Selling dead babies is revolting;

Canadian politicians and medical charities have lost all credibility.

Reviewing the latest attempt to provide scary numbers one would have to conclude.
Yes if University of Toronto professors were plumbers they could retire after installing the first sink.
Getting the job with a written estimate may carry a health risk to the consumer who read it.
A fine example of why they say those who can; do, and those who cannot, teach.

If you listen to the popular diatribe smoking would have no upside. We know Alzheimer’s patient see significant benefits. Although James Repace and his 10,000 times the known safe levels by calculations of PPAH contents in tobacco smoke defining this as a significant hazard regardless of the facts. For women to some extent there are positive aspects which if investigated could benefit us all. Among women ETS and primary smoking is known to reduce not only the risk of estrogen related cancers and endometriosis. The measured dioxin contents in serum testing actually shows a reduction of Dioxins compared to women who never smoked. In males who smoke 20 cigarettes a day, results in an expected increase of 40% in serum levels due to the existence of trace amounts of dioxins. It was found however body fat measurements exhibited levels consistent with non-smokers in total accumulations. The primary source of Dioxin intake is food, particularly through animal fats. Incinerators have been seen to emit levels well above acceptable standards and were found to elevate levels above dangerous body burdens. The daily intake of less than 5 picograms/TEQ-Kilogram body weights would not be exceeded by smoking 20 cigarettes per day in addition to the norms in our environment. Those most at risk of above normal intake would be those living close to highways and municipal incinerators.

A single diesel engine produces 4-16 full grams Dioxins per year. Diesel exhaust partially based in high dioxin content is a class one carcinogen. Although ETS or second hand smoke is also classed by consensus not observed in real scientific testing, in elevated levels in any of its physical attributes. It would be misleading to assume both exhibit equal risk, this if taken seriously would no doubt lead to an increased risk of morbity and mortality. The failure to establish PELS in conjunction with ETS or Diesel exhaust would lead us to conclude linear ratings as supported by the WHO are seen to be inadequate. In order to establish linearity a gauge needs to be established in order to assay the real harm or risk, failing a known PEL confusion exists in perceptions of harms actually present. This leads to an increased risk of our young starting to smoke with no more than speculation, largely political to substantiate the actual risk involved.
If Governments wish to produce facts by consensus alone for political means to an end the informed consent principle fails. Speculation risks in scientific terms are in absence of real facts leaving children open to deciding who would be the most credible source of health information; those in competing nicotine delivery markets being supported by their political friends or classmates who argue they have relatives who died in their nineties in spite of a lifetime of chain-smoking. For a young mind eager to experiment living in a perspective life will go on indefinitely, it is not hard to understand why so many are prone to dangerous choices.

Recently reported studies were announced on all major media networks, which claim smoking, alcohol; and illegal drugs cost society 40-50 Billion dollars annually depending on the network. Presented as a cost per person at 1600.00 as if the entire population would have to pay this amount as a cost to Government in societal costs. The amounts were the result of a SAMMEC spreadsheet calculation of an inflated population group the majority of this group died in the past 45 years less than 2% of this group even have a chance of costing society anything in the future. The study group in Canada includes ever smokers who even if they were all alive today the numbers reflect in the majority, personal costs not affecting society in over 90% of the figures stated, as confirmed in the 1991 SAMMEC report conclusions.

Smoking is actually a profit center contributing to society as a whole in 1991 alone 5.2 Billion dollars, despite the calculation of overall costs stated in the preamble as exceeding 15 Billion dollars. According to SAMMEC, those affected amounted to 52% of the population base. The last time smoking rates were 52% was in 1960 presuming they started at 15 years of age those born prior to 1945 in 1991. When the first Canadian SAMMEC study was done the entire population base studied would have been past the age of 45 or 61 years of age today. The last of that group would have reached the age of retirement by 2010, four years from today. The majority of those who would have been affected already have been affected and it is not difficult to see huge reductions of the cause to date should have resulted in similar reductions already noticed, unless smoking was not the cause of most of those effects in proportions anywhere close to the proportions previously believed. 20% smokers in overall population cannot contribute to more than 10% of total diseases mortality attributed to smoking if only one quarter of that group will die prior to retirement age. The costs personal and societal in total cannot be more than 1/8 or 12.5% of total cost of expenditures. If that number were slated at 15 Billion dollars we would be seeing expenditures of 120 Billion dollars total Canadian spending in smoking related diseases alone, a number, which is hardly realistic.

If overall health is the objective more needs to be known before wide brushing a largely undefined product known as tobacco smoke. Smoke derives from a variety of vastly different products all we know in judging the risk factor is speculative, with ambiguous statements such as “there is no safe cigarette” as the only measure of proof to establish those political opinions. If we discovered what increased the risk we may be well on the way to curing cancers and other outcomes defined as smoking related diseases. We do not ban the use of chlorine although it exhibits a number of detrimental to human health characteristics. Do we ban vegetables, Wood burning or meat all, which normally contain deadly carcinogens? Smoking in measured quantities of toxins and carcinogens is well below the daily intake exhibited in all the categories mentioned. The air we breath is heavily polluted well beyond levels know as safe according to the American Lung Association in recent submissions regarding Particulate matter reductions. For every drop of one microgram per cubic meter of air in our environment with confounding for smoking included in the calculation 75,000 USA mortalities would be reduced or 3% of all annual mortality. If the 5% reductions happened as they proposed it would result in reductions of 375,000 lives of the 400,000 now thought to be attributed solely to smoking. With only a 20% smoker prevalence. Is ETS a concern for little more than the smell or is their a specific risk being withheld from the public view not being discussed with which to base public perceptions being relayed for years? Is smoking actually a major risk factor, which has confounded normal scientific discovery for decades or is it in fact a convenient excuse for politicians masquerading as scientists?

SAMMEC as a base for risk fractions if common sense is applied represents substantial proof of how over extended the risk actually is. The population base established in SAMMEC research at 52% listing relative risks cumulatively expressed as a risk of both current and ever smokers captures a population view of those who did smoke in 1960. Therefore damage if any, would be assumed to have already occurred in 1991,1996 and 2000 when consistently the mortalities and cost were estimated. 1/8 of ever smokers were seen to die prior to the age of 70. One half of smokers in total died of what are thought to be related diseases half did not. Attaching those outcomes to the current level of smoking is deceptive in two ways. In Canada the population has almost doubled in the interim and the prevalence of smoking has decreased substantially in population as a whole. In a logical perspective we have seen in parallel to smoking reductions, steady increases in percentage of population levels in all risk categories, this is explained as a result of smoking habits in the past. The real numbers do not come close to bearing this out, if smoking were the major risk factor being portrayed. We should be seeing a decline after 45 years, if smoking reductions are to have any beneficial effect at all. The current rate at 20% [6 million] could not result in an effect of more than 1/3 of rates in any smoking related category. This is verified in the 3/5[52%-20%=32%] reductions to date and one half of the remaining having no substantial risks, as only one half will die of smoking related diseases regardless of cause. [6 million x .5= 3million] Which leaves us with a group of less than 10% of the population in total minus the percentage who would have died of those diseases in the named categories regardless of smoking as reflected in the non-smoking norms. Current smokers who will be affected by smoking in the future 92.5% will live beyond 70 and only 1/8[750,000] will die below retirement ages or below 70 in fact. This would amount to less than 2.5% of the total population at current rates. Increasing with age backwards to 1960 in current smokers and if as SAMMEC indicates ever smokers are included 52% of the population peak maximum risk has already passed assuming as studies have confirmed a 30 year reactance to smoking habits in the past increasing with amount smoked and years or pack years smoked. The peak having already passed, significant mortality declines should have begun 15 years ago if as stated any substantial benefit will ever be seen. The continued and substantial increases are proof smoking is not the major factor in smoking related diseases being portrayed. Reflecting a 36% prevalence in 1975 with a 20 Million population, smoking cannot account for more than 10% of ever smokers portions of smoking related disease today directly reflecting now only 36% in ever smoker numbers or 20% in combination with all other significant factors. As common sense would dictate the megatons of pollution in the air would be a more relevant indicator in assessing real health risk. Once the medical propagandists habit of study duplication ceases, perhaps some real research should begin.

Any disease category related to smoking should have realized 10% reductions reflecting 10% reductions in use prior to 1970 in the year 1990 in addition to the amount of ever smokers who had died of all causes to that point. Any increases by percentage in those disease categories, can be assumed to be in addition to more than 10% declines to be actually caused by other factors, proving actual smoking risk is grossly over stated.

If ETS is considered the risk in other risk categories known to be underestimated should serve to prove how little if any risk ETS truly represents. Results of current assessments show only 3000 in a 32 million population, as currently believed or .00009% population risk factor. If the smoking risk or lack thereof were to be reduced by even just the 10% risk factor assigned in relation to smoking related diseases disregarding increases in disease categories in primary smoking, the resulting risk would be so low as to never be considered relevant, even as surprising as it is, it carries any relevance currently. In calculating population risk the calculation begins at .0001 established as a non-risk. ETS is; as currently framed already below the level of significant population risk. Smoking bans therefore offer no significant or statistical protection to anyone regardless of ETS exposures in the highest of current levels.


Radiation Risks non-linear discussions.

Reduced endometrial cancer risks

Does lack of ETS provide clean air or even significantly safer air?

Oregon Baby deaths attempted and failed miserably in comparison to real numbers.

Of 5000 stated ingredients and carcinogens, here are Health Canada's only concerns

100 years of smoking Doctors

ETS relative risk California

Informed consent history

Reality from one of the few sensible voices left in Canadian media

RWJF paid for this research and promptly burried it [PDF]

Ingredients included elsewhere none are included in Canadian cigarettes

Sammec 1991

SAMMEC; 1994- 1996 with baby deaths thrown in for effect.
An estimate deriving 105 deaths in a 30 million population are purely political in such small numbers they would be known to be statistically impossible to predict reliably.

SAMMEC 2005 This one poked some huge holes in SAMMEC while creating larger numbers, and some significant holes of it’s own. Primarily suggesting risks associated to specific diseases; as they are higher today, should be utilized in the calculations regardless of other significant and rising factors at play. Mention of the CSPII study identifying a suggestion smoking had a risk in all disease categories and utilizing the risk data regardless shows the intent was not to improve credibility but to actually increase the final numbers. If a risk is assayed correctly the percentage should not rise over time with all other factors remaining constant. Post 1960 when the highest effects should have been seen in percentages of all related categories. Tar content was reduced, Additives were banned, Growing restrictions were regulated including the removal of Radon emitting fertilizers and soil and the implementation of flue curing reducing histamines 95% all which should have reduced mortality risk in fact it seems according to the experts all efforts had an adverse effect if we can believe the new numbers.


Health Canada preparation of data to utilize in SAMMEC II promotions for political purposes
Consistent with the need to protect children as described in RWJF lobbying tactics found here

The format required; Current upgrades and maintenance as directed to promote political anger.

Why lobbies prefer Studies to physical scientific research

Coaching the value of dead babies to sell your story

Sammec upgrades financed by the coach

Oregon Baby death profiteering attempted and failed miserably in comparison to real numbers.

More coaching efforts

Canadian submissions Feb. 2004 if you want to see the future from a Health Canada perspective.This link connects the Pan Canadian strategy to CSPI largely funded also by RWJF. They declared in Lobby registration they sought to have labeling applied to pop cans after talking to the Liberals they progressed into dictating the Romano report and the budget in addition to the WHO submissions all within months of the Canadian submissions at the WHO. Ralph Goodale in the past two Liberal terms introduced this bill twice with apparently little notice of the opposition parties. The first time it did not get through due to an election the second time around it was introduced and fully funded in his budget.Feb. 16 2004
http://www.cspinet.org/canada/who_glstrat.html

"...Somebody has to take governments' place,
and business seems to me to be a logical entity to do it."
- David Rockefeller - Newsweek International, Feb 1 1999.

Rockefeller Foundation http://activistcash.com/foundation.cfm/did/168
Here's the Money Incidentally CSPI wrote Ralph Goodales Pan Canadian strategy RWJF also financed Smoking ban advocacy in support of Nicoderm cq smoking patches. Charity at its finest, from the Family Company, Does the public have a right to know? It is funny how that name CSPI keeps popping up everywhere we look

"Fascism should rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merger of state and corporate power" - Benito Mussolini