Revenue tools that kill, when used as directed.

The largest risk on any Ontario Highway is government mismanagement.

Here is an extension of the back to front process of protections against risks, while ignoring the greater dangers to real people who don't live in spreadsheet tables. A political weapon to eliminate rights, while profiting from non compliance. Shamelessly described as "revenue tools", emerging as large scale theft and extortion, with science now on your side.

http://multibriefs.com/briefs/omca/mto%20cvor%20effectiveness%20study%20-%20final%20report.pdf

People who have been watching, will see the more than obvious scientific frauds described in the analysis section of this report, while the entire report deliberately ignores the largest flaws in the report Data. That the smallest vehicles with the least risk imposed, representing more than half of the total fleet, are afforded the highest levels of punishment and lowest threshold of "acceptable behaviors", [page 23] Like looking at cigarettes as though it was one consistent product, ignoring the more obvious truth.

While the underlying evidence confirms risk is proportionally increased in the largest conformity, with miles traveled, [environment effects beyond laying blame] With conclusions draw in the inverse, of what should remain obvious and irrefutable, with logic and common sense applied. Instead declaring only more aggressive levels of enforcement, will lower the risks on the road. {page 44}

What the report indicates, is that the "distance traveled" in a stated time-frame, as a risk or as the theory flowing from a conclusion, does not mention or recognize; is that the distance traveled increases the risks of becoming involved in an accident, because the environment is consistent and any effects you might have by changing driving habits or the condition of a vehicle, will not change the far more expansive factors, that comprise that total environment. Further one could recognize that "chance" as it relates to Russian roulette, as the report indicates, is not really valid here, because the next bullet in the chamber becomes more predictable, the more times you pull the trigger. Whereas the chances of being in an accident, which might never occur, is equal to the chance that it may happen in 20 minutes and 10 minutes later and never again for ten years. As an individual's experience and the same pattern would never be replicated by any other person in the same grouping, so predictability is a political opinion rather than a state and static, event that anyone could ever predict,by statistical proofs. The environment remains, regardless of the way you treat drivers, who are essentially powerless to make any prolonged difference that will have any significant or lasting effect in a chance driven environment. Although weight class has been ignored and numeric divisions within a grouping, separated by miles traveled, do have more legitimate values revealed, in respect to the prediction of any accident likelihood. What is ignored serves the agenda and intent of the party purchasing the report, and that reality will reign, lest the author risk the loss of future employment.

As a real and observational danger, which is always far more than just a risk


Resisting where the evidence takes us? To serve what end?

Eliminating the vehicles that travel shorter distances in the lowest weight class [service and utility vehicles] would largely enhance; the quality of data and more clearly focus that data, on the higher risk trucks and operators in relation to highway safety. Eliminating real and legitimately "preventable" deaths and injuries significantly. CVOR permits are now renewable biannually. With a cost of 250.00 to obtain, in addition to a 350.00 training course, which is also a mandatory requirement, even while applied to vans and pickup trucks, just like the big rigs with log books and all the trappings. Affording a large cash grab for "protectionist" or paternalist wide brush policy making, following the plan, laid out in tobacco control "movements".

As it stands it remains an excellent example of legislation that kills. When used exactly as directed.

All about the money once again.



Related reading;



The Legislation that kills innocent people on our roads.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK46



Commercial motor vehicles???

Definitions, ss. 16-23.1

16.  (1)  In this section and in sections 17 to 23.1,

“commercial motor vehicle” does not include,

(a) a commercial motor vehicle, other than a bus, having a gross weight or registered gross weight of not more than 4,500 kilograms, an ambulance, a fire apparatus, a hearse, a casket wagon, a mobile crane, a motor home or a vehicle commonly known as a tow truck,

Auditor's Report 1997

http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_en/en97/313en97.pdf
20% of commercial trucks are tractor Trailers.


Deloitte Report 2013;

http://multibriefs.com/briefs/omca/mto%20cvor%20effectiveness%20study%20-%20final%20report.pdf

Mileage is the most significant indicator of risk. Those imposing the lowest risk see the highest levels of scrutiny If the formula 40-40-20 includes three times the norms, as the baseline of an enforcement threashold, only 1% of accidents and collisions involve the highest number of trucks by category. While the same grouping supplies the highest liability risk to owners and the most regressive and punishing  levels of enforcement, seen throughout the industry.


Rules;
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/trucks/guideline/cvor.shtml

Know your rights, or loose them

Tobacco Control is, in it's entirety, a forced medical treatment.

   As such a human rights abuse hosted by a United Nations Agency.

The cartel named "Tobacco Control", employs all of the dark abuses of social engineering, as it's primary plank. Making torture part and parcel of what they have been engaged in for more than a decade. It is an organization formulated in a jail in the 1920s by another anti smoker advocate, one of the most vicious pieces of human trash to ever have walked this planet.

They should all be aware time is on our side and eventually they will gain a reputation earned in the phrase "you are known by the company you keep".

The indictments of the tobacco industry, will be far less interesting to the viewing public and the twitter-sphere. Than dragging so call professionals into courts and watching them suffer, through all of the humiliations they so richly deserve. having done everything the Tobacco industry did and far more, because their advertising and promotions were negative ads, aimed to do harm to other people, with malicious intent. Without that harm their campaigns would have no value, and no chance of success, so it is not a harm by many tortures they can make any valid excuses for, to aid in their defense.

We have a right to be protected against harms imposed by others not risks or phobias which would not qualify, but harms. These harms have victims with names, while none of the statistical numbers, of imaginary harms by risks or risk management, can make that same claim.

Doctors have one obligation; to do no harm. They have failed as individuals and as an industry, or more correctly a criminal cartel.

No one believes the lies of second hand smoke. If you walk into a conference of Tobacco Control activists and light up a cigarette, you make a lot of people mad, but no one would be running for the door fearing for their lives. They know as we know, such a move would only stand to make them look foolish and for good reason. A reason they refuse to face up to, on their own. We heard for years of this brave soul Tornado Repace who voluntarily took measurements of smoke in the air any place he could find it, including any place he believed he had found it. Yet the promotions he made and the testaments he made; that there was "no safe level of tobacco smoke" conflicted absolutely with his own activities with no breathing apparatus employed in all of his years in the field.

Tobacco Control "the movement" are plying for an imaginary right, to be "protected against tobacco smoke". Imaginary because no such right exists. It is entitlement, by taking an emotional assessment "risk" and pretending it is a "danger".

Governments can interfere, if someone is doing harm to another. They can not "protect" someone from the fears that exist only in their minds. We have psychological councilors at the wait, to secure that objective. Politicians sign on to the danger, as their entitlement to interfere. If no danger has been demonstrated, only fear supports their otherwise illegal activities, when they impose these laws and encroach on otherwise still valid rights and freedoms.

All they claim that is necessary; is to pretend a danger exists and it entitles government activity that would not survive in the courts, had they not resorted to pretending to fear the smoke, in spite of it's relatively benign nature in the real world.

If you look at the research, only smokers are not harmed by tobacco smoke. The research has been consistent If it could be demonstrated that smokers were harmed by the smoke, said to be harming others, there would be some basis for these laws. Since nothing can be demonstrated it would appear that smoking is the only real protection against second hand tobacco smoke risks. If it sounds insane that is because it is drawn from the same logic pool, where you would find tobacco smoke as a health risk. No real danger just a lot of bad acting and far too many willing to sign on to corruption in their own field of expertise. Diluting the importance of their own scholastic achievements, training as Scientists or Doctors and immediately declaring themselves nothing more than prostitutes and double speak clowns. Having learned nothing of importance.

The jump from association to causation was a deliberate lie, upheld universally throughout the sciences, because if they did not make that jump, moving risk to danger, they would have nothing to present in their promotions, that is more than a scary story to frighten the children. Scary stories will not survive legal challenges and we have already seen that in the courts where any judge weighed the evidence, in place of imposing the common good of mote and beam. They need to prove that smoking killed anyone, just as they will need to prove the same could be shown with tobacco smoke, that is where their logic and legitimacy ends.

Full disclosure is central to law making and binding contracts. If emotional promotions, by incomplete or inaccurate information pools, was the basis for those laws, those laws should not stand and the perpetrators of lies of omission, should be made to account for their crimes and incompetence.

>>>You do not<<< have a right to be "protected" against tobacco smoke, any more than you have a right to be protected against the goblins under your bed. Anyone who tells you that anyone is being harmed by tobacco smoke exposures, is guilty of telling you lies.

A Cancer Cure 40 years ago

The Unacceptable risks of "The Public Health Movement"

It would not take a large feat of mathematical calculations, to prove that the United Nations, and the World Health Organization primarily, over the past fifty years alone, has produced higher sum and total levels of morbidity and mortality, than 5000 years of all the other organized religions combined.


Public Health has moved where they always move, at the beginning of the end, of the same old same old, self imposed, mutual admiration society, of condescending prohibitionist elites. Fashioning the same uprising we have seen time and time again, over hundreds of years.

Holding the scepter of moral supremacy, is like holding a live grenade, for someone in the medical profession.

Like the champions of reefer madness, and the fascists before them, their fate is already sealed.

Risk is an emotional evaluation and the terrorists of the AMA are armed almost exclusively, with ammunition provided by junk science protagonists and the prostitutes of "Passivrauchen".

Always about the money.

http://www.manhealthissue.com/2007/06/epidemiologists-vote-to-keep-doing-junk-science.html

Like Electronic Cigarettes, "second hand smoke" exists as a health risk, or weapon of choice, only because the medical community decided, and quite deliberately, to eliminate the possibility that either could be harmless. "No safe level of tobacco smoke" joins with "what could happen if vaping became a trend". Speculation and emotional measures [AKA "Risk Assessments"], to undermine both common sense and free autonomous choices, without "medical community morality" based opposition. Choices made by the only people with a legal right to make them, is the only actual risk of any significant value here at all. "The Public Health Movement" [CULT] promotes something completely different and they do so, using your own money and government resources, as if they were their own.

People making their own choices, in the management of their own bodies, is the only issue being addressed here, above and to the diminishment of all others.

Even after hanging a number of them, for precisely this same activity, at the end of both; the war and the bigoted lies of eugenics, they are back to haunt us once again. Demanding control  and obedience, in a world fashioned to their liking, at the expense of a legal right to our own.

"Health risk assessments" are emotional measures, more profoundly stated in "what you can be made to believe", than any attachments to science or logical followings. Risk is therefore only a bandwagon or popular belief mechanism, which we know and see in propaganda. Always a component of self sanctimony and underlying opportunistic agenda. A perspective which is self aggrandizing, increasing with each iteration of its deceptions and half truth lies.

http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

"Science is not always a neutral, disinterested search for knowledge, although it may often seem that way to the outsider. Sometimes the story can be very different."

"The Royal College of Physicians of London promoted smoking for its benefits to health and advised which brands were best. Smoking was compulsory in schools. An Eton schoolboy later recalled that "he was never whipped so much in his life as he was one morning for not smoking". As recently as 1942 Price’s textbook of medicine recommended smoking to relieve asthma."

Health risks are said to be what we should avoid in order to maintain our health. In a more reasonable sense, that is truth by half truth. Whitehall determined that stress is the largest risk to human health. Promotions of the Public Health Movement, are almost exclusively targeting other risks and in so doing have imposed tremendous and absolutely unnecessary stress on entire populations. The measure of that damage and the mortality that flowed from it, should be seen to be profound. Public Health and it's recently increased capacity to impose stress on populations world wide, is in fact the largest and the most preventable health risk in world history. We should have hanged more of them. Or perhaps the hangings should be started anew. Because the message seems to have been lost in their promotions and ever endemic sense of sociopathological pride, in what they have already done.

When the Apartheid Government didn't want to look at the Black Ghettos in South Africa back in 1955, they used Public Health as the excuse for their laws, when they demolished the ghettos and drove Mandela along with the poorest and most defenseless among them, away from their beautified cities. When Hitler decided that Jews smelled bad and he passed laws designating eating establishments; non Jews only. Again they pointed at Public Health and "the protections of children" as their excuse. When they killed the hospital patients classified as "useless eaters" the Public Health advocates stood proudly at the lead of that Protection of peoples children, Said to be forced to live in poverty, by the tremendous cost of feeding the unproductive. In America whites only drinking fountains along with may Eugenics based bigotry laws, were once again a "Health issue" for the protection of God's children".

How much we spend on Public Health today is abominable. Considering the constant drive of avoiding "preventable diseases" and as the plank of everything they promote, rests in blame the victim campaigns. Protecting self sanctimony, from the threats or risks imposed by others. While those risks are only a formation of ignorance developed in communities divided upon themselves.. Ad agency inspired stereotypes drawn from half truths and outright lies, are not science, nor do they enrich the common good. Agenda and opportunistic hate campaigns are all that is purchased with the 59 Billion dollars invested every year, when invested in ignorance and our own shame.

http://www.swalkerbryant.com/2...

http://www.cdc.gov/od/ocphp/np...

"A recent report from the Alliance for Health Reform, an advocacy group, notes that nationally the U.S. spends more than 16 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or about $2 trillion on treating preventable illness and injury. We spend only 3 percent, or $59 billion, on government public health services, long understood to be our first line of defense against disease and disaster."

CDC 
"Center for Disease Control"

"And Prevention" is something they added on, in-house.

As a reflection of the political emergence of a different agency entirely, built from the self sanctimony and financial conflicts of interest within.

The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: CDC Concludes that Advertising is What Has Caused ...

The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: CDC Concludes that Advertising is What Has Caused ...: In an interview with WebMD , a CDC tobacco control expert concludes that the reason youth are using electronic cigarettes is the advertisin...

My Letter To Health Canada

Today it is a familiar process. Hire a lobby to define a fear no matter how unlikely, and demand government "protection". The government that hired them gives in and sets up control. As quick as a wink your rights disappear as if by magic, with the talking heads in the media telling you what a great thing the government has done. protecting us against our own choices and freedoms.

People keep marveling at the density of their neighbors heads, in wonderment of what is happening around them,. it isn't so difficult to understand, if you see the con for what it is. A process that undermines and eliminates all of the powers, we used to share in the Canadian Constitution.

The constitution is your only power over government. When the government "protects" us, or our children, The government in reality takes control of us.

I wrote this letter two weeks ago.

To date I received no response from the numerous Government officials and agencies who received it including Health Canada.



Hello,

I am at odds to see a distinction between a conference Board of Canada report and a similar finding announced in 1939 in Germany.. The document in question on the Health Canada website can be found at this link

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/pubs/tobac-tabac/bottomline-bilan/index-eng.php#a4.2


Summary Table 1 - The Annual Cost of Employing Smokers (1995 $ per employee)
Cost Factor                                                               Cost
Increased absenteeism                                                   $230
Decreased productivity                                                  $2,175
Increased life insurance premiums                                   $75
Smoking area costs                                                         $85

Source: The Conference Board of Canada.



And a sample of the other discussion which seems to have absolute conformity can be found at wiki, among many other places where human rights and autonomy rights are the focus.

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

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

"This poster (from around 1938) reads: "60,000 Reichsmark is what this person suffering from a hereditary defect costs the People's community during his lifetime. Fellow citizen, that is your money too. Read '[A] New People', the monthly magazine of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP."




If Health Canada and all of it's experts depict smoking as an addiction. It can not be argued it is not a medical condition. If it is a medical condition; hatred, isolation, taxes and funding hate groups, is not in compliance with the way other medical conditions are treated in this country, notwithstanding these identical "treatments" beyond informed consent, are well known to have existed in one place in history alone, the place that invented without any form of medical oversight or opinion, the fears and danger of tobacco smoke. Within an identical promotion complete with nearly identical slogans and emotionally manipulative talking points. The very essence of the negative connotation, of the word Propaganda as it is now understood.



If in fact Health Canada under the funded lobby group campaigns known officially as "De-normalization" is not in fact involving itself in dehumanization, one would have to look very hard to see any remote sign of distinction. This article and the need seen to create it, takes away all possibilities of denial. Is it the belief that the "common good" as defined by Health Canada employees for what ever reasons they form those beliefs, should be achieved beyond all moral restraint and measures of ethical values?

This campaign financed with the public purse is repulsive and disgusting to me. It is a promotion clearly defined to achieve the diminished existence of human rights, autonomy rights and security of the person
By a Government acting as a bully, setting an example to entitle other bullies. It is a promotion of hatred and bigotry, so vile that it approaches the hatred that existed in support of another paternalist regime, that cost millions, and many of them Canadian, lives to extinguish. To even recognize a Canadian Government involved in this activity sickens me and demands I stand in contempt of this Government and it's hires and will make every effort to assure that good and moral Canadians understand, what it is you are doing, in hopes that they will see it in numbers and demand criminal prosecutions under hate crimes legislation and human rights abuses. laws clearly describing your current activities.

I hear all the time from Government financed and community divisive Lobby groups, that "a smokers rights end at the tip of a non smoker's nose." This, in recognition of the fact that all of our rights are contained in the same document; disguises the fact, that where ever a smoker's rights end, so do all rights end. If this is the governments intention to dilute or eliminate the Constitution while providing Billions of dollars from the public purse, to achieve those goals, by Political promotions in the one party fake Liberal media; This Government is criminal and this form of government should not stand.

I remember reading in the first convention of tobacco control at Health Canada's website. A discussion of paid lobby groups with the Health Ministry, who are tax exempted as "charities" or "non profit foundations" While funded by the government for their efforts with funding today provided to the Government, primarily by their victims. As a discussion of mean spirited acts that the lobby groups would engage in, one comment stuck in my memory. "This will make smokers mad and force the government to come in as an honest broker to intervene". Clearly this is no longer available on the website as it was then, however the minutes of that meeting are public property and under the access of information act, they should be available to any inquiry. This is evidence of intent and conspired activity, that defines the goal of Government to divide communities in order to promote a need for government intervention.

Paternalist Protections require that Government take control. Which would entail by bigoted means, an elimination of personal rights. McGuintyism as it is known is the more deviant fine print extreme of McCarthyism, encompassed an identical methodology, to undermine personal rights and freedoms in all of the Ontario Government ministries

As a current example, with the new Metro-links ad campaigns, by a group who advertise themselves as a government "advisory board" the Government is currently utilizing the same strategy, of deceptive advertising and scarevertizing, as entitlement of a project, to supposedly eliminate congestion on the roads. With the first advisement without any quotes in hand, any form of plan, or list of projects "the cost at 40 billion dollars" was the first statement made, and the only consistent goal presented. Similar to government funded research studies, within a regime of absolute publication biases in the medical journals, statistical research with a consistent outcome signifies corruption of process, while virtually all Government funded "studies" have a conclusion stated, before, the public purse investments in that research is made.

Encroachments of personal rights and freedoms in the form of smoking bans, in place of more respectful signs on the door, allowing autonomy and choice and the retention of private property management, in the hands of those who own those properties. Is now a keystone of the example set at the federal level, providing an anti-autonomy process, ballooning exponentially across all government ministries.

*The taking of personal property, jail and suspensions of licenses, before a trial as an inconsistent application of speed limit laws.

*Drunk driving convictions with breath samples below the level anyone would be intoxicated,

*The CVOR legislation which demand tasks be provided, without compensation and a fine for doing those tasks in ways that do not meet any sparsely trained examiners expectations.

*Labor laws demanding micro-managed licensing of all the abilities, of any single trade, at a large expense in maintaining those licenses, with a consistent fine, taking of a right to earn a living and possible jail time for non compliance.

*All within a presumption of guilt, a denial of adult competence or mature cognitive ability.

*Propped up by slogans "there is no such thing as an accident", or at the Ministry of transport, declaring the Ministry of Transport as a kingdom, above the constitution or the courts, with the statement that "driving is not a right but a privilege" granted therein.

* Add in, as demonstrated by the PST HST and GST laws, the government's position that work is not recognized as legal property, and even if it is, property, no rights exist to protect one's property against government seizures, So free work [as slavery] can be demanded and by the examples set, would now withstand a constitutional challenge. Leaving Governments of the belief that compensation is not required, in spite of a history of supreme court decisions to the contrary.

All of these examples clearly indicate, the Government sees our rights as an obstacle and undeserved. Governments at all levels are purchasing politics by expansive wedge based ad campaigns, in pursuit of power and control, clear attacks and diminishment of personal rights to the highest possible degree.

*With "earned media" singing along, in exchange for the continuation of those purchases, If it restricts our rights and freedoms Payola depicts that Governments can never be wrong.

All the media representations are heralding the "WE" campaign this week, a fortuitous encroachment of political encroachments on our children's education systems. With promotions right in our classrooms, the one place where children should be taught how to think and not what. With promotion in attendance at a teen idol, musical concert, where you can't buy a ticket you have to "earn it " agreeing to support the industrial socialist and fascist ideals of it's promoters. With the knowledge that if you can subvert a generation of children, you can control the politics of the next. This should be seen as an act being challenged, as unethical and harmful to a child's natural development, not cheered by the talking heads.

Does Health Canada or the larger Public Health "Movement" [or cult] have an image or persona they will soon be placing on my door for salute or daily rituals, whenever I enter that door? Or is the fact that I still have a door, now an offense to your sensibilities and Public Health directives as well?

Health groups are divining the obese and smokers and any number of innocent law abiding citizens as targets, assigned for future "campaigns" at the financially corrupted World Health Organization. In support only of, for profit "stakeholder partners", any search on the internet of the word "Dehumanization" leads us to the undeniable conclusion, that Public Health, The medical Charities and Medicine [who define the majority of people as a disease requiring treatment] in Canada, are standing in a mad man's shoes, while promoting their risk adverse cast designated self sanctimony, as protective benevolent and holy, just as he did.

With expenditures topping 100 Billion Dollars in Canada, by the anti-smoker movement alone, in support of Social engineering, community divisive hate campaigns and the reams of statistical nonsense, produced over the past decade?. For every one Billion dollars you loose the opportunity to invest in 1000, million dollar investigations in real medical research and science, while those researchers who are currently starved for funding, would gladly trade a limb for that level of funding. Dealing with real disease and health risk reductions in the physical world, beyond social engineering, and the bold print dividing us upon ourselves, by elimination of human rights and autonomy, emotional manipulations, playing up ignorance as evidence from a materialist perspective alone, contrasted with allowing people to retain their rights security, dignity and position, as government employers,

No longer governed by Public Servants. It is the People who are now described by "Public health professionals" as a litany of  "disgusting" diseases.

One hundred thousand opportunities lost to date and not one person served.

Daddy Dalton and his agencies of "control"

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

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?

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…

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

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;

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”

“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

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.