believe only smoking is dangerous. Something for the anti smoker crusaders, to consider, while bemoaning the health risk of smoking and the comparative minuscule risks of second hand smoke; Anyone surviving beyond the ripe old age of 35 years has a 4% higher risk of dying [.199%] than the [.16%] risk of dying of smoking related diseases and it only gets dramatically worse as you grow older.

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/d/death/intro.htm

"Death comes to us all at a rate a little less than 1% per year in the USA (0.877% or 1-in-114). However, annual mortality rates vary with age and generally increase with age after the first year: infant (less than 1 year) 0.706% or 1-in-141 (highest in the first 28 days, down to 0.188% or 1-in-531 after that), age 1-4 years 0.034% (1 in 2,941), 5-9 years 0.017% (1 in 5,882), 10-14 years 0.021% (1 in 4,761), 15-19 years 0.069% (1 in 1,449), 20-24 years 0.093% (1 in 1,075), 25-34 years 0.108% (1 in 925), 35-44 years 0.199% (1 in 502), 45-54 years 0.427% (1 in 234), 55-64 years 1.021% (1 in 97), 65-74 years 2.484% (1 in 40), 75-84 years 5.751% (1 in 17), and 85+ years %15.475% (1 in 6) [CDC NVSR 2001]. "

Or these?

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/statistics/index.htm

"The National Patient Safety Foundation (NPSF) commissioned a phone survey in 1997 to review patient opinions about medical mistakes. Of the people reporting a medical mistake (42%), 40% reported a "misdiagnosis or treatment error", but did not separate misdiagnosis from treatment errors. Respondents also reported that their doctor failed to make an adequate diagnosis in 9% of cases, and 8% of people cited misdiagnosis as a primary causal factor in the medical mistake. Loosely interpreting these facts gives a range of 8% to 42% rate for misdiagnoses.

Misdiagnosis rates in the ICU or Emergency Department have been studied, with rates ranging from 20% to 40%. These misdiagnosis rates are likely to be higher than the overall health care misdiagnosis rate because of the time-critical and serious nature of the diagnosis under these crisis conditions. "

For lung cancers we are told 90% are found among smokers, which leaves only 10% to be distributed among 80% of the public. The real numbers, in American terms and by the most popular lobby move to find Canadian numbers, divide by 10.

Total Lung cancers;
160,439 x .1 = 16,044 [10%] or 1604 Canadians among 32 million

16,044/ [320 – 64 million smokers] =
16044/256,000,000
a risk to a non smoker of .0006% [1 x .0000626]

If 1% of the American workforce are employed in the hospitality trade, the bartenders most exposed to the “smoke” would number in the hundreds of thousands. Which doesn’t leave any large measure of risk for the rest of us to fret about, does it? When you consider the term “half of smokers will die from smoking” why not bartenders by the same proportion killed by the “smoke”? One theory rests in the fact they only inhale the equivalent of a single cigarette every five to ten days, which should explain part of it. But how about the claims of risk which extend outdoors and in a brief smell, while walking down the “Blue air” filled streets and parks. How is that believed to be possible to describe as a significant risk or any risk, when the bartenders insist on hogging all the available mortalities?

Once again distribution by the above measures using 16,000 [if we assume all are caused by the “smoke”] in place of the 50,000 by the claimed heart risks and you quickly realize how extremely; [this “smoke”, who is really being smoked, and how far imagination,] is being, over hyped. It falls now to the imagination, to determine if the 10s of Billions spent creating pictures in your mind over the past five decades, were invested in research and real medical treatment; how many would die from either cancer or heart diseases today?

Letter to the Editor

2009-01-09T03:32:00.000-08:00

Hello;
As balance is required in all public distributions of the news, I would like to present a commentary on the third hand smoke articles published recently.

First, I would like to point out, I am not selling cigarettes, or any notion they are safe or they should be promoted as such. What I am more concerned with, is the fundamental shift from denouncing a product we could easily ban, to denouncing real people. A campaign initiated by an agreement signed by our federal government with the world health organization, which clearly is an obligation to reduce smoker prevalence and the use of cigarettes. This is not in any way a green light to wage war on those affected with bigotry or moral impositions. Nor a permission by over funded lobby groups, to recreate morality in their own image, to serve their own needs or purposes to the peril of their victims.

It has to be understood, the industrial component of this campaign is conflicted and seek as partners, in what is referred to as a Public Health intervention, to profit by the sale of alternative products, such as smoking patches and gum. Tax exempted foundations such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation are directly profiting from their ownership of millions of shares held in their parent founder, which is Johnson and Johnson with the majority of board members current or former directors of Johnson and Johnson. The organized meetings and strategy sessions, which drive the bulk of Public Health campaigns such as this, are sponsored directly including in most cases; hotel, meal expenses, conference hall bookings, gala functions and awards ceremonies. An investment of billions with a reasonable expectation of returned profits.

Getting back to the study. Jacob Sullum, of Reason magazine made a quite reasonable observation of the so called ‘study” in pointing out; this was not a measure of potential harms or risk by process evaluation, this report was simply a phone survey with a quite limited explanation, of what the interviewer refers as “third hand smoke” and asked if a person were exposed to a list of largely petroleum use and production by-products, which are found as the researcher points out, quantitatively in our daily environment regardless of smoking, would the respondent agree those toxins might cause harm. There is no discussion of the levels and known safe levels discussed, there is no comment on how many, if any, would be affected, there is simply a declared conclusion that a risk exists.

The way this was presented in large scale news releases, carried by virtually every news agency in North America placed the focus primarily on the conclusions, we created a rumor and people reacted impulsively by giving this report, a lot more weight and focus than it should be reasonable to assume it is due.

The article we saw published, listed the numerous impositions and community divisions, achieved by the lobbies to date, and simply wrote an entitlement to continue to encroach further into; the personal lives, parental autonomy and homes of others.

People need to take what they read with a little less trust and that is the sad reality in all of this. The damage to our safety and security is inevitable, when the institutions and charities we have learned to trust, reorganize as political organizations, which serve the needs of institutions and profit, in place of the people paying for them.

Smoking might not be the wisest of choices, however many of those who smoke have done so for many years. People smoked in the majority, well before our health care system existed. We have now accepted “sin taxes” to control the lives of others with the claims they reduce the costs of healthcare as their necessity. The Universality of healthcare was fractured the day smoking taxes were implemented, because targeted taxation taken to benefit only the majority destroyed that claim of universality. More recently we have seen the implementation of taxing a nondescript “non healthy foods” with hidden taxes, most are not even aware they are paying, to combat the costs of obesity and what they named “the fat pandemic”. Although communities are divided in the righteous and moral integrity of imposing such laws, which serve some and degrade others, when the campaign focuses on your “protection” without request, things seem to change and the insult comes much more clearly into focus.

If we can allow bigotry and hatred to guide our laws and communities, we only punish ourselves. Smoking bans could be replaced with signs and good judgment, trusting the property owner to decide what is best for his own business. As confident communities have always used consistently in the past. It is only when we seek to punish others, because they do not share our values, that bans and criminalization become popular for the larger group, in spite of the minority and the hatred we demonstrate in our demands.

The notion of a population bubble moving into old age with new protections in place which seek to extend their lives, will somehow reduce the cost of healthcare is amusing to a fault. If you have more elderly people you have increased the largest demographic of the lions share of health care expenses. Does that align well with lowering the costs of healthcare? Through historical observations, the numbers can never accomplish what the self-important lobbies claim they will. We will always have a number one killer to slay, while we divert ourselves with greenhouse campaigns and pandemic pandemonium away from the industry toxins, causing us all the greatest harm. If we candy coat every citizen in this country with protections from the cradle to the grave what will those protections cost? Communism always fails, because it is simply not viable and never meets the advertised and optimistic expectations. Hitler’s favorite campaign slogans, always involved protecting the children and the race, as do China’s “protections” of Tibet. Are either credible?

People need to get back to trusting each other, because we can no longer trust the media to take out the trash. Conglomerate news agencies and ad agencies who sell third hand smoke, are dictating your news. The papers and the network affiliates exist primarily only to rebroadcast the sold products coming off the news wire. It is up to the rest of us now, to consider the source and follow the money, because it is obvious, no one else is doing it.

Many people today who vote for what is advertised as liberal or progressive ideologies, are in fact promoting neo-conservative candidates, regardless of what is advertised on the posters.

People are constantly let down by their candidates after the elections, by their choice of leaders who never get it quite right. Which explains the decades old desire for change.

Most on both sides of the heath scare debate would prefer to avoid partisan or political language. Divided thinking and pessimism as always, we have a problem dealing with the obvious wedge issue which should be defining party politics, as opposed to allowing poll sitters in government to jump on any issue and make it their own.

A point of division for politicians and rejoining of communities, which should be obvious to anyone who rightly believes politicians are all crooks and none deserve our support.

When you abandon traditional "party first" mindsets and really look; the move of all parties to the center leaves them wide open to embarrassment for abandoning party values.

When Liberals support partnership with old money industries and use taxes to sell their products, how can a liberal claim they are liberal.

Alternately can a conservative deny they have gone back to the motivations of failed corporatist policies? Demanding presumptions of guilt, in shoot first ask questions later, among their many mistakes of the past?

When either party promotes protectionist policies such as smoking bans or fat taxes, serving old money bottom lines, large government and the banging of tambourines, they all find themselves in neo-conservative territory.

Promoting only higher crime rates by punishing the innocent, who would prefer to be left alone.

Lyndon Johnson selling cholesterol in eggs all over again...

If we recognize that communities are no longer motivated by confidence, learned traditional values and intelligence.

They now have to be pushed by the constantly adjusted and always inconsistent overbearing moralist values of the state, entitled substantially by an obscenity described as science, promoted fear, divisions, and exclusions.

The problem lies in lost confidence; in ourselves, our systems of government, and the level [or lack] of intelligence guiding them.

The Pros and Cons

2008-12-28T20:19:00.000-08:00

Road rage

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

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

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

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

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

Smoking related diseases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global Warming

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

Fat pandemics

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

Cult over State.

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

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

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

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

Philanthropy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Placing democracy back on track, as a buyers market.

Loboo taboos

2008-12-17T00:55:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questioning the little big man complex

2008-11-26T09:16:00.000-08:00

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

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

The question is very simple;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is 5000 deadly ingredients really an official scientific term?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Running the numbers scam on us.

2008-11-19T17:37:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations;

Risk reductions

Poison in the dose 1

Poison in the dose 2

Poison in the dose 3

Cancer identification and rates

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

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

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

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

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

According to Thun...

Secondary smoke exposures

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

Smoking Prevalence figures

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

Second hand smoke; Is it all in your mind?

2008-11-04T10:35:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

Please see update section below

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This quote is particularly interesting;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a sample of his dirty work.

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

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

His summation states according to his figures;

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

And this is Tobacco Control’s cannon of proof?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Development Update

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

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

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

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

Bill Godshall;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Siegal;

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

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

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

Michael Siegal;

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

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

A matter of perspectives

2008-09-28T03:29:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public health, by definition or by belief?

2008-08-22T08:20:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. “

How much is too much?

2008-08-17T11:20:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

What is really wrong with smoking bans?

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

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

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

From the document UNESCO and its program, 111

The race question.

From the preamble we find;

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

And of course;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J’accuse.

2008-07-09T02:25:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do we fear the smoke, or the freedom?

2008-06-28T17:49:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

Which of the following is thought to be true?

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

2] Rape is really just an inconvenience.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence weighted by the science of accumulation

2008-06-24T07:37:00.000-07:00

Once again ASH and their merry band of Nazi supporters, are climbing to new heights in mountains out of molehill profiteering this week. Beyond the statements by their Legal adviser adding more evidence, of his more than obvious hatred for anyone, who dares to smoke a cigarette, actually cheer leading a supposed right of employment restrictions and exclusions for anyone who smokes on or off the job;

The right to hire and fire is based in the free market employee having to accept employment standards as depicted by the employer. In complete contradiction to the way they sold smoking bans, by claiming employees were being forced to inhale ETS?

The latest testament to creating the modern day leper, directs even of you smoke outdoors you still carry a health risk to non smokers, including by the ever present emotional blackmail component, gratuitously in defense of those poor defenseless children A risk carried into the home, on a smokers breath no less.

It seems we don’t need to purchase the forty dollar article in order to evaluate its true value. The researcher seems to be a little off, in his assessments of how to measure ETS.

From the article found here;

Page 95

In summary, Nicotine has been used frequently as a marker for ETS because it meets three of the four primary criteria for a good marker. However in individual situations, its direct relationship with other compounds of interest in ETS is certainly not constant, and while it is useful for providing comparisons with previous studies, reliance on it solely is not advised.

Page 98

“Most ETS particulate matter droplets are smaller than those of MS [0.35 – 0.25 um] with a mass median diameter in the range of 0.15 to 0.25 um “

The researcher declaring bad breath a significant children’s health risk, is gratuitously measuring a pretty wide range of particulate, which will no doubt, include in the bulk of measurements; primarily contaminants of sources other than ETS which present a much higher actual health risk.

From the article;

“Each household was monitored for vapor phase nicotine and particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of =10 µm (PM₁₀).”

From page 96 explaining the concept of cigarette equivalents and information from the chart on page 97; it seems highly unlikely nicotine measurements using a smokers lungs after smoking, as the sole source of ETS, nicotine measurements would even be in the measurable range. If any Nicotine were detected at all, it is further beyond the realm of possibility the levels associated to CEQ inhalation could come close to a range they would represent any harm [long or short term] to anyone, including children who have much less lung capacity, and naturally would inhale much less than the figures presented.

FYI;

An adult would inhale approximately 8.8 litres per minute times 60 minutes times 8 hours equals 4224 litres per day or 4.3 cubic meters of air. A child would inhale roughly half of that amount.

One has to assume K Rumchev, the author [who has no letters attached to his name] is a student. The University itself has an entirely suspicious conflict of interest here, which is not mentioned in ASHES news release. A hired gun, creating conflicted research to suit any industrialist agenda.

Hardly the type of research we can trust in matters of public health although we are deluged with so many agenda driven theoretic reports of late, it gets very hard to see any of them as credible anymore. You have to go back in time 20-30 years before the health scare bandwagon got on track, to find any semblance of legitimate science it seems, if it ever did, truly exist.

Consider the source and always follow the money… Curtin University;

“Curtin maintains a high level of involvement with numerous Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs). A CRC is a company formed through a collaboration of businesses and researchers. This includes private sector organisations (both large and small enterprises), universities, industry associations and government research agencies.

Established in 1990, the federally-funded CRC programme aims to turn Australia's scientific innovations into successful new products, services and technologies, making our industries more efficient, productive and competitive. The program has a strong education component with a focus on producing graduates with skills relevant to industry needs.”

I have read in numerous studies the effect of sub micron particles being deposited in the trachea-bronchial region and accumulating due to the lung being unable to dislodge them. Cigarette smoke is often described as a major hazard in a way it is least likely to cause that effect or as follows that increased risk. It appears from this study;

The surface dimensions of cigarette smoke and particularly second hand smoke are in the regions least likely to accumulate within the lungs resulting in long term damage or "smoking related" effects.

The chart at figure 4 on page 5 at three different respiratory levels demonstrates the higher likelihood of micron dimensions above one micron and below .01 microns demonstrating much higher capacity and likelihood of being accumulated in the lung cavities as described in the suspect studies mentioned. Cigarette smoke and second hand smoke reside in the .25 micron range.

Surface dimensions above one Micron or micro-meter ranges would be much more consistent with particulate derived from diesel exhaust industrial emissions and coal burning. The Nano-meter [nm] ranges of Nano-particulate would include viral agents such as bird flu and SARS. From the chart found here;

with cigarette smoke close to the .25 micron range you see once again, the accumulations expected are among the lowest accumulation risk regions, which leave your lungs in the same measures as they entered. Those forming highest risk of accumulations and biological interactions and found most often in our environment, are dominated by particulate much larger and much smaller than that found in tobacco smoke.

It seems the studies depicting cigarette particulate, in measures above the 1 micron range at less than or equal to 2.5 or 10 micrometers, are gratuitously not accurate enough in the definition or measurements of ETS particulate, because the broad limits set in addition to a failure to properly identify surface descriptions, have ETS lumped in with the bulk of materials much more likely, to actually cause an increased long term health risk by accumulation.

What this means for non smokers being duped into supporting smoking bans, you are being deliberately focused [bait and switch] on the lowest risk hazard by developing hatred against anyone who smokes, you are inadvertently, helping to protect the industries actually doing the most damage to your health. And of course increasing that severe risk, of the defenceless children we have to protect at all costs [[wink]]

The obligation of hatred

2008-02-24T08:15:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-10T09:55:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-04T08:06:00.000-08:00

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

2008-02-03T10:02:00.000-08:00

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 smokedelivered to active smokers is 100 times or more that deliveredto a passive smoker, the relative risk of coronary heart diseasefor smokers is 1.78,⁵(Figure 1). Rapidly accumulating evidence, however, indicatesthat 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 increasethe 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

2008-02-02T01:58:00.000-08:00

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.

Defending the public from the terrorist inventions of “Normal” marketed with Plastic Cannons of proof.

2007-01-10T10:49:00.000-08:00

In assessing the intelligence of smoking bans proclaimed as an inclusive measure benefiting society. We have to wonder sometimes if anyone is really being served more predominantly than cessation salespeople or the public trough which the bleeding hearts crowd will swear in unison is perpetually under funded..

Stepping out of the artificial world of Political Correctness for a few seconds reveals nothing political can be absolutely correct. Only a tyrant can ignore those who are affected in selling an absolute campaign of hatred and mistrust.Eugenicists taught us in the early part of the last century an equation we too quickly forgot. When political bias is greater than moral bias the result is an abundance of mortalities. The inescapable fact is public health from a global or consensus perspective. [Distributed through partnered pressure groups, such as the Tobacco Control [TC] Lobby] What is being promoted is Hatred and division which will affect us all. The population view adapted in public health reform, what could be seen as an underhanded attempt to avoid criticism of discrimination, which is almost surely what will develop. When we look at what constitutes proof from a population view in consensus [Fear driven] science. Biases of lower socioeconomic, gender, race and cultural groups are inevitable as health risks reside primarily within some categorical groups more predominantly than in others. The authorities of moral turpitude are those of financial and political advantage, who judge their own “normal” activities as a marker for excellence in all defined groups.
The exclusion of smokers from strategy sessions and public hearings has defined public health as exclusive and self righteous. Their actions fraudulently representative of protection, has placed a larger portion of our communities at risk than the protected base they claim are at risk, those same workers risk has been exaggerated beyond all reason and the group protected were never part of the planning or evaluation process either. Smoking bans are a representation of hatred promoted by a small segment of our populace who demonstrate the promotion of the very worst in human behavior. If the best arguments T.C. can provide are those of fear promoting exclusions, one has to ask why; those afflicted with AIDS were not delegated [as they did in China to the dismay of civilized countries] to remote segregation, as we see in the Ban fan solution. Primarily the best way to defeat the tyrants of exclusion is to reveal the hypocrisies they promote and reveal the hateful nature of their campaign at every opportunity. Similarly they could be asked why there is no fear assessed in breathing the smoke from Candles, Fire logs, Cooking, or smoking pot despite the coincidental and unique carcinogens in all which are immensely higher than anything found in the 5000 chemicals described as toxic which are found in tobacco smoke. Or in the volumes which all are inhaled in a normal lifetime associated with increased risk which we hear so little about. What level of concern should we in perspective assess to over 50 thousand chemicals in use and existing in the environmental outdoor air, The primary component of indoor air which is not connected to current sales strategies financing the lobbies, Those who are revealed by placing no smoking signs in underground parking garages and on outdoor patios as an educational cartoon,. A display indicative of the limited level of knowledge, charged with protecting the rest of us from ourselves and not from them.

The population view adapted in health care reform, undermines the protection of the poor, minorities and all protected groups as defined in the human rights code. The prevalence of disease and mortality figures demonstrated in epidemiology studies are significantly more predominant among some groups than others this will undeniably lead to discrimination. The process can not avoid it, when communities and cultures are ignored. It is too easy to target any group, as Hitler once proved utilizing the same epidemiology process to sustain what he deemed as moral or acceptable behavior. The Galton Institute is front and center in the creation of HIA health interventions as partners in the World Health Organization. This process should be taken as a threat to national security and human health risk as the Death camps in Germany clearly demonstrated.

Support will inflict the hateful messages upon these groups Messages also include disparities among women and the unique circumstances of women’s health issues. Hateful messages being promoted at a website in Ontario called "stupid" asking children to question the wisdom in kissing an ashtray. A health minister in Quebec who states smokers have no right to speak, because they are under the influence? Drawing indignity and segregation; not to an industry or an addiction but to people who smoke, is the height of ignorance. This will have effects which will impact us all in unavoidable negative ways.

If Public Health care is to advance in an ethical inclusive environment, actions promoted should include the opinions of the segment of our society whom the actions will predominantly effect. Smokers represent close to a quarter of our population base, the evidence is clear discrimination runs rampant and government approval can not be denied. No roof or walls are hateful government actions, the refusal of physicians to treat them, even more incredibly the cheering for discrimination in Parental rights, housing, employment and pricing of services for sale, are inexcusable promotions of hatred. Certainly not in keeping with human rights initiatives we all claim to hold dear. A unique approach to the treatment of addiction and not deserving of the past achievements of a civil society. The level of substantiating proof and it’s sources outside the Government internal research draws the government into the realm of suspicion and ill repute. To claim smokers do not have human rights protection as a group, undermines the fact they should be protected as individuals. Government seeks to, by it's actions increase the health risk to these individuals identified as a defined group with a single word. These issues need careful examination and discussion in an unbiased representative format, free of those who are paid to lobby and will be enriched, at the expense of those they impose their hateful campaigns upon.

On January 2nd 2007 it was widely reported in the international media; based on a Calgary researchers press release, pregnant women had nothing to fear from the use of smoking cessation devices during pregnancy. The research cited was entirely based on a five year study of rats by an education research facility which has been cited in the past in promotion of a number of Public Health Scare initiatives.. On January 5; although not in a news release so far, we see new research based in the study of close to 80,000 women finding, smoking while pregnant did not increase the risk of birth defects and by a significant finding non smoking mothers who used the smoking patch had a large increased risk of physical deformities.

The Enstrom and Kabat research demonstrated in one of the largest studies to date the risks associated with second hand smoke were overblown and unsubstantiated. Similarly the World Health Organizations multi-country multi-year research agreed, no substantial increased risk from Second hand smoke was evident. The study inexplicably also revealed, children who lived and likely rode in cars with parents who smoke, had a curative effect by a larger margin than the insignificant proof of risk found in women who lived with smokers and also were exposed at work lifetime. Although many determined ban enthusiasts will deny the facts, the larger more significant research has always demonstrated Second hand smoke risk is largely overblown. What does this tell us in the larger perspective? The actions of these dedicated warriors in their campaigns of fear and segregation represent a larger health risk than the smokers they detest. The calculations they promote demonstrated in SIDS Canadian mortality figures the calculated risk exceeded the actual mortality figures which occurred, largely because of a successful back to sleep campaign urging parents to put their children down on their backs. Anti smoking efforts are diluting the message in the belief by some parents “the evidence is clear” SIDS a syndrome yet unexplained, is caused solely by cigarette smoke, although the calculated risk found in miniscule studies also demonstrated in reality the cause is anything but clear. Similar findings were demonstrated in Asthma, Heart disease Lung Cancers and Breast cancer. The cause of eudiometrical cancers has found a cure which has nothing to do with smoking. Studies of smokers and non smokers exposed to second hand smoke residue in toenails demonstrated although non toxic nicotine was found in both cases toxic tobacco specific agents were not found. The measure of toxins in urine should be recognized as what would be expected, the toxins no longer within the body were being expelled as the body should. As in the effects of smoking are known to diminish after cessation. The content in blood testing is a snapshot of a work in progress. Certainly not any proof of risk by existence alone.

The “no safe cigarette” message is the most potentially dangerous proverb of the NRT parrots. The Tobacco industry also chants in agreement to this hymn. The no safe message destroys the reality they could be produced much safer. No safe means existing product regulation is no longer sustainable and product safety is now completely in the hands of the industry. Smokers who are most at risk are now with no labeling on the packaging to guide autonomy choice in decisions affecting their own health are now further at risk introduced by cheaper tobacco grown without regulation being introduced, to again enrich the profits of an industry, the warriors swear are the target of their appeal. The same focused groups who laud the intelligence of bans and higher taxes in helping smokers to quit, increases enormously the health risk of us all particularly evident among non smokers.. Research for decades including research of march 2006 by the WHO and The CDC demonstrated as hundreds of related research links concur; the toxic and carcinogenic content can be reduced in product regulation and can be controlled by the manufacturer if they so choose. Reductions confirmed in physical testing of cigarettes sold in 170 countries around the world toxic reductions by more than 95% The lobbies do not reveal simple regulation punishing no one, could eliminate the basis of fear they promote among non smokers exposed to the mysterious smoke.

The cannon of evidence we hear of so often was not the result of scientific consensus but the coordinated effort of theme based research groups, who first decided among themselves what would be the most effective way to deliver the anti smoker message. Focus groups were reviewed by advertising agencies to test the effectiveness of the messages proposed The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation the Philanthropic arm of the Medical aids company Johnson and Johnson who sponsored many of these international sessions promoted the idea of using children as emotional tools to enrich the messages. It was only after the most shocking of campaign topics were selected was the research even evaluated with a focused view they could never deny Existing studies no matter how large or conclusive all placed in data bases with categorical listings and ratings to promote a number of other Public health initiatives Selective reading and creative writing did the rest, in forming the basis of the most effective advertising campaign in world history. Second only to the identical campaign in 1930s Germany promoting a superior race in fear and exclusions. They brag in posting the success stories the proof in process of the effectiveness of their plagiarized campaigns.. The Cannon, a weapon to be sure, however the claim to absolute irreproachable proof? from a scientific stand point has little credibility. The level of bias utilized in it’s creation is openly on display. Health scare advocacy is now more closely described in Webster by the definition of coercion.. Many larger more credible research studies and timeline observation demonstrates the true value of a plastic cannon. And the very real danger promoted by a plastic public which is ignorant of the effect to the real public although as stakeholders all completely in tune to the financial aspects of a successful advertising campaign.

Democratic governments have failed in a mandate to serve "all" in now led by the opinions of a small group of focused radical extremists, who have never represented the public, denormalization strategies seek only to change us. If conformity to the new normal is the target, how can we say anyone in society is represented. If we can be viewed by Government as imperfect, demanding alteration to suit the wishes of the bureaucracy alone, a bureaucracy actually forced into purchasing commercial sales promoting politics with the public purse There are no checks and balances of these targeting groups who answer to no one and now govern public bureaucracies and through the media control the politicians we elect to lead. Financial privilege will have it's rewards as the media is controlled and the public through it A public never being allowed, as is their right, to see the whole story in making personal health related decisions. They will only be allowed, what a small non governmental group dictates they will see, the product of selective reading and exaggeration of risk, which normally is of little concern. Perhaps that opinion of imperfection and a mandate for change should be decided by an election. Society as a whole can no longer handle the truth, which if it were more widely supported and distributed, we could actually measure scientifically the mandate for coercive societal change. How many real preventable deaths could that involve?
.

For your reading pleasure;

Freedom dies the death of a million pinpricks
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzgzNDY3ZTg0YTc1OTAyZjdjNTkyODY2YTY2ODE0YTk=

The new normal
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/fear_main.shtml

Purveyors of the new globalist perspective
http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/

The Borg alliance; Tobacco Control, The Galtons and David Duke of the Clan
working together and building our tomorrow
http://www.dango.bham.ac.uk/Dango.Defining.htm

The sales department dedication to funding
96% of us are exhibiting risk potential and should be dealt with severely with shame taxation for our crimes
http://www.chronicdiseaseprevention.ca/content/case_for_change/case_for_change.asp

Proof they don’t know Jack although they are related to Adolph…
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/c903ce.html#0.2.2Z141Z1.NBS3AG.68WQBF.V

Reinventing the wheel A Likely source of the modern Lieberal Red Book
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html

An ounce of prevention?
http://www.ehponline.org/members/1997/Suppl-4/hecht-full.html

Poison is in the dose
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2369279&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Jumping from the 15th floor instead of the 20th
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1859508,00.html

The real risk
http://www.pjonline.com/pdf/_donotindex/pj_20060107_news.pdf

Amoral bias gone wild
http://www.pinche.hvdgm.nl/resource/pdf/documents/final/PINCHE_WP3_final_181105.pdf
Footnote; Pay special attention to the assessments of all toxins reviewed barely an instance is included with no reference to ETS. In assessment of ETS a long list of non definitive statements and cause associations to existence alone, the comprehensive study of all relevant research negates the inclusion of any value of alternatives to smoking bans in risk assessment or regulation of the product safety including the three references above which are down played in process. Incredibly even the assessment of diesel exhaust is blessed with the realization some of the included toxins are also found in ETS, despite the volumes which in fact are many times less and well below safe levels as opposed to the volumes in the much more deadly toxin being discussed and categorized with much less concern, despite the obviously unavoidable community risk. To date has any effort been expended to deal with the problem to the degree a barely significant risk assessment in ETS provides the means for billions in funding of community chaos?

Why Lobbies really focus on children; surveying RWJF and Johnson and Johnson stock market analysis of NRT sales They make great emotional props.
http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/BMSG_AccelerationReport.pdf

Excluded from the toxins list for obvious reasons
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press03152006.html

Consider the source
http://www.antibrains.com/

And follow the money
http://www.activistcash.com/index.cfm

Gomery style investments in Liberal friendly media groups
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/nr-cp/2001/2001_62bk1_e.html

Lessons in undermining political process and democracies through coercive methodology
http://www.who.int/hia/en/

Human Rights? Only if we say so
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1337801/posts

If any of you believe you ever had a choice in smoking ban votes,
The federal government promised to undermine Provincial authority, they even signed a contract
The fix was in bans at all costs were promised, prior to the half Billion dollar brain washing campaigns
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2004/pr89/en/

Purchasing your fairy tales and making sure everyone believes you
http://www.dna13.com/about_library.html

Polar bears are dying of hypothermia? The ice caps are melting?
Global warming could happen, just not today
the wind chill in Resolute is minus 53, go figure…
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

The skinny on fat pandemonia
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2815

More of what they know but choose to ignore
http://tc.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/14/suppl_2/ii3?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&minscore=5000&resourcetype=HWCIT

Risk assessment, assessing the discovery process
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html

Neil Coleslaw works advising the Canadian Government in Tobacco smoke issues.
Through his funded Lobby group, Fascists for a smoke free la la land, or something similar
in addition to an embarrassing attempt at a book sale, a third rate fiction piece
which indicates he wants to take over the tobacco industry with government funding.
In the past he spent millions of UN money trying to produce evidence of ETS harm, he left in shame
Undaunted he still pretends he did not understand what he found.
This is the self same opportunist who used a dying woman’s cancer as a tool to sell his wares, on the international stage
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=Abstract

Who is being protected and who is believed to be dying?
http://whyquit.com/pr/102906.html

Shooting the messenger
http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/defense.html

A little perspective please
http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/14/1/5.pdf#search=%22silencing%20science%3A%20partisanship%22

Now you see it [For fun can you spot the lie in the first paragraph?]
http://www.ahc.umn.edu/news/releases/smoke122806/home.html

And now you don’t?
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/12/2378
(Researcher Stephen S, Hecht Ph D confirmed recently no carcinogens were found in non smokers exposed to ETS, toenails “the article is incorrect”
The author refuses to recant the political lie in the article despite being advised of the good Doctor’s honest opinion.]

This article is one of my all time favorites in a proactive as opposed to reactive perspective
http://www.davehitt.com/may99/modest.html

Just for laughs a bunch more therapy to get your head straight
http://www.davehitt.com/toc.htm

Health Canada a mess

2006-11-27T02:39:00.000-08:00

Repace theories in critical review

For discussion critical evaluation of smoking related discussions of health hazard estimates as presented by James Repace ET AL

“RESULTS: Pre-smoking-ban RSP levels in 6 pubs (one pub with a non-SHS air quality problem was excluded) averaged 179 microg/m3, 23 times higher than post-ban levels, which averaged 7.7 microg/m3, exceeding the NAAQS for fine particle pollution (PM2.5) by nearly 4-fold. Pre-smoking ban levels of fine particle air pollution in all 7 of the pubs were in the Unhealthy to Hazardous range of the AQI. In the same 6 pubs, pre-ban indoor carcinogenic PPAH averaged 61.7 ng/m3, nearly 10 times higher than post-ban levels of 6.32 ng/m3. Post-ban particulate air pollution levels were in the Good AQI range, except for 1 venue with a defective gas-fired deep-fat fryer, while post-ban carcinogen levels in all 7 pubs were lower than outdoors. CONCLUSION: During smoking, although pub ventilation rates per occupant were within ASHRAE design parameters for the control of carbon dioxide levels for the number of occupants present, they failed to control SHS carcinogens or RSP. Nonsmokers' SHS odor and irritation sensory thresholds were massively exceeded. Post-ban air pollution measurements showed 90% to 95% reductions in PPAH and RSP respectively, differing little from outdoor concentrations. Ventilation failed to control SHS, leading to increased risk of the diseases of air pollution for nonsmoking workers and patrons. Boston's smoking ban eliminated this risk”.

“Repace (2005) estimated

that the predicted respirable smoke particulate (RSP) concentration during work hours

corresponding to this risk is 211 µg/m3. In fact, Repace (2004) measured an RSP

concentration of 205 µg/m3 in the Delaware Park Casino in the U.S., with a

corresponding carcinogenic particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PPAH)

concentration of 163 nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3) before a Statewide smoking

ban, and corresponding RSP and PPAH concentrations after the smoking ban of 9 µg/m3

and 4 ng/m3 respectively.”

Repace estimates average environmental tobacco smoke [ETS] or [RSP] or [SHS] at 211 Micrograms per cubic meter of air in total. To state all ETS would be comprised of PM2.5 is erroneous as no research has been presented to establish this level truly exists. Nor can we assume all Particulate is present entirely in PM2.5. In identifying the particulate the reports are sloppy, in not more precisely defining the particulate, collection methods and sample duration, specific densities, origin and identification of PAH aerosols, Carbon type and source, Specific temperatures, humidity or age since formation in areas they are formed.

The general term Tobacco smoke is a vague description of a substantial variety of substances with ingredients which can vary among perhaps millions of possible combinations of what they may contain ventilation properties or the method of use.

Link 1

Link 2

Repace contends an average level of 250 micrograms per cubic meter of air the risk is 10,000 times his believed safe level. His statement from the Burswood casino offering of 225 deaths per year presents a 45 year risk of 10 in 1000 or 10,000 per million exposed. In measuring the toxic risk. a stretch which in relative risk terms exceeds even the risk of primary smoking by many times what was found in the most energetic of offerings.

When we look at the toxin described it is known to contain 3-5000 ingredients depending on who you choose to believe although a list seems to be a rare commodity. Which may be an enigma in itself. When assessing risk of a mixture, the total risk can not exceed the risk of its most dangerous component. Many as Repace seems to believe you may simply add up risk components to result the total risk unfortunately this is not the case. If as Repace demonstrates that would be particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PPAH)

which he simplistically compares to those PAHs produced by the spark ignition engine or diesel engine exhaust along a highway. His primary error is the sources are not similar nor the particulate or the PAHs produced. The burning of Oil products as compared to organic materials differ quite substantially and actually can be measured by instrumentation and differentiated if he so chose. Personally I would indicate the risk of Dioxin, as a more drastic reality in his advocacy. None the less we will proceed in his terms as presented. .

We are forced to deal with the sparse information base presented and generalized to evaluate what is being proposed in these amateurish adventures of ad agency style presentations of the most deceptive nature attempting to present as scientific knowledge. a seemingly impossible situation to unravel for any clear description or calculation in linear terms. to assess realistic risk. However I did not say this was impossible just very difficult to defend considering the source of the information available.

Perhaps to bring this into perspective we need to compare this study with a few professional reports dealing with similar toxins.

Quoting from; Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons: Evaluation of Sources and Effects (1983) http://newton.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=738&page=1

Commission on Life Sciences (CLS)

Aerosol Measurements.

“In all experiments, we measured aerosol surface properties using four pairs of a photoelectric aerosol sensor and a diffusion charger (PAS 2000 CE and DC 2000 CE, EcoChem), which quantify particulate PAHs (13–15) and aerosol active surface area (16), respectively. Aerosol active surface area affects condensation on particles, heterogeneous chemistry (e.g., reaction of gaseous species with particulate PAHs), and particle deposition (17). Normalizing the PAH concentration by active surface area provides information about the chemical composition of the particle (18) because particles from different combustion sources have different ratios of PAH concentration to surface area concentration. For example, the PAH concentration to surface area concentration ratio is nearly 3 times higher for candle soot versus diesel exhaust (16), and the ratio is much higher for diesel exhaust diluted at 24 versus 16 °C, due to the presence of nonphotoemitting nucleation mode particles at the lower temperature (19). We expect particles of noncombustion origin to have PAH concentration to surface area concentration ratios that are near zero.”

The burning of a candle produces 3 times the density of PAH as diesel exhaust a known class A carcinogen although few fear such a risk from a candle, exposure and duration may hold the truths in revealing why. First all respiratory particulate is not deadly the majority is inert. A very small component of the whole can be attributed to PAHs which is a bonded compound of aerosol attached to a carbon host which occurs as a result of burning Oil products and organic materials. The majority of which are expelled from the body in a few days through bowel movements and urination. It is believed a small amount of the toxins can stay within the body and may mutate at the cellular level to form cancers at various sites. The total risk of a collection of toxins can not exceed the maximum risk of any single component of the mixture unless it can be demonstrated a mixture forms a new toxin more deadly than either of it’s components. Such has never been demonstrated with PAHs. PAH is a range of components of varying degrees of toxicity. Among them benzo-[a]pyrene which is thought to be among the highest risk.

This link carries a lot of weight in Alternate opinions which are quite startling in PPAH terms.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1241432&blobtype=pdf

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1350952

Health Risk.

The extremely high PAH concentrations found on Mexico City’s roadways may present an important health risk. Estimating the potential health risk is instructive, despite the large uncertainties involved in the calculations. We can estimate the approximate magnitude of risk from exposure to PAHs in vehicle exhaust in the MCMA by considering the lung cancer risk estimate for benzo[a]pyrene, measurements of TPAH concentrations on the MCMA roadways, and the speciation profiles of their exhaust. Among all roadway trips monitored in the diesel exposure, commuter, and mobile laboratory studies conducted in the MCMA in 2002, median TPAH concentrations range from 60 to 910 ng m⁻³, with an average of 310 ng m⁻³. Laboratory (38, 39) and on-road (31) studies suggest that benzo[a]pyrene accounts for 7% ± 5% (mean ± standard deviation) and 2% ± 3% of particulate PAHs in gasoline and diesel exhaust, respectively.

“On the basis of studies of lung cancer in coke oven workers, the World Health Organization suggests a lifetime risk estimate (24 h per day over 70 years) for humans of 9 × 10⁻⁵ per ng m⁻³ of benzo[a]pyrene as an indicator, and the risk refers to the total PAH mixture (40). Speciation profiles differ between coke ovens and vehicle exhaust; however, benzo-[a]pyrene’s high carcinogenic potency relative to other PAHs supports the use of it as an indicator of risk for other sources (30). Using a typical roadway TPAH concentration of 300 ng m⁻³ in the MCMA and a particulate PAH speciation for exhaust of 2% benzo[a]pyrene, we estimate roadway benzo-[a]pyrene concentrations to be 6 ng m⁻³. Such a concentration translates into a lung cancer risk level of approximately 5 × 10⁻⁴ for lifetime exposure to these PAH concentrations, or 2 × 10⁻⁵ if we assume that people are exposed for 2 h per day, 5 days per week, for 40 years while commuting on roadways in the MCMA. Professional drivers whose occupations require them to spend many hours per day on the road, street vendors, and city dwellers who live near roadways will face a higher risk due to their longer durations of exposure. Although many uncertainties exist in this risk assessment, the estimate suggests that exposure to PAHs on the MCMA’s roadways may be high enough to warrant concern. This analysis does not consider the other carcinogenic and cocarcinogenic compounds present in the atmosphere, which may amplify the risk”.

Supplied calculations;

Repace has provided some calculations which we can evaluate and asses the true nature of risk according to lifetime estimatesof the world health Organization as described previously. As we see from Burswood numbers presented; [Total RSP][ .08%] =[ total PAHs] =[211ug x .0008 = 168 Pico grams Total PAHsTo calculate benzo-[a]pyrene content of PAH from above is approx. 2% of total or 3.36 Pico grams

Epidemiology risk assessment from WHO figures;

For exposures of employees the WHO coincidentally determined lifetime risk of the same toxin.
“(24 h per day over 70 years) for humans of 9 × 10⁻⁵ per ng m⁻³ of benzo[a]pyrene”

9 per hundred thousand exposed for every nana gram per cubic meter measured in this case 3.36 x 9 or 30.24 excess risk per hundred thousand exposed. For an employee this represents a lifetime risk of 24 hours x 365days x 70years = 613200 hours if exposed 24 hours a day for 70 years clearly this is not the case.

We wish to compare the Repace definition of an employee exposure for a 45 year working lifetime at 40 hours a week. Assuming 5 day work weeks and no days off. 40 hours x 52 weeks x45 years = 93600 hours / 613200 = .153 or 15.3% of total maximum lifetime risk 24-7/-70 years exposure as above 15.3% of 30.24 per one hundred thousand is 4.6 per hundred thousand or a relative risk of .46 x 10^–4 In epidemiology terms of risk assessment a 54% decreased chance any risk would exist.

Conclusions

For an average client in the bar/ Casino the attendance is only 10% of employee exposure assuming 4 hours per week or .046 x 10^–4Epidemiology studies assess risk beginning at 1 x 10 ^–4 the risk to non smokers in a smoking allowed Casino .046 [CI 99.9% .045 -.047 ] Further to an employee working in a smoking environment, again a curative effect of.46 [CI 99.9% .45 -.47 ] Strangely; a conclusion common sense lead us to believe all along. In practical measures the following link augmented by numerous identical studies internationally, demonstrates;

This is normally the point one would post excusses while patting one self on the back with a wave to the crowd. To the publishers who will ignore this conspiracy nut theory; Get stuffed It's Thanks giving.

Foot note;

In compliance with the first recommendation in dealing with class 1 carcinogens “replacing less hazardous materials”, an opportunity of simple regulation exists which would suit all affected in society as an inclusive measure Negating of course those seeking financial goals over the mortality incidence of others.

IARC

A Guide to the Classification of

Carcinogens, Mutagens and Teratogens under the Sixth Amendment,35 which is based

on the interpretation, for human exposure at the workplace, of the findings of the

International Agency for Research on Cancer on carcinogenesis. The most stringent of

the three categories, with the appropriate levels of control required, is described below.

-11-

(a) Category 1

Established human carcinogens are those substances known to be carcinogenic to

humans. There is sufficient evidence to establish a causal association between

human exposure to these substances and the development of cancer.

Under the circumstances where substitution of less hazardous materials is

technically not feasible, the use of these carcinogenic substances should be

controlled to the highest practicable standard by the application of effective

engineering control techniques and, where necessary, complemented by the use of

appropriate personal protective equipment. Routine monitoring of the workplace is

essential for indication of control performance. In some cases, health surveillance

and biological monitoring can indicate exposure and thus reveal the need for reassessment

of the control measures and work practices. For some substances,

specific control measures have been detailed in codes of practice.5,6,36

33. Doll, R. and Peto, R., The Causes of Cancer: Quantitative Estimates of Avoidable Risks of Cancer in

the United States Today, Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1981.

34. Commission of the European Communities (EEC), Classification and Labeling of Dangerous

Substances, Council Directive 79/831/EEC, Sixth Amendment, Brussels, 1986.

35. European Chemical Industry Ecology and Toxicology Centre, A Guide to the Classification of

Carcinogens, Mutagens and Teratogens under the Sixth Amendment, technical report no. 21, Brussels,

February 1986.

5. National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, `Guide to the Control of Asbestos Hazards in

Buildings and Structures' [NOHSC:3001(1988)], in Asbestos: Code of Practice and Guidance Notes,

Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1988.

6. National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, `National Code of Practice for the Safe Removal

of Asbestos' [NOHSC:2002(1988)], in Asbestos: Code of Practice and Guidance Notes, Australian

Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1988.`

36. National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, National Code of Practice for the Safe Use of

Vinyl Chloride [NOHSC:2004(1990)], Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1990.

The Healthcare Pandemic, A disease of Democracy and Choice

2006-10-09T11:53:00.000-07:00

Somehow the following passage seems to indicate C.S. Lewis had an incredible eye for the future, or more likely learned well the mistakes of the past.

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis. "

Recent research studies[1][2][30] describe the political nature of “healthcare advocacy”, a method of creating need through artificial fears, with the only acceptable solution to those fears in hand, primarily involving huge government expenditures[35], in effect a license to steal from the public purse. In reality the goal of the advocacy from the start. Much more dangerous to population risk is the political nature and growing credibility of the junk science[38] they produce. The efficiencies found in use of ad agencies[3] to produce compelling media reports which dominate discussions and indeed recreate public opinion, is a matter which is urgently in need of public scrutiny. Health Canada over the past decade was transformed into a political voice[7][37]which has already been seen to be detrimental to public health and a failure in it’s purpose and legislated mandate.[6]

The inability of Health Canada to investigate public Health concerns in a timely fashion precipitated the use of information from outside sources as outlined in the audit[6] adoption of borrowed science demanded the acceptance of the politics of it’s sources. Today the sum of Health Canada knowledge is a reflection primarily of American ad agency directives. The under reported CSPI lobby group[31] scandal which brought us to the Pan Canadian Strategy adaptation[], will soon have us paying exorbitant prices for traditional fare, while industries who promote healthy food as yet undefined will enjoy 300% tax credits for advertising healthy food they produce. Forced political subservience[28] across all party lines to new policies through political correctness extortion tactics leaves little room for balanced discussion and undermines the very essence of democratic process. That being the ability to debate freely without interference all issues and form opinions based in the most compelling arguments which suit the greater public good.

Credibility up in smoke; defining legitimate objectives

Environmental tobacco smoke as a prime example of the effectiveness of media campaigns and should be a warning to all, of the relative ease with which public opinion can be controlled. Examples of the effectiveness of these agency campaigns can be found in the agency advertising literature.[4][5][14] [16]Well heeled Public Health groups who for the most part are staffed by individuals with little or no training in medical or scientific fields. Successful advocates require intimate knowledge of media manipulation. Lobbies currently deliver the lion’s share of scientific knowledge the public is allowed to consume. In most cases when non randomized studies[8] are reported the methods are not revealed, or is it common knowledge the differences between methodology and result found when assessing personal potential risks. Although this contravenes the basic human right to health relevant information[9][12], regulatory bodies continue to ignore human rights violations[22]. Indeed the Federal Government departments openly promote such activities.[10][11][13] Agencies promote denormalization of industries however in actual practice the product users or their environments remain the only planned target[15] Little affect is seen in repercussions to the tobacco industry targeted, unless you count the steadily rising stock values as lobbying increases the value of the product sold[36]. Penalties, settlements. lost sales and legal fees are all swiftly passed along to the consumer.

So many advocates so little compassion; Greed buys a lot of concerned warriors

If health promotion were in fact the “Healthcare” objective, simple regulation could have the potential of reducing significant risk[24][25] Suggestions of this nature have been met with enthusiastic opposition citing futility in the face of an impossible level of safety. A level of risk which has been allowed to increase with lowered trade restrictions and little scrutiny of the primary carcinogens touted as the most prevalent danger of smoking. The levels of NNN and NNK vary as much as 90%, levels are known to be controlled by the manufacturers. Yet incredibly Government agencies have never asked them to control those limits to protect the general population.
The products of; phosphorous soil conditions and Fertilizers [Mentioned often by Glanz in his tirades some tobacco contains radioactive isotopes or radon daughters one of his favorite assertions. His awareness of the cause of the radiation has never motivated him to suggest regulations to eliminate the problem, either in Tobacco or other consumed organics. So much for the perception of concerned humanitarian motivation[41]] and most significantly in the selection of tobacco plant varieties, the use of leaves only, as opposed to use of roots and stems. Curing processes now all but abandoned in Canada were effective in reduction of 90% of histamines. Unrestricted tobacco is now reclassified as equal risk to regulated products in simplistic “no safe level exists” promotions despite Biological research, above the designer calculations, has consistently proven the significant correlations and reproducible measurements[26],

Real science has been ignored for fear someone may believe safer cigarettes are possible, reducing the fears of advocacy with their adoption. This of course would also remove all fear of possible harm in ETS in the same effort[42]. A state of public fear is apparently an acceptable government approved condition. The lobbies certainly lost little sleep in it’s creation. Current smokers are at increased risk due to failures to bring forth regulation of a known unsafe product or in an effort to reduce lung disease. The use of alternate cheap smokeless replacement products which are available would be highly beneficial. The assertion Second hand or environmental tobacco smoke is a threat to hospitality workers is enhanced in kind by a failure to protect population in an effective way. The obvious promotions of taxation and fines for non compliance appear to be much more motivational than actually protecting the health and reducing of fear, hatred or inspired violence in the general population.

Coercion and how it could affect you

The following passage describes a crime,
A description not unlike the media campaigns we are subjected to daily, financed with the public purse.[28]

How does Coercive Psychological Persuasion Differ from Other Kinds of Influence?
“Coercive psychological systems are distinguished from benign social learning or peaceful persuasion by the specific conditions under which they are conducted. These conditions include the type and number of coercive psychological tactics used, the severity of environmental and interpersonal manipulation, and the amount of psychological force employed to suppress particular unwanted behaviors and to train desired behaviors.
Coercive force is traditionally visualized in physical terms. In this form it is easily definable, clear-cut and unambiguous. Coercive psychological force unfortunately has not been so easy to see and define. The law has been ahead of the physical sciences in that it has allowed that coercion need not involve physical force. It has recognized that an individual can be threatened and coerced psychologically by what he or she perceives to be dangerous, not necessarily by that which is dangerous.
Law has recognized that even the threatened action need not be physical. Threats of economic loss, social ostracism and ridicule, among other things, are all recognized by law, in varying contexts, as coercive psychological forces.”

Why are Coercive Psychological Systems Harmful?
“Coercive psychological systems violate our most fundamental concepts of basic human rights. They violate rights of individuals that are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and affirmed by many declarations of principle worldwide.”

“By confusing, intimidating and silencing their victims, those who profit from these systems evade exposure and prosecution for actions recognized as harmful and which are illegal in most countries such as: fraud, false imprisonment, undue influence, involuntary servitude, intentional infliction of emotional distress, outrageous conduct and other tortuous acts.”

Have you fallen for the spin? Conned like the rest of us.

How many times have you heard a story broadcast beginning with
"The World Health organization predicts by the year 2020...[Insert disease and pestilence exaggerate at will, always look extremely concerned]"
Your not alone if you think this sounds familiar. Similar preparations are being replicated around the globe. Listening to foreign news reports is amusing when you hear the bylines they plug in. [Amputations caused by second hand smoke is very popular in Europe.]
Few, when listening to the evening news or the 15 minute spools broadcast 24-7 on so called news networks, stop to consider the source of the information being broadcast. Nor are they able to ascertain which articles are legitimate news and which originate as paid advertising campaigns. In contrast skilled practitioners who approach science with an open mind and form conclusions post experimentation, are largely dismissed when not producing information which compliments the political pre-determined view. Tax sheltered funds in American charity foundations are currently controlling trillions in liquid assets[32]. Enough to end starvation world wide if they so wished. Charity begins at home is a scandalous reality which exists in some of the largest corporations on the planet and the philanthropy groups they control. Many due to media supplanted realities fail to realize this is in fact our money. For decades the general population has paid a disproportionate share of taxation which subsidized the creation of these huge funds. The obscenity of using the same funds to take large sums from the taxation purse and manipulate stock markets to fuel inflation is unconscionable If you must advocate, demand politicians commence with the nationalization of those funds to feed the poor to buy books and infrastructure more importantly to eliminate personal taxation which was never needed and certainly no longer required in a balancing of the books. The efficiency of advertising with little restriction has grown a political behemoth which may already be beyond our power to control as demonstrated in difficulties prosecuting large industries such as Enron, Microsoft and the ongoing investigation of the Oil for food program at the UN.

Lobbies are instructed by such self serving industry interests as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation[18]
To make use of real media events advocacy promoting the exception as the rule. How else could we form an opinion as the current public believes smoking patches and gum are acceptable replacements for tobacco smoking? whereas Snu or chewing tobacco essentially identical competing products are unacceptable. The difference in products remains in the labeling and the considerably generous price charged for the former so called cessation devices. The use of child mortalities in SAMMEC research[19][17] funded by the same groups[20][23] as a tool of coercion[28], speaks volumes as to how dedicated and irresponsible these industrial lobbies have become.

Research has shown consistently patches and gum are ineffective in use as cessation devices, despite this the products are advertised through government agencies and paid policy promotions as viable alternatives to assist a smoker in quitting. The only substantially proven successful method of quitting remains through personal will power, cold turkey. Political leaders have been given the idea and many have voiced it; restricting a smoker from use of the smoked type of delivery systems is not cruel or inhuman when flying on an airplane or in a movie theatre because the gum and patch replacements can be used short term to alleviate the cravings.

WHO is in favor of giving the smokers another kick?

Advocates find credibility in large health related institutions and in political statements originating at the World Health organization.[21] Healthcare is a deceptive term having little to do with population health or the care of others. Medical research and the application of medicine have been deceptively co-opted as public perception would agree. In fact Healthcare has little to do with your health more honestly describing a tending of the public psyche in an effort to exert control by a minority over the majority who should be in control in a democratic state. Healthcare is based in fear and intimidation applied liberally. Success is highly dependant on inspiring intolerance and misdirection. Intolerance is in fact an employment prerequisite the most successful in the field are those with the lowest respect of integrity or compassion of their fellows. Much like the dog eat dog world always associated with other advertising agencies. Healthcare can more realistically be seen as a force of control through intimidation and inspired fears in manipulating it’s victims. The World Health Organization states; “Health is defined in WHO's Constitution as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”[30] Permanent charitable institutions as of late have found donations and media popularity are much improved in adoption of advocacy roles, abandoning the role as promoters of physical research, in favor of self promotion and in collaborating with coercive industry sponsored advocacy campaigns.

The Foley of the Kyoto accord falls squarely into this category. Promoted as the saving grace and the only option available in protection of our environment. What those in the general public convinced of the virtues in Kyoto do not realize are the eventual repercussions of such a plan. Industries including Power plants which burn coal, Metal refineries, Oil and Petro chemicals industries who produce the bulk of toxins in our environment can all pay for a free pass to continue; business as usual, while our environment continues to deteriorate. The cost of those credits are simply to be passed along to consumers who will suffer a double edged assault. Increased costs will deteriorate an already struggling standard of living in North America. In addition to the increased costs directly in the products produced and indirectly when the products are used to produce other products. The financial toll of poverty shortened lower quality lives inspires cost beyond reason. How do you quantify deliberate mortality and morbidity cost, when the media sponsors have already painted the victims as solely responsible for such eventualities. When the government is finally forced to step in and clean up an ecological mess at additional cost, once again the price will be passed along to the same consumers. Large polluting industries applaud the exaggeration of smoking risk in media advocacy, in order to avoid the human health responsibility now believed to be caused by smoking alone.

Science versus Politics

The idea of use of epidemiology calculations[48] to substantiate political cause is anything but unique. The many references to Hitler’s use of epidemiology research to legitimize his own Healthcare movement is described in a book by Robert Proctor[27]. A well known anti smoking advocate who was given an award by the medical community for his research on the subject. It can be safely assumed many of the parallels we see today in connection with smoking ban promotion[43], Fat pandemics and other advocacy strategies found their roots in the same methodology.

Fascism was after all defined by Mussolini as an industrial socialism. founded in leftist socialist doctorate primarily with the most popular of right wing ideology adapted as well. [we know it as politically correct, how many of us really think about who really defines the “correct”?] A centrist positioning as a swastika signifies a spinning scythe drawing both camps to the center. Political science divides left and right and always avoids the center a place which traditionally indicated failure to define a political position. The narrowing of positioning allows an opponent to adapt any opponent’s position as a policy objective.

Former Prime Minister Paul Martin was able to define Liberal party policy according to the daily poll results this allowed a continued public support despite many actions behind the scenes which the public would not accept under normal circumstances. Personal attacks of all opponents are indicative of a floating position with no credible argument to counter credible positions. The hate George Bush or American ideals strategy has garnered many allies while at the same time and never reported in the media, the party was heavily involved in complete adherence to American politics in support of globalist positioning. Over the past decade consumer protections, national product safety standards and reasonable access to the courts along with a number of other obstructions to free trade have been eliminated to the detriment of all. Still the concentrated media groups protected the status quo along with their own greatly enhanced bottom line, controlled media voices made excuses for a corrupt government party caught stealing millions from the public purse. While savaging the only viable political option with again personal attacks not related to government business much more related to personal appearance.

Defining a deadly carcinogen

The validity of second hand smoke as a deadly carcinogen is almost laughable were it not for the extreme measures taken in advocacy to create such an unlikely scenario and give it validity. The plausibility of protecting hospitality workers by implementing bans goes well beyond the limits of science and common sense[49]. Biological and timeline observations bear this out. With more than a 50% reduction in smokers as a percentage of population since 1960 and quoting the American Surgeon General an 80% reduction in exposures along with substantial innovations in medical technology over 45 years we saw no substantial reductions in mortality or morbidity in so called smoking related disease categories. The 50% increase in population base should have grown a proportional 50% increase in disease the aging of a baby boom generation and the disease categories most likely to affect most in the declining years is a much more significant indicator of disease categories when considering all perspectives; the numbers show huge reductions in primary smoking actually had little or no effect on the deceptively labeled “smoking related” disease categories. The real effects of primary smoking remain a mystery for the most part in biological assay and over 50 years of research, although the determinants mentioned previously in selection of products and regulation in the production stage could eliminate in large part the levels of disease we can identify. In comparison to the six cities study and follow-up; environmental tobacco smoke can be seen to have little if any credible effect. Surely no effect which can be accurately calculated or measured. Remaining well beyond current scientific abilities and certainly beyond the resources of ad agency spin doctors who currently drive our opinions.

The assignment of media based indoor air quality standards and particulate measurements limited to nanograms[billionths of a gram] per cubic meter of air and Picograms[Trillionths of a gram] per cubic meter of air. [Normally in hazardous material measurements, a timeline is also expressed, this component has inexplicably been eliminated] Ridiculous and unsubstantiated standards promoted to eliminate a co-operative ventilation solution allowing enclosed smoking areas. By comparison; when setting particulate matter outdoor standards 20-30 micrograms[millionths of a gram] per cubic meter measurements in outdoor air, none of us can avoid, are said to be safe. The US EPA refuses to reduce particulate acceptable levels significantly, despite the science[34] which demonstrated mortality reductions paralleling particulate reductions along with a 25% real mortality and hospital admissions increase, in so called “smoking related disease categories” in more compared to least polluted cities. It seems reasonable if indoor air quality is to be maintained at levels hundreds of thousands to millions of times lower than outdoor air quality; banning smoking would have less of an effect than sealing windows and doors perhaps bans would be more appropriately aimed in that direction. Could we fine anyone who opened a door or window following the logic of the radicals. All these years we have been opening windows and ventilating to reduce smoke levels when all the time, risk was significantly increased by allowing much higher concentrations of outdoor particulate to enter a room.

5000 deadly ingredients, how may safe ingredients were found?

In a “poison is in the a dose” reality,
all of them are known to be safe at the levels found.[33]

It is said the smoke which has never been categorized or properly identified contains 5000 deadly ingredients however the majority of the list of deadly ingredients seems to be missing[50]. In a recent email a representative of Physicians for a smoke free Canada, explained the list is a result of a spectral analysis done years ago which identified the number of ingredients but not specifically what they were. Since all elements are toxic in quantity apparently it seemed fair to state they were all deadly. Another member of this group Neil Dollywood[45] was formerly with Health Canada and later was assigned to the World Health Organization when they completed major research into the effects of environmental tobacco smoke[46]. The insignificant findings did not deter his obsessive dedication[44]. To this day he swears a significant risk exists, which was not reflected in the substantial W.H.O. research[39]. The research actually showed a negative or curative effect among children exposed to tobacco smoke which exceeded the level of a slight positive correlation in spousal exposure combined with employment exposure. The child results were described as insignificant and the spousal exposures although insignificant as well are to this day described in the news as proof of an increased risk[40].

Insignificant in real terms means either result could easily be reversed and statistically has no meaning in drawing conclusions of risk[47]. The new lowered standards in assuming risk opened the flood gates to legitimizing similar inconclusive evidence allowing thousands of similarly flawed or inconclusive research studies to be reported in ad agency terms as a cannon of proof in the deadly effects of second hand smoke. The fact physically this has absolutely no merit did not stand in the way of cowardly politicians caving to media pressures and the introduction of smoking bans around the globe. Bans implemented in answer to a signed agreement at the W.H.O. created prior to the cannon of so called science which promoted it. How many in the general public are aware of the real danger which exists at every self serve gas bar. The known safe level of Benzene is well beyond known safe limits and known to cause Cancer[33] yet a level thousands of times beyond known safe limits is permitted throughout North America. The danger far exceeds the dangers of not only Environmental tobacco smoke but primary smoking as well. Generally we believe the smell of gasoline or diesel fuel is harmless when in fact if you know what either smells like you may have exceeded the known safe dose. This will often not be realized for decades, when you fall prey to of course a “smoking related disease”. How many mothers think little of sitting at a bus or train station with their children never realizing the harm. Do you have an air miles card in your wallet? Jet fuel is substantially more dangerous yet Healthcare advocates so concerned with your welfare seem to be asleep at the switch. Who will protect airline passengers and employees in the future? The first “public health” group who figures out how to profit from the advocacy will have us all grounded.

This article from the UK describing a book by the former editor of the British medical Journal makes my point:[29]

Medical Journals Slammed By Former Editor
Tuesday, 19th September 2006, 07:57Category: Healthy Living

Medical journals have become "creatures of the drug industry" rife with fraudulent research and packed with articles ghost written by pharmaceutical companies, an ex British Medical Journal editor has claimed. In a highly critical book Dr Richard Smith, who edited the BMJ for 13 years, said: "Medical journals have many problems and need reform. The research they contain is hard to interpret and prone to bias and peer review. The process at the heart of journals and all of science, is deeply flawed." Dr Smith, author of a new book entitled 'The Trouble with Medical Journals' and now chief executive of United Healthcare Europe, said the book was an honest analysis of trends in medical journal publishing and a frank account of his own experiences as editor of the BMJ. He said: "It is increasingly apparent that many of the studies journals contain are fraudulent, and the scientific community has not responded adequately to the problem of fraud."He added: "I went away to Venice to write this book and I was rather taken aback by how negatively it turned out. When I put together all the evidence on journals I was surprised by the extent of the problems." Dr Smith went on: "Medical journals have increasingly become creatures of the drug industry. The authors of studies in journals have often had little do with the work they are reporting."The use of ghost writers by pharmaceutical companies is rampant and many studies have conflicts of interest that are not declared." He estimates that research fraud is probably common in the 30,000 or so scientific journals published throughout the world.The book, published by the Royal Society of Medicine Press, cites a number of dramatic cases of questionable research including Dr Andrew Wakefield's MMR paper published in the Lancet in 1998 that cast doubts on the safety of the triple vaccine which protects against measles, mumps and rubella. The same journal published a study six years later concluding there was no evidence to support a link between MMR and autism.Dr Smith says a study funded by Vioxx maker Merck and Co and published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2000 failed to mention that three patients suffered heart attacks while using the now withdrawn painkiller. And earlier this year, South Korean human cloning pioneer Hwang Woo-suk was fired from his professorship at Seoul National University following allegations he faked some of his research. The Trouble with Medical Journals examines the important relationships between journals and patients, the mass media, pharmaceutical companies, open access and the developing world. Dr Kamran Abbasi, editor of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, said: "Medical journals influence policy makers, doctors, and ultimately patient care, the best example is the MMR crisis. Richard Smith's book tells it like it is and the truth hurts — money can corrupt science and medical research." Matthew Worrall, of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said they took research fraud "very seriously indeed."He said: "We support the need for quality peer-reviewed journals and the full publication of trial results. Last year there was an international agreement for clinical trial registrations so all trials would be registered and not only those that made it into medical journals. "We have a stringent code of practice and are the leading detector of research fraud. In the last five years we have taken more cases to the General Medical Council than anyone else."Dr Smith worked for the BMJ for 25 years, and was editor and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group between 1991 and 2004

Research

1] Silencing science: PDF
2] http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/defense.html
3] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/marketsoc/index_e.html
4] http://www.cmpmedia.com/resources/res_whitepapers_main.jhtml
5] http://www.dna13.com/about_library.html
6] http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/c903ce.html#0.2.2Z141Z1.NBS3AG.68WQBF.V
7] http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/vs-sb/voluntarysector/voice/#snav
8] http://www.hta.ac.uk/execsumm/summ727.htm
9] Not safe" is not enough
10] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/tobac-tabac/media/tidc-cdit_e.html
11] http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/vs-sb/voluntarysector/publications/national_inventory/index.html
12] http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/14/suppl_2/ii38
13] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/marketsoc/socmar-hcsc/tobacco-tabac_e.html
14] http://www.cigi05.org/news/warm_reception/
15] http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/06/smokefree_womb.shtml
16] http://www.grassroots.com/;jsessionid=VRF33EGZRKHX0CQQPABCFEY
17] http://www.whsc.emory.edu/_releases/2002april/smoking_costs.html
18] http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/08/rwjf-actual-local-smoking-ban-grants.html
19] http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/20-3/b_e.html
20] http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sammec/overview.asp
21] http://www.who.int/hia/en/
22] http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1445
23] http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/BMSG_AccelerationReport.pdf
24] Tobacco-specific nitrosamines in European and USA cigarettes.
25] http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/20/1/133
26] Tobacco-specific nitrosamines
27] http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html
28] http://www.factnet.org/coercivemindcontrol.html
29] http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=RO1929177J
30] http://www.who.int/about/en/
31] http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/13
32] http://www.activistcash.com/index_foundations.cfm
33] http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/
34] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press03152006.html
35] 35 Billion Dollar expenditure
36] Phillip Morris company
37] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/marketsoc/whatis-qui_e.html
38] http://www.junkscience.com/news/sws/sws-introduction.html
39] http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
40] http://cantiloper.tripod.com/canti2.html
41] http://www.antibrains.com/
42] http://www.thetruthisalie.com/
43] http://www.davehitt.com/nov02/nicotine.html
44] http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110002624
45] http://www.davehitt.com/may99/modest.html
46] http://www.davehitt.com/toc.htm
47] http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html
48] http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/collections/epidem/epid.shtml
49] http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/9/1/95
50] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tobac-tabac/legislation/reg/indust/index_e.html