Health Canada a mess

Examination of the facts

2007-03-24T19:51:00.000-04:00

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.

The weight of exclusions

2007-01-10T00:01:00.000-05:00

The population view adapted in health care reform, undermines the protection of the poor, women, minorities and all protected groups as defined in the human rights code. The prevalence of disease and mortality figures demonstrated in epidemiology studies are significantly more predominant among some groups than others this will undeniably lead to discrimination. The process can not avoid it, when communities and cultures are ignored. It is too easy to target any group in defining what is normal.
The risk in forming such policies are not very difficult to imagine.
.http://www.pjonline.com/pdf/_donotindex/pj_20060107_news.pdf

Hitler once proved this concept utilizing the same epidemiology process to sustain what he deemed as moral or acceptable behavior. The Galton Institute formerly the eugenics society is today front and center in the creation of HIA health interventions as partners in the World Health Organization. This process should be taken as a threat to national security and human health risk as the Death camps in Germany clearly demonstrated.

http://www.toolan.com/hitler/surplus.html

Support will inflict the hateful messages upon these groups Messages also include disparities among women and the unique circumstances of women’s health issues. Hateful messages being promoted at a website in Ontario called "stupid" or a health minister in Quebec who states smokers have no right to speak, because they are under the influence? Drawing indignity and segregation; not to an industry or an addiction but to people who smoke, is the height of ignorance. This will have effects which will impact us all in unavoidable negative ways.

If Public Health care is to advance in an ethical inclusive environment, actions should include the opinions of the segment of our society whom the actions will predominantly effect. No roof or walls in hateful government actions, the refusal of physicians to treat them, even more incredibly the cheering for discrimination in Parental rights, housing, employment and pricing of services for sale are inexcusable. Certainly not in keeping with human rights initiatives. A unique approach to the treatment of addiction and not deserving of the past achievements of civil society The level of substantiating proof and it’s sources outside the Government research initiatives draws the government into the realm of suspicion and ill repute. To claim smokers do not have human rights protection as a group undermines the fact they should be protected as individuals which Government seeks to by it's actions to increase the health risk to these individuals identified as a group with a single word.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,21015834-27197,00.html

These issues need careful examination and discussion in an unbiased representative format, free of those who are paid to lobby and will be enriched, at the expense of those they impose their hateful campaigns upon.Democratic government has failed in its mandate to serve "all" in being led by the opinions of a small group of focused extremists, who have never represented the public, denormalization strategies seek only to change. If conformity is the target how can we say anyone in society is represented. If we can be viewed by Government as imperfect, demanding alteration to suit the wishes of the bureaucracy, purchasing politics with the public purse There are no checks and balances of these targeting groups who answer to no one. Privilege will have it's rewards as the media is controlled and the public through it, never being allowed, as is their right to see the whole story in making health related decisions. They will be allowed what a small group dictates they will see, the product of selective reading and exaggeration of risk, which normally is of little concern. Perhaps that opinion of imperfection and a mandate for change should be decided by an election and measure the mandate for coercive societal change.

The Phantom smoke fingers from Health Canada

2007-01-06T15:24:00.000-05:00

Eugenicists taught us in the early part of the last century an equation we too quickly forgot. When political bias is greater than moral bias the result is an abundance of mortalities. The elegance to health scare reform drew the partners of industry and political power brokers flocking to add their views to the process. The corruption of the process undermined what could have been a pretty good idea, if the consensus view of many with no training to support their opinions were negated. Eugenics is at the forefront once again in promoting population view over interactive communities which are being deliberately ignored. The consensus crowd who are abundantly aware of the advantages this offers in the inspiration of political will are slipping the bonds of ethics in search of protections in plausible deniability to promote political control at the expense of personal freedom. Population views ultimately lead to isolation and undue ethical violations. Biases of lower socioeconomic, gender, race and cultural groups are inevitable as health risks reside primarily defined within categorical groups more predominantly than in others. The authorities of moral turpitude are those of financial and political advantage who judge their own “normal” activities as a marker for excellence in all defined groups.

Doctors throughout their training for the past 50 years have been programmed throughout to believe nothing causes more harm in our environment than tobacco smoking despite the fact as the lobbies confirm less than half of those who smoke will die of smoking related diseases after decades of smoking. Other factors in our environment such as diesel exhaust and radon are largely ignored in support of the benefactors who’s funding of process needs to be protected. The vast majority of those who die in coined smoking related categories die after the age of 70. If taken in perspective the smokers actually in the exception of Lung Cancers which represents less than 1% of all mortality die very close to population averages even within smoking related categories. Within 25% of the population who smoke we see 25% of mortality associated more predominantly to age than to smoking .

The risk of smoking can be seen to be much higher than it truly needs to be in all disease categories and particularly among Lung cancers. The three most popular choices for smoking specific cancers are largely ignored from a standpoint of preventative medicine with the only allowable cure being cessation. Cessation of course would include political purchases of advertisements selling the approved varieties of cessation devices because the makers pay to play. The Who and the CDC know through their own research smoking could carry a lot less risk to smokers. Risk to non smokers as a result of second hand smoke could all but be eliminated with simple regulation. The advances in physical science from the stand point of chemoprevention although significant advancements are known. For over a decade politics has downplayed the health relevant information with the” no safe cigarette” message risk is set in stone to be defended and consistent with political self importance, in protecting the lies of the past and of those to come. God forbid smokers could be led to believe smoking could be safer. It is judged more ethically responsible to allow them to die in exaggerated numbers than allow such a premise. The popularity polls demand it and all who fail to celebrate the victories of industrial lobbies will pay dearly in the campaign of consensus. Health scare professionals made popular by fear and hatred dividing us upon ourselves..

The inadequacies of denormalization promotions by the former Liberal government of Paul Martin in the politicizing of Health Canada should be degusting to the current Government judged by their ethics; promotion of those same principles and expansion of support, defines them as fraudulent and self serving above all else. This government incredibly is more disgusting than the last. Did we not hear a call for change and renewal of ethics in politics? If this is as good as it gets we have some serious problems in the vision of the future or longevity of this country. True Conservative values of the past could never support the politics of tyranny and hate purchased with the pubic purse.

Eugenicists defined those at the top of industry and educational standing to be a result of genetic superiority a superiority which needed to be protected from the influences of non superior genes. The death of 10 million innocents as the result, was the price we paid last time for listening to these amoral despots. After the war because of protections of position and wealth few were punished for their crimes. In Ontario the castration of imbeciles continues to this day without apology to the victims of the past or conscience preventing their victims in the future. For the World Health Organization members to be legally contract bound to the same principles today with little public discussion among the involved populations, we see the potential for, as the pre war Germans found, an awakening one day to realize we are no longer in charge of our own destiny but bound to tyrannical bindings of fear and coercive activities. Unilateralist decries are allotting power to the media dispensing political correctness to keep us docile and in our place. Laws prohibiting free speech. Denouncing a right to assembly for smokers of late that right does not include a roof or walls. They soon may be refused medical treatment and all parental rights to their own children. This is supported by the decries “smokers are not a legal class” which affords the right to ignore their individuals rights in some twisted version of the rules of human rights perspectives. Gyrations from a legal standpoint in political speak as opposed to our civic duty to respect human rights laws and initiatives outside a courthouse out of the respect of our neighbors almost a quarter of the population base. What will they do to torment the obese or the alcoholics while we toy with decriminalization of pot smoking which has a much higher carcinogenic content than tobacco? Hypocrisy abounds in the amoral crusade to make us do as we are told for our own good. Is this an effort to promote health or the popularity and prestige of the tyrants of the new normal. Promotions of the demagoguery of those who currently can afford to be different as defined by wealth and birthright alone?

For your reading pleasure;

The new normal

Purveyors of the new globalist perspective

The Borg alliance; Tobacco Control, The Galtons and David Duke of the Clan working together and building our tomorrow

The sales department dedication to funding
96% of us are exhibiting risk potential and should be dealt with severely with shame taxation for our crimes

Proof they don’t know Jack although they are related to Adolph…

Reinventing the wheel A Likely source of the modern Lieberal Red Book

An ounce of prevention?

Poison is in the dose

Jumping from the 15th floor instead of the 20th

Amoral bias gone wild
Footnote; Pay special attention to the assessments of all toxins reviewed barely an instance is included with no reference to ETS. In assessment of ETS a long list of non definitive statements and cause associations to existence alone, the comprehensive study of all relevant research negates the inclusion of any value of alternatives to smoking bans in risk assessment or regulation of the product safety including the three references above which are down played in process. Incredibly even the assessment of diesel exhaust is blessed with the realization some of the included toxins are also found in ETS, despite the volumes which in fact are many times less and well below safe levels as opposed to the volumes in the much more deadly toxin being discussed and categorized with much less concern, despite the obviously unavoidable community risk. To date has any effort been expended to deal with the problem to the degree a barely significant risk assessment in ETS provides the means for billions in funding of community chaos?

Why Lobbies really focus on children; surveying RWJF and Johnson and Johnson stock market analysis of NRT sales They make great emotional props.

Excluded from the toxins list for obvious reasons

Consider the source

And follow the money

Gomery style investments in Liberal friendly media groups

Lessons in undermining political process and democracies through coercive methodology

Human Rights? Only if we say so

If any of you believe you ever had a choice in smoking ban votes,
The federal government promised to undermine Provincial authority, they even signed a contract
The fix was in bans at all costs were promised, prior to the half Billion dollar brain washing campaigns

Purchasing your fairy tales and making sure everyone believes you

Polar bears are dying of hypothermia? The ice caps are melting?
Global warming could happen, just not today
the wind chill in Resolute is minus 53, go figure…

The skinny on fat pandemonia

More of what they know but choose to ignore

Risk assessment, assessing the discovery process

Neil Coleslaw works advising the Canadian Government in Tobacco smoke issues.
Through his funded Lobby group, Fascists for a smoke free la la land, or something similar
in addition to an embarrassing attempt at a book sale, a third rate fiction piece
which indicates he wants to take over the tobacco industry with government funding.
In the past he spent millions of UN money trying to produce evidence of ETS harm, he left in shame
Undaunted he still pretends he did not understand what he found.
This is the self same opportunist who used a dying woman’s cancer as a tool to sell his wares, on the international stage

Who is being protected and who is believed to be dying?

Shooting the messenger

A little perspective please

Now you see it [For fun can you spot the lie in the first paragraph?]

And now you don’t?
(Researcher Stephen S, Hecht Ph D confirmed recently no carcinogens were found in non smokers exposed to ETS, toenails “the article is incorrect”
[The author to date, refuses to recant the political lie in the article despite being advised of the good Doctor’s honest opinion.]

This article is one of my all time favorites in a proactive as opposed to reactive perspective

Just for laughs a bunch more therapy to get your head straight

Disclaimer;
Any similarity of despots and trash described to real humans, is purely coincidental. Some names have been chamged to protect me, from any legal onslaught or death threats from the lawyers of the Guilty.

Illegal expendatures of public funds

2006-12-19T07:32:00.000-05:00

Many need to read Creighton’s; A State Of Fear, and consider the work of public health of late. Fear is a motivator, if you are a terrorist involved in coercive activities we can expect it, from a government ministry it becomes scandalous. I am ashamed and appalled Health Canada is the source of hate campaigns which promote unwarranted fears and divisions in Canadian society. Second hand smoke, Fat pandemics, Bird flu pandemics, Mad cow disease and global warming all ad agency campaigns purchased to enhance the pockets of stakeholders. Politics purchased with the public purse. The Canadian Government involved shamelessly in what is referred to in the states as pork barrel politics. We are delivered the messages melded into the real news so well hidden we have no way to distinguish; real news from prepared press releases or essentially purchased commercials. Augment the press releases with regular commercials inducing fears in what are termed denormalization campaigns and we turn society upon itself to achieve results favorable to industry goals being promoted with government funds. In response to a scathing audit health Canada was reinvented as an agency of propaganda. Almost half of the budget 220 million of 450 million allotted is now dedicated to ad agency purchases. In addition 500 million dollars was given to deposed MP Allan Rock to create a traveling medicine show exerting federal pressure across the country in promotion of smoking bans at municipal and Provincial levels. The head scientist was replaced by a professor of political science which should speak volumes in itself.

Without a shred of evidence to substantiate any harm derives from second hand smoke .Propaganda is educating us to fear the smoke at any level. A nuisance of sight and smell evolved by controlled consensus into a deadly carcinogen, dangerous at any exposure level irrespective of massive dilutions in outdoor air. The stated cannon of proof is in fact a series of small replicated calculated studies which are now known to be based in flawed data sets, by their own admission anti smoking lobbies attacked the CPS1 and CPS11 studies stating the case and control compared groups were in fact both exposed to second hand smoke [ETS]. The claim is, if a control group were found which was not exposed the associations would be higher which is another misleading statement. In fact the results found in current studies if both groups were exposed would account for results derived of other causes lessening the overall proof ETS is associated with any disease. The revelations of study group deficiencies come in response to the largest study to date which determined the associations of ETS and disease where not sustainable particularly in respect to Heart disease and Cancers. Despite the attacks on the American Cancer Society numbers By both the head of the ACS and prominent leaders of anti smoking lobby architecture determined to discrediting the Enstrom and Kobot research conclusions. We continue to hear paid media statements, letters to the editor and politician astroturfing campaigns distributing false impressions based in their own admitted flawed data. SAMMEC calculations derived the shocking numbers declaring the cost of smoking to society. The figures were derived in the same CPS research groups, in addition to calculations of lost wages 20 years beyond retirement in actuality a cost to smokers and not to society. SAMMEC was actually reinvented to include child mortality figures tearing at our heart strings, declaring SIDS deaths to be caused by smoking despite the science which make this entirely unlikely. SIDS remains to this day as a syndrome meaning; of unknown origin. More likely associated with a sleeping position than any other factor found to date. The one question American Lobbies can not explain is among the baby boomer generation when more than half the population smoked virtually none of whom were not exposed to ETS, how they grew to be the healthiest and longest living generation in world history. This should go to show you can’t believe everything you hear. Most prevalent when Health Canada is concerned.

What is being promoted here by powerful lobby extremists is the sale of addictive nicotine products said to be replacement therapy products [NRT] which carry a lot of risk of their own, in particular heart impairment of otherwise healthy individuals. NRT products, in study after study have been shown to be less than 5% effective however are 100% effective in maintaining and creating addiction. We have to ask ourselves when was the last time children were legally allowed to purchase cigarettes over the counter. In most places a 10 year old child can now not only purchase addictive nicotine gum [in exciting new flavors] but that child will likely be congratulated for their wise decision. Politicians state something needs to be done. Legislators have been taking the easy road for to long, legislating punishment on the victims of smoking is profitable to everyone involved. Regulation of the product seems to be a back of the shelf afterthought despite the mortality benefits all participants know are massive. The CDC and the World Health Organization have tested tobacco products for decades and they are well aware all cigarettes are not created equally. The toxic and carcinogenic content which can and is controlled by the manufacturers varies enormously.. Real physical spectro analysis proves the toxic abilities of tobacco smoke can be easily reduced as much as 98%. By reducing the toxins we reduce the risk the effect and the cost. The huge American tobacco settlements assured the victims would pay the costs of healthcare while maintaining the profits of the tobacco industry. Coincidental to growing a larger addictive nicotine market with the addition of NRT Dollars are being exchanged while we are being turned on each other in hate and fear mongering. NRT is without doubt a gateway drug in every sense of the term, Marketing to children has returned with a vengeance, lead by the creation of a cute cartoon devil, assuring tax levels will never decline nor will the nicotine addicted numbers

Bird flu sold a lot of tama flu stockpiles, despite the fact it is unlikely to ever occur the lower respiratory infection does not pass easily between humans, referred to recently by real scientists as equivalent to catching pneumonia

The American CDC recanted statements of fat pandemics forced by their own researchers to reveal they had exaggerated findings by as much as 26 times what was actually found. Undaunted radical American Lobby CSPI testified at the Romano commission the exaggerated numbers. CSPI went on to create the Pan Canadian strategy which was adapted by the former Liberal government and presented to the world health organization for international use. Most countries rejected the strategy preferring to base health decisions in real science this time around in viewing the risk taken in ETS advocacy inspiring smoking bans world wide. The pan Canadian strategy written by an American lobby group is stranger than fiction. A plan which will attach cigarette style taxation to future deemed “unhealthy foods” while allotting a 300% tax break to advertisers for every dollar spent promoting healthy foods whatever healthy means is not yet defined. In addition CSPIO actually dictated the wording of Ralph Goodale’s bill which passed third reading and was included in his final budget. Recent changes of the height to weight determinant replaced with waist to hip measurements, created millions of overweight and obese individuals with the stroke of a pen. New numbers created where then declared as a recent pandemic of overweight individuals compared to those a decade ago, demanding action.

Recent senate hearings revealed scientists formerly with health Canada were fired and censured for going directly to then Prime Minister Cretien’s office with information being ignored by their own department. They revealed Cretien’s office was advised; mad cow disease can be eliminated by testing cows alive, all cattle can be tested without killing them first. In addition they revealed the practice of administering antibiotics to livestock is making the drugs ineffective to those who consume the meat. Drug resistant biological strains are a myth. We loose the effect of antibiotics by careless use of the drugs.

Global warming enthusiasts fail to explain with the warming effect and increased evaporation levels where the water will go. Real science tells us the clouds produced will block the sun and moderate temperature. Precipitation in rain and snow would bring particulate matter to the earth as nature has cured itself for millions of years. The lobby against reductions of NOX and SOX which are much more dangerous is unbelievable. Said to be a sellout by large environmental groups funded by acid rain producing industries. Carbon emissions of the earth itself are known to be thousands of times higher than man made sources. Real scientists in disgust boycotted the Montreal conference as they were limited in what they were allowed to say in public, much as with smoking debates only the single view would be tolerated.

We do prosecute terrorists, why are the hate and fear promoters within government agencies and participating Non Government organizations [NGOs] not under investigation for terrorist acts, benefiting all participants while societies victims risk and mortality rates continue to rise.

Research

http://www.amlibpub.com/liberty_blog_archive/2005_07_01_archive.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2214806,00.html

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/marketsoc/index_e.html#12

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2369279&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://whyquit.com/pr/102906.html

http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/14/1/5.pdf#search=%22silencing%20science%3A%20partisanship%22

http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/site/supersite/contact/pdfs/jcp_649.pdf

http://tc.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/14/suppl_2/ii3?ijkey=51532084409cd1fe36c22cbb2fb51ee231739f0c

http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/defense.html

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#149889

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/c903ce.html#0.2.2Z141Z1.NBS3AG.68WQBF.V

http://www.tobacco.org/resources/documents/osteensummary.html

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/20-3/b_e.html

http://www.junkscience.com/news2/zion.htm

http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/library/cases/NimmoSmithStatement.pdf

http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/strategy/eb11344/en/index1.html

http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=CSP100#grant

http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/site/supersite/contact/docs/chapman_publications_no1.htm

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

http://www.citizensforcivilliberties.ca/

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/

http://www.forces.org/

http://healthcarefraud.blogspot.com/

http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/

http://www.pro-choicesmokingdoctor.blogspot.com/

http://www.davehitt.com/

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press03152006.html

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15064166

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/161/8/787

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050309102313.htm

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7154/348#resp1

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts69.html

http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/defense.html

http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/economic.html

http://fredericksburg.com//News/FLS/2006/102006/10082006/227373?rss=local

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=Y5WX5IJU1FJH5QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2003/05/16/wsmoke16.xml

http://tc.bmj.com/cgi/eletters?lookup=by_date&days=60

Anti smokers get the figurative finger

2006-07-01T13:17:00.000-04:00

News Flash;

George Bush has requested funds from congress to replace the small arms of all soldiers in Iraq with Marlboro's. The joint chiefs agreed unanimously tobacco smoke was not listed as a chemical weapon so no international agreements would be breached. New battle formations will include sitting around a campfire smoking the peace pipe. The results would have insurgents falling over amass clutching their chests and dying of Heart attacks. Victory is absolutely assured The Surgeon General in an announcement yesterday confirmed the effects will be seen within minutes. The mass evacuation of innocent children has begun to avoid the devastating effects. They will be temporarily assigned to re education camps and taught the rules of Pseudo realities as guaranteed in the American constitution. Freedom to act as the rest of the freedom loving democracies in obedience of the morality laws of Rockefeller et al Johnson and Johnson and the Nazi, sorry, Health army of disciples. Bush has announced a press conference to announce; an early end to all hostilities in the middle east is finally within our grasp. Bush was recently accused of breaching International Law by a supreme court Justice.

America becomes a joke on the world stage.

In considering the recent disclosures of the Surgeon General of the United States of America one has to reflect upon what was disclosed. Although the news release and associated sound bites stated clearly the smoking debate is over. The incredible statement of how many non smokers deaths result from the toxic abilities of second hand smoke and primary smoking are revelations worthy of fears and immediate action.

Before we take the next step and the floggings start we have to consider the human test results observed in biological assay to date. The results of which have yet to be disclosed. Many believe human testing is not possible without breaching international law however the testing is already completed and showed no recorded harms which would be co-incidental with the surgeon generals statistical report findings.

The fanatical groups inspiring smoking bans internationally mention the nicotine stained fingers of smokers all the time, however fail to report the level of cancerous fingers of smokers being amputated as a result of the sedimentary buildup. A buildup consistent with or exceeding previous lab rat exposures, existing for many in time periods of decades with apparently little result.

The accumulations far exceed the levels we would expect to accumulate inside a non smokers lungs after all even sitting one foot away from a smoker for years in considering the air dilution principles at play could not exceed the level of exposure to a smokers fingers constantly bathed in the direct unfiltered smoke. If the calculated theory seems to indicate a harm exists we should see an unusually high incidence of cancerous smokers fingers, far more numerous than lung , liver or rectal cancers. More evident in fact than any smoking related site mentioned to date.

With more than 50% of the fingers expossed more than 50 years ago the 20-30 year time lag in cause and effect internationally recognized has been surpassed by more than 15 years. yet cancerous fingers remain an unusual observation.

In North America the baby boom generation presents a rare opportunity to tune into a research group defined and encapsulated as an ideal group to satisfy all statistical encumbrances. the observed reductions in use and exposure have failed to demonstrate an effect which was expected due to prior statistical theories. It appears those benifits will likely never be seen. The Baby boom research group defines significant and irrefutable proof, Cigarette smoke does not promote a significant increased risk of cancer by exposure alone.

We know smokers finger cancer is a rare occurrence which could not if cancer did exist at any level be separated from other confounder to any significant degree, unless of course the cancer was limited to the site most obviously and most significantly exposed; the fingers human habit define as the two we consistently hold a cigarette in. No such cluster condition has been reported to exist. The non existent epidemic of cancerous fingers can be placed right up there with a diagnosis of a smokers tumor which also never existed beyond media prose.

The research crowd incredibly missed this point along with the most intelligent leaders of science and medicine, alternately, they did not miss anything, and simply do not wish to discuss it, as the real observations discredit the numerous career building photo ops to date. In fact what we have been told for the past 45 years seems to have a slight imperfection in credibility.

As a theory; "smoking is a significant cause of cancers, primary or secondary",
I would suggest this claim is absolutely demonstrated in biological assay to be completely false.

Observational science is much more reliable in defining cause and effect. The environment ministries would have been much more able to monitor and define known safe levels than a dedicated anti smoking advocate who exceeds his own research findings in what he relays to the public.

The surgeon General has obviously soiled himself in front of an international audience even the media groups have fallen silent. No jubilation or dancing in the streets. No “I told you so” rhetoric just absolute silence.

Observation wise only shame and disassociation is seen in revealing a fanatic who finally went one step too far.

From a purely mechanical standpoint the observations of a smokers fingers reveals a few more real conclusions. Which would dispel previous urban myths so prevalent in the anti smoker diatribe. The color is the first obvious characteristic which could instill some reality into the situation. The color is not black as dissection of smokers lungs reveals. Anyone who has ever replaced an out door air conditioning filter will agree the color of that sediment is definitely not yellow either but coal black as a result of collection of the particulate matter in the air dissolute so often not considered in cigarette smoke statistical research.

The consistency of the sediment on those fingers would be in observational terms described as a glue. If the sediment is in fact a glue why do we not see proposals to test the effectiveness of dissolving that glue in reducing lung sediment contents which the lungs could in turn reduce with the dispelling of flem. If the glue were actually retaining cancerous agents from any source, reduction of effects would have to be inclusive of reduction of the sediment.

Bans and smoking reductions by force and coercion would not seem to be the most effective strategy in mortality reductions as legitimate research would seem to indicate, would be much more effective. Anti smoking advocates and their strategies are known to be extremely expensive, the solutions in taxation and created fears and hate are far more inclusive of sustaining the status quo. If the expense were studied the increased mortality due to increased poverty levels. Reduced personal economies would be inversely proportional to increased mortalities as a result. If mortality is the target biased anti smokers should be taken out of the effort as they do much more harm in consensus views and propaganda than real science and pro active attitudes would prove to be.

Tobacco Control is a harm and menace to society and should therefore be banned. Criminal investigations of coercion and dispensing harmful medical advice with no credentials needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I would suggest an example should be made of such individuals beginning with Political Generals and organizers who promote harmful junk science promoting the destruction of public peace

In summation and in response to a decades long monumental effort dedicated to the well being of others.

Anti smoker advocates I offer the ultimate in olive branch technologies. Today I present you with substantial proof in assessing the true hazard in the smoke you collectively fear. In honor of your efforts please accept the duality of this most appropriate gesture a symbol of truth in assessing your efforts and their long lasting effects in the future for us all.

What's in a word?

2006-06-26T12:54:00.000-04:00

Many in the public when hearing the term “Public Health” equate the term to a benefit to community or in medical terms physical wellness. Public health is in reality a political control movement derived of industry, hopeful the public mood can be controlled to suit the needs of their own profit margins.

Public health is not a state of being, but a state of mind, being directed by a well financed well organized group of tyrants imposing their totalitarian values on the rest of us.

From early years in schools we are taught life’s rules. Realities sculptured to create a culture conducive with consumerism. This makes us both good employees and good customers as the industry parallel to moral sociological values, in a reality motto;

Industry giveth and industry taketh away.

How do you accept as a fact of life a tractor trailer can haul 50 tons on average one million miles per truck lifespan and a consumer vehicle only travels one tenth of that distance prior to being scrapped. Or the fact that same truck gets close to 7 Miles per Gallon and Dodge brags about a Ram Diesel pickup truck while empty and hauling a single person which gets just over 10 Miles per Gallon.

We pride our selves in engineering yet the idea of standardizing road clearance in passenger vehicles could limit impact zones and through reinforcements where needed, we could reduce traffic fatalities tremendously. We know Oil contains the majority of the most toxic elements known to man, yet how many furnace oil tanks sit in basements permeating the evaporates throughout a home. Or consider the quantity of benzene inhaled at a gas pump or the diesel fumes inhaled by babies at bus and train stations all are acceptable, facts of life we can do little to cure or so we believe. It is strange the most silent demographic in community, the poor are the focus of the majority of political lobbies in the recent past. The lobbies always seem to hold high the promotions of increasing costs in limiting choices, making the impact much less on those who can most afford to avoid limitations or feel the sting of excessive taxation. After all, how many of the rich actually contribute to the tax system anywhere close to the degree the poor are forced to endure?

Although we can not fault advocates involved in the more popular lobby groups altogether, many do need an awakening in what they promote; a lot more often than not does not benefit society to any degree, close to the ambitions of the financiers of grandiose change.

From the public health institute

Our Philosophy:

Working Collaboratively to Change the Way People Think About Health

And this;

Our Mission

The Public Health Institute promotes health, well-being and quality of life for all people through research and evaluation, training and technical assistance, and by building community partnerships.

Consider what you see here “promoting health and well being, through research and evaluation” research not yet completed, but when it is, it will be used to promote a cause. How valid would you consider the value in the future “research” as they call it, in determining direction or in distributing Health advice to the public? The right of free will is undermined in coercive tactics, people make health decisions based on what they know or are being told. This is proof of a planned process which constitutes a criminal act Information affecting health decisions is deliberately deceptive; yet no one has the power to complain The media says “talk to the hand” they don’t want to know. Those in power as well simply look the other way.

From an unbiased scientific prospective real research is usually completed prior to deciding if action is required. This type of research is more properly described as political rhetoric or propaganda.

From the World Health Organization

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.

An NGO is the definition given to Industry financed Lobby groups and industry strategists involved in mutually beneficial projects

The objectives of WHO's relations with NGOs are to promote the policies, strategies and activities of WHO and, where appropriate, to collaborate with NGOs in jointly agreed activities to implement them. WHO may also seek to harmonize intersectoral interests among various sectoral bodies concerned in a country, regional or global setting.

Now take a look at the coercive activities in calls for research to promote action,

knowing specific research does not yet exist, yet announcing it will be used when it does to promote HIA initiatives

MeSH scope note: Critical and exhaustive investigation or experimentation, having for its aim the discovery of new facts and their correct interpretation, the revision of accepted conclusions, theories, or laws in the light of newly discovered facts, or the practical application of such new or revised conclusions, theories, or laws. (Webster, 3d ed)

Public Health is given prominence in the distortion of who they really are in fact when you take away the name and think of them as a political party, they would be known to be the very worst in respecting ethical or moral values we all hold dear. The chances a political party which supports the values demonstrated would have little chance of ever being elected in a democratic election.

They seek to let the existing parties do the dirty work for them in undermining the rights economies and stability of democracies where ever they exist. Strategies in favor of a totalitarian regime with little patience for dissenters. What political party would survive promoting only impositions based in unscientific calculations. Unscientific can be demonstrated in reviewing the actual studies giving them power, political conclusions are deliberately added to the research to create fears. Further what political party can now survive without making concessions to the public health dictators who seek world dominance in Globalization “we don’t live in silos” rhetoric.

Public Health is a political party, coercion in its finest hour. The denormalization process and social engineering on a Federal government website is akin to promoting fears of terrorist attacks, to moralize security certificates when in fact the only evidence we have such a danger exists; is in the sale of bags of fertilizer by undercover police who in reality were seeking from the start of the investigation, to arrest the purchasers.

The general public for the most part are reactive as opposed to proactive in fact the general mood in “it doesn’t matter who you vote for” attitudes is one of complacency. The turn out in national elections is anything but impressive, few would suspect this is partially by design we carry a defeatist attitude.

Never have the sales of anti depressants been higher or mistrust in our institutions of Law and government been lower. Dinosaurs are abundant although few have the ambition to speak for fear of political correct branding. People as a rule after all seek to be ambiguous and blend into a crowd. The opposition to voting on same sex marriage legislation in the Canadian legislature in pronouncements of media groups cries of bigotry, hides the underlining reality; if a vote were to occur the members supporting the legislation would thus be revealed, to support a bill many of their electorate would not support.

Health is not a word without duality in comprehension. The Health of society can be seen as in physical health but to a lesser known degree a state of mind conducive to controlling factions. The word Coercion is an interesting word avoided by public health advocates. In the death camps in Germany it was not necessary to drag screaming and kicking people into the ovens, they walked in as a choice derived of free will. This willingness was a direct result of coercion in the lies they were told first. Coercion is in the international books a crime. The methods of committing those crimes are heavily tied to psychological conditioning, in a large group in what we term propaganda. Politicians in seeking approval have allowed half truths and innuendo to evolve into a normal career discipline, enhancing career opportunities dependant on the level of success. Political opinion does not require accuracy or honesty, only an ability to make others believe it in rallying support. Politicians rarely point out inaccuracies in public perception because they at some point will seek to use those perceptions themselves. Besides bucking what the public believes without substantial proof, is usually met with strong opposition in the media, they like to use the spin too, most of the time they were paid to create it.

A further factor in considering the advantages of public health would be the basics in balancing personal and community rights. Health advocates deliberately undermine any recognition of personal and beyond those Autonomy rights as detractors slowing progress in ambitious campaigns despite how little though is really involved in the strategy process in respect to possible results. In Tobacco advertising bans we saw a huge downturn in sign companies ad agencies and most importantly in sponsoring community and sporting events. Where Tobacco industries invested billions back into communities those communities scrambled to make up the huge shortfalls which still have a lasting effect today. The taxation of the products increased poverty and lost sales which were minimal saw Layoffs in legitimate tax paying companies and a shift to organized crime made much more profitable as a result of Tobacco control. As the promotions involved a heavy handed one sided Social advertising campaigns slated as Denormalizing an industry the effect was more of a denormalizing of a significant proportion of our population. Increased hate and innuendos promoted by government and school systems playing the children against their own parents, despite the lack of credible science available. fears and suspicion where the order of the day.

Public Health made a huge victory this week, a milestone the day a Family Doctor announced on the largest media outlet in Canada “Second hand smoke is much more dangerous than smog” during the occurrence of a smog day in Toronto Canada of all places. The location in popular lore where promotions confirm in travel brochures a place surrounded by pristine lakes and wilderness. The idea this place could possibly see a smog day in February would be almost beyond comprehension a decade ago.

Indoor air is the battlefield yet the majority of Public health professionals decided our great outdoors are in need of protection as well. In considering the effects of indoor air we might be able to grasp the reality of outdoor air. In a smoky bar the highest concentrations of cigarette smoke at a level your eyes would burn and you would seek to open doors and ventilate the room is 250 Micrograms per cubic meter of air.

One microgram or millionth of a gram is one thousandth of a milligram or the weight of an amount of water one millionth of a meter cubed. Doctors prescribe medicine in milligrams or millionths of a gram a microgram is one thousand times smaller. One quarter of a milligram can cause us to be uncomfortable in a room the dangerous contents of that smoke are restricted to measurements in Nanograms and Pico grams thousandths and millionths of times smaller in quantity still. The idea someone could inhale an entire cubic meter in an hour is a gross exaggeration they promote. The maximum capacity of our lungs would prove the normal inhalation of an adult would be less than 2 cubic meters a day. Or a total of second hand smoke 375 micrograms per 8 hour day exposed. This is supporting an extreme danger in hospitality workers Health??? Consider this in the perhaps thousands of cubic meters inside a bar which dilutes second hand smoke along with air exchanges even at minimal levels promoted by the propaganda. How many cubic meters are existing out doors the source of indoor air. Although hundreds of cigarettes may be able to elevate the levels indoors to 250 micrograms per cubic meter of air how many would it take to raise the levels outdoors to sufficient levels which require a smog alert?

Real testing has demonstrated the reductions of particulate matter in outdoor air by as little as a single microgram could reduce mortality significantly 3% of total mortality at present, we are assured second hand smoke is much more dangerous in spite of common sense in observing reality. Public Health is adamant in it’s direction it will never encroach on the toes of it’s most generous benefactors or support any notion which suggests they could do us any harm. In considering historical free will decisions of millions who died in Death camps, where will we be marching next, in choices we make ourselves derived of free will?

Public health needs to be considered as organized crime and described in terms of who and not what, as a group among us who make the best use of coercive language in deceiving their victims. A pandemic or cancer which can be cured, by simply focusing the attention of the public on the fact they exist and how many suffer directly because of their actions.

A friend provided me with these links recently which demonstrate radical terrorists activities.

Criminals working within our communities a national security issue requiring immediate attention.

A long read, know the enemy;

google html version (faster download for us slow dial up sufferers)

appendix

google html of appendix

Fred Q

Litigation is about to become the next, huge growth industry.

2006-06-15T12:47:00.000-04:00

Epidemiology is based in the acceptable level of risk as a baseline for comparisons in 1x 10^-4 or one of ten thousand This level can no longer be considered valid in the absence of linearity which established valid cause and effect principles. With no baseline for calculations how valid can we consider the calculations at all, in the face of substantially higher risks now accepted internationally as the basis for smoking ban and child abuse initiatives.

In Canada it is accepted by Health Canada; Environmental Tobacco Smoke ETS in unknown exposure levels causes the deaths of 100 children annually. The statistical association required in a 32 million population and the precision of those numbers demonstrates irrefutably a new acceptable risk factor well beyond the previous one in ten thousand standard. Due to this fact previous assessments and measurements in environmental toxins are proven invalid and of no protection to the population base whatsoever. Even the much higher 3000 ETS deaths in a 32 million population is beyond the previous acceptable risk in a population base standard for epidemiological assessments. Media presentations of Healthcare professionals depicting a statistical rise from 1 to 1.3 in comparative studies as a 30% increased risk establishes any increase no matter how small, or regardless of allowances for errors and confounding effects as unacceptable risk in our new no safe level exists standard.

In the assessment of ventilation technologies in critical review of the Burswood Casino, James Repace stated in his opinion with a level of RSP existing at a high average of 250 Micrograms per cubic meter of air the level was known to be 10,000 times the known safe level in air water and food according to the American EPA. This established proof of a widely accepted fact, the direct inhalation at that level made Environmental Tobacco smoke much more deadly than direct inhalation of Benzene, Chlorine or even Dioxins at previously believed to be known safe levels. In fact few toxins or carcinogens are known which would prove to be more deadly than second hand smoke. The levels of inhaled primary smoke while diluted by only one half liter of air in combination with coincidental exposures to ETS inhaled by a smoker as opposed a full cubic meter of air dilatant or 2000 half liter inhalations were also exceeded in the assessment of harm. Non smoker half liter inhalations, averaged at 10 inhalations per minute and 2400 litters per 8 hour day 1.4 cubic meters per non smoker. Total non smoker inhalations per 8 hour day can be seen to be approximately 375 micrograms RSP [Respiratory smoke particulate]. When you consider the levels of exposure in 1960 before the drastic reductions in primary smoking and unrestricted exposures to the smoke at or away from work and the resulting consequences we have to accept the smoke is becoming more dangerous or the no safe level assessments are indeed valid, dashing all possibilities of linear association. Biological plausibility was lacking in assessing the epidemiologic calculations however the general scientific and medical communities have accepted the theories of venturing beyond association but now establishing causation of disease in non linear proportions resulting from exposures, valid in thousands of public statements by scientific and medical experts globally. This allowed Stanton Glanz the berth of the incredible statement he made recently "Secondhand smoke doubles our risk of breast cancer. The risk you run to go smokefree? Zero."

Now we have created a much larger problem in order to substantiate a plausible level of risk to this proportion we have to dismiss all previous linearity theories. The Heather Crowe case in which a hospitality worker in Canada based on expert testimony establishing cause and effect, with no levels of inhalation or exposures to confounders known and despite the fact fellow employees with the same or higher levels of exposure did not contract cancer due to exposure. The result; linearity is now legally known to be invalid.

The Pandora’s box now open invalidates environmental testing and known safe levels in all potentially toxic exposures by comparison. How could that same compensation board now reject claims of workplace exposures of any toxin at any level resulting in an associated disease with any level of association? Beyond that how can we ever successfully prosecute environmental damages with no valid science with which to establish evidence? When successfully argued to a supreme court decision, this would have the potential to bankrupt every insurance company and workers compensation board on the planet and bog down all the courts with damage claims for decades. The tobacco industry can now enhance their chances to win any claim of damages, with a simple question of an expert brought forward to establish tobacco caused a specific harm. Do you believe Linearity in cause and effect is valid?, the response is a no win situation. Damned if you do and Damned if you don’t. The American EPA decision can be held high as proof in deciding to classify ETS as a deadly carcinogen in the absence of plausible Biological and Timeline observations, as the champion of industries who can now avoid prosecution or at very least make those prosecutions much more difficult to achieve.

Use of the same American government standards has created new theories with similar basis to blossom in battling Obesity pandemics and calculations which validify total population inoculations in place of as per need in dealing with known to be rare Papa Loma virus inspired uterine cancers. A new reality is emerging in medical knowledge we will eventually know how credible the experts remain, as an effect of timeline observations. This would of course be dependant on the continued ability to sustain consensus or political science in media presentations indefinitely.

References

James Repace et al;

http://www.acosh.org/art/critical_evaluation.pdf

Stanton Glanz et al;

http://www.ucsf.edu/its/listserv/stanglantz-l/0516.html

Protection of the new non linear standard at the American EPA allowed them to reject research with a Biological assay.

Et al DR. George D. Thurston, Sc. D.

http://www.cleanairstandards.org/filemanager/download/156/EPA_GDT_testimony061.doc

et al, The American Lung Association

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060326/NEWS06/603260403/1083/LIVING01

Media presentations

http://www.cleanairstandards.org/article/articleview/464/1/41/

Research attributed to the professional oversight of Dr. Neil Coleshaw of Doctors for a smoke free planet, during his employment at the World Health Organization. The research failed to express the actual precision of risk now accepted and expressed in non linear standards.

http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jnci;90/19/1440

Today a new reality unfolds simply being exposed to ETS is unacceptable risk, regardless of the level or duration of that exposure With the new gold standard in place; one wonders as we eventually eliminate all toxins and carcinogens from our environment, if any manufacturer or civilization itself can survive the onslaught of ad agency created fear as a basis for future litigation

http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/OttawaAndRegion/2006/06/14/1630890-sun.html

News flash; Deadly attack at the Ontario legaslature

2006-06-04T10:56:00.000-04:00

This morning at the Ontario Provincial legislature an incident occurred which may have led to the deaths of thousands luckily vigilant security forces took swift action and minimized the damages although it may be some time before the full extent of this tragedy will be fully understood. A group of tourists who had done a walk through tour are the apparent suspects. The use of police horses to keep anti government protesters in line may have led to the exasperation of the already deadly situation originating on the lawn in front of the building.

130 suspects were immediately rounded up for questioning. Police sources revealed; the investigators are seeking possibly more than one suspect in the distribution of the deadly substance leading to the near disaster. Tourists engrossed in capturing that perfect shot may have [although a deliberate act has not been ruled out completely] unwittingly distributed the deadly substance all through the halls and right into the legislative chambers which at the time were not in use in service of the public as is normally the case. Luckily the familiar pungent odor was noticed quickly which set security forces to action. A sample was found almost immediately and rushed to the forensics lab for analysis. The report was decisive the 7200 chemicals revealed by mass spectrometer testing included 44 known carcinogens and 27 deadly and possibly contagious viruses. Results set the extraction team to commence an immediate process driven action; donning respirators and rubber gloves they went to work attempting to remove the dangerous solid matter substance. Pine sol antiseptic cleaner was used extensively to eliminate some of the virulent aspects of the off gasses.

According to overwhelming scientific proof as illustrated by Heath care authorities in the past 5 years of investigating second hand smoke. It would take gale force winds exceeding 300 miles per hour to excavate gasses from a room even then only a 95% success rate can be achieved. The much deadlier off gasses seen in this incident could prove to be much more difficult, it would take perhaps a full 4 year legislative term to rid the public spaces of Liberal doses of horseshit off gasses. The solid material aspect would remain even in the existence of gale force winds. Testing revealed the inclusion of scores of deadly viruses equating the potential deadly effects of a dirty bomb wherever this substance is distributed. This would substantiate the fact no safe level can be permitted ventilation can never be effective in warding off such a deadly toxin.

Epidemiological testing reveals more than 95% of total population mortality occurs in every disease category within 3 days of being exposed to some form of Liberal doses of Horseshit. This makes Liberal doses of Horseshit the most deadly workplace hazard ever known to man far exceeding even those results found in tobacco smoke. Hospitality venues have known the risks for decades and banned the substance in all eating areas. Movie theatres Bingo halls and most places large crowds would be normally expected to go, all have similar although inconsistent rules. The Royal winter fair has no such health protections exposing hundreds of thousands of defenseless children every year to Liberal doses of Horseshit. Every housewife in the country has self imposed bans, as her mother did going back generations in protecting their families from this deadly hazard.

We need to awaken the public to this deadly hazard it could be proposed a re-use of existing advertising promo materials. Everywhere the words second hand smoke or ETS was formerly displayed the replacement of the term Liberal doses of Horseshit could be installed. Waste not, want not, in the spirit of recycling in government sector expenditures. Ad agency spin could be replicated in social engineering strategies saving billions in expenditures this time around. The sitting government is toying with a perfume ban while a much more offensive odor is invading the sinus cavities of millions every day. The smoking ban was implemented with only 44 statistical Ontarians dying daily due to smoking related diseases yet we ignore a hazard easily 4 times as deadly in real numbers responsible for almost 200,000 mortalities annually and 176 deaths in Ontario every day from Liberal Horseshit related diseases. The message is clear the public demands action, we need a bill to level the playing field affording protection to all workers in the province who would be forced to endure deadly long term exposure through the term of a full shift while an inconsiderate co worker sits oblivious to the hazard he inflicts on everyone else in the room. Simply cleaning his shoes could make life safer for those around him yet many would sit in denial refusing to alleviate the situation because shame or ego would not allow them to just look. Parents who expose their kids to Liberal Horseshit should be labeled as abusers and be relieved of parental rights. No one should be allowed employment who would callously expose defenseless co-workers to Liberal Horseshit related diseases. I call on legislators everywhere to ban Liberal Horseshit from all public spaces as well as outdoor patios and within 50 feet of the entrances of Hospitals and hospitality venues.

Healthcare advocates need to get active in enacting the public protections required immediately. We need to create a symbolic graphic to be distributed and displayed in all public spaces. Perhaps a graphic depicting Dalton falling out of the business end of a horse, donning his traditional black suit with red Liberal armband with a couple of strategic council poll reports tied to his feet as parachutes slowing his inevitable decline. If we all work together we can rid our planet of the suspicious smell of Liberal Horseshit and all of it's deadly consequences.

Freedom and Justice for all

2006-05-22T07:23:00.000-04:00

Justice was done today in Canada. It began a few days ago with the public lauding of two broke back Mounties announcing their wedding plans. The politically correct media embraced the story announcing locals in New Brunswick were totally supportive the fellow police offered congratulations and all is well in the Liberal LAW LAW land, that is Canadian justice. A system which has always rewarded conviction rates over truth and Justice. In fact totally accepting of the term “Justice has nothing to do with the facts”. It takes us back to a commercial depicting a woman MP who fought to reform prisons eliminating torture of prisoners. The torture did not actually end it simply took another politically acceptable form. Guards who take no actions most finding it amusing in fact, while hearing the screams of prisoners every night. Just business and Canadian justice without which we would have no deterrents incarcerations need to be a place of punishments. The rapes are just part of what keeps us civil and fearing the law.

A system which finds it so excruciatingly difficult to arrest and convict politicians who steal hundreds of millions in public money, yet finds it so simple to incarcerate a hungry homeless man for stealing a candy bar. A system which embraces driving smokers into the streets to deal with West Nile laden mosquito’s where women who are told not to be alone in dimly lit streets at night, are now forced to do just that . A health minister who lauds his actions dealing with an addiction. “Quit or be punished” the political correct call to justice. One has to wonder when he was treated for another addiction if treatments included threats with a loaded gun. Political correctness which keeps our elected officials under the thumb of media groups, has a lot of inconsistent moralizations in fact the media tends to promote no morality at all.

Police in military style training can not accept less than total control standing while forcing a target to sit gives the feeling of command in the room. Two hands on a Billy club allows a threat without verbalizing the conditions. The uniform indicating a military force who are not to be messed with. Today as with the turban issue of the past and the carrying of ceremonial daggers in school yards a new nail was driven into the coffin of military boot stomping justice in Canada. We can hear the snickers already amongst those wrongfully convicted and raped while society cheered. The same phrase in every interrogation room in the country when a book is slammed on the table or an out of control interrogator looses control resorting to screaming at a prisoner or perhaps assisting a prisoner falling out of a chair while the videotape is accidentally turned off. Justice demands respect while attempting to extract evidence, any evidence which could promote the almighty conviction so Justice can be done. Canadians should bless the sacred union, tongue in cheek every one of us. The rest of the planet is watching the Canadian perspective with amusement, hoping they too will not be forced to bear our politically correct burden, pandering to all while respecting none.

Just a phrase which says it all Justice, a prisoners new defense allowing him to retain some small piece of dignity. Encompassed in a question for the tormentor;

“What are you so grumpy about, didn’t you get your man today?”

LMAO

Selling dead babies is revolting;

2006-04-28T19:43:00.000-04:00

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

Who you gonna believe

2006-04-24T10:40:00.000-04:00

In reviewing the Heather Crow WCB documents it becomes clear her diagnosis was likely a political statement much more than a learned opinion, or an attempt by a doctor not well schooled in Cancer diagnosis. This can be shown in a CDC investigation of a suspected Cancer cluster. The findings showed that no such cluster existed due to a single word explanation “Latency”.

The latency period would be the time between exposure and the onset of disease. For smokers this has always been understood to be a period between 20 and 30 years following prior smoking habits. In fact this stands as the only excuse for the significant declines over the past 45 years in smoking prevalence not resulting in parallel declines in related diseases. Offerings to the public could be seen now to be mistaken unless Heather’s diagnosis was flawed or fraudulent both stories would have a hard time to co-exist in any sense of credibility. Cancers manifest in smokers in the vast majority in later years. Although there are exceptions, which are argumentative, for the most part this has always been the rule with the larger numbers in those later years elevation risk and strong associations could only decrease.

What would be the effect of accepting a shortened latency period? Undoubtedly this would give evidence a lot less Cancers are caused by smoking than previously believed. Now we come to Ms Crow. Who in contracting a workplace injury with less than 5 years total exposure developed a smoker’s tumor? Total smoke ingested in her 5 years employment by calculation in the smokiest of conditions would amount to less than 2 packages of cigarettes smoked. The ban fans would jump for joy at this realization confirming the deadly attributes of the smoke however in comparison to a time in 1960 when everyone was exposed in daily life why did we not see lineups at the cancer wards? If indeed the smoke affected her, the thousands who contract cancer only in later years could not be as strongly associated with smoking as previously believed. For smokers, their spouses, Children and co workers cancer would have manifested much sooner in life.

Lung Cancers could be more significantly associated to some other factor, which could in fact be seen as simply old age, a depreciated immune system not able to fight off one of many viruses responsible, as we know for at minimum 20% of total cancers. Lung cancers account for less than 1% of total mortality yet when we think of smoking we assume Lung cancer to be the most significant outcome. In SAMMEC research a smoker below 35 years of age has little significant mortality risk especially with males who traditionally smoke a lot more. Certainly in most research, risk varies significantly according to how much you smoke and for how long. Perhaps there is something to Heather’s case and as common sense would dictate smoking is not as deadly as we once believed. With a shorter latency period aligning with all other known toxins named in the smoke, air pollution can now be seen the most likely cause of a lot more shortened lives than we gave it credit for in the past.

Latency proves Heather was not a great candidate for the poster girl in tobacco control. She did not work her entire life in this bar and only started after the age of 50 when the risk of cancer increases with age. If she were predisposed to Cancer this would be the time in her life it would most likely appear regardless of ETS in her life. The overall exposure, the amount of time between exposure and onset or Latency, along with a number of other entirely suspicious indicators connected with this story. I personally find it very difficult to accept what is offered is the basis for smoking bans around the globe protecting workers from smoke which can kill with such minor exposure indicates they are all already doomed.

Heather may be the piece of the puzzle, which unmasks the advocates for who they really are and what it is they represent. As an action plan if we could organize a lot of questions regarding latency periods to start swamping Healthcare professionals Heather I would guess would finally be unmasked and her Doctor could be held to account for defrauding the WCB as justice would demand.

Sidebar information from the 50 Year study of doctors who smoke.

Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' Observations on male British doctors

Richard Doll, Richard Peto, Jillian Boreham and Isabelle Sutherland

About half of all persistent cigarette smokers are killed by
their habit—a quarter while still in middle age (35-69 years)
After a large increase in cigarette smoking by young people,
the full effects on national mortality rates can take more
than 50 years to mature

British men born in the first few decades of the 20th century could be the first population in the world in which the full long term hazards of cigarette smoking, and the corresponding benefits of stopping, can be assessed directly Among the particular generation of men born around 1920, cigarette smoking tripled the age specific mortality rates Among British men born 1900-1909, cigarette smoking approximately doubled the age specific mortality rates in both middle and old age Longevity has been improving rapidly for non-smokers, but not for men who continued smoking cigarettes Cessation at age 50 halved the hazard; cessation at 30 avoided almost all of it On average, cigarette smokers die about 10 years younger than non-smokers Stopping at age 60, 50, 40, or 30 gains, respectively, about 3,6, 9, or 10 years of life expectancy

It cannot be said any clearer than that by a source who cannot be associated to the Tobacco industry.

At 30 after 14 years of smoking no significant risk compared to ETS which can have devastating effects in as little as 20 minutes according to ASH. At measured levels in the norm at 250 Milligrams per cubic meter of air a deadly risk more deadly than Benzene with a known safe level at 1 part per million or 360 milligrams per cubic meter of air. Personally I would prefer to take my chances with the second hand smoke or ETS, Benzene would worry me.

If Government information was not so misleading, it should affect you the same way.

I sincerely hope no one is injured while they sort this one out.

Equality of all citizens as guaranteed in the Canadian constitution and a view of reality

As portrayed at tobaccolaw.org

Funded by:

© HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA (1999) as represented by the Ministry of Health

Government costings, for damages they did to smokers

2006-04-19T00:42:00.000-04:00

Failings are obvious in the reliability of the Kaiserman study, and the utilization of SAMMEC as a reliable means of calculation of costs of smoking for public announcements, defaming smokers.

Prior to reading further!!! Read this first.

SAMMEC produces information, which assesses the cost of smoking not only to government but also to the smokers themselves. If the information produced is accepted as valid by government it shows willingness to in effect double the damages against smokers. If Tobacco industries can be held to account for essentially the same act of equal damage how is it even conceivable a Government could justify the doubling of that damage for purely financial gains. The first act against the public could not have been made possible without decades of co-operation of government, which has been compensated enormously in doing so. Now with Taxation they seek to deliberately affect an equal damage against the same victims of their first acts of incompetence. The total damages to smokers amount to 21 Billion dollars annually excluding damages for defaming an identifiable group for what the government believes to be an addiction, an act already condemned by Amnesty International and the Human Rights Commission as an illegal act of torture. All this is true if we can believe the Governments best evidence. Welcome to SAMMEC world.

You might like to review a few facts in regard to why smoking and second hand smoke is considered so damaging and by recent calculations thought to be responsible for extreme financial amounts expressed inaccurately as costs to community or to governments. It all stems from companies competing in Nicotine delivery products and charity foundations, just to mention one group, RWJF for instance are paying and directly training lobbies in methods to subvert government process in a very much planned and deliberate way. Identical processes are being utilized in selling drugs, fat taxes and Globalization while protecting the companies doing the most damages, from ever paying for the damages they cause.

In real testing everything they say about smoking statistically and more can be found in this report.. 30-year reactions by smoking or results in a single day with actual measurements to back up the multiple significant findings in ozone and particulate matter found in the air we breath. This compilation needs be read thoroughly

If Democracy or any small part of it is to survive on this planet. The leaders of industrialized countries need to seriously consider taking back control of their respective nations, with a simple act of nationalizing the holdings of charity foundations and all future charitable deductions. Directing future charity investments from within existing government bureaucracies staffed by community leaders. By placing the funds under the control of real community leaders we can end the tyranny of industrial lobbies that figured out how to undermine Government process through UN agencies. The product of industry lobbies is to protect the industries, who finance them this is causing enormous mortality in not dealing with pollutants in our environment while we chase a created villain

This would not be taking of funds from the corporate giants in reality those funds allowed the large corporations to pay little or no taxes accelerating their growth for decades. The shortfall in Taxation has been heavily subsidized, by those who can least afford to do so the poorest working classes. In effect it is already our money we all worked to create it. 7 Trillion dollars is being invested in stock markets and other investments reducing overall profit possibilities for others. The most cash invested takes the larger share of profits earned. The effect of charity holdings of this magnitude is to lower the standard of living and health consequences for all of society. As a national security issue not many can deny the power all that money earns in the influence of governments around the planet. The added protections in avoidance of community principles and process, in effect now recreating those values only adds to the problem. The rule of law moving out of reach in cost to the majority will not allow much to change without the substantial assistance of those we elect and pay to advocate for us. At the moment they are participating they need to understand who is paying the freight and soon.

In a review of where the current healthcare numbers originate you have to look closely. Read every word to understand what is being said as opposed to what it sounds like. A good deal of spin doctoring went into the creation of the precise wording we hear daily from a number of seemingly independent sources around the globe. It starts here. If you read carefully you start to understand this study is a replication of another by the same author with newer numbers abet still 10-year-old numbers, being plugged in. What you are actually seeing is an update to the political rhetoric to include some, thought to be required, numbers regarding childhood mortalities, just to strengthen the message selling the ad strategy; smokers are to be hated for what they do to defenseless babies. Hitler’s propagandists used this strategy constantly 60 years ago. Kaiserman as a dedicated extremist exhibits a willingness to “do what ever it takes”. The source of the original Political trash is the 1991 Kaisernman report utilizing the original SAMMEC program based in a mystical Cancer society report. How extremist American medicine will go to accomplish it’s goals is very apparent on the main page of the ACS website. The subtle blaming is divided by nationality in place of socioeconomic indicators expressing education and income. This guilt by association tactic in reinforcing racial stereotypes has always worked throughout history. The American medical community always had a large part in those efforts as well. Canada and others learned some embarrassing lessons in Eugenics Hitler carried those ideals to the extreme in his health advocacy campaign. Bone chilling realities show the same industry names that supported the eugenics movement, now heavily involved as heralded NGOs and stakeholders in W.H.O. decision-making and strategies to make us all live better. Apparently our politicians are in need of more shame, in revisiting painful failures of the past. Indeed organized crime gained its roots in America during the last tambourine campaign.

SAMMEC numbers derive from never published or available in the public CPS II numbers to produce multiplier fractions, which are in turn used to create population statistics. The CPS II study must be a good one, as it seems to have more relevance, in fact creation strategies, than the thousands of other studies concerning smoking done to date. Perhaps a glimpse of “figure 4” in the 1991 Kaiserman report of previous financial studies in the same area, which failed to produce on average half the costs SAMMEC does, might give you a hint why even Neil Coleslaw who wrote the runner up presentation recommends the numbers and statements made possible in this beauty. Coleslaw in fact liked it so much he helped adjust SAMMEC for use in the Canadian media.

The Sammec research is deeply flawed primarily because it expresses a cost in the majority of smoking damages 10.5 of the 15 Billion cited is actually lost wages, damages of the smokers themselves in early mortality. An additional 2 billion cited would be a loss to industry. Government costs at the most shown in this study cannot exceed 2.5 billion. The government is therefore, in considering the incomes from cigarette taxation, profiting 5.4 Billion dollars annually if, as the report states, all numbers remain constant. In fact that surplus has risen dramatically since 1991.

In additional 2 billion is a cost to industry in absenteeism non-smokers were found to be less reliable by a factor of 20% in some age groups, this was dismissed as improbable by the author who then stated the 2 Billion dollar figure was accurate with nothing to guide that decision above personal opinion. At the drop of a hat, a 2 billion dollar creation.

Both the 1991 and the 1996 assessments were made ignoring the fact the mandatory age of retirement was 65 years of age. This allowed an addition of 20 wage earning years to the calculations of lost wages and absenteeism. The study group numbers were primarily between the ages of 35 and 85 this would have a large effect on the overall costs. 20 of the 50 years accounted for would almost double the numbers of cost. In addition, by extending the working lifetime it could be ignored 2/3 of those identified [in chart 1 provided] indeed lived past the age of retirement and see no financial wage losses aside from pensions, in the norm. This would reduce the group with actual wage losses by 2/3, which would have tremendous impact on the final numbers as well.

If you consider the other 79% of mortalities occurring in the same age groups who could also be applied to the scrutiny and process to produce 60 Billion dollars in community cost with similar credibility sustained. Considering smokers although apparently according to the report, they almost all die of smoking related diseases, as it would appear. Few die of other causes irrespective of the statistics, which should find, half of them should be dying of other causes. This should be compounded in this group who represent 54% of the population at the time of the study in ever smoking characterizations. By comparison the other 79% of total mortalities would appear to be comprised in the majority of non smokers, providing strong evidence smoking could be curative of all other non smoking related causes of death. Discounting this conclusion it can only be found the SAMMEC study numbers are in fact seen to be grossly miss stated.

The origins of the primary risk factors derived solely from the American Cancer society CPS II research would cast some light on the situation. This group has been seen when advantageous or in denying other opinions to be heard, to exaggerate facts and numbers ignoring real science or simply denying it exists. In order to make possible fallacious statements promoting hatred, in garnering financial rewards. They are seen to be contradicting their own numbers often.. Cancer Societies promote themselves above any positive aspects they could provide society. The use of this research, as it is described as a debt of society, for the sin of dying before 85 years of age is laughable. Until you realize they are doing it and conveying those exaggerated costs to the public for approval. A new campaign is in the wings now to do exactly the same thing for those who eat unhealthy foods. While paying 300% tax rebates to advertisers of healthy foods. The mainstream media groups are silent for obvious reasons they want the business. The government expresses the idea they believe these products to be unsafe, but allow them to be sold and tax the victims. If the products cause harm or, even if statistics predict they might, the statement 50% of smokers will die of their habit indicates by taxing as a group half of that group are paying excess taxation over and above the rest of the population based purely in speculation. That same speculation governments allowed when most started smoking not knowing what to believe as Governments were hiding the truth from the public they held for decades.

In reality if 10.5 billion annually for at minimum the past 15 years is owed to smokers as the government seems to confirm in SAMMEC research, they should be free to collect it from both of the partners who have profited by it’s sale industry and the government

In Population studies the product mortalities said to be resulting from Tobacco use are amazingly close to 21% meaning SAMMEC was never necessary other than to calculate age distribution categories. Deliberately used to distribute the total keeping in balance distributes. The resulting 21% was already said to be known balances needed to be maintained in allowing the illusion of credibility. Amazingly all SAMMEC studies have this same characteristic of producing this 21% figure regardless of what population base is studied or what other factors may be evident in respective environments. It may be interesting to test the Russians living close to the nuclear accident at Chernobyl a few years back to see how much variance SAMMEC can produce. From observations so far in Germany, Canada, Taiwan, The world population and the USA all with 21% mortality of total mortality results. This is not what a researcher would expect to find even with absolute proof in theory the 10s of millions of variables would in fact make this tendency almost impossible. Unless the figure was the goal and category distribution was the only task at hand.

The American Lung association has a different view which is rejected by the American CDC and the EPA based in actual testing and real world observations the facts in the 6 cities research and follow up showed for each reduction of 1 Microgram of particulate matter reductions in mortality would be 75,000 lives. The ALA estimates the level where pollution would be within safe limits would require a reduction of 5 Micrograms saving 375,000 lives. In reviewing what all groups are saying smoking is accumulative and risk is not associated with casual exposure as they believe is the case with second hand smoke ETS, indicated by numerous studies and research announcements. As little as 20 minutes of exposure ASH decries causes immediate and irreversible heart damage in otherwise healthy individuals. This will remain a cause for debate in establishing credibility in the source

The political arguments and the risk expressed in the fear factor 5000 deadly ingredients, which may or may not exist in ETS. In actual calculated amounts in the most smoky of environments these chemicals are found in quantities measured in Billionths and Trillionths of a gram per cubic meter of air. The air on the other hand is known to have levels of these same chemicals in addition to 35,000 more in quantities measured in millionths of a gram per cubic meter of air. You can assess the true risk yourself with basic common sense.

Statements risk decreases with cessation in both primary and ETS, even in later years cessation reduces mortality risk this could not be true unless the risk was in fact a level of accumulation. If more dangerous chemically enhanced particulate matter was accumulated in addition to smoking accumulations it stands to reason smokers would be more affected than non-smokers although in fact all would be affected to a large degree regardless of smoking. It should be noted those who contribute large sums to both the major charities and lobby groups creating hatred in our communities are the very industries that contribute to the majority of those air contaminants in the process of producing their products for sale. Tobacco industries although a convenient diversion do not contribute to pollution levels in outdoor air in a significant factor compared to Petrochemicals, Metals, Energy production or Oil; fuel and lubricating products. This could be expanded into the risks of drug peddlers fear inspired sales of a long list of deadly products of their own. The total of all smoke produced by cigarettes could be calculated to almost non-existent in comparison to millions of megatons being released into the air every year. How so can these emissions be not popularly seen to have tremendous circumstance. I would propose because all the major medical charities in smoking campaigns offer protections to industries in the lowering of public awareness and urgency. The so-called healthcare / charities lobby groups would not exist very long, if you were to take away their ability to distribute fears.

Is it not time the public was let in on this dirty little secret undeniably liked to partisan politics in the “earned media” Liberals like to talk about behind closed doors.

I like to call it Gomery gone wild.

The existence of Cancers was not known prior to 1920 in The UK by 1931 less than 2000 cases were reported annually by 1952 a mere 20 years later, the reported Cancers grew almost 10 fold. Smoking certainly existed long before 1900 when the sales in the United States alone were in the billions smoked per year. The category in Chart one defining caused by tobacco is quite arguable to even make such a generous assessment as to the cause of death regardless of the death categorization being listed in a disease category defined as attributable to Tobacco use fails to recognize how many other causes are also related to the same disease categories. The fact in the chart non smokers appear to not die of those diseases is telling in the final assessments. In fact the 70% causation assumed is highly unlikely unless you are prepared to say the other factors had little effect, which historically you could be shown to be quite wrong. The overall effect of this assessment would be to assume a cost of all other factors and apply it to one cause alone.

The Cost of Smoking in Canada, 1991
Murray J Kaiserman

Abstract

In 1991, smoking-attributable health care costs in Canada were $2.5 billion (CAN). Additional smoking-attributable costs included $1.5 billion for residential care, $2 billion due to workers' absenteeism, $80 million due to fires and $10.5 billion due to lost future income caused by premature death. Adjustments for future costs if smoking had not occurred and smokers had not died were estimated to be $1.5 billion. According to this analysis, smokers cost society about $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes. The results indicate that smoking-attributable costs in Canada have increased steadily since 1966 to the 1991 value of $15 billion. Nevertheless, while the determination of smoking-attributable costs is important, the issue continues to be public health. In addition, for the first time in Canada, the smoking-attributable cost for residential care has been estimated.

Results and Discussion

It is estimated that roughly 6.5 million current smokers and 4.9 million former smokers accounted for approximately $2.5 billion in smoking-attributable excess health care costs in 1991, which is about 3.8% of the $66.7 billion total health care bill in Canada. Since ever smokers represent about 54% of the population, it must be remembered that they would also be responsible for about 54% of "normal" health care costs, or about $35 billion. An additional $1.5 billion was spent on former smokers in residential care facilities.

Despite the use of different methodologies, these costs are comparable to those of the state of California, which has about the same size of population as Canada. Using the Rice model, it was estimated that approximately 4.5 million Californian smokers aged 12 or more accounted for $2.2 billion in 1989. In addition, the US Department of Health and Human Services, using a method similar to the one presented here, recently estimated that smoking-attributable health care costs in the US were $21.89 billion in 1993 for a population about 10 times the size of Canada's.

It is not surprising that all three studies would arrive at roughly the same estimates since they use the same basic SAF methodology and estimate the same health care categories: hospitals, physicians and drugs. Of the three studies, the one prepared by the US Department of Health and Human Services is probably more complete because it incorporated other categories, including Medicare, Medicaid and nursing-home care, some of which do not exist in Canada. Nevertheless, whatever method used, the estimates are probably low because all of the costs cannot be estimated.

From the Conclusions;

Smokers spent $10.45 billion on tobacco products, of which about 75% went to governments in the form of taxes. Excluding lost income (which costs individuals and not governments) and disability (which incurs costs for the employer), the cost of smoking for governments was about $2.3 billion in health care costs (including residential care) and an additional $96 million in lost income taxes from smokers who died in 1991. The latter number is estimated by assuming that, on average, those smokers who died in 1991 earned one half of their income at a tax rate of 19.8%. Even with this latter amount included, the result is that smokers paid in more than they took out by about $5.4 billion.

The above chart should demonstrate clearly the deceptions in statements made. An estimation of what smoking could cost as identified in the wording smoking “attributable” as opposed to attributed costs. Attributable would include all disease categories attributable to smoking meaning by statistical association regardless of Relative risk or Associated correlation. A total of all disease categories, which could be caused by smoking irrespective of the fact in reality, are responsible for a much lesser percentage, which could have been found in calculating by age groups and disease categories the actual risk factor as a percentage of the possible costs. The calculation was not included and this report stands as the basis for political arguments we hear today gratuitous fear mongering; to sway public opinion and justify the excessive taxation and banning of smokers from privately owned property establishments or sheltered outdoor spaces. This is discussed in the conclusions of the report, which clearly states smokers pay 5.4 Billion more than they actually cost the community. The chart showing the costs found in this study compared to others demonstrate clearly why the anti smoker biased crowd preferred these numbers when expressing to the public statements regarding the costs of smoking. Further the reference to this study in the current report in establishing norms in SAMMEC research can be seen to invalidate the assumptions made in later exaggerated SAMMEC numbers.

The researcher in this study shows an enormous error that can explain the disparities in assumptions made. The comparison to California research that is said to give credence to the numbers in close relationship to the numbers found in this study. This can be easily found to actually show proof in the lack of credibility in the numbers and possibly the researchers who formulated this report. The recent 6 cities study showed by actual measurements a differential in all disease categories between least and most polluted cities this included a confounding effect for smoking. A 26% disparity. I would challenge the researcher to demonstrate an offset which could explain his assessment although the California population would be close to the total population of Canada in a research group restricted to a 54% of total population who lived prior to 1960. The levels of pollution and it's affects on the population through their lives in California would be hard to find in the research period any where in Canada. Pollution levels have increased in Canada substantially in the past decade however still do not come close to the levels in California today even with the substantial reduction efforts they have made.

In addition In the United States despite not having a national healthcare program per capita they spend a lot more than we do in Canada in Federal health care spending. This can only decrease the actual Canadian costs in comparison to a population base 10 times as high. Further in a ratio comparison the numbers demonstrated with a smaller population group approximately 10% of our neighbors to the south. Huge disparities exist in higher estimates of harm and expense in all categories. Larger group studies should result in more accuracy in the final estimated numbers. Higher risk assessments in Canada have not been explained. In one part of this report it actually states non smokers in absentee numbers are 20% higher because this is a curative number suggested in smoking it is summarily dismissed, however in final tabulations smokers are stated to cost in absenteeism 2 billion dollars. This amount is stated later to be a cost of employers who in reality would, if the need were there, simply replace the workers and complete their tasks regardless. The 10.5 billion stated as lost future earnings are not an expense or for that matter owed to government, amounts if any are actually a cost to only ever smokers themselves not truly consistent with the estimations being sought in this report. This amounts to 12.5 Billion dollars tabulated as a cost, which in fact is not a cost to government or community in the least. Even the taxes on these amounts are not lost to government or community any more so than the loss of life from the other 79% of annual mortalities.

In a 1997 Audit the Government was told to clean up their act at Health Canada as an international embarrassment. They not only did not follow the recommendations they got rid of the science staff replacing them with spin-doctors and politicians. The head scientist today is a political scientist I kid you not.

It is not reasonable to expect these amounts realistic in order to assess costs to levy taxes against smokers or use in slanderous campaigns in the media. By charging them damages derived from their own damages, for the 50% risk stated in other Health Canada information, “they would die due to one of the statistically related diseases” is inexcusable.

In the United States the multi-Billion dollar Tobacco settlement was marked up and attached to the sale price of the product negating any punishment of the industry. Successive Tobacco tax increases have allowed product price increases as well. In effect smokers are paying for lost wages they would be estimated to suffer regardless of when those deaths will occur based in a population statistic encompassing at minimum 54% of the population regardless of the fact only 20% of the population smokes. Although smokers were compensated in the settlements no effort was ever made to return the portions in the majority of those settlements paid in settlement amounts. The most damning fact can be found in the majority of smokers living today; 20% smoke; smokers are being forced to pay for a future population base exceeding 54% in the majority who don’t smoke and never did. Compensation for amounts equal to wages, Healthcare including residential care, fire damages and income taxes to the age of 85, of 34% of the population when no such damages actually occurred or will in the future, in more than half of the compensated amounts.

The effects of smoking shown in the chart are insignificant prior to the age of 35. The report encompasses a population group born prior to 1955 still living or dying in 1991. The report can be further defined as those between the ages of 35 and 85 in 1990 this would be a group born between 1905 and 1955. The population demographic historically would be much different than we see in 1990 and still different today. The use of coal was the most popular heating fuel in most homes. Little was known of the effects of leaded fuels in cars or asbestos, which was used extensively. During that era we had atomic testing and the use of 2 atomic bombs in Japan with known affects globally in the increases of cancers. Influenza, Scarlet fever, TB and many other diseases were common which have since been all but eliminated although patients would have sustained permanent damages despite survival. The lead in the air did not just vanish because we stopped adding to it with the advent of unleaded fuels. The replacement product benzene in levels 10,000 time the known safe level as a replacement is all but ignored although it should be reasonable to see there would have to be some dangerous outcomes. Mysteriously although we know a lot of oil products cause cancers we as a nation can find wisdom in smoking bans for a calculated estimate of 3000 lives in a 30 million population. 1 in 10,000 is the international acceptable risk factor. In fact the very studies which made the 3000 assessments started at 1 in 10,000 if the level is below were they started where is the real harm they swear exists?

The use of mustard gas during 2 world wars and even the use of lead and mercury in house paints and dinnerware were not realized as potential hazards all in the test groups smoking and non smoking would have been exposed however how many would be affected more than others is not considered. Socioeconomic conditions remains a problem as smokers are in the majority at the bottom of the scale they also live in the most polluted areas and come in contact with toxins more often in the workplace. The huge pollution levels reduced through coal reductions would have to have left some lingering effects. Proof of the effects of reduction or elimination of many of these factors can be found at the Stats Canada database between 1950 and today with life expectancy figures gaining 12 years in average. The 100 years study group of Doctors who smoke which I would assume would make a very exceptional group in relaying information to the research group. The Study indicated a 10-year loss of life duration on a declining scale to no significant loss with less than 12 years of smoking quitting by age 30. The ever smokers inclusion and risk factor applied seems to discredit the reported information in favor of a smaller and less lengthy report done by a biased lobby group known as the American Cancer Society, who’s very existence depends on the level of public concern they are able to create. In fact the 1996 study includes a 1.3 risk factor, which was never found in actual research. The WHO study clearly stated the risk was insignificant.

In assessing the numbers presented in Figure 1

If you take into effect the ever smokers totaling 65% of the total population very few die from other causes compared to non smokers comprising the majority of the non smoking related mortality figures. Either this study proves smoking has a curative effect in relation to all other causes of death or the figures are seen to be largely flawed. Calculations below will demonstrate this discrepancy.

If you look at the age categories the last two columns on the right ever smokers as previously stated comprise 54% of the total population and should represent 54% of the mortality of all causes regardless of smoking.

Take a number from any line in the second last category representing total mortality in the country in 1991.

Multiply that number by .54 to get the normal ever smokers total, which should be normal if smoking did not exist.

Multiply by .46 to get the deaths of non-smokers from all causes.

Here is what you will find

Male

[A] Total Mortality

[B] Ever Smokers 54% of total population

[C]Non-smokers 46% of total population

[D] Tobacco use attributable deaths

[E] Smokers deaths of all other causes Subtract B-D

Compare E to C and B

__________A______ B______ C______ D______ E

25-34 >>>3185 .......1720 ......1465 ...........0 ........1720

35-49 >>>4097 ........2212 ......1885 .......1849 .......363

45-54 >>> 6616 .......3573 ......3043 .......3256 ........317

55-64 >>>14,839 .....8013 ......6826 .......6664 .......1349

65-74 >>>26,697 ...14,407 ....12272 .....11419 ......2988

75+ >>>>45,642 ...24,647 ....20995 .......8451 .....16196

>>>>>>>101075 .....54572.... 46486 .....31639..... 22933

Female

[A] Total Mortality

[B] Ever Smokers 54% of total population

[C]Non-smokers 46% of total population

[D] Tobacco use attributable deaths

[E] Smokers deaths of all other causes

Subtract B-D

Compare E to C and B

__________A ______B______ C______ D______ E

25-34 >>>1237 ........668 ........569 ...........77.......... 591

35-49 >>>2276 ......1229 ......1047 ...........55 ........1174

45-54 >>>3801 ......2053 ......1748 ..........975 .......1078

55-64 >>>8307 ......4486 .......3821....... 2269 .......2217

65-74 >>>17520 ......9461...... 8059 ......4093 .......5368

75+>>>>>54625.... 29498 ....25127 ......1764 .....27734

Examples of research referencing the numbers in this report can be judged on their own merits.

This one predicted general decreases in mortality figures would be seen between 1991 and 2000. In actuals we know from the various charity groups mortality figures in all disease categories continued to climb in significant numbers.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/16-2/c_e.html

Smokers and ever smokers comprised the prevalence factor indicating a total of 54% as the starting point in exposed multipliers applied against mortality in specific age groups for a particular year. In most cases the multiplier would exceed 70% as ever smokers all with a common risk factor varying through age and gender groupings. The majority of these Relative risks also exceed expected norms consistently found in research studies, by a large degree. The risk assignments appear to be the highest in the 55-64 ranges declining from there to the lowest in the 75+ ranges. In physical reality smoking is an accumulative risk dependant on the amount smoked and for how long. The research bears this out in those who smoke less are affected less, those who quit reduce risk over time.

The risk factors applied seem to indicate no inclusion of these effects. The averaging of confounders toward a linear scale needs to recognize the variations of smoking prevalence not only between smokers but a smoker’s variation as well. The wide brush of those who quit needs recognition of how much they smoked and how long ago they quit no methods are discussed with the exception of a single unpublished study with no access or peer review to substantiate methods of determining specific Relative Risk calculations which are provided to the researcher by the SAMMEC program. The Relative risk is applied consistently in current and ever smokers despite the vast dissimilarities of the two groups discussed.

It should be understood it would be impossible to avoid the use of an empirical model of mean and variance, in discerning the effects of primary smoking as opposed to simplistic standard deviation. Standard deviation requires a single dimensional equation Smoking is in the least 3 if you assume 3 dimensions at minimum in ever smokers you now require 9 dimensions with at least half unknown priors requiring estimation to be reduced to one for use in the SAMMEC system. The added complexity of inclusion of a second group skews the model entirely. The abilities of a 1980 spreadsheet assumed to be utilized in SAMMEC, would have no such capabilities as to calculate reliable estimates without considerable intervention prior to the submission of linear figures to facilitate the calculations. The use of massaging the data with Log averaging methods should be considered cautiously. Because the list of other factors which co-exist in study of a population group are so numerous as to be almost impossible to even compile a list and assessing the associated confounding factors in numeric terms will make the task of an unassisted linear principle quite remote even with the computing power available today. More recent research bears out the reason for caution the re-evaluation of outdoor pollution dangers as triple what was previously believed will require a new recalculation of all leveling efforts basically a reevaluation of this entire report The filtering down to a linear base is so heavily dependant on human judgments the true value or dependability of a model of this nature should be used with extreme caution. The haphazard way this is applied in varying degrees of political posturing is evident throughout the 1991 report in the transposing of “attributed” figures in numerous causative statements and assumptions being relayed as factual and determinant in assessing costs.

SAMMEC can generally be judged in its consistent Risk Factors produced globally with respect to diverse population bases. The six cities research showed a distinction in significant numbers with confounding for smoking a 26% differential between most and least polluted cities. The observed decreases in Lung Cancers and cardiovascular diseases as pollution levels declined, even with the short span of the study lifecycle is absolute proof Particulate matter is a major cause of smoking related diseases categories and the reactance time is significantly shorter than causation factors traditionally allied to smoking. SAMMEC applies little respect to other well-known determinants but rather envelops them all in assessing cost for their effects as one item, regardless of smoking or air quality prevalence. The author indicates both in the preamble and the conclusions the report was to be used if a lawsuit ever happened against Tobacco companies in Government seeking damages both for Government and community including smokers. It was never meant to be used in the way it has been in subsequent SAMMEC research the basis for smoking bans and Taxation. It includes smoker’s damages, which are then being billed to smokers in Tobacco taxation.

References

The 6 cities study

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press03152006.html

Doctors smoking study Co authored Sir Richard Doll

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/328/7455/1519

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sammec/

Welcome to SAMMEC

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sammec/overview.asp

Infant calculations addition, funded by RWJF

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/rhs-ssg/factshts/mort_e.html

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

http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/BMSG_AccelerationReport.pdf

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

http://www.whsc.emory.edu/_releases/2002april/smoking_costs.html

Why lobbies prefer Studies to physical scientific research

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

Non Randomized effects of bias

http://www.hta.ac.uk/execsumm/summ727.htm

Talking to the wind

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16359607&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Manufactured medical conditions

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060411-6573.html

Disease mongering

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27264823.shtml

Disease mongering

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=41427

Disease Mongering

http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=16467&hed=Pharma+Invents+Disease%3A+Report§or=Industries&subsector=Biosciences

Fear mongering at Health Canada the training course

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/marketsoc/index_e.html

Provincial counterpart; the new ministry of propaganda

http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/english/strategicframework/what.asp

Is the use of Taxes for political purposes are no long a matter of law or ethical principles?

Autonomy rights are now obviously outdated in Canada.

SAMMEC Research accomplishments to date

The process obviously comes with prepared media statements as they are all written in similar fashion.

American CDC shows off their new improved weapon and how to use it

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5339a2.htm

From Taiwan

http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/suppl_1/i62

Results: Total smoking attributable medical expenditures (SAEs)amounted to US$397.6 million, which accounted for 6.8% of thetotal medical expenditures for people aged 35 and over. Meanannual medical expenditures per smoker was US$70 more than thatof each non-smoker. Smoking attributable years of potentiallife lost (YPLL) totaled to 217 761 years for males and 15462 years for females, and the corresponding productivity losswas US$1371 million for males and US$18.7 million for females.

In Germany

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/1/31

Direct costs were mainly calculated based on routineutilization and expenditure statistics and indirect costs werecalculated according to the human capital approach. Results:Twenty-two percent of all male and 5% of all female deaths aswell as 1.5 million years of potential life lost were attributableto smoking.

The District of Columbia

We even have a calculation from the Black vs. White, race perspective.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2621749&dopt=Abstract

Comparisons of black and white

Smoking-attributable mortality, morbidity, and economic costs in the District of Columbia.

Rivo ML, Kofie V, Schwartz E, Levy ME, Tuckson RV.

”Cigarette smoking is generally considered to be the most important preventable cause of death in the United States. To determine the public health impact of smoking in the District of Columbia, the DC Commission of Public Health calculated smoking-attributable mortality, morbidity, and economic costs in this predominantly black population. In 1985, an estimated 933 district residents died from smoking-related diseases, resulting in 3535 years of potential life lost. Cigarette smoking contributed to approximately 13.5% of all District deaths in 1985 (N = 6921) and accounted for 30% of all deaths of persons over age 20, far exceeding the affect of other potentially preventable causes of mortality. Black residents, especially black men, shared a disproportionately greater burden of smoking-attributable mortality when compared with white residents. These smoking-attributable deaths resulted in over $110 million in direct medical and indirect morbidity and mortality costs to District of Columbia residents. The results indicate that cigarette smoking is a major contributing cause of the black-white disparity in health status in the District of Columbia.”

I have a link to more research funded by RWJF however most of this research is dismissed by the totalitarian attitudes responsible for this process.

http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/14/suppl_2/ii38.pdf

If you want to see the impact of this link in real terms.
Look at the strategy submissions and final draft WHO strategy at this link.
Pay special attention to the Canadian submissions Feb. 2004

If you want to see the future from a Health Canada perspective.

http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/strategy/eb11344/en/index1.html

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 funded in his budget.
Feb. 16 2004
http://www.cspinet.org/canada/who_glstrat.html

March 5 2004
http://www.cspinet.org/canada/prebudget_consult.html

May 13 2004
http://www.cspinet.org/canada/PanCanadianLetter.pdf

June 9 2004
http://www.cspinet.org/canada/pdf/SudburyTalk.ppt
Power point presentation page 2 item 4

"CSPI does not accept funding from industry or government"

Reality from another source.
http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=CSP100#grant

This one should sound very familiar.

I found one section, which was entirely telling in understanding the very chummy relationship with this group and the Liberal party in determining health care direction. The question we have to ask here is, who might be leading whom.
The timing of this groups actions leave that one, very suspiciously open to interpretation.

April 17 2003
http://www.cspinet.org/canada/PanCanadianLetter.pdf

"The Scope of the problem of diet- and inactivity-related disease
Preventable diet- and inactivity-related diseases cause immense human suffering and disability,
lead to an estimated 20,000 to 47,000 premature deaths every year,2 precipitate between $2.5 billion
and $4.6 billion in health care spending per year, and drain between $5.3 billion and $9.9 billion per
year from the Canadian economy as a whole.3 Recently, Health Canada estimated the total economic
burden of diet-related disease alone to be $6.3 billion annually. If unchecked, these costs will likely
increase substantially in the coming years as a result of rising rates of obesity, rising pharmaceutical drug costs, and the aging baby boom population.
The World Health Organization has recognized that diet, in particular, can play a key role in
disease prevention. In its October 2002 World Health Report, the World Health Organization
estimated that healthy life expectancy can be increased by as much as 6.5 years in Canada by avoiding
the top 25 preventable health risks.4 However, the report found that, in the healthiest sub-region of the
Americas (which includes Canada), virtually all preventable deaths examined are attributable to six of

the 25 health risk factors:5 four diet-related factors (blood cholesterol, blood pressure, overweight, and
low fruit and vegetable intake), physical inactivity and tobacco. Among the diet-related disease risk
factors, blood pressure alone accounted for 13.5% of all deaths in 2000. Blood cholesterol accounted
for 12.7%, overweight for 9.9%, low fruit and vegetable intake for 6.2%, and physical inactivity for
5.6%. While these risk figures are not completely additive -- because many deaths may be caused by
more than one risk factor -- it seems evident that diet and, to a lesser extent, physical inactivity (partly
mediated through obesity) play very large roles in chronic disease mortality. Perhaps, together, poor
diet and physical inactivity are responsible for more deaths than tobacco, which the report indicated
was responsible for 23.5% of deaths in this sub-region.6 Certainly, for the great majority of Canadians who are non-smokers, the chief risk factors for mortality among those reviewed in the report were diet and physical inactivity-related. In April 2001, the Canadian federal government, alone, committed $100 million per year for five years to its anti-tobacco strategy.7 By stark contrast, the budget for
Health Canada's Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion was roughly $1.5 million in 2000-01.8"

An economist should investigate this research

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/18-1/c_e.html

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/c903ce.html#0.2.2Z141Z1.NBS3AG.68WQBF.V

CDC version 2003

In 2000, an estimated 8.6 million (95% CI = 6.9--10.5 million) persons in the United States had an estimated 12.7 million (95% CI = 10.8--15.0 million) smoking-attributable conditions. For current smokers, chronic bronchitis was the most prevalent (49%) condition, followed by emphysema (24%). For former smokers, the three most prevalent conditions were chronic bronchitis (26%), emphysema (24%), and previous heart attack (24%). Lung cancer accounted for 1% of all cigarette smoking-attributable illnesses (Table).

ACS Version Today

Health Effects of Smoking

About half of all Americans who continue to smoke will die because of the habit. Each year, about 438,000 people die in the US from tobacco use. Nearly 1 of every 5 deaths is related to smoking. Cigarettes kill more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined.

Cancer

Cigarette smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths. It is a major cause of cancers of the lung, larynx (voice box), oral cavity, pharynx (throat), and esophagus, and is a contributing cause in the development of cancers of the bladder, pancreas, cervix, kidney, stomach, and some leukemias.

About 87% of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women, and is one of the most difficult cancers to treat. Fortunately, lung cancer is largely a preventable disease. Groups that promote nonsmoking as part of their religion, such as Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists, have much lower rates of lung cancer and other smoking-related cancers.

From the ALA

This annotated bibliography presents brief summaries of selected research papers published in 2005 (or in press in January 2006) on the health effects of particulate and ozone air pollution.

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.
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

Harvard Six Cities Study Follow Up: Reducing Soot Particles Is Associated with Longer Lives

For immediate release: Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Boston, MA - An eight-year follow up to the landmark Harvard Six Cities Study has found an association between people living longer and cities reducing the amount of fine particulate matter, or soot, in their air. The study has been published in the March 15 issue of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

The follow-up study found that an average of three percent fewer people died for every reduction of one ug/m3 in the average levels of PM2.5 fine particulate matter, defined as having a diameter of 2.5 microns or less -- narrower than the width of a human hair. This decreased death rate is approximate to saving 75,000 people per year in the U.S., said lead author Francine Laden, HSPH Assistant Professor of Environmental Epidemiology.

The WHO facts on Second hand smoke ETS despite what you may have heard.

http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jnci;90/19/1440

Want more? read my blog

Why ETS is nothing more than a bad joke

War Crimes

2006-04-12T13:34:00.000-04:00

Should someone be requesting that the Canadian Cancer society be investigated for fraud and mass murder?

In viewing the case of Heather Crowe the barmaid internationally known because of a WCB case in Ontario. She had her claim accepted in a work related injury contracting Cancer as her doctor stated “a smoker’s tumor” due to exposure to “second hand smoke”. Her Doctor would not lie to the WCB in expressing above a personal opinion his medical analysis of her situation for that could be deemed as defrauding the WCB, who were obliged to compensate her injuries.

The Canadian Cancer society has not been forthcoming with the public in failure to disclose a process exists which can determine the cause of a specific lung tumor prior to surgery, removing the Tumor and analyzing its characteristics. Even if that had been done the ability to absolutely link the tumor to a specific cause. This situation could only have occurred with an analysis process to substantiate the conclusions her doctor made. In public statements Heather referred to the tumor as inoperable Moreover, as such a death sentence. The removal of lungs or partial Lungs has been successful in many other instances, heart lung transplants we have heard about for decades have been successful, however a prognosis of a smokers tumor by it’s known description would for some reason eliminate these possibilities. She most certainly will die and has expressed a wish to be the last to die of a “smoker’s tumor”. It is time she was given her most profound wish. The Medical community has held secret the explanation of this condition not allowing even their own researchers the ability to seek a cure as no mention of a smoker’s tumor or its strange characteristics, exists in medical texts anywhere in the public domain. Look it up.

The process as affirmed by the Canadian Medical association and described in Government sponsored advertising most certainly exists. The fact a tumor can be identified and linked absolutely to cause reveals the fact The Canadian Cancer Society has been overstating a need for donations for research in these areas, in which a process is already established. Further with the identification process that certainly must exist the cure for Cancer can be as simple as removing unnecessary exposure to causative elements known in this case as ETS or environmental Tobacco Smoke Smoking bans fall far short of this objective.

Health professionals have been saying for years no safe level exists. In Israel, fearing chemical attacks in the recent past the citizens were issued breathing apparatus and chemical suits. With the vast amounts of ETS in our outdoor and indoor environments resulting from hundreds of years of smoking and the ability of the smoke to resist air currents and linger in a room perhaps for centuries. Government must act now and install Hurricane forced capable ventilation systems, to vacate this harmful situation, as we know also as the only effective means of protection. In a recent Radio interview The highly respected Doctor Glanz confirmed James Repace’s irrefutable evidence in his assessment of harm at 16.4 Pico grams per cubic meter of air. Glanz was heard to reveal radioactive isotopes have been found in the smoke. This confirms as an equal harm of radioactive waste in similar acceptable levels ETS risk is nothing to take lightly. with a 50,000-year half-life disposal after cleanup is completed would represent a huge challenge in storage of massive volumes of contaminated air, It is a testament to human ingenuity the citizens themselves have been able to survive thus far in being able to avoid contact through their own devices for so many years. The Hurricane in Louisiana will one day be seen as a God send, in the declining Lung Cancer mortality figures in the region, which will certainly reflect the desired cleansing effect of hurricane forced winds. Governments need to act in the interest of survival of the human species. Failure to do so will most certainly lead to further catastrophic mortality in the future. The Canadian Cancer society is remiss in its duty to full disclosure to the public, in details of the discovery process; they need to be held to account for this abomination in front of 12 of their peers.

The Government who most certainly are aware of the situation is allowing a deadly product to be sold. It should be obvious to all with little common sense the products should be removed from the shelf until they can be proven safe. The small view of protecting hospitality workers from injury does not fully address the larger situation. Smokers themselves although the primary smoke was believed in the past to cause their injuries known as smoking related diseases are obviously being exposed to a much more deadly toxin in the smoke, causing the deaths of others in minor exposures to it. Perhaps a re-evaluation of the overall situation outside the political consensus community view needs to be undertaken. If as we now know ETS can cause cancer with the actual exposure levels expected by non smokers who work in smoking environments the much higher exposures to smokers constitutes an extreme danger. Although they are afforded exemplary protection by the cigarette filter during primary smoking they are also inhaling the ETS laced air causing the major concern. We can now understand more clearly perhaps smoking itself was never as dangerous as we have always believed with an obviously much more deadly toxin accumulate present as a result of centuries of burning this plant, previously given little notice.

The proof of process in the public announcements by health authorities around the globe and especially from the World Health Organization leaves little doubt. The Canadian cancer society has been soliciting funds under false pretenses. They have deliberately with held vital information of the progress that most certainly will eliminate new cases of Lung cancer in short order with an organized action plan. The virtual Library of other health consequences attributed to smoking and ETS will no doubt see tremendous decreases in kind, once this information is allowed in the public domain. The explanation as to why such vital information is being with held can only have one possible explanation the organization’s administrators are more concerned with self enrichment and sustainability of funding sources than with the admitted to be “preventable deaths” of millions around the globe. As with the Tainted blood scandal they are relying on Government and paid media contacts to cover up these despicable acts allowing death and extreme suffering in exchange for cash payments is inexcusable.

Further proof of the use of their celebrity to disseminate fears for financial gains can be demonstrated on their own public website. In Feb. 2006 the home page requested all to sign a petition requesting increased funding from the federal government stating clearly Cancer rates are increasing at alarming rates 42% of Canadians would be predicted to contract Cancer in their lifetime. Stating close to 65,000 had died in 2005 as a result.
In March the American Cancer Society declared Cancer mortality rates had dropped for the first time in 70 years stating smoking reductions and lower pollution levels were finally seeing some effect. The Canadian Cancer Society in public statements agreed; Cancer rates have been declining for a number of years and deaths had dropped to close to 65,000 in 2005. On April 11 2006 a CBC production declared a new cause for concern indicating rates were again on the rise with 159,000 new Cancers diagnosed every year and nearly half of Canadians would be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime close to 65,000 had died in 2005, another call for more funding. Whenever this group rallies for donations they communicate the realities although assessments remain unclear. Do 60% smoking reductions as seen since 1960 and reduced contact with ETS 75% reductions, result in cancer reductions? They obviously are not saying.
The process of obtaining data to make broad conclusions of this nature is substantial. The flip flop from month to month clearly demonstrates the lack of respect this group has for all who would donate funds to them; broader integrity issues go without saying.

The American Lung Association in connection with the 6 cities studies and submissions to the EPA identified cities including Toronto where the particulate matter rates were of concern and known to be above safe levels. We all know particulate matter is just an alternate way to describe ETS. Why breathing apparatus has not been suggested as essential for all Canadian homes defies logic. The deadly invisible missiles and the fact smokers smell like Dog fescues as indicated in the commercials is a message, which should not go unnoticed. If we are as concerned with public health as the media indicates failure to act is inexcusable. The latest research indicates with each reduction of 1 Micro gram in outdoor particulate matter 75,000 Americans would be saved. By scale 8,000 Canadians as well. The American Lung association showed with the latest research a drop of 5 Micrograms is required. This would lead to the reduction of 40,000 smoking related deaths every year in Canada of the 47,000 known rate we see currently. Smoking should be banned outright to obtain the levels required, the Government needs to invest in air collection machinery to purge outdoor air of the persistent ETS pandemic. Industry Lobbies in attempts to protect the Tobacco industry and promote sustained levels of ETS, should be publicly denounced for their actions. Identified at the American Lung association’s website as.

“American Trucking Associations, Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., National Coalition of Petroleum Retailers, Burns Motor Freight, Garner Trucking, Genie Trucking Line, National Automobile Dealers Association, National Association of Manufacturers, ... and dozens more!”

It is imperative Governments take Tobacco products off the shelf until the industries producing them can prove no more danger exists. The Philip Morris International website provides an excellent foray into this area of discovery they have almost every ingredient which could be included in a cigarette except the main ingredient displayed with peer reviewed animal testing clearly indicating in the additive levels present no harm. Health Canada although very concerned with as they state over 5000 chemicals and 40-50 known carcinogens with the power to do much more apparently only request test results be provided with respect to very few ingredients Tobacco is included in test results demanded however no information is available in what is reported or the potential harms. Ingredients all of which apparently are believed meet safety standards as the results have led to no actions to date. Health Canada takes no issue with the ingredients at all in fact queries have confirmed it is the Tobacco when burned which produces the deadly toxins resulting in the extreme mortality risk not the additives. Tobacco plant burning alone which we now know would remain a risk even with the amount of dilatant air in an outdoor setting. The Ontario smoking ban regulations confirm this insisting no roof is acceptable which would trap this deadly smoke and infect others not as we have always believed as an accumulated toxin but a danger in any contact at all. Recent science determining 20-30 minutes in contact with tobacco smoke will cause irreparable Heart damage resulting in substantial increases in heart attacks and stroke in otherwise completely healthy individuals. It becomes obvious from this; previous assessments conveyed to the public were simply untrue. Smokers health will not improve with cessation of smoking so if you smoke even if you quit you will gain no advantage in health outcomes you no doubt will die prematurely.

The continued failure to fully disclose this information fails in international law the right to informed consent. The human experiments need to stop. What was done in German concentration camps was seen as a war crime; in the war against cancer we should also see war crimes convictions. Although the preferred method of punishment of this crime was hanging in the past, for the sake of civility long jail sentences should result for all members of this organization, for the actions resulting in by their own admissions “47,000 preventable deaths” every year. This should be a demand of society and lawmakers alike.

Public floggings in my opinion are needed once again to set an example and shame these individuals so we never walk this path again.

Call you Lawyer he has a sworn duty to the bar to report heinous crimes.
Mass murders will certainly qualify.

FXR

Big Tobacco is getting into the game

2006-04-02T06:47:00.000-04:00

I witnessed something today I have not seen in years.

A cigarette company commercial expressing the views of Phillip Morris International. The message â€œthere is no safe cigaretteâ€�. Instructions to the viewer to go to the website where cigarette ingredients are not only listed but peer reviewed research showing scientific testing of all 333 possible added ingredients are available for all to see.

This will no doubt place the Tobacco industry from a moral perspective well above the anti smoker advocates who will now be scrambling to regain a credible position. The ban fans have completely disregarded their own integrity research and ventured into personal attacks against smokers claiming to be anti industry. While openly admitting a plan to make smokers lives as miserable as possible to force them to do as they are told. Bans were never about protecting anyone just a change of attack when science could not sustain their position in court as seen in the Osteen decision. Or more recently in Scotland by Judge Lord Nimmo Smith

Considering past public statements in respect to the dissertations referring to harm deriving from The mystical Tobacco plant abilities or harm derived from the added ingredients as opposed to particulate matter which is finally coming to the fore front as the real risk in smoking despite what we have been hearing for years. Now the Industry speaks from science and the ban fans speak in created political numbers. It does not take a lot of imagination to see who will win the race.

Racism regains acceptability in medical research communities. Thanks to campaigns by such groups as ASH and physicians for an Aryan nation or something similar. Coleslaw who once headed the tobacco control sales department at the WHO left in disgrace after major research failed to find what he wanted. Undaunted he created the Heather Crow saga and put the facts he had seen in the WHO study behind him. Seeding myths contradicting what he saw in the research first hand. He now sells the idea a Canadian Doctor can actually deduce a specific cause of a Lung tumor, despite the rest of medical science who cannot yet make such a claim. In his book he suggests taking over the Tobacco industry breaking the Governmentâ€™s monetary chains by taking on the sales and profits personally one would assume.

100 years ago the protections of the gene pool in the Eugenics movement lobbied for the sterilization of Jews and imbeciles. 75 years ago the influence of old American money supported Hitler consistent in his endeavors to protect and establish superiority of the white Arian race, entirely consistent with the current radical views of the Arian brotherhood. Those old American money principles have returned more powerful than ever in the new HIA health intervention industry. Comparisons of race as acceptable research parameters as opposed to socioeconomic standing, which actually reveals credible realities in health outcomes. Again we draw racial lines which will likely be used to divide us according to cost of healthcare as this movement grows hatred and inspires acceptance of more punishing evaluations of those around us. The anti smoker gang along with a good deal of their recruits Government and the medical sciences community are on the verge of finding themselves on the wrong page of the balance sheet in Fascist labeling from a public perspective with little in hand to sustain a credibility rating.

Political extremist views; creation of fear through misdirection a voice gained through governments failure to support the individualâ€™s right to informed consent. This allows an ongoing human experimentation through ingredients being added and mandated fire safe papers with no public discussions or disclosures, as risk assessments are being made for us, behind closed doors as usual.

Governments operating in such a fashion for decades, now seek â€œSin Taxâ€� compensation from the victims of those closed-door decisions. Preventable deaths and ETS exposure risk can be seen as no less than government failures resulting in human damages which should rightly be compensated by the governments who caused them not the victims as the popular media would propose. At the other partnerâ€™s offices, Tobacco settlements were added to the price of the product again assigning a duty to pay damages on the victims of a dangerous addictive product they sought to glamorize. Farmers who were lured into tobacco crops with government incentives and later were promised compensation for flue curing and regulated growing conditions to attain a safer product are now being forced off their land by a government and an industry abandoning them while ducking responsibilities they both owe in promotion of anti smoker technologies. Smoking is simply the wedge issue to take the voice of science future abusive campaigns are well underway which will affect much more than just smokers. In for a penny in for a pound, lets hope it does not take the deaths of millions to put this campaign back in check.

Change can only occur when this world grows a backbone and gets motivated to put Industry back in itâ€™s place. The advocacy of governments to nationalize charity foundations and put the money to real charitable cause. Could act as a double edged sword as Companies who loose the ability to control will be forced to pay equitable share of taxation for a change relieving the pressures on the working poor community violence and crime will subside as a byproduct as standards of living improve. There is no higher determinant in Health outcomes than personal economy.

If this is about saving lives abdicating hatred will not improve our lot.

Currently it is becoming all too obvious numbers in the latest research simply do not bear out the test of credibility in mortality actuals in comparison to estimates unless we have finally found a need to re-examine previous perceptions and research conclusions.

If one were to investigate the hypothesis the effects of both primary and environmental cigarette smoke as a health hazard only as a percentage of a product of total particulate matter accumulation or exposure, as opposed to a separate hazard unique unto itself, it would have to be said the overall risk of Tobacco smoke is substantially overstated. In a perspective now supported by political statements being made to the public in epidemiology research, radical lobby efforts would in fact serve to increase mortality through failure of autonomy principles, and reduced need to act in total particulate matter reductions, harm to overall community and indeed the health of the individual. This would in effect allow the unnecessary; premature and causative mortality increases of thousands due to shortened life estimates in significant correlations linking PM to what are now referred to as smoking related diseases.

Although it is an ambitious endeavor to rid the planet of smoking can it be an acceptable risk to the credibility of science as a whole in the forgoing the basic rules of integrity? At any cost, is not sufficient reason to undermine the scientific reality with a political agenda. How seriously do we consider the effects of Diesel exhaust, Dioxins or Radon gases? In a political sense the scientific community has failed in raising vital concerns, which should be known to the public. Focus in favor of a tremendous global effort to protect the public from the insignificant findings in relation to ETS which in a 300 million population 3000 deaths or 30 per million are well below acceptable risk estimates. Research derives from maximum exposures to hospitality workers and expresses an equal risk to the general public who by exposure duration would be much less affected by much reduced levels of exposures. Even if the studies were found to be accurate and consistent in their findings. Simply ignoring those who find fault in ETS logic [and there are many] does not establish the findings as irrefutable as some would claim.

Recent studies [additional, additional, ] and submissions to the US EPA in regards to lowering PM acceptable levels, articles revealed a number of seemingly irrefutable facts, which could not have been obvious to researchers in the majority of ETS and primary smoking studies done to date. Submissions if seen as credible would find an acceptable standard in outdoor particulate matter annual rate of 10 micro grams per cubic meter of air. The current level at 15 micrograms M3 if reduced could amount in savings of 75,000 deaths for each microgram reduction. In total numbers this could amount to 375,000 deaths per year with the 5 Microgram reductions being requested. Those same mortality figures are currently being labeled as smoking related diseases and thought to be preventable by eliminating smoking alone. Huge reductions in smoking and ETS exposures to date have been seen to be ineffective considering the substantial increases in mortality in parallel with those reductions. Reductions in the six cities studies revealed those mortality figures dropped consistently with PM reductions which would make a much more credible case when deciding cause. The six cities study found further proof in a 26% differential in mortality between the most and least polluted cities. There has never been a smoking research study done to date revealing evidence this convincing or observations directly proportional to mortality of this magnitude of proof. In relation to the 10-year trial period and causative correlation to lung cancers as opposed to smoking habits in the past; research would seem to indicate, the causative timeline is also much shorter than previously believed. PM as a health risk would be seen to act three times as fast as smoking in creating cancers and smoking related diseases. A view more closely reflective of age in the total PM accumulation and reduced bodily function would seem to be indicated.

The six cities study;

â€œAs Whittenberger had predicted, it was years until the Six Cities Study produced data on the health impact of air pollution. When it did, however, the results were different from what anyone had expected. First of all, the study showed that indoor air quality was far more important to overall health than outdoor air; most people simply spend much more of their time indoors, and pollutants often become concentrated inside homes and workplaces. The study also indicated a strong, positive correlation between levels of air pollution and mortality: deaths from lung cancer, pulmonary disease, and heart disease were 26 percent higher in Steubenvilleâ€“a city so polluted that air-born sulfates turned lead-based house Paint black within a yearâ€“than in Portage, the cleanest city in the study.

However, rather than indicating sulfur dioxide as the culprit emission, the Six Cities Study directed attention to so-called particulate matter, now recognized as a dangerous form of air pollution. Specifically, the study highlighted the hazards of so-called pm 10 particles, which are 10 microns in diameter and smaller. This lethal relationship between particulates and cardiovascular mortality has been replicated in studies performed in cities around the world.

Following the release of the studyâ€™s results in 1993, says Dockery, the American Lung Association brought suit against the Environmental Protection Agency to update its standards on particulate matter pollution, which had not been reviewed in accordance with the Clean Air Act in well over five years.

"The quality and quantity of the data were both very impressive," says Mort Lippmann, a New York University Medical Center professor of environmental science who served on the EPAâ€™s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. "This was the largest epidemiologic study of the effect of pollution on individuals that was available. It was done very carefully over a long period of time, and it had to be taken very seriously."â€�

These facts should be cause for reflection and re-examination of the conclusions and peer review of those targeted smoking studies in search of integrity and agreement to the latest research and causative numbers in balancing the books of actual mortality figures. The current USA statements; 450,000 smoking deaths and 3000 ETS deaths annually need some careful consideration without which true mortality figures are seen to be exceeding actuals by a significant number. In addition the socioeconomic factors which seem to be completely ignored by researchers in smoking related research would cast incredible suspicion on the abilities or training of most of the researchers in the field to speak from an unbiased perspective in light of the wealth being driven by the anti smoker initiative. Not a typo smoker ban advocacy and the effects on health in reality bear little credibility as an attack against industry. It is well known the political strategies are to in fact make a smokers life as uncomfortable as possible in order to force them to quit. Fear and hatred through public campaigns and declarations; smokers smell like dog fescues and murder babies. Calls for child abuse charges against a parent who smokes in their own home are the height of the ignorance being promoted. In Ontario Canada a health ministry issuing a public threat quit or be punished through a website called stupid they teach our children hate and insensitivity are not only approved but recommended in learning to hate their own parents and relatives who smoke.

ASH (Arian. Something. Something.) Declares it acceptable to deny a smoker Employment, Healthcare, Housing, Opinion, Civil Rights or Security of the person. These views have no place in a civilized society or any measure of credibility regardless of who pays their wages. The outlandish accusations emitting from this group should be reflected back upon those who employ them if or when the civil and criminal cases eventually begin.

The dominant overall effect of smoker ban advocacy has been reduced trust in our institutions and increased violence in community totally without need. If inclusive solutions were considered the upheaval would never have occurred. If scientific integrity were considered the effect would have benefited all and not just the largest gang of bullies and braggarts or their ballooning bank balances.

The previous studies would have reflected the combined effect of cigarettes of all varieties seen in a single value, labeled tobacco smoke and the desolate ambient air thought to represent no substantial risk. In fact the ambient air containing levels of particulate matter PM₁₀ above or equal to 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air would constitute an identical risk to both case and control subjects. The conclusions found in all such research have allowed us to see risk reduced with cessation of exposure in both primary and sidestream smoke. This would be consistent if we took a wider view of identical particulate in high short-term exposures and after cessation saw the effects seem to decrease with the merging over a time base with other exposures at lower but consistent levels.

If we assume the most significant risk as particulate matter and we substantiate this in physical observation as the added chemical toxins and carcinogenic contents in tobacco smoke are very minute and well below known safe levels of each toxin confirmed in mandated testing and submissions by the industry to governments for decades. [Pay particular attention to â€œToxicological evaluation of glycerin as a cigarette ingredientâ€� Found on page 5-6 of this document]

Ingredients added by country UK in comparison to other countries additives seem to remain consistent in low levels resulting in no scientific findings of added toxicity as previously shown. It should be recognized the additives would result in a completely different chemical composition after burning and considerably lower levels would be found in the contents and volume of the smoke produced. Total cigarette volume by weight would be 937 milligrams. Prior to burning. The smoke produced as indicated on the side of a package would total approximately 100 milligrams per package of 25 or about 4 milligrams per cigarette.

The particulate matter now can be safely assumed the risk we should be focusing on. The political statements of 5000 chemicals and 40-50 known carcinogens all become less of a concern when examining what we know through physical testing. Particulate matter and concentrations of exposures are directly and significantly correlated to risk directly reduced in reductions of concentrations. In follow up to the 6 cities study the March 15 submissions to American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. ETS Studies to date are from; http://www.forestonline.org/output/Page1.asp

Views of the unqualified, tambourine bangers in the peanut gallery.

Who now hold the proxy of scientific opinion?

One has to wonder if any level of scientific integrity survives or if it does has it simply been silenced as with the voices of the public, by those who know what is best for all of us in an industrialist old money view.

Chemicals from Second-Hand Smoke:

What a typical restaurant employee would inhale

Below is a list of the amount of selected chemicals, emitted in sidestream smoke, that a

restaurant employee, weighing approximately 65 kg (140 lbs), would directly inhale (not the total

exposure amount) over an 8-hour shift in a 300m2 area.

All chemicals marked in bold type are carcinogens (they cause cancer). All of the chemicals

below cause adverse health effects.

These calculations assume 10 smokers per 300m2 each smoking 2 cigarettes per hour, 1 totaling

160 cigarettes over the 8-hour time period, and take into account standard ventilation rates.2

Further information about these calculations can be found at: www.smokefree.ca/eng_issues/etschems2.htm

In a way of perspective if you have a 100 liter gas tank a full liter of Benzine is the acceptable standard when your tank is full.

Known safe levels of Benzene are actually one part per million the larger quantity in gasoline reflects a risk assessment by government to allow the seemingly dangerous level inhaled while gassing up your car.

The amounts of benzene listed below are for shock value only.

One UG micro gram is one millionth of a gram.

â€¢ One litre of pure water weighs approx. one kilogram 1000 grams

â€¢1 cubic centimeter less than 1/2 an inch cubed of water weighs 1 gram.

â€¢ A steel paper clip weighs about 1 gram.

â€¢A miligram would be equal to a cubic millimeter of water or 1000th of a gram.

â€¢A micro gram is 1/1000 of that amount or one millionth of a gram

â€¢A Nanogram One billionth of a gram

â€¢A Picogram one trillionth of a gram

â€¢Total cigarette volume by weight would be 937 milligrams. Prior to burning.

â€¢The smoke produced as indicated on the side of a package would total approximately 100 milligrams per package of 25

â€¢or about 4 milligrams per cigarette.

160 cigarettes in an 8 hour period would produce 640 milligrams of smoke 90% of that would consist of carbon dioxide.

The remaining 64 milligrams is refered to as RSP or PM10. Respratory particulate matter. Acording to James Repace who should know acording to his past with the EPA the level of Toxins or PPAH would be .08% of the total RSP of the possible 64 milligrams produced in a day only 51 micrograms is left to distribute 5000 chemical ingredients including the 50 carcinogens and deadly toxins being described in the list below. the numbers seem to be a little high according to what one would expect, but hey, Lobbying is about creating scary stories.

In addition to the rest of the 5000 ingredients the list is partially represented below.

The title indicates the lung capacity of each employee could exceed the norm by tens of thousands of times
and each person in the room would be able to consume the same levels of toxins
regardless if they actually exist.

Table 1: Amount of Chemicals Inhaled by A Restaurant Employee

CHEMICALamount (ug) CHEMICAL amount ug) CHEMICAL amount (ng)

carbon monoxide 5606 1,3-butadiene 25 resorcinol 123

tar 3128 hydroquinone 24 benzo[a]pyrene 18

nicotine 678 methyl ethyl ketone 23 cadmium 9.7

acetaldehyde 207 catechol 22 1-aminonaphthalene 8.5

nitric oxide 190 propionaldehyde 17 chromium 7.1

isoprene 151 cresols 15 lead 6

acetone 121 hydrogen cyanide 14 2-aminonaphtalene 5.2

toluene 66 styrene 13 nickel 4.2

formaldehyde 54 butyraldehyde 12 3-aminobiphenyl 2.4

phenol 44 acrylonitrile 11 4-aminobiphenyl 1.4

acrolein 40 crotonaldehyde 10

benzene 36 quinoline 1.3

pyridine 33 .

1 Americans for Nonsmokersâ€™ Rights: Questions and Answers Regarding Eliminating Smoking in Restaurants. February 5, 1992.

2 ASHRAE Standard (62-1981) office ventilation rate of 10L/second per person (assuming 7 persons per

100 meters squared floor space). According to Americanâ€™s for Nonsmokerâ€™s Rights: Protecting Nonsmokers from Secondhand Smoke (fact sheet), these ventilation rates would need to be improved 270 times, a enormous cost, in order to reduce the carcinogenic risk from tobacco smoke to federal (US) accepted levels.

This would â€œcreate a virtual windstorm indoorsâ€�.

If you consider a few factors here first the amounts presented are total produced in an 8-hour period regardless of air volume applied to the room or the exchange rate which hardly represents a norm at 3 exchanges per day even 3 exchanges per hour would be a low average. If the chart represents an accounting for 3 exchanges per day tripling the amounts on the chart would reflect total contamination ratios per room volume. If they designated a 1-meter [3 foot] ceiling, as the M² would indicate the air desolate would fit nicely with the numbers in the chart. A 3-meter ceiling [10â€™] would be more accurate in expressing the norm.

The volume of air mass desolate with no ventilation in the room is a 300 M2 area with an assumed 3 meter ceiling height; total air in the room would be 900 cubic meters.

Contaminant levels are expressed as amount per cubic meter of air. In this case even with the parameters shown this would amount to the numbers on the chart times 3 divided by the total meters flowing through the room in an 8 hour period. Their numbers show this to be 3 times 900 = 2700 meters so the numbers on the chart x 3 /2700 would give us the contaminant level available. Of this amount available a person could not inhale the total of the room contents.

In fact in Â½ liter inhalations you would only inhale [6 inhalations per minute 360 per hour and 2880 per day] total inhalations 1440 liters or 1.5 cubic meters per day of the 2700 meters available with the hobbled ventilation system. This amount would be .00056 of total 8 hours contaminant. .06% of the figures shown on the chart. Times the amount of time you were exposed. 8 Hours in a working day would be unrealistic as no deductions were allowed for breaks or the amount of time you would normally spend outside the room Â½ of the 8 hour period would be closer to reality. Total inhalations would be 4 hours or .5 of 8 hours times the contaminant level per 8 hour day the 8 hour level would be .06% [.0006] x the figures shown on the chart.

Why is the ventilation rate being fudged? The effects of normal ventilation at minimum 3 exchanges per hour would be substantial in dissipating the toxins described. From the figures above calculate for a 3 per hour exchange rate or 24 in an 8-hour day the desolate air mass becomes 21,600 as opposed to the 2700 expressed as the norm. In the next study below you will see a more motivated crushing of the numbers by an expert in scare tactics. Even he concedes a 34 exchange rate per hour is quite normal in a casino with considerably more air volume in an average room. At 30 exchanges per hour we would divide the contaminants by [240 x 900] 216,000 to attain per cubic meter contaminations per 8-hour day. In real scientific animal testing by examining the effects of tripling the additives harmful effects are seen in many cases were the normal additive amounts show no detectable harm. This is consistent with the phrase poison is in the dose and nothing including pure water and air cannot be considered toxic if taken in high dosages.

From a Health Canada audit in 1999 apparently changes were made but in contradiction to the good advice offered;

Cracks in the Foundation of the Federal House - Overarching Concerns

3.46 Exposure to toxic substances such as industrial chemicals and pesticides poses actual and potential risks to the health of Canadians and our ecosystems. Yet our understanding of the effects of toxic substances is incomplete. Many questions remain unanswered. What substances are present in our environment, homes and consumer products and at what levels? Where do they come from? What do they do to people and ecosystems? How significant are the risks? What can we do about them?

3.47 Scientific information produced through ongoing research, monitoring and assessment is used to answer these questions and is the foundation for understanding risks and making informed decisions.

3.48 Good scientific information is essential for many reasons. First, Canadians' health depends on it: unless we identify which substances pose a risk, we cannot act to reduce it. Second, together with economic, technological and social information, it supports informed decisions on how risks are to be managed. Third, after measures have been put in place to reduce risks, good scientific information can tell us whether the measures are achieving the desired result. The federal government's commitment to base its decisions on sound scientific information is reflected and repeated in legislation, departmental mandates and sustainable development strategies, and in government-wide strategies and policies.

3.49 Government failures could affect health. Our audit identified many weaknesses in the federal government's collection and use of scientific information on toxic substances. We found weaknesses in interdepartmental co-ordination of research efforts, incomplete monitoring networks, a lack of re-evaluation of pesticides, conflicting departmental agendas and priorities, and a growing gap between the demands placed on departments and the availability of resources to meet those demands. Cumulatively, we believe these cracks in the foundation threaten the federal government's ability to detect, understand and prevent the harmful effects of toxic substances on the health of Canadians and their environment.

Of the 5000 ingredients and 50 toxins Health canada appears to be concerned about by the advice they offer the public. In actual practice they are actually only concerned with 14-16 as per the information they ask for of the industry. Dioxin is not even on the list.

Another extremist who makes a good living scaring people himself presents airflow rates and typical air measurements. From a scary guy;

Reduction of the risk of secondhand smoke exposure for

Burswood Casino Staff to acceptable levels would require tornadolike

air exchange rates greater than 120,000 air changes per hour,

Or more than 3400 times the highest rates proposed by Lincolne

Scott in its ventilation technology scheme for the Burswood

Casino.

James Repace contends a safe contaminent level would be 16.4 Pico grams [Trillionths of a gram] per cubic meter of air roughly equivalent to Depleted Uranium or Dioxins. The ratio of PPAH toxic contaminents prior to a ban would be .08% the remaining particulate matter after a ban or outdoor air is seen to loose 50% of toxic content despite the fact Tobacco smoke contains 5000 ingredients outdoor air contains over 40,000 chemicals in use in Industry today with 50% of the toxic value of cigarette smoke no science is offered to substantiate this or other outrageous opinions he offers.

10,000/120,000x3400 = 283.3 exchanges per day as a proposed rate. Or 35.4 exchanges per hour. A lot different than the 3 per 8 hours exchanges above described as normal. Hurricane force winds proposed by this scary guy with a much higher desolate rate as opposed to virtual windstorms mentioned above. Although they both seem to agree the costs would be extreme and the wind force in the room needs to be increased the first estimation of a windy situation being produced by 270 exchanges per day can be seen here as below the norm, in fact discussion is surrounding the trippling of exchange rates to the level prescribed by the former study and not a mention of a breeze, until you get to the Repace huricane theories. He likes to play with toxicity fears as opposed to the fudging of air desolate numbers. Repace does not acknowlege air desolate as an issue at all as long as he can implant a fear of high contamination levels as immovable objects his numbers will keep them guessing for years. Figuring out the exchange rate would be the largest factor in increased costs apparently.

According to the extremists, risks vary with respect to whom a presentation is addressed. The Tobacco industry could not have wished for a more energetic advocate to protect their position and pass the costs of damages on to the victim. As a promonent stooge to big Tobacco Repace loves his work.

According to Americanâ€™s for Nonsmokerâ€™s Rights: Protecting Nonsmokers

from Secondhand Smoke (fact sheet), these ventilation rates would need to be improved 270 times, at

Enormous cost, in order to reduce the carcinogenic risk from tobacco smoke to federal (US) accepted levels.

This would â€œcreate a virtual windstorm indoorsâ€�.

Repace in the same evaluation presented; with multiple air exchange rates described identical risk assessments were made regardless of air desolate volumes or resulting ratios which would predict differing levels of concentrations according to how much smoking occurred in each room and the physical dimensions of the room in question each with a different rate of airflow.

For the actual measured levels, nor what the smoker density was in the casino at

that time. LS also proposes air exchange rates of 25 air changes per hour (ACH) for the

Function, VIP and existing International rooms, an increase from â€œthe current 8 ACH.â€�

LS proposes an increase â€œfrom 12 ACHâ€� to 35 ACH for Private Gaming Salons. For bar

areas within smoking-permitted rooms supply air is proposed over the bar area with

returns in the patron area to â€œlimitâ€� the amount of smoke exposure of bar staff. LS does

not specify the smoker density for any of the spaces. LS does not state whether these

â€œcurrentâ€� air exchange rates are the result of actual measurements or are design values for

those spaces.

In 1999, I issued an affidavit (Repace, 1999) in a legal case, Brook v. Burswood

Casino. In a table (Table 4) in that affidavit, reproduced below as Table 1 in this

Evaluation, I compared my estimates of RSP and nicotine concentrations based on

estimated smoker densities, and average air exchange rates, to actual measurements that

had been made by others. My average estimated nicotine concentration, assuming a

casino smoking prevalence of 29%, was 23 Âµg/m3, and average estimated RSP from SHS

was 250 Âµg/m3, which compared very well to actual measurements. From the preceding

paragraph we see that LS proposes to triple the air exchange rate over existing values.

Holding smoker density constant, this would reduce the average air pollution from SHS

by a factor of 3. However, if the new designated smoking-permitted rooms contain

largely smokers, the new smoker density could increase by a factor of 3, negating the

increase in ventilation. A major flaw in the LS report is that it does not specify the

current or new smoker density, and does not appear to recognize that the concentration of

SHS is directly proportional to the smoker density as well as inversely proportional to the

air exchange rate.

This statement does not mention air desolate or exchange rates simply predicted calculations and comparison to actual measurements in other venues. The air exchange rate would have tremendous bearing on the contaminant level yet Repace suggests a linear calculation would encompass all possible rates of air exchange and resulting desolate percentages. The contention of tripling the smoker density to offset tripled air exchange rates suggests a room with over 90% chain smokers a highly unlikely scenario.

The Repace cited measurements are as follows;

Table 1. Comparison of theoretical calculations for low, average, and high smoking

occupancy and average ventilation vs. environmental measurements for the

Burswood Casino from various depositions (Repace, 1999).

Est.Nicotine Conc Meas.NicotineConc. Est.Total RSPConc. Measured RSP Conc.

.(Âµg/m3) (Âµg/m3) (Âµg/m3) (Âµg/m3)

Repace LeSouef (p.252) Repace LeSouef *

Low: 3 23.8 Low: 50 200-300

Repace Langley (p.217) Repace Gordon (p.99)

Ave.: 23 26.8 Ave.: 250 216-476

Repace HBI (Brook) Repace HBI (Brook)

High: 41 15.8 High: 430 62-226

*Letter from Peter Le Souef, MD to Hon Ian Taylor dated 31 December 1996, quoting data presented b

Burswood Casino 23/11/96 to Taskforce on Passive Smoking.

â€œIf we hold the Burswood smoker density constant, and if the air exchange rates are increased by a factor of 3, I conclude that at best, the exposure concentrations of SHS For Buswood Staff would decrease by a factor 3 to about 80 Âµg/m3. However, LS do not specify a smoker density, and LSâ€™s target RSP concentration is nearly 4 times that level, at 300 Âµg/m3.â€�

An assumption is being made here the results of increased ventilation and other proposed improvements. would result in no improvements of the norms 6 years previous in 1999. In fact a concentration identical to 1999 estimates at 250 micrograms per cubic meter of air and an associated PPAH level at 163 nanograms per cubic meter of air. No representations are discussed in limiting the smokers allowed in the room per cubic meter of air. Or indeed the size of the room dictating dissolution ratios in addition to exchange rates which would calculate an inverse proportion of added pollutant desolate percentages in decline with added air mass desolate total volumes. If a room with no ventilation measured 900 cubic meters the proportions of RSP would be double a proportion in a room with double the dimensions. With ventilation each air exchange would lower by Â½ a constant pollution rate entering the room in timed period. Considering Repace conclusions particulate matter remaing in the room after a ban would exceed his known safe level by 250 times even though the levels he measured with no smoking are less than average acceptable levels in outdoor air being currently challenged at 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air.

New research suggests one microgram reduction in PM₁₀would save 75,000 lives.

In reverse of this, increases should have the same effect or worse. Measured levels expressed as normal in a smoky bar at 250 micrograms would result in annual mortality of 17,625,000 annually and in his 45 year working lifetime 793,125,000 double the US population. Over and above the current standard levels. In 1960 54% of the American population smoked and a higher tar product which would; considering few restrictions in place, have resulted in 99% of the population being exposed to ETS yet mortality figures have risen staidly alongside huge reductions in ETS exposures 75% and smoking prevalence reduced also by 66%. Perhaps Repace can explain his hurricane forced logic although I would not personally put a lot of stock in his opinions at this point.

Lets clarify the language just a bit.

2006-03-23T17:01:00.000-05:00

Lets clarify the language just a bit.

Introduction

How many times have you heard the terms repeated in Newscasts â€œNew study showsâ€� a 30% increase in riskâ€� 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 â€œif any number created through this process could be wrongâ€� the answer would have to be yes. If asked also under oath â€œis this number open to interpretationâ€�, thereby making it a political argument, again sadly the answer would be yes. Fuels for ad agency spin, used in mass marketing campaigns to â€œdominate discussions and eventually dominate decisionsâ€� 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; â€œlying through their teethâ€�, â€œas it appearsâ€�[Good for the gooseâ€¦] 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 â€œ50% offâ€� with little tiny letters saying â€œup toâ€�. 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 â€œbe suspiciousâ€�.

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 â€œdoubles the riskâ€� 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; â€œhow could that be so, the broadcast news would not be allowed to lie to usâ€�? 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 didnâ€™t hear it from me, one of Paul Martinâ€™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 languageâ€¦.The non-committal type. Announcing, â€œstudy showsâ€� takes the responsibility away from the author. Using the term â€œriskâ€� in place of â€œapparent associationâ€� 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, â€œIf you are uneducated and poor you will be more likely to die of lung cancerâ€�. 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 â€œFat is the new tobaccoâ€� 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 â€œSAMMECâ€� 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. â€œ Every year over 349,000 Americans die from lung disease â€“ an age-adjusted death rate of 121.4 per 100,000.1 â€œ. One would have to question the intelligence in focusing such a huge percentage of the groupâ€™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 â€œdo not call us, we will call youâ€�.

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;

â€œA document no Lawyer should be without.â€�

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 â€œETS employee health protectionâ€� 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, â€œthe anti smokerâ€� 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. â€œDominate discussions to dominate decisionsâ€� 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. Didnâ€™t we do this once before about 60 years back? Since that time we have heard the affirmation spoken many times â€œnever againâ€�. Yes, how soon we did forget.

**"The great tragedy of Science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly factâ€�.-- 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 itâ€™s medical info newsletter and supports the opinion of its â€œ? Millionâ€� 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 â€œHealthyâ€� 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 â€œpandemicâ€� that never was; â€œItâ€™s not a mater of if itâ€™s a matter of whenâ€� 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, couldnâ€™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 worldâ€™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

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 â€œLettersâ€�

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

Your rights

â€œThe right to health relevant information derives from the principlesof autonomy and self direction and has been recognized in internationaldeclarations. Providing accurate health information is partof the basis for obtaining "informed consent" and is a recognizedcomponent of business ethics, safety communications, and caseand product liability law. Remarkably, anti-tobacco and pro-tobaccosources alike have come to emphasis the message that thereis "no safe cigarette" or "no safe tobacco product". We proposethat the "no safe" message is so limited in its value that itrepresents a violation of the right to health relevant information.There is a need to go beyond saying, "there is no safe tobaccoproduct" to indicate information on degree of risks. The "nosafe tobacco" message does not contradict, for example, themistaken belief that so called light or low tar cigarettes aresafer choices than higher tar cigarettes. We encourage a kindof "rule utilitarian" ethical position in which the principleof truth telling is observed while trying to produce the greatestgood for the greatest number of people. Although harm reductionapproaches to easing the burden of tobacco related diseasesare founded on science based comparative risk information, theright to health information is independently related to theneed to promote health literacy. This right should be respectedwhether or not harm reduction policies are judged advisable.â€�

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 â€œbegins at homeâ€� 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 itâ€™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 â€œPreventable deathsâ€�

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

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

Heresy in the ETS debate?

2006-03-18T08:56:00.000-05:00

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 Scottâ€™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 childrenâ€™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:

â€¢ A long-term study showing risk of premature death attributable to PM is three times greater than previously reported;

â€¢ Studies linking daily exposures in PM with increased hospital admissions for strokes, congestive heart failure, heart attacks, COPD and other respiratory problems;

â€¢ A toxicology study showing links between exposure to PM2.5 at levels near or below the current standards and development of atherosclerotic plaques;

â€¢ Many studies elucidating the biological mechanisms and pathways for cardiovascular effects;

â€¢ Studies linking prenatal exposure to air pollution with increased risk of low birth weight, preterm birth, infant mortality, and cancer;

â€¢ Research showing that coarse particles exacerbate respiratory disease;

â€¢ Three meta-analyses linking ozone air pollution with premature mortality and a multi-city study showing that effects are not due to temperature;

â€¢ Intervention studies showing that reductions in air pollution yield measurable improvement in childrenâ€™s respiratory health and reduction in premature deaths; and

â€¢ 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.

2006-03-16T07:33:00.000-05:00

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.

â€œWHY IS ETHICS IMPORTANT IN TOBACCO

CONTROL?â€�

â€œThe tobacco control community lacks a comprehensive understandingof ethics.⁶ The closest that exists is the 1989 book, No smoking:the ethical issues, in which Robert Goodin explores the ethicalunderpinnings of tobacco control policies and examines whetherthey are morally sound.⁷ Although it is somewhat dated and presentsa rather formulaic response, it is still the most comprehensiveidentification of the ethical issues in tobacco control to date.Unfortunately, the book has fallen out of print and has notplayed a significant role in the tobacco control debate. Thus,despite Goodinâ€™s assertion that "moral philosophy is anindispensable first step in [the] larger political campaign",little follow up work has been done.

In turn, this has allowed the tobacco control community to bedefined by its desire to defeat the tobacco industry, at theexpense of its desire to protect the public. This conclusioncan be drawn from an examination of the metaphors used by thetobacco control community. One of the most common is the epidemiologicmodel in which the industry is characterised as a disease vectorâ€”thatis, a flea or tick that should be controlled.⁸ Alternatively,the imagery has been that of armed conflict. Dr David Kesslerreferred to the efforts to pass Food and Drug Administration(FDA) regulation as "A Great American Battle"⁹ and other tobaccoresearchers have referred to tobacco control policy debatesas "war".^10,¹¹ No less an authority than former Surgeon GeneralC Everett Koop resorted to a pugilistic metaphor in his keynoteaddress to the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobaccoin 2003. When discussing if the public health community shouldenter into conversations with the tobacco industry, he advisedthat:â€�

â€œAn 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.â€�12

â€œThe 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 Koopâ€™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 winâ€”hardly a moral foundation for

resonating with the public.â€�

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.

â€œFunding for this research is from a grant from the Robert WoodJohnson Foundation. The author also wishes to thank Amy Williamson,Joanna Cohen, James Katz, Stella Bialous, and Ken Warner fortheir helpful assistance on this work.â€�

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;323:1â€“2.[Free Full Text]

3. Jacobson PD, Soliman S. Co-opting the health and human rights movement. J Law Med Ethics 2002;30:705â€“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 publicâ€™s health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999:83â€“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) :S81â€“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, 1999:312â€“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;93:101â€“3.[Medline]

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

18. Warner KE. Tobacco harm reduction: promise and perils. Nicotine Tob Res 2002;4:S61â€“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;12:34â€“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;92:1057â€“9.[Free Full Text]

23. Katz J. Individual rights advocacy in tobacco control policies: an assessment and recommendation. Tobacco Control 2005;14 (suppl II) :ii31â€“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;30:170â€“8.[Medline]

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

28. Chapman S. Banning smoking outdoors is seldom ethically justifiable. Tobacco Control 2000;9:95â€“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) :ii8â€“13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

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

31. Weinstein ND. Accuracy of smokersâ€™ risk perceptions. Ann Behav Med 1998;20:135â€“40.[Medline]

32. Weinstein ND, Marcos SE, Moser RP. Smokersâ€™ unrealistic optimism about their risk. Tobacco Control 2005;14:55â€“9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

33. Centers for Disease Control. Cigarette smoking among adultsâ€”United States, 2000. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2000;51:642â€“5.

34. Batra V, Patkar AA, Berrettini WH, et al. The genetic determinants of smoking. Chest 2003;123:1730â€“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;14:521â€“7.[CrossRef][Medline]

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

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

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

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

40. Healton C, Nelson K. Reversal of misfortune: viewing tobacco as a social justice issue. Am J Public Health 2004;94:186â€“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, 2002:51â€“64.

Scientific buffoonery

2006-03-14T19:15:00.000-05:00

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 itâ€™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 itâ€™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;

Where there is smoke there are Toxins

2006-03-09T20:52:00.000-05:00

Where there is smoke there are Toxins

This is an interesting foray into Cancer reduction, which actually finds other sources could be causative. In fact, the site has many suggestions in what could be done to reduce Cancers with hardly a mention of ETS. A puzzling new approach perhaps someone is listening. In the defense of smokers, it would be helpful for someone to take a scientific approach to the problem. Full disclosure in what a cigarette actually contains would be entirely helpful in avoiding self-administered poisons. The disclosure in fact would force Cigarette makers to limit what they do include. Anti smoker, advocates are working hard to protect manufacturer rights to the exclusion of the smokers, being poisoned by the ignorance of others. Cigarette companies continue to increase profits and sales while smokers it was announced on the news today are now a new species separated from humans. The report on CTV Newsnet, Smokers are now â€œan endangered speciesâ€� the spiel â€œSmoker sightings are becoming rare in Canada as the reductions of sales declinesâ€�. The proposal was backed up by a paid industry advocate from Ottawa Murray Kaiserman from a lobby group who confirmed through psychobabble not even closely resembling factual truth cigarette sales are dropping with respect to a consensus rate adjusted average. In reality Stats Canada revealed not 2 months ago, the opposite was true, as both sales and quarterly profits had increased substantially. It is all in how you sell it I suppose the fact it is blended in with real news is the insult to intelligence, which cannot be avoided.

Here is a sample where Firefighter exposed to carcinogens are actually being afforded special status to receive occupational hazard recognition and afforded Workmanâ€™s Compensation in â€œsomeâ€� provinces. Ontario is not on the list.

I have to ask what made Heather Crow so prominent in society she was moved to the front of the line.

Are hospitality workers so much a vital asset to society they could be more important than even fire fighters who are still 3 years later fighting for equal rights to compensation, with scientific proof in hand. Heather had no such proof beyond the personal opinion of a doctor conning a board hearing, in representing he could actually identify a cause of any personâ€™s Cancer. The fact this quack has not been dragged into a public forum and denied the right to practice says a lot of the integrity of the agencies supporting his license. The same groups denying immigrant doctors the same right to practice citing local standards, such as they are, as a justifiable reason.

Reducing firefightersâ€™ risk

Firefighters help sponsor CancerSmart Consumer Guide

Toxin alert:

Tim Baillie (right), vice-president of the B.C. Professional Firefighters Association, is helping to promote the new CancerSmart Consumer Guide. He's joined by Mae Burrows of the Labour Environmental Alliance Society (left) and firefighters Rob Fabio, Scott Ruddy and Rob Hourigan.

Photo Kyle Hoobinâ€“Burnaby NOW

Household toxins revealed in guide

Dan Hilborn, staff reporter

Burnaby NOW June 2, 2005

A Burnaby woman's work to make Canadian families healthier and safer has received the wholehearted endorsement of one of the most respected professional associations in the province.

The sorry fact of life is that firefighters get some cancers at higher rates because of their exposures to carcinogens and other toxins on their jobs. Recently, firefighters in B.C. were successful in winning new government regulations on occupational cancer. The regulations state that when firefighters develop certain types of cancer, including brain, kidney and bladder cancer, the cancers will be presumed to have been caused by occupational exposure and will give firefighters easier access to workersâ€™ compensation. The range of cancers covered by the new regulations is still not as wide, however, as it is in other provinces, such as Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Firefighters risk their lives and their long-term health to save us and our homes from fire.

We owe it to ourselves and to firefighters to eliminate as many toxic chemicals as we can from our homes and communities.

Download full brochure in PDF format

Firefighters help sponsor CancerSmart Consumer Guide

Perhaps the Firefighters need a sales agent. Neil Coleslaw comes to mind from a sales perspective he could make a fortune selling used cars and approaches the subject of public health with the same integrity set.

(strange why does my spell checker do that to his name? I heard he hates it when it is misspelled I really really, hope he doesnâ€™t read this)

Here is a large PDF with a self-portrait of one of the most inhuman guys I know.

Heather Crow Rock Star

A fun read for the rest of us to be sure just don't ever take this clown serious, it may be dangerous to blood preasure levels.

Visit the other pages of the website above for some scientific information of real toxins and how we can all avoid them.

http://www.leas.ca/

Or visit my evidence page

http://healthcarefraud.blogspot.com/

Health Canada a mess

Examination of the facts

The weight of exclusions

The Phantom smoke fingers from Health Canada

Illegal expendatures of public funds

Anti smokers get the figurative finger

What's in a word?

From the public health institute

From the World Health Organization

Litigation is about to become the next, huge growth industry.

References

Media presentations

News flash; Deadly attack at the Ontario legaslature

Freedom and Justice for all

Selling dead babies is revolting;

Who you gonna believe

Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' Observations on male British doctors

Sponsored by:

Funded by:

Government costings, for damages they did to smokers

Failings are obvious in the reliability of the Kaiserman study, and the utilization of SAMMEC as a reliable means of calculation of costs of smoking for public announcements, defaming smokers.

Prior to reading further!!! Read this first.

In assessing the numbers presented in Figure 1

Male

References

Infant calculations addition, funded by RWJF

American CDC shows off their new improved weapon and how to use it

From Taiwan

In Germany

The District of Columbia

We even have a calculation from the Black vs. White, race perspective.

CDC version 2003

ACS Version Today

Health Effects of Smoking

From the ALA

War Crimes

Big Tobacco is getting into the game

Lets clarify the language just a bit.

Lets clarify the language just a bit.

Introduction

By definition; statistical significant results.

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

By the numbers

That is not possible they are not allowed to lie.

How do they create the numbers?

The claims are valid because they sound right

With careful language use.

Selective reasoning Skills

The low hanging fruit

What does this all mean in plain English?

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

â€œA document no Lawyer should be without.â€�

INTERPRETING RELATIVE RISKS

SAMPLE STATISTICAL ASSOCIATIONS

Denormalizing smokers defines as real, â€œthe anti smokerâ€� advocacy.

An attack of the individual.

The criminal content

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

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

Back to our side of the road.

References

Heresy in the ETS debate?

Attached files

Highlights of 2005 Health Studies on PM and Ozone

I will take the high road thank you.

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.

Scientific buffoonery

Food for thought

Where there is smoke there are Toxins

Where there is smoke there are Toxins

Firefighters help sponsor CancerSmart Consumer Guide

Household toxins revealed in guide

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