Since nicotine gum and inhalers both contain nicotine, we have narrowed the potential culprit down to propylene glycol. Is this substance a complete mystery? Seriously, it's obvious that, either these organisations don't want to upset the drug companies or, they think people are less likely to give up tobacco if they can use realistic tobacco substitutes, such as snus or ecigs, where smoking is banned. I'd wager the first.
A simple test to identify if someone is an anti smoke(r) or just doesn't like the smell of tobacco.
Hold an unlighted cigarette between your fingers, if they become agitated, won't stop looking at you or goes as far as to tell you that you can't smoke, you can be pretty sure they are an anti smoke(r).
Oho, now we are up to 10,000 chemicals?
Dang, I never got the memo. :-(
Ah, and up to 60 Carcinogens. Any of them actually 'human' carcinogens?
My bad, I got the memo. 
per Today's Rest of the Story, "a regional vice president of the Staten Island American Cancer Society was quoted as calling on the removal of electronic cigarettes from the market because: "These devices haven't been examined by any government agency. We don't know how the ingredients are affecting the body."
This is like saying that mashed potatos are safe, and gravy is safe, but we need further testing to determine if it safe to eat mashed potatos with gravy.
The effects of propylene glycol and nicotine in the human body have both been well researched and the results are not secret.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Pro...ropylene_glycol
"Propylene glycol does not cause sensitization and it shows no evidence of being a carcinogen or of being genotoxic."
"Studies conducted in 1942 by Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson of University of Chicago's Billings Hospital showed vaporized propylene glycol inhalation in laboratory mice may prevent pneumonia, influenza, and other respiratory diseases. Additional studies in monkeys and other animals were undertaken to determine longterm effects, especially the potential for accumulation in the lungs."
The article in Time Magazine in 1942 about propylene glycol ...
http://www.time.com/time/
magazin...,932876,00.html
"A powerful preventive against pneumonia, influenza and other respiratory diseases may be promised by a brilliant series of experiments conducted during the last three years at the University of Chicago's Billings Hospital. Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson last week was making final tests with a new germicidal vapor—propylene glycol—to sterilize air."
If the "for profit" but not really "their profit" Health® Charities have any problem at all it is that they have no credibility left to lose. There is no reason to believe anything they say whether it is about E-cigs or Real-Cigs.
Tobacco is ACS approved and insuring the healthcare of millions.®
Well we know how the more than 10,000 chemicals in conventional cigarettes are affecting the body
Actually, no you don't, since those chemicals apparently affect less than half of actual smokers. Since non-smokers, even those with limited to no exposure to shs in their lifetime, get the same damned diseases.
You are also ignoring the fact that those chemicals in the cigarettes are so minute that many can't be distinguished. So now whose "misleading" people?
OT, but I see that there is a push for banning smoking in the military. I am struck by the STUPIDITY of these people. It is difficult to find anyone willing to give up life or limb to sign up for combat these days. Apparently, those who do volunteer have a greater percentage of smokers among them. Add to that the simple hypocrisy of expecting an 18 year old to dodge bullets and bans but, at the same time, tell him/her that the government is concerned with his/her health???? Cigarettes have provided a small comfort to men and women in the military for hundreds of years. Sometimes, it is the only comfort. So, now we risk national securtity for the sake of TC. I would urge all young people to avoid signing up for the military if you have the inclination to smoke while there. To fall for this hypocrisy and false concern for your well being would be a major mistake. Would they deny an injured or dying soldier the request for that last cigarette? Why, yes, they would. I am so mad I am spitting.
"expecting an 18 year old to dodge bullets and bans " bans should be bombs.
"Is the American Cancer Society trying to get rid of cancer, or promote it? By its absurd policy positions, you'd be hard pressed to come up with the right answer." The very same question that we have been asking of TC.We know that there is absolutely no interest in finding a cure for lung cancer,so tough shit on anyone who gets it,whether they smoke or not.Let's face it Dr Siegel,the whole Public Health movement is a crock of shite.If it produces extra funds and doesn't entail much effort,it's the way to go.The movement has become so self-serving it couldn't find it's butt using both hands with the light on.However when "advised" by the Pharmaceutical establishment,aka RWJF they will swing ruthlessly into action to protect their masters income.
EinstienSmoked: For some reason I can't pull up that 1942 Time article about propylene glycol from either your link or my own bookmarked one.
Here is the actual study, "The Bactericidal Action of Propylene Glycol Vapor On Microorganisms Suspended in Air. I" by O. H. Robertson, M.D. et al, February 27, 1942.
http://www.karr-tv.com/pgvapor2.pdf
Page 595:"... As the work progressed it was found that propylene glycol in vapor form was highly bactericidal ... When pure vapor was employed, it was found to be more effective than an equal quantity of propylene glycol dispersed as an aerosol."
Page 604: "...Propylene glycol was also found to exert a lethal or at least an inactivating effect on the virus of influenza. This was determined by tests in which the presence of the glycol vapor in concentration of 1:3,000,000 was shown to protect mice completely against infection with amounts of air-borne influenza virus that produced death regularly in the control animals."
http://jem.rupress.org/cgi/repri...nt/85/6/
729.pdf
"The Mechanism Of Aerial Disinfection by Glycols and Other Chemical Agents" by Theodore T. Puck, PhD., January 31, 1947
"In a series of publications which have appeared during the last five years (1-
, the activity of certain organic compounds, particularly propylene and triethylene glycols, in killing air-borne bacteria and viruses has been described..."
Monkeys (who emerged "fat and happy") and human denizens of U. S. Army barracks were subjected to the germicidal vapors with no deleterious effects.
Apparently the issue of germicidal properties of propylene glycol vapor was abandoned in the 1940's because of the emergence of the miracle, antibiotics. Considering that our miracle, antibiotics, is now falling on its face, perhaps propylene glycol should be considered again.
Propylene glycol as a germ killing vapor was the subject of a lengthy thread on e-cigarette forum back in August, 2008, with some input from medical people involved with e-cigarettes.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com...ng-vapor-
4.html
"But while the American Cancer Society wants to immediately remove the safer alternative to cigarettes from the market, it wants to keep the regular ones on the market and provide them with special protection by eliminating the ability of the FDA to take any action that could seriously reduce their use, such as raising the age of sale of tobacco, regulating the places where cigarettes are sold, or getting rid of the nicotine."
Are you seriously telling us, doctor, that raising the age of sale of tobacco will "seriously reduce" its use? You know, you should be locked up for your "serious" abuse of adjectives and adverbs, which coming from an educator makes it a "serious" crime, in my opinion. And while they're locking you up for that crime, they might give you a great dollop of extra time for continuing to push the propaganda line of the number of chemicals in tobacco smoke, as Lynda has again nailed you with. Showing once again that your enslavement to Tobacco Control means everything to you and personal integrity little to damn nothing. (At least this time around, you didn't call them "toxins.")
And as far as regulating the places where cigarettes are sold, surely the effect there would be equally puny in reducing smoking. Or totally ineffectual.
Talk about "absurd policy positions"! Not to mention hypocrisy!
.
Before Bill Godshall comes in here:
438.000 premature deaths ... yada yada... smokeless tobacco products.. yada yada ... harm reduction ... yada yada ... public health ... yada yada
Sheri Re: Smoking & the military.
The military could indicate that it would consider the antismoking proposal if all those in favor of it spent a few months in a war zone having to pull their full military weight (i.e., no special treatment). After their tour it would be seen if the TCers had the gall to look a soldier in the eye and tell him that he shouldn’t be smoking. I don’t think there would be any takers from TC on such a reasonable offer. This is a critical problem of Health® (thanks ES) groups. They’re disconnected from ordinary life, let alone military life. They have disassociated parts of their minds, parroting the same position regardless of circumstance. They believe, deluded as it may be, that from an air-conditioned office, shuffling about tidbits of useless statistical information and formulating ‘strategies’ within a monomaniacal worldview, that they can direct everyone in any circumstance on how they should think and act on the matter of smoking. The better question is why are so many people, including the media, unable to discern non-thinking, shameless fools when they hear them speak? Antismoking directed at the military is also getting very close to the Nazi circumstance.
Health® - property of the State.
_
The leader in Health®, the medical establishment is the leading cause of preventable death & injury, and psychological & social dysfunction.
Setting the Standards in Derangement and Self-Approbation for a New World, for the Benefit of All [of the Medical Establishment].
I thought the issue of 4,000/10,000/100,000/billions and billions of chemical compounds in tobacco smoke had been put to bed by Rodgman and Perfetti's $275 tome, "The Chemical Components of Tobacco and Tobacco Smoke."
Page 1257: "...as noted by Wakeham in 1971 when the identified tobacco smoke components numbered about 1350: "Gas chromatographic scans indicate there are many more, probably over ten thousand, possibly even a hundred thousand tobacco smoke components."
and "....As analytical technology advances, surely thousands of new chemical components in tobacco and tobacco smoke will be added to the listings found in this text."
The book is not TC propaganda, it is solid science.
The question to address is which of those potentially billiions and billions of chemicals found in tobacco smoke are peculiar only to tobacco smoke and are not shared by all organic combustion, like candles and campfires? Moreover, which of those chemicals are not shared by this soup we breath and move about in?
Our ocean of atmosphere is no more "pure, clean air" than are our oceans of water "pure, clean H2O". They are both carrying mediums and are chemical soups.
Take a deep breath. Dollar to a doughnut you just inhaled between 4,000 and billions of chemical compounds.
"Is the American Cancer Society trying to get rid of cancer, or promote it?"
Rhetorical and disturbingly amusing, but only becaue it is true.
If you remain unconvinced of which is correct after all the time you have spent in criticizing your former team mates, try stepping outside the Vaccum in which TC operates and have a look at the consequences of your crusade.
If they actually lived up to their mission statement, they would ultimately have to call themselves something else now wouldn't they?
Like maybe, The American Cancer on the Economy Society, or more correctly, The American Propaganda Society, or better still, The American get your hands up and empty your wallet Society.
Avoiding the printing cost of all that ACS stationary is worth the effort don't you think?
Thanks RickDP for your reply to Sheri. You have echoed my long standing thoughts. My back ground with the military has always made me aware of the dangers TC could face if they ever dared mess with our soldiers. Bill Clinton tried it when he placed a fee on cigarettes in the military installations stores. A fee because it can not be called a tax on a military base. All he managed to do was piss the soldier off and increased the smoking rates.
I have also entertained thoughts of every man, women and child should have to serve at least 2 years in the military. The child as a dependent of course. I don't take kindly to sending my spouse off to war or to some third world country and then return to find that our neighbors have decided how we should live our lives. I wouldn't mind suggestions, but coming back to discrimination, fraud, greed, lies, corruption and a dictatorship is not what we signed up for.
Is this pre-promotion for the drug companies to help with the notably more succesful "Spontaneous" Quit attemps?
http://tinyurl.com/lxqqdb
From the link;
"By monitoring pre-cessation patch smoking levels, we may be able to rescue people who aren't going to succeed. If the smoker is not spontaneously decreasing the number of cigarettes they are smoking, we may be able to find a different treatment that will work for them rather than letting them stay on an ineffective treatment and fail. "
Wouldn't it be a better idea if the "treatmant" was proven to better than 1.6% effective to begin with?
Anything to make a buck I guess.
Tell me again, ..it's not about the money.
Everyday another rock in this landslide of "fraud and shame" smacks me in my face. I'm feeling like Popeye and "I can't stans no more". This is definitely NOT what I got involved for. Over the years, I made alot of acquaintences at the ALA, ACS, and AHA and many of them have admitted to me that they too question the stupid decisions their organizations are making. Like the majority of Americans who just "go with the flow" and don't question anything ( I WAS one of them), need to realize that all the Pseudo science that is now available to read and research is "junk". The proof is there in abundance. TC science for the most part is a parlor game being played in the family rooms all across America and the public is losing big time.
Thank you all for opening my eyes to what I was blind to for so many years. I have followed up on all your suggestions to help raise the level of awareness on this shameful and most embarrassing assault on on freedom.
David G.
David Goerlitz, hope you mean that!
Diane, I've never meant anything more in my life and I'll do whatever I can to help undo this terrible mess.
I know two wrongs don't make a right, but two wrongs can give you the insight to see the errors made along the way that will help to fix it and help make it right.
David G.
DVIS g.
Two trains of thought;
"There is no safe cigarette and no such thing as a safer cigarette. It would be unethical to tinker with the contents because distributing the altered compound would be unethical and akin to human experimentation?"
And now this;
"the elimination of electronic cigarettes from the market at the same time it applauds the special protection for the existing, more hazardous ones."
From the Pagans, the Wiki and Giaa fans at the UN, who are trying to sell the Rockefeller's new world religion, we have;
According to the WHO and the charter of international human rights;
health as “A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”
Loose interpretation and political dogma revising the meaning allows?
Health is everything...Healthcare is care of everything!!!
http://www.oldthinkernews.com/
Ar...ld_religion.htm
This empowers medical groups who normally concern themselves with science and biological functions pertaining to the human body, to move now into environmentalism, animal rights, Highway safety, on and on...and declare themselves the only official dispensers of moral values.
Dictating human rights in a group perspective as opposed to an individuals rights perspective. They now move into controlling everything
[all things relate to health so Public Health has a responsibility to control all things]
Through what they call "managed healthcare" they are dictating a person's autonomous choices and lifestyle.
The other side of the coin?
In the original intent by the definition of health; “A state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”
" mental and social well-being" was added primarily in reference to the Holocaust victims and a promise embodied in human rights;
"this will never happen again" and in a promise to the fallen soldiers, that "we will never forget."
Denormalization which is in every sense; a form of torture and an attack on the right to security of the person, is an abominable act worthy of prosecution as a human rights abuse, an act which is entirely harmful and detrimental to the emotional and social well being of the millions under attack.
Enabled viciously under the guise of protectionist "disease management" when no disease actually exists, outside of the absolute ignorance in referencing smokers and the obese as disease requiring treatment.
Denormalization reigns as the big stick of public health, in Public health opinions; a little "tough love interventionist hurt" is simply a necessary evil on the road to spiritual and emotional well being?
In other words;
"Do as you are told, shut the hell up, respect your betters, and appreciate what we allow you"
will soon be printed on international UN currency, right beside the lance and snake of the public health diocese, which viewed in silhouette is actually a dollar sign, indicative of the industrial socialist component of the global fascist regime.
People keep accepting it, so it must be what they want. The words "Merry Christmas" aren't really that important as opposed to insulting someone...
And here is your champion for change?
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.c...st-
imports.html
Healthscare overly exaggerate the real effects of ETS in respect to how much lifespan will actually change even if we believed the numbers.
50,000 would change the average life expectancy by what a month?
3000 a matter of hours
220 bartenders a matter of seconds.
So where does the fear and urgent need for action originate?
Primarily in criminal activities by an oppressive mob, who expect billions in profits earned solely on the backs of those they incited to fight amongst themselves.
Somehow non-smokers were conned into accepting a totally illogical and unsubstantial belief, that smokers are any different biologically, socially or morally than anyone else.
Pure bull crap and they're eating it up, like Pavlov dogs, conditioned and barking on command.
Dr. Siegel, while I certainly sympathize with your blog post, I have to criticize the fact that you continue to fall into the same sort of sinning that you criticize in Antismokers.
You talk about the "10,000 chemicals and the 60 carcinogens" as though those were meaningful numbers although I'm pretty sure that you're fully aware that they are not.
Once you get past the first dozen or so chemicals in the smoke from a cigarette I believe you're heading fairly seriously into the microgram category. Once you get past the top hundred or two you're probably entering picograms. Drop below the top thousand and I'll bet you're wading hip deep in femtograms and attograms. By the time you hit that 10,000 mark you may be talking zeptograms.
And that's just plain silly. Or beyond silly. That's deceptive in the same way that homeopathy is deceptive. And the fact that every time someone as respected as yourself gives lip service to this sort of nonsense as being worthy of the name "science" you're giving power to those who take those same numbers and pretend that they apply to secondary smoke exposure by nonsmokers which today is certainly commonly on the order of 1/1,000th or less that of smokers. {And what the Q comes after zeptogams, eh?}
The 60 carcinogens is just about as bad. What are they? Goldfish carcinogens? They sure ain't Class A human carcinogens. So simply calling them "carcinogens" as though they WERE "Class A" is highly misleading and simply a contribution to the terror and hate campaign mounted against smokers.
In a previous thread I asked how many chemicals would be measured in the ordinary street air in New York, Boston, or even QumQuat, Alaska if you applied the same grade of delicacy that's been focused on tobacco smoke. That was a serious question... and it's one that I've never seen addressed.
After all... who would fund such a nonsensical study?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
{which I usually weigh first... on my yoctogram scale.}
"And what the Q comes after zeptogams, eh?"
Harptograms ??? (just a guess).
_
Whoops! Forgot all about them nasty li'l nanograms in that analysis! :>
But let me add something to help put all this and Gary's previous analyses in some perspective: a single grain of salt weighs roughly 100,000,000 picograms.
- MJM
MJM,
Very useful comments. Why hasn’t Michael S. addressed your points, given that he insists on using particular terms to describe tobacco smoke?
By the time you get to 10,000 compounds, you’re into the sub-trace, sub-sub-trace and super-sub-trace…………. levels. Many of them are also fleeting, lasting only fractions of a second. The term ‘carcinogen’ alone should not be used, but ‘potential carcinogen’, given the principle that the carcinogenicity (or toxicity) is in the dose (however poorly defined this might be – particularly with SHS). Remember, too, that carcinogenicity (e.g., Class A) is defined primarily by the questionable (particularly concerning SHS) approach of lifestyle epidemiological meta-analysis.
Michael S., you are promoting the idea that tobacco smoke is typically ‘carcinogenic’ and appeal to greater and greater numbers of compounds in tobacco smoke, fostering the idea that the greater the number of compounds, the more ‘dangerous’ is the phenomenon. Michael, you are fear- and hate-mongering in this exercise. You have stated that you believe smoker denormalization is iatrogenic. Yet you contribute to it - still. You can make your point concerning particular differences between tobacco and eCigs without degenerating into inflammatory nonsense.
_
The leader in Health®, the medical establishment is the leading cause of preventable death & injury, and psychological & social dysfunction.
Setting the Standards in Derangement and Self-Approbation for a New World, for the Benefit of All [of the Medical Establishment].
This is more of the same;
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/
adjudi...F_ADJ_43266.htm
Ad
A TV ad, produced by the NHS, for the campaign "Smoke Free.co.uk". The ad showed a wedding reception. A woman lit a cigarette and blew thick black smoke across the room. Children and adults were shown inhaling the smoke. A voice-over stated "Most cigarette smoke in a room comes from the lit end. Unfiltered and even more toxic, it attacks vital organs of everyone who breathes it, increasing their chances of heart disease by a quarter, even if they've never smoked. But the scariest thing is you can't even see it. 85% is invisible. Second-hand smoke, the invisible killer". On-screen text stated "SECONDHAND SMOKE. THE INVISIBLE KILLER".
Issue
1. Imperial Tobacco Ltd and 26 viewers challenged whether the claim "increasing their chances of heart disease by a quarter, even if they've never smoked" was misleading and could be substantiated.
2. 12 viewers thought the ad was offensive to smokers.
3. Imperial Tobacco Ltd and 12 viewers thought the ad was an unjustified appeal to fear.
4. Two viewers challenged whether the claim "it attacks vital organs of everyone who breathes it" was misleading and could be substantiated.
5. Three viewers, who believed the evidence linking second-hand smoke to potentially fatal diseases was based on research into the effects of long-term exposure, challenged whether the ad was misleading, because it implied an increased risk of potentially fatal diseases from short-term exposure to second-hand smoke.
6. Two viewers challenged whether second-hand smoke was "even more toxic" than directly inhaled smoke.
Dr. Siegel, Suffolk County in New York has proposed legislation banning the use of e-cigs whereever conventional smoking is banned. Now why oh why would that be?
http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/
...ed_limit_o.html
Understand, the motive is different in nature than the total ban the ACS and others want on the product.
Please explain to us how they will get away with making this a risk to public health issue, considering they are approaching it as an ETS situation.
Kevin
And I said it was a suggested invocation of Death from a distance and got deleted
Very nasty advert, it implied that everyone had been deliberately contaminated by a sentient black substance, very X Files.
Whereas now we know -
"With secondhand smoke, the main concerns are exposure to levels of carbon monoxide and respirable particulate matter.
While air nicotine metabolised as cotinine provides a marker for measuring exposure to tobacco smoke, the nicotine is not present in such quantities as to present health concerns"
So that includes pretty much everything we breathe everywhere, including the dust from the ceiling, other peoples shed skin particles and cars passing by outside.
Kevin,the usual whitewash bullshit that we expect from those who buy into this planned and carefully orchestrated hysteria ruled against all of those of us who complained about that despicable advert.They will continue to sink to new depths in the depravity that has become TC.The use of e-cigarettes undermines the denormalisation campaign,as smokers can once again be SEEN as being perfectly normal people.This clearly won't do,hence the pathetic attempts to ban them using cult science,you MUST BELIEVE in what we say.Nazification of Public Health knows no bounds in its drive to enforce new rules manufactured to suit its purpose.
Si
This has gone so far and got so ridiculous that I'm beginning to suspect that there is a prize to be won.
Presumably if they get enough brownie points for reducing smoking, we might get a Nulab president of Europe.
After all-
'I’m a planet-saving kinda guy'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle6634458.ece
"we might get a Nulab president of Europe.
After all-" OK where's the best desert island.I'll even accept one that's only 50cm above sea level.
"Michael S., you are promoting the idea that tobacco smoke is typically ‘carcinogenic’ and appeal to greater and greater numbers of compounds in tobacco smoke, fostering the idea that the greater the number of compounds, the more ‘dangerous’ is the phenomenon. Michael, you are fear- and hate-mongering in this exercise. You have stated that you believe smoker denormalization is iatrogenic. Yet you contribute to it - still. You can make your point concerning particular differences between tobacco and eCigs without degenerating into inflammatory nonsense." I can do nothing other than applaud you Rick.Excellent comments.
Rose,have you by any chance seen the anti-smoking advert using that ridiculous bubble around the person's upper body to "contain" the smoke ? If SHS is so deadly and he was smoking a cigarette (we know he wasn't NO SMOKE) HE WOULD BE DEAD either by "passive smoke" or asphyxiation due to his cigarette burning up all the oxygen .Are they trying to produce the most stupid and ridiculous advert lol.Will the general public demand these bubbles for all smokers ???
Michael S.
The disease (cancer societies) groups and the dismembered body-part (heart foundations, lung associations) groups are a J.D. Rockefeller invention early last century and further entrenched by Mary Lasker in the early 1950s (National Institutes of Health). They exist primarily to protect the allopathy (includes the pharmaceutical cartel) medical machine from competition (as do the FDA and the AMA). They provide the public illusion of multiple voices of allopathy support, although it is only one voice. We’re seeing an excellent example of this protection function in the eCig situation (via a cancer society). It has nothing to do with how ‘carcinogenic’ you (Michael S.) attempt to make tobacco seem in contrast to eCigs, frantically trying to attract the cancer society’s attention as to the ‘disparity’. It has to do with protecting the pharmaceutical cartel’s NRT products from competition. All you are doing is feeding the deluded perception of tobacco smoke and smoker denormalization. As such, you are further aiding the pharmaceutical cartel, indirectly promoting its useless NRT products. Michael, rather than attempting to ridiculously impugn tobacco, you might try properly questioning the foundation and motivation of the cancer society (in this case) – it leads to a much larger, sicker story.
In addition to protecting allopathy interests, the other function of these groups (cancer, heart, lung) is to extract money (donations, funding) from the public and/or government health departments, i.e., Rockefeller’s notion of ‘efficiency in philanthropy’ – attempt to make the public pay for what is advantageous to the group and appear ‘philanthropic’ at the same time. These groups are now very highly entrenched in societies around the Western world and have slick marketing programs: There are many annual public and celebrity fundraising events for these groups. Yet, the question is rarely asked – what actual public service do they provide? Where does the money actually go? While they play on the primal fear of disease and death, these groups have been promising ‘a cure is just around the corner’, if they only had more money (from the public and government) for ‘research’. They have been making this same ‘promise’ for well over half a century. Where are the cures, then? The question needs to be asked frequently. The allopathic approach to cancer is a comprehensive failure: There are no cures forthcoming from this approach. The system is protected, as it stands, in that it provides maximal profits. Therefore, it might rattle many if it was understood that the public and government are providing the funding for these groups to predominantly provide protection for allopathy interests.
Michael, why are you so surprised and shocked? This has been occurring for the better part of a century. How much damage do you think has been done over a century by these cosy arrangements? And …….. you are a member of the ‘machine’. Your antismoking stance, in particular, works so beautifully for the pharmaceutical cartel. Your obliviousness to the bigger-picture shenanigans of Rockefeller allopathy (e.g., multi-dimensional iatrogenesis) makes you and your like-minded/blinded colleagues valuable members (intentionally or not) of a highly destructive ‘machine’.
Michael, you might want to look into the history of the contemporary medical establishment. It will be elucidating.
_
The leader in Health®, the medical establishment is the leading cause of preventable death & injury, and psychological & social dysfunction.
Setting the Standards in Derangement and Self-Approbation for a New World, for the Benefit of All [of the Medical Establishment].
"Rose,have you by any chance seen the anti-smoking advert using that ridiculous bubble around the person's upper body to "contain" the smoke ?"
Si
No I haven't.
I've given up watching TV, even the news is unreliable.
"Will the general public demand these bubbles for all smokers ???"
I very much doubt it, from what I can see, the general public are heartily fed up and the smoking ban is just another in a long line of equally ill thought out social engineering projects, like 24 hour drinking and cafe culture in the pouring rain, based on equally dubious evidence, and thousands of bizarre laws.
"It is now illegal to sell grey squirrels, impersonate a traffic warden or offer Air Traffic Control services without a licence. Creating a nuclear explosion was outlawed in 1998."
"Even the Attorney General's office said it had no idea how many existed. A spokeswoman said: "There are thousands and thousands."
http://www.independent.co.uk/new...ice-
412072.html
And that was 3 years ago.
I've even given up driving, the roads are littered with sleeping policeman every few yards,watched by speed cameras, surveillance cameras and cluttered with signs.
My home is beginning to feel like a bunker.
In 2005 they even banned possession of an indigenous species, and every bit of land in England belongs to someone.
"This is a badly-drafted piece of legislation that was pushed through the House of Lords without proper scrutiny or discussion."
A spokeswoman for drugs information body Drugscope said the government did need to clarify the law on magic mushrooms but should not have made them class A.
"To see magic mushrooms alongside crack cocaine and heroin doesn't seem proportionate," said Petra Maxwell.
"Now that they're class A if people are found in possession the ultimate, if unlikely, sanction is seven years in prison and a fine." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/46.../uk/
4691899.stm
I didn't know what a magic mushroom looked like until I read this article.
"Michael, you might want to look into the history of the contemporary medical establishment. It will be elucidating."
This story is an excellent place to start that evaluation;
http://www.annals.org/cgi/conten...tract/127/2/
148
A long read but the insights gained allows a while new perspective.
Keep in mind Rockefeller was indicted for domination of one industry, which sparked the idea of dominating another with a better reputation.
A reputation he hoped to gain for himself, to rise above his own spoiled identity.
From Gates vacation;
"Dirty tobacco money" is not nearly as questionable as "dirty oil money" when all aspects are considered.
"Rockefeller patronage of medical research would extend to the clinical departments of medical schools, where professors would no longer benefit financially from private practice. When the younger Rockefeller proposed the idea to his father in August
1911, he included a memorandum by Gates that indicated that The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine would be "as free from commercialism
as the Rockefeller Institute" (37). Osier, who by 1911 had been Regius Professor of Medicine
at Oxford University for almost 6 years, was among those who received a copy of the proposal.
Osier did not like it. He circulated a "family letter" addressed to Ira Remsen, president of Johns Hopkins University, in which he pleaded that the money not be accepted on the Rockefellers' terms. Remsen, the letter continued, should "divert the ardent souls who wish to be whole-time clinical professors from the medical school in which they are not at home to the Research Institutes to which they properly belong, and in which they can do their best work" (3. Osier's protest failed. In 1913, shortly after Flexner became secretary of the General
Education Board, Johns Hopkins University accepted
a $1.5 million endowment to establish its departments of medicine, surgery, and pediatrics on a full-time basis. Osier later complained that the full-time plan "had been forced on the profession by men who know nothing of clinical medicine, and there has been a 'mess of pottage' side to the business
in the shape of big Rockefeller cheques at which my gorge rises""
Kevin
It also meant that they could write the science to get themselves of the hook, as with lead.
"Why is our air so dirty? The most obvious reasons are coal-burning power plants to our west and north, and diesel trucks.
History also plays a part. After WWII, General Motors bought up most of America’s railways and destroyed them or left them unused, forcing interstate commerce to shift away from trains and become mostly dependent upon the trucking industry. GM admitted this in a document entitled “The Truth About American Ground Transport,” which was submitted to the U.S. Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate in April 1974. GM was convicted along with Standard Oil and Firestone for this conspiracy in 1949. This conspiracy led to more emissions from cars and trucks, especially in California where these oil and car companies battled against transportation alternatives not powered by petroleum. As a frightening result, all over the country, pollution became concentrated in high-traffic urban areas.
http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2007.../01/
82308.shtml
Which is where the lung cancer was concentrated.
War of words
17 July 1999 by Richard Doll, Oxford
"Robert Proctor is correct in thinking that few people know much about the public health measures of Hitler's physicians (Opinion, 19 June, p 4, but he is wrong to imply that scientists have been ignorant of the medical research of the period. Opinions may differ about its quality and the conclusions that could be drawn from it, but it is just plain wrong to say that "Richard Doll . . . knew nothing of the Schairer and Schöniger article until he [Proctor] sent him a copy in 1997". I published its findings in an article on the causes of lung cancer in Advances in Cancer Research, vol 3, p 9 in 1955 and have invariably referred to it in appropriate circumstances ever since."
http://www.newscientist.com/arti...r-of-
words.html
"Indeed, as early as 1936—the year that the young Richard Doll was attending the lectures in Frankfurt of the SS radiologist Professor Hans Holfelder—they had gathered sufficient statistical evidence to prove the cancerous hazards of what they labelled “passive smoking” (passivraucher)."
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...i?
artid=1117732
Where it apparently started in the heavily industrialized cities.
a very worthy article to be read and have very interesting points to be pointed out.
medical alert necklace
OT AGAIN. Last night we went to a festival and were listening to the band there. Since it was an oldies group, most of the crowd were also oldies like ourselves. A chubby guy in his mid 60's was dancing away with what appeared to be a cigarette like device in his mouth. I kept staring and realized he had one of those Nicotrol Inhalers. What was hilarious and so ironic was that he was using it as a prop, reminiscent of the actor staging himself with a strategically placed cigarette dangling from his lips. The irony of that was inescapable. BP, so worried about "the children" seeing people looking cool and smoking now producing a cigarette shaped device that people use to look cool while dancing with the oldies. Priceless
What is apparent in the book by Proctor, for a normal person, in what he described, was abhorrent use of twisted moral values as the foundation of how much power and societal blindness was gained.
For the greedy bigots, the self important, the opportunists and the fear mongers, this was defined as the new PC bible.
Many of TC's efforts are replicated teachings of Proctor's observations right down to the repetitive slogans used in the promotion of "protecting" and "helping" others. Campaigns devoid of morals, ethics, leadership or responsibility in all that they do.
At all costs...
Ostler opposed Industrial partnerships [and later ownership]. He is not as well known as the name Rockefeller in public recognition of medical institutions, although he was certainly no slouch as far as "real medicine" was concerned.
http://www.osler.co.uk/index.php...id=11&
Itemid=24
The roots of medical consensus and ownership of that consensus, is no large secret. Unless all your information is provided by partnered media groups. As is the case of the vast majority of the population.
http://press.linkedin.com/about
Consider the source and always follow the money.
As history seems to be repeating lets hope they don't start this again.
"Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune"
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/
ar...ING9C2QSKB1.DTL
Looks like "Today California, tomorrow the world" didn't originate with California statewide smoking bans.
Now isn't that odd.
From the 100 years War Against the Cigarette
"In 1913 Gaston and Dr. D. H. Kress opened a smoking-cure clinic in the Women's Temple in Chicago, the Anti-Cigarette League headquarters, and soon were flooded with repenitent cigarette smokers, mostly small boys but also a chorus girl or two.
The "cure" consisted of painting the palate with a silver nitrate solution and chewing some gentian root whenever the smoking urge returned. Newspapermen who took it reported that the cure was very effective, in the short run at least, and similar clinics were soon in operation from Hoboken to Los Angeles.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/T...ed&
start_page=1
From Robert Proctor - The Nazi War on Tobacco: Ideology, Evidence, and Public Health Consequences
"Dozens of preparations were available to assist people in quitting smoking, ranging from a silver nitrate mouthwash ( 1 part in 10,000 was said to create an unpleasant taste for tobacco ) to a substance known as "transpulmin" injected into the bloodstream to produce a similar effect ( it was said to bond with the terpenes and other aromatic compounds in tobacco, producing an unpleasant sensation )Trade-name compounds such as "Analeptol" and "Nicotilon" were offered, as were tobacco substitutes in the form of chewing gums, ginger preparations, atropine, and menthol cigarettes. Hypnotism was apparently popular, as were various forms of psychological councilling"
From environmentaloncology.org, sadly no longer available to the public.
Pity, that was full of interesting stuff.
Silver nitrate first in America then in Germany, followed by a smoking ban.
"The four men had been smoking in an enclosed public place. There is considerably more to this story-more arrests, mass meetings, the eventual surrender of McKay, and so on, aIl of which will be discussed later. But the most interesting aspect of the incident is not that several otherwise law-abiding citizens were arrested for committing such a widespread and popular crime, nor even that they were sufficiently promi- nent in the community to ensure a great deal of bad publicity for the state of Utah. What is most interesting about the incident at the Vienna Cafe is simply the year in which it occurred-1923."
Britain missed out on this sort of thing as far as I know.
To make things worse, the plant science that backs up tobacco as the herbal medicine that it was always thought to be, since the 1600's and before, starts rolling in in the 30's and continues to this day.
What a mess.
Rose, I came across this website and thought you might enjoy it.
http://www.liberherbarum.com/Min...r/UK/
In0610.HTM
The incomplete reference-guide to Herbal medicine
Ann
Thank you, that's an interesting list of medical uses.
From reading about the plant, I can't help thinking that some of the more extreme descriptions are based on Nicotiana Rustica rather than Nicotiana Tabacum.
Apparently Rustica has 20 times the amount of nicotine and was used as a powerful insecticide.
Butterflies and bees sunbathe on N.tabacum and slugs think its delicious.
My head is again spinning. Siegel, who's repeatedly said he's against eliminating nicotine for solidly-stated reasons now again resorts to telling us the legislation fails at its nominally-stated goal because it doesn't include--wait for it--
... getting rid of the nicotine."
His usual answer is that, no, he doesn't think that nicotine (or menthol, when the subject arises) ought to be eliminated; he's merely pointing out the hypocrisy of his peers. That particular defense grew increasingly flimsy as his language and his tone (high dudgeon on high horse) has increasingly belied it, but... here he goes again. And this time, without a "hypocrite" in sight.
This almost starts to smack of a split personality. One Dr. Seigel offers one point of view and then, whamo! out pops his own personal Eve Black (or doppelganger, or maybe amnesiac alter ego or perhaps evil twin) who, as hotly and earnestly, proclaims the exact opposite. How else can we account for this?
:
No need for smokers to have swine flu jabs.
Nicotine, Anti-inflammatory H1N1 Cure
Nicotine stimulates the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway. At the end of this pathway are immune cells that produce anti-inflammatory cytokines that block inflammation. Thus, nicotine, although one of the most addictive chemicals, can have beneficial effects on inflammatory diseases, such as arthritis, asthma, cancer, inflammatory bowel diseases and perhaps, H1N1.
Tobacco Smoke Is Toxic but also Anti-Inflammatory
Paradoxically tobacco smoke contains hundreds of toxic and carcinogenic chemicals that produce inflammatory reactions and numerous degenerative diseases, but it also contains nicotine that is anti-inflammatory. Smokers assault their bodies, but moderate and obscure the inflammatory degeneration and disease, until they stop the nicotine exposure.
Nicotine Withdrawal Is Inflammatory
The anti-inflammatory benefits of nicotine reveal the inflammatory basis of many unexpected diseases. Nicotine withdrawal is severe, partly because it leads to rebound release of inflammatory cytokines, inflammation and inflammatory disease symptoms that include depression and obesity. Smoking cessation may contribute to more severe symptoms of H1N1 infections.
Read more: http://diseases-viruses.suite101...ixzz0L2eX4vWp&
C
With all the beneficial effects of nicotine that are discovered and rediscovered constantly, is it any wonder Big Pharma wants to put Big Tobacco out of business?
The actual list of so called "Toxins" in second hand smoke has been around for a long time.
http://www.privatehand.com/flash...h/
elements.html
4000? 100,000?
Not according to Harvard. Although the caveat at the end confirms; some might yet to be discovered.
The TC/Public Health problem has been around a lot longer than what they might want to believe.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?u...0227&
feature=iv
OOPs wrong link;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=C...yer_profilepage
BTW;
"National Brotherhood week" was a creation of corporate religion's early beginnings. [NCCJ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Nat...ity_and_Justice
"NCCJ is also responsible for the program called Anytown put on by their local branches around the nation. Anytown is a camp where students entering grades 10-12 learn about racism, sexism, religious oppression, heterosexism, ableism, ageism, bias, violence, bullying, discrimination, etc. "
What no anti-smokers?
"Comedian Woody Allen said in one of his early stand-up acts that as a youngster he had attended an Inter-Faith Camp, in which he was "savagely beaten by children of all races and creeds.""
idlex
Useful link, I hate injections.
Incidentally, I looked up shikimic acid, the starter for Tamiflu found in star anise.
"Ninety percent of the world's shikimic acid, which is only found in a restricted number of plants, is presently used to make Oseltamivir although other synthetic pathways for this drug of the moment have been described"
http://www.ganfyd.org/index.php?
...e=Shikimic_acid
But also in -
The Composition of Cigarette Smoke 1969
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ness...ed&
start_page=1
Which might be another reason why smoking was encouraged during epidemics.
"Ian Tyrrell in Deadly Enemies: Tobacco and Its Opponents in Australia writes that smoking was used medically during the Spanish flu epidemic, and I think that’s probably its last appearance: just late enough to remain firmly impacted on popular consciousness, but just long enough ago to be beyond the reach of modern folklorists. The continued Marian association is simple: plaques and chapels all over Catalonia express thanks to the Virgin for rescuing the population from epidemics (and drought) well into the last century"
http://oreneta.com/kalebeul/2005...ase-prevention/
And in a letter to the journal Notes and queries, published 21 July 1855, William Bates of Birmingham writes that in the 1840s the French government, which had a monopoly of tobacco manufacture, concluded that the 5000 men employed for this purpose:
were found, as a body, to enjoy a remarkable exemption from prevailing epidemics. This was especially the case at Lyons, where those so employed escaped to a man the typhoid fever of 1842; and at Toulouse, when the influenza attacked per cent of the inhabitants, while of those employed in the manufacture of tobacco only two out of 286 were affected. With regard to phthisis [tuberculosis], this exemption is still more remarkable. It is true that the workmen are subject to catarrhs, which are however slight, and easily removed. Phthisis is also of rare occurrence among the workmen at Bordeaux, at Havre, where this disease makes fearful ravages, the tobacco manufacturers are exempt; and at Strasbourg, Morlaix, and Lille, it is less frequent among this class than those engaged in other occupations."
Not forgetting -
"The hands of tar workers develop skin cancer, the marked drenchings of the fingers, the skin of the fingers which holds the cigarette, which are sometimes deeply brown stained have never so far as I know, developed cancer of the skin.
One of the gentlemen, the proponents of the cigarette theory, has tried to explain that phenomenon by saying that the first three fingers of the right hand of man have a natural immunity against cancer"
http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/...ed&
start_page=1
The first record I have found of the observed cancer preventative properties of topically applied niacin.
Rose, am I reading this right, that celery has Cadmium,Chromium,Lead, Mercury, Nickel and several of those nasty "N-" chemicals in it?
http://www.liberherbarum.com/Min...r/UK/
Pn0264.htm
Iro
I think most of this trouble is down to the puritanical belief that taking anything medicinal should never be pleasant.
The more vile tasting and foul smelling, the more its doing you good.
Probably put about by those making and selling vile tasting and foul smelling medicines.
"Old Bill" opened up a new field for himself. He called his bottled petroleum "Nujol" (meaning new oil) and sold it to those who had cancer and those whom he could make fear they would have it."
http://www.whale.to/a/bealle.htm
Ann
Quite possibly , but mostly taken up from the soil through the roots.
I seem to remember from a great many years ago, hearing about children eating tomatoes from an allotment contaminated with old cadmium batteries.
People used to be careless and just dump things like that.
Thats why new housing estates built on old apple orchards are contaminated with arsenic.
Year after year they used to use it as an pesticide.
Arsenic and Old Waste
"The historical use of lead arsenate as an insecticide in apple orchards has come back to haunt us years later. Lead arsenate was used to control codling moth from the 1800s to the 1940s (when DDT became available), leaving behind both arsenic and lead in the topsoil. In recent years, as apple orchards were converted to housing developments, new owners discovered that their new yards and gardens were contaminated.
Similar stories unfolded in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington State, and other states. There were no regulations in place to protect unsuspecting home buyers or to remedy the situation. (The only 'remedy' for contaminated soil is to dig it up and put it somewhere else). Now some states try to warn the public about this problem but regulations may be left up to local jurisdictions. Oregon has chosen to be proactive by using hazardous substance clean-up rules so they can investigate and get sites cleaned up."
http://www.pesticide.org/hhg/
ars...pesticides.html
idlex,
I don't know if you saw this mouse model that shows smoke exposed animals clear H1N1 lung burden 10 fold faster (fig 5). Although, it seems
the researchers decided to change the experiment by stopping exposure to the high dose animals at peak load and half of them died!!!
" MTS [smoke] exposure was associated with an attenuated airways
inflammatory response and accelerated clearance of influenza
from the lung after infection with low-dose influenza".
"regular cigarettes, which deliver nicotine plus 10,000 chemicals, including more than 60 carcinogens."
.............
Antis say that there are over 10,000 chemicals,some toxic, in cigarette smoke and that smoking bans are needed to eliminate the non-smokers' exposure to those chemicals.
But; they are talking about seriously VERY SMALL exposures to chemicals that are present in seriously VERY SMALL amounts!!
For instance let's assume a pub or restaurant that is 50' x 40' x 10' ceiling; with an occupancy rating of 80 people.
That bar would have a volume of 20,000 cubic feet and 566,400 cubic liters.(1 cubic foot = 28.316 liters)
Our bar has a volume of 566,400 liters.
Let's further say that there are always 20 smokers in the bar/restaurant and they smoke 4 cigarettes per hour.
There are 32 nanograms(ng) of Arsenic in all of the smoke from the average cigarette.
('The Massachusetts Benchmark Study, Final Report 07/24/00' )
32ng of Arsenic x 20 smokers x 4 cigarettes per hour = 2,560ng of Arsenic per hour spreading out into the 566,400 liters of our bar.
With NO ventilation, at the end of the hour we would have 1/221th of a nanogram of Arsenic per each of the 566,400 liters.
A bartender/customer breathing 7.5 liters of air per minute would breathe in 450 liters per hour.
(California Environmental Protection Agency)
450 liters divided by the 566,400 liters = .0008.
2,560 ng of Arsenic times .0008 = 2 ng(billionths of a gram) of Arsenic inhaled per hour ,by a bartender/customer, in that non-ventilated bar/restaurant.
Building codes normally would require 2400 cfm fresh air for the example above. (80 people x 30 cfm / occupant).
And 50 x 40 x 10 = 20,000 cubic feet of air. Now to determine what 1 air change is for that 20,000 cubic feet is, divide by 60 (minutes per hour, since fans are rated cfm). So 20,000 / 60 = 333 cfm. Now 2400 cfm / 333 = 7.2 air changes per hour.
60 (minutes per hour) / 7.2 = 8.3 minutes. Meaning that 2400 cfm in the 50 x 40 x 10 building will exchange the air in the pub with fresh air every 8.3 minutes.
(Thanks to Mark Wernimont)
With our smokers lighting up a cigarette once every 15 minutes and the air being replaced with fresh outside air every 8.3 minutes, it is obvious that there is going to be very LITTLE Arsenic inhaled by the bartender/customer.
con't
con't
This is not precise; but, if you divide the 2 ng/hour(non-ventilated) by the 7.2 air exchanges/hour,we find that our bartender/customer is exposed to a whopping .3 ng of Arsenic per hour.
That is about 3/10th of 1 billionth of a gram of Arsenic per hour!!!
Our bartender would be exposed to about 2.4 ng per shift.
For an idea of how much of a health hazard this is, consider this.
The EPA says it is safe to consume water that has 10 ng of Arsenic.
There are 28.4 grams to an ounce, water is EPA safe with 284 ng of Arsenic per ounce.
A 10 ounce glass of water is EPA safe with 2,840 ng of Arsenic.
Our bartender would have to work for about 1,183 shifts to be exposed to the amount of Arsenic in cigarette smoke that the EPA says is safe in a 10 ounce glass of water.
(2,840 divided by 2.4 = 1,183)
1,183 eight hour shifts is about 237 weeks or 4.55 years.
Our bartender would have to work for about 4.55 years to be exposed to the amount of Arsenic in cigarette smoke that the EPA says is safe in a 10 ounce glass of water.
A restaurant customer might spend two hours per week being exposed and would have 1/20th the exposure of that bartender.
It would take 91 years for that customer in our little restaurant to be exposed to the amount of Arsenic in cigarette smoke that is EPA safe in ONE 10 ounce glass of water.
10,000 chemicals and carcinogins= "Much Ado About Nothing!!!"
(Wm.Shakespeare )
Deadly, deadly, deadly propylene glycol. When will this killer of countless® numbers be stopped in its tracks?
http://www.silive.com/news/advan...ll=1&
thispage=2
"These devices haven't been examined by any government agency," said Alberta Brescia, regional vice president of the Staten Island American Cancer Society. "We don't know how the ingredients are affecting the body."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm...pubmed/
12454795
"Glycerin (CAS no. 56-81-5) and propylene glycol (CAS no. 57-55-6) are commonly used as humectant ingredients in manufactured cigarettes to control and maintain the moisture content of the cut tobacco filler. The potential of these added humectants to affect the toxicity of cigarette smoke was investigated in a subchronic nose-only smoke inhalation ... It was concluded that the addition of glycerin and propylene glycol to cigarettes does not significantly affect the biological activity of inhaled cigarette smoke ..."
http://tobaccodocuments.org/prod...76985-
7022.html
Page 9
"The addition of propylene glycol to the filler had no effect on SS*deliveries of formaldehyde, acetone and propionaldehyde."
The debate is OVER! It doesn't matter that it is a germicide with well documented health benefits. It will eventually kill someone, probably a poor uninsured child©, and if it saves just one child© it should be banned.
It's the propylene glycol in manufactured cigarettes that's killing so many bartenders and wait staff in states without bans so the "Philip Morris regulated FDA"™ should ban it as an additive too!
Has anyone ever compared the body counts of dead bartenders and wait staff in states without bans to states with bans? It must be countless®.
(It's the lack of propylene glycol in roll your own tobacco that causes the tobacco to dry into a powder that either falls out of the tube into your lap or explode into a flash of flames that singes your eyebrows and nose hair.)
Tobacco is AC$ approved and insuring the healthcare of millions.®
The next time you are faced with the oh so compassionate terms, so indicative of Public health crusaders, who are sooo concerned with the lives of others of late, including the loving euphemisms such as; Drug addled, hopelessly trapped, scofflaws, drug abusers or the big one nicotine "addicted".
This word might be offered in your defense. A word once included in the better and "normal" peoples compassionate perspectives guide, conveniently lost in the discussion of "smokers" who are apparently a class into themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableism
As half of the "drug addled" are afflicted with so called "smoking related diseases" or more precisely the diseases primarily associated with the inescapable effects of aging. This next word might also be a consideration when weighing who are normal and who are simply hateful bigots and hypocrites;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ageism
20% of the population are said to be smokers. Half are said to be affected by smoking as their primary cause of death [with no mention on a death certificate]. The leading cause of "preventable death" if you dont include Doctors and Drug companies on the list.
Meaning by the numbers a maximum of 10% of total mortalities [10/2.3 million or 230,000] because despite the SAMMEC costing claims, smokers all die at approximately the same age as everyone else.
What this tells us is the maximum possible smoking related deaths in the United States is no larger than 230,000 as "worst case" scenario, reflecting one half of the population at risk. If smokers did die on average ten years sooner as proposed by SAMMEC, the AVERAGE represents a whole group where half die before and half after or the AVERAGE number.
If half of smokers are not afflicted by the so called "smoking related diseases" claimed to cause the deaths of the other half of the "Smokers" grouping, there is no reason to believe being unaffected that they do not die at the same time [or later] as/than the rest of the population.
There is no way to balance the so called "facts" at hand, so that they can fit the "half of smokers are killed by smoking" along with the 400,000 number they claim, unless they are saying the smokers who are not killed by smoking live 50-90% longer than non smokers.
I would find that to be a very hard sell even with the connections of the partners involved.
So the 400,000 number is a a lie, has always been a lie and will always be a lie.
Michael Siegal; stop lying and decieving the public, otherwise people will start to think your word is no better than that of the; Surgeon General, the ACS the AMA the CDC, The EPA, the CTFK or the rest of the conflicted interests and criminals, who are crapping all over the human rights of millions for just money.
Rose;
The Pentagon strategists when assesing possible mortality numbers associated with biological warfare have always recognized, that in third world countries the death toll would be much higher. Because of the prohibitive effects of a biological agent spreading in smoky bars and polluted streets.
The smoke is a masking agent or safety net, which greatly reduces the ability of a biological agent to travel freely between humans. Smoke free environments are definitely more risky in that respect, than bingo halls or the traditional pub that allows smoking.
Spending a Friday night in a smoking allowed bar filled with people who could carry any number of contageous diseases,is obviously safer [we can still use the word safer legitimately I presume? they change things around so fast, who can keep up?]than the smoke free environments being promoted by the drug czars.
Much safer, If you are fearful of a more immediate causal risk perspective, as opposed to the minuscule lifetime smoke exposure risks being lied about in the news; "For your own good" and that of ""the greater good."" [smokers are a minority don't forget]
Just a bit more.
Our bartender would be exposed to about 2.4 ng of Arsenic per shift.
"But let me add something to help put all this and Gary's previous analyses in some perspective: a single grain of salt weighs roughly 100,000,000 picograms."(Mike M.)
That is 100,000 nanograms(a nanogram is 1,000 picograms)
Our bartender would be exposed to Arsenic equal to about 2.4/100,000ths of a grain of salt.
That is about 1/42,000th of a grain of salt per shift!!!
Our bartender would have to work for 161.5 years to inhale enough Arsenic to equal ONE grain of salt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ars...senic_poisoning
The acute minimal lethal dose of arsenic in adults is estimated to be 70 to 200 mg or 1 mg/kg/day.
http://www.metricamerica.com/mil...m/
milligram.htm
milligram (mg)
1 one thousandths of a gram
A milligram is 1 million nanograms and the acute minimal lethal dose of arsenic in adults would be about 70-200 million nanograms per day.
At 2.4 ng per shift,if it never left their system, it would take our bartender about 46,729 years to reach the 70 million nanograms that is the acute minimal lethal dose of arsenic in adults.
BTW in respect to TEG look at this link, number 3 on the list? TEG; FDA approved obviously...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air...i/
Air_freshener.
BTW number 5 can be considered quite controversial; Informed consent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anesthesia
Its a good thing we cleaned this problem up, to a degree it no longer represents a health risk at all.
Today all we have to worry about is ETS and all those nasty smoking related [or caused, same thing right?] diseases.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J...PrAuF2f_oI&
NR=1
Or so "they" say...
Sometimes plagiarism is so easily seen such as Banzamph and ASH, derivatives of how the people they hate should be classified. Hens; denormalization, so that their victims, can be thrown into the traditional [dinosaur region] medical perspectives of disability.
Perspectives in describing the "helplessly addicted" assigns people as useless and dependent. In broad ignorance of the fact, because someone chooses to smoke they are no less able than anyone else, in fact the regenerative features of smoking make them more productive in many situations.
The medico-fascist perspective of "useless eaters" and the assignment to traditional scorn was imposed deliberately with the denormalization campaigns.
"The ‘medical model’ sees disabled people as the problem. They need to be adapted to fit into the world as it is. If this isn’t possible, then they should be shut away in a specialised institution or isolated at home, where only their most basic needs are met. The emphasis is on dependence, backed up by the stereotypes of disability that bring out pity, fear and patronising attitudes. Usually, the impairment is focused on, rather than the needs of the person. The power to change disabled people seems to lie with the medical and associated professions, with their talk of cures, normalisation and science.
Often, disabled people’s lives are handed over to these professionals. Their decisions affect where disabled people go to school; what support they get; where they live; what benefits they are entitled to; whether they can work; and even, at times, whether they are born at all, or allowed to have children themselves.
[I hear ASSH all over this]
In addition, the Disability Movement points out how the built environment imposes further limitations on disabled people. Medical model thinking would say these problems are due to the disabled person’s lack of rehabilitation. The Disability Movement perceives the difficulties disabled people experience as the barriers that disable them and curtail their life chances. These difficulties include in school and higher education, in finding work and suitable work environments, accessing leisure and entertainment facilities, using private and public transport, obtaining suitable housing, or in their personal, family and social life."
Torture and human rights abuse breaching the human rights act in terms of security of the person and a host of other crimes against humanity.
Public Health should be prosecuted and made to pay for the damages with names and faces posted on the internet like they do with pedophiles and other degenerates.
Just a little more 'seriously small exposure'.
The dose makes the poison!!!
The average non-smoker inhales about 1/1,000th of the smoke from a cigarette.
Chemical.......amount in cigarette smoke
Cyanide.......... 716 mcg/microgram
Formaldehyde..... . 856 mcg
The average non-smoker will inhale 7/10ths of ONE mcg(microgram) of cyanide per cigarette.
The average non-smoker will inhale 8.6/10ths of ONE mcg(millionth of a gram) of formaldehyde per cigarette.
A single grain of salt weighs roughly 100,000,000 picograms, that is 100 mcg(micrograms/millionths of a gram).
Non-smokers will inhale cyanide and formaldehyde equal to less than 1/100th of the weight of a grain of salt for each cigarette to which they are exposed.
Kevin and Rick
You may be interested in these -
Everyone will get vaccine against swine flu
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle6694046.ece
Swine flu vaccine rushed through safety checks
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle6694046.ece
The comments are extraordinary, I've been watching them come in all day.
Sorry
This is the first one
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle6689955.ece
Rose;
Shutting down the CDC and the AMA will eliminate the reported risk of flu pandemic immediately.
Of course Public health has to learn the hard way.
No one gets rich by finding the real solutions, only by the search.
The game;
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/
professio...tin2_072003.htm
The truth;
http://altnews.com.au/drop/node/1181
Criminals the lot of them.
Kevin
It reminds me of nothing so much as firing up the ancient beacon chain.
"They were used to signal the alarm when the country was under attack, so that preparations could be made."
http://www.extrageographic.org/
m...idlands_uk.html
From the Game link above;
""We are committed to working with all of you to support mechanisms to increase influenza vaccine supply and vaccine demand among physicians, other providers, and the public to reach the goals of Health People 2010.""
The WHO stated recently that one billion doses could be available this year if required.
Or if enough people can be frightened.
Manipulating Supply and demand?
You betcha
Rose;
Put me with the majority of the responses at your link; I would avoid the shot, like the plague it will likely contain.
This is about organized fraud by medical advice, nothing more and certainly nothing less.
No one in the Med community will even discuss, much less investigate, the possibility that polio vaccines contained Simeon viruses [SV40 found in majority of lung cancers, physically identical to those found in their rhesus monkey hosts] [smokers tumor no less]] and likely started the AIDS epidemic. [Hooper et al]
The last fear bound "pandemic" fell flat on its face when the public learned that the bird flu was a lower respiratory infection like pneumonia which would not spread among humans any more efficiently than pneumonia does.
Round two is the swine flu a standard inclusion in flu shots for decades, suddenly we need to be injected with the same infective shot, they have been providing for years while infection has an almost non existent mortality risk?
Money all money and unrestricted greed.
PLEASE READ THIS if you agree with this article, I'm about to reveal a secred tactic of strong arms. I used to be in political office so speak from experience.
1. The political machine is a fear based organization ran mostly by people seeking re-election. They vote the legislation that lines their re-election coffers. (The ones that
2. The best way to get something like the electronic cigararette squished is to have many blogs like this that allow people to vent "here" and then hope they take no further action.
3. I am NOT saying the blogs are bad, in fact they could be the very helpful in educating us on what to do to change the situation, however there is a danger in people expressing themselves in a blog, then never taking any other action.
4. If you agree with this article, then take action with your state officials and your federal officials by contacting them and expressing (in a very professional way) your concerns. If you know of a success health story, use it rather than bashing the other side. Contact them by MAIL (NOT E-MAIL) or by phone.
5. Do's an don'ts to get your message heard:
Do check to see if there is any legislation written already in your state to ban the use and if so, read it and be clear what it says and speak directly to that legislation. Find someone qualified to testify against the legislation.If there is no current legislation, still contact them to be on the look out for such or consider asking them to write legislation that would protect their freedom to continue using electronic cigarettes.
DO NOT use e-mail to contact legistlators. They will never see your communication. (E-mail campaigns are typically created by the other side in hopes you will forward a canned response e-mail and then your voice will not be heard.
DO use snail mail or telephone.
DO tell them at the beginning of your communication that you are a registered voter in their district.
DON"T lie about the last comment. If you are not reistered in their district, GET registered. They vote based on their ability to retrain the most votes, so
DO ask your friends to do the same,
and most importantly, let them know that their e-mails have slim to no chance of being read so contact by phone or mail.
Be sure to be professional and use rational points to make your point.
Conclude your response with the words: "This issue is very important to me. It will make a difference in deciding my votes for the future."
Also if there are organizations like this, contact them and share with them your concerns.
Dear X,
"I am concerned to hear your position on electronic cigarettes." Share your story, present facts you are aware of, ask for a reconsideration of their position, If you have not donated to their organization, share that you are no longer going to be able to consider supporting their organization and if you have donated in the past, let them know you are a previous donor, however need to remove your support and further donations at this time.
6. I'm wondering why theater groups are not screaming... what about us! It is the only way they can legally "smoke" on stage during a production.
Thanks for listening.
Dee
Got interrupted during the last post, point 1. The ones there for the right reasons don't last long, but that is a whole different conversation.
Commenting by HaloScan
