Doc,
I wonder if in their desperation, we can look forward to them comparing a good week or even a good day, to prove beyond doubt that smoking bans save lives.
Interestingly I read a recent medical study that stated the steady reduction in heart attacks and disease seen over the last 25 years (in the western world) is leveling off. Could it be that if they don't act now they will miss the boat and the ETS scam will be seen for what it is?
GreatScot
Doctor Siegel, - "The bottom line is that the report's conclusions are not objective, nor are they based on enough data to make them scientifically supportable."
You must have mis-typed.
Didn't you really mean?;
The bottom line is that the report's conclusions are more wishful thinking by Ban proponents clearly eager to cash in on the hysteria, and aren't based on enough data to make them even remotely plausible to anyone with minimal 9th grade math skills.
Per my request, the ESC press office sent me the same 55 page study.
Unfortunately, I cannot read French, and as such, cannot make informed comments on Mike's criticism of the study.
The bottom line is that the report's conclusions are not objective, nor are they based on enough data to make them scientifically supportable.
No, the bottom line is that the report is an outright FRAUD.
ASH UK's opinion on the French smoking ban
France: Heart attack rates drop following national smoking ban
"Statistics show that since a smoking ban took effect in France a year ago, admissions of patients with myocardial infarction dropped 15 percent at emergency wards"
http://www.ash.org.uk/
ash_94lydx...lydxva.htm#5461
Dr. Siegel wrote, "It also turns out... that stroke admissions were actually slightly higher in January 2008 than in January 2007. The report ... compared the January 2008 rate with the rate in January of 2005 and 2006, which was higher. But the rate had lowered in 2007 and the report fails to make the logical comparison of the stroke rate in January 2008 with the rate one year earlier... The bottom line is that the report's conclusions are not objective, nor are they based on enough data to make them scientifically supportable. "
Dr. Siegel, I realize that anyone who must operate on a day to day basis within the academic world of scientific research must feel compelled to act within certain restraints, but don't you think it's about time to refer to this sort of thing by its real name?
Fraud.
That is what this is, pure and simple, and no shilly-shallying around it. It's a simple extension of the sort of thing that we've seen before in cases such as Helena (e.g. the "deleted data" that so clearly exposed the deliberate misrepresentation of a "bounce-back" in AMI's after their ban was ended - See my http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/
...683.55v1#125618 in the British Medical Journal )
Dr. Siegel, this is fraud. And it is fraud that is deliberately designed to cause injury to those whose lives and livelihoods are damaged by smoking bans. As you quite correctly point out the creators of frauds such as this know full well that even if they are caught red-handed the damage will stand and continue its evil work. It was almost five years ago that the Helena researchers, Sargent, Shepard , and Glantz, came out with their original publicity splash claiming a 60% drop in heart attacks after Helena's ban. That 60% drop was of course nonsense and was later dropped.
That was five years ago, but less than five days ago, on Feb. 26th 2008, we saw a Regional Director of a Board of Hospitals in Juneau, Alaska touting the 60% "annual drop" figure from Helena in response to "a barrage of bar owners" appealing for relief from a smoking ban.
The antismoking lobbyists control the flow of general public information by virtue of their "authority" and by the money-driven "power of the microphone" that ensures that their view is the one accepted and touted by the media... and the media is what makes "reality" for far too many people.
Gabz has pointed out in other comments here that the people who promote this fraud, either at the micro or the macro levels, should someday be held accountable at both the criminal and civil courts for what they have done to people's lives... and I would like to second her opinion on that.
At some point I hope to see you offer yourself as a third backup and, using the professional contacts and mechanisms at your disposal actually begin the real process of proceeding with these charges.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Sorry...
Reference for Urata comment:
http://www.juneauempire.com/
stor...251281251.shtml
- MJM
From the French press release:
"Prof Daniel Thomas agrees: “Governments must learn from these findings and not give in to pressure from the tobacco lobby."
How can a professor pronounce such non-sense?
It is more than fraudulent. It's insulting. Even more, it is revealing of a pure comtempt for the public that they consider to be nothing more than pavlovian dogs in need of positive reinforcement.
Here puppy! You stopped smoking in public, now here is your bone.
It is very revealing and it will be used, as it should be used, to discredit anything tobacco control advocates say.
E=MC^2
In a moment of annoyance at reading about these people so hellbent on criminalising a leaf, I typed in Lettuce and Death ...
You'd be amazed how many people die from lettuce.
Lets go for it, I can't stand lettuce.
Bill Godshall wrote:
"Unfortunately, I cannot read French, and as such, cannot make informed comments on Mike's criticism of the study."
Don't you mean excuses? LOL
My daughter's pretty good at French. I'd ask her to translate for you, but I don't want her associating with a volunteer spokesman for the smokeless tobacco industry. The world's been taught to view you all, and those associated with you, with contempt. I'm sure you understand.
Besides that, she'd probably charge you an arm and a leg. I know you need them so you can pull them out of their sockets and rack up medical bills, borne by all, when you play volleyball.
Awwwww James, why not let Bill come to your house so your daughter can translate for him while you sit there smoking and watching? Sounds like a plan to me.........hehehehehe 
Then when Bill survives that we can ask him why he didn't keel over given how deadly SHS is...............ROFLMAO
Bill,
I am sure that several people here could translate for you. Pretty sure the first line says, "This is pure bull, but run with it and pick our check up when you get it to the media."
Rose, - "Lets go for it, I can't stand lettuce."
Ummmm,...Lettuce not discriminate against the harmless cabbage.
Lettuce, continue in our individual effort to expose the fraud and all the lettuce made from it.
LightningBoy......ROFLMAO very good!
Off Topic, yet there's a similarity in an article I was just reading (March 10th issue of Forbes) on "Bad Medicine". Basically it's talking about hospitals versus specialty hospitals. What caught my attention was this:
Deaths from preventable hospital infections each year exceed 100,000; more than those from AIDS, breast cancer and auto accidents combined.
These people really do regurgitate the same junk, don't they?
"Awwwww James, why not let Bill come to your house"
Not even if he was my mother.
James,
I totally understand and agree. I was being sarcastic in case you didn't notice........hehehehe
http://books.google.ca/books?
hl=...rsmHlXM#PPA3,M1
A long read however understanding the opposition has it's advantages.
For instance, if we recognize the first and most immediate effect of smoking is [addiction dependency craving what have you...] to nicotine.
Realizing a smokers dose is burned at higher temperatures diluting the potency of all ingredients. If second hand smoke is as volatile as claimed and exposures are believed to be significant enough to cause harm. Claimed as, or more dangerous, than what a "smoker" inhales.
Why, pray tell, is no one addicted to ETS?
Michael,
Glantz in his diatribes for his followers about Siegel, a few months ago linked to several of his own pages. One of which still touted the 60% reduction. I mentioned it in this blog, and was almost immediately changed. They will continue to use the 60% Helena until challenged, and I believe this is deliberate.
I can't believe so many articles make this 60% claim, despite it's very short redacted life.
I also truly believe these authors deliberately word their statements to be correct but as to mislead the minions. The minions then repeat ad nausium, but incorrectly,the original statement, which appears to be backed by the original research.
BTW, O/T but Senate mandates weighing Georgia kids twice a year
New law would requires schools to track weight and BMI. http://www.ajc.com/metro/
content...y_0301_web.html
How long will it be before the luni's start talking about the parental child abuse if their childs BMI exceeds 25.
Lynda,
I know you were being sarcastic. One can only be joking about something like that.
Why, pray tell, is no one addicted to ETS?
Anonymous
Anon,
Tobacco Control advocates are addicted to ETS.
Bill Godshall "Make Americans worship French cultural superiority" writes: Per my request, the ESC press office sent me the same 55 page study.
Unfortunately, I cannot read French, and as such, cannot make informed comments on Mike's criticism of the study.
Bill, you can't read English either. I guess that makes you a bilingual illiterate. You can't read or write IN TWO LANGUAGES. There is no SHS risk. You just want to end smoking for egalitarian central planning reasons. The ends justify the means. The drug dealers in South Central LA will agree with you. They want a Mercedes Benz E320, the ends justify the means. That's the system.
Just admit that this charade of second hand smoke is bogus. You want everyone to quit smoking for their health. Be honest.
You don't need a legitimate reason to ban things for the greater good. Stop the bogus studies. They banned gambling and throw people in jail for taking bets on the NFL. Second Hand point spreads are a killer. But the State can still run the lottery and casinos.
I guess what I am saying is that the lies are the worst part. Oh, and BTW I smoked at a Red Lobster restaurant bar last week in Lancaster. No armed police came in to stop me like in the DPRNJ.
GS;
"Tobacco Control advocates are addicted to ETS."
Seriously Think about it;
"The most universal and immediate effect of smoking has always been known to be addiction to nicotine. Few who smoke are not affected. We are told constantly because of the higher temperature of burning, what a smoker inhales is far more diluted compared to the toxins found in second hand smoke.
The higher risk of a bartender or waitress is compounded by exposures on a daily basis as, results of the fact the majority of their clients are smokers. In all of history has anyone ever been found to be addicted to second hand smoke?
The question of why, and it's answer, are tied to the realization second hand smoke is obviously quite harmless. 50 years ago when more than half of the population smoked it had no addictive effect in the communities who more than bartenders today were exposed without escape, virtually every where you went, people smoked.
How many are addicted leads to how many could be harmed, at the levels and duration found in normal life today. How is it smokers are not affected in the same way non smokers are, according to the made to measure statistical gymnastics."
Anonymous,
You make a great point and I do believe you could be on to something, but now, give it a few months and it will become a new mantra from tobacco control. I swear they get some of their ideas from people here who predicts what will be said next. We say it for free, but they will press release this finding for a paycheck.
Anon,
I did think about it and my tongue in cheek post was, in my own hamfisted way, me agreeing with your observations.
ETS is harmless.
GreatScot
I've placed the French study on the dusty shelf next to the press release for the 2006 SG report, next to the 'Inconvenient Truth' DVD.
My dusty shelf is creating a lot of PM 2.5 and affecting my health.
OT, the Anon above with the dusty shelving is me.
Sorry Anonymous, didn't mean to hijack your name
Wood Smoke Article for the Day:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8417810
""If approved, fireplace police would enforce the rules, and neighbors would be encouraged to report neighbors.""
In the larger sense public consultations and lobby campaigns are the result of opinions and voting more than once by the same voices. What we see in public debate is a group of charity foundations, Agencies and political partners many who are encouraged to invent organizations of their own as a group they get to dominate discussions with a common and much repeated message.
The reason Anti smokers and fascists all seem to be parrots is evidently part and parcel of what gives them power. Silence by the opposition in hopes of finding a weak point later is entrenching their power to a point oposition voices later will only bring mistrust of the messanger. In 1996 a lawsuit was filed against Hilary Clinton naming RWJF in a conspiracy to promote Industrial Socializm commonly known as Fascism. The response in keeping with the tact there can only be one voice had them not explaining their position but as always and predictively attacking the character of the claimant. Who was at the time the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons who were also as always accused of being extreme conservative radicals. Since when did the voice of oposition AKA Conservatives become a dirty word. Can we truly state we are a democracy when only one position is allowed to be voiced without claims of illegitamacy?
Tobacco Control is a process derived from the same WHO domination process and as Michael has realized, a process of brainwashing is underway, which was never limited to "Tobacco Control advocates" the same brainwashing is underway world wide in a number of dominated campaigns not the least of which is Dole's pet project also given power by the now huge Health Care movement.
A movement which, as pointed out in the article, has little to do with hands on curing of disease or injuries. It has everything to do with utilizing those conditions for political and financial gain. The selection process of defining the right people is once again a reality in mainstream America and by their influence throughout the [no longer so] free world.
http://www.aapsonline.org/testim...ony/
parwjf.html
"RWJF's book acknowledges that "individuals suffer," but clearly its accent is on the fact that "society at large pays a toll in lost productivity and avoidable health care expenditures" [emphasis added]. Obviously, RWJF is not looking for ways to cure multiple sclerosis or arthritis or diabetes, but rather for the cheapest way to provide bathtub railings."
Can anyone get Hilary to denounce Fascism, in her run to the presidency? I would predict if asked; she would attack the person who asked, while never truly addressing the issue.
People need to look back at the history books and see reality.
While prominent Liberals and socialists who gave Hitler his power, such as Pierre Trudeau in Canada protested against the second world war and praised Hitler's special brand of Bigotry.
It was the Conservatives who were rallying the troops in opposition.
Now they are attacked in the media for holding true to those same principles.
No one can say war is a good thing, but freedom on balance is only found as a result of that necessary evil, or a threat of it.
If we sit silently as victims, we will only become permanent victims.
The victors although tremendously outnumbered will always win, without ever firing a shot, we are all prisoners of our own cowardice. Afraid to stand and say what we believe, in fear of a few bigots who will continue to attack our credibility, as long as we continue to allow it.
"There was no one left to speak for me"
Somewhere along the way inteligence was driven to the idea baby steps are the only way to acomplish change. Take a look around Is ASH or the climate cham=nge movement progressing because of weak and indesicive inticement?
If you want to be heard despite the number of editors filtering out the full impact your voicew needs to be heard in clear and unequivical terms.
Calling a Fascist a Fascist is not a mistake of the rules of etiquette. It is calling a spade a spade. if those who would be offended are truly offended, it is high time they were made to present more than a damaged puppy defense, allowing character assassination to win the day.
If the word is utilized more often it will wake people up, and allow them to understand what it means and the significance of what is being said.
Baby steps is a controlled weakness promoted by the same Fascists who live by limited opposition. A weak voice, which will never find credibility, in agreement with what is being promoted.
ETS is EBS, Global warming is a promoted financial scam. Public health is not about treatment it is about empowering entitlement, by controlled selection of the "right" people while robbing everyone else of their property and assets, which were legitimately earned.
Say it every morning and at every opportunity say it to others, it is a though which is truly empowering and too few people are hearing the truth lately.
Get with the program and start saying it clearly, or get what a coward deserves; self imposed slavery.
Media groups are largely controlled by a fear of insulting their own clients. What is not realized by the few in control of the media, is the fact they own the most significant window on the world which is necessary to spread the poisons we see every day.
If their clients came under fire in the enticements of all damager is done with personal failures to take responsibility for personal actions, offset by an absolute refusal of industries to live by the same standard.
For instance;
Speeding is a result of people using a vehicle exactly as the maufacturers tell us they should be used. The commercials show a woman who is obviously a corporate exec getting into a car while the narrative tells us; she is demonstrating her independence and confidence while equating speed with power stomping on the gas pedal.
I can go faster than you so I have more power than you?
If we truly wanted to stop people from speeding we would put governors on all vehicles limiting the speed within close proximity to posted speed limits. People with faster cars would not exist or would those who take liberties with other peoples safety driving recklessly, knowing they can escape easily and never be held to account.
Cars like the Dodge Viper which realistically should be on a track and not on the street without appropriate modifications, would loose their appeal almost immediately. Cars sold with Hemi engines as their main selling feature, would suddenly be evaluated for usefulness, beyond the hype in selling a device which is linked to personal ego, far more than the respectful practicality of it's use. The result? an onus would be put on manufacturers to sell improved products or loose market share to others who produce better products at a fair price.
If we want to limit drunks from driving, lockouts should be installed on all vehicles to prevent it. This would not restrict personal freedom it would just limit the machine to operate within safe parameters. Just like the use of airbags or anti lock brake mechanisms. Or a punch press which will not operate unless both hands are on the limit switches and out of harms way.
If we want cigarette manufacturers to provide safer products, we should put a requirement in their yard to take full responsibility for their actions, regardless of the profits they might loose, which could also be applied consistently to their other businesses, selling processed foods or other consumer products. To do all which is possible to accomplish those goals of reducing consumer risk, while promoting abstinence among potential new users of products they can't make acceptably safe.
We are being controlled by punishing individuals for what they consider normal behavior. Where is the balance in not also punishing the promotions by manufacturers who incite people to make bad choices?
If media groups brought forward a new standard in advertising which eliminated the messages which could cause harm. Or if legislators started applying personal responsibility which could not be seen as; cost of operations passed on to their clients, punishing corporate executives with criminal charges and personal financial punishments outside of Corporate accounting where they are truly deserved we would all be safer and better served.
Advertisers would have to increase their advertising revenues tremendously, to repair their reputations. Not spend less as the media groups have been trained to believe.
Gilster, from your Wood Stove article, you forgot to mention: " There would, however be no exception for burning wood in pellet stoves, or modern, EPA-certified stoves and inserts."
Gilster,
Funny that you posted that. In my New York hometown, there is a guy who installed one of those woodburner furnaces that not only heats his home but his water too. He installed this a year ago, after going to the City Council and getting permission to install it and working with the fire department and all agencies needed to get it EPA approved. He says that his monthly winter heating bill has dropped from $500 a month to $50. He had the smokestack built higher than recommended so not to effect any neighbors direct air. Now the city council is forcing him to remove it. No neighbors are complaining about it. The council is citing air pollution. He is fighting it and well he should. Just today there was a letter to the editor in the hometown paper supporting his right to keep it and the author of that letter reminds the council that he has a woodburner that is safely and properly installed while neighbors have wood pellet stoves that just vents to the outside with no chimney. I wonder if the city will back off now and let him keep it. I plan to watch this story closely and the good Doc here might just want to take a look to see how his pellet stove was installed too.
Well what do you think?
If second hand smoke can create an effect equal to 8% of the smoking related mortalities of primary smoking, wouldn't at least 1% of those exposed be addicted to the smoke? .01%?, .0001%?, .0000001%?
None of them????
None of the smoking related diseases are universal. Only the addiction or dependency seems to be a consistent effect.
Strange that one consistent characteristic, is the only effect we have never seem. Or has it been found to be statistically related to any persons exposed at any level.
Let them explain it, its their fairy tale.
How many cigarettes do they tell us, it takes for a child to become addicted? I heard recently, it only took one.
Do hospitality workers and children really need protection from the smoke, or from the mirrors.
I am pretty happy with this thumbnail case against smoking bans that I wrote for an alternative St. Louis paper. I worked like hell on this piece, trying to pack as much of the intellectual firepower against smoking bans as possible into 1000 words. I am a newcomer to this subject and much of what I now know I learned on this blog. I am grateful.
http://www.thevitalvoice.com/cgi...0022/
002295.htm
http://www.thevitalvoice.com/cgi...0022/
002295.htm
Good job, Bill H.
Sill H,
From your letter.
"The strongest finding of the 1998 World Health Organization’s secondhand smoke study was that children exposed had 22 percent greater chance of developing lung cancer later in life. "
Didn't the WHO 1998 study report a 22% less chance, ie a protective effect?
GreatScot
WHO study:
"ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44)."
Great letter Bill, keep up the good fight.
For Rose and others following the Niacin Thread.
http://
www.suburbanchicagonews.c...GOTT_S1.article
"Niacin (vitamin B-3) has many beneficial properties. It is used to treat dizziness, headaches, circulatory problems, ringing in the ears, Raynaud's syndrome and depression. In addition, it may increase energy, stimulate circulation, maintain normal blood pressure, raise HDL cholesterol levels and lower LDL cholesterol levels. Other uses are for acne, age-related macular degeneration, arthritis, hardening of the arteries, migraines, psoriasis, cataracts and more. It's no wonder you felt good and had renewed energy while taking this supplement."
E=MC^2
Great Scott, you are one of two people who has caught that WHO mistake so far. What I sent the Vital Voice said:
"The strongest finding of the 1998 World Health Organization’s secondhand smoke study was that children exposed had 22 percent less chance of developing lung cancer later in life."
The editor assumed that I had meant greater and changed the copy.
Just bumped into this:
http://ash.org/911ad
An antismoking ad showing two cigarettes so that they appear to be very similar to the Twin Towers of New York City shortly after they were hit by a terrorist attack on 9/11 is creating a great deal of controversy.
Produced by ASH of New Zealand, and NOT by Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) -- the original ASH which operates largely in the U.S. and sponsors this web site -- the poster states at the bottom:
Terrorism-related deaths since 2001: 11,337 •
Tobacco-related deaths since 2001: 30,000,000
"I would never draw a conclusion like this based on a single data point..."
No. Of course not. That would be dishonest. So please, do tell us about the data points you used to conclude that 220 Mass. bartenders will die if they continue working in smokey bars for 40 years. A data point, in this case, would obviously be a set of specific bartenders who did, in fact, work that long and who did, in fact, die due to SHS.
If you cannot name them, it would appear that you based YOUR conslusion on exactly ZERO data points. If using one data point makes these researchers dishonest, what's that make you?
"The bottom line is that the report's conclusions are not objective, nor are they based on enough data to make them scientifically supportable."
So again, regarding the 220 deaths--how many data points did you use? And exactly how many does it take to make the statement scientifically suportable?
"There is no journal I know of which would publish a study with this conclusion based on these data."
OK then. Now we know the standard. Don't publicly release data unless it is sound enough to be published in peer reviewed journals. I didn't make up that standard. You did. Fine. So again, let's apply it to your own work. It seems that 220 is a pretty specific number. So obviously you did some research to find out how many bartenders actually work in Massachusetts. And you obviously applied an RR to caclulate the deaths. Please let me know what other confounding factors you applied to this case. Please let me know to what extent assuming a 40 year career for 100 percent of bartenders is a valid piece of analysis. And please let me know where you offered this "study" for publication, and what percentage of editors deemed it scientific enough for publication.
If you did not attempt to publish it, or if you wewre turned down, please explain why. Or, on the other hand, if you did not deem it necessary to hold yourself to the "publishable" standard when conveying calculations regarding public health, please explain why you hold yourself to a different standard than your peers.
"But even though this study, in its present form, will never sustain peer review nor make it to publication, its conclusion has already been widely disseminated throughout the world and will undoubtedly play a role in influencing public policy makers' decisions."
Please explain to me, again, how this is different that your use of the 220 figure in Amherst. This was not research of publishable quality. But it was used to form public policy. Public policy that you support.
I guess the final question is... Isn't it accurate to say that you object to people using unpublishable data to support public policy only when you oppose the policy? And isn't it demonstrably true that you support using unpublishable data--data that you yourself generated--when you do support the political objectives?
But again, I could be wrong. Please point out the peer reviewed journal that published the 220 figure.
I look forward to reading it.
Obituary: A. Judson Wells, Jr. 1917-2008
http://www.philly.com/philly/
obi...ond_career.html
I just wanted to find out more about Mr. Wells. I found something even better. There may only be a relatively small number of people who, over the years, have repeatedly participated, over and over again, in the SHS scam.
http://www.smokershistory.com/NCCIA.htm
Here are a couple of articles by A. Judson Wells, Jr.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/c...full/91/12/
1081
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/c.../9/717-a?
ck=nck
Wells was retired when he taught himself to be an epidemiologist and I believe him when he said that he worked for free. But check out some of the other players named above, in the first link, and the Foundations that back them.
Even so, many of these people are just cogs on the wheel of a much larger machine that seeks to manipulate public opinion and those others who make public policy. (I haven't a clue what to call this "larger machine" but there is too much "co-ordination" of efforts for some of these things to occur randomly.) (Who controls "Tobacco Control"?)
I was surprised to find out that there actually is a link between the SHS scammers and the Global Warming scammers. It's not clear to me why there should be a link. (Do they trade tips on how to manipulate the public?)
Are these people reading the playbook of the anti-war movement of the '60s?
More questions than answers.
Hints: (Foote, Cone & Belding, J. Walter Thompson and Albert D. & Mary Lasker)
E=MC^2
EinsteinSmoked,
Gee's you would have thought that he would have been around much longer than only 90 years, what with his background and all, I would venture another 20 or 30 years for his longeitvity. Wait a minute though. Wasn't it report once that the chemicals that DuPont uses and makes, especially teflon pots and pans causes cancer? Pot, kettle, black.
EinsteinSmoked;
Who runs it?
The investors who expect to tipple their money That's who. While dictating public policies.
http://www.deakin.edu.au/hmnbs/h...ia/
research.php
"This theoretical study explored the links between the triple bottom line concept (TBL) and the principles of HIA and considered the potential role of HIA in providing a mechanism for integrating health concerns within a broader agenda of government and business. TBL is a framework that underpins and reviews environmental, economic and social performance of organisations. It is linked to the broader sustainability agenda. In its simplest form it acts as a tool for reporting to stakeholders/shareholders on their performance and the nature of the impacts they have had on the community."
AKA;
http://www.aapsonline.org/testim...ony/
parwjf.html
"Our Association began to take special notice of the role of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) and other private foundations during the course of the lawsuit Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, et al., vs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, et al. As discovery proceeded, it soon became apparent that tax-exempt foundations such as RWJF and the Henry Kaiser Family Foundation were playing a key role in setting the agenda of the Task Force on Health Care Reform and supplying key personnel. The reason that the Task Force felt a need for secrecy was also apparent as details unfolded.
It's not that the major initiatives proposed by RWJF are a secret. They are in fact heavily promoted. But the method of enactment and the long-term implications could not bear intense and critical scrutiny.
RWJF produces a large volume of repetitious publications outlining initiatives that at first glance are completely noncontroversial and, in fact, boring. It was only the secrecy of the Task Force that sparked enough interest to take a closer look at what was hidden in plain sight behind a smokescreen of utter banality.
As our lawsuit became more widely known, we received occasional phone calls from doctors around the country. They were dismayed at certain "health care reform" programs in their area, all of which had the tendency to undermine independent private entities and to increase the influence of government and managed care. RWJF might be found lurking somewhere in the shadows, say in an office deep in the hospital's administration wing. It was difficult to object to it or even to get anyone very interested in it; it was probably doing something very boring like generating statistics or writing yet another proposal that looked very much like something we had all seen many times before.
RWJF and its associated organizations are very respectable. They have the approval of a host of professional organizations and hospitals, possibly granted at a boring committee meeting that hardly anyone attended, possibly thanks to the endorsement of a person of influence who might have or hope to receive a grant. "
"To summarize the RWJF account of its objectives and strategy:
Ø The goal is a government-controlled "public/private partnership," which is another name for "corporatism" or "corporate socialism," and could also be called fascism.
Ø Enactment and implementation of such programs is expected to meet resistance. Thus, it is desirable to remove the process as far as possible from the political arena.
Ø Grantmaking is part of the strategy for overcoming resistance, passing legislation, and making sure that the means for implementing it are solidly in place before opposition can build.
Ø The desired outcome requires a radical change in societal values and institutional arrangements. Change is facilitated when institutions are financially weak, with heavy managed-care penetration. Government intervention is often needed."
Interesting (to say the least) stuff, Anonymous, but not at all surprising.
BTW, is there only one "Anonymous" around here these days, or have we got several? If so, could you all give yourselves a Roman Numeral so we can tell you apart? Or some kind of tag, like, oh I dunno, say... Sam or Kevin or...
:
Hello,
tobacco, alcohol, drug ?
Do you know OMS ??
http://www.noslibertes.org/dotcl...u-sappelle-
lOMS
Who (in english), sorry.
NosLibertes, your link pretty much goes along the line of Anonymous(1?) above. Health scare promoting communism.
Lettuce not discriminate against the harmless cabbage
Oh very good LightningBoy!
I still maintain that it is a detestable vegetable and clutters up my crab salad at my favorite fish restaurant.
Talking of detestable vegetables, sorry for the delay in replying, on friday night a gale force wind blew over a tree that knocked out my telephone cable and its only just been restored.
EinsteinSmoked
Thanks for the link,inspired by it, I did another search.
"RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ESTABLISHMENT. British-American Tobacco Co., Ltd, Southampton.
22nd Julyp 1960
The object of this note is to give son* preliminary consideration to the
possibility of producing nicotinic acid from tobacco waste. This possibility
probably asswas some Importance in countries with low standards of nutrition
where nicotinic acid is Imported in insufficient quantities and yet whorls an
apparent raw material for the vitamin is not used".
"Nicotinic acid (Niscing Niconecido Nicyl, Akotin) Is the anti-pellagra
vitamin pyridine-p-carboxylic acid. It Is now widely used as a food supplewnt
and in the United Kingdoml, for exempleg It is a Statutory requirement (Flour
Order 1953) that it shall be present to the oxttnt of 1,600 mgm. per 100 gm,,
flour."
"NUotinic acid was first made by the oxidation of nicotine and Whifftns
operator a commrcial process in this cmmtry starting with tobaccoe Later they
were sulplied with nicotine by the British Nicotine Company and continued the
oxidation. Finally - before the Second World War - they found they ware unable
to comp4o with manufacturers starting from quinoline and the nicotine ;votes$
leased Nicotinic acid is now made, almost ntirely from qL-nolirw and ft-picolinal,
althoughit could be made di"ctly from tobacco waste (2) 9 from pyridineq *omo"
http://www.library.ucsf.edu/toba...R/1400/
1457.txt
Hard to read but its all there.
It also looks like nicotine turns to niacin during the aging process.
So what can we look forward to if TC and the pharmaceuticals get their way and we give up this natural and very pleasant source of a vital vitamin without them letting us in on the secret?
"Pellagra is a disease characterised by diarrhoea, dermatitis and dementia. If left untreated, death is the usual outcome. It occurs as a result of niacin (vitamin B-3) deficiency. Niacin is required for most cellular processes. Since tryptophan in the diet can be converted to niacin in the body, both of these need to be deficient for pellagra to develop"
Pellagra in the United States
http://www.medscape.com/viewarti...rticle/
410505_2
Speculating wildly, it is just possible that those with malabsorption of niacin, instinctively refuse to give up, but those that do develop into that fascinating phenomenon, the ex smoker.
Pinched from F2C
The Loneliness of the Non-Smoker
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6F...Fi-24wRRDg&
NR=1
Wonderfully plaintive video from a non smoker left behind to mind the drinks while all his friends go out for a cigarette.
I was surprised to find out that there actually is a link between the SHS scammers and the Global Warming scammers. It's not clear to me why there should be a link. - EinsteinSmoked
It shouldn't be a surprise. It's essentially the same argument that's being made by both. Read this from Johann Hari a week or two back in the Independent:
Of course, some sincere and well-intentioned people have libertarian concerns about this approach at first glance. Why should we force people to choose the green option? Isn't it better to rely on persuasion and voluntary choice? But even the most hardcore libertarians agree that your personal liberty ends where you actively harm the liberty of another person. Greenhouse gas emissions are undeniably harming tens of millions of people – and endangering the ground on which all human liberty rests: a stable and safe climate.
Swap "greenhouses gases" for "tobacco smoke", and "climate science" for "epidemiology", and it's exactly the same argument that is being made, in pursuit of the same totalitarian goals.
But even the most hardcore libertarians agree that your personal liberty ends where you actively harm the liberty of another person.
I love this argument the most. Because they don't even notice that it works both ways.
The smoking bans actively harm the liberties of smokers AND private business owners.
That's why reasonable comprises are the most civilized things to consider.
And the same applies to greenies who want to force us all to live a certain way...........while NOT giving up their cars and flights I might add.
"Lettuce not discriminate against the harmless cabbage"
Don't want to burst your bubble, but from page 63 of Brains:
====
It’s also good to remember that scary sounding chemical names do NOT necessarily mean “poison.” That healthy serving of cabbage on your plate provides a prime example as noted by respected science writer Michael Fumento:
An innocent looking leaf of cabbage, for example, contains 49 natural pesticides and metabolites, with huge, ominous-sounding names like 4-meth-ylthiobutyl isothiocynanate and 3-indolylmethyl glucosinolate. (Michael Fumento, Science Under Siege, p.62)
Remember that the next time you order sauerkraut!
====
Heehee.... Death To The Cabbage King!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Michael
But as tobacco is to deadly nightshade, lettuce is to Lactuca virosa, the opium lettuce.
"there appeared in the market cultivated varieties devoid of the medicinal elements found in wild lettuce, social commentators were not pleased. In fact, they became quite vocal as to the incredible danger this represented to society. It would be as if someone today introduced a salad variety of marijuana. There was great concern that lettuce would cause childlessness or would produce children with subnormal intelligence. A whole list of horrible things were supposed to happen if people proceeded with this shameless eating of lettuce".
http://www.planetbotanic.ca/
fact..._lettuce_fs.htm
Anti-lettuce organisations, if they can bring the German anti tobacco campaigns back, we can do the same with lettuce.
Selling B.C.'s historic carbon tax similar to anti-smoking campaigns
Greenhouse gas emissions are the new tobacco and the B.C. government should look to the anti-smoking movement for tips on selling its historic carbon tax to the public, says a social scientist who recently briefed B.C. Environment Ministry bureaucrats about the road ahead for the new tax.
Quitting smoking and quitting carbon are strikingly similar issues, said Robert Gifford, a psychologist at the University of Victoria's school of environmental studies.
Smoking used to be an acceptable behaviour but after decades of irrefutable science and emotional messaging, not to mention massive tax hikes, smoking has become less and less acceptable.
after decades of irrefutable science
irrefutable? Does this person not understand the meaning of the word? Seems to me the only irrefutable science is that it is NOT irrefutable.
I prefer smoking this: http://www.water-bongs-glass-pipes.com/ at home
You know, at bottom, beneath all these stupid arguments about how deadly smoking is for smokers OR for non-smoking bystanders, the central question is this: Why do smokers find it acceptable to force their drug use on people who obviously do not wish to smoke, as they have never taken up the habit?
You whine and cry and moan and groan about the mean ol' government and mean ol' anti-smoking activists not letting you do whatever the hell you want to your own body. You UTTERLY FAIL to see the irony in that because you have NO ISSUES WHATSOEVER with violating a NON-smoker's right to choose what they put in their body.
The ONLY alternative for a non-smoker in an environment where public smoking is legal, is for them to stay home. Because even in a building with a "smoking section," that smoke doesn't honor boundary lines--it drifts right over into the non-smoking area.
When YOU are willing to honor a non-smoker's right to avoid taking a drug they don't want to take--because they don't even have the benefit of YOUR cigarette filter, therefore they get the pure smoke!--then maybe you will have a TOE to stand on when you WHINE about not being allowed to smoke in a public building. Til then? Cry me a tobacco-polluted, tar-gummed-with-butts-floating-on-top, RIVER.
By the way? If you don't like the French numbers, look at Italy's. They compared three years' worth of data before their ban, with one year's worth of data after. Maybe that's still too lopsided for ya, but it's not a mere month, either.
It doesn't take rocket science in any case. Next thing you know you'll be telling us tobacco smoke has vitamin C in it and cures colds.
5 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
