Lets clarify the language just a bit.

Introduction

How many times have you heard the terms repeated in Newscasts “New study shows� a 30% increase in risk� Followed by a scary suggestion in respect to your health? In addition the medical Charities when they send you a begging sheet stating studies show in Canada 3000 will die of second hand smoke. How many ever take the time to really think about what you are being told? Perhaps you have too much trust, in those who may no longer deserve that trust.

By definition; statistical significant results.

If asked under oath “if any number created through this process could be wrong� the answer would have to be yes. If asked also under oath “is this number open to interpretation�, thereby making it a political argument, again sadly the answer would be yes. Fuels for ad agency spin, used in mass marketing campaigns to “dominate discussions and eventually dominate decisions� again yes.

Propaganda only works if they can scare you. Nothing is scary here.

The 3000 deaths as above could also read 3000 will be saved in Canada.

The proof? Lets do the math. 3000 in a population of 30 Million would be equal to a relative risk of 100 per million or 1 in 10,000.

Not as scary as we have heard repeatedly 3000 die every year. In fact 1 in 10,000 is the standard for an acceptable risk meaning the risk is negligible. This is not to say 1 person in 10 thousand will die what it means is with a risk of that magnitude in a population of only 30 million, it is impossible to prove anyone will die at all. In order to prove with any significant credibility 1 in 10,000 presents a risk you would need a research group double the population of the USA. In Canada we do not have a test group that large so the theory remains a theory with little sustainable proof. In the research papers an apology needs to be made in order to find support in peer review. Usually expressed as the size of the subject group allows for speculation in the results found. This allows the peer or accomplice to claim plausible deniability should the statistical fact be disproved at some point in the future an escape route in the fine print of the conclusions. Stated just so no one can be said to be; “lying through their teeth�, “as it appears�[Good for the goose…] would be the case.

Full numbers are what you need to listen to percentages should set off the warning bells you are likely being deceived. The malls all have those signs with huge letters announcing “50% off� with little tiny letters saying “up to�. Similarly you are being deceived although not legally but ethically. Most women already know after years of seeing these signs the chances those tiny letters not being there are slim. We all need to sharpen our senses when hearing a percentage of increased risk “be suspicious�.

By the numbers

A 30% increase is a way of avoiding the embarrassment of admitting a speculative range of time and money was invested to determine no conclusive evidence was found. This is not a generalization but the rules of statistical analysis with a standard confidence level a .3 increase is as convincing as a .3 decrease in fact by stating 3000 people will be saved from cancer by inhaling second hand smoke reviewing the same data the second interpretation would be impossible to disprove. If the value of the insignificant positive finding is significantly equal to a similar negative finding, both statements could be argued although neither could validly prove the other was wrong without revealing the combatant is a disingenuous himself. Credibility Stalemate.

The starting point is one, A result of less than 1 is effectively no result which would increase significant evidentiary support for the stated risk in comparison to the control group who would be less likely although not absolutely known to not be affected by the disease with all known confounders taken into consideration. A result increase of less than 1 is very weak, less than 2 would be weak 3 starts to show some promise.

A result of 2 would be reported in the media as a “doubles the risk� This would be untrue the result of 1 is assumed no risk increase. A result of 2 would be infinitely higher or 100% increased risk, although in media circles, after all the previous reports assigning a large fear to a 30% increased risk, a reported 100% increased risk would likely set off a panic. Reporting a 200% increased risk would be met with laughter or puzzlement. This would necessitate an admission of the true level of concern we should assign to the value.

Once the relative value of what that 100% means was more clearly understood the ad agency value to use percentages, deception wise, would substantially be weakened. Use of their own variable terminology would allow a .1 increase to be reported also as doubles the risk, which in fact is closer to the truth although the effect in understanding the risk would also weaken the scary story game.

They would loose their most valuable weapon in raising concerns to aid lobby efforts.

That is not possible they are not allowed to lie.

Most would immediately say; “how could that be so, the broadcast news would not be allowed to lie to us�? Perception of the news being a community spirited event driven by charitable reasoning by someone with extremely deep pockets, as opposed to a highly profitable business deriving income from much more than traditional commercials should be reflected on here, to understand the reality of the situation. Over-reaching [Could be interpreted as lying, You didn’t hear it from me, one of Paul Martin’s favorite phrases] is exactly what they do every day as standard practice, because they know no one is going to do anything about it. The Professionals in Epidemiology know where the money comes from they all have letters after their names to prove they can trump your unschooled opinion they are the experts who are you to challenge what they say? The news networks and politicians are then free to plead ignorance and swear they are not the experts. The legal opinions are based on carefully selected language….The non-committal type. Announcing, “study shows� takes the responsibility away from the author. Using the term “risk� in place of “apparent association� is a multi tool of the con artist trade. If you find a risk of cancer in a specific group due to the existence of two significant similarities through the disease you are able to say one has something to do with the cause of cancer is guilt by association. Simply because two characters or confounders are present does not prove one has any relevance to the other careful language can lead others to believe the research actually proved a connection beyond co-existence.

How do they create the numbers?

Statistically speaking the smoking inverse association to socioeconomic status simply finds the poor uneducated smoke more than the rich educated. Smoking is more prevalent among the lower educated and the poor which the statistics show more often than not, are symbiotic with less education people earn less. This would historically be the favorite target of governments; the largest group with the lowest ability to defend themselves, against excessive cruelty by legislation. Conversely the more educated should earn more. The ability to earn more also has its inherent privileges in legislation and court proceedings more importantly in health outcomes. The implication either you smoke because your not educated to know any better or in a more realistic sense there are simply a lot more people who are less educated and poor. Because smokers contribute to the majority of lung cancers by association we could also say, “If you are uneducated and poor you will be more likely to die of lung cancer�. This can be shown in a scientific way due to the fact most of the population lives in cities and the poor are more likely to be found living in more polluted areas. The rich do not live next to the water treatment plants, which smell like rotten eggs in the summer due to the sulfur content in the air. The chemical factories they have for neighbors with thousands of chemicals and carcinogens heavy metals and soot pluming into the air.

The rich are usually able to get better quality, timely medical and dental treatment and checkups. The golf courses, Health clubs, tennis and squash courts keep them fit. You make due with what you have. When you take home 400.00 a week you do not pay for many 85.00 green fees for a single round of golf. Instead, once a week you have a couple of rounds of beers with the boys, which cost $30.00 at the legion hall and a pack of smokes, which costs $5.00 [I am speaking of the non government issue of course]. Common sense would tell you, being over weight due to a lower grocery budget should result in the larger section of the population, being, well, for lack of a better word larger. Is it any wonder the research is focused on the “Fat is the new tobacco� craze sweeping the planet similar to smoking bans and newly acquired public spaces taken with no compensation to the real owners?

The claims are valid because they sound right

With careful language use.

The bottom line here everyone in the community has been well conned into looking away. The medical professionals and Health care workers will all claim integrity, although we should see they have little to brag about. The Government with 25-year-old computer modeling program running “SAMMEC� which is used to ring up the smokers tax tab, despite the fact science has yet to create a smoking related cancer in a mouse. The ridiculous truth of the matter is that ETS cannot be consistently and significantly proven to have caused anything beyond temporary irritation using epidemiology studies as demonstrated to date. What was given as proof was considered to be proof, because we allowed them too much trust. Standard of living is known to be the best determinant of health. The high cost of food and excessive taxes increase health outcomes in a major way. Current strategies of victim punishment to enforce a new mandate could well prove to cost more mortality than the projects at hand. Medical malpractice and drug reactions are certainly both more deadly than the suggested risks of ETS. Glasshouses are everywhere most of us are not well enough informed to see them.

Selective reasoning Skills

A document I received from the lung association recently states as follows;

Only one in seven survive lung cancer. Help us change the odds. The same document focuses almost entirely on the estimation of 3000 ETS deaths. If you download the PDF listing the 2006 causes of Lung diseases you will discover a multitude of causes rarely mentioned in the news announcements or their begging sheets. The 3000 ETS deaths seem to require a lot more attention apparently. “ Every year over 349,000 Americans die from lung disease – an age-adjusted death rate of 121.4 per 100,000.1 “. One would have to question the intelligence in focusing such a huge percentage of the group’s resources on a category with such a low estimated risk. Estimates described of 3000 in a population over 300 million, if the goal is to change the odds, why is so little effort being focused to achieve those ends? 3000 in 300 million is 30 per million of the 1214 per million shown in the annual age adjusted death rate. No ETS at all would not reduce total mortality odds in any noticeable way.

My personal evaluation of the document seeking donations, leaves me little confidence the actions of this group will produce anything more than political arguments with little effect on individual or overall health improvements. The avoidance of these groups is legendary in not attacking companies causing the most damage, allowing the corporate ability to slip under the regulation process radar screen, through philanthropy donations.

Proof is found in the PDF; although auto emissions were briefly mentioned nothing is being said in respect to Diesel exhaust being also placed on the known class one carcinogens list, with good science beyond calculations to substantiate those actions. Do we see anyone even suggesting warnings be provided to the public in approaching areas were excessive amounts of these carcinogens would be encountered? IE, Bus and train stations. Where are the advocates screaming about excessive mortality of Radon, Depleted Uranium particles or Dioxins? Why has science for the past 40 years avoided the issue of SV40 inoculations?

The low hanging fruit

I have heard the argument many times; ETS can be seen as the low hanging fruit, indicating it will be the easier challenge. With the Billions spent and more than a decade already behind us with no appreciable change beyond that steady decline which existed prior to smoker ban advocates became Rock stars and the Politicians became their groupies. One cannot imagine what the other fruit filled campaigns will cost and how long they will take to implement. Kyoto is off to a questionable start reducing CO2 emissions another low hanging fruit one would presume.

What does this all mean in plain English?

A study as opposed to real research the line has been grayed

A statistical fact is an oxymoron, statistics are estimations, a fact is much more rigid in a measure; consistently reproducible thus a statistic can never be truthfully described as a fact. Epidemiology is mathematical estimation, a research study, traditionally used to track diseases. A research study is not research but an estimation to give direction to research. This would be the preferred method of tailor made fact creation by a politician; no real facts are created however in the ability to manufacture evidence any claim can be created at will. How credible that evidence falls to the investigation of how the evidence was created and how much desire would be applied to uncovering the truth or relative value of the study. When too much credibility is applied to the crafted claims or estimates a dangerous precedent is set. Smoking or fat are not communicable diseases. Epidemiology does not establish facts but directions, which may or may not in physical testing lead to those facts. In relation to direct smoking of tobacco alone; science has yet to validify the public perception smoking causes cancers. The ingredients added would be another story which would have to determine, why the public has no similar perception regarding pot. A scientific fact has one rule to sustain its validity it must be consistently reproducible. Epidemiology is seen by the convenient hoard of studies in the risk of secondhand smoke; as anything but consistent, in anything beyond the low levels of numeric results.

What is presented can never be claimed to be more than a theory. The human intervention in applying weight or inclusion at all of confounders makes the study closer to opinion expressed in numeric terms. The use of the word research is also deceptive what the field is involved in is a study to eliminate possibilities so real research can be made more timely. The elevation of a study to a level above the value of research is highly deceptive and in the current dispensation of personal medical advice can more accurately be described as premeditated fraud.

To apply for funding of expensive physical scientific research, limited research funding has made it necessary to direct that funding to the most significant results of epidemiology calculations. Epidemiology has saved a lot of valuable time and expense in the discovery process. If applying for that funding, if the risk calculations are seen as low, funding is much less likely to happen. A standard result of 3 or a 300% increase in media terms, is a bare minimum where funding would even be considered. In fact of all the major studies done to date connecting ETS to disease there is little doubt the researcher would likely be told “do not call us, we will call you�.

Science takes a new direction of late and bypasses the proof stage by consensus [A room full of parrots and groupies] classifies ETS as a deadly carcinogen as a fact supported solely in ad agency spin, this is disingenuous and fails the test of reproducibility and any degree of integrity. Those supporting the anti smoker advocacy are therefore to be viewed as deceptive politicians in a true sense not interested in the integrity of facts but more interested in poll results indicating an ability to sell speeches to an uninformed public. A public not aware of factual information related directly to personal health decisions in doing so undermining their immutable rights of autonomy.

The following excerpt is from an excellent satirical article explaining this perspective.

How we should gage the relevance in a level of estimated risk.

From a graduate in the field Listed In the references as;

“A document no Lawyer should be without.�

The size of your relative risk is very...no, extremely...no, critically important. The basic rule is simple: the higher the relative risk, the more convincing the association you want to prove.

INTERPRETING RELATIVE RISKS
Relative risk	Interpretation (career implications)
Greater than 3	Strong association (jackpot!)
Between 2 and 3	Weak association (may need life support)
Between 1 and 2	Very weak association (call the coroner)
1	No association (sorry)
Less than 1	Negative association (whoops!)

Now remember, technically a relative risk is only statistical association. It's an apparent relationship between the exposure and disease of interest. Notice the word "apparent" has been struck out. This is not a typo. It's just that you should pretend you never read it. As a matter of science, we really don't know whether the statistical associations identified through epidemiology are real or not. After all, we've only identified them through statistics, and statistics are not science. If science is the sun, statistics are Pluto. In fact, all sorts of wacky associations can be identified through statistics, as shown by the following chart. Tap water and miscarriages, for instance, or whole milk and lung cancer.

SAMPLE STATISTICAL ASSOCIATIONS
Exposure and disease	Reported relative risk (by size)
Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer	1.19
Consuming olive oil and breast cancer	1.25
Vasectomy and prostate cancer	1.3
Obesity in women and premature death	1.3
Sedentary job and colon cancer	1.3
3 cups of coffee per week and premature death	1.3
Birth weight of 8+ pounds and breast cancer	1.3
Baldness in men under 55 and heart attack	1.4
Eating margarine everyday and heart disease	1.5
Drinking tap water and miscarriage	1.5
Regular use of mouthwash and mouth cancer	1.5
Abortion and breast cancer	1.5
Eating yogurt and ovarian cancer	2
Drinking whole milk and lung cancer	2.14
Obesity in nonsmoking women and premature death	2.2
Eating red meat and advanced prostate cancer	2.6
Chlorinated drinking water and bladder cancer	2 to 4
Douching and cervical cancer	4
Workplace stress and colorectal cancer	5.5
Eating 12+ hot dogs per month and leukemia	9.5
Wearing a brassiere all day and breast cancer	12,500

Now between you and me, if you start worrying whether associations you identify through epidemiology make sense, you will never cut it in risk assessment. A well-developed conscience is not necessary here. So for your purposes, you shouldn't really care whether an association is fact or fiction, only that you've found it. But there is this thing called biological plausibility that you will need to remember.

In an “ETS employee health protection� perspective,
What is wrong with this picture?

Saving employees was supposed to be the need for the bans. What has that to do with Tobacco control? One would think Tobacco control would be an issue involving the protection of smokers not of protecting non-smokers from them. Tobacco Industries used to be defined as the bad guys, remember?

Denormalizing smokers defines as real, “the anti smoker� advocacy.

An attack of the individual.

It is well and good to denormalize an unscrupulous industry, when that idea is mistaken for open season on smokers, ethical standards should have been mentioned as a precautionary principle to stakeholders. Apparently the feeding frenzy has drowned out any hope those thoughts will be respected. The reality; most stakeholders have an absolute belief; those who smoke have and deserve no rights. They take great pleasure in verbalizing that belief when ever possible and with absolutely no remorse or fear of retribution. Actually encouraging others to join in the fun in public venues. Decorated heroes of society, proud of themselves and the level of vicious precedents they set for our youth.

The criminal content

In retrospect one has to understand when most smokers started smoking they did so with no knowledge of what combination of ingredients were included in each visually identical package. To this day in North America the contents are still largely a matter of speculation. The Manufacturer is free to experiment with new ingredients as long as the government is so informed. The right of self-determination would show the profiting partners committing crimes against humanity participating in human experimentation without slightest consideration of informed consent. When parallels are drawn to governments acting like Nazis there is good reason to establish the link. Smokers have therefore been designated as not having rights and are ignored when human rights commission complaints are made. This could explain the reason W.H.O., HIA Health interventions direct Anti-smoker stakeholders to exclude a smokers right to speak. “Dominate discussions to dominate decisions� We see little or no smoker inclusion in the process, which is why support to kick them to the street is so easily popular. The rules of civility would see smokers interacting to find inclusive solutions to the satisfaction of all. It is just easier to convince the majority who do not smoke; it is appropriate to hate their neighbors. Didn’t we do this once before about 60 years back? Since that time we have heard the affirmation spoken many times “never again�. Yes, how soon we did forget.

"The great tragedy of Science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact�.-- Thomas Huxley

The truth usually comes to the surface and recently some of the World Health Organizations biggest whoppers were revealed. The Fat pandemic was destroyed 2 years ago with admissions by the CDC they exaggerated the numbers tremendously. The press has been able to keep that fat pandemic fib alive in Canada long enough to pass the Pan Canadian strategy. A highly profitable venture from an industry and Taxation perspective, we now seek through the WHO to encourage the rest of the world to adapt this plan. Not Surprisingly holdout countries are demanding real science be the base of the proof prior to participation. The apparent brain burp of an American Lobby group CSPI the infamous fear mongers of the soda pop trade sponsored by; RJ Reynolds, RW Johnson foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation strange bedfellows indeed. In Canada the separately registered non-profit claims to be solely financed by sales of it’s medical info newsletter and supports the opinion of its “? Million� readers who ever they are. The plan allowing 75% taxes for hamburger a staple in a poor home, to no doubt promote the sale of one of the few alternatives; Kraft dinner, of Philip Morris fame, one of their other more healthy products. Funny how industry denormalization works, [Just when you think you have them on the ropes?]. Kraft is running a commercial currently with a puppet show for the kids explaining the healthy advantages of their cheese dinner product. You would think the Tobacco giant would have learned a lesson about marketing to kids. Stock up, the price will be going up soon. Included in the Pan Canadian plan 300% tax rebates for investments in advertising products deemed “Healthy� foods what ever they decide those, should be is still up for bids.

Now the American Lung association reveals In advocacy to lower permissible limits in air particulate matter, more than triple the deaths associated in the majority to both smoking and outdoor air, than previously believed were due to outdoor pollution, something I believe we knew all along. This of course created two very large holes in the ETS theory with the majority of ETS research done to date, along with many studies buried and not reported showing curative effects. Now the ETS claim needs re-evaluation eliminating the incorrect confounders they used the first time and substituting the new, improved ones, or simply admit the research is now out of date replaced with the new studies showing outdoor pollution to be a higher risk. In mortality figures when you apply the tripled figure some of the death estimates will have to be moved around to make room for tens of thousands of new deaths. Relevant associations will push ETS right off the plate due to consistently weak findings. The Lung Association knowing of the inconsistencies continues to send out the unaltered begging sheets, which should indicate their level of credibility.

The Bird flu “pandemic� that never was; “It’s not a mater of if it’s a matter of when� It was revealed today due to the fact bird flue virus pandemic is highly unlikely to occur. The value of the artificial panic and the cry wolf factor are inversely applied. So much for that scary story and a large part of the integrity in WHO advice. Stay tuned they will no doubt try to keep it alive despite reality in science, they will instinctively attack the messenger, as they have in the past, or simply invent a new pandemic. Making full value of the implications of the now famous word, the fear factor is more credible than the science to sustain their lobby positions. Right under our noses funding is being provided to build a larger gang of public health workers to validify the fear mongering of the rest.

Now the question how do we tell them we are getting sick[Literally] of being lied to?

We only have limited options considering the Media is not going to give up the cash cow.

Anthony Robbins once described the strategy in winning a negotiation is to offer two motivators either pleasure or pain. Lobbies and ad agencies use this all the time. The Lobbies convinced the government to get involved with the [Pleasure] Taxation possibilities and ability to funnel the public purse to organizations benefiting friends in media groups who could reciprocate Gomery style with political branding to enhance political support. Direction of funds to enhance financial investments, which they are also able to personally profit from, is a distinct possibility. Will we ever know who made profits from the income trust scandal? The charities offer us pain with scary stories and victims on TV commercials meant to garner goodwill donations reflecting the best wishes in all of us who do not want to see others suffer.

Back to our side of the road.

We still have some rights for a little while longer I would hope. The autonomy rights violations could be a very useful tool to set the record straight. [Pain] Multiple Canada evidence act and freedom of information act applications need to be made stating clearly autonomy rights provisions demand the disclosure of all information for the past 40 years obtained by the government in respect to specific cigarette ingredients and what harmfull effects they may pose. Refusal to provide full disclosure in scientific terms fails the test of informed consent the right of every person. The changing of ingredients and addition of fire safe paper constitutes human experimentation without informed consent. Allowing of new tobacco sources through imports without full investigation and disclosure would also constitute experimentation. If any documents are to be censured for any reason that reason should be clearly explained. Autonomy clearly supercedes a right to patent or secret ingredients or recipe. All information with respect to harmfull effects would have to had to been known prior to Health Canada's initiation of the Tobacco reduction campaign failing a right to know the ingredients the government has acknowleged; in public statements, website information and through paid advocates, they willingly and with forthought withheld for decades the specific ingredients they knew could cause harm, they now admit the use of Tobacco products caused tremendous harm and mortality, allowing the admitted 47,000 preventable deaths from being prevented. In addition to new admissions of the effects of second hand smoke and estimates of thousands of additional deaths every year, which likely caused more undocumanted death for decades in non smokers. This information is essential so victims of The Canadian Governments recent admissions of harm would be available to all who suffered harm as a result, so application can be made to the Government for compensation of that harm by all victims. Failing the satisfactory resolution of compensation to be used as evidence in associated civil proceedings. If the Government refuses to publicly supply the information a court challenge to enforce the Canada Freedom of information act provisions could be launched setting off a media frenzy speculating on the amount of compensation the government would be liable for. These submissions could also be made by international victims of Canadian tobacco products by anyone who has smelled Canadian Tobacco smoke or purchased the product.

The media groups need to be staring down the double barrel threat of a record setting lawsuit. We start the process by launching official complaints with the Broadcast regulators and the human rights commission. The public has a right to all information concerning their own health we have been getting outright lies and misrepresentations with respect to the risks being exaggerated in the news. Every time you hear a percentage number in one of the horror stories send a complaint and demand the situation be investigated. Tell everyone you know what a percentage means; an embarrassing result which found an idiot willing to pay for it; The federal, Provincial, municipal governments and the army of healthcare providers, who use them for illegal human rights abuses, creating hate and fear in our communities?

Save this document, print it along with all links. Save it as a defense if you are charged with a smoking ban violation. With respect to community good, Smoker bans are shown to be responsible for increased community violence and mortality. The economic costs are immeasurable. With all the evidence, 12 of your peers would no doubt agree.

Legal advice could be sought to write a standard complaint form in the way of a demand to pull the broadcast license of stakeholders in broadcast media due to premeditated criminal activities and civil rights abuses popularly known as Hate crimes. This will hopefully set damage control into play and a hoard of commentaries and special reports will start, shifting the blame to Government, the medical charities and researchers who will be left to battle among themselves to determine what went wrong.

The possible outcomes could include; the bans turn out to be the most embarrassing fiasco to happen in world history. On the other hand, Politicians will, finally see what is good for them; shut up and find a way to get rid of the bans and assign the blame on the lobbies. With immediate regulation to quell the quagmire. It just needs a few dedicated individuals to get it started.

If nothing else the public will not be so easily conned again. Reducing greatly the value of broadcast advertising. I could use a few less TV commercials, couldn’t you?

References

If you read all the information at these links you will be more informed than the American Surgeon General or the Leaders of Health departments worldwide. Not to mention the easily duped popular press.

Learn to be an epidemiologist one the world’s fastest growing Billion dollar industries, as long as everyone follows the leader. That leader is the World Health Organization; the largest industry lobby group in world history.

No Lawyer should be without this Document

Advanced studies to get your license to steal

If you want to be a celebrity god in the healthcare community read this one too

Having found your new vocation some stats to get you started

From the king of spin his favorite proof of indisputable evidence

for evaluation with the above information in hand

When you establish a lie as an accepted fact look how far you can stretch it

Smoking related disease wise the ALA let the cat out of the bag with this one

Not a percentage sign to be found in the reported results perhaps we are seeing something substantive in relation to cause of smoker related diseases. An x% increased risk as opposed to the real number is also known as an embarrassing .3 increase not revealed for obvious reasons, something to do with measure of credibility in the theory.

Convenient targets to create a disease category fact to sell

All of a sudden even the news reports seem to take on a new dimension, Reality

http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/polutionandmortality2003.pdf

Rights of the individual

Research by the World health Organization

The lies were exposed and no one listened now a prediction comes home to roost

New training is available if you also wish to be a lobbyist and cut out the middleman

The new job requirements to be established as a prominent scientist in Healthcare

To further grow your organizations credibility, a dominance factor, training course

Result of the hate campaigns indefensible in any perspective.

Assessing the cost of taxation

The real cost Read also “Letters�

In editorial terms; Question the source and always follow the money

Your rights

“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. The "no safe tobacco" message does not contradict, for example, the mistaken belief that so called light or low tar cigarettes are safer choices than higher tar cigarettes. We encourage a kind of "rule utilitarian" ethical position in which the principle of truth telling is observed while trying to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Although harm reduction approaches to easing the burden of tobacco related diseases are founded on science based comparative risk information, the right to health information is independently related to the need to promote health literacy. This right should be respected whether or not harm reduction policies are judged advisable.�

If you want to pull the fangs out of the vampires sucking the life out of our communities; start by letting the Politicians know what you want. Visit your MP or Congressman; demand a bill be presented as an internal security issue or to eliminate duplication in administration of charity funds, wasting drastically needed funds. All industry charity contributions existing and in future should be placed in a common community fund to be run by elected community leaders, who will assure it goes to real charity and not the “begins at home� kind, currently paying for huge lobby groups stealing your voice in telling the government their version of what you want.

Communities have paid a disproportionate share of taxation for decades allowing Industry to record billions in profits every week while paying little or no taxes. The holdings in North America alone are over 7 Trillion dollars in charity foundations that buys many voices.

Now they want the full control of tax contributions to your government as well. If industries paid a fair share of taxes even a 15% flat tax of gross profits, personal income taxes could be eliminated. The accounting fees of corporations could be simplified saving the corporations huge accounting fees and hopefully cost savings could be passed on to consumers in voluntary price reductions. This could also be encouraged with a little helpful regulation. Greed has it’s limits and we all suffer and many die unnecessarily, while the elite praise themselves as dictators in assessing integrity and common knowledge crafted to protect profits while the working man is forced to pay more, financially and through increased mortality, appropriately coined “Preventable deaths�

This is what I call getting even; we all need a lot more of the “even� part for a change.

Life is far too short to waste it as a slave.

Heresy in the ETS debate?

The American Lung association breaks rank and sings a different tune.

For evaluation and analysis, anyone like to comment?

The spin-doctors will have to work overtime to clean up the latest mess.

Is there any wonder the EPA is ignoring them?

The American Lung association has provided substantial new evidence, which would suggest previous research concluding ETS to be a deadly carcinogen and a major health risk was largely flawed. When taken into consideration the low and inconclusive results of many major epidemiology papers, the new information should prove those associations to be overstated or unfounded. Recent submissions should prove consistently the existence of ETS is likely inconsequential other than an irritant in indoor air, as common sense would dictate.

Recent submissions stating another highly significant co-founder is likely three times as high as previously believed. This allows in a re-examination of previous research, if indeed the research were believed to be credible, allowances would have to have been made for a constant exposure in ambient air. A significant co-founder in previous research, which should indicate constant exposure as opposed to incidental exposure when in contact with ETS, could not possibly be inconsequentially in the results of the calculations. Inhalation exposures to outdoor air as a major component of indoor air cannot be simply dismissed if no analysis was done to differentiate the two. A description of the health effects largely identical to those described consistently in the effects of ETS leave cause for major concern.

As we know from previous research, the value of ventilation is inconsequential in respect to indoor air RSP or the PPAH produced known to be .08% of the former. In short the common belief would be designated smoking rooms, do not offer protection from a hazard ETS is believed to have a safe level of 16.3 picograms per cubic meter of air. Supporting statements, no safe level exists. Are we all doomed or is there cause for hope in reassessing the known facts? These facts as confirmed in research widely accepted in court and Government submissions globally, as shown by one of the more popular lobbyists here. et al Repace 1999 Brook v. Burswood Casino. In a submission August 7 2005 Critical Evaluation of Lincoln Scott’s Burswood Casino Air Quality.

If as the American Lung Association contends Outdoor air is three times as consequential in health risk. The expectation would have to be other risks were largely overstated. With the overwhelming agreement as demonstrated by a ratio of 8 to 1 As explained on the ALA website a ratio of those speaking in favor of lowering the limits of particulate matter substantially. Perhaps the global panic largely created by similar proposals promoting smoking bans can be seen as simply crying wolf, in the absence of other explanations to the contrary. Additionally the 8 to 1 ratio as described could be observed as a proof, in quality as opposed to quantity as a more reliable guide. HIA Health Interventions as abdicated by the Industry financed Lobby group also known, as The World health Organization, may be highly effective in control of decision-making processes. The HIA process is impressive on the surface until you realize what they failed to disclose. The increased embarrassment potential when a theory is found to be wrong or in conflict with another, damage to credibility of ethical standards is greatly increased. Theoretic calculations presented as fact have limits, as there are only so many deaths to go around. Public knowledge created in advocacy is much more wide spread because of HIA and a huge danger is present to credibility of process and all those involved Stakeholders. As in gold rush mentality in get rich quick schemes, they rarely pan out.

The many potential components and many products described by the EPA and others in epidemiology research simplistically as cigarette smoke or tobacco smoke. An ethical malaise exists in the fraudulent representation in the research of the smoke defined as a single dimensional disease vector. This would explain the vast diversity of outcomes as a result of these studies and in perspective how much value they truly represent. In an overall inspection of the outcomes, the larger studies have consistently shown inconclusive results in ETS research.

The WHO study although the conclusions were largely ignored, the findings should have shown; when taken into perspective a margin of error the study was marginal or in respect to curative indications in children’s studies, to be a pretty good indication of the limitations of this research method. Elimination of physical science from the evaluation was deceptive. Research based in environmental controls and ingredients regulations based in product safety are well known to be much more suitable for the task at hand. Widespread victim bashing was financially beneficial to all parties or stakeholders involved, including the product manufacturers, however a strategy based in deceit is destined to fail.

Further in evaluating the credibility of the presentation included it needs to be understood; deaths formerly attributed to other sources are now possibly associated to and more likely to be caused by PM_2.5 the former associations would understandably decrease significantly. In some cases, the RR factor of these disease categories would require re-evaluation in deciding significance if any, in human population outcomes and reduced ETS advocacy relevance.

Information from the ALA website the latest research indicates the following;

Daily exposures to Particulate matter result in premature death three times greater than previously reported.

Some of the highlights of the more than 50 new studies summarized include: • A long-term study showing risk of premature death attributable to PM is three times greater than previously reported; • Studies linking daily exposures in PM with increased hospital admissions for strokes, congestive heart failure, heart attacks, COPD and other respiratory problems; • A toxicology study showing links between exposure to PM2.5 at levels near or below the current standards and development of atherosclerotic plaques; • Many studies elucidating the biological mechanisms and pathways for cardiovascular effects; • Studies linking prenatal exposure to air pollution with increased risk of low birth weight, preterm birth, infant mortality, and cancer; • Research showing that coarse particles exacerbate respiratory disease; • Three meta-analyses linking ozone air pollution with premature mortality and a multi-city study showing that effects are not due to temperature; • Intervention studies showing that reductions in air pollution yield measurable improvement in children’s respiratory health and reduction in premature deaths; and • Policy analyses showing the need for strong annual and daily fine particle standards to protect susceptible populations and provide equivalent levels of protection to different regions of the country. Links to the full articles or abstracts are provided. A copy of the bibliography is attached.

Attached files

2005 Research Highlights: Air Pollution and Health			( 1-32-2005 2005 Health studies final.pdf 357.56 KB )
Highlights of 2005 Health Studies on PM and Ozone
	ALA Testimony at Chicago Public Hearing	( ALA testimony Chicago Public Hearing PM NAAQS 3082006.doc 55.00 KB )
	Testimony of Janice Nolen 3-8-06
	Testimony of George Thurston	( EPA_GDT_testimony061.doc 106.00 KB )
	4-6-05 testimony at Philadelphia public hearing

STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE D. THURSTON, Sc. D.

TO THE

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

PUBLIC HEARINGS REGARDING THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE PM_2.5 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Holiday Inn Historic District

400 Arch St.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

RE: THE NEED TO MORE STRINGENTLY CONTROL PM_2.5 AIR POLLUTION THAN PROPOSED BY THE EPA ON JANUARY 17, 2006

MARCH 8, 2006

. "In fact, the increased risk of lung cancer from air pollution in polluted U.S. cities was found in this study to be comparable to the lung cancer risk to a non-smoker from living with a smoker."

I will take the high road thank you.

If you smoke you are not allied with the Healthcare sociopath radicals or with the Tobacco industries selling you products you have not been allowed to investigate. An investigation was never provided through a simple ingredients list. A list if not regulated, as it currently is not, could show them both for the criminals they are. You stand-alone and have rights which are not being protected as both camps seek to profit from your misfortune. Not having the resources to make your voice heard is the disadvantage allowing this to happen. As with all wars you are the innocent civilian population being decimated as casualties of the warring factions being deprived of your international rights to security of the person. The combatants fail to honor the rules of engagement or those rights set out in the Geneva Convention or reinforced in Nuremberg. Civilian casualties have been excessive slated as preventable deaths by both sides yet no human civility has been demonstrated or any effort to prevent them. Rather war cries in the media have increased the effect in the planned violence in our streets. The casualties are thought to be necessary in order to contrast the extremes in media spin. How many have died already and how many more before we force them to listen and end the carnage being created for our own protection.

Smokers hold the high ground yet we believe they should be the ones to bear the shame. Smokers have for years through media presentations been taught to believe they should be ashamed of their personal choice to use a legal product. Governments have capitalized on that shame through the invention of what they call a sin tax. A sin not based in moral or ethical and in the wider view legal grounds. This tax is to compensate Government failures to act and prevent the so-called preventable deaths. I cite articles in the BMJ Tobacco control publication. By understanding the ethical perspective we can see the war on tobacco is largely based in low road positioning promoting hatred in society and can, if rights are demanded, be easily shamed and defeated. A jury trial should be unanimous in their decision when the facts are presented. Smokers are enduring an attack on their rights to the person. Misinformation of the Tobacco control movement violates international laws consistent with the laws, which resulted in the hanging of doctors in Nuremberg. Their own assessments of what they are engaged in are ignored by their fellows. When you examine the efforts of ASH and others without shame openly promoting the hatred of others. You have no need to walk in shame when the criminals are purchasing the media presentations, which made you feel you should. It is not as if their advisers had not warned them alas they fell to the wishes of the radicals now they will all be painted with the wide brush of their own choosing as stakeholders in the Great Healthcare Gold rush.

This is a quote describing how the anti smokers have failed to respect the rules of engagement in the war they declared on you. Stakeholders should now bear the shame. They indeed walk the low road in every perspective of ethical behavior.

“WHY IS ETHICS IMPORTANT IN TOBACCO

CONTROL?�

“The tobacco control community lacks a comprehensive understanding of ethics.⁶ The closest that exists is the 1989 book, No smoking: the ethical issues, in which Robert Goodin explores the ethical underpinnings of tobacco control policies and examines whether they are morally sound.⁷ Although it is somewhat dated and presents a rather formulaic response, it is still the most comprehensive identification of the ethical issues in tobacco control to date. Unfortunately, the book has fallen out of print and has not played a significant role in the tobacco control debate. Thus, despite Goodin’s assertion that "moral philosophy is an indispensable first step in [the] larger political campaign", little follow up work has been done.

In turn, this has allowed the tobacco control community to be defined by its desire to defeat the tobacco industry, at the expense of its desire to protect the public. This conclusion can be drawn from an examination of the metaphors used by the tobacco control community. One of the most common is the epidemiologic model in which the industry is characterised as a disease vector—that is, a flea or tick that should be controlled.⁸ Alternatively, the imagery has been that of armed conflict. Dr David Kessler referred to the efforts to pass Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation as "A Great American Battle"⁹ and other tobacco researchers have referred to tobacco control policy debates as "war".^10,11 No less an authority than former Surgeon General C Everett Koop resorted to a pugilistic metaphor in his keynote address to the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco in 2003. When discussing if the public health community should enter into conversations with the tobacco industry, he advised that:â€�

“An industry that has delivered so many punches below the

belt and kills a half million of its most loyal customers each

year just to make money has no right to ask for Marquis of

Queensbury rules.�12

“The power of the tobacco industry and its aggressive

opposition to tobacco control programmes may mean that

these metaphors are apt, but they are risky. For example,

within Dr Koop’s statement one could read a subtle

implication that the public health community would be

justified in not following rules of engagement. Right or

wrong, the implication of these metaphors is that the public

health community will operate outside of the rules to do

whatever it takes to win—hardly a moral foundation for

resonating with the public.�

In a war, we have to learn to expect casualties. Both factions are to avoid civilian targets. We do not have to accept casualties from friendly fire especially if casualties are the result of government incompetence or a plan designed to increase the profits of industry.

The articles listed here are highly important and should be understood in order to understand your rights as an individual. Currently those rights are being ignored knowingly and many do not realize it because ad agency spin has lead many of us to believe no such rights exist.

Scientific buffoonery

Kevin M. Mulvina, et al.

Tobacco Control Online, 15 Mar 2006 [Full text]

Individual rights advocacy in tobacco control policies: an assessment and recommendation

"Not safe" is not enough: smokers have a right to know more than there is no safe tobacco product

RWJF proves my point for me here. With the research in hand, they continued to fund unethical lobbyists ignoring their own research in the process. Industry and the health advocates deliberately funded violence and misinformation in our communities. Casualties are to all of community not only smokers as the non-smoking community is affected as well victims of unnecessary violence. Ignorance of the law can be no defense here, these research studies should prove, as the Tobacco papers did in the past the best practices in their own research has been ignored to the peril of others. The same accusations they leveled against the tobacco industries permanently vilifying the industry a perspective they can now share. Demonstrated here the ethical considerations were discussed and largely ignorred.

Framing tobacco control efforts within an ethical context

The source of funding, a shoot yourself in the foot perspective resonates well here. No cloak and dagger delivering of boxes to a garbage bin, but real research openly accessible and in their own words.

“Funding for this research is from a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The author also wishes to thank Amy Williamson, Joanna Cohen, James Katz, Stella Bialous, and Ken Warner for their helpful assistance on this work.�

Johnson and Johnson the family company?

1. Poirier M. "Ethics vs. Activists: The Tobacco Experience, Notes for a Presentation to The Canadian Club." 16 Oct. 2002. http://www.tobacco.org/resources/Documents/021016poirier.html (Accessed 17 Mar 2004).

2. Cohen JE. Universities and tobacco money. BMJ 2001;323:1–2.[Free Full Text]

3. Jacobson PD, Soliman S. Co-opting the health and human rights movement. J Law Med Ethics 2002;30:705–15.[Medline]

4. RJ Reynolds. "Partisan Project." 14 Nov, 1986. Bates No. 505467389/7392. http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/505467389-7392.html (Accessed 15 Mar 2004).

5. Fiore MC, Bailey WC, Cohen SJ, et al. Treating tobacco use and dependence. Clinical Practice Guideline. Rockville, Maryland: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, June, 2000.

6. Mann JM. Medicine and public health, ethics and human rights. In: Beauchamp DE, Steinbock B, eds. New ethics for the public’s health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999:83–93.

7. Goodin RE. No smoking: the ethical issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.

8. In: Orleans C, Slade J, eds. Nicotine addiction: principles and management. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

9. Kessler D. A question of intent: a great American battle with a deadly industry. New York: Public Affairs, 2001.

10. Glantz SA, Balbach ED. Tobacco war: inside the California battles. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.

11. Pertschuk M. Smoke in their eyes: lessons in movement leadership from the tobacco wars. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2001.

12. Koop CE. Keynote address to the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 9^th Annual Meeting, New Orleans, February 20, 2003.

13. Fox B, Cohen JE. Tobacco harm reduction: a call to address the ethical dilemmas. Nicotine Tob Res 2002;4 (suppl 2) :S81–7.[CrossRef][Medline]

14. Annas GJ. Questing for grails: duplicity, betrayal, and self-deception in postmodern medical research. In: Mann JM, Gruskin S, Grodin MA, Annas GJ, eds. Health and human rights: a reader. New York: Routledge, 1999:312–35.

15. Lakoff G. Moral politics: how liberals and conservatives think. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.

16. Upshur REG. Principles for the justification of public health intervention. Can J Public Health 2002;93:101–3.[Medline]

17. Jacobson PD, Soliman S. Co-opting the health and human rights movement. J Law Med Ethics 2002;30:705–15.[Medline]

18. Warner KE. Tobacco harm reduction: promise and perils. Nicotine Tob Res 2002;4:S61–71.[CrossRef][Medline]

19. Fox BJ. The ethics of tobacco taxation. Poster presented at SRNT Conference, Scottsdale, Arizona, February 2004.

20. Mills SL. Tobacco and health disparities. Am J Public Health 2004;94:173.[Free Full Text]

21.Kozlowski LT. First, tell the truth: a dialogue on human rights, deception, and the use of smokeless tobacco as a substitute for cigarettes. Tobacco Control 2003;12:34–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

22. Thoms JC, Sage M, Dillenberg J, et al. A code of ethics for public health [editorial]. Am J Public Health 2002;92:1057–9.[Free Full Text]

23. Katz J. Individual rights advocacy in tobacco control policies: an assessment and recommendation. Tobacco Control 2005;14 (suppl II) :ii31–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

24. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. On being a scientist. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1995.

25. Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society. Honor in science. New Haven, Connecticut: Sigma Xi, 1986.

26.Childress JF, Faden RR, Gaare RD, et al. Public health ethics: mapping the terrain. J Law Med Ethics 2002;30:170–8.[Medline]

27. Butler K. The moral status of smoking. Social Theory & Practice 1993;19:1–26.

28. Chapman S. Banning smoking outdoors is seldom ethically justifiable. Tobacco Control 2000;9:95–7.[Free Full Text]

29.Chapman S, Liberman J. Ensuring smokers are adequately informed: reflections on consumer rights, manufacturer responsibilities, and policy implications. Tobacco Control 2005;14 (suppl II) :ii8–13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

30.Chapman S. The ethics of tobacco advertising and advertising bans. Br Med Bull 1996;52:121–31.[Abstract]

31. Weinstein ND. Accuracy of smokers’ risk perceptions. Ann Behav Med 1998;20:135–40.[Medline]

32. Weinstein ND, Marcos SE, Moser RP. Smokers’ unrealistic optimism about their risk. Tobacco Control 2005;14:55–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

33. Centers for Disease Control. Cigarette smoking among adults—United States, 2000. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2000;51:642–5.

34. Batra V, Patkar AA, Berrettini WH, et al. The genetic determinants of smoking. Chest 2003;123:1730–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

35. Marks JL, Hill EM, Pomerleau CS, et al. Nicotine dependence and withdrawal in alcoholic and nonalcoholic ever-smokers. J Substance Abuse Treatment 1997;14:521–7.[CrossRef][Medline]

36. Lasser K, Boyd JW, Woolhandler S, et al. Smoking and mental illness: a population-based prevalence study. JAMA 2000;284:2606–10.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

37. Giovino GA. Epidemiology of tobacco use in the United States. Oncogene 2002;21:7326–40.[CrossRef][Medline]

38. Remier DK. Poor smokers, poor quitters, and cigarette tax regressivity. Am J Public Health 2004;94:225–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

39.Beauchamp DE. Public health as social justice. Inquiry 1976;13:3–14.[Medline]

40. Healton C, Nelson K. Reversal of misfortune: viewing tobacco as a social justice issue. Am J Public Health 2004;94:186–91.[Free Full Text]

41. Churchill LR. What ethics can contribute to health policy. In: Danis R, Clancy C, Churchill LR, eds. Ethical dimensions of health policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002:51–64.