As it turns out, there's one thing more powerful than slick cigarette lobbyists -- the voices of real people from all across the country fighting for change?
Yet another lie since the the polls say otherwise.
PRINCETON, NJ — By 52% to 46%, more Americans disapprove than approve of the new law expanding the federal government’s power to regulate the manufacturing and marketing of tobacco products. Opposition is especially strong among smokers.
http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpr...an-gallup-poll/
OT
A few posts back Michelle wrote: ''If FDA regulation means loss of funding to TC, I am all for it!
TC has been revealed to be greedy, lying, petty, tinpot, dictators.''
This one's for you Michelle. Let's hope it sets a steady trend:
The Cayuga County Tobacco Free Partnership has lost it's $145,000 state grant and will close its doors July 31, program coordinator Anne E. McCarthy said.
(...) The loss of the grant also means McCarthy will lose her job.
"We're pretty annoyed by this," she said. "Yeah, I'm out of a job. But the other thing about this is why should Cayuga County be without services for a year or more. We pay taxes like everybody else."
http://www.syracuse.com/news/
ind...co_free_pa.html
And I say let her struggle and be an activist on her own nickel if she is so concerned about the issue. Many of us somehow manage to do it with zilch, zippo, nada!
Iro I whole heartedly agree. In my state Smoke Free Wisconsin is already whining about the cutbacks. http://smokefreewisconsin.blogsp...-
committee.html
I realize that you are from Canada and don't have the same constitution that we do. But here in the US the rallying cry for the revolution was against taxation without representation and yet the tea tax was a mere 3%. Tobacco control pushes for higher taxes on tobacco, demands a piece of those taxes and then lobbies against the very people that are being taxed. I do not call that representation and it is defiantly not the American way. So here was my response!
http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpr...-whining-again/
Any suggestions as to what we can do about this now? I've got alot more ammunition to share. I need a venue to share it in. I'm open to your thoughts and ideas. My email is kgkjkl@yahoo.com
Iro and Marshall, BTW, I agree with you both 100%.
per Dr. Siegel, "And in some ways, it's even worse coming from public health groups, because they are bound by an ethical code of conduct."
Which code are we talking about here ... "the end justifies the means" or "take the money and run"?
Public Health + Social Justice = A Special Interest that has nothing to do with health or justice.
David Goerlitz
While I disagree with both you and Dr. Siegel on bans I applaud you both on your integrity to stick to the facts. I am aware that you think that smoking should be banned where children are present. I can respect that position and disagree with it. I believe in the free market and have faith that it works. National chains such as McDonalds,Burger King,Wendys, etc etc etc went non-smoking long before the ban frenzy. I just don't believe that the science is sufficient to justify bans. Dr Siegel does. But at least he is willing to discuss it based on facts and not concocted BS. Your biggest push is education, to keep kids from smoking and that is commendable as long as you stick to the facts. The problem is that tobacco control does not stick to the facts and kids are not stupid. I am a baby boomer and remember all the propaganda against drugs. They were mostly lies and my generation saw right through the lies. I never used them. I guess reality really is for those of use that can't handle drugs. The problem I see is that even though people like you want to teach kids about the truth the fact that tobacco control lies so much and kids will see this and they will not even believe people like you that are telling the truth. Right now main stream media backs tobacco control. All the rest of us can do is speak out and keep speaking until the backlash happens.
David,
Why not write press releases like Banzhaf does on free sites: www.pr-inside.com Banzhaf likes to test the waters there with plans to ban smoking in homes and lots of other crazy ideas. I think the famous 3rd hand smoke and the danger of smokers' breath insanity got its start there. It's a start anyway.
Heh Doc, Just finished cleaning house. Throwing them all away. The grand total is 258 plaques, awards, trophies, medals and distinguished achievement acknowledgements. Too many anti-smoking t-shirts, hats, book bags, napsacks, cd carriers, and my favorite "Kiss Me..I don't smoke" buttons and stickers to count. Reems and reems of propaganda, brochures and statistical data that is meaningless. It was all crap when they gave it to me and it's even more crap now. The ACS, the ALA, CFTFK, ALF, WHO, and the rest can come grab the garbage from my trash heap if they want them back.
I spent 20 years watching and being complicit with tobacco controllers, health advocates, public health educators, local politicians and lawmakers at the grass roots level just like the person in Cayuga
County who is losing her job. I've been telling them for years to move on because it is all going to end as more and more money rolls in to the coffers of CFTFK, ALF, ACS, ALA etc.
I enjoyed working at the grassroots level, because for many of them, what they were doing was to them important.
(right or wrong). Most of them had not yet been tainted and bought like the "Big Dogs". It's amazing how the "Big Dogs" always eat first. It leaves the little ones fighting over the scraps. Now even the scraps are gobbled up by the "Big Dogs". This is the stuff that most people are clueless about. Ever see a dog chasing and barking after a car? You know even if the little dog catches it, what is it going to do with it?
You regular posters saw this coming along time ago. You were right. Alot of people didn't listen. Well, we are listening to you now.
Activism is more powerful when you are running on your own nickel as Iro mentioned.
Now that we have an FDA approved product, I could start smoking again. hmmmm ???????
David
Frankly, having read the "science", the histories,the stupid and dangerous theories and the dubious manouevres over time, the only person regulating my cigarettes will be ME.
hear hear or (here here?)
Rose,
I have to defend David here. You and I might not agree with his conclusions but he comes from a position of integrity, He spoke out against Big tobacco because he did not believe that they should have pushed their product on children and whether you want to admit it or not in the 50s,60's and even early 70's that was there goal. I am an admitted libertarian and don't think that the government has a right to tell us what to do with our bodies, through taxation or any other social engineering. The bulk of Davids activism has been through education. I have seen no evidence that he ever lied or even exaggerated anything. He seems to be a man of integrity. Again I don't agree with everything he says but he is not a zealot who is making wild claims. I suggest that you listen to his interview.
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.c...winston-
man.php
Marshall, I've always tried to stick to the facts. (just not sure what the facts are anymore). To be honest with you, I did spew the junk science only after MY OWN experiences with tobacco. I had a stroke in 1984 and the Dr. said it was because I smoked.
Even after the stroke, I smoked for 4 more years. You are what you are taught. It's the "Big Lie Hitler strategy". I fell for it. My stroke may have been caused by something else. I saw all 3 of my kids (2 had asthma and needed inhalers) affected by my smoking. Again, MY OWN experience. I didn't need science to tell me that my kids were experiencing difficulty breathing. I know you can't stereotype every smoking parent because many kids don't have breathing, sinus or allergic reactions to stuff. My point is simple, and in my education of tobacco prevention for kids is.... to merely put off starting until they reach an age of maturity (1
. If at that age they want to start, be my guest. Unfortunately, they don't wait because ...because...because. Honest, that's all I have ever claimed. I never once showed a picture of a black lung, clogged arteries, or mouth or throat cancer victim.
I agree that the science for the most part is "junk". There is, in my opinion some facts to support some of
my views, but not enough to warrant the treatment of tobacco users that we are witnessing today.
I make no apologies when caring about kids, and I know that's not what you are saying. I will continue to speak out against both sides of this issue because of MY OWN experiences that science can/will never be able to debate. I think there is a middle ground that can be reached by people like you and me if we continue to keep the discussions going. Know that when I have the opportunity to speak with kids and adults, I always use humor, facts as I know them to be, (not what I'm told) and lively banter. I've been doing this for the last 10-11 years,after I watched the tobacco control (dare I say),wackos, loud-mouth and grabbag full of nuts
put this issue in the crapper and make the tobacco user feel like a second class citizen.
David,
Are you monitoring closely to recognize the unbiased reporters in the mainstream media? Have you approached many of them to get them interested in your side of the story? I know your story appeared in a couple of news sources but you need to come out bigger than that. IMO, any professional unbiased reporter would simply love to report your story.
If you would like to make up a short introductory letter that can tease the curiosity of journalists, I would be happy to spread it around to all the mainstream Canadian media. It’s worth a try and if you wish I can also help you with the letter if you make up a rough draft. We have plenty of good writers in my circle of activists that are just wonderfully capable to find just the right words.
You’re welcome to write to me to yourvoice@cagecanada.ca or votrevoix@cagecanada.ca
Marshall Keith
I think you misunderstood my post, I was refering to David's joke about returning to smoking because it was going to be regulated by the FDA.
My letter to the editor was published in the Buffalo News yesterday. I was responding to someone else's letter. I actually got a few calls from people last night that I've never met before to tell me how much they liked it. See what you think:
In the letter titled “Smoking affects everyone in one way or another,” the writer says, “According to lungusa.org, secondhand smoke causes almost 50,000 deaths a year in adult nonsmokers in this country.” Interestingly, that same statistic was being bandied about by anti-smoking groups long before any indoor smoking bans were passed in this country. If indoor smoking bans have been in place for years and indoor smoking bans really save lives, how come the number of annual deaths attributed to secondhand smoke is still the same?
As for smoking affecting people’s wallets, you could make the same argument about many other things. For example, both abortion and various sexually transmitted diseases involve medical treatments that ultimately raise everyone’s health care costs. That being the case, do we now have a right to regulate, tax or ban risky practices in people’s bedrooms?
Whether it’s smoking, sex, eating, drinking or sports, we all partake in some activities that could theoretically raise everyone’s health care costs. It’s time to stop vilifying the ones we personally dislike, and time to start letting people live.
for David Goerlitz
John Stossel might be interested in your story. Here is a page of John Stossel videos.
http://video.google.com/
videosea...snum=625655905#
You can E-mail John Stossel from this page ... scroll down toward the bottom of the page.
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/
Public Health + Social Justice = A Special Interest that has nothing to do with health or justice.
Rose, I understood what you meant, but I also thank for Marshall for defending me.
Sheri- I'm planning on some press releases and would love to run them by you and others. Good idea. Thanks
Iro-I've seen the biased from the press since the early to mid nineties.
I sent stories to at least 30 so-called journalistsin the last 4 or 5 months. 3 responded. Most of the good media (those who are objective, rather than subjective which I think is the majority) are interested, but want names, dates, places etc. They want me to "sexy" it up. It's not enough to expose the truth. They want me to show where the DNA is on the "blue Dress". They seem to be afraid of Big Tobacco and CFTFK. BTW, I have the "blue dress" !! yuk
To David G, I was moved by your statements above but I am troubled by your need to box up the physical reminder (awards) of positive aspects of your endeavor to aid children. Your activism earned these awards...your stance regarding children has never wavered...please don't throw out the baby with the bath water! We all need reminders of life's lessons even when they are tarnished.
Besides...the awards will make a great backdrop for some new pictures when you are interviewed for your experiences with tobacco control! 
Iro, I'll be in touch with your suggestion and thanks. I like Canada.
Not quite as uptight up there (or so I'm told). You'll be hearing from me soon.
"My point is simple, and in my education of tobacco prevention for kids is.... to merely put off starting until they reach an age of maturity "
ladyraj is right, keep the awards, I find the thought of children smoking quite shocking and they should be thoroughly disuaded from such an inappropriate behaviour.
Hey Fleawarhol, I'm glad that your going after the numbers that never seem to change after all the "good" work of the Antis. Do you have a link?-Ruth
"If you take the time to re-read the posts I've written during this week, I think you'll see the extent to which the behavior of these organizations is unethical and inappropriate and the extent of the damage that these groups are doing to the practice of tobacco control and the protection of the public's health." The Doc
You are correct Doctor that this bill damages tobacco control and then by extension...public health. But not in the obvious fudging and spinning to the public. No, the real danger is that all of our legislators and the public at large consider the FDA action a done deal. It is now law...what is left for tobacco control to do? Time must pass before the FDA will be up and running and the law is brought to fruition. We have a scientific board to answer our questions why do we need TC? I predict loads of moneies will be diverted from tobacco control to other issues such as obesity, healthcare, etc.
Here is the link:
http://www.buffalonews.com/opini...ory/
713947.html
I have to admit that I have never really understood why a child would wish to take up smoking.
I was told that when I came of age I would be mature enough to make adult choices, and that was good enough.
I never stole a cigarette or raided the drinks cabinet, because that was the province of grownups and my tastes were different.
Cigarettes and whisky are an acquired taste and it took me long enough to learn to appreciate coffee rather than lemonade.
There is no "middle ground" when it comes to Tobacco Control.
That's just unproductive, wishful thinking. The "Whatever it takes" mentality prohibits this.
They will play along, just as long as they believe their agenda is moving forward. And just when you think you have shone a light on their biggotry, they simply claim that you mis-understood their intentions, or that your addiction prevents you from ever understanding the "good" they are doing in the first place.
Villifying the Tobacco companies while secretly holding hands under the table in order to win FDA approval is a prime example of the "whatever it takes" philosophy.
To the fanatics in Tobacco Control,
the right to rule some small facet of other peoples’ lives is apparently worth "whatever it takes" even if it's at the highest possible cost, that of someone else’s liberty.
The abrogation of private property rights through solicited government intervention to achieve this end is despicable.
To paraphrase the character Kyle Reese from the first Terminator Movie;
"Listen, and understand. That (Tobacco Control) is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until (Smokers) are dead."
Over the top?,...perhaps, but I believe the analogy is fitting.
Tobacco Control can never, ever be trusted. Don't kid yourself.
Thanks FleaWarhol, it's nice to see someone calling for common sense! Kudos!
David,
Sorry to hear about your stroke. I will not argue that smoking is healthy as that would be pure B.S. It is not a healthy lifestyle the problem is that all lung cancer is blamed on smoking either mainstream or otherwise yet every single person that I know that died from lung cancer was a non-smoker. Only two people in my family died of cancer in the last 100 years and both were non-smokers. One worked on heavy machinery and had to work with some nasty chemicals including hand packing bearings with mercury by hand.
My grandmother died of cancer. She had breast cancer when she was 85 at 98 she had a relapse and by the time they found it, it had spread all over her body. They both were non-smokers. I will not lie. Most of the smokers were on oxygen the last 5 years of their life but the youngest to die were all non-smokers and the youngest to be put on oxygen was 69 and the second youngest was 78. Even by today's standards it is hardly premature.
Even though the majority of lung cancer patients may be smokers, smoking may only be a contributory factor. It appears that location has as much to do with it as does smoking.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/gis...gis/
atmaplc.pdf A fact that the second hand smoke studies don't take into consideration. The RRs are already low enough to be put into question and the fact that the bulk of them include 1 in the CI makes them statistically insignificant. I challenged every tobacco control activist to name any cause of a disease with equally low RRs that has been proven and all I hear is the sound of crickets! And yet they pass this all off as fact.
Rose I apologize, I did misunderstand your post. I am just so used to being called a front man for big tobacco that I tend to defend anyone who is attacked for speaking their mind. David is more vulnerable then most of us because he did make serious money from the tobacco companies even though it was only as a model/actor. Any reasonable person knows that most in that position don't do any research on the product or even care. Does anyone actually believe that Dick Wilson squeezed every brand of toilet paper and decided I am going to play the part of Mr. George Whipple the spokesman for Charmin toilet paper? Of course not. He was just an actor. The tobacco companies did target kids and he had every right to speak out against them. Tobacco control used him to their advantage but if people start to listen to him I can hear it now, they will bring up the money that he made off of the tobacco companies and use that against him. I give him credit for speaking out both times. I already know that he and I disagree on some the issues and that is well and fine. But I won't attack his genuine concern for kids. I just understand that there are those that would use that concern to further their political agenda.
The following quote is not aimed at David but those that would use the davids of the world to suit their political agenda.
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.” -Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin
David,
Why not contact James Enstrom or at least take a look at his rebuttal to the horrible treatment he received from these freaks.
http://
www.scientificintegrityin...fense092006.pdf
Whoever suggested John Stossel had a great idea. Dr. Siegel appeared on one of his segments about the irony of smoking bans outdoors. The two of you would be powerful.
David
my email is marshallkeithusa@yahoo.com but I doubt I can help you much. I have been fighting the smoking ban for some time now and have been labeled as a spokesman for big tobacco. I wish that you could get paid to fight for freedom or freedom of choice but sadly it is a lonely and unprofitable job. Big Pharma just can't make a profit off of individualistic thinkers and neither can big tobacco. I do not have a problem with people like you showing how big tobacco tries to dupe our kids into smoking, I have no problem with using tax dollars with education when it comes to the health risks associated with smoking. I do have a problem with government funding to demonize smokers, or to tell business owners what legal products they can or can't use or allow their guest to use on their own property. The free market works. If enough people object a business changes to adapt to their customer base or risk going out of business. But tobacco control creates patchwork bans, all the time claiming that it is the will of the majority and causes no economic harm. Once they get those in they call for a statewide ban to create a level playing field. Well if smoking bans are so good for the economy why is a level playing field necessary? Aren't the places that have a ban at an advantage since that is what the public wants? They are going to hurt people like you that want to keep kids from smoking by using the truth. It is already happening in Ireland.
"I am just so used to being called a front man for big tobacco"
In my opinion, if you haven't been called a shill for Big Tobacco, you haven't arrived.
It came as an enormous shock to me when I was called one, when I was merely explaining the plant science on a newspaper comment, so people wouldn't be afraid.
I was so surprised that I started watching the antis, later of course I discovered that it's a part of their briefing, anyone who objects must be working for tobacco.
I was so intrigued by this phenomenon of writing in slogans that I decided to start my researches, just to find what on earth was going on.
These "ordinary folk writing in passionate support of the ban", are not what they seem.
Apology accepted
Along the lines of John Stossel, Reason would be a real good avenue too.
http://www.reason.com/
Plan to ban smoking in parks advances
"Escondido's proposed smoking ordinance: Smoking would be prohibited in parks and open spaces and on trails.
Enforcement: Self-enforced.
Penalties: $100 fine for the first offense, $200 for a second and $500 for a third"
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/s...y&
zIndex=122886
"Last year, youths from the Vista Community Clinic's Smoke Free North County program petitioned the council to prohibit smoking in parks and open spaces. The council referred the group to the city's Community and Older Adults Commission, which voted in January to support a ban."
How very sinister.
Anyway shouldn't it be -
"banned from parks, restaurants and swimming pools"
"excluded from cinema, theatre, concerts, exhibitions, beaches and holiday resorts"
So unoriginal.
Rose
I love your comment about swimming pools! After all isn't a smoking section in a restaurant the equivalent to the peeing section in a swimming pool? Of course you have to ignore the fact that the air in a public building is change a thousand times a day opposed to once or twice a year. But oh well the analogy still works!
To David Goerlitz
It is time to challenge ALL the TC brainwashing in your head.
1. You recognize that smoking was an unlikely cause of your stroke (or at least a highly unconfirmed cause). Good for you.
2. You report that you would not smoke in front of children and that two of your children have asthma. Are you aware that this is part of very large and very significant trend in the nation. That the incidence of childhood asthma has increased by 800 % since the 1960s, despite ever decreasing exposure of children to ETS?
Are you aware that the medical community already knows that avoiding triggers that provoke an asthma attack is a useless approach to disease management? Especially in light of the extremely large numbers of irritants and triggers that provoke such attacks?
Are you aware that mankind has been exposed to the smoke from the burning of organic material (wood, oil, coal, paper etc) ever since man climbed out of the ooze and realized that he needed heat to survive the cold and he preferred his food to be cooked?
Are you aware that the entire respiratory system of humans has been designed to cope with the inhalation of particulate? Are you aware that exposure to irritants like ETS causes a normal response in the respiratory system of producing more mucas? Lovely sticky mucas that traps particulates and prevents even the smallest finest particulate from invading the sinuses and lungs thus being PROTECTIVE.
Please I beseech you - explain to me how a smoker exposing children to ETS is different from someone who gathers their children around a campfire, a BBQ, a candle or a fireplace. Someone who heats their home with a pellet burning stove perhaps?
I for one, refuse to pander to your "protect the children" message. Every child has to "eat a peck of dirt" in order to develop healthy immune systems (or be allowed to be sick once in awhile to accumulate the proper antibodies that are the basis of properly functioning immune system.
I never thought about it before becoming a pro-choice activist but the same principle applies to development of a healthy respiratory system. Exposing a child to normal respiratory irritant allows the respiratory system to develop normally instead of being hypersensitive.
The only difference between exposing children to ETS and any of the other exposures I have mentioned and will now include vehicle exhaust is a question of morality.
Some people, like you, think that somehow ETS is "different" from all the other sources of air pollution because its "unnecessary" as compared to say burning wood to heat your home.
But there is no difference to the reaction of the body whether the exposure is "necessary" as with vehicle exhaust or "unnecessary" as with ETS.
What you are arguing, my friend, is that it is ok to pollute someone's air, as long as there is a useful purpose for doing so. And YOU get to decide what is defined as "useful"
Until you can show me what is different about ETS from all the other sources - you haven't got a leg to stand on.
Michelle
To ALL:
To those of you who are SHOCKED at the idea of children smoking.....
Get OFF YOUR HIGH HORSE!
Youth are just as subject to all the stresses and factors that make adults smoke, including the need to seek pleasure.
It is the very height of hypocrisy to defend your right to make your decisions about your body and deny that youth will do the same.
I, like every other parent, would prefer that my children be perfect. But they are not.
There are children who are forced to pick up guns and kill like soldiers at the age of 8 in this world. Thousands of them.
There are children who are forced to endure back-breaking labour, physical abuse, psychological abuse, sexual abuse etc etc.
Why - because these children are born into the same world every animal is born into. And they must learn to survive just like every animal must learn.
Life does not allow a bubble to be placed around children to protect them from all the hard parts of life until they reach the magical age of 18.
I would never provide a kid with a cigarette, a drink or a hit of a drug for the simple reason that kids belong to someone else and it is up to their parents to deal with such issues.
But let us not deny that there are parents who find out their kids are smoking at 12 and are helpless to stop them. And there are parents who let their kids smoke in front of them at 15 and 16.
Lets be honest here - given the choice of my kid smoking cigarettes or doing crystal meth, I pick smoking every time.
As for TCs assertion that kids only smoke because BT markets to them and "oh how evil is that!" What kind of la la Disney Fairy World do you live in?
Perhaps kids reach for that first cigarette and that first drink and that first hit of any drug you care to name because they have reached an age where they feel that they need something to cope with their lives? For all the same reasons we continue to smoke, drink and reach for the valium.
I am not saying its good, I am not saying its evil. I am saying "IT IS WHAT IT IS" and is no more shocking or unacceptable then when adults do it. It is human and nothing human is alien to me.
Less than 50 years ago - kids were getting married, having jobs and prepared to provide for their family by age 16.
Have kids changed in some evolutionary fashion of which I am unaware in the last 50 years or so. Regardless of any laws that prescribe age of majority and ages of consent - their bodies and emotions are exactly the same.
BT did what every company does - cultivated new customers! How is that less exploitive than any other company that cultivates kids as customers. That is the law of survival. Anything that is not growing is dying.
Is it evil when NIKE puts a brand name on a cheap pair of shoes and sells it for $150. Is it evil when Nabisco markets Lucky Charms.
Its up to the parents to teach their children how to recognise and resist marketing pressures. Its not up to the government or any any anti-something group to step into the parental role.
Michelle
Though we have been exposed to burning organic matter in confined spaces for at least 1 and a half million years, we haven't had nearly enough time to evolve sufficiently to cope with large amounts of this stuff.
Devil in the diesel
"A COMPOUND discovered in the exhaust fumes of diesel engines may be the most strongly carcinogenic ever analysed, say Japanese researchers. They warn that a major source of the chemical is heavily loaded diesel engines, and that it could be partly responsible for the large number of lung cancer cases in cities.
The compound, 3-nitrobenzanthrone, produced the highest score ever reported in an Ames test, a standard measure of the cancer-causing potential of toxic chemicals. "I personally believe that the recent increase in the number of lung cancer patients in vehicle-congested areas is closely linked with respirable carcinogens such as 3-nitrobenzanthrone," says Hitomi Suzuki, a chemist at Kyoto University who led the study. Test emissions from truck engines and the air above central Tokyo both contained the compound"
http://www.newscientist.com/
arti...=mg15621050.200
Diesel traffic worsens asthma
"The first 'real-life' study showed lung function was reduced in people with asthma who spent two hours on London's Oxford Street compared with nearby Hyde Park."
"Diesel engines can generate more than 100 times more particles than petrol engines, said the researchers.
The smaller the particle, the deeper it can be inhaled into the lungs and very small particles may even be absorbed into the bloodstream.
Researchers found three times as many ultra-fine particles (less than 0.1 microns in diameter) on Oxford Street compared with Hyde Park. Oxford Street also had more than three times more nitrogen dioxide in the air and six times as much elemental carbon."
'We know that living near a busy road is linked to worsening of asthma symptoms and there is a wealth of anecdotal evidence showing that people with asthma believe that traffic fumes have an adverse affect on their condition, with nearly half telling us that it discourages them from walking in congested areas"
http://www.asthma.org.uk/
news_me...el_traffic.html
The gauntlet has been thrown...
Rose
Right on!
However, I do not believe the theory of air pollution being the cause of the increased incidence of childhood asthma.
Here in Ontario and in California - there has been marked improvement in air quality over the last 30 years with absolutely no decrease in the incidence of childhood asthma.
Consider the air pollution that was prevalent in the early 1930s and 1940s during the industrial revolution. Pollution that is no longer present.
And yet childhood asthma continues to rise!
Exposure to smoke of any kind provokes a normal protective response of producing more mucus.
So perhaps parents who refuse to smoke in the presence of their children are actually the ones guilty of causing their child's astma?
Michelle
Michelle,
As much as I agree with you I understand where you are coming from. But we need people like Dr. Siegel and David. No one can claim that smoking is a healthy activity. I smoke, should I probably not. I am from the generation when fred and barny were smoking cigarettes behind the fence and Fred McMurry was smoking his pipe on my three sons! I speak from personal experience. It was not the advertising that made me take up smoking. It was not s the movies. My mom was murdered when I was twelve and I was raised by my grandparents. Even though they were both smokers they tried to discourage all three of us kids from smoking. Too many people forget that at that stage of life you are going to do exactly the opposite that you are told to. When I graduated from high school my grandfather/father was my hero. But because he forbade me from smoking I did exactly that. I did not want my kids to smoke they both do. They will both tell you that it was because I forbade them from doing it. If we educate the young without saying you are forbidden from doing it. Smoking would probably go away.
But as long as we lie or allow the government to lie on on our behalf the kids are not going to believe a word we say. Until there is an honest discussion on the real effects of smoking the future kids are going to say B.S. and are going to say what my generation said, don't trust anyone over 30! It is high time to be honest. Lay out the facts, Without bullsh!t. I do not think that my grandkids will smoke. I do not lie to them. As long as I do not and my kids do not I do not believe they will, unless society lies to them and makes it the ultimate taboo and they find out that society did lie to them they will realize that it was a lie and rebel. Tobacco control will be responsible for the next generation of smokers not the tobacco companies. With open and honest education smoking will go away all on its own. But as long as we spread Bullsh!t it will continue. Which do you want!
In support to Michelle's post about asthmatic children:
Smoking linked to reduced allergic sensitization
MedWire News: Parental smoking during childhood and personal cigarette smoking in teenage and early adult life lowers the risk for allergic sensitization in those with a family history of atopy, according to the results of a study from New Zealand.
Read it at: http://www.medwire-news.md/48/
72...itization_.html
Hey Michelle, Prior to smoking bans asthma prevalence increased do to more generalized diagnostic criteria and in 1997, a lifetime measurement of any attack was added:
"Beginning in 1997, the asthma questions on NHIS changed the measures of asthma prevalence (9). Now, two measures are used, both restricted to persons with a medical diagnosis of asthma. The first is referred to as lifetime asthma prevalence, which includes those respondents with a medical diagnosis of asthma at anytime in the their lives. In 1997, a total of 26.7 million persons (96.6/1,000 population) reported a physician diagnosis of asthma during their lifetime, which is substantially higher than the 12-month prevalence measured before 1997 (Figure 2)."
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/...ml/
ss5101a1.htm
I remember taking my youngest son to the Doctor for suspected pneumonia in 1997 and I was promptly lectured about smoking in front of him because he had asthma. Once I quieted the Dr I explained to her that she was misinformed, my son did not have asthma, she persisted and coded him as such. I insisted on a set of x-rays...which revealed pneumonia, but the Dr merely explained how my smoking had triggered an attack and resulted in secondary pneumonia. I was given a prescription for antibiotics as a precaution and Ventolin.
That pseudo-attack was the only diagnosis ever for asthma. My son is currently a firefighter in the USAF based in Iraq. Imagine the triggers this "asthmatic" is regularly exposed to! He's a cross country runner, bodybuilder, and cyclist. Since he is a member of the 800% increase in prevalence I would hope that his peers would be as healthy.
Oops! I forgot:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/
...hma_Causes.html
What Causes Asthma?
The exact cause of asthma isn't known. Researchers think a combination of factors (family genes and certain environmental exposures) interact to cause asthma to develop, most often early in life. These factors include:
An inherited tendency to develop allergies, called atopy (AT-o-pe)
Parents who have asthma
Certain respiratory infections during childhood
Contact with some airborne allergens or exposure to some viral infections in infancy or in early childhood when the immune system is developing
If asthma or atopy runs in your family, exposure to airborne allergens (for example, house dust mites, cockroaches, and possibly cat or dog dander) and irritants (for example, tobacco smoke) may make your airways more reactive to substances in the air you breathe.
Different factors may be more likely to cause asthma in some people than in others. Researchers continue to explore what causes asthma.
The "Hygiene Hypothesis"
One theory researchers have for what causes asthma is the "hygiene hypothesis." They believe that our Western lifestyle—with its emphasis on hygiene and sanitation—has resulted in changes in our living conditions and an overall decline in infections in early childhood.
Many young children no longer experience the same types of environmental exposures and infections as children did in the past. This affects the way that the immune systems in today's young children develop during very early childhood, and it may increase their risk for atopy and asthma. This is especially true for children who have close family members with one or both of these conditions.
I think I love Michelle Gervais.
As I was reading down from the first comment I was praying to all the gods that someone would say what she did.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
We have bred (in the developed world) a generation of wimps. We have terrified them. We keep their world germ free. We don't allow them out. We rush them to the nearest Emergency room when they eat a bit of dirt. We use bleaches to scrub down every surface in the house. We point out people who who smoke and drink and teach them the mantra: "Look, scum!". We have taught them never to take a risk. We have wrapped them up in (clinically safe, non-allergenic) cotton wool.
If we think we are being nannied now, WTF do you imagine life will be like for us, or for THEIR children in 20 years time? The very thought scares the shit out of me.
I may be an unorthodox parent. I don't care. We now have two wonderful sons who question everything.
Yesterday I had a fantastic moment when my 13 year old son showed me his newest tee shirt.
It said:
"Strangers have the best sweets".
With a sense of humour like that, I think he's gonna be just fine.
Michelle,
I agree with essentially every point you’ve made.
There are those that believe they are ‘allergic’ to tobacco smoke. Yet, as far as I’m aware, there are no allergens (proteins) in tobacco smoke to be allergic to. There is evidence that these reactions are somatoform disorders (i.e., psychogenically produced due to fear). Also, tobacco smoke was never considered an issue in asthma, including childhood asthma, until materialism and TC began to dominate. There are now many instances of ‘asthmatic reactions’ to tobacco smoke that are somatizing reactions. Whether a reaction is physically or psychologically mediated can be experimentally tested. However, such testing does not occur because materialists believe that whatever ‘symptoms’ occur are always physically mediated. They do not comprehend psychology. In fact, materialists deny that mind exists – the experience of consciousness is only an epiphenomenon (an inconsequential by-product) of underlying neuro-chemical processes. There are also many other divisive mind-games occurring between children and smoking parents due to the promotion of irrational fear and hatred.
I have considerable sections in my book on these phenomena. I’m quite happy to provide a free copy of the book because these areas have been so severely blurred. If anyone on this blog would like a copy of Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger, just email me (email address is on bottom left of webpage) and I’ll send a download link (offer stands for this weekend).
David (G),
I appreciate that you are trying to be an educational force. However, you need to become familiar with the idea that ‘protecting’ The Children™ from exposure to tobacco smoke is an emotive, ideological (eugenic) argument very light on fact. Indeed, you now may also need to educate on the numerous irrational beliefs promoted by TC that are family unfriendly. Each time anyone, including smokers, agrees with TC fantasy, they are agreeing that smoking is so bad (in the extreme) that the world should not see another smoker again.
Is smoking SO bad? Highly doubtful. The worldly system has so many severe problems across multi-dimensions that smoking would not rate too highly. For example, while there is so much ado about smoking and advertising to children, this is subterfuge for actual damage occurring in childhood. The medical establishment has concocted childhood disorders, e.g., ADHD, for which potent pharmaceuticals are prescribed.
Consider depression: In the late-1950’s, when antidepressants were first discovered, those suffering depression (then considered a generalized, severely debilitating condition) constituted a very small group that were usually confined to asylums; pharmaceutical companies doubted the economic viability of the drugs and were not particularly enthusiastic to release them commercially (see Healy, 1997). Parker (2000) notes that “[t]he American Psychiatric Association’s DSMIII manual introduced ‘major depression’ in 1980, an entity then quantified as dominating psychiatric practice, and highly prevalent in general practice and the community. Minor depressive disorders were defined and, more recently, entities such as ‘sub-clinical depression’ and ‘sub-syndromal depression’ have appeared….If such trends continue, depression will soon be destigmatised by virtue of a depressive subtype for everyone!”(p.452) – RASGD, p480.
Depression is now being marketed to youth. In Australia, there is now a Youth Depression initiative, where youth experiencing ‘difficulties’ are encouraged to call a depression help-line. A significant subsection of youth will be on anti-depressants before reaching adulthood. THIS is extraordinary. The damage is not only that of being on potent drugs, but the materialist momentum that has produced the circumstance is anti-thinking. Typical problems of living that humanity up until the last few generations thought their way through, usually with metaphysicl systems, have been medicalized – reduced to no more than ‘chemical imbalances’ requiring pharmaceutical remediation. People are being encouraged (dumbed-down) not to think. Unfortunately, this is all quite intentional. It is part of a globalist, materialist agenda.
_
David G,
Just another thought.
In an earlier post, Rose (thanks, Rose) provides a link that is a good example of the brainwashing of children.
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/s...y& zIndex=122886
TC provides ‘advocacy’ kits. An ‘advocate’ need understand nothing about how ‘facts’ provided in the kit are arrived at. The only requirement is enthusiasm in advocacy (propagandizing the ‘facts’). From the above link, it is a youth advocacy group that has pressed for outdoor smoking bans. A 16 year-old ‘advocate’ “told the council that it takes 15 years for a cigarette butt to decompose and that secondhand smoke kills”. As to cigarette butts, there are littering laws that cover these. As to secondhand smoke, the idea of it ‘killing’ in enclosed spaces is arguable. As to outdoor areas, the idea has no application: The child doesn’t even comprehend that the claim does not fit the circumstance. So, why is a 16 year-old pressing for smoking bans on the basis of inflammatory, nonsensical ideas? Who is protecting the children from mind-contorting manipulation?
If you want to educate the children, you’re also going to have to provide them with some insights on the damage that propaganda, denormalization and persecution can wreak.
I can’t see why you are not capable of doing this. You’re biggest problem is making these points in an educational system that is pro-propaganda. With some creativity, you might still be able to impart some clarity to a most blurred circumstance. For example, you could title your presentation “Some clarity on the smoking issue”, including the marketing practices of both BT and TC.
You can at least make the point to those you come in contact with.
I’m cheering for you.
_
Through my employer I have Highmark Blue shield health insurance. 4 times a year Highmark sends out a newspaper chocked full of healthful news (sic). Summer 2009 newspaper had an article titled "Are you at risk for COPD". Of coure, they designated smoking as the number 1 culprit. But one statement just really ticked me off. It read "Stay away from secondhand smoke and third hand smoke-the smoke residue that remains long after the cigarette is put out".
I emailed Highmark:
"Stop sending me the Highmark newspaper.
The article "Are you at risk for COPD" contained many lies. The most blatant example is the "thirdhand smoke comment". There is NO such thing as thirdhand smoke. There is absolutely NO proof to even suggest it. All the ANTI smoking alphabet orgs did was a phone survey asking people if they believed that 3rd hand smoke causes cancer (not exact wording of questions asked). NO study has ever shown (or even been done) on third hand smoke. Second hand smoke is a BIG LIE trumped up by the antis adhering to the advice of Sir Godber who said in the 70's “it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to ETS.” Third hand smoke is an even bigger lie.
Due to the fact that your editors do NOT check the facts, your so-called newspaper is NOT to be trusted and is NOT welcome in MY home."
Today, I received an email from Highmark:
"Thank you for your recent Internet inquiry.
We apologize for the delay in response to your inquiry. Please be advised that we are unable to verify your coverage with the information that was supplied. We need additional information in order to research your request, such as your member identification number. You may send another email with this information or you may contact us by telephone.
If we can be of further assistance, please send a follow up email or by dialing the number located on the reverse side of your identification card.
Sincerely,
John Millie
Internet Service Representative"
My response to them was: "Yeah, right! I believe you have mistaken me for someone that was born yesterday."
David:
A co-worker suffered a major stroke when she was in her mid 30's. She never smoked. She was never able to come back to work. My employer hasn't allowed smoking inside since 1991, long before this woman was employed there.
RickDP,
I also commend David for what he is trying to do. The rub lies in the fact that government agencies out and out lie. My and how smoking pot is a gateway to hard core drugs. The fact is they lied. Once kids figure out that adults lie they will not listen to any of us even when we tell the truth. Tobacco control does a very big disservice to those who would like to keep kids from smoking. The truth about smoking is harsh enough. Once you get caught in a lie you use all credibility. It may sound harsh, but when your in that young,trusting ,vulnerable age they trust you or not. You betray that trust you are done. I am an engineer by trade. I also am part owner of a bar. I only work in the bar actively very part time, but I can tell you that the faith that the young have in our government is probably twice as bad as it was when I was growing up in the 60's. My partner and I have had to deal with kids stoned on crank and E. We are both old school and a lot of kids are shooting up crank. Neither one of us are up on the newer drugs but as far as we both can tell crank is speed. Both of us did white crosses to get through finals. But neither one of us ever heard of shooting that crap up. We may be in the bar business but we try to help out our clientele without judgment. I would like to have legitimate information to give these kids but I do not dare. How can I tell kids about the harm of drugs when the same government agencies tell me that second hand smoke kills 50,000 people a year and they can't even prove one.
I think you misunderstood my post, I was refering to David's joke about returning to smoking because it was going to be regulated by the FDA.
Rose
I know I already apologized but I have to admit that a lot of what I do is to goat the activist into an open and honest debate on the facts and the facts alone. Last year at the senate hearings I cornered one of the members of Smoke Free Wisconsin and tried to argue the so called science with them. When I had them cornered all I heard was we are here to educate not debate. that is the only thing they have. If you look at their website they have no comments. They are censored to the point where no one even bothers to try. Yet the main stream media publishes every single thing they post without question. When you bring up economic damage they ask if it was peer reviewed. Now exactly what qualifications does a medical journal have in economics and since we are using that standard I guess I should go to my mechanic to get my prostate checked. Why not the media publishes economic studies by Stanton Glantz and Liz Klein. If you notice none of their studies actually measures profit and loss. Isn't that the bottom line when it comes to economics? No they measure the number of liquor licenses or the number of employed depending on which number favors their cause. But when It comes to economics dollars are the bottom line. In the last study they admit that money made and tips were not considered.
http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpr...obacco-control/
I admit that I am a lowly engineer and I do not have a medical degree or a degree in economics. But like Mr Glantz I am an engineer. I have worked in electronics for 30 years and worked as a broadcasting engineer for the last 20 I will also say that as an engineer my math is not lacking and can scream Bullsh!t at the to of my lungs. And anyone that has a clue should be screaming right along side of me!
Marshall,
You’re correct that government agencies lie. For example, the redefinition of smoking as an addiction in 1988 by then Surgeon-General C. Everett Koop was part of a ‘denormalization’ strategy. It focused on the habituation aspect, while downplaying the potency aspect of substances (e.g., intoxication, serious medical withdrawal). Now, anything that can be mood-altering can potentially be “addictive”. Furthermore, there have been added expressions such as “tobacco smoking is more addictive than heroin or cocaine”. In the mind of youth, if smoking is so addictive, and people are still smoking and they seem OK, then how bad can these other drugs be? On trying narcotics, they find out the hard way that these are very different substances to tobacco. To add insult to injury, health authorities seem ‘surprised’ that youth would experiment with such potent (and illegal) substances.
In generations past, initiation, a rite of passage, into adulthood might have involved some dabbling in tobacco and alcohol. Some would use these substances for a lifetime. Given that the former has been comprehensively demonized, youth is dabbling with serious substances that can be catastrophic even in the very short-term (i.e., fatal). Even alcohol, which was one of the substances figuring in the original definition of addiction, attracts little attention by health authorities (other than bringing it up as a point of complaint). For example, Australia has a very serious binge-drinking problem amongst youth. Yet, there are few curbs on the alcohol industry, including advertising.
The redefinition of addiction in 1988 also had another consequence. Until then, smoking was claimed to ‘cause’ disease. Post redefinition, smoking itself became a disease, requiring medical intervention. Hence, smoking itself is a ‘pandemic’. It also installed ‘smoking as an addiction’ into DSM IV which characterizes tobacco addiction as a psychiatric disorder. The Koop redefinition must be one of the most destructive public health acts of recent times.
I don’t see why you can’t offer insight to youth. Confusion and incompetence abounds. We need to educate ourselves, able to distinguish at least some fact from fiction. What you learn, you can pass on. The insights need to be over all dimensions – physical, psychological, social, moral, and spiritual. Materialism is a war of the profoundly deluded on all these dimensions.
_
I also applaud and thank Michele. Well said!
Marshall K. -- WRT to "No one can claim that smoking is a healthy activity." I can and will claim that smoking is a healthy activity.
You (and David G.) may be interested in this discussion.
http://www.imminst.org/forum/ind...=0&
#entry167147
In response to Marshall Keith:
LET ME BE THE FIRST:
Smoking is a healthy activity. In moderation.
It elevates mood, focuses concentration, relieves stress. There is strong evidence that it is beneficial in the treatment of asthma, irritable bowel syndrome. There is evidence that it prevents parkinsons, MS and various neurological disorders.
It is useful in the treatment of various psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia, manic-depression.
It provides pleasure to millions - in itself - pleasure is a healthy by-product.
Smoke in a room reduces the concentration of bacteria and viruses greatly reducing the risk of disease. It paralyses dust mites and reduces a known respiratory illness.
Smoking also has risks - like every other drug, like every other activity. There is strong evidence to support the idea that smokers live longer disability free lives than non-smokers.
The risks can be greatly ameliorated in the same way risks of other drugs and activities are ameliorated - by moderate use!
Dare to face up to and banish the propaganda of TC.
Smoking as a lifestyle choice is no different than living a life on valium (ever checked the adverse effects of anti-depressants). It has benefits and it has risks.
It is less risky than mountain-climbing, riding a motorcycle and certainly far less risky than alcohol.
Smoking is healthy for its effect on the spirit. Sharing a cigarette provides opportunity for social interaction and is mentally and emotionally healthy.
Stop focusing on the fact that you might be at increased risk of lung cancer or COPD if you smoke. Lung cancer is a rare disease affecting less than 200,000 people per year. But depression is far far more common as is MS, Parkinsons.
Given the choice of dying of lung cancer or COPD in my 60s or 70s or drooling into my diapers in some nursing home with dementia, parkinsons or MS - I will take the lung cancer or COPD everytime.
When you think of smoking -- you focus on the adverse impacts which have been magnified beyond imagining and compared with absolutely nothing.
If you were to focus on the benefits of smoking and compare the adverse effects to other conditions - you would soon realize that the benefits may well outweigh the risks.
And of course, at the end of the day, it is up to the individual and their own personal values to decide whether the benefits of smoking outweigh the risks.
If you value longevity of life over quality of life - then smoking is probably not for you. By all means - have at it. Become the 95 year old who is too frail to go out anymore, who has outlived his pension and his friends, whose world has closed down to his dingy apartment and occasional visits from relatives wondering if they are in the will.
Compare that life to the life of a 65 -70 year old who has lived a relatively healthy life and discovers they have lung cancer. Their death - while painful - will take only about 6 weeks. Long enough to set your affairs in order and say goodbye. Then you are gone and your problems are over.
Of course no one wants to die - but die we all will and I for one would prefer a quick albeit painful death to the lingering disabilities and frailties of old age.
Thank you Dr. Siegal for "trying to help" this confirmed inveterate smoker.
Just let me say this: If I suffer illness and death in relation to some smoking-related disease, I shall be exactly like a thief caught in the act. Not sorry that I smoked but awful sorry that I got caught.
I don't need your help. I have made my decision. I am a rational reasonable, educated woman. Like every other aspect of my life, I am prepared to take the consequences and the benefits of my actions and decisions.
To date, the only thing your help has done for me is to deprive me of social opportunities and resources that I have rightfully earned.
Michelle
To Colin Grainger
I love you too! I particularly check in on Freedom to Choose for your writing and your thoughts
One day, I am coming to England to meet you and Phil Williams and I fully intend to give you both a very very very big kiss and share a drink.
Michelle
Rick--
If you can track it down, you might be interested in this study: -Shepherd et al, "Passive Exposure of Asthmatic Subjects to Cigarette Smoke," Envir. Res, 20; 1979. IIRC, he found that when asthmatics who claimed that tobacco smoke was a trigger were exposed to tobacco smoke without knowing that it WAS tobacco smoke, they had no reaction.
David--
In defense of journalists, they're right to want specifics. "Tobacco Control Lies" is not a story. This would be a story: "In September, 1994, at a TC conference at [the X Hotel] in [Y], TC bigshot Tanston Zafban admitted that [X] and Judson Pacer actually told me [Y]" And they'd want you to back it up-- with a transcript, another witness or...something.
Michelle--
Great stuff.
:
Collin you are obviously someone who knows how to pick them. From personal experience I have met Michelle a number of times and was thoroughly impressed.
A genuine person doesn't need to embellish their words, they speak from the heart and that is the embodiment of honesty.
If you can get her in front of a TV camera? TC doesn't stand a chance, I know because I have seen her do it.
There are some people you just know you can trust and she emulates that confidence. I have to say I am encouraged she is on the right side of this debate.
Now, about finding some of those cameras...
Sorry, Anonymous was me.
Kevin
And, speaking of psychology, this too might be of interest:
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot....s-and-
what.html
Excerpt:
Trying to scare people that they’ll develop cancer or another horrible chronic disease, get fat, or die prematurely if they eat “bad” foods or are exposed to contaminants has become a familiar marketing tactic over recent years and the nocebo effect is at work in many. Yet, using fear is not benign and the nocebo effect can have very real harmful effects on our bodies. It is well known among scientists that beliefs and fears can create mass psychosomatic illness and shared delusions. There are growing examples of the nocebo in the scientific literature.
People who are told that they have high blood pressure (when they don’t) begin to feel sick and call in sick much more often. In double blind clinical trials, when healthy people are given a placebo drug and told of possible side effects, about 20% develop dizziness, nausea, vomiting and even depression. In another study, when patients breathed in a vapor they were told contains a chemical or allergen about half developed breathing problems, including some with full-blown asthma attacks. When given what they believed was a bronchodilator, they recovered promptly. In actuality, both the “irritant” and the “medicine” were nothing more than salt water.
There's also a semi-famous study that I thought I had filed but apparently don't, but it was in one of the Major Journals-- a brilliantly-dissected case study of purely psychosomatic Sick Building Syndrome-- an anatomy of mass hysteria.
:
Walt,
“In actuality, both the “irritant” and the “medicine” were nothing more than salt water.”
That study was:
Luparello, T.J., McFadden, E.R., Lyons, H.A., & Bleeker, E.R. (1971)
Psychologic factors and bronchial asthma, New York State Journal of
Medicine, 71, 2161-2165.
For an examination of some past instances of mass delusion, see
Gothe, C-J., Odont, C.M., & Nilsson, C.G. (1995) The environmental
somatization syndrome, Psychosomatics, 36, 1-11.
Somatoform disorders produced by the current antismoking crusade are examples of the environmental somatization syndrome. It has also been medically sanctioned (i.e., iatrogenic).
_
I am still shocked at the thought of children smoking,thats my territory, I don't steal their stuff,let them wait, but then again, I am shocked by a lot of things lately.
I certainly don't think that tobacco smoke will harm them and as Colin says, children need exposure to all manner of things as they grow.
No bleach in my house, no constant scrubbing with wet tissues or screaming when they got their clothes dirty.In my opinion a childs natural state is mud, its essential to develop immunity, but most of all good fun.
"Smoking is a healthy activity. In moderation"
Yup, from what I can find, it seems to act as a rough and ready repair kit amongst other things, all the main components are available in health food shops, medicines and in enriched foods.
The gases are already used by the immune system, as anti-inflammatories and neurotransmitters.
"Strangers have the best sweets".
Colin, he will go far.
Just out of interest
Nicotinic acid
In other words, we analyzed the saliva, which would have otherwise been swallowed. No nicotinic Acid occurred in the smoker's saliva before smoking. We feel that we have made this report sufficiently long to cover the discoveries, which we regard as quite remarkable.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/prod...65489-
5491.html
Treatment of Asthma by Nicotinic Acid
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...23&
blobtype=pdf
Which could be why some asthmatics smoke to relieve it, I had a friend who did, he lived just across the fields from one of the largest chemical factories in Europe.
In other news,regarding RIP hand rolling papers, yesterday I bought some edible rice paper to continue my experiments.
Ingredients: Potato Starch, Vegetable Oil and water.
Pardon??
And the gloves are off...
ladyraj
Well what would you expect in a nest of freethinkers?
This seems a more likely explanation than any amount of advertising.
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids or Campaign for Oxygen-Free Babies?
"For more than a year, I have been trying to expose a deep dark secret that threatens to destroy more children on the pretense of protecting them from harm. There are hundreds of anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns claiming to be trying to stop children from using tobacco, and none of them have addressed the root issue of why people smoke or use tobacco. People use tobacco for the same reason they would eat a candy bar. There is something in it the body wants. That something is not just an "addictive drug" as the rhetoric of the last 50 years has claimed, but actually a necessary nutrient, niacin, vitamin B-3. For more than 100 years, the government has known, at some level, that nicotine and niacin are basically the same thing (discovered by Dr. Goldberger in 1895). Niacin is made by oxidizing nicotine in the laboratory or burning it in a cigarette. All niacin supplements come from tobacco because it is hard to get in ordinary foods unless you eat a lot of spinach or a lot of turkey.
Teen diets are disgracefully deficient in niacin so all they know is that there is something in tobacco the body wants. The proof is available in any good dictionary. Look up nicotinic acid and follow the leads. Niacin is the "drug" that regulates all energy exchanges at the cellular level, enhances brain activity and keeps the skin healthy. Many acne outbreaks are signs of niacin deficiency.
I have sent this information to the American Cancer Society; they disregarded it and endorsed Nicorette and Nicoderm, substances at least as dangerous as smoking. I have put this information on-line and been told I should hide it from kids (delphi.com/teensmoke). I have now sent this information to the Tobacco Commission (USDA). If they do not respond, it will be proof beyond any possibility of a doubt that none of these people, agencies or non-profit enterprises give a damn about children; they are just tying to further a political agenda based on lies, for profit, just like any other pyramid scam.
If American tobacco farmers are put out of business by this false theocracy, then most of America's tobacco and niacin will probably have to be imported from the largest tobacco grower in the world, China.
How's that for an ulterior motive?"
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/t...sc/
00000026.htm
Here's another presumably from the same person
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/t...sc/
00000025.htm
Another source of niacin also owned by Philip Morris last time I looked.
http://www.marmite.co.uk/love/hi...and-
health.html
Of course,to reveal the true science, destroys the nicotine addiction theory and would make them all look like frauds.
The tobacco companies have known since 1941.
Anti-tobacco disguised it in 1942 so they know too, it was put in the bread, first voluntarily in 1938, then by law, and it worked.
Effectiveness of Food Fortification in the United States : The Case of Pellagra
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/...nt/90/5/
727.pdf
niacin
"pellagra-preventing vitamin in enriched bread," 1942, coined from ni(cotinic) ac(id) + -in, chemical suffix; suggested by the American Medical Association as a more commercially viable name than nicotinic acid.
"The new name was found to be necessary because some anti-tobacco groups warned against enriched bread because it would foster the cigarette habit." ["Cooperative Consumer," Feb. 28, 1942]
Beale' rather unflattering description of the AMA at the time.
"The American Medical Association is the front for the Drug Trust. The AMA furnishes the quack doctors to "testify" that, while they often know nothing of the product involved, it is their opinion that it has no therapeutic value."
http://www.whale.to/a/
bealle.htm...D_DRUG_BANDITS_
Rose,
I am tempted to theoretize then, that if people smoke to get the necessary intake of niacin, supplementing with niacin would get smokers to either stop smoking or at least cut down to moderate healthy levels. That would more or less confirm the theory that it is the niacin (the byproduct of nicotine combustion) that people crave in the tobacco and not the nicotine itself, which would explain why e-cigarettes are doing a better job for those who want to quit or cut down since the nicotine is heated contrary to pharma inhalers or patches that just supply nicotine.
Iro
I am not a scientist, but from my studies of the growing plant, I would say that is so.
Luckily I can test things on myself.
Here's a few of the industry documents.
Nicotinic Acid
http://tobaccodocuments.org/prod...65489-
5491.html
Nicotinic Acid Content of Old Gold smoke.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/prod...65497-
5498.html
Nicotinic Acid Utilization of Tobacco Waste
http://www.healthservices.gov.bc...07/
00000711.pdf
Niacin and Niacinamide In Flue Cured Cigarette Smoke Condensate August 10 1960
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/a...pnx69d00&
page=1
The Absorption of Niacin in the Smoking of Cigarettes 1944
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/a...bde38e00&
page=2
.fcgi?artid=2282923&blobtype=pdf
LORILLARD RESEARCH ON NICOTINIC ACID
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/a...jbw98c00&
page=1
See what you think.
Niacin (Nicotinic Acid)
"Niacin is a member of the B-vitamin family. It is sometimes referred to as vitamin B3. Nicotinic acid was first discovered as an oxidation product of nicotine and thus, the origin of its name. In fact, much of the confusion caused by the use of the term niacin for both nicotinic acid and nicotinamide, as well as for nicotinic acid alone, was created by the attempt to dissociate nicotinic acid from its nicotine origins."
http://research.exercisingyourmi...tinic-
acid.aspx
The effects of nicotine, which I simply don't recognise from smoking, but do from testing patches.
"Green tobacco sickness (GTS) is an illness resulting from dermal exposure to dissolved nicotine from wet tobacco leaves; it is characterized by nausea, vomiting, weakness, and dizziness and sometimes fluctuations in blood pressure or heart rate
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/...ml/
00020119.htm
Nicotine as an Addictive Substance: A Critical Examination of the Basic Concepts and Empirical Evidence.
"Definitions that include nicotine are so broad and vague that they allow many trivial things, such salt, sugar and watching television, to be considered addictive"
http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.a...pdfs/
atrens.pdf
There is only a little formed by burning, but combined with solanesol, which apparently is used in the pharmaceutical industry to boost the effects, the niacin in tobacco smoke may punch above its weight.
Rather than a medication, it acts more like a tonic.
It also goes very well with coffee
Basic Chemical Reactions Occurring in the Roasting Process
"The best cup characteristic are produced when the ratio of the degradation of trigonelline to the derivation of Nicotinic Acid remains linear. The control model of this reaction ratio is a time/temperature/energy relationship. The environment temperature (ET) establishes the pyrolysis region for the desired chemical reactions while the energy value (BTU) and system transfer efficiency (STE) determines the rate of reaction propagation and linearity of Nicotinic Acid derivation to degradation of trigonelline"
http://www.sweetmarias.com/
roast....carlstaub.html
The niacin in the smoke seems to be instant, the niacin in the coffee takes a little longer.
Nicotine and Trigonelline are both pyridine alkaloids apparently.
Iro & Rose,
To take Niacin and e-cig a step further - could one use liquid Niacin in the e-cig liquid recipe instead of Nicotine and receive similar results?
Could vapor technology be used this way?
Hmmmmm?
Rose, where did you find the rice paper?
Gilster,
Shhhhhhh Big Pharma just might steal your idea !
Rose
Reading your documentation. In the very first link, Lorillard opines that a smoker would have to smoke an unreasonable no. of cigarettes to get the required niacin levels. That could probably explain why some people chain smoke.
I am thoroughly convinced that there are physiological reasons people smoke besides the pleasurable effect, why some people smoke more than others and why some who want to quit find it very difficult if not impossible.
Nicotinic acid might not be the only reason because there are dopamine levels that also come to play as in schizoprehnics, OCD, and ADHD children and adults, but it certainly must play a role in the overall picture as to why some people find it necessary to smoke and panic at the idea of quitting. Addiction is too easy an answer to a much more complex issue and it mostly serves to shame and stigmatize people who smoke making it a very lucrative business for both Big Pharma (the saviours on their white horse as Pr Molimard likes to call them) and those that live off tobacco taxes aka as Big Anti Tobacco.
Gilster
I would certainly think so, and according to the old industry documents added niacin passes through the fire unaltered, but thats the natural one, not the coal tar derivative thats in cereals.
I got the rice paper from the local cook shop.
But its not so simple, there are other things in there that have similar effects
Tyrosine improves cognitive performance and reduces blood pressure in cadets after one week of a combat training course.
"The group supplied with the tyrosine-rich drink performed better on a memory and a tracking task than the group supplied with the carbohydrate-rich drink. In addition, the supplementation of tyrosine decreased systolic blood pressure. No effects on mood were found.
These findings suggest that supplementation with tyrosine may, under operational circumstances characterized by psychosocial and physical stress, reduce the effects of stress and fatigue on cognitive task performance."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm...pubmed/
10230711
"L-tyrosine is a nonessential amino acid (protein building block) that the body synthesizes from phenylalanine, another amino acid. Tyrosine is important to the structure of almost all proteins in the body. It is also the precursor of several neurotransmitters, including L-dopa, dopamine, norepinephrine, and epinephrine"
http://www.netrition.com/cgi/
hea...ntentID=2919008
Reportedly its also been used successfully in smoking cessation and treating parkinsons.
Or nitric oxide
Your Brain Boots Up Like a Computer
"As we yawn and open our eyes in the morning, the brain stem sends little puffs of nitric oxide to another part of the brain, the thalamus, which then directs it elsewhere.
Like a computer booting up its operating system before running more complicated programs, the nitric oxide triggers certain functions that set the stage for more complex brain operations, according to a new study.
In these first moments of the day, sensory information floods the system—the bright sunlight coming through the curtains, the time on the screeching alarm clock—and all of it needs to be processed and organized, so the brain can understand its surroundings and begin to perform more complex tasks."
http://www.livescience.com/
healt...brain_boot.html
Thats when I need it, I am very slow in waking up.
So nonsmoking hotels are out.
I think between us all we may find some useable substitutes.
Tyrosine is the black in a cut potato left open to the air, there lots in a tobacco plant as I found when a gale force wind whipped the leaves against the wall.
Just listening to the continued coverage of MJ's death. The interviewer was trying to get some info from a doctor, and he gave the standard line: smoking and obesity commonly cause cardiac arrest. Interestingly, the reporter showed some annoyance, "BUT, he did not smoke and he was not overweight, so what ELSE could cause his fatal episode." The doc was at a bit of a loss and didn't have a lot to say. The annoyed tone of the intervewer was what was interesting. My guess is they will try to doctor up some photos of MJ to show he was a closet smoker.
Carbon Monoxide Gas Is Used by Brain Cells As a Neurotransmitter
"THE simple gas carbon monoxide is used by nerve cells to signal each other, researchers have found in a discovery that could open the way to a new understanding of how the brain operates.
The discovery follows a finding that another simple gas, nitric oxide, can also signal nerve cells. Together the two gases break all the old rules on how neurotransmitters work"
Neurobiologists have been finding neurotransmitters since the 1920's and thought they had the rules for nerve signaling in hand. Each substance was thought to be stable and specific. One nerve cell would release the transmitter and it would fit into the next cell like a key in a lock.
But gases are volatile and nonspecific, and they diffuse into any nearby cells. Transmitters were also thought to be stored in small pouches in cells that made them and released when necessary. But gases are not stored and are made only when needed. Clinical Implications
"It's a whole brand new signaling mechanism," said Dr. Charles Stevens, a neurobiologist who is a Howard Hughes Medical Institutes investigator at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, Calif.
"So far, he added, he is finding evidence that carbon monoxide might be used to cement memories in the hippocampus of the brain and that established memories might be erased when carbon monoxide is absent."
And, he says, the new findings about carbon monoxide and nitric oxide have taught neurobiologists an important lesson: "It makes you think that when people are evaluating whether a given chemical is a candidate neurotransmitter, they ought to be very careful about applying the rules of ancient days."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/
ful...752C0A965958260
Carbon monoxide, that notorious killer, could also be a life-saver. A small quantity of the gas given to people with a potentially fatal lung disease led to signs of improvement in their condition. It is also showing promise for treating other chronic and acute inflammatory conditions.
At high concentrations, carbon monoxide (CO) displaces oxygen from red blood cells, and in effect kills by asphyxiation. Its healing effects have emerged in ongoing experiments in animals, which show that low levels of CO can reduce inflammation and oxidative damage to tissue.
In fact CO is produced as a normal part of a reaction that generates antioxidants in the blood when tissues are inflamed. It was once dismissed as a worthless by-product of this reaction, but now it seems that the gas itself has the ability to calm inflammation in humans too.
"Your body is already loaded with carbon monoxide," says Huib Kerstjens"
http://www.newscientist.com/
arti...Id=health_rss20
Michelle.. Good morning. I needed a good nights sleep before responding.
Your information, observations, views and opinions were taken with the same grace and open-mindedness I would give any other individual that has my best interests in mind.
Not sure if that was your motive. I'm probably being cynical here, but over the past 10 years or so, I came to realize that I WAS brainwashed and needed to RETHINK ALL, yes ALL that I have said to not only the kids that you think I'm pandering to, but even the wackos of tobacco control. By doing this 10-11 years ago is what got me in the "f'ing"
pickle that I am in. So, please don't preach to me about what I should or should not do. I have signed my name to every post, told anyone who would listen (including the children that I believe need to hear the truth according to the observations I have witnessed over 21 years).
1. Yes we are brainwashed by tobacco control and government
2. By pandering to children, I can get one, two , three or four kids to think for themselves, which by the way is what I do, then I feel I have accomplished something.
3. I question all that is put in front of me, even YOUR science and opinions that smoking is healthy (In moderation). Your words, not mine. That's a slippery slope, since my definition of moderation may be different than your defintion of moderation. I 'm sure I know what you meant, but I think that would be a tough sell.
4. You said you would not give a young person who wasn't yours a cigarette or a drink. But you would give "your" young kids a cigarette or a drink? Just asking.
5. When the Drs. told me my stroke was caused by smoking, I fought them tooth and nail, because I didn't want to believe them. I agree that some physicians are too quick to blame tobacco as it is the easiest thing to pick on. So, I kept smoking, because I did not want to quit. Ladyraj's experience with her son is probably the rule rather than the exception. Funny, how when I almos t had to have 26 inches of my colon taken out because of a severe case of Diverticulitus, they told me to stop eating popcorn, skins of fruits and vegetables, seeds and anything that could exaserbate the problem, guess what I gave up? Yup, seeds, skins, nuts and popcorn. I did not have those irritable foods for years. One day I had a bunch of tomatoes with seeds.
Hmmm, spent 5 days in Virtua Hospital having my colon and bowel cleaned out. My point is sometimes we don't question and others we do.
We probably question the opinions of others that are not in alignment with our own thinking and will cause angst and frustration in our lives.
You can say what you want...but when I stopped smoking around MY kids they didn't need their asthma inhalers, they had fewer sore throats, less ear infections etc. It was not psychosimatic or mental. Whatever caused the decrease in their pain and illness was worth it to me as a "parent". Itjust took me a while and it was My decision to take it outside. This had no bearing on my being brainwashed at
all. My kids had broken limbs, fractured skulls, and the general assortment of diseases and germs that most kids go through.
Yes, please stand up for your rights.
You have been treated like 2nd class citzens and discriminated against. I really am on your side as long as your facts, studies, statistics, are questioned with the same open mind as tobacco controls studies that have been proven to be mostly lies and junk. Thanks
Rose;
"If they do not respond, it will be proof beyond any possibility of a doubt that none of these people, agencies or non-profit enterprises give a damn about children; they are just tying to further a political agenda based on lies, for profit, just like any other pyramid scam."
Have you ever seen an American beer commercial? Marketing to youth in exactly the same way they describe the Tobacco Industry did it. Not surprisingly it works for cigarettes and not alcohol?
The reality is the ads are not as effective in creating childhood alcoholics because possession is unlawful, unlike cigarettes where supplying them is unlawful which invents much larger fines to obstruct ant feeling of compassion one might feel, when supplying a cigarette to a teen.
If you need decisive proof of the crocodile tears "for the children" try to convince a TC advocate to join in a demand to make possession of cigarettes by children unlawful.
You will get a lot of double talk and finger pointing what you will never see is commitment.
That should stand as all the proof anyone needs to demonstrate this has nothing to do with "protecting children" it has everything to do with oppression and imposition by what ever excuse is available.
Similarly they avoided like the plague a proposal to build smoke free rooms in bars as opposed to the backward logic of smoking rooms which never offer anyone a comfortable solution.
The day will come when all of TC efforts will be laid to waste, when a supreme court is asked if it is legal for the state to "protect someone" of sound mind and spirit, against their will.
David,
For the record, I too beleive that smoking in moderation (my own definition is less than 10 cigarettes a day) has health benefits for some people while it might prove hazardous to some others. It is up to the individual and their unbiased doctor to make the decision if the benefits outweigh potential risks. Case in point, my better half never felt worse than when he quit smoking. He discovered that he had ulcerative colitis and was only acting up when he was smoke-free. As soon as he restarted smoking everything fell back in order and he's not the only one, I know of others. One lady would go wacky any time she quit smoking. To the point that she had suicidal attempts (whether because of the effects of the pills that they were making her ingest to control her moods or because of the benefits she was no longer getting from nicotine or possibly nicotinic acid, I don't know). Everything went back in order when she restarted smoking and gave up her medication under her unbiased doctor's advice.
The problem is that Big TC (even the more ethical ones) want to make these decisions for everyone. Which is wrong very wrong and often causes more problems than what it tries to solve.
It's certainly not a hard sell for people who experienced it first hand and are still experiencing it. As for the others, noone has to sell them anything as long as Big Anti T stays out of people's decisions and personal lives. Big Anti T must be told in no uncertain terms to either educate based on truth and proven facts or take a long hike never to return.
BTW
The constitution of any free and democratic society, is only inches from a paper shredder, should the supreme court side with the many lower courts, who have ignored the validity of personal and parental autonomy, when it conflicts with the will of the state. Normalcy gained in its oppressive treachery, by moralist bandwagons, by fear mongering and by propaganda campaigns.
...and blood is drawn.
David, I must say that you appear to have very thin skin. You removed yourself from this forum months ago because you felt picked on and mentioned it on your most recent interview. Your latest response appears filled with defensiveness.
I've got to ask why you are taking another's response so personal? What others believe is what others believe. You know what works for you, your family, and the children you hope to reach.
ladyraj, I removed myself from the blog several months ago, because what I was reading was of little value to me with regard to learning anything. It was just more of the same old thing. It's no secret that venting is good for the soul, but the pissing contests created by words do very little for me. At times this blog can be valuable,other times exhausting. I tell you, "I think my baby is beautiful, you say "I don't think your baby is beautiful". Are either of us lying or wrong? Am I more right than you? Do you have photos of my baby with warts all over it's head? It's in the perspective.
The opinions others have is fine. After a while that sort of "bantering" just becomes "bashing"( IN MY OPINION) so you remove yourself as I did, watch where it is going, ask yourself has anything changed, is progress being made, am I being understood/misunderstood, doing more harm than good ? If I choose to do that, does that make me thin skinned? I don't think so. It's not like I'm taking my ball and heading home and won't play anymore.
Also, I think it is still true to this day, that there are problems on both sides of this issue and possibly, I am more thin skinned the Dr. Michael S. Some people can let it roll off their back with and OMG or WTF . I am a why person that takes things personal, I like harmony, and I wish we could have more of that. You'll say well, "that's just not how it is... Life sucks...get over it....you're in the wrong line of work" etc. I try not to be that cynical. One of my many flaws which I recognize and will try to work on.
David, will you ever reveal the "truths" about tobacco control???
Ruth Ann
Oh yeah,, I've had to develop a pretty thick skin being out in the public with all the criticism and accusations that have been thrown at me. Because in public I can respond one on one. Reporters don't know how to respond to me when I express my views. When you are on the computer it's easy to take shots while sitting in front of a monitor in the dark of night. I'm not saying that is what Michelle was doing, because it appears she, like me can take damn good care of herself and has great insight, comebacks and observations to share
and think she is ballsy enough to take her opinions public and outside of this site. She may be doing that. I just don't know that much about her, but I would like to. It seems that I'm at an unfair advantage
since I'm splayed out for public consumption which by the way was my choice and not forced on me by anyone. Not looking for a pity party
because you won't get that here and I've never liked pity parties. Just do more than talk is all I would like to see.
David
You still didn't get my message. Maybe because you were filtering it through your own personal experiences?
You worked as a spokesperson for a tobacco company. At the end of the day, you didn't like that they were marketing to kids and turned against BT.
You have willingly exposed yourself for years to the lies of TC and thought you were doing a "good thing" by talking to kids about smoking. How did you frame it again? "getting them to think for themselves".
The lies must stop David - they must stop all the way around and the first thing is to challenge everything YOU think.
You were not standing in an auditorium of kids "getting them to think for themselves" - you were standing in an auditorium getting them to think like TC.
Can you tell me what the difference is between falling for one kind of marketing or another?
I challenge you to stop lieing and admit that you weren't teaching kids HOW to think - you were teaching them WHAT to think!!!
Michelle
(rant continued)
You say you are "protecting" your children when you don't allow them to be exposed to ETS - that they get ear infections and other types of infections.
Please explain to me how sterile smoke is the source of infections caused by bacteria and viruses?
Do you intend for these children to live in the world at some point in time?
It is already proved that ETS and smoking do not cause asthma. It is proven that ETS is not even the most prominant trigger for asthma and no one can be allergic to smoke.
It is already proven that "smoke" is all around us in the form of vehicle exhaust, diesel exhaust, candles, bbq's, campfires, fireplaces and wood burning stoves. There is also chemical exposure from the evaporation and curing of building materials, cooking fumes, formaldehydes coming from our own bodies and chemical air fresheners and cleaners.
And yet despite this factual evidence - you persist in thinking you are "protecting" your children when you limit their exposure to ETS???
It is a LIE David and a very very dangerous lie at that. If you truly believe that children must be protected from ETS then there is no excuse for allowing smokers to raise their own children!
How is ETS different from the air pollution they are exposed to every single day when they ride in a car?
I am throwing down the gauntlet here David - prove your belief or stop saying it. Your belief is an extreme threat to my natural right to parent my own children. I have to stop you and I have to stop TC or I will not only lose my civil rights, I will my natural right to raise my own children as I believe.
When your children have an asthma attack - how do you know when it is caused by ETS or invisible pollen or dustmites or even cockroach poop?
Where is your evidence David?
You challenged children to challenge the marketing of BT. Now I challenge you to challenge the marketing of TC.
Explain to me - if you can - how would your children have survived even 50 years ago in a home where coal or oil or wood was burned for heating and cooking if they can't be exposed to the smoke from the burning of 0.45 grams of dried leaves?
How are your children surviving massive exposure to the burning of diesal fuels and fossil fuels now?
Explain to me by what physical evidence you can that somehow magically your children are "better" without exposure to the very least of all the air pollutants that could trigger an asthma attack. How is it that they do not fall over in wheezing fits when they walk beside a road with their little breathing zone right in line with truck exhausts equal in particulate emissions to 35,000 cigarettes but react to the burning of 1 cigarette.
Is your belief based on science or is your belief part of the tenants of your faith in a health based religious cult?
You see yourself as a do-gooder. It is people like you - who interfere in the lives of others with no thought of the consequences or the costs.
What is that number again - 880 million dollars of tax money being spent on TC to "help the kids not start to smoke". And who benefits from this money? Why the kids that look like yours. The kids who grow up in middle-class homes, for the most part in security and with little real want.
Of what value or relevance in the message of TC for the kids who must cope with gangs trying to induct them, who must run from the drug dealers and cope with alcholism?
Let me tell you what - for these kids, your message is worse than irrelevant. It is of less value than the sweat from my ass.
But where is the 880 million dollars coming from - that is right - from the parents of the poor kids! Who must then make the grocery dollar stretch a little further.
I am sick to death of the "if one life is saved, it will be worth it"
You want to save lives - use $880 million dollars to fund education and resources in poor neighbourhoods - don't take it to put frills on your own kids already secure lives.
Tell me David - after you have finished "protecting" your kids to death - how will they be fit to live in the adult world were exposure to ETS may not be so easy to avoid?
Would I give a cigarette to my own kids - Yes I have! There is nothing like a dose of reality to take the mystery out of things now is there. Last kid I allowed to smoke was my 8 year old grandson. Taught him how to inhale and all. I also made him do research on the risks of smoking and talked to him about the benefits. To the best of my knowledge, he hasn't smoked since then and he is now 13.
You say that you know now that TC are really zealots but like the good Doctor - you are unwilling to challenge the tenants of your chosen religion. You want to slam TC as liars and then turn around and make statements about needing to "protect" the children.
You know that TC lied about exposure to ETS and yet somehow you think the lies are true if they apply to children????
Sorry that last anonymous post was me.
I am not telling you what to think David - I am challenging you to learn HOW to think.
Michelle
Michelle, "Let me tell you what-for these kids, your message is worse than irrelevant. It is of less value than the sweat from my ass".
When and where exactly did you ever see my program(s)? I'm just curious. Or is your rant based on suspicion or something you heard ?
If you are basing this on what you know I said, it becomes fair game. If you have never seen my program , maybe this conversation should be stopped and the other posters not forced to hear it.
My email is kgkjkl@yahoo.com if you care to continue this in private.
Is there any reason to continue this in private David. I certainly have no problem discussing this in public.
Everything you ever said for both BT and TC - you said publically. Why would you need privacy now?
No I have never heard your talk. But I am human and I know life.
At 14, I was recovering from the loss of my nephew to SIDS at 3 months of age, while I was babysitting. I was working a full 8 hour shift during the week-days in my mother's corner store while trying to avoid the hands of the alcoholics that hung around with my mother (including my stepfather). I wasn't always successful.
At 15, I had to quit school and work full-time to support my family (3 little sisters and a little brother) while my mother lay dying of breast cancer.
At 16, I was orphaned with $25.00 in my pocket and running from the Children's Aid.
I didn't drink, I didn't do drugs and I wasn't sexually active. I also didn't take any prescribed drugs for severe depression. But I smoked. And I liked it! And it relieved the stress that people like you think teenagers don't have!
I remember the anti-tobacco lectures from school. There was one moment when someone asked "how long does it take for smoking to hurt you" and I clearly remember the response "about 20 seconds". And I knew at that moment that everything I was hearing was likely a lie.
What value was anti-tobacco to me in the situation I was in. If not for smoking to soothe me, there would have to have been something else and the choices are myriad. And of all the available choices - the one that has the greatest chance of hurting me the least is smoking.
I have a sister who turned to prescribed drugs - that woman is the most unhealthy woman you can imagine.
I could have turned to sex. The latest trend is for kids to participate in "rainbow parties" - that is where girls leave as many different colours of lipstick on the dipstick.
I could have turned to alcohol but then my life expectancy would be in my 50s.
I could have turned to hard drugs - like crack, meth or heroine but that doesn't lead to a very healthy life does it?
Of the all the choices available to me - smoking did it all! And still does. I am now in my 50s, reasonably healthy, productive and still smoking.
There are thousands and thousands and thousands of kids - many of them just like me. Especially when you consider third world countries.
And that is why your presentation is irrelevant. Because you assume that without smoking, everyone's life will be better. But the truth is contained in the law of unintended consequences. Without smoking - there will be something else. There has to be because we are human and because real life isn't reflected in the white suburban faces of the kids you talked to. Those lucky kids are actually a smaller minority of what kids face growing up. Especially when you consider third world conditions, conditions in the ghetto and barrios and inner cities.
Now please be polite. I have answered your questions - answer mine.
How does sterile ETS cause infections your children? How does protecting them from exposure to ETS make their asthma better in light of the other irritants already present in their lives?
Michelle
We have before us two combatants ...both seasoned by life experience and possessing extraordinary articulation skills. I am all a-twitter just waiting to watch these two go head to head.
Though I love the sentiment of "sweat from my ass" I believe the judges would call that a low blow (once they can get up from the floor without laughing).
Let's see if the gauntlet is taken up...
I think the issues Michelle brings forward are worth the discussion. I'm asking myself these same questions and I would really appreciate to hear David's take on them, based on his experience.
Here we habe somebody who has seen both sides of the issue, maybe we can gain a broader and better understanding of what how advocacy works and social engineering.
http://www.activistcash.com/orga...iew.cfm/oid/
444
THE REAL FOUNDATION OF MORALIST AUTHORITY IN PUBLIC HEALTH, SEEMS TO BE DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE DEEPEST POCKETS OF THOSE WITH THE MOST TO GAIN.
Protecting children? Get real. Advertising works, it wouldn't cost so much if it didn't. When the med community and government agencies take off the normal restrictions, it sells a lot more. People living with a false faith in the very people who should be enforcing the law, don't stand a chance.
"Doubles your chances of quitting" is an outright lie and a false advertisement, which would be no different than a tobacco company telling people that "smoking will add 20 years to your life." The result, if that ever occurred, would be obvious. Why are the scam artists selling smoking patches allowed to keep up their lies, without complaint or convictions?
Deep pockets tells the truth of the situation, in spite of all the highbrow denials.
From the link above;
What TC are really promoting is closer to a huge payday, than any legitimate concern for people or their children;
""We're not doing this to make trial lawyers rich," insisted Richard Daynard at PHAI's 2003 conference. This from a man who, according to Boston Magazine in 2003, "got more than $1 million" for his tobacco attack, from which he draws inspiration to assail food. And Daynard later sued two attorneys for a bigger share of litigation settlements, claiming he made a handshake agreement for five percent of a multi-billion-dollar windfall in legal fees. Rebuffing this money grab, Daynard's fellow trial lawyer called him "greedy."
Daynard's altruistic spin is rejected by the omnipresent obesity shark John Banzhaf, who told CNBC: "The very fact that lawyers are going to be making money out of [suing restaurants] is exactly what we're counting on, 'cause that's what made it with tobacco." At the 2004 conference he reiterated: "When lawyers see how lucrative these are they will all join on." "
The plan is described pretty clearly, in absolutely plain and direct language, no level of denials or wails "for the children" can diffuse or obscure the real intent.
Public Health worships only GREED.
I just love the banter between David and Michelle. Great points are being made.
Michelle, I never lived your life but as a student of life, I understand it. To bad others haven't a clue, but of course, they are to busy telling us they know better than we ourselves knows about ourselves.
Diane;
"I just love the banter between David and Michelle. Great points are being made."
What is important and satisfying is the discussion, regardless of what side of the debate your on, you have to appreciate a forum which includes both opinions.
A defect in the broader healthscare community, that is getting people's attention of late, is the tendency to take extreme positions, allowing no one a say, in what they will decide for us, as dictated by daily proclamations in news releases.
Conflicted interests, who could suggest such a thing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Joh..._D._Rockefeller
"Standard Oil was convicted in Federal Court of monopolistic practices and broken up in 1911. Rockefeller spent the last 40 years of his life in retirement. His fortune was mainly used to create the modern systematic approach of targeted philanthropy with foundations that had a major effect on medicine, education, and scientific research."
The evidence suggest that what was brought to science and medicine [some call it Rockefeller's revenge] was a time honored family tradition.
[Dominance by monopolistic practices]
http://www.activistcash.com/foun...ion.cfm?
did=166
"Grant $120,000.00 in 1995
Source Chronicle Of Philanthropy
Details For the Environmental Media Services project to assist its efforts to educate journalists -- grant made via the Tides Foundation"
Michelle - At 13 I weighed 233 pounds, had man breasts was cross -eyed til I had surgery at Will Eye Hospital, wet the bed until I was 16 and was the son of a Baptist preacher, whose father and mother thought God would take care of me.
Yeah, I think I know a little about crappy life can be. Others have it worse, some have it better. Yeah, I tell kids all of this and show pictures. I started smoking at 13.
Got married at 20 and wanted a better life for my kids than I had.
Barely got out of high school. Never went to college. Worked 3 jobs
when my pregnant wife had to quit work in her 3rd month due to "spotting". Was smoking 2 packs a day at that time to handle the stress. Loved it. Needed it and had to have it. Wife never went back to work for the next 19 years.
My kids are now 26, 31, and 38. I have three grandkids. My daughter wants a better life for her kids and so on and so on. My daughter and her husband who has been out of work for 14 months, got his GED,and now works 2 jobs. She strugggles with her weight, just like her old man does. Has little or no money.
I have lived lifes lessons as well and it still blows.
To be polite and answer your ?????
Here is the link to the 1st of 46 I could send you if needed.
It is from the "Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry"
From what I am told they take no money from either BT or TC. Could they be lying ? Maybe. Based on my research it has peer reviewed 6 times and verified ??? Sometimes you just gotta believe. Maybe not.
It is the Case Study in Environmental Medicine and the triggers of Asthma, Treatment, and Prevention. It has the Treatment and Management Overview...Predisposing factors....Exposures to Allergens and Risk of Asthma....Hygiene Hypothesis...Primary Prevention in children....Primary prevention in Adults....Secondary Prevention in Children and Adults....Dust mites....
Animal Allergens....Cockroach Allergens.....Mold and Mildew....Environmental Tobacco Smoke or ETS...( a favorite at all parties)....Indoor Air Polution....Outdoor Air Polution....
Desentisization....
www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/asthma/.htmltreatment
As I said this is just one of 46 available that i have read and tried to verify.
Read the ETS part and let me know if you think it's bullshit. It might be, but I claim to just not know for sure. I've talked to experts and they seem to think it's valid. The experts I've talked to, to the best of my knowledge have no hidden agenda.
But this too can make one pause to wonder. In my life, commonsense and logic prevails( at least I try).
I have others if this doesn't answer your question for now. Not trying to be snippy, just tired.
UH David;
You might wish to reconsider your evidence; The conflicts of opinion right out of the gate here suggests Tobacco Smoke was added for reasons beyond explanation; The points oppose each other.
Increased incidence with decreased exposures doesn't exactly make for a convincing argument???
" * Asthma is a chronic inflammatory disease of the airways.
* Over the past decade, the prevalence of asthma in children and adults has increased in the United States.
* Environmental exposures to allergens, air pollutants, and environmental tobacco smoke, and workplace exposures can cause and exacerbate asthma.
* Control of environmental exposures can significantly improve the quality of life of people with asthma."
Oh I see what they are saying; All is fair as long as no one is responsible.
"The state of knowledge regarding the treatment of patients potentially exposed to hazardous substances in the environment is constantly evolving and is often uncertain. In this educational monograph, ATSDR has made diligent effort to ensure the accuracy and currency of the information presented, but makes no claim that the document comprehensively addresses all possible situations related to this substance. This monograph is intended as an educational resource for physicians and other health professionals in assessing the condition and managing the treatment of patients potentially exposed to hazardous substances. It is not, however, a substitute for the professional judgment of a health care provider. The document must be interpreted in light of specific information regarding the patient and in conjunction with other sources of authority.
Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Department of Health and Human Services
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Toxicology and Environmental Medicine
Environmental Medicine and Educational Services Branch
Next Section
* Links to non-federal organizations are provided solely as a service to our users. These links do not constitute an endorsement of these organizations or their programs by CDC, ATSDR or the federal government, and none should be inferred. CDC and ATSDR are not responsible for the content of the individual organization Web pages found at these links.
"
David
You are ducking the questions and you know it!
People like you have deprived me of social resources and stolen my money! I deserve a better answer! And you deserve to finally finally learn to think for yourself instead of falling for the marketing of one side and then the other.
How could the children of man have survived a millenia of being wreathed in smoke created when organics were burned to heat homes and cook food?
How can your children survive and "do better" if protected from the smoke from the burning of an ounce or so of dried leaves while they are still surrounded by the smoke of produced from the burning of fossil fuels.
How does sterile ETS cause infections?
The "studies" are irrelevant in the face of an entire generation of children with an evolutionary shift in the hyper response of their respiratory systems that occurred while the smoking rate was decreasing and they were being exposed to less and less ETS.
And still you profess your moral superiority because "you won't apologise for protecting the children".
I was polite and answered your questions David - you owe me answers as well.
You owe me and yourself the right to finally "think independently"
So tell me David - think of all the presentations you made to all those kids and compare that to how smoking felt to you at 13 - would your own presentation have been relevant to you or would it have been less value than the "sweat off your own ass"?
The kids you think you saved from smoking either would not have been smokers in the first place and/or chose a more risky option to soothe themselves in the face of life's difficulties.
Michelle
Anti-smokers say that smoking has no value for the smoker. I can tell you that it does. When I was 30, my then husband had an affair that nearly killed me. I was weak and unable to handle the trauma. The woman in question would call my house up to 50 times a day and hang up. She came to my house to give me details of the affair. I could not sleep, sometimes for days at a time, and my eyes were so dry that they hurt. At the same time, my father was diagnosed with colon cancer. I wanted to die but something prevented me from taking my own life, so I went through the motions of life. The ONLY pleasure I had was smoking. When I had lain in bed for hours attempting to fall asleep and failing, I gave up and wondered my dark house. There was that small comfort in flicking the lighter and escaping with the pleasure of a good cig. Had I turned to other substances, I would have lost my teaching job, and that would have been the final straw. Without smoking, I would have turned to eating, and that would have spiralled me further into that abyss of depression. Without the smokes, I would have died...plain and simple. Perhaps there were other ways, but I could not find them although I did my damndest to do so. I got through it all and have no regrets. If the cigs kill me now or in the near future, I can tell you without doubt that what some would call a premature death presently would be nothing compared to the prematurity of a senseless suicide at 30.
The rest of the story?
Actual statement;
""can"" ""cause"" ""and"" ""exacerbate"" asthma."
exacerbate;
http://www.thefreedictionary.com....com/
exacerbate
Cause;
http://www.brainyquote.com/
words...ause142067.html
Can;
http://www.answers.com/topic/can
David,
Just trying to help. With the medical establishment adopting an absolute antismoking stance and the denormalization of smokers/smoking, ETS has been used as an idea of control of smokers over the last number of decades. It has been ‘implicated’ in a number of illness possibilities, asthma being one of them. To get a better understanding of the situation, we need to consider prevailing views on asthma before the smoking stance occurred. Smoke, whether it was from tobacco, heating or cooking, was never considered to be a trigger for asthma. There was also a demonstrated psychogenic aspect in some asthmatics some of the time. Psychogenic does not mean that asthmatics are faking an attack. It is usually an anxiety reaction (potentially emotional) that triggers and exacerbates an asthma attack. Asthmatics were also advised to try to ‘check’ an attack in the first few seconds, trying to slow-breathe and calm themselves. There is even the Buteko Technique which is a simple breathing technique attempting to alleviate, minimize and avoid attacks. (http://buteykotechnique.com/ ) It can often be the case that the initial constriction of the airways produces a fear reaction that further fuels the attack. All of the thought level of the illness has been removed from the current view. This is not an evolution, but a regression in understanding. It comes from a materialist domination of medicine where the illness-onset and course is entirely ‘explained’ by externalities, and where ETS has been included as one of those externalities.
It should not be surprising that even ‘official’ organizations have adopted the ‘ETS as an asthma trigger’ position while other sources of smoke are not considered triggers. They are simply reflecting the official antismoking stance. Don’t even attempt to answer the question as to how ambient smoke (whatever its source) is an asthma trigger. Officialdom would be hard-pressed to answer the question. ETS has simply been included (with no explanation) in the list of triggers.
_
RickDP, before I get back to Michelle and Sheri since your information is helpful, I'd like to ask you a question. Don't know if you smoke or not, but if you did, would you have a problem smoking around a child who had some kind of breathing issue ? If you did have a problem with smoking around a child with asthma what would be your answer to the discussion we are having? I'm not talking science, just general banter. If you don't or wouldn't have a problem with it, can you at least accept the fact that some people would take issue with that decision? I'll agree that we are brainwashed with so much, but at some point with science being debatable, Independent thinking has to override all of it. I'll answer questions, but I am not now , nor ever professed to be a scientist, physician, epidemiologist, or pharmacologist, so when asked to provide debatable science to align itself to commonsense and logic in my Independent Thinking process it
becomes irrelevant and an exercise in futility in this forum. Again, I know you are trying to help. Just curious about your personal feelings if you care to share.
Michelle - Don't know what questions I'm ducking. You asked for a study of ETS and Asthma. I offered one and if you choose not to accept it, then I think it's your place to refute it. Every piece of science will be debatable. If you do refute it, that's your perogative. Why do I have to refute it, because you say so. You are the one that told me to be an independent thinker. If you think I should be an independent thinker and I think differently than you and I shouldn't have a problem. I think alot of the science is crap
but then on the other hand some makes sense to me.
Science says that if you are HIV positive and you have unprotected sex you are at risk of spreading the disease to people who do not yet have the HIV virus.
Is everyone who has unprotected sex with someone who is HIV positive going to get the disease ? Probably not. Too many variables re; genetics, diet, luck, heredity, shape of immune system etc.
My wife had a test when she was pregnant with our third child (amniocantesus) not sure if it is spelled correctly. The Dr. told us it was a boy....it was a girl. Some people can smoke until they are 80 and be fine. Some people can smoke and be dead at 55. There are studies and studies and studies. I question most of them, not just the ones that are convenient to me.
I'll send other studies but it is probably futile. You told me I owe you and myself the right to think independently. Michelle, I don't owe you anything except respect as a fellow human being and you already have it.
Two things hit me immediately from the Michelle/ David "debate." First: there are no valid generalizations when it comes to human beings-- no "one size" prescriptions. TC is all about the promotion of "one size" and trying to cram everyone into that size, no matter how badly it fits.
If David believes his smoke triggers his kids' asthma and his kids believe that it does, I have no problem at all with his not smoking around them and no desire at all to convince him to do otherwise. It's none of my damn business. The problem, David, comes when you attempt to generalize; and attempt to tell other parents what to do or, even worse, try to force them to do it by law or more subtly by "education" in the form of intimidation. There are too many billions of children who grew up (and even now are quite comfortably growing up) around mommy and daddy's smoke and are perfectly healthy. And telling them, asking them and eventually forcing them to "take it outside" makes no sense at all. Don't generalize.
The second thing is that children (as opposed to The Children™) are actually human beings just like adults and subject to the same slings and arrows as their elders. Both you and Michelle had some tough early times and both of you found relief in the simple art of smoking. Some people do; some people don't. But why would you presume to tell other teens-on-the-rocks that they absolutely must not seek that relief? Life is tale of trade-offs. What gets you through the night might (or might not) harm you tomorrow morning but... it got you through the night.
If I'm mischaracterizing what you're saying, I'll apologize in advance. And I'd genuinely, open-mindedly like to know exactly what it is you say in your lectures. Can you offer us a summary?
:
:
On asthma. Okay, there's conflicting science. But there's also a lot of evidence of conflict of interest on the part of the government and its various bureaucracies. This from an article:
"Dr. Fernando Martinez, director of Respiratory Sciences at the U of Arizona College of Medicine and-- more notably-- the author of the EPA's chapter on asthma, co-author of its chapter on respiratory "risks," made a startling statement about his previous misconceptions in an article in The Atlantic in May, 2000, "Does Civilization Cause Asthma?" by Ellen Shell:
"Like most people, I assumed tobacco smoke and pollution were the problem-- that was the politically correct way to think. But these factors turned out not to play a major role."
Repeat: This is the guy who both wrote (and threw) the book at ETS for the EPA. Why? Because it seemed to be a fashionable theory, one professed by the Right-Minded. Call it peer-pressured thinking. Or Post-Modern Science. And besides, to think otherwise was tantamount to heresy. (And no way to get a job.)
Let's go back to the EPA and concentrate first on its theory of "causation," and how it came to be.
After looking at the EPA's data on asthma -- as laid out neatly in its final Report, its Advisory Board concluded there was insufficient evidence to claim that ETS causes new cases of asthma. The Chairman of the Board then repeated this conclusion in testimony to Congress, stating unequivocally that no causal link had been established between the two.
(-SAB Report:"Review of the Draft Passive Smoking Health Effects Document," Nov , 1992; and "Environmental Tobacco Smoke," Hearing before the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment,July 21, 1993)
In a formal critique of the EPA Report by its Risk Assessment Office, a reviewer cautioned strongly that ETS must NOT (emphasis his) be "portrayed as a public health risk to the general non-[genetically] predisposed population."("Internal Comments on the EPA Report,"from Departmental Director, Terry Harvey.)
Yet the Agency, intent upon making the case for "cause," not only failed to modify its leapt-to conclusion but appended a body count: "8,000 to 26,000 cases a year" was the number of new cases "attributable to ETS exposure from mothers who smoke at least 10 cigarettes per day." (EPA 8-15)
Even though its causal nature was "not established" (and was later shown to be wrong)."
To be continued.........
From the same article:
"And here's another spaniard in the EPA's works, one that's nestled within its pages:
'Children whose mothers had 12 or fewer years of formal education and smoked 10 or more cigarettes per day had an increased risk for developing asthma. However,the increased risk disappeared if the mothers had more than 12 years of formal education." EPA p 7-50; Emphasis added]
Um. Say what?
What does the ETS (or the asthma, for that matter) really care if the mother got a college degree or not? Any more than, say, the chicken pox would readily be deterred by a doctorate in poetics? Surely something else was involved.
Then, too, these are excerpts from the EPA's comments on the three other studies it included in its report (for a grand total of 4).
WEITZMAN ET AL, 1990 "No information was available on parental respiratory symptoms [a clue to genetic factors] or socioeconomic status [a
correlative of going/not going to college]. The results of this study could be explained partially by the overreporting of asthma" (EPA p 7-49)
BURCHFIELD ET AL, 1986 "An increased risk for males with two smoking parents, but not for girls and not for children with one parental smoker. Reporting bias and diagnostic bias may in part explain the relationships reported in this study; smoking parents may be more likely to report asthma in their children, and/or physicians may be more prone to diagnose asthma in the children of smoking parents." (EPA, p 7-44; Emphasis added)
SHERMAN ET AL, 1990. This prospective study of 770 school children did not find an effect of maternal smoking on asthma prevelance at the
inception of the study or on incidence during the 11 years of follow-up (CALEPA, 1997) EPA adds it "made no effort to assess the effect of heavy smoking by parents, nor was there control for socioeconomic status." (p 8-10)
Undeterred, the EPA added to its conclusions of putative causation, that "In summary, there are no single or combined confounding factors that can explain the observed respiratory effects of passive smoking." (8-2)
Yet, reviewing this section in the Advisory Board meeting of 1992:
DR. JAMES WOODS: "..on the comment about no single or combined confounding factor explains the observed respiratory effects, I'm not sure that any have been studied-- and certainly not to the point that you can say that with certainty. So there's going to have to be some kind of hedging with regard to the confounders." (Meeting Transcript p II-132)
DR. HOWARD ROCKETTE: "..I had some concerns over the way some of the confounding was discussed...I see nothing here that rules those [other confounders] out. That's almost a nonsequitur to have that just implying those con-founders away." (Transcript p II-127)
That was in July. Again, the EPA had a chance to re-vise its work. But again it chose not to.
(All the above is based on the testimony of Martha Perske before the House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, March 17, 1994)
:
Final segment, same source:
"What DOES cause asthma? Not ETS.
"Passive cigarette smoke often has been thought to increase the risk of asthma but studies to date [1999] have not demonstrated this association convincingly." (-Stemple et al, "Risk factors for acute exacerbations of asthma symptoms," ALA/ATS Intl Conf, Ap 25,1999
Nor is it any kind of universal trigger in the case of existing asthma:
"...the presence of domestic tobacco smoke did not affect any of the spirometric measurements." (-Leung et al, "Allergen Sensitization in Asthmatic Children," HK Med Jnl, 6:4, Dec. 2000; similarly, Ownby et al, "Passive Exposure to cigarette smoking does not increase allergic sensitization," J. Allerg Clin Immunol, 82, 1988; also Von Mutius, "The environmental predictors of allergic disease," J. Allerg Clin Immunol, 105, 2000
Similarly, epidemiological studies attempting to implicate smoke as a trigger in existing asthma, have shown mixed or contradictory findings both between and within the studies themselves. Evans (1987) reported that "ETS exposure was not associated with either hospitalizations [for asthma] or with percent predicted lung function." Murray et al (1993) reported in a case control study that "airway reactivity showed no marked difference...within either group," and that "improvements in pulmonary function test values occurred regardless of the smoking status of either parent." Ehrlich (1992) found "the difference was not statistically significant."
And one final thing: Since 1980 the death rates for asthma in America have doubled .Even as the rate of smoking has declined-- in general, in public, and also within the home--especially homes with children.
Or to make that specific:
According to the government's National Health Survey,in 1970, 62% of children were exposed to smoke at home; in 1988, 42.4% of children; in 1991 (the last year for which we have data) it was 37%. (NHIS, 1988, 1991) And yet:
"The rate of reported asthma deaths among young people more than doubled between 1980 and 1993...The overall rate of death from Asthma among all people from birth to age 24 increased 118% [during the same period.]"
This article may, or not, be on the Clash website.
:
OK, I concede
Tobacco Smoke May Act as Antidepressant Drug
"Chronic smokers have biological changes in the brain similar to those caused by antidepressant drugs, according to a study gaining national attention.
The finding possibly explains an added difficulty in smoking cessation as well as a reason for the high rate of smoking among people with depression, said University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMC) scientists in Jackson who led the study."
"The investigators said the biological changes probably are not caused by the nicotine in tobacco alone, if at all. It appears that a compound produced when tobacco burns causes the changes in the brain; that compound probably includes a nitrate, they said"
"Specifically, long-term smoking appears to inhibit monoamine oxidase (or acts as an MAO inhibitor). Monoamine oxidase is the enzyme that metabolizes monoamines -- such as norepinephrine, dopamine and serotonin, Klimek explained. The locus coeruleus produces norepinephrine. Drugs that inhibit monoamines are antidepressants.
Nicotine, Ordway added, does have antidepressant qualities, but is not an MAO inhibitor.
"It's uncertain whether chronic smokers have these brain characteristics before they start smoking, which could increase their susceptibility to becoming smokers. But Ordway said investigators suspect smoking itself causes the neurochemical changes"
http://mentalhealth.about.com/
li...blsmoke1001.htm
Side Effects of Antidepressants
"IT IS BECOMING clearer and clearer that antidepressants are far from benign drugs. And unfortunately, the combination of depression and medication, as well as still being very much trial and error, has some unique worries due to the nature of the condition itself."
" The overwhelming popularity of SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) was in part due to their apparent "safety" over more toxic drugs when used improperly. Some of the Tricyclics are extremely toxic in overdose, such as Dothiepin, Amitriptyline and Imiprimine.
However, in addition to other dangers, there is also an established direct link between suicide and violent behaviour and the use of SSRIs.
Actually, all the effects, even the desired effects, can be considered a side effect of taking a pill. The reason there are so many side effects with antidepressants, is really due to the lack of full understanding about how antidepressants, and depression, affect the brain."
"Antidepressant treatment is often very much "a sledgehammer to crack a nut", especially in cases of mild to moderate depression. Bombarding an incredibly delicate and well balanced system with external chemicals on a long-term basis is bound to create unpleasant side effects. One of the desired side effects is to change the mood of the person taking the antidepressant"
http://www.clinical-
depression.c...ide_effects.htm
Tobacco smoking would seem to be considerably safer than putting a child on mind-altering drugs, in difficult circumstances.
I lost my quick temper when I took up smoking, I used to be shoot first and ask questions later,now I respond to a crisis with patience and a steely calm.
Huge improvement for all concerned.
Inhaling medicinal smoke is a perfectly reasonable practice.
"All through time, humans have used smoke of medicinal plants to cure illness. To the best of our knowledge, the ethnopharmacological aspects of natural products’ smoke for therapy and health care have not been studied. Mono- and multi-ingredient herbal and non-herbal remedies administered as smoke from 50 countries across the 5 continents are reviewed.
Most of the 265 plant species of mono-ingredient remedies studied belong to Asteraceae (10.6%), followed by Solanaceae (10.2%), Fabaceae (9.8%) and Apiaceae (5.3%). The most frequent medical indications for medicinal smoke are pulmonary (23.5%), neurological (21.8%) and dermatological (8.1%).
Other uses of smoke are not exactly medical but beneficial to health, and include smoke as a preservative or a repellent and the social use of smoke. The three main methods for administering smoke are inhalation, which accounts for 71.5% of the indications; smoke directed at a specific organ or body part, which accounts for 24.5%; ambient smoke (passive smoking), which makes up the remaining 4.0%.
Whereas inhalation is typically used in the treatment of pulmonary and neurological disorders and directed smoke in localized situations, such as dermatological and genito-urinary disorders, ambient smoke is not directed at the body at all but used as an air purifier.
The advantages of smoke-based remedies are rapid delivery to the brain, more efficient absorption by the body and lower costs of production. This review highlights the fact that not enough is known about medicinal smoke and that a lot of natural products have potential for use as medicine in the smoke form.
Furthermore, this review argues in favor of medicinal smoke extended use in modern medicine as a form of drug delivery and as a promising source of new active natural ingredients."
http://tinyurl.com/6ybwso
Of course you can always use steam.
Its not in the same league as previously discussed of course,but when cooped up,stir crazy children, after a week of constant rain start tearing lumps out of each other, I have had excellent results from using Otto of Roses in an oil burner.
Costs a fortune but its worth it for the peace,it works on irate husbands as well.
http://www.culpeper.co.uk/acatal...ential-
Oil.html
Before the purists start getting peculiar about using mood-altering substances on your children for the sake of peace, its exactly the same stuff that is used in Turkish Delight, so now you are going to have to give that up too.
Hi David,
Fair questions.
I’ll just provide another piece of information. If a child has a smoking parent and is constantly bombarded with the claim that their parent is on the verge of imminent death due to their smoking and can imminently kill the child with ETS, you can begin to understand how this might play on a child’s mind. Anxiety reactions can manifest as somatoform reactions that do not differ all too much from asthma. For example, chest tightness, hyperventilation, heart palpitations, eye irritation, cold sweat. Asthma can be triggered by a psycho-emotional reaction (again anxiety). In the current climate, these reactions will be blamed on ETS, rather than the anxiety about ETS. And, it is in the child’s interest to blame it on the ETS in the hope of alleviating the anxiety and in the interests of ‘self-preservation’. The parent may then smoke outside or even quit. Obviously there will be an improvement in the child, not because of the removal of ETS, but by the removal of the projection point of anxiety. A child may have an asthma attack due to other triggers and still blame it on the ETS for the same reason. Non-asthmatic children might blame any symptom (headaches, sniffles, disquiet) on the ETS. The mind games that can now occur in a household with a smoker are indeed tragic. And, I would call all of these iatrogenic.
I am quite familiar with asthma. And, I can tell you that up to 20-30 years ago, asthma was not a ‘protected’ or coddled illness. An asthmatic child can potentially wreak havoc in a household. Children were encouraged to challenge the bronchio-constrictions. And, a great proportion of those with childhood asthma grow out of the condition. Current bronchio-dialators (e.g., Ventolin) are quite effective in alleviating and preventing attacks. Maybe too effective. The challenge to reactions has been severely downplayed recently, therefore downplaying a critical psychological component in triggering and alleviating attacks.
Let me repeat that ambient smoke, whatever its source, was not considered a trigger for asthma. Ambient smoke was a background phenomenon. Then came TC (the tip of a medical establishment tentacle), and a background phenomenon was turned overnight into a ‘dangerous’ foreground phenomenon. Let’s be even more particular, because it’s a point that Michelle has made. Not any smoke, but only ETS was manufactured into a ‘dangerous’ foreground phenomenon. TC ‘education’ has been a constant fueling of irrational fear and hyper-reactivity in non-smokers. How do you think we’ve gotten to the deteriorated position of non-smokers holding their breath, hands over mouth, running, as they cross someone smoking, as if they are being exposed to a nerve gas? The entire transformation does not reflect the ‘effects’ of ETS, but a deteriorating psychological state in non-smokers – also iatrogenic. Enough said.
To your questions. If I smoked, I personally would not have a problem smoking around adults or children (I don’t think children are that flimsy). Do I accept that some parents might not want their children exposed to ETS? Most certainly. And, in the current antismoking climate, I think most smokers are more aware of where smoking occurs due to the high potential for somatoform reactions and hysterics. For example, although I do not believe that my ETS could trigger an attack (asthmatic or other somatoform) in someone else or their child, I would still prefer that they, even with potential anxiety reactions, not have a psycho-emotionally produced reaction. However, what does concern me is how so many people have arrived at highly-consequential irrational belief producing irrational fear, histrionics/hysterics and hatred. And, one need look no further than the contemporary, materialist medical establishment and its hangers-on (e.g., TC). The situation needs to be addressed, because the circumstance is most unhealthy.
TC advises that smoking should not occur around any child, ill or not, claiming it to be a form of child ‘abuse’. The great abusers are these shallow minds harboring considerable mental dysfunction. When these, of a foolish and immature disposition, that demonstrably understand little about little, are given free-reign to ‘educate’ the public, they can only foster the same dysfunctions in those that heed their ‘teaching’. Take a look at Kevin’s link on activists to get a feel for their actual motivation.
http://www.activistcash.com/orga......iew.cfm/oid/
444
I cannot tell you or anyone else what they should do (smoke or not) in the instance of asthma. You can only go by what you currently believe. If you did what you do not believe, it would produce only more fear – hardly a worthwhile exercise. I would, however, encourage anyone to evaluate the basis for their beliefs. Contemporary (materialist) officialdom concerning public health and policy on lifestyle factors is not a particularly good source of fact, coherent interpretations or advisements. It promotes irrational fear as a matter of course through catastrophization of low-level predictors for illness, some of it very socially divisive.
David, I cover quite a number of these issues in my book. If you email me (email address is at bottom left of my website), I’m quite happy to send you a download link.
_
I notice that investigators are looking into the possibility that M.J.'s death was iatrogenic.
_
OT
It looks like the playing field is being leveled a bit.
A glass of wine with your picnic? It's against the law.
"More than 700 “controlled drinking zones” have been set up across England, giving police sweeping powers to confiscate beer and wine from anyone enjoying a quiet outdoor tipple.
Local authorities are introducing the zones at a rate of 100 a year, The Times has learnt. Some cover whole cities, a radical departure from what the law intended.
Once a control zone is in place, police can seize alcohol from anyone who is not on licensed premises, even if the bottles or cans are unopened. Although drinking is not banned in the zones, police can ask anyone to stop drinking and it is an offence to refuse, punishable by a maximum £500 fine. No explanation or suspicion that the person could be a public nuisance is required. The highest fine will soon rise to £2,500.
Campaigners say that if the rapid spread of the zones is not halted it will soon be impossible to find anywhere to have a picnic or outdoor drink on a summer’s evening." http://
business.timesonline.co.u...icle6571617.ece
"ladyraj, I removed myself from the blog several months ago, because what I was reading was of little value to me with regard to learning anything. It was just more of the same old thing." This blog has never been "more of the same old thing" .You can read it that way if you wish to,or you can read it the way that it really is.What appears to have changed so dramatically David ? Could it be your appreciation and understanding of the process of denormalisation and how it has affected common normal everyday smokers ? Manners and social etiquette have been thrown out of the window,is it any great surprise that to achieve any level of reasoned discussion ,those barriers that have been manufactured by TC ,have to be overcome ? Confidences and trust have to be earned,diplomacy has to be worked at.
David
I will now formally let you off the hook. Not because you deserve to be but because it is obvious that you, like the good doctor, are going to have a very hard time overcoming your TC brainwashing.
I asked you to think - and all you could do was produce studies and provide me with the thoughts of others. Even though the studies are shown to be wrong by the facts, you still credit them as if they were the dead sea scrolls.
You have learned WHAT to think but not HOW to think David.
And now you understand some small portion of how the money used to brainwash little kiddies at school is a waste in terms of the stated purpose.
You weren't teaching kids to think independently. You were spreading lies and propaganda.
Do you owe me - why yes David - YOU DO!
I had a hard grinding life. Now in my 50s I have finally reached a point where I should be able to take advantage of opportunities for social interactions.
And you and the good Doctor have worked very hard to ensure that I can't unless I first submit to the coercion of TC.
I of course, being an independent thinker, absolutely refuse. You have profoundly affected my life in an adverse way.
Now - do you see what happens when you actually allow your victims to speak and have to debate them?
Michelle
Rick;
I am looking forward to reading your book and from the description it is the kind of book which should inspire a trilogy [at least] of movies.
Your insights could be used to confirm the existence of historical events. Following life within the largest crime syndicate on the planet. Similar to the God Father series, a "legitimized" crime syndicate and protection racket that has existed for a hundred years; above the teachings of the church, the law and control by any government.
The Rockefeller saga.
Sorry, Kevin
I don't discuss the Rockefellers in my book. I only found out about them more recently.
_
Way off topic [but not really];
If we could pass a law directing that within 2 years; all oil wells on the planet were to be shut down, until we determined the true magnitude and minimized the risk existing in the link between oil products and cancers;
How long would it take for a cure of cancer to be discovered?
Sorry Rick;
"I don't discuss the Rockefellers in my book. I only found out about them more recently."
What I meant was, the links and falsification of logic, demonstrated by your book could be utilized to deal with the big picture, vested in denials.
Public Health or whatever they like to call it nowadays, is the promotion of a cult worship, with a foundation in materialism. Cult worship which creates caste designations; morality is being designed through media spun PC rules for the majority, aligned with the more than obvious exclusions for the wealthy.
There logically comes a time, when the rich get too rich and the poor get too poor, that something has to change.
Kevin,
The too rich want to get richer still. They want everything: Complete control. They have been claiming for the last 60 years or so that the masses in the West are living too comfortably. Apparently, comfortable living is too much of a burden on the environment. They declare that the masses should adopt a lower standard of living, a gentler effect on the environment – as long as it doesn’t include them, being the ‘ruling’ class.
See Gary Allen “The Rockefeller Files” (free download)
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/gar...y_allen_rocker/
_
Kevin,
Thanks for the activist link. Most interesting – particularly PHAI and the damaged mind of John B. It’s all a fun, money-making game to John, all in the interests of ‘health’. Just play the odds. Somewhere in all the lawsuits there will be a ‘victory’ that will set a precedent. Typical of a self-absorbed narcissist, he wouldn’t have a clue of and couldn’t care less about consequences. Medicine and law are being turned into a dangerous ass (not new – Nazis).
Michelle,
Very reasonable observations and questions.
Michael S.,
Why wouldn’t people be upset? A person that smokes has been checked at every turn. The constant accusers do not miss an opportunity to take another jab at “the smoker”. Their hatred, of their own contrivance, is so focused that it cannot recognize the very substantial consequences, psychological and social, of their conduct – blinded by hatred.
Tobacco smoking has been manufactured into a ‘critical’ aspect of divorce and custody of children. People are considered not worthy of relationship, if they smoke. People are denied employment, if they smoke. People have lost businesses over antismoking. People are constantly harangued about smoking. And, all of it hinges on ETS ‘danger’ – the ‘Godber imperative’.
To public health, all of these consequences are irrelevant. Its membership is too shallow of thought and emotion to care. The ‘important’ point is tobacco control. What is healthy about the circumstance? The perspective has no balance. These are not do-gooders, nor is the greater framework a ‘nanny’ state. The consequences of the conduct can get very nasty. These are given over to a tyrannical mentality. In a healthist tyranny, an upside-down thinking, cruelty is made to appear loving, and attack made to appear as care. The Nazis, healthists in the extreme, were masterful, albeit deranged, at camouflage, hiding their cruelty behind the appearance of benevolence. Consider the ‘caring’ slogan on the entrance-archway at Auschwitz (and other camps) – ‘Work Shall Make You Free’. Or, ‘The Charitable Transport Company for the Sick’ which transported adult patients to the killing centers, while ‘The Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care’ collected the cost of killings from bereaved relatives.
It is not the first time that antismokers have been set loose to wreak havoc on society. And, they are typically given ‘authority’ by the medical establishment when the establishment itself is trying to play god – a role that it is singularly unqualified for. Yet, still does the establishment persist in this destructive folly. Current medicos have learnt nothing from the Nazi experience of little over half a century ago. Many wouldn’t even have a clue that medicos and lawyers were the prime-movers in the Nazi regime. Both medicine and the law were made a dangerous ass. And, the same derangement is being revisited. The antismokers of the time were of the same superficiality as they are now – anyone/anything that is antismoking is ‘good’, anyone/anything not antismoking is ‘evil’. This is the full extent of antismoking ‘reasoning’. It is the medical establishment that is ultimately responsible for setting the antismokers loose, including all of their detrimental consequences (i.e., iatrogenic).
_
Rick;
Most notable among the disbursement of funds from the Rockefeller foundation we see the following;
David Suzuki Foundation $1,085,000.00 1998 – 2001
David Suzuki [A Canadian Al Gore clone] in Canada, is the most well known narrator of globalist fear mongering, at the Government owned CBC. He heads a foundation which is described as environmentalist. His teenage daughter, sits on the board of an environmental globalist group backed by the UN.
The most prominent of their promotions since receiving the grant from the Rockefellers has been in the promotion of; Nuclear power plants, Higher gasoline and electricity pricing, the sale of mercury and phosphor filled light bulbs and increased costs of water. Augmented with their cries for carbon taxes so that big polluting industries, can buy their way out and pass the costs of the most essential products along to consumers.
How logical is that?
http://www.activistcash.com/foun...ion.cfm?
did=166
From another of the Rockefeller franchised retail chain;
http://www.activistcash.com/orga...iew.cfm/oid/
145
"Precautionary Nonsense
Of course, “sufficient” data can never exist for zealots like Rissler. She continued: “Do we assume the technology is safe… or do we prove it? The scientist in me wants to prove it’s safe.” It’s impossible to prove a negative, to absolutely demonstrate that there are no dangers whatsoever for any given product. The scientist in her knows that too, but she and her colleagues at UCS continue to be guided by the “Precautionary Principle.” This misguided maxim argues that, based on the fear that something harmful may possibly arise, we should opt for technological paralysis.
The Wall Street Journal editorialized in 2000 that The Precautionary Principle “is an environmentalist neologism, invoked to trump scientific evidence and move directly to banning things they don’t like.” It’s a big hit among anti-technology activists because it justifies their paranoia and serves to bludgeon technological progress. "
David, I have been on the receiving end of Michelle`s comments many times and we are on the same side. (HUGS)
If you can get passed her style, she does offer an important message. We have to think for ourselves not how people say we have to think.
I have spent the last 5 years trying to find unbiased information on this issue and finally came up with a system that helps me.
An example, I weigh the information of someone studying the cause of breast cancer and a link to ETS higher than someone that is studying ETS and linking it to breast cancer.
Do you see the difference and potential of bias from the latter?
I was shocked to discover that many asthmatics smoke. If ETS was a trigger, how in the world could they smoke?
I also found out that the reason that non smokers suffer more from ETS then smokers, is that the act of smoking makes smokers immune system stronger?? I'm not kidding from TC's own words..
Effects of ETS in Smokers and Nonsmokers
http://www.ehponline.org/members...oward-
full.html
Some studies suggest that active smokers may be less adversely affected by ETS than nonsmokers. Glantz and Parmley (26) have observed that the concentrations of certain antioxidants are much higher in the lungs of hamsters exposed to ETS and in active smokers than in lungs of those not exposed chronically to cigarette smoke. These researchers hypothesize that chronic exposure to cigarette smoke may stimulate protective scavenging systems, and therefore smokers may be less sensitive to damage from free radicals in ETS than nonsmokers. They also describe greater activation of lung neutrophils in nonsmokers than in smokers after ETS exposure. Inappropriately activated neutrophils release oxidants involved in tissue damage. Although data are not available to strongly support this potential hypothesis, it may be speculated that the absence of compensatory mechanisms may cause nonsmokers to be more susceptible to ETS than active smokers.
Lung Association of Saskatchewan
http://www.sk.lung.ca/documents/...e%
20thought.pdf
Nonsmokers may be more susceptible to heart and vascular damage from secondhand smoke than smokers are, even though they absorb much smaller doses of the smoke’s toxins. That’s because smokers develop compensatory responses to some of the adverse cardiovascular effects of cigarette smoke – but nonsmokers don’t get the “benefit” of these adaptive responses.
David, have you read the submission to the National Toxicology Program in 1999 by Littlewood & Fennell titled:TOXIC TOXICOLOGY PLACING SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY AT RISK
You can read the full submission at
http://www.forces.org/evidence/d...oad/
ntp915c.pdf
(don't let the link bias you, I just didn't have time this morning to go to the government site to find it)
The follow are some of the highlights of their comments.
A history of our involvement:
Earlier this year, we undertook a review of the National Toxicology Program's 9th Report on Carcinogens regarding Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS). Our interest in ETS is an outgrowth of an ongoing project involving increased asthma rates in the U.S. What we have found is an negative correlation - smoking rates and exposure to ETS havee markedly decreased while the incidence of asthma has dramatically increased.
RoC meeting transcript:
After expressing our disappointment with these background materials, we received a verbatim transcript of the RoC subcommittee's discussion on ETS's possible listing as a human carcinogen. This was a most illuminating document. It included several informative and sound presentations from outside researchers who had made direct air measurements of ETS exposure, analyzed a variety of animal studies and assessed the raw data from several significant studies upon which the USEPA based its decision on ETS. This complete transcript is markedly different from the publicly posted, abridged version of the meeting available at the NTP website -- which completely conceals any of the twisted reasoning and political maneuvering that actually took place and ignores nearly every salient point made by the outside presenters. I will be happy to provide a copy of the entire transcript to anyone who is interested in the contorted and illogical process by which the subcommittee reached its questionable conclusions.
Unwarranted bias:
During the actual meeting, subcommittee members routinely ignored convincing, well-documented presentations by outside sources - making it abundantly clear that current or past associations with industry rendered these presentations null. Several of these same subcommittee members then proceeded to base their final vote on a rather bizarre suggestion by a self-avowed anti-smoker activist (Repace) -- who proposed that a hypothetically pure control group be used to assess exposures. This is an appalling suggestion to those of us who understand quite clearly that case and control groups should be as alike as possible except for specific exposure to the substance being studied. One subcommittee member went so far as to say that she was comforted by this suggestion since it enabled her to vote on ETS as a carcinogen despite the fact that relative risks in this for ETS were (from her perspective) quite low.
Another sub-committee member stated that he hoped when we get to diesel we will get the same generous interpretation of epidemiology enjoyed by the ETS-as-carcinogen faction. This is science? No. It is politics. And it is insupportable, unacceptable - and, quite possibly, legally actionable.
"” It’s a big hit among anti-technology activists because it justifies their paranoia and serves to bludgeon technological progress. ""
The Cancer society has changed their language from "finding the cure" to "defeating cancer" this was not an accident or oversight.
More an effort of going with the flow The "precautionary principle" has served them quite well, in defending the fact they have received billions for decades and produced nothing but rhetoric and awards for the cult faithful.
Walt, thanks for the comments. There is "no one size fits all" amswer. that is why I have never generalized and never have I told a kid to go home and tell their parents "to take it outside". the ironic part which is what caused my debate with Michelle is that she was generalizing about me and assuming what her preconceived notions were about me WITHOUT EVER having seen, listened to or heard about me. I don't tell the children what to think....I don't tell them life is a piece of cake.....and just suck it up....I don't tell them to go home and waggle their finger at mommy and daddy.....I don't pass out "kiss me I don't smoke buttons".....I don't mention science or statistics at all except for comparing the lack of evidence there is to prove all the HUGE #'s of deaths and disease caused by smoking that they are hearing about almost daily.... I don't tell kids and teachers that
fashionable theories are proven based on fact....I don't tell them to listen to mass hysteria and fearmongering and hatred of smokers by the anti-smoking movement....I don't tell them any of what tobacco control wanted me to tell them which is why I remained totally independent. WHY, because I am not a part of that and have not been since the first couple of years back in the early nineties. I didn't fit the mold they wanted and would not conform , so lumping me into the same TC mindset by others is not only insulting, but based on the same generalizations that posters on this site are so against and unhappy about. In the beginning I started to beome brainwashed, but quickly stepped aside. I'd like someone to refute that if they care to or can show where I became a part of what I despise.
At least you asked me for a summary of my program. Others did not nor seemed to care what I say to kids. They just assume because they have life experiences, I must be just like all the rest of the bastards and liars in TC. I have my own ideas how to use humor to get kids to think for themselves. I resent that I have to explain myself when that person has never seen or heard my story and they blast my efforts and calls it irrelevant and not worth the sweat off her ass.
My program and thanks for asking is a 45-50 minute stroll down memory lane of my life as a kid...a smoker...The Winston Man...and why I stopped smoking to expose the Industry that I worked for and was paid quite well to a play a part in. The marketing tactics of RJR was to get kids to smoke and everybody knows it. Hell, they finally even admitted it in 1999 and said they would stop. By 1999 I had already given my testimony in Congress about the "young , poor, black and stupid quote", I had witnessed alot of the inner workings of TC, meetings that were secretive,
missappropriations of the funds by the states receiving billions of dollars and doing very little with it.
The complicity and hypocrisy observed and proven caused me to bring this to the attention of kids....as tobacco issues were in the media...talk of tobacco bailouts even way back then...the lawsuits brought against big tobacco by smokers and/or families...treatment of smokers, firing of smokers, 2nd class citizen status for smokers. Peter Jennings and his Tobacco files, the MSA, Prohibition tactics, Junk science etc.
After my 50 minutes or so, the kids leave my program hearing all three sides based on my personal experiences and not generalizing.
Their are three opinions
1. Some people like it and it's legal after a certain age.
2. Some people hate it and will stop at nothing to remove it from society as they don't know all the facts and are really rude to those who have made a choice to smoke.
3. Some people don't give a damn what you do and how you raise your kids..Not their problem...Your problem...smoke if you want...doesn't bother me.
That's what I tell the kids using humor, to get them to realize that they can't turn to the government, the media,their teachers aand sometimes their own parents for the answers to the questions they are facing in life. Do what works for you....keep your options open...don't let anybody get you to do something you don't want to do and at the very least make decisions based on fact rather than hearsay.
I don't show black lungs, clogged arteries wheezing, coughing children, people in hospital beds w/ tubes in their throats, or any other photo op to push my agenda. Michelle says " You weren't teachiong kids to think independently. You were spreading lies and propaganda" And now she is kind enoug to let me "off the hook".
Thanks Walt for asking me for a summary of my program. It's nice to know you have an open mind.
I think this discussion between Michelle and David (and Rick also) is excellent!
However, David, Michelle is right, you really haven't answered her questions:
Please explain to me how sterile smoke is the source of infections caused by bacteria and viruses?
and
How is ETS different from the air pollution they are exposed to every single day when they ride in a car?
and
When your children have an asthma attack - how do you know when it is caused by ETS or invisible pollen or dustmites or even cockroach poop?
This next one is the only one you sort of answered with the url for that one 'study':
Where is your evidence David?
Then there were these questions she asked of you:
Explain to me - if you can - how would your children have survived even 50 years ago in a home where coal or oil or wood was burned for heating and cooking if they can't be exposed to the smoke from the burning of 0.45 grams of dried leaves?
and
How are your children surviving massive exposure to the burning of diesal fuels and fossil fuels now?
and
Explain to me by what physical evidence you can that somehow magically your children are "better" without exposure to the very least of all the air pollutants that could trigger an asthma attack. How is it that they do not fall over in wheezing fits when they walk beside a road with their little breathing zone right in line with truck exhausts equal in particulate emissions to 35,000 cigarettes but react to the burning of 1 cigarette.
and finally:
Is your belief based on science or is your belief part of the tenants of your faith in a health based religious cult?
I would also love to hear your answers to these questions. So far you've only done what Bill and the Doc and the rest of the TC zombies do when asked real questions.....rather disappointing from someone who has experienced both sides.
If your answers to those questions Michelle asked are just your own personal experiences and observations, that's fine. Just say so as we all here can relate to that and understand that we each have our own experiences and observations that don't always match up with others'.
The weekend reading has been great though..........thank you all for the wonderful insights you have posted here!
Lynda, I can make this simple. I don't have answers to Michelles questions as I am not a scientist or toxicologist. My answer is based on personal experiences and observations as I have always said .
I know nothing about sterile smoke being the source of infections. Never said I did
I know nothing about ETS being different from air pollution. Never said I did.
I know nothing about anything other than my own personal experiences and observations.
How can I offer up a study that some people will question? Michelle said I "offered up a study that are thoughts of others...studies that are shown to be wrong (by others).Studies are always biased solely based on the thoughts of others. I can choose to examine it in my limited capacity as a layperson
and as a nonscientific person and apply it to my personal life.
Don't know if my kids scientifically had reactions because of ETS, but in a closed car for lengthy periods of time and my 3 pack a day habit and in witnessing their reaction to it (not necessarily violent reaction)time and time again, I made a personal choice to curtail my smoking around young kids. I also could not let my oldest sit around a campfire due to his reaction. We also could not have a cat because of his reaction. Tried to keep the cockroach poop to a minimum. Simply, I did what I thought was best based on personal experience and observations. Apparently some people think I carried that message into schools...... my answer is show me when and where and you will have proven that I am the liar and dissemenator or propaganda that some accuse me of being. I get a little defensive from time to time and I don't have all the answers. I think too many people discount personal experiences and observations.
From the King and I
"There are times I almost think
I am not sure of what I absolutely know.
Very often find confusion
In conclusion I concluded long ago
In my head are many facts
That, as a student, I have studied to procure,
In my head are many facts..
Of which I wish I was more certain I was sure!"
I got to that stage and decided to start from scratch and see what seemed to be true and what was quite decidedly not.
What persuaded me that what I believed was wrong? A slight knowledge of the plant and this - http://www.bmj.com/archive/7070nd2.htm
That I found after googling "Tobacco" and "Nazi" in a fit of annoyance after reading the astroturfers comments.
I was horrified to find that I was living in a time warp and nothing I thought I knew, was sure.
A few years back I read an article describing a different approach to children and tobacco. To be honest I can't remember the source. It was a description and I believe an honest analysis of Davids presentations and I liked what I saw. Kids talked to like people and not pets.
That article was the reason I asked David after one of his infrequent posts to share what he knew, with more involvement here in the discussion. I was disappointed when he announced he was leaving after a minor assault, [comparative to what Bill endures and ignores] with a reactive attack against the participants.
David I believe has thought better of his rash decision to leave and is seeing the other side finally, although from what I gather he doesn't like some what he is seeing. These are matters that need to be weighed with discussion above attacks and reactionary thoughts.
If we can all tether our comments behind an agreement to disagree, there really is something to learn from both sides.
BTW Rick, reviewing the introduction to your book has me hooked. I blame you for the lack of free time I will have this week, because I, no doubt, will be interested in little else but reading the entirety.
Thanks for that. {{Kidding}}
per David Goerlitz, "That's what I tell the kids using humor, to get them to realize that they can't turn to the government, the media,their teachers aand sometimes their own parents for the answers to the questions they are facing in life. Do what works for you....keep your options open...don't let anybody get you to do something you don't want to do and at the very least make decisions based on fact rather than hearsay."
That's probably why you're not booking many gigs these days.
Here's the kind of program many schools are interested in.
http://www.dare.com/home/default.asp
"Drug Abuse Resistance Education"
It is a program offered to local schools through local police departments for free ... and YES!, tobacco is one of the "drugs" they cover in their presentations.
http://www.dare.com/
drug_informa...ion_tobacco.asp
How can the "Winston Man" compete with cops carrying sidearms who tell 10 year olds not to smoke tobacco "or else"... FOR FREE!
The message of "think for yourself" just can't compete with "you've been warned".
PS DARE has been a complete failure and has fallen out of favor because it hasn't put a dent in later year teen behaviour. BUT ... it's free and the schools keep booking the presentations because it makes the teachers "feel good".
PSPS It probably wasn't a good idea to smoke Marlboros in front of Winston brand managers.
Tobacco is FDA approved and insuring the healthcare of millions.
DG-"That's what I tell the kids using humor, to get them to realize that they can't turn to the government, the media,their teachers aand sometimes their own parents for the answers to the questions they are facing in life. Do what works for you....keep your options open...don't let anybody get you to do something you don't want to do and at the very least make decisions based on fact rather than hearsay."
Question authority, even your parents, because the winston-man gave the all-clear.
David, you say you value experience..but that is considered anecdotal and the definition of hearsey. So it appears you are portraying conflicting concepts.
"Lynda, I can make this simple. I don't have answers to Michelles questions as I am not a scientist or toxicologist. My answer is based on personal experiences and observations as I have always said .
I know nothing about sterile smoke being the source of infections. Never said I did
I know nothing about ETS being different from air pollution. Never said I did.
I know nothing about anything other than my own personal experiences and observations."
Isn't THIS the crux of the matter ? Are you genuinely looking at this with an open mind OR trying to defend a position you have adopted ? Aren't you a slightly bit interested in finding out WHAT points Michelle is actually making,in what could conceivably be a scientific approach ?
"After my 50 minutes or so, the kids leave my program hearing all three sides based on my personal experiences and not generalizing.
Their are three opinions
1. Some people like it and it's legal after a certain age.
2. Some people hate it and will stop at nothing to remove it from society as they don't know all the facts and are really rude to those who have made a choice to smoke.
3. Some people don't give a damn what you do and how you raise your kids..Not their problem...Your problem...smoke if you want...doesn't bother me." - David Goerlitz
David, why does your web site state something different? I don't read that you offer those options?
http://www.formerwinstonman.org/....org/
index.html
"Dave shows that the only one who can truly help them deal with the life-affirming decision to not use tobacco in any of its forms is YOU!"
School Programs
http://www.formerwinstonman.org/
...olPrograms.html
get kids thinking about not starting or getting help to quit, once and for all!
It often takes an ad coming to life to jolt these kids who are addicted to nicotine to take back their lives, once and for all.
Dave has also produced and starred in a number of Public Service
Announcements, educational videos,
http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/pu...pdf/
tobacco.pdf
David Goerlitz, former Winston Man at local schools, 1992 (T13)
Audience: Upper Elementary - Middle School
David Goerlitz, former Winston Man, speaks to local students at their level about the
hazards of tobacco use, and how the tobacco companies use ads to get kids to start
smoking. Very real, and often humorous.
The Winston Man: Channel 3 - David Goerlitz, 1991, 35 min. (T64)
Audience: 5th grade and up
Features the former Winston man telling his story about a stroke he had at age 30 brought
on by cigarette smoking. Discusses hazards of tobacco use, and tobacco industry strategy to hook kids on tobacco. Quite a bit presented in a humorous fashion.
David Goerlitz former Winston Man at Edwin Markham School, 1990, 40 min.
(T13a)Audience: Upper Elementary - Middle School
Features presentation by David Goerlitz, former Winston cigarette ad model, at local
middle school. Goerlitz delivers a dynamic and often humorous message that appeals to
youth.
David, thank you for your response. I knew that is what your answer would be, as I believe that is how it should be unless one IS a rocket scientist. Unlike many, I don't discount personal experiences and observations, since it is my own personal experiences and observations that allow me to see the lies that TC and our government put forth on a continual basis.
The likes of Bill discount 'anecdotal' evidence because it suits them to do so. While the doc hasn't openly discounted OUR anecdotal tales while stating that "scientific evidence is overwhelming", he has no problem using his own observations when questioned by referring to the "patients who came to his practice for help" as a good enough reason for his agenda.
For me, if my child had had asthma, I would have taken note of when he had breathing problems and IF it was when around smoke, then I would not have smoked around him. My child did not have asthma OR allergies of any kind, nor did he get sick as often as his friends of "non-smoking" parents. Both my ex-husband and I smoked constantly around that boy, at home, in the car, everywhere. He is a healthy 29 year old to this day.
So for ME, my life experience (remembering growing up in the 50's and 60's when smoking was everywhere) and that with my own child, tells ME that smoking and SHS/ETS are nowhere near as bad as the "authorities" want to make it.
I like your approach of education, as long as you also point out all the fallacies, I see nothing wrong with educating people to think.
Thanks again for your response.
Rick,
I've tried accessing your homepage link and just get this:
Index of /
Icon Name Last modified Size Description[DIR] cgi-bin/ 29-Jun-2009 02:36 -
Apache/2.0.63 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.0.63 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 PHP/5.2.9 Server at www.rampant-antismoking.com Port 80
I'm interested in the book you are offering us this weekend. My email address is:
MsLynNYC@gmail.com
if you would so kind as to share the link with me there. Thank you so much for sharing this with us this weekend. I look forward to reading it.
Rose - OK, I concede
Tobacco Smoke May Act as Antidepressant Drug
Smoking saved my life: shocking? delusional? contovertial? No simply true.
I appologise to those who have heard my story before, however I feel compelled to once again expose myself.
21 years after quitting smoking (cold turkey and no problem) I went through an horrendous time in my life; daughter was self harming (serious shit not scratches) son was having anger managment issues, drinking too much and was ever in trouble with the law. He also wrecked my house on more than one occassion. My wife was down and our marriage was in trouble. Her parents died within a few monthes of each other. I had a routine operation that went horribly wrong, massive infections and long stays in hospital, 5 months off work with the associated financial woes adding to the stress. My mental health, not surprisingly suffered, my Doctor's answer? fill me full of drugs, antidepressants, tranquilisers, sleeping tablets. I was not eating and lost over 3 stones in weight. Nobody cared. 2, yes 2 suicide attemps later I flushed the prescription drugs and I resarted smoking.
I have been fine ever since.
GreatScot
It is hard to fault anyone that engages in activism in an altruistic manner for children. That David is engaged in addressing the harm from agenda driven facts is a indication that he is providing check and balances as a responsible individual disseminating information. I have no problems with him recommending questioning authority but I do have a problem with him suggesting that parents may not be able to aid the children in making decisions.
Cigarette break time;
I am half way through Chapter one and in a word; Brilliant!!!
Vincent you have proven without a shadow of a doubt in my mind, logic is much easier to find when not standing on your head, reading in a mirror or walking backward through a crowd.
I would be curious to see Michael's critique of what I would consider, a work of art I am enjoying thoroughly. As I will enjoy this cigarette that much more.
Thanks for the invitation and well done.
If anyone has not accepted the invitation, you will be missing an absolute gem of logic and reason, we have missed in the scientific world for far too long.
GreatScot
Then it would seem to be imperative to find out how this amazing plant works its magic.
Pity that there's no one allowed to help us.
I am very sorry to hear about your troubles, I remember that you said that you had had a run in with antidepressants.
I also remember reading a comment from someone who had given up smoking and had never felt truly well since.
Tobacco has had such a high reputation as a herbal medicine for so long.
Btw you know the quote from James 1st?
"a custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the nose, harmefull to the braine, daungerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse."
http://www.tobacco.org/History/
E...an_Smoking.html
I wonder how many Anti-tobacco people that use it know that his other interest was hunting witches.
"In the 1590s, he attended the North Berwick Witch Trial in which several people were accused of having created a storm in an attempt to sink the ship on which James and Anne had been travelling back from Denmark.
This made him very concerned about the threat that witches and witchcraft were posing to himself and the country. He wrote the aforementioned treatise on demonology. In 1604, the first year of James's reign, he broadened Elizabeth's Witchcraft Act to bring the penalty of death without benefit of clergy to any one who invoked evil spirits or communed with familiar spirits."
http://www.biographybase.com/
bio...of_England.html
Witch hunters and Nazis, what strange company the antis do keep.
Rick,
Interested in your offer:
iroc@videotron.ca
Thx
Rick
I am also interested in your offer. I am not at home at the moment. My email is michellegervais@rogers.com
Michelle
Rick,
I would like to be included also.
bdjunker@verizonmail.com
Rick,
I would like to be included as well if you don't mind.
Thanks, David
kgkjkl@yahoo.com
Me too, if possible. Thanks in advance.
fi777@net.hr
RickDP [Vincent-Riccardo Di Pierri, PhD ]
Website;
http://www.rampant-antismoking.com/
And email;
bkrampt01@optusnet.com.au
The website is also ripe with information, in response to the massive fraud at hand.
Rick, if possible, I would truly adore being able to peruse your book. My e-mail is mccallar@dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Thank you in advance.
Rick,
I started reading your amazing book. Thank you. As I indicated to you I will be publicizing your website in the CAGE blog. As informative, factual and integral your book seems to be (I of course didn’t read it all yet) I don’t know how non-smokers would be tempted to get educated on the issue and God knows it is they who mostly need to read it. How can one possibly shake the sheeple out of their complacent lethargy and apathy and educate them on the dangers of healthism through statisticalism. Society needs people like you, David, Pr. Molimard and a few others to come out in the open with as much fanfare as the anti-tobacco materialists. How does one get through the no less materialistic media and get them to give you some exposure? These are of course rhetorical questions to which I don’t think there is any other answer than lots of money to buy exposure. Have you been interviewed by any of the Australian media?
Xylog are you an MP?
BLAMING THE VICTIM: NEW PROMINENCE
FOR AN OLD IDEOLOGY
"Doubts about all this emphasis on medical technology spread from a small coterie of academic critics in the 1950s to the highest policy circles of government and foundations in the 1970s. In the latter half of the fifties, René Dubos 100 and a handful of other observers were pointing out the futility of relying on medicine to cure the ills created by social and physical environments. In the seventies Jesuit priest and social philosopher Ivan Illich, 101 Canadian Health and Welfare Minister Marc Lalonde, 102 and others 193 criticized medicine for the disease it breeds, for its relatively small positive impact on health status and disease rates, and for extending its domain of control to more and more of our social and personal relations.
One outcome of this criticism was the belief that what doctors and medical technology were doing badly, we could do better for ourselves. Critics of medicine advocated individual "self-help" as a source of liberation from professional and technological control. Many of them, however, extended this position to identify individuals as the greatest dangers to their own health. A large-scale study of health behavior in California supported the view that a person's "lifestyle" is a powerful determinant of his or her health status. 104 Fuchs, ignoring contrary epidemiological evidence, asserts that "the greatest potential for reducing coronary disease, cancer, and the other major killers still lies in altering personal behavior." 105 A host of other academic health researchers and writers and members of the growing "holistic" health movement fastened on the individual as the core of health problems. 106 Perhaps the ultimate absurdity of this position blames lead poisoning of young children in low-income neighborhoods on maternal deprivation 107 and "permissive socialization of oral behavior" 108--instead of on landlords who fail to remove the lead-based paint peeling from walls of their rental units and to repaint with lead-free paint now required by law."
"Technological medicine is becoming prohibitively expensive, but victim blaming is cost-effective. "The cost of sloth, gluttony, alcoholic intemperance, reckless driving, sexual frenzy, and smoking have now become a national, not an individual, responsibility, all justified as individual freedom," asserts Dr. John Knowles, the influential president of the Rockefeller Foundation.
"But one man's or woman's freedom in health is now another man's shackle in taxes and insurance premiums." Knowles sternly warns that "the cost of individual irresponsibility in health has become prohibitive." 110 Fuchs attacks what he sees as "a 'resolute refusal' to admit that individuals have any responsibility for their own distress." 111
And Leon Kass, denying that health or health care is a right, proclaims that "health is a duty, that one has an obligation to preserve one's own good health." Kass, a professor of medicine and bioethics, goes on to condemn "excessive preoccupations with health" such as "when cancer phobia leads to government regulations that unreasonably restrict industrial activity or personal freedom." 112
"Victim blaming has been used not only to explain lower utilization by the poor but as a way of decreasing the use of health services by Medicaid recipients. In order to cut the escalating costs of Medicaid programs, the Nixon administration and conservative governors created barriers to the use of services. Setting limits on physician and dentist visits, especially for preventive care, and setting up bureaucratic delays for hospitalization (such as requiring physicians to obtain prior authorization before admitting a Medicaid patient to the hospital), the State made the "beneficiaries" of its programs pay for the market system's fiscal problems. 115 Similarly, Medicare patients have been forced to pay higher deductibles and copayments in order to encourage them to spend less on their care. With the recent campaign of putting increasing responsibility on the individual, the working and middle classes, as well as the poor, are being blamed for getting sick in the first place."
http://www.soilandhealth.org/03s...rown/
brown5.htm
I think that this is from Rockefeller Medicine Men.
Blame the victim in action
"It was agreed that the evidence would be of an entirely different quality and nature," says Prof Berridge. "It was pointed out that individuals could avoid the dangers of smoking but not those of pollution. It was also thought a section on atmospheric pollution within the main report might detract from the main arguments on smoking and lung cancer.
"What was happening in this committee was a shift away from a concept of health and wellbeing related to an individual's environment, occupation, class or work, towards one focused strongly on that individual's responsibility for his or her health... Smoking was something which the individual could do something about; air pollution was not," she says." http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2.../
smoking.uknews
This philosophy does rather explain some of Doll's odder findings.
He seems to have been one of the "handpicked servicemen" trained by the Rockefeller Foundation to work in Public Health.
So we get things like lead in petrol not harming childrens brains, presumably it was their parent's fault for living near a main road.
Olive oil killing thousands, rather than organophosphates badly applied to tomatoes.
12,000 dying from the effects of the Great London Smog, so people shouldn't smoke.
His adversaries careers seem to routinely hit a brick wall.
I have a long and alarming list if anyone wants it.
Rick
I hope you don't mind if I go via Lynda,she has my email, if she would be so kind.
Not to interrupt the parade for one wonderful book, but another, Chris Snowden's book, just received a review in Minnesota's twin cities paper Star Tribune
http://www.startribune.com/busin...3aPc:_Yyc:
aUUsZ
Rick, thanks for putting me on the list. I look forward to reading it.
David
First the books and next the screen plays. The "biological only" blinders in the current "determinants of health" with a denial of the value of emotional and social well being, are about to be the next big thing, as the discussion is shifting and with it the blame.
That next thing will herald the rejection of the unelected "Public health authorities" and the downfall of their oppressive junk science regime.
GreatScot
Having had a quick search , niacin is recommended in several places for depression and anxiety allegedly caused by a deficiency.
However, according to industry documents
"the niacin content of unfortified tobacco was found to be 0.13mg per cigarette."
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/a...bde38e00&
page=2
Which is a tiny amount, but allegedly goes straight to the brain rather than getting distributed around the body.
Now I have to say that paying £5.20 for 2.6mg of naturally produced niacin is extortionate, but who knows if the coal tar derivative works as well.
Tyrosine
"Tyrosine forms three important neurotransmitters (serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine) that are responsible for memory, mood, appetite and the coordination of muscles. When these neurotransmitters are not in adequate amounts, a person may experience the feeling of nervousness, sadness, irritability and frustration. Studies show that L-tyrosine supplementation helps with anxiety and depression. "
http://www.anxietydepressionfaq....-and-
depression
To substitute would need tiny doses regularly through the day.
Unlike a friend who decided to try it , ignored the science and could only find 100mg tablets,apparently he took one at 1000x the dose he was used to and had a massive and memorable hot flush.
Now he truly believes that there is something very powerful in tobacco smoke!
Niacin that is AND he was advised by a qualified chemist to expect this reaction.
Rose,
(Re: Lynda. Not a problem)
Please post the alarming list, too (re: Rockefeller)
To all,
Thank you for your support. I hope the reading provides some valuable insights.
At some point, for those that have the book, you might look at the section on ‘Radical Behaviorism’. It will give an insight into one of the fathers (B.F. Skinner) of behaviorism (a soul-sapped view of the world). Over the last half-century, his views and theories (e.g., as in Walden 2, Beyond Freedom and Dignity) have been used in the dumbing-down process in education across many nations in the Western world (see also Thomson-Iserbyt). And, it's quite intentional (see Humanist, aka materialist, Manifesto I & II).
_
Iro,
No interviews in Australia. While there is some level of resistance to authoritative views in other countries, not so in Australia. Australia is like a ‘dead zone’. Citizens tend to believe exactly what ‘authorities’ tell them. I think that at this time we’re well passed the level or point of interviews - the worldly system is in serious strife.
_
Rick
I hope you don't mind if I go via Lynda,she has my email, if she would be so kind.
Rose
Will do Rose! Sorry, I didn't come back here yesterday to see this. Will send to you promptly.
Rick;
I am currently looking at chapter three and the discussion is powerful. If, or when people start to understand and focus on the meaning of "Health" in its entirety and compare that definition to what we have been receiving, the hot topics of political debate will change decisively.
Rick,
Australia sounds a lot like Canada where the anti-smoking/medical industry set the trend for the rest of the world, where the pharmaceutical cartel is quite powerful and where all politicians care about is ‘’feel-good’’ useless policies to buy votes from the sheeple. Hardly any of the other side of the story ever gets published in the so politically correct mainstream media, Big Tobacco has surrendered and has become as complacent as the sheeple, and the crowd just cheers on all this lunacy. The Supreme Court in a unanimous decision has trampled on constitutional rights by suppressing freedom of expression from the tobacco industry and in Quebec the anti-smoking ban was voted in unanimously with not even one voice of dissent contrary to Ontario where they at least had a few dissenting voices. Politicians blatantly lie to the public and get caught in their lies yet the media complacently goes along with it. There are a couple of think-tanks and independent thinkers that show resistance but they are immediately dismissed as fronts for Big Tobacco.
No, there is no hope in Canada, our only hope in North America is the U.S. where constitutional rights are still valued and where free-thinking is still somewhat respected. There are still some reasonable politicians in the US that can see through the smokescreen and it’s on those rare cases that lies some hope for reform.
My letter to Spiked;
The book review of Christopher Snowden's book, Velvet Glove Iron Fist, it seems was a prequel of things to come this week.
Michael J McFadden wrote a book a few years back, he called Dissecting anti smoker's brains, to the dismay of many involved in the "Public Health Movement" Attaching all necessary meaning seen in the word "movement" to those involved in societal caste building, through the auspices of medical institutions and the largest medical charities.
In his critique of the mindset wedge base, involved in the largest Public Health political campaigns. He revealed the disjointed reality, that people are not a homogeneous species and we are motivated by a number of factors, which are composite of our lifestyle choices.
A reality Public health bigotry has been lobbying very hard to disguise for the past five decades. Epidemiology measures biological conditions, with no measure of emotional or spiritual factors, which are likely a much larger component of overall personal health.
There is no benefit to the children being "protected" on today's political soapboxes, in reducing the entirety of the human species, to a single number of longevity, as a bottom line measure of a person's subservience in their obligations to the state[who serve us BTW], presented deceptively in warnings of danger, in terms of their worth, intelligence or integrity.
This week I was afforded the privilege of reading a first release, of another new novel by Vincent-Riccardo Di Pierri, PhD, "Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger: Materialism Out of Control"
A book which has the potential of blowing the lid off of the "healthcare reform movement". Well documented and organized as a response to the more popular fallacies and materialist nature of medicine under the new globalist regime.
Well worth a look.
Rampant Anti-smoking Signifies Grave
Danger: Materialism Out of Control
Author;
Vincent-Riccardo Di Pierri, PhD
Website;
http://www.rampant-antismoking.com/
email;
bkrampt01@optusnet.com.au
Public health have defined themselves in a way which should have us picturing them, wearing sheets to hide themselves and burning crosses on peoples lawns.
We know who and what you are, we only have to wait for the convictions to proceed and they will.
@Kevin,
Sadly no, I am not an MP. Just an educated Peon.
Heck, there's proof right there that I'm not a high-up. I responded and in a timely manner! :-P
Xylog;
"Sadly no, I am not an MP. Just an educated Peon."
Sorry, the email addy threw me,
mpo.gc Could represent
MP sitting in opposition Gov Canada.
Mps have similar addys assigned
Oh yea, could someone Call security; we won't need those bouncers....
I don't know how it happened (an honest mistake obviously), but when I advertized Rick's book in the CAGE blog www.cagecanada.blogspot.com , instead of linking with his website where one can order the book, I linked it to the downloadable pdf file of the book. So very sorry Rick. I have now corrected it. I beg of anyone that did not have explicit permission to use this pdf file and has visited the CAGE blog and linked to it, to please get permission from Rick prior to reading it. And especially do not distribute it. I feel very bad about this, but what can I say, shit happens.
Iro,
Not a problem.
_
I'm willing to take David at his word and give him a pass, at least till I learn something to the contrary. With all respect to Ann, the stuff she posted dates from the early 90's when he admits he was under the TC spell. I'm still not convinced that he doesn't think no one should ever smoke around The Children™ but I'll keep an open mind.
Rick--
I'd like to read your book, but not on a computer. I looked at Amazon (US) and see it's not there. You ought to get it there and it's not hard to do. Even the smallest publisher can do it. Go to amazon.com, then look at the column on the left under "Selling to Amazon" and click on "Advantage Program."
:
Walt,
Sorry. I don't have any hard copies available. If you can handle a PDF version (pages can be printed), you're more than welcome. Just let me know and I'll send you a download link.
_
Walt wrote: "I'm willing to take David at his word and give him a pass, at least till I learn something to the contrary."
How about starting at David's web site?
http://www.formerwinstonman.org/
Sorry, but I just don't read the same message he promotes to "the children" there as what he posted here.
Ann-- You have a point; but I'll still wait to see what he says as time goes by.
Rick--Thanks for the offer but I know I'd never read that much on a screen. If that's the only way you want to circulate it, you still might get in touch with Amazon about doing a Kindle version (which sells downloads). Then too you could go for a surprisingly inexpensive paperback version through an on-demand printer. Try lightningsource.com
Commenting by HaloScan
