Scientific buffoonery

It would have to be seen as the most intriguing question of our era; to understand how, with all the most educated of scholarly voices abdicating for world wide smoking bans, how not one of those participants has the vision to see outside the box. To understand with very little imagination how beneficial it could be to society as a whole to simply look at the product before punishing it’s victims. When we view tobacco as one of the most dangerous products on the shelf, does it make sense to anyone it is also the only product on the shelf with no list of ingredients. While we are well informed as to the contents of, the smoke it could produce, it is downplayed how significantly the quantities present, individually or as a whole, represent a substantial risk. It is indisputable, the lack of ingredients list can be directly associated to the potential harm. If we look at what is revealed it is also indisputable many of the toxins and carcinogens could not be derived from the burning of Tobacco alone. The scientific community as a whole can still err in the description of the product as tobacco, either through lack of proper information or as a deliberate act to substantiate political will. Either excuse adds to the misinformation being supplied to the public with a scientific community rubber stamp of approval, contrary to well-established rules of informed consent. Human rights are no longer a priority in fact are being deliberately ignored in seek of the greater good. A major mistake, one which one-day, will greatly expand the list of names attributed to the Darwin awards. The danger is, the words scientific integrity could also be included on that list of casualties.

Simplistic regulation barring the use of known dangerous ingredients would reduce the harm of the product in its use. If as advocacy would proclaim the protection of health is the purpose for anti smoker advocacy perhaps the mortality figures stated as preventable could be greatly reduced by regulating the product. Of course, this would result in a decreased risk to non-smokers and the most efficient means of solving the problem at hand. Perhaps advocacy would be less effective if the numbers were reduced and we could deal with a more significant problem of violence and impunity, which is the most prominent effect of anti smoker advocacy.

The alternative is relying on case research studies investigating the effects a range, of millions of possible combinations in the products being consumed. Predictably, we see a wide range of determined theoretic results of little scientific value. Further confusion added by the absolutes of smoking debates resulting in biases which undermine the credibility of any research study, with the current indicator being, who paid for the study as a judgment of integrity. No matter how much integrity was incorporated by the researcher, his absolute credibility will be determined by who pays the bill.

Is this the best we have to offer in the realm of scientific discovery facts by consensus and that consensus determined entirely by the size of our gang or public opinion stated in the ability to fund the media campaigns and through that the ability to silence the opposition?

It was revealed to me today the president of mychoice.ca was threatened with death on her doorstep for a perceived threat she represents, as a non-smoker advocating for nothing more than respect of her neighbors. She has never stated smoking is not dangerous and has consistently stated it is, in every public discussion. She was once given an award by her peers speaking out against violence against women. Now she is disassociated from integrity in her opinion, in advocacy against the same topic, Hatred and Violence. Her peers do not even have enough respect for this courageous soul to mention the event, not one of these cowards can be found speaking in her defence. Where are the advocates rushing to her aid and praise this time around? Apparently the media now views this as an acceptable act in line with their goals. Have our values now changed so absolutely it is permissible to excuse the abuse of others as long as we can create a self serving reason or have the finances to buy one? Not an original stance in the least. In 1930s Germany those same assessments were made using the smoking issue as a wedge issue to join the parties in health advocacy we know how that turned out, how soon we did forget. Or perhaps we foolish enough to believe; we are smarter now, and are assured the results will be different. Entirely consistent with the insanity theory of repetitive actions expecting a different result. Lunacy? I would say so.

Are we so bent we cannot see the damage to us all here? ASH is campaigning confidently and without fear of reprisals, for barring a smoker from employment, Housing or community Many others join in declaring child abuse against parents in custody hearings could be justifyable. The Ontario Government teaching hatred to our children endorsed and applauded, at a site they call stupid it’s very name screams violence this is indefensible by a government in a civilized society yet no one noticed. Now they approach our homes the castle to some will be a fortress to others, defending their fading right to escape from their insidious tormentors.

The diagnosis should be clear we could do a lot better. The alternative again would be defense of a momentous lawsuit on our horizon in the civil rights abuses against the victims of both the product and the anti smoker advocates. Justice will have the final say in the campaign of hatred, a deliberately created pandemic in our culture.

Self evaluation please consider fully the following prior to determining how you would answer in a public forum

Does a smoking ban result in protection of non-smokers, who now deal with an increasingly meaner more violent society?

Yes or No

Do we reduce preventable death by ignoring the cause?

Yes or No

Can any deny informed consent is not well served in our current approach?

Yes or No

If any are determined enough to answer yes to any of these questions; a self-examination is in order, to understand your need to express intolerance and abdicate for crimes against others for the use of a legal product..

Food for thought

From the British Medical Journal;

My Blog;