I know everyone is heavily into this debate about what a little smoke can and cannot do. Is there a serious unbiased mind left, who would admit; in purely scientific terms second hand smoke does not actually exist?
That sounds like a pretty wild statement, considering what we have been told for a number of years. In the strictest sense second hand smoke, is a creation of the human mind and the fear being promoted is a reaction to a wedge issue which satisfies the majority of self interest. The costs of healthcare, is often cited as a societal detriment however the real numbers simply don't support such poorly informed claims. Oh we all know what cigarette smoke is and many don't like the smell or the atmosphere when smoke is present, but the "Risk" factor nonsense, is the worst kept secret since the emperor was informed he was unclothed.
Why do we continue to lie to ourselves? If smoking prohibition is the target, why has no politician the courage to stand and announce it? The cost of this process of oppression by increment is extreme and wasteful. The resources wasted should be expended treating patients hands on. Our economies are being made to suffer largely by the cost of cowardice. This backdoor prohibition charade only attacks our claims to a civil and equitable community. The way this is being played out is a promotion of bigotry and stereotyping, more than any claimed interest of public safety or compassion for our neighbors. Public Health CONTROL groups are a collection of cowards, prostitutes and well connected terrorists, who haven't the courage to don the appropriate Nazi uniforms, and stand up for the principles they believe in.
People need to know what they are dealing with and decide whose camp they actually support.
Does anyone seriously believe that by allowing governments to create laws which target law abiding citizens, we are moving in a positive direction? Or does anyone believe a government afforded that ability, will not use the example to legalize other similar campaigns. Or worse that they will easily surrender that ability, without major unrest in our communities, which will only occur after major damage, is already done. Dalton McGuinty expressed his beliefs on the eve of his smoking ban implementation when he stood in front of the cameras and stated clearly and proudly;” If smokers don’t quit, they will be punished” Distinguishing his ideal, that punishments for personal legal behavior is his to deal with, without any mention of the courts. Smoking bans are extortion and an affront to the security of the person and the rights of autonomy, in every context human rights abuse. In place of a traditional sign and equitable compromise, seeking respect in all of the community.
We as the broader community are being controlled by the “social marketing” campaigns [Health Canada] much more than anyone who chooses to smoke, drink or eat to excess; being programmed into the school of divisions. Taxes are purchasing a media campaign promoting intolerance, regressive taxation [or theft by moral edict] and divided communities at the behest of a UN Industrial partnered agency, which undermines by lobby, the spirit of democracy and the legitimacy of all elected officials who don’t bend to every lobby demand. People, who deserve respect, are being driven wide brush out of our communities, by this nickel and dime Nazi movement. People don’t like the harshness of that word, so seldom used of late, but can it be different than a scientist claiming anyone, who doesn’t agree with,the promotion of the day, purely ignorant. Science by edict with no discussion or debate doesn't sound like science, rather something else.
The fog
It is, after all, only a theoretic proposal and not a stable product, which could always be described or quantified precisely or consistently.
With all the renditions of calculations and broad assumptions we see every day. Logically, should a little smoke we have always ignored, suddenly provoke so much fear? Why did the millions invested in the medical charities for so many decades, miss a toxin so significant, if it really exists. Where did all the research money go? The alternative would be acceptance that; while we watched Heather Crowe die of lung cancer; as the poster girl for the anti-smoker lobby, the charities stood silent, while knowingly letting it happen?
It falls to the incredible, we are on our knees trembling, fearful of a product known only, and defined only, as "smoke" which is realistically; only a product of the imagination, much more than it could ever be claimed to be a product of traditional reproducible science.
The Facts
Can anyone define Second Hand Smoke according to its physical composition or reactions in consistent terms; relative to half life, barometer, humidity or temperature?
Can anyone even list, what the "smoke" might contain and in what levels or how the components compare to their own known safe levels, already accepted by traditional assessments by legitimate quantities and reproducible science?
If we can not be offered a stable comparative sample, taken from more than one location, the smoke seems to be a product which varies more than fingerprints, DNA or the patterns of snowflakes.
Can anyone define a surface description so we can differentiate it from other smoke products?
Do that investigation first and then come to us with your evaluations of "risk" that would be consistent with normal science and process. Otherwise you’re only a politician, resting on speculation and moralist propaganda.
Nothing we haven't seen done before, and nothing has happened since, other than improvements in advertising efficiencies, to increase the probability that the prophesies are any more believable today than they have ever proven to be in the past.
This theological element, is then taken to have a physical quantified value based entirely in biological variances, between one group and another;
measured constants of averaged mean values even when the groups are less than ten people in number? With other biological features which could explain a multitude of plausible variations of the separate etiologies. Individual elements of smoke vary as much as the compound products, in their consistencies as a whole separately within the product with changes occurring within nano-seconds of its production.
What remains suspect beyond the fact the “smoke” is considered to exist at all, in physical terms as a constant, is that a process exists to precisely measure its variable effects, over a lifetime of variations a body would experience and the reactions of variable defenses within, predicting [we are told consistently] what would evolve.
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/extract/19/1/2
Sorry I simply don't buy it. In a recent article published in The European Journal of Public Health this month; Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee et al; make a unforgivable pronouncement, that the debate is over with a claim to victory, despite the science which indicates otherwise; either I am to accept a designation as a Holocaust denier or should agree the debate is over, designating the smoke in all forms and regardless of dilution levels, as the most deadly toxin ever discovered with “no safe level”?
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/14/suppl_2/ii3
I find a third more logical option is available; that it is the "science” which should be dismissed as a defective when it surpasses all reasonable bounds of credibility.
“The right to health relevant information derives from the principles of autonomy and self direction and has been recognized in international declarations. Providing accurate health information is part of the basis for obtaining "informed consent" and is a recognized component of business ethics, safety communications, and case and product liability law. Remarkably, anti-tobacco and pro-tobacco sources alike have come to emphasis the message that there is "no safe cigarette" or "no safe tobacco product". We propose that the "no safe" message is so limited in its value that it represents a violation of the right to health relevant information. There is a need to go beyond saying, "there is no safe tobacco product" to indicate information on degree of risks.”
To demonstrate the problem with“no safe” risk claims;
50,000 in a population of 320 million is an absolute risk of .016% in a population virtually all exposed to some degree. But who will be effected or killed by heart attack, due solely to their exposure, in that 320 million population? With no safe level, they should all die, whether they smoke or not. The same lobby group tells us if a smoker quits smoking, his level of exposure will be nullified over the years, to a level of risk not detectable beyond the norm? Who could be exposed to the “Smoke” more than a smoker? Are smokers in possession of some internal curative ability no one else has?
If death is a result of quantity and/or duration of exposures, we should be able to just collect all the bartenders and bingo operators and give virtually everyone else a clean bill of health.
That doesn't seem to work very well either because there are far too many bartenders alone, to prove the “prophesy” is consistent, while leaving over any risk to distribute among the public, so we have to assume the risk is non linear.
A lack of linear dose response relationships eliminates any possibility to predict any outcome with any hope of precision, by simply comparing one group to another, so the "science" or the evaluation process is the problem. Legitimately ETS never was a problem and the promises of potential “lives saved” are irresponsible and ill advised.
You can confirm that level of logic, with visual observations. Theoretical tobacco smoke has killed no one that we can identify in the physical world.
When Doctors mistakes kill more people than smoking, who is really left, we can believe?
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/death/what.htm
How credible is the opinion, in regards to risk and so called significant risk.
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/lists/deaths.htm
50,000 compared to total figures of heart attack death at 460,000 annually, represents 50/460 which suggests a 10.8% increased risk but only if we can agree the entire population knows what second hand smoke smells like, so they are all exposed. Are they all permanently damaged by that exposure and will they all die in the specified 10.8% of the total .27% of total mortalities [.88% of population] which will always occur every year, even if no one smokes?
What is causing the other 90% is the larger issue. Even smoking in its totality [assuming 450,000 is caused by smoking and not more realistically; 1/5 of total mortality seen in 1/5 of the population] only increases the annual population risk @ .88% by .16% representing 20% of the population.
Chronic exposure among non smokers as a more credible claim would eliminate many of the 50,000 predicted and reduce the 11% figure drastically in current risk perspectives. Of course, the control freaks don't ever want to talk about current risk applicable to the current population; It blows away all the fear...
In the current diatribe "there is no safe level of second hand smoke" if we believe it, the increased risk for second hand smoke 10.8% is far below the most moderate insignificant estimates at 19% in population increased risk.
Few can escape the 100% death rate within 100 years. By comparison in realistic terms the .88% we see annually is minuscule. .16% as the worst case, when it only affects half of those who smoke is the real figure to consider and how much does it really matter when every person beyond 35 years of age has a higher risk of dying, whether you smoke or not?
Who is really considering the risks exhibited these truly shocking numbers? Certainly not the "deniers" who believe only smoking is dangerous. Something for the anti smoker crusaders, to consider, while bemoaning the health risk of smoking and the comparative minuscule risks of second hand smoke; Anyone surviving beyond the ripe old age of 35 years has a 4% higher risk of dying [.199%] than the [.16%] risk of dying of smoking related diseases and it only gets dramatically worse as you grow older.
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/d/death/intro.htm
"Death comes to us all at a rate a little less than 1% per year in the USA (0.877% or 1-in-114). However, annual mortality rates vary with age and generally increase with age after the first year: infant (less than 1 year) 0.706% or 1-in-141 (highest in the first 28 days, down to 0.188% or 1-in-531 after that), age 1-4 years 0.034% (1 in 2,941), 5-9 years 0.017% (1 in 5,882), 10-14 years 0.021% (1 in 4,761), 15-19 years 0.069% (1 in 1,449), 20-24 years 0.093% (1 in 1,075), 25-34 years 0.108% (1 in 925), 35-44 years 0.199% (1 in 502), 45-54 years 0.427% (1 in 234), 55-64 years 1.021% (1 in 97), 65-74 years 2.484% (1 in 40), 75-84 years 5.751% (1 in 17), and 85+ years %15.475% (1 in 6) [CDC NVSR 2001]. "
Or these?
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/statistics/index.htm
"The National Patient Safety Foundation (NPSF) commissioned a phone survey in 1997 to review patient opinions about medical mistakes. Of the people reporting a medical mistake (42%), 40% reported a "misdiagnosis or treatment error", but did not separate misdiagnosis from treatment errors. Respondents also reported that their doctor failed to make an adequate diagnosis in 9% of cases, and 8% of people cited misdiagnosis as a primary causal factor in the medical mistake. Loosely interpreting these facts gives a range of 8% to 42% rate for misdiagnoses.
Misdiagnosis rates in the ICU or Emergency Department have been studied, with rates ranging from 20% to 40%. These misdiagnosis rates are likely to be higher than the overall health care misdiagnosis rate because of the time-critical and serious nature of the diagnosis under these crisis conditions. "
For lung cancers we are told 90% are found among smokers, which leaves only 10% to be distributed among 80% of the public. The real numbers, in American terms and by the most popular lobby move to find Canadian numbers, divide by 10.
Total Lung cancers;
160,439 x .1 = 16,044 [10%] or 1604 Canadians among 32 million
16,044/ [320 – 64 million smokers] =
16044/256,000,000
a risk to a non smoker of .0006% [1 x .0000626]
If 1% of the American workforce are employed in the hospitality trade, the bartenders most exposed to the “smoke” would number in the hundreds of thousands. Which doesn’t leave any large measure of risk for the rest of us to fret about, does it? When you consider the term “half of smokers will die from smoking” why not bartenders by the same proportion killed by the “smoke”? One theory rests in the fact they only inhale the equivalent of a single cigarette every five to ten days, which should explain part of it. But how about the claims of risk which extend outdoors and in a brief smell, while walking down the “Blue air” filled streets and parks. How is that believed to be possible to describe as a significant risk or any risk, when the bartenders insist on hogging all the available mortalities?
Once again distribution by the above measures using 16,000 [if we assume all are caused by the “smoke”] in place of the 50,000 by the claimed heart risks and you quickly realize how extremely; [this “smoke”, who is really being smoked, and how far imagination,] is being, over hyped. It falls now to the imagination, to determine if the 10s of Billions spent creating pictures in your mind over the past five decades, were invested in research and real medical treatment; how many would die from either cancer or heart diseases today?
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Friday, January 09, 2009
Letter to the Editor
Hello;
As balance is required in all public distributions of the news, I would like to present a commentary on the third hand smoke articles published recently.
First, I would like to point out, I am not selling cigarettes, or any notion they are safe or they should be promoted as such. What I am more concerned with, is the fundamental shift from denouncing a product we could easily ban, to denouncing real people. A campaign initiated by an agreement signed by our federal government with the world health organization, which clearly is an obligation to reduce smoker prevalence and the use of cigarettes. This is not in any way a green light to wage war on those affected with bigotry or moral impositions. Nor a permission by over funded lobby groups, to recreate morality in their own image, to serve their own needs or purposes to the peril of their victims.
It has to be understood, the industrial component of this campaign is conflicted and seek as partners, in what is referred to as a Public Health intervention, to profit by the sale of alternative products, such as smoking patches and gum. Tax exempted foundations such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation are directly profiting from their ownership of millions of shares held in their parent founder, which is Johnson and Johnson with the majority of board members current or former directors of Johnson and Johnson. The organized meetings and strategy sessions, which drive the bulk of Public Health campaigns such as this, are sponsored directly including in most cases; hotel, meal expenses, conference hall bookings, gala functions and awards ceremonies. An investment of billions with a reasonable expectation of returned profits.
Getting back to the study. Jacob Sullum, of Reason magazine made a quite reasonable observation of the so called ‘study” in pointing out; this was not a measure of potential harms or risk by process evaluation, this report was simply a phone survey with a quite limited explanation, of what the interviewer refers as “third hand smoke” and asked if a person were exposed to a list of largely petroleum use and production by-products, which are found as the researcher points out, quantitatively in our daily environment regardless of smoking, would the respondent agree those toxins might cause harm. There is no discussion of the levels and known safe levels discussed, there is no comment on how many, if any, would be affected, there is simply a declared conclusion that a risk exists.
The way this was presented in large scale news releases, carried by virtually every news agency in North America placed the focus primarily on the conclusions, we created a rumor and people reacted impulsively by giving this report, a lot more weight and focus than it should be reasonable to assume it is due.
The article we saw published, listed the numerous impositions and community divisions, achieved by the lobbies to date, and simply wrote an entitlement to continue to encroach further into; the personal lives, parental autonomy and homes of others.
People need to take what they read with a little less trust and that is the sad reality in all of this. The damage to our safety and security is inevitable, when the institutions and charities we have learned to trust, reorganize as political organizations, which serve the needs of institutions and profit, in place of the people paying for them.
Smoking might not be the wisest of choices, however many of those who smoke have done so for many years. People smoked in the majority, well before our health care system existed. We have now accepted “sin taxes” to control the lives of others with the claims they reduce the costs of healthcare as their necessity. The Universality of healthcare was fractured the day smoking taxes were implemented, because targeted taxation taken to benefit only the majority destroyed that claim of universality. More recently we have seen the implementation of taxing a nondescript “non healthy foods” with hidden taxes, most are not even aware they are paying, to combat the costs of obesity and what they named “the fat pandemic”. Although communities are divided in the righteous and moral integrity of imposing such laws, which serve some and degrade others, when the campaign focuses on your “protection” without request, things seem to change and the insult comes much more clearly into focus.
If we can allow bigotry and hatred to guide our laws and communities, we only punish ourselves. Smoking bans could be replaced with signs and good judgment, trusting the property owner to decide what is best for his own business. As confident communities have always used consistently in the past. It is only when we seek to punish others, because they do not share our values, that bans and criminalization become popular for the larger group, in spite of the minority and the hatred we demonstrate in our demands.
The notion of a population bubble moving into old age with new protections in place which seek to extend their lives, will somehow reduce the cost of healthcare is amusing to a fault. If you have more elderly people you have increased the largest demographic of the lions share of health care expenses. Does that align well with lowering the costs of healthcare? Through historical observations, the numbers can never accomplish what the self-important lobbies claim they will. We will always have a number one killer to slay, while we divert ourselves with greenhouse campaigns and pandemic pandemonium away from the industry toxins, causing us all the greatest harm. If we candy coat every citizen in this country with protections from the cradle to the grave what will those protections cost? Communism always fails, because it is simply not viable and never meets the advertised and optimistic expectations. Hitler’s favorite campaign slogans, always involved protecting the children and the race, as do China’s “protections” of Tibet. Are either credible?
People need to get back to trusting each other, because we can no longer trust the media to take out the trash. Conglomerate news agencies and ad agencies who sell third hand smoke, are dictating your news. The papers and the network affiliates exist primarily only to rebroadcast the sold products coming off the news wire. It is up to the rest of us now, to consider the source and follow the money, because it is obvious, no one else is doing it.
Many people today who vote for what is advertised as liberal or progressive ideologies, are in fact promoting neo-conservative candidates, regardless of what is advertised on the posters.
People are constantly let down by their candidates after the elections, by their choice of leaders who never get it quite right. Which explains the decades old desire for change.
Most on both sides of the heath scare debate would prefer to avoid partisan or political language. Divided thinking and pessimism as always, we have a problem dealing with the obvious wedge issue which should be defining party politics, as opposed to allowing poll sitters in government to jump on any issue and make it their own.
A point of division for politicians and rejoining of communities, which should be obvious to anyone who rightly believes politicians are all crooks and none deserve our support.
When you abandon traditional "party first" mindsets and really look; the move of all parties to the center leaves them wide open to embarrassment for abandoning party values.
When Liberals support partnership with old money industries and use taxes to sell their products, how can a liberal claim they are liberal.
Alternately can a conservative deny they have gone back to the motivations of failed corporatist policies? Demanding presumptions of guilt, in shoot first ask questions later, among their many mistakes of the past?
When either party promotes protectionist policies such as smoking bans or fat taxes, serving old money bottom lines, large government and the banging of tambourines, they all find themselves in neo-conservative territory.
Promoting only higher crime rates by punishing the innocent, who would prefer to be left alone.
Lyndon Johnson selling cholesterol in eggs all over again...
If we recognize that communities are no longer motivated by confidence, learned traditional values and intelligence.
They now have to be pushed by the constantly adjusted and always inconsistent overbearing moralist values of the state, entitled substantially by an obscenity described as science, promoted fear, divisions, and exclusions.
The problem lies in lost confidence; in ourselves, our systems of government, and the level [or lack] of intelligence guiding them.
As balance is required in all public distributions of the news, I would like to present a commentary on the third hand smoke articles published recently.
First, I would like to point out, I am not selling cigarettes, or any notion they are safe or they should be promoted as such. What I am more concerned with, is the fundamental shift from denouncing a product we could easily ban, to denouncing real people. A campaign initiated by an agreement signed by our federal government with the world health organization, which clearly is an obligation to reduce smoker prevalence and the use of cigarettes. This is not in any way a green light to wage war on those affected with bigotry or moral impositions. Nor a permission by over funded lobby groups, to recreate morality in their own image, to serve their own needs or purposes to the peril of their victims.
It has to be understood, the industrial component of this campaign is conflicted and seek as partners, in what is referred to as a Public Health intervention, to profit by the sale of alternative products, such as smoking patches and gum. Tax exempted foundations such as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation are directly profiting from their ownership of millions of shares held in their parent founder, which is Johnson and Johnson with the majority of board members current or former directors of Johnson and Johnson. The organized meetings and strategy sessions, which drive the bulk of Public Health campaigns such as this, are sponsored directly including in most cases; hotel, meal expenses, conference hall bookings, gala functions and awards ceremonies. An investment of billions with a reasonable expectation of returned profits.
Getting back to the study. Jacob Sullum, of Reason magazine made a quite reasonable observation of the so called ‘study” in pointing out; this was not a measure of potential harms or risk by process evaluation, this report was simply a phone survey with a quite limited explanation, of what the interviewer refers as “third hand smoke” and asked if a person were exposed to a list of largely petroleum use and production by-products, which are found as the researcher points out, quantitatively in our daily environment regardless of smoking, would the respondent agree those toxins might cause harm. There is no discussion of the levels and known safe levels discussed, there is no comment on how many, if any, would be affected, there is simply a declared conclusion that a risk exists.
The way this was presented in large scale news releases, carried by virtually every news agency in North America placed the focus primarily on the conclusions, we created a rumor and people reacted impulsively by giving this report, a lot more weight and focus than it should be reasonable to assume it is due.
The article we saw published, listed the numerous impositions and community divisions, achieved by the lobbies to date, and simply wrote an entitlement to continue to encroach further into; the personal lives, parental autonomy and homes of others.
People need to take what they read with a little less trust and that is the sad reality in all of this. The damage to our safety and security is inevitable, when the institutions and charities we have learned to trust, reorganize as political organizations, which serve the needs of institutions and profit, in place of the people paying for them.
Smoking might not be the wisest of choices, however many of those who smoke have done so for many years. People smoked in the majority, well before our health care system existed. We have now accepted “sin taxes” to control the lives of others with the claims they reduce the costs of healthcare as their necessity. The Universality of healthcare was fractured the day smoking taxes were implemented, because targeted taxation taken to benefit only the majority destroyed that claim of universality. More recently we have seen the implementation of taxing a nondescript “non healthy foods” with hidden taxes, most are not even aware they are paying, to combat the costs of obesity and what they named “the fat pandemic”. Although communities are divided in the righteous and moral integrity of imposing such laws, which serve some and degrade others, when the campaign focuses on your “protection” without request, things seem to change and the insult comes much more clearly into focus.
If we can allow bigotry and hatred to guide our laws and communities, we only punish ourselves. Smoking bans could be replaced with signs and good judgment, trusting the property owner to decide what is best for his own business. As confident communities have always used consistently in the past. It is only when we seek to punish others, because they do not share our values, that bans and criminalization become popular for the larger group, in spite of the minority and the hatred we demonstrate in our demands.
The notion of a population bubble moving into old age with new protections in place which seek to extend their lives, will somehow reduce the cost of healthcare is amusing to a fault. If you have more elderly people you have increased the largest demographic of the lions share of health care expenses. Does that align well with lowering the costs of healthcare? Through historical observations, the numbers can never accomplish what the self-important lobbies claim they will. We will always have a number one killer to slay, while we divert ourselves with greenhouse campaigns and pandemic pandemonium away from the industry toxins, causing us all the greatest harm. If we candy coat every citizen in this country with protections from the cradle to the grave what will those protections cost? Communism always fails, because it is simply not viable and never meets the advertised and optimistic expectations. Hitler’s favorite campaign slogans, always involved protecting the children and the race, as do China’s “protections” of Tibet. Are either credible?
People need to get back to trusting each other, because we can no longer trust the media to take out the trash. Conglomerate news agencies and ad agencies who sell third hand smoke, are dictating your news. The papers and the network affiliates exist primarily only to rebroadcast the sold products coming off the news wire. It is up to the rest of us now, to consider the source and follow the money, because it is obvious, no one else is doing it.
Many people today who vote for what is advertised as liberal or progressive ideologies, are in fact promoting neo-conservative candidates, regardless of what is advertised on the posters.
People are constantly let down by their candidates after the elections, by their choice of leaders who never get it quite right. Which explains the decades old desire for change.
Most on both sides of the heath scare debate would prefer to avoid partisan or political language. Divided thinking and pessimism as always, we have a problem dealing with the obvious wedge issue which should be defining party politics, as opposed to allowing poll sitters in government to jump on any issue and make it their own.
A point of division for politicians and rejoining of communities, which should be obvious to anyone who rightly believes politicians are all crooks and none deserve our support.
When you abandon traditional "party first" mindsets and really look; the move of all parties to the center leaves them wide open to embarrassment for abandoning party values.
When Liberals support partnership with old money industries and use taxes to sell their products, how can a liberal claim they are liberal.
Alternately can a conservative deny they have gone back to the motivations of failed corporatist policies? Demanding presumptions of guilt, in shoot first ask questions later, among their many mistakes of the past?
When either party promotes protectionist policies such as smoking bans or fat taxes, serving old money bottom lines, large government and the banging of tambourines, they all find themselves in neo-conservative territory.
Promoting only higher crime rates by punishing the innocent, who would prefer to be left alone.
Lyndon Johnson selling cholesterol in eggs all over again...
If we recognize that communities are no longer motivated by confidence, learned traditional values and intelligence.
They now have to be pushed by the constantly adjusted and always inconsistent overbearing moralist values of the state, entitled substantially by an obscenity described as science, promoted fear, divisions, and exclusions.
The problem lies in lost confidence; in ourselves, our systems of government, and the level [or lack] of intelligence guiding them.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
The Pros and Cons
Road rage
Road rage is a competition between two dictators. Public Health Intervention is built on the same foundation. Do as I demand or I will make you pay for your insolence and disrespect.
Insanity on the road begins with a thoughtless act, inviting another in a series of escalations between two ballooning egos to a point of insanity, which more often than not ends in tragic consequences. We can see the same predicament rising out of competing self-interests who describe themselves as Public Health stakeholders, demanding legislation so that their paying clients may be punished and criminalized, for not following the Doctor’s orders. Personal health and it’s vested interest starts and ends with an individual, to the chagrin of many pumped up lobooist roosters, who dare to steal that right, as though it were their own. Autonomous authority is once more under attack by well-financed dictators and con men who conspire to depreciate all of us, along with our right of authority.
How did we allow ourselves to loose so much and walk away from our basic rights without a murmur? The answer to that question is multifaceted, the most significant reasons fall within deceptions apathy and allowing ourselves to believe we need to be mothered, in place of standing on our own. Communities have lost their moral compass, their connectivity and all sense of confidence. As protected sheep we now line up for the slaughter. In the majority, we are referred to as human capitol a term taken well beyond a figurative context. The livestock raised with a single perspective, of cost versus profit analysis. The slaves of the Industrialists who have captured us all once again.
I believe the statisticians who create “science to order” which has empowered the irresponsible fear mongers who dare to call themselves “scientists”, “Doctors” and “professionals” have had it all delivered “their way” for far too long. The lies and exaggerations have grown too large to sustain and the costs to all of us have grown far too extreme.
So as my contribution to setting things right I have decided to expose them for the frauds and opportunists they really are.
Smoking related diseases.
We have been told many times and in many ways, that “smokers” cost the rest of us huge health and productivity costs. The rally cries of “ending premature mortality and morbidity” as you will soon see, is delusional and poorly considered. It is said “smoking related diseases cause 450,000 premature mortalities annually” and this is seen by many as shocking and unacceptable. Closer examination reveals, this is actually quite normal and a fortunate event [It could be a lot worse] if the figure is legitimate
[Research tells me, you cannot actually trust anything you are being told, so I allow Public Health lobbies nothing any more]
First, we have to consider the rush hour on the way to and from work. If everyone started work at Eight AM and finished at Four Thirty PM, the roads would be understandably overcrowded twice a day. Many years ago, people realized if we rotate start schedules; between Seven AM and every half hour up to Nine AM, we could reduce the congestion on the road by upwards of eighty per cent, both coming and going.
Now consider in nature how well balanced the variety of species have evolved. If insect eating birds are too plentiful, insects would become extinct and with them the birds which eat them. Balance plays a part in many aspects, which allowed the survival of both the birds and the insects, who have other roles to play. For most species of the most plentiful birds, who have multiple offspring, as luck would have it they also have shortened life spans. Insects that reproduce by the hundreds in one egg sac have a lifespan sometimes of only a few months. If we tampered with the cycles, we may end up fighting for our own survival standing in three feet of bird guano, which would have covered the planet thousands of years ago, without the natural balance seen in nature.
Today in the industrialized countries, the average lifespan of a human being is somewhat close to seventy years of age. Meaning for every one million people we should expect to see .7% or 7000 people dying each year offset by 1.3% or 13,000 being born every year.
The average population today can be forecasted into the future, if the maximum lifespan is considered to be 100 years;
[[[number born plus the number of deaths] divided by half] times 100], will maintain a balanced population at the current growth pattern.
This sounds strange at first glance until you realize the lifespan of a human varies, and if we eliminated all causes aside from age, we should see, a distribution which is consistent and which results in the approximate and normal numbers we see in mortality and morbidity figures today; even with a fast growing population offset by an aging population.
An average lifespan of seventy years means half will die before seventy and half after. If as we are told; smoking shortens a life by ten years and as we know smoking has been around for many more than ten years, our mortality numbers have found a balance point in exit numbers.
If we have a 320 million population which includes 20% [64 million] to 30% [96 million] current, and 60% [192 million] ever smokers. We should see, by multiplying 64 million by .7%, an expected mortality number of 448,000 smokers dying every year, regardless of smoking with no expectation of a reduced lifespan, which is quite likely, exactly where the 450,000 figure originated.
I have questioned the “Professionals” for a few years now, asking if we have the same number of smokers today, as we had fifty years ago, how is it; the smoking related, or smoking caused, disease figures continue to grow? Lung cancers for instance which are believed to be primarily caused by tobacco use have increased six fold and heart diseases have grown in similar proportions. There is an obvious reluctance to answer, because an explanation would reveal their slight of hand, when making other more insidious claims.
The number of those who use cigarettes and the consistency can be confirmed by calculating prevalence versus total population quite easily. In the United States close to 55 Million people, using cigarettes has been consistent. Despite what the medical community has been telling you, in use of prevalence figures to deliberately create a bigoted misconception, they have obviously taken every advantage of.
They are coning the politicians and the public into believing disease management reduces the cost of healthcare, when we all should understand it never could. At a time such as this with a huge population bubble moving into old age, the bubble would only be increased, exaggerating the financial problem tremendously. The reality is, if disease management is 100% successful and all of us give up our sinful ways; If living fast and dying young falls out of fashion over night, we are all doomed to witness a painful disaster.
If the average life expectancy is suddenly increased from 70 to 100 years of age, the increased costs of health care would rise by 30 percent as a compounding figure [like the interest on your mortgage] over the next 30 years. The resulting effect of the new numbers, with over 60% of the population over 65 years of age would cause catastrophic global depression [Along with a severe hatred of the elderly] Even if that problem was solved, in a mere three generations at the current rate of growth, we would have a person standing on every square meter of ground on the planet. Of course the possibility of that happening, would be reduced by the length of time food was available, the population was held back from slaughtering each other, or by the increased risk of plague which rises [in potential deaths and potential incidence] right along side of the population increase [Mother nature looking after the balance as usual]
Global Warming
The hockey stick of computer modeling precludes the actuality of physical realities which should be obvious to anyone with an unbiased iota of intelligence. Carbon gasses cause a heating of the environment The glaciers melt. Science tells me water expands when it freezes so water lines would receded not expand as Al Gore contends in his version of fear-mongered events. If the environment increased in temperature, the increase of evaporation rates of water would also occur meaning more clouds less sun on the earth and as more rain occurred the carbon and carbon gases, would return to earth with the heavy rain as temperatures declined. Of course, moderated temperatures would result in global cooling, for a period well capable of replenishing the ice caps at the poles and once again, Mother Nature rules, with moderation once again.
Fat pandemics
Similar to Second hand smoke inspired power grabs describing obesity as a contagious disease, fashioned after taxing addictions, we now find the moral obligation by and for governments, to tax our eating habits toward the 1984-styled common gruel. A common pot of Communism, with paternalists competing on their soap boxes, for control of the ladle and what little remains in our wallets.
Cult over State.
Perhaps it makes some people feel a little better about them selves if they can dismiss all those around them as just a bunch of drug addicts and gluttons.
The question has to be; would they feel as confident as they do, in categorizing and discriminating against others, had the Government and the medical institutions not given their blessing and deliberately promoted an encouragement to divide us?
When Industry through their Lobooists [Fear mongered advocacy] advertising, dictates the rules of morality, in turn industry rules over governments by moralist coercions and the medical community dictates morality issues over their patients, we are in real trouble, both as a community and as a civilization.
Of late, it is harder to dismiss, than to believe, that all three relationships, do not exist.
Philanthropy
I does seem more and more true, that the nationalization of all Charity foundation assets would be the most charitable act a government could ever support.
Taking tax exempted funds and the power they enlist, out of the political arena. Diverting them instead to legitimate acts of charity.
This would solve both a tremendous charity need and a financial crisis in one grand act of kindness.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comme...ed-is- love.html
Just as the moralist crusades of Industrialists work to their advantage, they can also be made into their worst nightmare when the tables turn. It really would not take a large number of people to accomplish tremendous change with such a heavy burden focused on moralities today.
If Politicians grow to realize they are threatened with carrying the title of bigot and Nazi they will be forced by process "best practices" to act quickly and start shifting the blame.
The convictions will come fast and furious by those who can not take the risk of paying the political price should they delay. Y2K for the masses.
Leadership in a democracy does not fit well with the designation of promoting hatred violence and bigotry. It does make you a fine target, for any opposition parties, who denounce such actions and ask for the people's forgiveness.
Placing democracy back on track, as a buyers market.
Road rage is a competition between two dictators. Public Health Intervention is built on the same foundation. Do as I demand or I will make you pay for your insolence and disrespect.
Insanity on the road begins with a thoughtless act, inviting another in a series of escalations between two ballooning egos to a point of insanity, which more often than not ends in tragic consequences. We can see the same predicament rising out of competing self-interests who describe themselves as Public Health stakeholders, demanding legislation so that their paying clients may be punished and criminalized, for not following the Doctor’s orders. Personal health and it’s vested interest starts and ends with an individual, to the chagrin of many pumped up lobooist roosters, who dare to steal that right, as though it were their own. Autonomous authority is once more under attack by well-financed dictators and con men who conspire to depreciate all of us, along with our right of authority.
How did we allow ourselves to loose so much and walk away from our basic rights without a murmur? The answer to that question is multifaceted, the most significant reasons fall within deceptions apathy and allowing ourselves to believe we need to be mothered, in place of standing on our own. Communities have lost their moral compass, their connectivity and all sense of confidence. As protected sheep we now line up for the slaughter. In the majority, we are referred to as human capitol a term taken well beyond a figurative context. The livestock raised with a single perspective, of cost versus profit analysis. The slaves of the Industrialists who have captured us all once again.
I believe the statisticians who create “science to order” which has empowered the irresponsible fear mongers who dare to call themselves “scientists”, “Doctors” and “professionals” have had it all delivered “their way” for far too long. The lies and exaggerations have grown too large to sustain and the costs to all of us have grown far too extreme.
So as my contribution to setting things right I have decided to expose them for the frauds and opportunists they really are.
Smoking related diseases.
We have been told many times and in many ways, that “smokers” cost the rest of us huge health and productivity costs. The rally cries of “ending premature mortality and morbidity” as you will soon see, is delusional and poorly considered. It is said “smoking related diseases cause 450,000 premature mortalities annually” and this is seen by many as shocking and unacceptable. Closer examination reveals, this is actually quite normal and a fortunate event [It could be a lot worse] if the figure is legitimate
[Research tells me, you cannot actually trust anything you are being told, so I allow Public Health lobbies nothing any more]
First, we have to consider the rush hour on the way to and from work. If everyone started work at Eight AM and finished at Four Thirty PM, the roads would be understandably overcrowded twice a day. Many years ago, people realized if we rotate start schedules; between Seven AM and every half hour up to Nine AM, we could reduce the congestion on the road by upwards of eighty per cent, both coming and going.
Now consider in nature how well balanced the variety of species have evolved. If insect eating birds are too plentiful, insects would become extinct and with them the birds which eat them. Balance plays a part in many aspects, which allowed the survival of both the birds and the insects, who have other roles to play. For most species of the most plentiful birds, who have multiple offspring, as luck would have it they also have shortened life spans. Insects that reproduce by the hundreds in one egg sac have a lifespan sometimes of only a few months. If we tampered with the cycles, we may end up fighting for our own survival standing in three feet of bird guano, which would have covered the planet thousands of years ago, without the natural balance seen in nature.
Today in the industrialized countries, the average lifespan of a human being is somewhat close to seventy years of age. Meaning for every one million people we should expect to see .7% or 7000 people dying each year offset by 1.3% or 13,000 being born every year.
The average population today can be forecasted into the future, if the maximum lifespan is considered to be 100 years;
[[[number born plus the number of deaths] divided by half] times 100], will maintain a balanced population at the current growth pattern.
This sounds strange at first glance until you realize the lifespan of a human varies, and if we eliminated all causes aside from age, we should see, a distribution which is consistent and which results in the approximate and normal numbers we see in mortality and morbidity figures today; even with a fast growing population offset by an aging population.
An average lifespan of seventy years means half will die before seventy and half after. If as we are told; smoking shortens a life by ten years and as we know smoking has been around for many more than ten years, our mortality numbers have found a balance point in exit numbers.
If we have a 320 million population which includes 20% [64 million] to 30% [96 million] current, and 60% [192 million] ever smokers. We should see, by multiplying 64 million by .7%, an expected mortality number of 448,000 smokers dying every year, regardless of smoking with no expectation of a reduced lifespan, which is quite likely, exactly where the 450,000 figure originated.
I have questioned the “Professionals” for a few years now, asking if we have the same number of smokers today, as we had fifty years ago, how is it; the smoking related, or smoking caused, disease figures continue to grow? Lung cancers for instance which are believed to be primarily caused by tobacco use have increased six fold and heart diseases have grown in similar proportions. There is an obvious reluctance to answer, because an explanation would reveal their slight of hand, when making other more insidious claims.
The number of those who use cigarettes and the consistency can be confirmed by calculating prevalence versus total population quite easily. In the United States close to 55 Million people, using cigarettes has been consistent. Despite what the medical community has been telling you, in use of prevalence figures to deliberately create a bigoted misconception, they have obviously taken every advantage of.
They are coning the politicians and the public into believing disease management reduces the cost of healthcare, when we all should understand it never could. At a time such as this with a huge population bubble moving into old age, the bubble would only be increased, exaggerating the financial problem tremendously. The reality is, if disease management is 100% successful and all of us give up our sinful ways; If living fast and dying young falls out of fashion over night, we are all doomed to witness a painful disaster.
If the average life expectancy is suddenly increased from 70 to 100 years of age, the increased costs of health care would rise by 30 percent as a compounding figure [like the interest on your mortgage] over the next 30 years. The resulting effect of the new numbers, with over 60% of the population over 65 years of age would cause catastrophic global depression [Along with a severe hatred of the elderly] Even if that problem was solved, in a mere three generations at the current rate of growth, we would have a person standing on every square meter of ground on the planet. Of course the possibility of that happening, would be reduced by the length of time food was available, the population was held back from slaughtering each other, or by the increased risk of plague which rises [in potential deaths and potential incidence] right along side of the population increase [Mother nature looking after the balance as usual]
Global Warming
The hockey stick of computer modeling precludes the actuality of physical realities which should be obvious to anyone with an unbiased iota of intelligence. Carbon gasses cause a heating of the environment The glaciers melt. Science tells me water expands when it freezes so water lines would receded not expand as Al Gore contends in his version of fear-mongered events. If the environment increased in temperature, the increase of evaporation rates of water would also occur meaning more clouds less sun on the earth and as more rain occurred the carbon and carbon gases, would return to earth with the heavy rain as temperatures declined. Of course, moderated temperatures would result in global cooling, for a period well capable of replenishing the ice caps at the poles and once again, Mother Nature rules, with moderation once again.
Fat pandemics
Similar to Second hand smoke inspired power grabs describing obesity as a contagious disease, fashioned after taxing addictions, we now find the moral obligation by and for governments, to tax our eating habits toward the 1984-styled common gruel. A common pot of Communism, with paternalists competing on their soap boxes, for control of the ladle and what little remains in our wallets.
Cult over State.
Perhaps it makes some people feel a little better about them selves if they can dismiss all those around them as just a bunch of drug addicts and gluttons.
The question has to be; would they feel as confident as they do, in categorizing and discriminating against others, had the Government and the medical institutions not given their blessing and deliberately promoted an encouragement to divide us?
When Industry through their Lobooists [Fear mongered advocacy] advertising, dictates the rules of morality, in turn industry rules over governments by moralist coercions and the medical community dictates morality issues over their patients, we are in real trouble, both as a community and as a civilization.
Of late, it is harder to dismiss, than to believe, that all three relationships, do not exist.
Philanthropy
I does seem more and more true, that the nationalization of all Charity foundation assets would be the most charitable act a government could ever support.
Taking tax exempted funds and the power they enlist, out of the political arena. Diverting them instead to legitimate acts of charity.
This would solve both a tremendous charity need and a financial crisis in one grand act of kindness.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comme...ed-is- love.html
Just as the moralist crusades of Industrialists work to their advantage, they can also be made into their worst nightmare when the tables turn. It really would not take a large number of people to accomplish tremendous change with such a heavy burden focused on moralities today.
If Politicians grow to realize they are threatened with carrying the title of bigot and Nazi they will be forced by process "best practices" to act quickly and start shifting the blame.
The convictions will come fast and furious by those who can not take the risk of paying the political price should they delay. Y2K for the masses.
Leadership in a democracy does not fit well with the designation of promoting hatred violence and bigotry. It does make you a fine target, for any opposition parties, who denounce such actions and ask for the people's forgiveness.
Placing democracy back on track, as a buyers market.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Loboo taboos
WE need to register a new word at Webster’s.
Lobooing as opposed to lobbying, the promotion of fear to illicit profit from those effected by any social marketing strategy.
If Lobooists can divide us, establishing their demands as reasonable, only by the stolen proxy of the largest group. We need to divide them as well, just so everyone understands whom they are siding with.
Arguably, the largest problem facing the world today has to be found in the realization; the promotion of fear has become far too profitable. When we look to the media questioning if the American president elect will be smoking in the white house, we fail to realize, if he did, he would be aligned with some pretty impressive company among those who smoked there in the past. Common sense is turned on its head when we fear tobacco smoke more than we fear Diesel exhaust or when people can be viewed as deficient somehow, simply because they seek the comfort of a cigarette.
When discussing the horrors of crimes against humanity proliferated during the Second World War. What we fail to realize is that anti Semitic attitudes were initially created in the USA, with the ignorance of Eugenics promoted wide brush, by public health organizations and the mainstream scientific community. Hitler only hastened it along, to its only logical conclusion. Galton predicted racial genetic mixing, or over population of any one “defective race”, would eventually result in the destruction of the entire species. This lead to a forced medical practice involving “sterilization of Jews and Imbeciles”. What he and the scientific minds of the day failed to realize, was the large difference between race and ethnicity as explained by Galton’s cousin, a fellow named Darwin who had an alternate explanation, science accepts as the origin of the human species.
By treating our genes as a State owned commodity, which required paternalist protection, Galton sought to eliminate the possibility of damages by the identical "Disease management" principles used today. Promoted by the Surgeon General's office, at the UN and widely embraced by Public Health agencies, in promotion of only themselves. The isolation to extinction tact we denounce in Hitler's plan or in the communist isolation of AIDS patients is well understood. Yet we can allow a lapse of integrity when there is money to be made. Moreover, yes, I am suggesting; money is the most significant motivation of public health interventions, which create foolhardy enterprises such as smoking bans. A step backward in cultural evolution.
When society rejected McCarthy, most failed to realize; this was not an endorsement of communism, but an embrace of individuality. That confusion continues today with the embrace of paternalism and logically flows to the ignorance of smoking bans and fat pandemics, which in the most basic terms embrace only hatred and isolation.
Science denounced the eugenics theory, after the war, with a simple reality, by admitting; if we all came from the same primordial ooze, we all carry the same genes already. Declaring, all ethnic and cultural variations are strictly a matter of environment.
Not unlike the no safe level of tobacco smoke nonsense, or the global warming ad campaign, decrying there is no alternative only disaster can ever result from continuation. Profiting by the sale of fear.
When the simple reality is examined; if smoking is believed to kill only half of those who smoke, what is actually killing them is environmental. Unless science is back peddling and declaring those who died are believed to possess a genetic variation, they developed by purchasing their first package of cigarettes.
As for lobbying to the max? By utilizing the extremes, you become an extremist and by narrowing vision in mass distribution, all you create is a culture of narrow-minded people.
Very much Orson Wells or Rod Sterling type story-telling, entertainment most of us understand as science fiction. This is not real science or remotely scientific, it is simply a sheep like regurgitation, of self-important fools who cannot differentiate, fact from fiction.
As for smoking? No one including the W.H.O. can predict the future, unless you eliminate all hope of progress by innovation, by declaring we know it all, when in fact we know very little.
Moralist fads tend to gain their power by isolating all focus and torturing the extremes within that narrow scope, restricting it even further. Small-minded people demanding others share their ignorance who become offended when others do not.
Freedom rejects the "common good" and establishing "the norm" because historically the truth is always consistent; humanity is enriched by variation, while stagnated only by moralist restrictions, which defile individuality or choices.
Lobooing as opposed to lobbying, the promotion of fear to illicit profit from those effected by any social marketing strategy.
If Lobooists can divide us, establishing their demands as reasonable, only by the stolen proxy of the largest group. We need to divide them as well, just so everyone understands whom they are siding with.
Arguably, the largest problem facing the world today has to be found in the realization; the promotion of fear has become far too profitable. When we look to the media questioning if the American president elect will be smoking in the white house, we fail to realize, if he did, he would be aligned with some pretty impressive company among those who smoked there in the past. Common sense is turned on its head when we fear tobacco smoke more than we fear Diesel exhaust or when people can be viewed as deficient somehow, simply because they seek the comfort of a cigarette.
When discussing the horrors of crimes against humanity proliferated during the Second World War. What we fail to realize is that anti Semitic attitudes were initially created in the USA, with the ignorance of Eugenics promoted wide brush, by public health organizations and the mainstream scientific community. Hitler only hastened it along, to its only logical conclusion. Galton predicted racial genetic mixing, or over population of any one “defective race”, would eventually result in the destruction of the entire species. This lead to a forced medical practice involving “sterilization of Jews and Imbeciles”. What he and the scientific minds of the day failed to realize, was the large difference between race and ethnicity as explained by Galton’s cousin, a fellow named Darwin who had an alternate explanation, science accepts as the origin of the human species.
By treating our genes as a State owned commodity, which required paternalist protection, Galton sought to eliminate the possibility of damages by the identical "Disease management" principles used today. Promoted by the Surgeon General's office, at the UN and widely embraced by Public Health agencies, in promotion of only themselves. The isolation to extinction tact we denounce in Hitler's plan or in the communist isolation of AIDS patients is well understood. Yet we can allow a lapse of integrity when there is money to be made. Moreover, yes, I am suggesting; money is the most significant motivation of public health interventions, which create foolhardy enterprises such as smoking bans. A step backward in cultural evolution.
When society rejected McCarthy, most failed to realize; this was not an endorsement of communism, but an embrace of individuality. That confusion continues today with the embrace of paternalism and logically flows to the ignorance of smoking bans and fat pandemics, which in the most basic terms embrace only hatred and isolation.
Science denounced the eugenics theory, after the war, with a simple reality, by admitting; if we all came from the same primordial ooze, we all carry the same genes already. Declaring, all ethnic and cultural variations are strictly a matter of environment.
Not unlike the no safe level of tobacco smoke nonsense, or the global warming ad campaign, decrying there is no alternative only disaster can ever result from continuation. Profiting by the sale of fear.
When the simple reality is examined; if smoking is believed to kill only half of those who smoke, what is actually killing them is environmental. Unless science is back peddling and declaring those who died are believed to possess a genetic variation, they developed by purchasing their first package of cigarettes.
As for lobbying to the max? By utilizing the extremes, you become an extremist and by narrowing vision in mass distribution, all you create is a culture of narrow-minded people.
Very much Orson Wells or Rod Sterling type story-telling, entertainment most of us understand as science fiction. This is not real science or remotely scientific, it is simply a sheep like regurgitation, of self-important fools who cannot differentiate, fact from fiction.
As for smoking? No one including the W.H.O. can predict the future, unless you eliminate all hope of progress by innovation, by declaring we know it all, when in fact we know very little.
Moralist fads tend to gain their power by isolating all focus and torturing the extremes within that narrow scope, restricting it even further. Small-minded people demanding others share their ignorance who become offended when others do not.
Freedom rejects the "common good" and establishing "the norm" because historically the truth is always consistent; humanity is enriched by variation, while stagnated only by moralist restrictions, which defile individuality or choices.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Questioning the little big man complex
I have asked a question a number of times and in a number of venues asking the "experts" it is always the same; either I am treated to the insolent pup style of ad hominid attack, or simply afforded silence with no answer available. They either change the subject or pretend they did not hear it at all. The little big man complex is pretty well set in the field of public health and any dissenters should beware. The public health industrial complex, are not people you should trifle with, yet they leave themselves so open to criticisms and obvious contradictions it is getting very hard to ignore.
The question is very simple;
"Describe environmental tobacco smoke in a physical way so that we can distinguish it from ambient air."
They can't, because in the way it is described; IT IS AMBIENT AIR!!!
The multiple sources or tobacco products which might produce it and the number of those who may partake in one place compared to another, leaves the recipe absolutely astounding in the number of combinations of ingredients it may contain. So how do you find such confident “irrefutable” numbers, which predict disease and death so precisely? Found internationally with such a wide range of products and such a diversity of lifestyles? The truth is you cannot, so we did the next best thing, we simply estimated how many injuries could possibly be caused by inhalations of any substance, we defined them as “smoking related” and the ad agency tested talking points, flowed like a river into the public domain.
You see the level of tobacco smoke exposure is not a legitimate biomarker of disease genesis, The PM2.5 levels in a room without specific investigation of what is contained could well be a measure simply of a number of non-related substances. A biomarker has to reflect both a level of exposure and a measure of adverse health effect equitably. A PM 2.5 measurement does neither even loosely. Does it make any reasonable sense one substance could generate parallel and predictable levels of a number of diseases in such a consistent manner when the constituents of; tobacco smoke plus ambient air, plus foreign particulate which comprise the feared “environmental tobacco smoke” and the individual’s levels of exposures to the product vary so adversely?
Used loosely as it was, in meticulously examining the possibilities in precision to the trillionths of a degree, to predict cancers or cardiovascular effects, with equally irresponsible statements, made in press releases. The bulk of information provided resulted largely from phrases read to focus groups, in search of the strongest reaction. We now have nothing available in the public realm we can trust, with which to make reasonable considered choices. What we have instead is invention and provocation, which targets individuals, in place of; investigations of the product at hand which could make it safer, no cures, and no treatments. Hardly a positive progression from a scientific standpoint. Although it does serve to invent some excellent old wives tales and seeds the paternalist movements quite well.
Ambient air works splendidly as a promoter of intangible fear; Ventilation as a solution doesn't work any more, because you are only increasing the volume. "There is no safe level" because it can never be diluted by itself. If you declare it a hazard, the hazard still exists outdoors, where there is more of it. It can seep through light sockets into a neighbour’s home. ETS can never be avoided, and most importantly, ETS cannot be eliminated as a legitimate term, which exists in all environments and without boundaries, as long as smoking exists.
The problem comes when we consider what it is, they have been telling us to fear, Breathing!!!
Is 5000 deadly ingredients really an official scientific term?
There are 43,000 unresolved chemicals in use by industry today most of them are also found in ambient air. What are the effects and health risks of breathing them, compared to ETS? There is no increased risk, because as one product the risks are now the same.
If there are numerically the same number of people smoking today, or even if there are less, and smoking kills 450,000 of the 2.3 million who die in the United States every year, disregarding all the medical and environmental improvements over the last 50 years, why did it not also kill 450,000 of the less than one million who died in 1960?
Ripley's believe it or not, needs to resolve the largest hoax in world history; DDT, Ulcers, Freon, ETS or Global warming and indeed the term “Public health”.
Dr. Michael Siegal a long time anti-smoker advocate, recently use a term, which forms the major part of that river of “new study” information, when describing, "Organized complaining". To deliberately create an appearance of public mood, which does not otherwise exist. for the rest of us, it is known as "Astro-Turfing" which is in a real sense is simply a co-ordinated form of self flagellation, which hopes to find support among those believed to be; less educated, more numerous and more likely to join in, with any campaign which legitimizes picking on someone else.
"While activists dedicated to eradicating smoking in children’s movies engage in organised complaining about such closely monitored incidents, it seems improbable that many ordinary citizens would spontaneously rise up in community protest about such minor usage".
When you over act, while pretending something does exist, while everyone else who know better, pities your state of denial and try very hard [out of pity or embarrassment for you] not to see it.
It is effective as a lobby tool, only in a sense; most tend to ignore it, so without opposition, the deliberately dumbed down politicians, are allowed to present a new age reality or theological rule. Remember the term “politically correct”? By who’s politics?
Make anything up you like, and they can sell it as a gang to any co-operating politician who employs them, no one argues with the more deliberate imbeciles, because it is like arguing with a five year old and that lowers you to their level. As a political activity, it seeks to rule and form ideology by those standards and talking points, devised among the imbeciles. It simply makes anything possible, no matter how morally perverse it may sound today.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Running the numbers scam on us.
Have you ever been challenged to explain why 80% [or 90%] of lung cancers are found among those who smoke or those who have ever smoked? depending on the expertise of those making the claim.
The statement 80% of lung cancers are among current and ever smokers is cautiously the closest to reality found in credible [accepted] research, other versions of the phrase, are most predominantly a result of aggressive lobby group misquotes along with outright deceptive statements to gain political advantage.
“So say one, so say them all” is tightly connected to groups such as we witnessed with the anti smoker scandal. Tightly associated partners who have been known to turf their brightest and most convincing members directly into the spoiled identity, denormalization process, along side it’s other victims, simply for speaking critically or out of turn. Although they describe themselves a grassroots movement, nothing could be further from the truth. The structure is solidly top down and is applied as an act utilized against communities, as opposed to an act stemming from the community.
Getting back to the popular phrase in point. If we examine the actual people who have lung cancers one striking physical attribute, can immediately be seen; the vast majority of them are elderly this promotes a large part of the 80% ratio. A ratio which mirrors another ratio; cancers above 65 years of age and cancers below 65 years of age. Remember the phrase current or ever smokers? If we examine the time when smoking was in the majority of the population back in 1958 we saw the ratio expressed as 54% in total population choose to smoke. A number which of course included 25% of the population, who would be much less likely to smoke at the time although the majority would eventually start, because for lack of a better description; they were simply too young to smoke.
The numbers are further lopsided by the fact women used tobacco much less than men, by proportion a pretty substantial confounder which is hidden in the research numbers when evaluations of male only groups are compared to female only, or mixed groups. The moral standards at the time were much more forcefully regulated among teachers and parents, with corporal punishments accepted in the schools. To see a child under the age of 15 who smoked was quite rare. So if we take that perspective into consideration; we have to eliminate the children because it has yet to be determined what their status will be when the choice is available to them. We adjust the ratio to reflect those over the age of 15 and we arrive with a ratio of 54% versus 21% or 61% versus 39% in the over 15 group.
So naturally we would expect to see 61% of cancers among current or ever smokers by their numbers alone without considering any health risks. And we see a good number of them among those who survived and comprise the majority over 80% of those afflicted with cancers today. With an aging population that figure is only more likely to grow.
Now we have to get into knit picking to explain a number of other factors unique to our current cancer patients. The factors are applicable to all in the population however if we take the popular view, the split identifying those who smoke will also produce higher numbers by compounding, similar to how they calculate your mortgage interest, because they represent a larger slice of those being discussed when, assessing each known cause for distribution. For example, those exposed to asbestos in younger years would represent a certain percentage of cancers today, for every 10 of those people regardless of the fact all their cancers were caused by asbestos, because we choose to assign cancers by smoking status the split would be 6 smoking and 4 not, add that to the original percentages of one hundred people and you now have 67.1 ever smokers versus 43.9 never smokers. 65% versus 35% Notice how we now have a compounding factor, which increases the ratio? Continue adding other known causes 10 people at a time and eventually the ratio is notably spread farther apart eventually finding 80% versus 20% when realistically the increased risk, assessed by the “experts” is said to be only 15-20% above the norm.
It is the distribution by preordained status, which assigns a larger number to the total group, as opposed to simply counting heads and making an evaluation of each group separated by known primary cause, in common sense terms. Lung cancers among people who smoke are in the 1-5% range and in total population the incidence numbers have risen six fold above what they were in 1960, which suggests the largest factors are not being clearly explained, in the common belief defined as simply “caused by smoking” The one factor, few in the lobbies like to look at destroys the myth. There were almost a stable number of smokers over the past 50 years span between 55 and 60 million people smoked, although as a percentage of a growing population the numbers appeared to decline according to the funny papers and ad agency spin. We seldom heard the real figures just the “appropriate figures”. They declined in almost exactly the same percentages as the population total increased, allowing the 80% of lung cancers figure to be maintained for decades with the real investigations into growing causes allowed to be stalled, with a lack of public concern. The gentle cooing of the cancer societies shored up by the medical institutions; funds were never deemed to be necessary, to research a forgone conclusion.
Recent studies precariously dance around the numbers, knowing if a research study is to be approved for publication; it must fit with the status quo. Similarly because the funds for research are tightly controlled by a small group of connected industries, the possibility to receive funding is tightly dependent on participation in avoiding the possible risk to the parent organization contributing the funds. In a similar way to what is described by the lobby groups; the tobacco industry can influence a conclusion. It follows all other major industries have the same ability, otherwise the medical institutions would never admit this to be possible, a stance which undermines their own credibility and an admission this is unavoidable, within the confines of what is additive to common cult beliefs.
If we examine the numbers we see that if lung cancers exist among those who do not smoke in the range of 20%, it stands to reason among those who do choose to smoke or have ever smoked, a similar number of non related cancers would also occur within the larger group; 60 versus 40 in smoking status. It is fair to say 20% of the group who do smoke would have to be deducted from the number of those in total, defined as having ever smoked. Reducing further the causative nature of; the original sensationalist, yet quite reasonable and expected 80% figure.
Thus the ratio of 60/40 regardless of health risk can once again be demonstrated as the norm. The only division is therefore gained only by their status of division and provides no evidence smoking is a causative factor in their cancers.
Yes, it is fair to say half of those who smoke will die of smoking related diseases, as long as you agree; so too will everyone else.
Citations;
Risk reductions
Cancer identification and rates
http://scienceweek.com/2005/sc050128-4.htm
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/1/24
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080925214831.htm
http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/62/4/231
http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/reprint/30/2/141
Secondary smoke exposures
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
Smoking Prevalence figures
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1779270#B17
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Second hand smoke; Is it all in your mind?
The evidence is mounting that the existence of Environmental Tobacco Smoke ETS is more a creation of fiction and Cult worship, than anything tangible you could possibly describe and accurately connect with science or observation.
In a recent article the author went so far as to define ETS as a drug.
"I hope the cabinet will take the decision to limit the harmful effects this drug can have on them."
In this article they claim if cigarettes are provided with the words slim they are being advertised as weight loss products or if provided in Pink packages they insult women who have suffered breast cancers, along with a litany of misguided and opportunistic statements with no basis in fact or common sense. The same groups appear to be attacking PM while in fact they are partnered with PM in moving forward legislation PM helped to write.
Please see update section below
Bill Goshall in a thread on Michael Siegal's blog insinuated higher ETS volume could be used to demonstrate increased risk. [ETS particulate measurements of 1000 MG/M3 of air were mentioned???] This of course attacks his alternate claims; smokeless tobacco is harmless or could possibly negate smoking risks if everyone switched. [99%=100%]
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/
According to the NOSH handbook his claims can be proven to be misinformed quite readily in examination of just two of the said to be thousands of toxic ingredients found in tobacco smoke. Benzene [PEL= 1PPM or 3.6 MG/M3] and Toluene[PEL= 1PPM or 3.77 MG/M3] are both flammable liquids and any increased volume measurement of either found in ETS measures, would be largely due to inefficient burning at lowered temperatures, as we would see in second hand smoke, as opposed to primary smoke decreased levels of toxins results from oxygenation increasing the temperature of the tobacco being consumed.
With no burning the original full force of toxins pre-existing in the tobacco, would be the exposure volume and following logic more toxins means more effect. From the exposure routes in the PEL descriptions; we see no differential in exposure methods, indicating more or less risk is associated to any means of exposures [inhalation, skin absorption, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact]
While small amounts of both can be identified in ETS the volume would require the burning of thousands of cigarettes at the same time to come close to breaching known safe levels. Whereas in chew tobacco the exposure volume would be incredibly increased [like comparing a log to the ashes] direct exposures reaching unsafe levels, would be considerable more realistic to assume
That along will Bill’s assertion that, ETS causes lung cancers takes us away from the fact both cause other more likely concerns. For Benzene the highest risk is Leukemia and for both toxins the target cancer sites are; Eyes, skin, respiratory system, central nervous system, liver, kidneys. Not exactly the number one mentions on the smoking related hit list but concerning all the same.
Both are classed as carcinogens primarily because of their increased ability when certain conditions are met to evolve into mutagens such as when we mix other carbon based elements and sunlight to form Ozone. The hole in the Ozone layer was demonstrated in a similar fear mongered fashion to reduce our use of Freon which can disassemble ozone into more basic components. What they failed to inform us of, was the fact; the holes occur every year, after six month long nights, after which exposure to sunlight fills in the holes as new Ozone is produced.
Ozone at ground level is much more of a concern because it causes lung cancers and would be considerably more voluminous with lowered offsets at ground level as a result of the current ban
There is an excellent article here which slices to ribbons the ideas of TC, that the risk of ETS could ever be explained in the clumsy and unscientific terms they have been riding on for years;
The ban on leaded fuels without the inclusion of catalytic converters in all cars reduced the risk of aerated lead, however it vastly increased the lung cancer risk due to respiratory aerosols and particulates.
This quote is particularly interesting;
“Unfortunately, current PM-detectors register only particle mass. However, studies have hown that particle number is much more relevant than their mass. Thus, standard detection equipment focuses on mass only, thereby detecting only a fraction of the particle inventory. State-of-the-Art equipment (such as ELPI and SMPS) shows that even when ultrafine numbers are high, their mass is practically zero. Hence, PM-inventories recorded by weighing machines such as TEOMs - used by governmental health authorities - go largely undetected.
Diesel fumes are especially problematic as they contain nitro-aromates; a group of chemicals that are used to accelerate the combustion process of diesel fuel. Nitro-aromatic compounds are known for their potentially mutagenic effect within the GIT(gastro-intestinal tract). Initially they cause diarrhoea (fig.3.10).”
Has anyone in TC or the many public health agencies; ever attempted to define the fictitious; element, compound, drug, aerosol, liquid, solid or particulate matter which all of the lobby groups describe as ETS in one campaign or another?
We can apparently define or necessitate fear and mortality rates incredibly in an absolute void of information, a lack of surface description, chemical formation or any unique characteristics which could allow us to understand what it is they are describing, with the term ETS.
With such a wide variety of composition materials there has to be one unique description they all share which is such a motivator of fear. Legislation must be written to protect us from “it” and no one knows what “it” represents or how “it” could possibly harm children although the loose Epi. Claims are to numerous to count. ETS suffers from lack of description beyond the cult knowledge, responsible for driving communities into disarray and mistrust. What are the comparisons of risk; according to atmospheric pressure or relative humidity? What offsets might render it safer or more dangerous?
The one thing they will never do is to provide a PEL or surface description which encompasses the many compounds being described, because to simply say, "there is no safe level" avoids the obligation of defining one. Which proves their campaign is a promotion of ignorance with ignorance as its foundation.
Here is a fun conversation with the expert in front of TC claims
Here is a sample of his dirty work.
I get a kick out of watching Repace ratchet up the facts in plain sight and none of the so called “experts in Public Health” caught on, nor did they notice his including them in an embrace of ignorance. When we observe a death rate we are observing the momentary result of cumulative lifetime risk, in total population or in an exposed population. Any measure is simply the difference between one level and another, in most cases we assume the difference between zero and the measured level.
In the link [above] Repace takes the lifetime risk among those exposed to tobacco smoke and assumes without explanation ETS killed them all. He then takes the norm at 225 per million and multiplies it by 45 to find a number he claims to be a lifetime risk, at 1 in 1000. This would be a risk level 45 times the total number observed from all factors and no one caught on? He then takes the average level of PM10 particulate [211ug/M3] measured in a smoking environment and placed a respiratory risk, only one ng/M3 above the risk for dioxin onto the particulate, as equal to what he measured, again by his own say so. What did he leave out? The fact ½ of PM10 is PM2.5 and ½ of the PM2.5 is carbon soot not to mention Tobacco smoke particulate resides in the 1 Micron range; above ultra fine particulate he describes and below the vast majority of what he measured.
His summation states according to his figures;
“In fact, Repace (2004) measured an RSP concentration of 205 ug/m3 in the Delaware Park Casino in the U.S., with a corresponding carcinogenic particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PPAH) concentration of 163 nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3) before a State wide smoking ban, and corresponding RSP and PPAH concentrations after the smoking ban of 9 ug/m3 and 4 ng/m3 respectively. As Table 1 shows, measurements in the Burswood Casino are consistent with these values.”
And this is Tobacco Control’s cannon of proof?
"There is no safe level of tobacco smoke"
is a given, because the consensus of medical authorities world wide agree.
Next time you are in a crowd; ask that everyone who does not know what tobacco smoke smells like, to please raise their hands.
I have yet to see anyone raise their hands, so I assume they have all been expossed.
If there is no safe level all have been expossed to the maximum risk.
If increased risk is determined, as all measurements are, between point a and point b, and there is no difference between those two points; We must conclude there can be no increased risk.
Second hand smoke is therefore harmless, just like smokeless tobacco as Bill Godshall concludes in his research.
Autonomy is about personal choice and management over your own body.
Cigarettes are self medication which allows one to avoid many more expensive products including Drugs and food smoking can be used to replace. A human right to choose is exactly described in a choice to use cigarettes and alternative nicotine products. Advertising is one thing coercion fear mongering and any attempts at minimization of autonomy laws, by the same medical profession which made them necessary is inexcusable and quite likely prosecutable.
Non smokers have no right to breathe clean air, because non means nothing and affords no basis to establish a right, for people who don't actually exist. People are just people and any one of them may choose to smoke so, there is no defined category created by a "non" prefix attached to some of them, at least not without legalizing bigotry.
There, but for the grace of God go I, Sound familiar?
New Development Update
A recent post in Michael Siegal's blog, discussed the hypocrisy of major public health groups denouncing the acts of Philip Morris marketing strategies, to sell the validity of new legislation, arguments supporting co-authored legislation Philip Morris Helped to write. Apparently both long time anti smoker activists; Michael Siegal a doctor and university educator, and Bill Godshall who runs an international anti smoker lobby group, although they constantly disagree on other points; both seem to echo my assessments almost verbatim.
The major medical charities and Public Health agencies are in bed with Big Tobacco and have been running a deceptive good cop bad cop routine on the public for years. The perception of a good versus evil battle to "protect" smokers, bar staff, children and all the defenseless little animals in the great outdoors, is actually more accurately described as a power brokered shift of blame and responsibility; from the product and it's suppliers to the consumers who learned to use the same products, coached [[in plain view of all of the now claiming to be innocent and deceived legislators]] by Fred Flintstone and the Lone Ranger when they were kids. Now those children as adults are being painted as child abusers and mass murderers for simply doing, what to them has always been normal, attacked primarily by their own governments no less?
The Government has always been a paid partner in the Tobacco trade and now they sound entirely unconvincing by the use of our taxes and the taxes stolen out of smoker's pockets to shirk their own responsibility for the blame with numerous and blatantly obvious, misleading advertising campaigns. The divisions in once peaceful communities by deliberate denormalization and propaganda which would make Pol Pot beam with envy, is not a solution we should be ignoring a disease management strategy to deal with the medical costs of an aging population. It is a reprehensible act which should be prosecuted in the courts as a human rights abuse.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/mbsiegel/1677048722626478792/
Bill Godshall;
"Similar to virtually every other press release issued by CTFK/ACS/AHA/ ALA, Friday's press release also stated:
"This latest attempt to market cigarettes to women and girls demonstrates the need for Congress to pass pending legislation giving the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to regulate tobacco products."
But in fact, the FDA legislation (that was negotiated and agreed to by Philip Morris and CTFK) does nothing to stop PM from marketing cigarettes to women, does nothing to ban pink colors, and specifically prohibits the FDA from banning cigarette sales to high school seniors.
Besides, the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution protects the right of cigarette companies to market their products to adults (including women) as long as it is legal to sell cigarette to adults.
Long ago, CTFK, ACS, AHA,
That's because very few health organizations or professionals would support the legislation if CTFK, ACS, AHA,
"
Michael Siegal;
"I think Bill's analysis is spot on. The health groups cannot tell the truth about this legislation because very few health organizations would support it if they did. They are deceiving their constituents (and the public) about the legislation specifically because it is the only way to garner the support necessary to pass the legislation.
That they have succeeded is unfortunate. But it does show how much power you can obtain if you are willing to throw out a commitment to honesty and the truth.
Thanks, Bill, for being willing to stand up and tell it like it is with regards to what these groups are doing.
"Kevin wrote: "Isn't the manipulation being proposed human experimentation and as anti smoker organizations who promote hatred and direct slander against an identified group; does this not amount to a human rights abuse, word for word verbatim?"
I agree in principle with Kevin's suggestion that the FDA legislation amounts to human experimentation. The key point is that the experimentation is going to be taking place WITHOUT the informed consent of the smoker. In fact, the average consumer will believe that by virtue of FDA regulation, the product has been made safer, when in fact it has not. While I wouldn't describe this as a human rights abuse, I would describe it as FRAUD, which it is.
Related links;
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001282/128291eo.pdfhttp://www.law.harvard.edu/stude.../ docherty.shtml
http://www.robertfulford.com/PolPot.html
http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/rico-cases.htmhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001961----000-.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
A Right to factual information
Sunday, September 28, 2008
A matter of perspectives
When we say epidemiology is a crude form of calculation which reveals nothing beyond direction. Many, if not most, don’t comprehend what is being said.
We can visualize life and risk factors on a geometric plane, lessening the complication, deliberately introduced, to avoid scrutiny above all else. Intimidation has worked well in reducing the critics of statements which defy common sense and grow the power of irresponsible fear mongering dividing society upon itself in far too many ways.
Picture life as box existing for only an instant in time, with four 90 degree angles at the corners. If we divide the box into smaller identical squares each representing a person, the size of the population group always determines the size of the box; no other factor can change that dimension. If we draw a diagonal line from the top left corner to the lower right we define the average risk of all members within the group, the area above the line defines those already dead as a result of the total of all risks in a lifetime, including old age and the number below the line defines the living who for the most part fear the line, although eventually all will cross it. No one gets to move beyond the confines of the box and no one can be added without adjusting the size of the box and the relevant geometry within the box, which would capture a different instant in time.
Hucksters armed with epidemiology studies will always attempt to confuse the issue, by implying other instants are equal to the instant they actually examined. If the size of the box changes the geometry within it changes. Sub groups are compared this way by including their numbers, as the vertical and horizontal lines of height and length. Every person within the box will have a unique life and a unique set of risk factors which might or might not determine eventually the date and time they will cross the line. By multiplying them together, we find the total area of the box and by dividing that number in half we find the area occupied in equal and average area divisions, by the living group to be observed. If we know the numbers of the two groups we know the dimensions of the box by ratio. The line of risk average can be manipulated by adjusting the numbers included in the respective groups however the true average and absolute risk is always found at the center of that line dissected by a line of average and ultimate longevity.
We complete the picture with the opposite diagonal line representing longevity between lower left and upper right corners. Risk is oriented in a clockwise perspective more risk would move the lifespan line down creating a distortion or a longevity curve, demonstrating those who will theoretically die “prematurely” represented by the increased number of those above the risk line about to cross the end of life line in larger numbers. We quickly see the largest number of all those who will die will be closest to the line of average risk where it naturally intersects the line of average life expectancy at the center of the square; which represents the norm including everyone and the decreasing or increasing numbers as we move away from center line of maximum and average risk, those farthest away from the center represent the exception and not the rule.
It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to understand how slight variations of risk demonstrate huge effects among a large population group in relation to demonstrating how many will die and when. Neither does it take a lot of imagination to understand; any level of misclassification or miscalculation among small groups, would also demonstrate huge variations in the numbers when applied to larger groups. For this reason; anyone with any modicum of integrity would absolutely reject the glamorization of “insignificant risk variations” to represent anything more than fear mongering and irresponsible exaggerations to promote unscientific politics which prey on the fears of others.
The preference in use of epidemiology in place of precise numbers, as you can see has obvious advantages in producing or eliminating any fear or promotion you can imagine, by simply demonstrating association and expressing that association as a credible level of risk variation, or in making claims beyond that, in describing a theoretic risk as a cause, which could affect the overall outcome, a level of effect which was never actually observed.
The average of maximum risk includes all risks and is not moved easily to any significant degree which could be detected beyond this instant, when only a change the line of life expectancy would be evident to a far lesser degree, even if there was a large change in lifestyles within the group, because by decreasing risks in one category you simply increase the number of those who will succumb by the risks in another risk category, as the constant tendency is, to maintain balance as geometry demonstrates, at any instant in time ever observed. It would therefore be impossible even within this instant, to determine if the average mortality number will even be affected, even if we attempt to change the line of risk by manipulating personal choices, without knowing the instant everyone should die from the ultimate risk of aging, so we have to estimate for the value of that unavoidable effect as well.
Medicine defines all mortality in disease management initiatives as requiring a cause, which is not aging. The charities and the medical institutions promote fear to promote self interest, in the elimination of age as a risk despite the fact it represents the sum of all risk. In deflating their own credibility they have never defined what now constitutes natural death and what percentage they believe to be premature and caused by another factor. By furthering the illusion they now distribute blame for large risks to personal lifestyles, in total numbers which count many people multiple times, expanding the box well beyond its boundaries, expanding fears proportionately.
The effect of coincidental mortality by other causes is thought to be contained within the level of allowance for error, although even that notion, by the law of averages, is found to be wrong as often as it is found to be right with many unknowns yet to be discovered subsequently many past assumptions are demonstrated to be inaccurate, marring current perspectives, which rely on historical findings, with no revisions being applied to published research when those facts are revealed.
Misclassification is often admitted in the studies as having an effect on the validity of the results, more as an excuse for limitations in the observational model designed or the personal assumptions made, than a description of any unforeseen events. Risk itself is a misnomer when expressed only in a negative perspective, because human activities known as risk factors which will reduce longevity for some, will also increase longevity for others, the combined effect further distorts all observations and significantly limits the precision of the conclusions.
The perspective that; eliminating smoking will have only an upside, is deflated by the realities of such effects as; reduced exchange of personal economies, which will have an effect of diminished economic growth. At a personal level think of eliminating smoking in prisons in another example, if we extend the life and fitness of violent criminals we increase the risk to society when they are released. By the extension of their lives and the increased fitness levels increasing their abilities to do harm, if smoking does have a significant effect and if the prisoners affected, do endanger society.
The statement “one half of smokers will die because they smoke” seems to produce a highly unlikely equality, between smoking balanced equally against all other risks in life, including age. This would tend to imply either smoking has zero effect, or it will eliminate all other risks on balance, which should be much harder to sell than the original idea that smoking actually does decrease an average life expectancy. Alternatively by the balance within the smoking group, we see in the equal division also equating average numbers, in real observations. From this we could understand smoking has little effect on average lifespan, in spite of its implied effects. A smokers choice to smoke, other than being punished by a moral a restriction, applies little to average life expectancy, by means of smoking related diseases, because of the duration of time between exposures and effect, seem to be balanced quite well against the effect of other risks which could end a life first. That is true of course, if we believe the numbers guiding our perspectives as they stand. Making smokers the same as everyone else, in spite of the fears created in advertisements, depreciating their integrity and worth, guiding the hatred which convinces most of us otherwise.
If we wish to measure risks on an equal scale; describing someone as defective because they smoke, could be countered by a smoker with much more credibly, who defines you as defective by your display of intolerance. In the overall perspective of defining which factor historically reduces life expectancy to a larger degree; smoking or intolerance?
The answer should be obvious; Tobacco Control is a defective and divisive process with its foundation only strengthened by fear, intolerance and the misconceptions empowering both.
We can visualize life and risk factors on a geometric plane, lessening the complication, deliberately introduced, to avoid scrutiny above all else. Intimidation has worked well in reducing the critics of statements which defy common sense and grow the power of irresponsible fear mongering dividing society upon itself in far too many ways.
Picture life as box existing for only an instant in time, with four 90 degree angles at the corners. If we divide the box into smaller identical squares each representing a person, the size of the population group always determines the size of the box; no other factor can change that dimension. If we draw a diagonal line from the top left corner to the lower right we define the average risk of all members within the group, the area above the line defines those already dead as a result of the total of all risks in a lifetime, including old age and the number below the line defines the living who for the most part fear the line, although eventually all will cross it. No one gets to move beyond the confines of the box and no one can be added without adjusting the size of the box and the relevant geometry within the box, which would capture a different instant in time.
Hucksters armed with epidemiology studies will always attempt to confuse the issue, by implying other instants are equal to the instant they actually examined. If the size of the box changes the geometry within it changes. Sub groups are compared this way by including their numbers, as the vertical and horizontal lines of height and length. Every person within the box will have a unique life and a unique set of risk factors which might or might not determine eventually the date and time they will cross the line. By multiplying them together, we find the total area of the box and by dividing that number in half we find the area occupied in equal and average area divisions, by the living group to be observed. If we know the numbers of the two groups we know the dimensions of the box by ratio. The line of risk average can be manipulated by adjusting the numbers included in the respective groups however the true average and absolute risk is always found at the center of that line dissected by a line of average and ultimate longevity.
We complete the picture with the opposite diagonal line representing longevity between lower left and upper right corners. Risk is oriented in a clockwise perspective more risk would move the lifespan line down creating a distortion or a longevity curve, demonstrating those who will theoretically die “prematurely” represented by the increased number of those above the risk line about to cross the end of life line in larger numbers. We quickly see the largest number of all those who will die will be closest to the line of average risk where it naturally intersects the line of average life expectancy at the center of the square; which represents the norm including everyone and the decreasing or increasing numbers as we move away from center line of maximum and average risk, those farthest away from the center represent the exception and not the rule.
It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to understand how slight variations of risk demonstrate huge effects among a large population group in relation to demonstrating how many will die and when. Neither does it take a lot of imagination to understand; any level of misclassification or miscalculation among small groups, would also demonstrate huge variations in the numbers when applied to larger groups. For this reason; anyone with any modicum of integrity would absolutely reject the glamorization of “insignificant risk variations” to represent anything more than fear mongering and irresponsible exaggerations to promote unscientific politics which prey on the fears of others.
The preference in use of epidemiology in place of precise numbers, as you can see has obvious advantages in producing or eliminating any fear or promotion you can imagine, by simply demonstrating association and expressing that association as a credible level of risk variation, or in making claims beyond that, in describing a theoretic risk as a cause, which could affect the overall outcome, a level of effect which was never actually observed.
The average of maximum risk includes all risks and is not moved easily to any significant degree which could be detected beyond this instant, when only a change the line of life expectancy would be evident to a far lesser degree, even if there was a large change in lifestyles within the group, because by decreasing risks in one category you simply increase the number of those who will succumb by the risks in another risk category, as the constant tendency is, to maintain balance as geometry demonstrates, at any instant in time ever observed. It would therefore be impossible even within this instant, to determine if the average mortality number will even be affected, even if we attempt to change the line of risk by manipulating personal choices, without knowing the instant everyone should die from the ultimate risk of aging, so we have to estimate for the value of that unavoidable effect as well.
Medicine defines all mortality in disease management initiatives as requiring a cause, which is not aging. The charities and the medical institutions promote fear to promote self interest, in the elimination of age as a risk despite the fact it represents the sum of all risk. In deflating their own credibility they have never defined what now constitutes natural death and what percentage they believe to be premature and caused by another factor. By furthering the illusion they now distribute blame for large risks to personal lifestyles, in total numbers which count many people multiple times, expanding the box well beyond its boundaries, expanding fears proportionately.
The effect of coincidental mortality by other causes is thought to be contained within the level of allowance for error, although even that notion, by the law of averages, is found to be wrong as often as it is found to be right with many unknowns yet to be discovered subsequently many past assumptions are demonstrated to be inaccurate, marring current perspectives, which rely on historical findings, with no revisions being applied to published research when those facts are revealed.
Misclassification is often admitted in the studies as having an effect on the validity of the results, more as an excuse for limitations in the observational model designed or the personal assumptions made, than a description of any unforeseen events. Risk itself is a misnomer when expressed only in a negative perspective, because human activities known as risk factors which will reduce longevity for some, will also increase longevity for others, the combined effect further distorts all observations and significantly limits the precision of the conclusions.
The perspective that; eliminating smoking will have only an upside, is deflated by the realities of such effects as; reduced exchange of personal economies, which will have an effect of diminished economic growth. At a personal level think of eliminating smoking in prisons in another example, if we extend the life and fitness of violent criminals we increase the risk to society when they are released. By the extension of their lives and the increased fitness levels increasing their abilities to do harm, if smoking does have a significant effect and if the prisoners affected, do endanger society.
The statement “one half of smokers will die because they smoke” seems to produce a highly unlikely equality, between smoking balanced equally against all other risks in life, including age. This would tend to imply either smoking has zero effect, or it will eliminate all other risks on balance, which should be much harder to sell than the original idea that smoking actually does decrease an average life expectancy. Alternatively by the balance within the smoking group, we see in the equal division also equating average numbers, in real observations. From this we could understand smoking has little effect on average lifespan, in spite of its implied effects. A smokers choice to smoke, other than being punished by a moral a restriction, applies little to average life expectancy, by means of smoking related diseases, because of the duration of time between exposures and effect, seem to be balanced quite well against the effect of other risks which could end a life first. That is true of course, if we believe the numbers guiding our perspectives as they stand. Making smokers the same as everyone else, in spite of the fears created in advertisements, depreciating their integrity and worth, guiding the hatred which convinces most of us otherwise.
If we wish to measure risks on an equal scale; describing someone as defective because they smoke, could be countered by a smoker with much more credibly, who defines you as defective by your display of intolerance. In the overall perspective of defining which factor historically reduces life expectancy to a larger degree; smoking or intolerance?
The answer should be obvious; Tobacco Control is a defective and divisive process with its foundation only strengthened by fear, intolerance and the misconceptions empowering both.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Public health, by definition or by belief?
When most people think of public health expenditures we think of doctors and hospitals and medically necessary treatments. That misconception has gained a huge advantage, in establishing a beach head of an Ideological crusade which can only be comparable to the eugenicist crusades in the 1930s. Are we electing Fascist governments today, without realizing it? Is it ethical or simply bad taste driving many to use the term Fascist at all, in describing Quite Honorable representatives of the people?
Unesco was created after the second world War as a UN agency dedicated to combat the enabling forces within societies, of paternalist methods, which enabled the atrocities of the death camps. An extreme and reprehensible example of how cruel man could be, if driven by government encouragement, promoting political mandates which declared any group of human beings, was superior to another. The group to be targeted of course was also defined by that same government. From all perspectives it seems we are falling into the trap of promoted industrial socialism once again.
We don’t need to wait for the extremes to develop, we can learn from mistakes of the past. You can never find virtue by replicating the actions of tyrants, you simply gain a reputation as a tyrant yourself and today that tyrant is reflective of all of us, who seek to be mothered by a healthism process which despises autonomy and the validity of personal choices, only we, as grown adults who are being treated as scolded children, have any legitimate right to make.
Anyone who has bought into this corrosion of communities, even to a small degree, has been trapped by the threat of being described as hypocritical, if you resist buying into the complete package and the unbridled hatred, we have all witnessed in the past, as the certain eventuality of this process.
The question for the modern era, and one which requires immediate attention before this develops further; Can the policies of racism and bigotry be morally justified by simply redefining our target groups?
The Global Diocese of Public health, is gaining power by collusion, coercion and media news wire releases in disinformation campaigns. A paternalist band wagon campaign which seeks to attack our moral fiber and ethical oversight and they are proving to be quite successful of late. Considering Anti smoking campaigns as the poster child, leading to fat pandemics and global warming and how those play out in your costs and depreciated standard of living, while the promoter’s profits soar Protection rackets are gaining profits at record levels, which would make even Al Capone “Green” with envy.
Public health has found a domination strategy described as HIA “health intervention” which is advocated through the auspices of the World Health Organization. It is a highly efficient living process of advocacy persistence and progressive escalation, which “seeks out partnership with any group who will profit from the advocacy campaign”.
The creation of politicized or “cherry picked science” to promote fear and enable protectionist action, is at the foundation of any so designed “intervention”. Industry profiteers utilizing ad agency spin, traditionally used to sell us their products, are being employed to sell the intervention strategies and their products in the same publicly funded efforts. By the modern efficiencies gained in promotional media and by utilizing the public purse dispensed largely through medical charities and enabled by promotions of highly irresponsible and unregulated political fear campaigns. Promises of large government expenditures further suit the purpose, to buy the elegance of our mainstream journalists.
The media have dropped the ball in the application of their most effective test of legitimacy. Consider the source and always follow the money. If they are no longer up to the task of those simple rules, perhaps it is time the public did the task on their own and included the mainstream media groups and their columnists in that task, because it becomes more apparent by the day they can no longer be representative of our best interests more so the interests of unbridled greed.
From A very dated Unesco document, we see the following problems described, which are entirely similar to what we face today.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001282/128291eo.pdf
“The preamble of Unesco’s Constitution, adopted in 1945, specifically named racism as one of the social evils which the new Organization was called upon to combat. Moreover, the Constitution declares that; “the great and terrible war which has now ended was a war made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men, and by the propagation, in their place, through ignorance and prejudice, of the doctrine of the inequality of men and races “
“Knowledge of the truth does not always help change emotional attitudes that draw their real strength from the subconscious or from factors beside the real issue. Knowledge of the truth can, however, prevent rationalizations of reprehensible acts or behaviour prompted by feelings that men will not easily avow openly.”
“Racism is a particularly vicious and mean expression of the caste spirit. It involves belief in the innate and absolute superiority of an arbitrarily defined human group over other equally arbitrarily defined groups. Instead of being based on scientific facts, it is generally maintained in defiance of the scientific method. As an ideology and feeling, racism is by its nature aggressive. It threatens the essential moral values by satisfying the taste for domination and by exalting the contempt for man. Concern for human dignity demands that all citizens be equal before the law, and that they share equally in the advantages assured them by law, no matter what their physical or intellectual differences may be. The law sees in each person only a human being who has the right to the same consideration and to equal respect. The conscience of all mankind demands that this be true for all the peoples of the earth. It matters little, therefore, whether the diversity of men’s gifts be the result of biological or of cultural factors.”
In its final conclusions in the opinion of Scientists world wide, it was stated;
“Man is born a social being who can reach his fullest development only through interaction with his fellows. The denial at any point of this social bond between man and man brings with it disintegration.”
C.S. Lewis described the process currently being adapted internationally, by starry eyed politicians, who I have to believe; apparently don’t know any better, because I would hate to think they do;
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. “
Unesco was created after the second world War as a UN agency dedicated to combat the enabling forces within societies, of paternalist methods, which enabled the atrocities of the death camps. An extreme and reprehensible example of how cruel man could be, if driven by government encouragement, promoting political mandates which declared any group of human beings, was superior to another. The group to be targeted of course was also defined by that same government. From all perspectives it seems we are falling into the trap of promoted industrial socialism once again.
We don’t need to wait for the extremes to develop, we can learn from mistakes of the past. You can never find virtue by replicating the actions of tyrants, you simply gain a reputation as a tyrant yourself and today that tyrant is reflective of all of us, who seek to be mothered by a healthism process which despises autonomy and the validity of personal choices, only we, as grown adults who are being treated as scolded children, have any legitimate right to make.
Anyone who has bought into this corrosion of communities, even to a small degree, has been trapped by the threat of being described as hypocritical, if you resist buying into the complete package and the unbridled hatred, we have all witnessed in the past, as the certain eventuality of this process.
The question for the modern era, and one which requires immediate attention before this develops further; Can the policies of racism and bigotry be morally justified by simply redefining our target groups?
The Global Diocese of Public health, is gaining power by collusion, coercion and media news wire releases in disinformation campaigns. A paternalist band wagon campaign which seeks to attack our moral fiber and ethical oversight and they are proving to be quite successful of late. Considering Anti smoking campaigns as the poster child, leading to fat pandemics and global warming and how those play out in your costs and depreciated standard of living, while the promoter’s profits soar Protection rackets are gaining profits at record levels, which would make even Al Capone “Green” with envy.
Public health has found a domination strategy described as HIA “health intervention” which is advocated through the auspices of the World Health Organization. It is a highly efficient living process of advocacy persistence and progressive escalation, which “seeks out partnership with any group who will profit from the advocacy campaign”.
The creation of politicized or “cherry picked science” to promote fear and enable protectionist action, is at the foundation of any so designed “intervention”. Industry profiteers utilizing ad agency spin, traditionally used to sell us their products, are being employed to sell the intervention strategies and their products in the same publicly funded efforts. By the modern efficiencies gained in promotional media and by utilizing the public purse dispensed largely through medical charities and enabled by promotions of highly irresponsible and unregulated political fear campaigns. Promises of large government expenditures further suit the purpose, to buy the elegance of our mainstream journalists.
The media have dropped the ball in the application of their most effective test of legitimacy. Consider the source and always follow the money. If they are no longer up to the task of those simple rules, perhaps it is time the public did the task on their own and included the mainstream media groups and their columnists in that task, because it becomes more apparent by the day they can no longer be representative of our best interests more so the interests of unbridled greed.
From A very dated Unesco document, we see the following problems described, which are entirely similar to what we face today.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001282/128291eo.pdf
“The preamble of Unesco’s Constitution, adopted in 1945, specifically named racism as one of the social evils which the new Organization was called upon to combat. Moreover, the Constitution declares that; “the great and terrible war which has now ended was a war made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men, and by the propagation, in their place, through ignorance and prejudice, of the doctrine of the inequality of men and races “
“Knowledge of the truth does not always help change emotional attitudes that draw their real strength from the subconscious or from factors beside the real issue. Knowledge of the truth can, however, prevent rationalizations of reprehensible acts or behaviour prompted by feelings that men will not easily avow openly.”
“Racism is a particularly vicious and mean expression of the caste spirit. It involves belief in the innate and absolute superiority of an arbitrarily defined human group over other equally arbitrarily defined groups. Instead of being based on scientific facts, it is generally maintained in defiance of the scientific method. As an ideology and feeling, racism is by its nature aggressive. It threatens the essential moral values by satisfying the taste for domination and by exalting the contempt for man. Concern for human dignity demands that all citizens be equal before the law, and that they share equally in the advantages assured them by law, no matter what their physical or intellectual differences may be. The law sees in each person only a human being who has the right to the same consideration and to equal respect. The conscience of all mankind demands that this be true for all the peoples of the earth. It matters little, therefore, whether the diversity of men’s gifts be the result of biological or of cultural factors.”
In its final conclusions in the opinion of Scientists world wide, it was stated;
“Man is born a social being who can reach his fullest development only through interaction with his fellows. The denial at any point of this social bond between man and man brings with it disintegration.”
C.S. Lewis described the process currently being adapted internationally, by starry eyed politicians, who I have to believe; apparently don’t know any better, because I would hate to think they do;
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. “
Sunday, August 17, 2008
How much is too much?
Smoking bans are empowered only by the fact; most non-smokers do not like the smell of tobacco smoke; sum and total. A political win by the majority rules, although most don't care, they never did, beyond the perspective of what brings them comfort as the ruling perspective.
The truth in respect to the legitimate "fear" can be seen by how many actually run away from what is said to be a mortal danger with no safe level? How many have been prosecuted, or could be, for attempt murder or common assault with a deadly weapon by smoking in the presence of others?
There is no legitimate danger or fear, the lie supports comfort, nothing more.
There are other perspectives, despite what you may have be taught by the advertisers and promoters, who pay a lot of money to convince you their is a legitimate harm found, in normal exposures seen in respect to second hand smoke.
Tax exempt RWJF for instance, gambled a half a Billion [with a B] dollars, confident they could convince us, "smokers" are different from the rest of us. The profits and increased stock values of a large block of stock they hold in Johnson and Johnson [their protected tax adjusted parent] demonstrates the investment paid off large. As does the increased value of Philip Morris stock, since the Tobacco Papers and the Tobacco settlements saw them at an all time low, shows clearly they are dong pretty well, reinvigorated by the anti smoker movement as well.
What is really wrong with smoking bans?
Beyond the lies, lies by omission and exaggerations, the statistical deceit, the financial costs and incredible levels of profiteering, or the long list of other damages to otherwise peaceful and co-operative communities. Realization of huge mistakes made, shortly after they were made, the last time this nanny state theology was popular, might help to refresh our memories.
The scientific community was never humbled by the realization of the horrors they inflicted on the world, they simply pointed at others. Just as they do today, shamelessly protecting their benefactors, they blame the users, to deflect our contempt away from the product.
As good cop bad cop routines play out, not a single raised eyebrow of concern is seen, by the realization the same hated industry executives [as the dragon] also supply the bulk of processed foods on your child’s dinner plate under the alias of Kraft or Nabisco. Enticements sold with the same targeted methods, being used now to present themselves as your protectors and as your proxy, which permits the same targeting of your children, through carefully worded advertising and politics, which in large part is now also seen in their classrooms.
From the document UNESCO and its program, 111
The race question.
From the preamble we find;
“The great and terrible war which has now ended was a war made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men, and by the propagation, in their place, through ignorance and prejudice, of the doctrine of the inequality of men and races."
And of course;
“Knowledge of the truth does not always help change emotional attitudes that draw their real strength from the subconscious or from factors beside the real issue.”
In its final conclusions in the opinion of Scientists world wide, it was stated;
“Man is born a social being who can reach his fullest development only through interaction with his fellows. The denial at any point of this social bond between man and man brings with it disintegration.”
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001282/128291eo.pdf
It really is worth the read. If for no other reason, to help understand what is inherently wrong with smoking bans. The same promotions of inciting hatred utilizing incredibly the identical slogans and catch phrases, which should have caught the attention of all of us.
Divisions are being formed by comparing groups of people, to claim superiority, or harms to be feared. Degenerative advertisements are being employed by large well heeled groups, identifying themselves only as Public Health Authorities, operating as a cult movement and spreading the same gospel targeting groups of otherwise innocent and normal human beings with; denormalization “”campaigns””.
“A particularly vicious and mean expression of the Caste spirit. It involves belief in the innate and absolute superiority of an arbitrarily defined human group over other equally arbitrarily defined human groups”
Anyone who has bought into this corrosion of communities, even to a small degree, has been trapped by the threat of being described as hypocritical, if you resist buying into the complete package and the unbridled hatred we have all witnessed in the past.
The truth in respect to the legitimate "fear" can be seen by how many actually run away from what is said to be a mortal danger with no safe level? How many have been prosecuted, or could be, for attempt murder or common assault with a deadly weapon by smoking in the presence of others?
There is no legitimate danger or fear, the lie supports comfort, nothing more.
There are other perspectives, despite what you may have be taught by the advertisers and promoters, who pay a lot of money to convince you their is a legitimate harm found, in normal exposures seen in respect to second hand smoke.
Tax exempt RWJF for instance, gambled a half a Billion [with a B] dollars, confident they could convince us, "smokers" are different from the rest of us. The profits and increased stock values of a large block of stock they hold in Johnson and Johnson [their protected tax adjusted parent] demonstrates the investment paid off large. As does the increased value of Philip Morris stock, since the Tobacco Papers and the Tobacco settlements saw them at an all time low, shows clearly they are dong pretty well, reinvigorated by the anti smoker movement as well.
What is really wrong with smoking bans?
Beyond the lies, lies by omission and exaggerations, the statistical deceit, the financial costs and incredible levels of profiteering, or the long list of other damages to otherwise peaceful and co-operative communities. Realization of huge mistakes made, shortly after they were made, the last time this nanny state theology was popular, might help to refresh our memories.
The scientific community was never humbled by the realization of the horrors they inflicted on the world, they simply pointed at others. Just as they do today, shamelessly protecting their benefactors, they blame the users, to deflect our contempt away from the product.
As good cop bad cop routines play out, not a single raised eyebrow of concern is seen, by the realization the same hated industry executives [as the dragon] also supply the bulk of processed foods on your child’s dinner plate under the alias of Kraft or Nabisco. Enticements sold with the same targeted methods, being used now to present themselves as your protectors and as your proxy, which permits the same targeting of your children, through carefully worded advertising and politics, which in large part is now also seen in their classrooms.
From the document UNESCO and its program, 111
The race question.
From the preamble we find;
“The great and terrible war which has now ended was a war made possible by the denial of the democratic principles of the dignity, equality and mutual respect of men, and by the propagation, in their place, through ignorance and prejudice, of the doctrine of the inequality of men and races."
And of course;
“Knowledge of the truth does not always help change emotional attitudes that draw their real strength from the subconscious or from factors beside the real issue.”
In its final conclusions in the opinion of Scientists world wide, it was stated;
“Man is born a social being who can reach his fullest development only through interaction with his fellows. The denial at any point of this social bond between man and man brings with it disintegration.”
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001282/128291eo.pdf
It really is worth the read. If for no other reason, to help understand what is inherently wrong with smoking bans. The same promotions of inciting hatred utilizing incredibly the identical slogans and catch phrases, which should have caught the attention of all of us.
Divisions are being formed by comparing groups of people, to claim superiority, or harms to be feared. Degenerative advertisements are being employed by large well heeled groups, identifying themselves only as Public Health Authorities, operating as a cult movement and spreading the same gospel targeting groups of otherwise innocent and normal human beings with; denormalization “”campaigns””.
“A particularly vicious and mean expression of the Caste spirit. It involves belief in the innate and absolute superiority of an arbitrarily defined human group over other equally arbitrarily defined human groups”
Anyone who has bought into this corrosion of communities, even to a small degree, has been trapped by the threat of being described as hypocritical, if you resist buying into the complete package and the unbridled hatred we have all witnessed in the past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)