Examination of the facts

Public Health, selling Social Marketing, by consensus based all their arguments entirely in fraud.

A campaign so corrupted in every respect is already doomed to fail. The campaign of dehumanization, to evolve real people to a disease classification for treatment fails all moral boundaries. As we take ownership of others health determinants, we further take on an inescapable responsibility if any harm results. The propagated reality which is able to make the public fear or think less of those who smoke, is promoting that same harm of the smokers themselves, reducing any ability to form the courage it would take to walk away from an addiction. Reinforced with daily reminders of internal weaknesses and flaws diminishes the so called tough love approach to one of emotional abuse.

The cure is now the poison.

The so called “Cannon of proof” in truth is a failure to present any empirical evidence which fall into normal classifications as evidence in both respects of the terms "a priori" and "a posteriori"; absolute or evidential respectively.

“a priori” would be truths derived of reason which can not have an opposite.” a posterior “ would be derived from experience, can have an opposite and require observational evidence to establish facts. An epidemiological study demonstrating an evolution to “a priori” or an indisputable truth or fact is therefore not realistic.

If we look at the basic arguments of time line observation in over fifty years with a stable number of smokers in North America. We observed with population growth an increase of so coined “ smoking related diseases” in all descriptions. We should expect to see a reduction in an inversely associated proportion to all non-smokers added to the mix.

With a reduction of 60% in prevalence we would expect to see a reduction in current population risk in a similar 60% proportion. It is not reasonable to assume in current population if smoking related disease is thought to be resulting 20% of total mortality. The perception being projected in current risk, is in fact only in fact a representative of past risk. When prevalence was higher at over 50% we could not reasonably conclude that more than half of total mortality in 1957 was resultant due to smoking alone. With the same number of smokers today the result has to be the same. The 60% reduction in prevalence also reduced the population risk by 60% at current levels in population view no more than 8% can be reasonably expected in current or future mortality prevalence not the 20% being reported in the media consistently. That would fail only if it were determined prevalence figures were predicted to change.

What has to be understood in staying consistent with the risk theory; in studying groups who obtained disease as a result of smoking in the past we can not maintain a level of risk in the future or currently which does not reflect the reductions in population exposures. Every increase in smoking related disease prevalence “a priori” can be shown to be caused by other common factors which would increase with population when the true number of smokers did not increase.

Public Health is deliberately misguiding the public in presenting smoking as the sole element in an admitted correlation that is “ CO” Relation or association that’s “ also" relation.

“a priori “ what came before and " a posteriori" what came after”

In an “a priori” definition of proof we see from the epidemiological process a possibility of an opposite calculation, so the calculation process can never take on “a priori” truth without a deception of the reviewer. The term “ may be associated” is appropriate to a positive risk indication, as it is also possible no risk exists at all. A theory of the mind alone the product of which is assisted by controversial calculations. entirely of which determinations are guided by human interpretation. The product can not avoid the bias of education and Common belief. Not consistent of “a priori” truth

In the realm of “a posterior” we have to recognize proof is required which would necessitate observational science or applied science to demonstrate a reality of truth from
“A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence that is observable by the senses. It is differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective "empirical" or the adverb "empirically". Empirical is used in conjunction with both the natural and social sciences, and refers to the use of working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations.

In a second sense "empirical" in science may be synonymous with "experimental". In this sense, an empirical result is an experimental observation. The term semi-empirical is sometimes used to describe theoretical methods which make use of basic axioms, established scientific laws, and previous experimental results in order to engage in reasoned model building and theoretical inquiry.”

the theoretic calculations of Epidemiological model measuring risk theory is not consistent with a truth derived from experience either, so no real truth is found in epidemiology. No linkage to “a posterior” truth is demonstrated because the applied science, if done at all, finds no consistent proof. If the research study is not tested because the level of Epidemiological calculation is too low to establish reasonable pursuit; the process is incomplete and no proof or truth can reasonably be assumed.

The attempts to bridge the gap through dog whistle politics and compounding non truths to present as a legitimate truth, given credibility by personal station alone is corrupt and unethical. Not deserving of professionals who walk away from science and now take on the role of politician demonstrating a love for bias and predetermined ideology placed above the empirical scientific approach.

“ In philosophy generally, empiricism is a theory of knowledge emphasizing the role of experience in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas.
In the philosophy of science, empiricism is a theory of knowledge which emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to experience, especially as formed through deliberate experimental arrangements. It is a fundamental requirement of scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on “a priori” reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Hence, science is considered to be methodologically empirical in nature.”

The term "empiricism" has a dual etymology. It comes from the Greek word εμπειρισμός, the Latin translation of which is "experientia" , from which we derive the word experience. It also derives from a more specific classical Greek and Roman usage of empiric, referring to a physician whose skill derives from practical experience as opposed to instruction in theory.
To state the risk of ETS is based in science is the true lie.

The proof of risk associatewd to smoking and the smoke can be seen as a determined effort to defraud, leaving the public with an impression the science is valid, despite the fact it fails in all rules of Integrity, definition and logic.