Somehow the following passage seems to indicate C.S. Lewis had an incredible eye for the future, or more likely learned well the mistakes of the past.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis. "
Recent research studies[1][2][30] describe the political nature of “healthcare advocacy”, a method of creating need through artificial fears, with the only acceptable solution to those fears in hand, primarily involving huge government expenditures[35], in effect a license to steal from the public purse. In reality the goal of the advocacy from the start. Much more dangerous to population risk is the political nature and growing credibility of the junk science[38] they produce. The efficiencies found in use of ad agencies[3] to produce compelling media reports which dominate discussions and indeed recreate public opinion, is a matter which is urgently in need of public scrutiny. Health Canada over the past decade was transformed into a political voice[7][37]which has already been seen to be detrimental to public health and a failure in it’s purpose and legislated mandate.[6]
The inability of Health Canada to investigate public Health concerns in a timely fashion precipitated the use of information from outside sources as outlined in the audit[6] adoption of borrowed science demanded the acceptance of the politics of it’s sources. Today the sum of Health Canada knowledge is a reflection primarily of American ad agency directives. The under reported CSPI lobby group[31] scandal which brought us to the Pan Canadian Strategy adaptation[], will soon have us paying exorbitant prices for traditional fare, while industries who promote healthy food as yet undefined will enjoy 300% tax credits for advertising healthy food they produce. Forced political subservience[28] across all party lines to new policies through political correctness extortion tactics leaves little room for balanced discussion and undermines the very essence of democratic process. That being the ability to debate freely without interference all issues and form opinions based in the most compelling arguments which suit the greater public good.
Credibility up in smoke; defining legitimate objectives
Environmental tobacco smoke as a prime example of the effectiveness of media campaigns and should be a warning to all, of the relative ease with which public opinion can be controlled. Examples of the effectiveness of these agency campaigns can be found in the agency advertising literature.[4][5][14] [16]Well heeled Public Health groups who for the most part are staffed by individuals with little or no training in medical or scientific fields. Successful advocates require intimate knowledge of media manipulation. Lobbies currently deliver the lion’s share of scientific knowledge the public is allowed to consume. In most cases when non randomized studies[8] are reported the methods are not revealed, or is it common knowledge the differences between methodology and result found when assessing personal potential risks. Although this contravenes the basic human right to health relevant information[9][12], regulatory bodies continue to ignore human rights violations[22]. Indeed the Federal Government departments openly promote such activities.[10][11][13] Agencies promote denormalization of industries however in actual practice the product users or their environments remain the only planned target[15] Little affect is seen in repercussions to the tobacco industry targeted, unless you count the steadily rising stock values as lobbying increases the value of the product sold[36]. Penalties, settlements. lost sales and legal fees are all swiftly passed along to the consumer.
So many advocates so little compassion; Greed buys a lot of concerned warriors
If health promotion were in fact the “Healthcare” objective, simple regulation could have the potential of reducing significant risk[24][25] Suggestions of this nature have been met with enthusiastic opposition citing futility in the face of an impossible level of safety. A level of risk which has been allowed to increase with lowered trade restrictions and little scrutiny of the primary carcinogens touted as the most prevalent danger of smoking. The levels of NNN and NNK vary as much as 90%, levels are known to be controlled by the manufacturers. Yet incredibly Government agencies have never asked them to control those limits to protect the general population.
The products of; phosphorous soil conditions and Fertilizers [Mentioned often by Glanz in his tirades some tobacco contains radioactive isotopes or radon daughters one of his favorite assertions. His awareness of the cause of the radiation has never motivated him to suggest regulations to eliminate the problem, either in Tobacco or other consumed organics. So much for the perception of concerned humanitarian motivation[41]] and most significantly in the selection of tobacco plant varieties, the use of leaves only, as opposed to use of roots and stems. Curing processes now all but abandoned in Canada were effective in reduction of 90% of histamines. Unrestricted tobacco is now reclassified as equal risk to regulated products in simplistic “no safe level exists” promotions despite Biological research, above the designer calculations, has consistently proven the significant correlations and reproducible measurements[26],
Real science has been ignored for fear someone may believe safer cigarettes are possible, reducing the fears of advocacy with their adoption. This of course would also remove all fear of possible harm in ETS in the same effort[42]. A state of public fear is apparently an acceptable government approved condition. The lobbies certainly lost little sleep in it’s creation. Current smokers are at increased risk due to failures to bring forth regulation of a known unsafe product or in an effort to reduce lung disease. The use of alternate cheap smokeless replacement products which are available would be highly beneficial. The assertion Second hand or environmental tobacco smoke is a threat to hospitality workers is enhanced in kind by a failure to protect population in an effective way. The obvious promotions of taxation and fines for non compliance appear to be much more motivational than actually protecting the health and reducing of fear, hatred or inspired violence in the general population.
Coercion and how it could affect you
The following passage describes a crime,
A description not unlike the media campaigns we are subjected to daily, financed with the public purse.[28]
How does Coercive Psychological Persuasion Differ from Other Kinds of Influence?
“Coercive psychological systems are distinguished from benign social learning or peaceful persuasion by the specific conditions under which they are conducted. These conditions include the type and number of coercive psychological tactics used, the severity of environmental and interpersonal manipulation, and the amount of psychological force employed to suppress particular unwanted behaviors and to train desired behaviors.
Coercive force is traditionally visualized in physical terms. In this form it is easily definable, clear-cut and unambiguous. Coercive psychological force unfortunately has not been so easy to see and define. The law has been ahead of the physical sciences in that it has allowed that coercion need not involve physical force. It has recognized that an individual can be threatened and coerced psychologically by what he or she perceives to be dangerous, not necessarily by that which is dangerous.
Law has recognized that even the threatened action need not be physical. Threats of economic loss, social ostracism and ridicule, among other things, are all recognized by law, in varying contexts, as coercive psychological forces.”
Why are Coercive Psychological Systems Harmful?
“Coercive psychological systems violate our most fundamental concepts of basic human rights. They violate rights of individuals that are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and affirmed by many declarations of principle worldwide.”
“By confusing, intimidating and silencing their victims, those who profit from these systems evade exposure and prosecution for actions recognized as harmful and which are illegal in most countries such as: fraud, false imprisonment, undue influence, involuntary servitude, intentional infliction of emotional distress, outrageous conduct and other tortuous acts.”
Have you fallen for the spin? Conned like the rest of us.
How many times have you heard a story broadcast beginning with
"The World Health organization predicts by the year 2020...[Insert disease and pestilence exaggerate at will, always look extremely concerned]"
Your not alone if you think this sounds familiar. Similar preparations are being replicated around the globe. Listening to foreign news reports is amusing when you hear the bylines they plug in. [Amputations caused by second hand smoke is very popular in Europe.]
Few, when listening to the evening news or the 15 minute spools broadcast 24-7 on so called news networks, stop to consider the source of the information being broadcast. Nor are they able to ascertain which articles are legitimate news and which originate as paid advertising campaigns. In contrast skilled practitioners who approach science with an open mind and form conclusions post experimentation, are largely dismissed when not producing information which compliments the political pre-determined view. Tax sheltered funds in American charity foundations are currently controlling trillions in liquid assets[32]. Enough to end starvation world wide if they so wished. Charity begins at home is a scandalous reality which exists in some of the largest corporations on the planet and the philanthropy groups they control. Many due to media supplanted realities fail to realize this is in fact our money. For decades the general population has paid a disproportionate share of taxation which subsidized the creation of these huge funds. The obscenity of using the same funds to take large sums from the taxation purse and manipulate stock markets to fuel inflation is unconscionable If you must advocate, demand politicians commence with the nationalization of those funds to feed the poor to buy books and infrastructure more importantly to eliminate personal taxation which was never needed and certainly no longer required in a balancing of the books. The efficiency of advertising with little restriction has grown a political behemoth which may already be beyond our power to control as demonstrated in difficulties prosecuting large industries such as Enron, Microsoft and the ongoing investigation of the Oil for food program at the UN.
Lobbies are instructed by such self serving industry interests as the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation[18]
To make use of real media events advocacy promoting the exception as the rule. How else could we form an opinion as the current public believes smoking patches and gum are acceptable replacements for tobacco smoking? whereas Snu or chewing tobacco essentially identical competing products are unacceptable. The difference in products remains in the labeling and the considerably generous price charged for the former so called cessation devices. The use of child mortalities in SAMMEC research[19][17] funded by the same groups[20][23] as a tool of coercion[28], speaks volumes as to how dedicated and irresponsible these industrial lobbies have become.
Research has shown consistently patches and gum are ineffective in use as cessation devices, despite this the products are advertised through government agencies and paid policy promotions as viable alternatives to assist a smoker in quitting. The only substantially proven successful method of quitting remains through personal will power, cold turkey. Political leaders have been given the idea and many have voiced it; restricting a smoker from use of the smoked type of delivery systems is not cruel or inhuman when flying on an airplane or in a movie theatre because the gum and patch replacements can be used short term to alleviate the cravings.
WHO is in favor of giving the smokers another kick?
Advocates find credibility in large health related institutions and in political statements originating at the World Health organization.[21] Healthcare is a deceptive term having little to do with population health or the care of others. Medical research and the application of medicine have been deceptively co-opted as public perception would agree. In fact Healthcare has little to do with your health more honestly describing a tending of the public psyche in an effort to exert control by a minority over the majority who should be in control in a democratic state. Healthcare is based in fear and intimidation applied liberally. Success is highly dependant on inspiring intolerance and misdirection. Intolerance is in fact an employment prerequisite the most successful in the field are those with the lowest respect of integrity or compassion of their fellows. Much like the dog eat dog world always associated with other advertising agencies. Healthcare can more realistically be seen as a force of control through intimidation and inspired fears in manipulating it’s victims. The World Health Organization states; “Health is defined in WHO's Constitution as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”[30] Permanent charitable institutions as of late have found donations and media popularity are much improved in adoption of advocacy roles, abandoning the role as promoters of physical research, in favor of self promotion and in collaborating with coercive industry sponsored advocacy campaigns.
The Foley of the Kyoto accord falls squarely into this category. Promoted as the saving grace and the only option available in protection of our environment. What those in the general public convinced of the virtues in Kyoto do not realize are the eventual repercussions of such a plan. Industries including Power plants which burn coal, Metal refineries, Oil and Petro chemicals industries who produce the bulk of toxins in our environment can all pay for a free pass to continue; business as usual, while our environment continues to deteriorate. The cost of those credits are simply to be passed along to consumers who will suffer a double edged assault. Increased costs will deteriorate an already struggling standard of living in North America. In addition to the increased costs directly in the products produced and indirectly when the products are used to produce other products. The financial toll of poverty shortened lower quality lives inspires cost beyond reason. How do you quantify deliberate mortality and morbidity cost, when the media sponsors have already painted the victims as solely responsible for such eventualities. When the government is finally forced to step in and clean up an ecological mess at additional cost, once again the price will be passed along to the same consumers. Large polluting industries applaud the exaggeration of smoking risk in media advocacy, in order to avoid the human health responsibility now believed to be caused by smoking alone.
Science versus Politics
The idea of use of epidemiology calculations[48] to substantiate political cause is anything but unique. The many references to Hitler’s use of epidemiology research to legitimize his own Healthcare movement is described in a book by Robert Proctor[27]. A well known anti smoking advocate who was given an award by the medical community for his research on the subject. It can be safely assumed many of the parallels we see today in connection with smoking ban promotion[43], Fat pandemics and other advocacy strategies found their roots in the same methodology.
Fascism was after all defined by Mussolini as an industrial socialism. founded in leftist socialist doctorate primarily with the most popular of right wing ideology adapted as well. [we know it as politically correct, how many of us really think about who really defines the “correct”?] A centrist positioning as a swastika signifies a spinning scythe drawing both camps to the center. Political science divides left and right and always avoids the center a place which traditionally indicated failure to define a political position. The narrowing of positioning allows an opponent to adapt any opponent’s position as a policy objective.
Former Prime Minister Paul Martin was able to define Liberal party policy according to the daily poll results this allowed a continued public support despite many actions behind the scenes which the public would not accept under normal circumstances. Personal attacks of all opponents are indicative of a floating position with no credible argument to counter credible positions. The hate George Bush or American ideals strategy has garnered many allies while at the same time and never reported in the media, the party was heavily involved in complete adherence to American politics in support of globalist positioning. Over the past decade consumer protections, national product safety standards and reasonable access to the courts along with a number of other obstructions to free trade have been eliminated to the detriment of all. Still the concentrated media groups protected the status quo along with their own greatly enhanced bottom line, controlled media voices made excuses for a corrupt government party caught stealing millions from the public purse. While savaging the only viable political option with again personal attacks not related to government business much more related to personal appearance.
Defining a deadly carcinogen
The validity of second hand smoke as a deadly carcinogen is almost laughable were it not for the extreme measures taken in advocacy to create such an unlikely scenario and give it validity. The plausibility of protecting hospitality workers by implementing bans goes well beyond the limits of science and common sense[49]. Biological and timeline observations bear this out. With more than a 50% reduction in smokers as a percentage of population since 1960 and quoting the American Surgeon General an 80% reduction in exposures along with substantial innovations in medical technology over 45 years we saw no substantial reductions in mortality or morbidity in so called smoking related disease categories. The 50% increase in population base should have grown a proportional 50% increase in disease the aging of a baby boom generation and the disease categories most likely to affect most in the declining years is a much more significant indicator of disease categories when considering all perspectives; the numbers show huge reductions in primary smoking actually had little or no effect on the deceptively labeled “smoking related” disease categories. The real effects of primary smoking remain a mystery for the most part in biological assay and over 50 years of research, although the determinants mentioned previously in selection of products and regulation in the production stage could eliminate in large part the levels of disease we can identify. In comparison to the six cities study and follow-up; environmental tobacco smoke can be seen to have little if any credible effect. Surely no effect which can be accurately calculated or measured. Remaining well beyond current scientific abilities and certainly beyond the resources of ad agency spin doctors who currently drive our opinions.
The assignment of media based indoor air quality standards and particulate measurements limited to nanograms[billionths of a gram] per cubic meter of air and Picograms[Trillionths of a gram] per cubic meter of air. [Normally in hazardous material measurements, a timeline is also expressed, this component has inexplicably been eliminated] Ridiculous and unsubstantiated standards promoted to eliminate a co-operative ventilation solution allowing enclosed smoking areas. By comparison; when setting particulate matter outdoor standards 20-30 micrograms[millionths of a gram] per cubic meter measurements in outdoor air, none of us can avoid, are said to be safe. The US EPA refuses to reduce particulate acceptable levels significantly, despite the science[34] which demonstrated mortality reductions paralleling particulate reductions along with a 25% real mortality and hospital admissions increase, in so called “smoking related disease categories” in more compared to least polluted cities. It seems reasonable if indoor air quality is to be maintained at levels hundreds of thousands to millions of times lower than outdoor air quality; banning smoking would have less of an effect than sealing windows and doors perhaps bans would be more appropriately aimed in that direction. Could we fine anyone who opened a door or window following the logic of the radicals. All these years we have been opening windows and ventilating to reduce smoke levels when all the time, risk was significantly increased by allowing much higher concentrations of outdoor particulate to enter a room.
5000 deadly ingredients, how may safe ingredients were found?
In a “poison is in the a dose” reality,
all of them are known to be safe at the levels found.[33]
It is said the smoke which has never been categorized or properly identified contains 5000 deadly ingredients however the majority of the list of deadly ingredients seems to be missing[50]. In a recent email a representative of Physicians for a smoke free Canada, explained the list is a result of a spectral analysis done years ago which identified the number of ingredients but not specifically what they were. Since all elements are toxic in quantity apparently it seemed fair to state they were all deadly. Another member of this group Neil Dollywood[45] was formerly with Health Canada and later was assigned to the World Health Organization when they completed major research into the effects of environmental tobacco smoke[46]. The insignificant findings did not deter his obsessive dedication[44]. To this day he swears a significant risk exists, which was not reflected in the substantial W.H.O. research[39]. The research actually showed a negative or curative effect among children exposed to tobacco smoke which exceeded the level of a slight positive correlation in spousal exposure combined with employment exposure. The child results were described as insignificant and the spousal exposures although insignificant as well are to this day described in the news as proof of an increased risk[40].
Insignificant in real terms means either result could easily be reversed and statistically has no meaning in drawing conclusions of risk[47]. The new lowered standards in assuming risk opened the flood gates to legitimizing similar inconclusive evidence allowing thousands of similarly flawed or inconclusive research studies to be reported in ad agency terms as a cannon of proof in the deadly effects of second hand smoke. The fact physically this has absolutely no merit did not stand in the way of cowardly politicians caving to media pressures and the introduction of smoking bans around the globe. Bans implemented in answer to a signed agreement at the W.H.O. created prior to the cannon of so called science which promoted it. How many in the general public are aware of the real danger which exists at every self serve gas bar. The known safe level of Benzene is well beyond known safe limits and known to cause Cancer[33] yet a level thousands of times beyond known safe limits is permitted throughout North America. The danger far exceeds the dangers of not only Environmental tobacco smoke but primary smoking as well. Generally we believe the smell of gasoline or diesel fuel is harmless when in fact if you know what either smells like you may have exceeded the known safe dose. This will often not be realized for decades, when you fall prey to of course a “smoking related disease”. How many mothers think little of sitting at a bus or train station with their children never realizing the harm. Do you have an air miles card in your wallet? Jet fuel is substantially more dangerous yet Healthcare advocates so concerned with your welfare seem to be asleep at the switch. Who will protect airline passengers and employees in the future? The first “public health” group who figures out how to profit from the advocacy will have us all grounded.
This article from the UK describing a book by the former editor of the British medical Journal makes my point:[29]
Medical Journals Slammed By Former Editor
Tuesday, 19th September 2006, 07:57Category: Healthy Living
Medical journals have become "creatures of the drug industry" rife with fraudulent research and packed with articles ghost written by pharmaceutical companies, an ex British Medical Journal editor has claimed. In a highly critical book Dr Richard Smith, who edited the BMJ for 13 years, said: "Medical journals have many problems and need reform. The research they contain is hard to interpret and prone to bias and peer review. The process at the heart of journals and all of science, is deeply flawed." Dr Smith, author of a new book entitled 'The Trouble with Medical Journals' and now chief executive of United Healthcare Europe, said the book was an honest analysis of trends in medical journal publishing and a frank account of his own experiences as editor of the BMJ. He said: "It is increasingly apparent that many of the studies journals contain are fraudulent, and the scientific community has not responded adequately to the problem of fraud."He added: "I went away to Venice to write this book and I was rather taken aback by how negatively it turned out. When I put together all the evidence on journals I was surprised by the extent of the problems." Dr Smith went on: "Medical journals have increasingly become creatures of the drug industry. The authors of studies in journals have often had little do with the work they are reporting."The use of ghost writers by pharmaceutical companies is rampant and many studies have conflicts of interest that are not declared." He estimates that research fraud is probably common in the 30,000 or so scientific journals published throughout the world.The book, published by the Royal Society of Medicine Press, cites a number of dramatic cases of questionable research including Dr Andrew Wakefield's MMR paper published in the Lancet in 1998 that cast doubts on the safety of the triple vaccine which protects against measles, mumps and rubella. The same journal published a study six years later concluding there was no evidence to support a link between MMR and autism.Dr Smith says a study funded by Vioxx maker Merck and Co and published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2000 failed to mention that three patients suffered heart attacks while using the now withdrawn painkiller. And earlier this year, South Korean human cloning pioneer Hwang Woo-suk was fired from his professorship at Seoul National University following allegations he faked some of his research. The Trouble with Medical Journals examines the important relationships between journals and patients, the mass media, pharmaceutical companies, open access and the developing world. Dr Kamran Abbasi, editor of the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, said: "Medical journals influence policy makers, doctors, and ultimately patient care, the best example is the MMR crisis. Richard Smith's book tells it like it is and the truth hurts — money can corrupt science and medical research." Matthew Worrall, of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said they took research fraud "very seriously indeed."He said: "We support the need for quality peer-reviewed journals and the full publication of trial results. Last year there was an international agreement for clinical trial registrations so all trials would be registered and not only those that made it into medical journals. "We have a stringent code of practice and are the leading detector of research fraud. In the last five years we have taken more cases to the General Medical Council than anyone else."Dr Smith worked for the BMJ for 25 years, and was editor and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group between 1991 and 2004
Research
1] Silencing science: PDF
2] http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/defense.html
3] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/marketsoc/index_e.html
4] http://www.cmpmedia.com/resources/res_whitepapers_main.jhtml
5] http://www.dna13.com/about_library.html
6] http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/c903ce.html#0.2.2Z141Z1.NBS3AG.68WQBF.V
7] http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/vs-sb/voluntarysector/voice/#snav
8] http://www.hta.ac.uk/execsumm/summ727.htm
9] Not safe" is not enough
10] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/tobac-tabac/media/tidc-cdit_e.html
11] http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/vs-sb/voluntarysector/publications/national_inventory/index.html
12] http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/14/suppl_2/ii38
13] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/marketsoc/socmar-hcsc/tobacco-tabac_e.html
14] http://www.cigi05.org/news/warm_reception/
15] http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/06/smokefree_womb.shtml
16] http://www.grassroots.com/;jsessionid=VRF33EGZRKHX0CQQPABCFEY
17] http://www.whsc.emory.edu/_releases/2002april/smoking_costs.html
18] http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/08/rwjf-actual-local-smoking-ban-grants.html
19] http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/20-3/b_e.html
20] http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sammec/overview.asp
21] http://www.who.int/hia/en/
22] http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1445
23] http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/BMSG_AccelerationReport.pdf
24] Tobacco-specific nitrosamines in European and USA cigarettes.
25] http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/20/1/133
26] Tobacco-specific nitrosamines
27] http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html
28] http://www.factnet.org/coercivemindcontrol.html
29] http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=RO1929177J
30] http://www.who.int/about/en/
31] http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/13
32] http://www.activistcash.com/index_foundations.cfm
33] http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/
34] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press03152006.html
35] 35 Billion Dollar expenditure
36] Phillip Morris company
37] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/marketsoc/whatis-qui_e.html
38] http://www.junkscience.com/news/sws/sws-introduction.html
39] http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html
40] http://cantiloper.tripod.com/canti2.html
41] http://www.antibrains.com/
42] http://www.thetruthisalie.com/
43] http://www.davehitt.com/nov02/nicotine.html
44] http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110002624
45] http://www.davehitt.com/may99/modest.html
46] http://www.davehitt.com/toc.htm
47] http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html
48] http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/collections/epidem/epid.shtml
49] http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/9/1/95
50] http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tobac-tabac/legislation/reg/indust/index_e.html
Monday, October 09, 2006
Monday, July 24, 2006
Political science has it's drawbacks
A lot of conspiracy theories are based in the who is watching the watchers routine, reminiscent of an old movie favorite Abbot and Costello in “who’s on first” which years later could be the source of connected comedy in describing the WHO and where they stand. the WHO as in, short for the World Health Organization.
The WHO as a consensus science promoter which if taken in proper perspective as the political view, have little to say in credible physical science, or in their ability to account for why they have failed so miserably with the resources at their disposal, to accomplish all that much in reduction of mortality where it is really needed desperately. Aside from the building of a huge robot like subservient bureaucracy. They continually ask for increased funding, which they in turn find creative ways of wasting while avoiding the issues, giving rise to the concerns they are entrusted and paid to resolve. The WHO has been largely ineffective in reducing mortality to any significant degree since their formation. In fact had it not been for the absolute confidence participating nations had, the WHO would have not been able to manufacture what amounts to an un necessary increased mortality due to bungling and extremely large egos of politicians, being placed in charge of tasks they are clearly not qualified or motivated to accomplish.
We see shining examples of the WHO failures to focus, in private aid agency commercials begging funding while showing us the evidence of the Who’s failures of starving and diseased inhabitants of third world countries, who for decades too long have been ignored while the WHO sidetracks itself in aid of large corporate NGO partners and stakeholders, growing fat bottom line increases at the expense of those unfortunate enough to be assigned to the WHO’s care. Creating pandemics in fat control, tobacco control, global warming and a host of other alternate paths will keep the unfortunates waiting their turn in the growing list of prior commitments indefinitely, after which [assuming the after ever occurs] they may be allotted a glance if any of these desperate souls actually survive. In industrialized nations the dissection of existing mechanisms of internal protections in the name of globalist competitiveness, are sure to bring the rest of us closer to those unfortunates. As the WHO screams for higher taxation and promotes fear and intimidations of elected officials to accomplish their immediate stated goals. All the while depreciating personal economies along with standards of living the primary determinants in health; not only of individuals but society as a whole. The WHO plows on, tremendously increasing mortality and disease in their wake. Punishing the victims of unsafe products while protecting the assets of those who produce them. Tobacco products could be made safer if the WHO were common sense driven, in regulating the products and not punishing the users, mortality and morbidity could have been decreased significantly. The new chant is “Fat is the new tobacco” Fat is not causative of a tremendous suffering waiting for a slow death from malnutrition, yet still the WHO are allowed to beat their own drum and sing their own praises while the rest of us are forced to listen and governments continue to maintain that unrelenting trust in a monumental failure, causing more pain and human suffrage than ten of Hitler’s Germanys.
All disease is easily tracked when properly defined. the WHO seems to have an uncanny ability in naming every health concern as a disease vector, regardless of how many dimensions that disease may entail. Dealing with all connections to human health as a two dimensional disease tracked by etiological, case control or relative risk perspective. This has enormous restrictions in science based credibility. Insignificant research findings should be given little weight in assessments of proof seen realistically as signals of direction. Inexplicably the majority of the assessments they produce are based entirely in this marginal level of proof. The epidemiology process can never create proof to any significant degree when the results are accepted with any positive correlation, while research is similarly rejected in the absence of that positive result. The obvious result would be, to simply not report negatives in avoiding what is determined to be a failure in the hunt for proof. As possible embarrassment in discussing the findings with their peers who have a mindset demanding no doubt exists, all reports must be consistent or deemed to be flawed. The multiple dimensions of mortality studies in non disease categories are simply not well researched in correlation studies. Non linear associations derived in this way as proposed recently by the American EPA and Surgeon Generals office adds significant complexity in public understanding and analytical methods. Use of case controls to support non linear associations in the hodgepodge IARC reporting processes simply have little weight or credibility. The level of shoehorning in respect to such disease categories as Melanomas, Colorectal, Nose, cardiovascular even SIDS thrown in for good measure and the more recently discounted cervical cancers seen as caused by ETS [second hand smoke] are hard to review with a straight face.
In a review of the IARC report which connects many suspected cancer categories to smoking and through those associations of course connected with determined reasoning, the exposure is much less however no other explanation was seen, in discounting all possible alternate causes. The use of Cox regression was helpful in asserting their case in connecting side stream smoke [ETS] to those same cancers which create a new reality in preventing surmised mortality derived of ETS, in the absence of real bodies. ETS mortalities which truly exist only in estimated numbers. A lot is lost in common sense and reasoning abilities of those involved although I am certain those lapses of judgment had a lot more to do with medical training and almost religious following in the ideal smoking is the most prevalent cause of all cancers. Almost from the time someone is old enough to understand the meaning of the word cancer we have been inundated with the fact smoking causes cancers. So much of this truth telling over the past 50 years there is an almost unanimous belief there could be no other cause despite constant research to that theory’s exclusion. In this paper I will attempt to investigate an alternate reality although I am certain the logic will neither be well received or welcome, None the less I will venture on sacred ground in seek of a new path.
Science has continued to confound the cancer experts for more than what would be considered a reasonable length of time. The insanity theory of replication expecting a different result is coming dangerously close to the medical and research community who have although many angles and methods have been applied failed to decisively prove anything substantial in the mysteries connected to cancers so on they go replicating the same research time and time again waiting for the proof to surface which agrees with what they believe. Prior to 1920, Cancers were all but non existent. Something significant happened in the past century which continues to baffle the legions of those dedicated to what that may be. The dead horse cigarette has been beaten beyond reason with no other options researched to the degree of this single forgone conclusion. The categorization of extended ETS abilities as a sole cause of all disease and human suffrage in non smokers, seems to be lacking credibility in a number of ways which will be discussed.
Cox regression seems to be the most viable method in getting to the facts by eliminating to the conclusion. The flaw is the regression seems to start with too many eliminations already foregone. Lung Cancers are an excellent case in point in following the process. Not having the numbers or resources available in a crack team of diligent researchers at my disposal, I will have to make due with what is available in the public domain.
Lung Cancer as it involves introduction of toxins primarily through inhalation, I would have to investigate the possible causes where respiratory pollutants entering the lungs through inhalation seem to be the prime suspects, In the elimination of suspected categories momentarily such possibilities as weight and inactivity although factors, would not immediately be seen to be directly be responsible for that existence of physical elements which may damage genes and start the process within the lungs. Secondary associations could include as well; poverty and race or predisposition not derived of race.
Top on my list of causative factors would be any chemical capable of causing cancers which could travel into the lower reaches of the lungs which is a common trait of the current majority of large cell Lung cancers which are the most prevalent and associated with smoking. This tendency was not always the case, when Doll connected cancers to smoking the small cell cancer variety were much more prevalent and common with smokers. The Cancer societies explained the change as the switch post 1960 to filter type cigarettes taking away the harshness and allowing deeper inhalation in addition to PAH reductions in filter use. Post filters we see small cell cancers a rare occurrence in smokers. More on that later. Possible inhaled categories would have to see diesel fuel exhaust at the top of our list The virulent nature of this carcinogen although ignored for decades it is unbelievable so little has been researched and how little is actually known. The addition to the known carcinogens list despite volumes of past evidence is surprising in the length of time Diesel has slipped under the radar, chemical rich cleaning products air deodorizers and perfumes and colognes including musk are also high on my list of suspicions. The cancerous nature of interactions of chlorine and organic materials in the production of Dioxins, adds chlorine and its growing use. For that matter all of the aforementioned items have increased in use dramatically, while cancer prevalence rose, while only cigarette use declined. This leaves one to ponder if smoking is the most likely to be the first to be eliminated although I will leave it alone for the moment. The unscientific classification of Tobacco smoke as a single product adds to the complexity of the task at hand almost to unimaginable proportions due to the possible combinations of what that smoke may contain.
James Repace made a statement to the IARC panel, the committee were concerned with the low numbers in their decision to class ETS as a carcinogen. He stated if a truly unexposed control group could be found the numbers would be much more significant. The list of case control research they considered and a meta analysis mentioned were in fact in large part flawed.
It does not require a large amount of common sense to realize; If the comparison to a group who were exposed and assumed to be not exposed, found a correlation; 100% of the result found would have to be known to be miscalculations in confounding, and entirely a result of other causes. With the new confounding weight, applied no correlation between ETS and cancer actually exists.
Many case control studies and large cohort studies which included the population group prior to 1960 ignored the fact the control subjects despite the inquiries made were poorly classified, and known to be exposed to a much greater degree than what would be normal today. Any in the control group who frequented movie theatres, traveled on busses planes trains, Those who shopped in supermarkets attended community events or conventions all would have been exposed in a few hours a week to more ETS than if they had lived with a smoker for an entire month.
It was just good manners when having dinner parties, which were much more frequent then, to offer an ashtray to guests even if no one in the house normally smoked. Men would retire to smoke after dinner for hours of war stories while the women cleaned up the dishes and had a story swap meet of their own, accompanied with drinks and ashtrays on the table for smoking guests. Twenty to thirty years later in a politically correct atmosphere, with all around them laying the blame of disease on smoking, with opinions of disdain firmly in the media daily, non smokers would predictably proudly defend their integrity in statements they did not smoke in their homes or live with a smoking spouse. The eventual use of the CPS11 study to ad credibility to ETS as causative of disease, relinquishes associated research which failed to confound for the significant error. Gyration toward denial of how things really were prior to 1960, is no great secret. This revealed case control studies including the CPS11 were entirely flawed as were a lot of pre and post CPS11 theory in case control research with no legitimate control groups defined as unexposed.
The disease outcomes may heavily lead to smoking as a cause as others thought to be unaffected would escape scrutiny and may well have been assigned to categories of mortality not included in the research when investigating death certificates within the study group defining smoking spouses and non smokers they are compared to. This may well have increased the effect of evidence of ETS harms although no assessments of other factors in relation to mortality and morbidity, would ever have been seriously investigated which could have resulted in conclusions pointing in another direction entirely depending on other inhaled exposures considered and the weight with new numbers they would compare in the individual studies to date which relied on CPS11 type calculations and conclusions relating to almost a complete population exposure to ETS prior to 1960. The current conclusions of ETS as a cause of many diseases can not credibly use the most studied group in assessments of mortality, Morbidity and the costs of smoking in the universal application of SAMMEC as a causative model. Can the conclusions made to date be justified when the studies predominantly were done in the perspective of having obtained “legitimate controls”, when in fact few actually existed within a 54% smoking prevalence. How could any who intermingled in an unrestricted smoking allowed community claim to be unexposed?
The scientific community the American medical community in particular are highly influenced also by industry. This influence along with a century of stoic control in acceptable theories has played a large part in primarily forming opinions and distributing those opinions to the public. Large industries investing 50% of income in philanthropy avoid their fair share of taxation, funding infrastructure they could not survive without. The use of these charity dedicated funds are for the most part not invested in what most consider charitable cause,. more predominantly when not manipulating stock markets when huge investments move. They invest in political activists involved in parallel charities and non profits which see the world within perspectives advantageous to corporate profitability. Permanent medical charities competing for the funds of the behemoth foundations will of course align their own eyesight within perspectives of that, which will allow themselves to be considered worthy of investment. MADD relies heavily on sponsorship of General Motors who obviously like the idea of downplaying actual mortality numbers concluding speed and dangerous driving account for many more deaths than the current public perception created through MADD as drunk driving being anywhere close to the actual death rates observed. All North American manufacturers have played up the aggressive driving excitation as a tool to increase sales of sporty and over powered passenger vehicles.
The medical reality is we speak in unison and those who do not, will be dealt with severely. Medical confidence and advancement or prominence In the field of research depends entirely on citations of leaders in the field. Acceptance into the club requires strict adherence to the approved mindset. When those leaders issue a call for more convincing evidence smoking is the leading cause of cancers the results are understandably predictable. This as awareness increases in a revolution of an internet provided information age, Is decreasing the overall credibility of legitimate research. The public can no longer define the difference between political or scientific opinion. When governments join in graying the understanding we have to as a population extend the mistrust to elected officials and in turn political systems as a whole which are seen to be corrupted beyond comprehension. An ideal situation for the small group who control the majority of wealth however the danger of that group shrinking leaves us all more at risk today than we were prior to the great depression as a result of a couple of miscues of those few who controlled far to much.
Many, wishing to be wealthy, mindsets are also driven in stock market values, even if seen as unintentional. A wish for an investment to do well, and the dream of new Porsche if that were to happen, can not be seen as totally without bias. Researchers when declaring conflicts as research is published sometimes miss the point, primarily conflicts are defined as direct funding sources however stock holdings or options are rarely if ever disclosed. All too often convenient research is reported just as a pharma group is launching a new product or seeking to increase sales through an expensive advertising campaign.
I recently reviewed a study by Richard Doll one of many he did in the field of smoking related mortality. This study completely reversed his previous views in relation to the effects of ETS. The study seemed to lack a lot of his lifelong adherence to rigid observational research seen more as a political statement than actual research as no new research was presented. The article itself I found to be a wealth of facts not common in the public domain. What I found as well was a twisting and contorting to establish causation of a number of cancers in almost inconceivable ways many when compared to each other conflicted previous conclusion determinations in stating a cause could now with his permission replace association in a list of new ETS causative diseases. In review of leukemia research of the two types Myeloid and lymphatic shown in table two in the three large studies presented, the assessment only Myeloid could be considered causative despite in the studies, anything but consistency is demonstrated. In review of one study current smokers have less risk than ex smokers and light smokers had a negative result indicating decreased risk. Radioactive isotopes and benzene, the only two known toxins in the smoke related to leukemia reinforced with an incredible statement no other cause of leukemia is known which could confound the results. The two known causes in tobacco smoke are curious in he failed to recognize a universal exposure to both exists in total population from other much larger sources. The radon daughters have been eliminated in most tobacco crops by simply restricting soil conditions, the fertilizers and pesticides in use. Dispelling a large part of the urban myth there are no safer cigarettes. The assessment of the causative nature in less than significant case control findings in addition to citation of miniscule studies including less than 100 participants can not be considered credible in assessment beyond the fact more research needs to be completed, prior to making lasting conclusions. Conclusions which will no doubt be cited in further research interpretations elevating the weights of marginal proofs.
Quoting from the report. “two known leukaemogens: namely, radioactive
isotopes of polonium and lead and benzene. The former, which derive"
principally from phosphate fertilisers, are minimal in amount (of the
value of 0.01 Bq per cigarette, of which one fifth may be inhaled1) and the
latter is likely to be the more important. According to Hoffman and
Hoffman44 the consumption of 20—40 cigarettes a day exposes a smoker
to between 1-3 mg of benzene which, according to calculations made for
the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health45 might,
over a 40-year period, increase the risk of leukaemia by about 10%.“
Some of the revealed facts included only one fifth of a cigarette total smoke is actually inhaled. This would reflect on studies which consider the total smoke toxins as a potential risk and the potentials in dose response which are often inflated. Benzene a known carcinogen is only considered a credible cause of cancer in a 40 year lifetime of inhalation in the volumes present in a cigarette . This does of course depend on a belief the entire amount inhaled stayed within the body long enough for a hazardous level to be attained. The secondary causative categories are only supported by as he states insignificant proof. He is quoted as stating a 20% increased risk is highly insignificant. Also stated in some disease categories actual incident of diseases with insignificant numbers shown will affect a miniscule level of the population and confounding effects can not be eliminated in established causative conclusions. More recent research in the effects of outdoor particulate matter in particular the study of diesel exhaust which determined may be causative of as many as 78% of all outdoor related mortality. The six cities study revealed a 26% disparity of primarily smoking related diseases in most and least polluted cities which if population statistics in the disease categories were reviewed may close the gap significantly in unexplained disparities between more and less industrialized communities regardless of smoking prevalence in viewing disease prevalence assumed to be confounded by race. Diesel exhaust also includes dioxins and benzene as does gasoline, all garden centers sell phosphate fertilizers which are also used extensively in farming food crops. These sources are without doubt significant confounders he denied existed. Most of the primary causative categories are given credibility by large cohort studies which in the most part do not question the participants in exposures to other toxic substances. None were asked how often they ride to work in a diesel powered vehicle or how many times a week they gas up their car and inhale the fumes. This would establish large exposures to high levels of benzene as one part per hundred in gasoline or exposure to diesel exhaust which is highly carcinogenic.
In the assessment of tobacco exposures the level of exposure and duration is absolutely highly associated to disease outcomes. These conclusions are observed in the 90th percentile of smokers being afflicted with related diseases in later life beyond 60 years of age. Many of the studies cited claim effect of smoking in as little as 10 years. The incidence of Liver cancers in a related report which has a few more facts to consider Fluke OV parasites which are known to be carcinogenic are linked to smoking which is said to increase risk despite also stating the prevalence of smoking has increased dramatically and only use of the larger numbers of incidence can the link be established. The same study reveals the ingestion of raw fish in the north of Thailand has resulted in huge liver cancer mortality particularly in the northern province. The culture of the ingestion of infested fish should be seen absolutely causative regardless of smoking however when there is a will there is a way. Smoking may indeed enhance the danger however in the rest of the country this does not appear to be consistent despite the fact they also ingest the fish raw however the source of fish may hold a larger portion of the blame. The study found here has an interesting chart attached which could be substantial proof in relation to the real weight of Lung cancers derived of smoking, the chart demonstrates clearly regardless of prevalence more industrialized areas of the world carry the heaviest burden of Lung cancers in startling numbers inconsistent with the theories of the largest medical organizations on the planet As smoking being the most significant cause of Lung cancers. The chart description explained here. clearly indicates the 25 year reductions of smoker prevalence in North America paralleled a continual rise in cancers in particular lung Cancers
“Lung cancer has been the most common cancer in the world since 1985,17 and by 2002, there were 1.35 million new cases, representing 12.4% of all new cancers.”
as we sit In 2005 –2006 at the peak of the predicted mortality curve associated with those born prior to 1945 and who would have been 15 years of age or older in 1960 in the highest smoking prevalence in history A group targeted in the CPS11 research and SAMMEC based on fractions created from CPS11 data the group will continue, of those who are predicted to, die of smoking related diseases for the next 14 years. A review of other charts at the same source web page reveals smoking as a cause is anything but a consistent cause in other regions. If we took a mean of prevalence per hundred thousand and compared it to the disease outcomes we could understand quickly smoking is given much more weight than it is due in the true level of outcomes it is capable of claiming, which could not exceed the lowest prevalence rate in comparison of countries not affected by secondary factors or confounders associated with exposures not seen in lower cancer prevalence regions . The theory of predisposition according to race would indicate some races are more immune than others, but only if they live in their native countries. This could seriously disadvantage those of the eugenics belief, who in misguided pride believe their genetic abilities to be superior. In light of the under developed countries their tends to be proof although they are unable to rise above poverty with lower education and lack of financial advantages, they have somehow risen above physical detriments. Socioeconomic disparities in developed countries seem to extinguish this tendency as the prevalence of all disease mortalities seems to be heavily weighted in favor of the economically advantaged in those regions although the poor far outnumber the rich and the poor live and work In much less desirable areas exposed to much higher levels of toxins.
Smoking has occurred for hundreds of years the advent of filters reduced the incidence of small cell Cancers significantly. The belief is the filters because of deeper inhalations increased Andiocarcinomas related to nitrosamines. The simple explanation in non developed countries filters are used less does not explain why small cell cancers are not any more prevalent in those regions than in more developed nations with equal or less smoker prevalence. The vast differential between countries has never been adequately explained however few in developed countries are exposed on a daily basis to cleaners and deodorizers or the level of fossil fuel off gasses as they are routinely and without concern in more developed regions. In The orient and Indo Eurasia the daily use of incense is beyond examination or the toxins similar to all organic toxins including wood burning are becoming more of a concern with the rising price of heating fuels. Of note the disease outcomes of these toxins do not have the long term effects attached we believe are associated with smoking, disease outcomes are much swifter in carcinogenic outcomes.
No political statement can undermine the deceit in the statement there is no safe cigarette their certainly are safer cigarettes a point concealed and in some cases adamantly denied. Nevertheless reduced PAH [One of James Repace’s favorite tools of fear mongering] levels in primary smoking reduced by ninety percent, all but eliminated small cell cancers among smokers. Repace in evaluating the ventilation systems at the Burswood Casino revealed in measured levels of particulate matter he refers to as RSP the PAH he estimated to be in the room at .08% or 163 nanograms a level he stated was 10,000 times known safe levels when smoking was removed still had 9 nanograms which by his calculations was 250 times the known safe Levels, despite what the rest of the researchers have concluded. The fact there is a ninety percent decrease in the inhaled smoke due to filters and the lower temperature burn has allowed the promotion of the idea second hand smoke is more dangerous. The fact non smokers are not experiencing an increase of the small cell cancers believed associated with the PAH inhalation or no large incidence occurred during the sixties when exposure could not be avoided suggests; even in the smokiest bar or bingo hall, the air dilution is sufficient to reduce the level of carcinogenic harm derived of PAH to insignificant levels. Selection of tobacco plants used, can largely reduce the second carcinogen path to large cell cancers more related to the nitrosamines in NNN and NNK carcinogens. Proof can be found in numerous research studies including a few by the WHO and American CDC which are not widely discussed while promoting ETS harms which if the product were regulated would remove most of the statistical proof ETS could ever be considered more than an irritant certainly not a significant carcinogenic risk as promotions have described.
Proof? try this on for size.
Use of a more dangerous products in both PAH in non filtered cigarettes and TSNA in filtered manufactured brands total cancers are still as with all non industrialized countries well below averages
Of industrialized countries regardless of smoker prevalence. In this case, prevalence remains only two thirds below American averages however cancers are reduced by half. In Lung cancers as seen on the chart vary by country from Eastern Europe at 65.7 male and 8.7 female to American rates per hundred thousand at 61.2 male and 35.6 female at the other end of the scale West Africa at 2.5 male and .6 female. These figures come no where close to smoker prevalence as an explanation. In third world countries smoker prevalence remains high the product is much cheaper and relieves hunger pains resulting in children smoking rates much higher than all of the industrialized countries in many cases, yet Cancer rates remain relatively low.
“In Thailand the annual consumption per adult (
=" shapes="_x0000_i1025" border="0" height="12" width="9">15 years of age) of manufactured cigarettes has increased from 810 in 1970–1972 to 1050 in 1990–1992 and of unmanufactured cigarettes to ~1000 in 1994 (1). The age-adjusted lung cancer mortality rate (100 000/year) in Thailand has increased from ~11.0 to 25.0 in males and from 6.3 to 12.1 in females (2). For comparison the cigarette consumption per adult in the USA in 1970–1972 was 3700 and gradually decreased to 2670 in 1990–1992, while the age-adjusted lung cancer mortality rate in males increased from 46.8 in 1970–1971 to 57.1 in 1988–1991 and in women from 11.0 to 24.7, respectively (1,3,4).”
“Table I
presents the comparison and ranking of tar and nicotine levels of Thai cigarettes in relation to total VNA and total TSNA. The best selling commercial cigarette brands, Khrong Thip 90, Falling Rain 90 and Gold City 90 delivered average values per cigarette for the highest smoke yields of tar (24.7 mg), nicotine (2.31 mg), total VNA (76.7 ng) and total TSNA (1,055 ng). By comparison with smoke analyses of the leading US cigarette in 1995 (which have yielded 16 mg tar, 1.1 mg nicotine, 12.5 ng VNA and 600 ng TSNA per cigarette), the smoke yields for these Thai cigarettes are regarded as very high. The current findings complement earlier studies (33,34) which have indicated very high levels of nicotine and tar in the smoke of major brands of commercially produced Thai cigarette
” In several countries, the changes in the make-up of filter cigarettes have brought about increased smoke yields of VNA and TSNA, whereas the yields of carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) have decreased (22). Future investigations should lead to practical measures towards reducing the exposure to both carcinogenic PAH and nitrosamines. However, abstention from tobacco or cessation of tobacco use are the only measures of certainty with regard to risk reduction. Nevertheless, reduction of exposure to tobacco carcinogens can be accomplished by product modification. VNA and TSNA can be reduced by selecting lighter tobacco blends with low levels of preformed TSNA, and by selecting tobacco laminae and ribs that are low in nitrate, and thus have reduced nitrosation potential for amines in tobacco”
Again here
“Reduction of TSNA exposure can be achieved by selecting tobaccos with low levels of preformed TSNA in tobacco, which means a low nitrate content and reduction of the amount of Burley tobaccos and stems in blended cigarettes.”
And here
“no correlation was observed between tar delivery and mainstream smoke concentration of N'-nitrosonornicotine (NNN) and 4-(N-nitrosomethylamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK). Therefore, although crucial, tar delivery alone is not a sufficient index for the carcinogenic potential of cigarette smoke. It is proposed that TSNA concentrations be determined for characterization of the carcinogenic potential of cigarettes with low and ultra-low tar yields and that these be declared by an additional and adequate parameter. The mainstream smoke concentrations of NNN and NNK are given by the amounts of preformed compounds in tobacco, which is dependent on the nitrate content of the tobacco and the tobacco type. A further important determinant of the exposure of smokers to TSNA is the total volume drawn through a cigarette while smoking, which is dependent on puff volume and puff frequency and which directly influences TSNA transfer. Smokers inhale higher volumes when smoking low-nicotine cigarettes, so that low NNN:nicotine and NNK:nicotine ratios result in decreased exposure to TSNA. Reduction of exposure to TSNA can be achieved by selecting tobaccos with low levels of preformed TSNA (low nitrate content, small amounts of burley tobaccos and stems) and by manufacturing cigarettes with low NNN:nicotine and NNK:nicotine ratios.”
In fact 214 related items also tend to agree
Regulating the product will save a lot more lives more immediately than punishing the users of the product will result, in the next 50 years. The damage to scientific integrity in adapting political creations stimulating fear and mistrust in communities may never be repaired even in the same 50 years. The public no longer can distinguish between political spin and scientific dispensations a level of mistrust is forming in perceptions of both the politicians such as Repace, Glanze and Vansant who will always be politicians and perceived with credibility to match. The foundations of science and medicine singing in harmony in not peer reviewing and discrediting what is not appropriate, appear to endorse and rubber stamp all the perceptions the politicians create.
Today we hear brave little politicians around the planet vowing to punish smokers in hopes of reducing the [name a number] preventable deaths. To reduce the costs of healthcare described in SAMMEC studies. To increase the profits gleaned from abusive taxation well beyond healthcare costs with the aid of SAMMEC exaggerated more than 10 times what is actually spent in assessing wages of smokers insolent enough to retire or die prior to 85 years of age as a debt to society which for some twisted reason should be paid by smokers before they die. Those brave politicians singing the praises of hatred and discontent, sending a divided population upon itself and reveling in the accolades of WHO like self important fame.
In the wider perspective how many of those preventable deaths are really preventable and how many will in fact be reduced while the product is ignored and many places such as Canada have dropped trade barriers and allowed more dangerous products to flow across the boarder to compete with safer products which existed for decades. The lower priced products are driving regulated farmers out of business, the tobacco companies increase profits once again while consumers with no informed consent are sold a product with highly increased toxic content. The medical community stands silent and cheers the move while attempting to claim mortality and morbidity rates are important to them. The reductions in prevalence it seems will occur as a result, as with AIDS in Africa, after the majority of the victims die not as a result of proactive efforts in dealing with an unsafe product. A product which can be made much safer when ever there is a motivation to do so. A move which would be an unpopular move in the current political witch hunt environment, spear headed by industry inspired radicals. The ban fans who declare smokers have no rights to employment, housing, Medical care or even to the access to their own children. Those who demand smokers be criminalized for an addiction alone, such statements in a caring and just society with rules for other addictions, which would not allow such targeted hate in fact similar acts could themselves result in prosecutions when describing any other group, yet the radicals move forward demanding an increased level of hate be promoted in total confidence and with a stamp of approval by those same brave politicians the self acclaimed humanitarians who will seek re-election based in bragging rights for what they have done and how many smokers they have culled.
FXR
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Who is killing whom?
Safer cigarettes unearthed;
Sometimes you have to dig through some pretty smelly stuff to get at the truth, in the wake of unethical politicians. We elect who we think would make the best leaders, yet most often they turn out to be followers basking in the favors provided, in the sharing of the public trough.
Sometimes you have to dig through some pretty smelly stuff to get at the truth, in the wake of unethical politicians. We elect who we think would make the best leaders, yet most often they turn out to be followers basking in the favors provided, in the sharing of the public trough.
Public Health advocates who state there is no safe cigarette intentionally deceive the public, a public who are lead to believe there are no safer cigarettes. Biological measurements moving away from statistics proves the promoted "unavoidable" carcinogenic dangers in cigarette smoke can be reduced significantly by as much as 98% in simply regulating the selection of the tobacco being used. The American CDC and EPA falsely classified cigarette smoke as a single product when in fact the term encompassed thousands of possible product offerings of highly variable levels of risk. This observation is stated as reality of course; if you can believe what you see with your eyes as proof, above the proof of calculations of biased, chemical industry financed, anti smoker advocates, described often as “a growing body of evidence”. More often than not, calculated with risk factors described in the 1986 CPS11 research. As you will soon see the risk factors are misleading, Inaccurate and well out of date. Regardless of reality, the risk factors are used extensively in advocacy, to exaggerate the mortality numbers and give themselves credibility in misguided and dangerous promotions. Promotions which can be proven to be dangerous to public health, for smokers and non smokers alike, because as they say poison is indeed in the dose.
The Canadian Federal Government in allowing unregulated cheap imports of tobacco products to compete with much safer products grown in Ontario. Products produced under strict growing conditions were being replaced with a Federal government blessing. Products which are now including stems and roots. Products grown in areas defined as ecological disasters do not set the plate as ideals in growing conditions for any ingested product especially dangerous in a product ending up inside human lungs. The Federal Government increased the mortality risks significantly while at the same time increasing tax revenues based on a higher risk they in fact created.
The federal government handed Allan Rock 450 Million dollars described in the legislature as funds to denormalize an industry. Rock who had been rejected by the electorate likely because of grossly mismanaging Gun registry funds was given a second chance at mismanagement. and true to form proceeded to denormalize not industry but the people who used their products, largely ignoring the industry who’s profits continued to grow. The promotion of smoking bans were no less than personal attacks, wide brushing smokers as deserving of a less than humane abuse. Both financially and in driving them from hospitality events Health Canada provided promotions of staring at smokers with looks of disdain.
The most prominent of anti smoker advocates promote restriction of access to employment, Housing and even access to their own children despite the lack of calculated risk of children in the presence of smoking parents. The Physicians for smoke free Canada exemplifies the hypocritical nature of this government sponsored farce. Robert Coleslaw oversaw the research at the WHO, which failed in his stated goal to prove any risk in fact existed, despite this fact he speaks regularly distributing facts he knows to be untrue. His partner in crime; Cynthia Collard will tell you adamantly Tobacco smoke contains 5000 deadly ingredients, however quoting from a recent email exchange, she can not tell you what those contents would be, or even the source of the 5000 claim. You would think a group claiming the tittle "physicians" would be more educated in the principles of spectral analysis obviously a technology they would like to avoid for much more than obvious reasons.
"The fifty that are listed on our web-site are the 50 for which there are federal government regulations requiring measurement.
I don't know of a list of the 4,000 - 5,000 chemicals. As I understand it, the quantity of chemicals was determined (many years ago) using a scientific measurement tool that gave a separate frequency for each chemical identified. Because there were 4000+ frequencies determined, they then established that there were 4000 chemicals present.
I don't know exactly what you need this information for, but if it is of a scientific nature, then I would suggest that you search tobacco industry document web-sites. Most of the scientific work done on cigarette smoke has been done by these companies. One site to try is: www.pmdocs.com; another is www.bat.library.ucsf.edu. Another very reliable source of scientific information on tobacco issues is the Surgeon General's reports from teh United States. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports.htm
If you have another requirement, please let me know. Perhaps I can find some information"
Cynthia Callard; Executive Director
Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada
1226A Wellington Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1Y 3A1
SAMMEC increased the claims of cost for political use, by actually estimating lost income of the smokers themselves and claiming those amounts which went 20 years past normal retirement age as a cost to society and not as a cost if any, of the smokers themselves. Claiming smokers lost wages for deemed premature death as a cost to society being assessed against smokers. If you don’t earn it how can you owe it? Why do smokers owe their own wages to society is a point avoided, yet the news broadcasts continue to repeat a ridiculous claim of cost being taxed against the victims of Government use of convenient logic assessments. The second hand smoke and primary smoke risks are exaggerated with such research as SAMMEC which purposefully targets older populations who smoked prior to the time lowered tar content regulations came into effect in the 60s.
The use of the CPS11 risk factors is deliberate use of statistical numbers created in assessing risk prior to the reductions of tar and implementation of growing conditions. By applying risk factors to the current population they are avoiding any mortality reductions which may have resulted from previous efforts to make the product safer. They destroy the credibility of those researchers who produced the science which was used to promote the original restrictions. In so doing the mortality risk has increased while the government pays these advocates hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars to in effect murder thousands of smokers, in a planned deception of the public. They increase the risk in scary stories to the public as proven in alternate assessments of SAMMEC research and the CPS11 risk calculations by as much as 39%. Smokers became the target while abandoning good science which would reduce total mortality of those smokers significantly.
In Ontario the Provincial government in a move to avoid paying their share of Flue curing processes which removed 90% of harmful Histamines, similarly created and promoted a situation in anti smoking advocacy which has put many of the producers who they cheated out of business. Alternate crops were announced to be the saving grace, until the federal government again intervened to destroy farmers who switched, by lowering trade restrictions devaluing the crops many had switched to in moving away from tobacco. Politicians proudly announced smoking bans as a measure to reduce 47,000 preventable deaths irrespective of the fact the bans do not address the issue. Bans are a protection of non smokers who would be much better served by easily obtained reductions of carcinogenic contents of the tobacco they were being taught to fear. The recent surgeon Generals report takes the gloves off depicting smokers as a detestable subclass who should be avoided at all costs. In Canada despite denials this flies in the face of constitutional protections named in sections 12,15 and 52 in protections of personal rights. If smokers can be identified internationally by a single word description they do form a class which is guaranteed protection in the rule of law.
Here is the reality in who is killing who;
There are a number of studies which demonstrate higher NNK and N-nitrosamines (TSNA) are directly linked to the type of tobacco tested. The burning of tobacco alone does not correlate directly to the levels of cancer causing agents in the smoke produced, however the selection of Tobacco is significantly related to the carcinogenic risks present in the smoke. Tests were done in 1990 of 170 brands in Europe and the USA the results demonstrated clearly although we hear about the cancerous agents in the smoke, we do not see an advocacy driven to protect lives by reducing the levels of tar content or by controlling the type of tobacco being used. The definition of Tobacco smoke is misleading and dangerous in not defining the large variety of tobacco being discussed. There are, despite the denials, significant levels of risk variance depending entirely upon the type of tobacco in the cigarette being smoked. The second hand smoke debate relies entirely upon a risk factor which can be reduced enormously perhaps to a point of no measurable risk by simply restricting tobacco products sold
“More than 170 types of commercial cigarettes from several European countries and the USA were analyzed for tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA) in tobacco and mainstream smoke as well as for nitrate in tobacco. The cigarettes included filter and nonfilter cigarettes with different tar and nicotine yields. The observed range for N'-nitrosonornicotine (NNN) was from 4 to 1353 ng/cigarette in mainstream smoke and from 45 to 12454 ng/cigarette in tobacco. For 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK) the values were between not detected (less than 4 ng/cigarette) and 1749 ng/cigarette in mainstream smoke and between not detected (less than 50 ng/cigarette) and 10745 ng/cigarette in tobacco. Nitrate levels ranged from 0.6 to 19.4 mg/cigarette. The TSNA levels for the cigarettes from the different countries investigated were in a similar range with the exception of few individual brands. The results demonstrated that there is no correlation between TSNA and tar deliveries in mainstream smoke. The TSNA deliveries in mainstream smoke depend on the amount or preformed TSNA in the actual tobacco composition, which is influenced by the nitrate level of the tobacco and the tobacco type. According to these results the tar delivery, although crucial, is not a sufficient index for the biological activity and the carcinogenic potential of cigarette smoke. Reduction of TSNA exposure can be achieved by selecting tobaccos with low levels of preformed TSNA in tobacco, which means a low nitrate content and reduction of the amount of Burley tobaccos and stems in blended cigarettes.”
Related articles 270 articles which could be classified as a more substantial “Growing body of evidence” to demonstrate government incompetence is directly responsible for as many as 98% of the 47,000 preventable deaths we hear about in Canada alone, and if 3000 ETS deaths do occur, all can be directly related to the types of unregulated tobacco in use which increased the risk of carcinogenic content tremendously. Smoking bans were never necessary if not for replacing science with consensus and the elevation of radicals to prominent positions stealing the proxy of the real public. Now the politicians battle cry fat is the new tobacco will degrade more of our neighbors promoting the next step in tax revenue increases by design.
Victim bashing by advocates can be seen as criminal coercion resulting in the deaths of thousands, in distributing fears which demote real science for self important promotional activities. The economic costs of those advocates and the damage they cost society would be seen in the Billions of dollars lost in hospitality industries, The increased crime and violence and the incalculable cost of family tensions promoted. Politics being promoted in sending children home from school firmly believing their own parents wished to do them harm. We used to abhor politics in the class room. Teachers used to respect a code of professional ethics restricting such activities. Today children are used regularly to promote political cause.
As quoted in the London Times article “Smoking ban is based on bad science” the following excerpt reveals a lot in motivations for denormalizing smokers and the true agenda no one seems to want to discuss the public secret legitimizing ban technology;
The committee heard that the “main risk” over passive smoking concerned children who are exposed to cigarette smoke in the home — which the Bill was not designed to address. The report said: “It may be that the unstated objective of policy is to encourage a reduction in active smoking by indirect means. This may well be a desirable policy objective, but if it is the objective it should have been clearly stated.”
Advocates who claim to be concerned with the welfare of others yet avoid the obvious in real mortality reductions predicated in scientific technology, are reprehensible Liars who should themselves be classified as “the new tobacco” maintaining 47,000 preventable deaths for fame and fortune. Anti smoker advocates need to be the next targets of denormalization strategies in a poetic justice campaign.
Here is the adjustment for SAMMEC supported in the Callishaw and Lehey report which is mentioned in the 2000 SAMMEC report.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/161/8/787
"Evaluation of SAM estimates has typically been limited to criticism regarding the estimates of relative risks used. For example, following the 1989 Surgeon General's report (4
As for “no safe cigarette” the moral foundation for such a statement is again seen to be deliberate deception;
“The right to health relevant information derives from the principles of autonomy and self direction and has been recognised in international declarations. Providing accurate health information is part of the basis for obtaining "informed consent" and is a recognised component of business ethics, safety communications, and case and product liability law.”
Another questionable advocacy delusion;
Such proposals "push the envelope" of tobacco control into areas where questions need to be asked to ensure tobacco control policies are firmly anchored to scientific evidence and especially concern those who value the freedom of individuals to do what they please to the extent that this does not harm others.2 They invite consideration of whether zero tolerance of public exposure to toxic agents is a reasonable policy for civil societies and whether the loudly proclaimed exquisite sensitivities of a small minority should drive public policy.
Here is the real crime; scientific research Presented by The American Lung Foundation to the EPA 2006. Research information proved without doubt particulate matter in the air to be much more dangerous than properly managed cigarette products. Yet incredibly; to protect political reputations the research was dismissed, despite the reality; they were downplaying physical evidence in favor of consensus rhetoric of fanatical lobbies with little credibility as this document should show. How many will die this year to protect the reputations of criminals?
It will certainly dwarf the numbers associated statistically to smoking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)