Healthcare fraud

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Heresy in the ETS debate?

For evaluation and analysis, anyone like to comment?

The spin-doctors will have to work overtime to clean up the latest mess.

Is there any wonder the EPA is ignoring them?

The American Lung association has provided new evidence, which would suggest previous research concluding ETS to be a deadly carcinogen and a major health risk were largely flawed. When taken into consideration the low and inconclusive results of many major epidemiology papers the new information should prove those associations to be overstated or unfounded. Recent submissions should prove consistently the existence of ETS likely inconsequential other than an irritant in indoor air, as common sense would dictate.

Recent submissions stating another highly significant co-founder is likely three times as high as previously believed. This allows in a re-examination of previous research, if indeed the research were believed to be credible, allowances would have to have been made for a constant exposure in ambient air. A co-founder in previous research, which should indicate constant exposure as opposed to incidental exposure when in contact with ETS, could not possibly be inconsequentially in the results of the calculations. Inhalation exposures to outdoor air as a major component of indoor air cannot be simply dismissed if no analysis was done to differentiate the two. A description of the health effects largely identical to those described consistently in the effects of ETS leave cause for major concern.

As we know from previous research, the value of ventilation is inconsequential in respect to indoor air RSP or the PPAH produced known to be .08% of the former. In short the common belief would be designated smoking rooms, do not offer protection from a hazard ETS is believed to have a safe level of 16.3 picograms per cubic meter of air. Supporting statements, no safe level exists. Are we all doomed or is there cause for hope in reassessing the known facts? These facts as confirmed in research widely accepted in court and Government submissions globally, as shown by one of the more popular lobbyists here. et al Repace 1999 Brook v. Burswood Casino. In a submission August 7 2005 Critical Evaluation of Lincoln Scott’s Burswood Casino Air Quality.

If as the American Lung Association contends Outdoor air is three times as consequential in health risk. The expectation would have to be other risks were largely overstated. With the overwhelming agreement as demonstrated by a ratio of 8 to 1 As explained on the ALA website a ratio of those speaking in favor of lowering the limits of particulate matter substantially. Perhaps the global panic largely created by similar proposals promoting smoking bans can be seen as crying wolf, in the absence of other explanations to the contrary. Additionally the 8 to 1 ratio as described could be observed as a proof, in quality as opposed to quantity as a more reliable guide. HIA Health Interventions as abdicated by the Industry financed Lobby group also known, as The World health Organization, may be highly effective in control of decision-making processes. The process is impressive on the surface until you realize what they failed to disclose. The increased embarrassment potential when a theory is found to be wrong or in conflict with another is greatly increased. Theoretic calculations presented as fact have limits, as there are only so many deaths to go around. Public knowledge created in advocacy is much more wide spread because of HIA and a huge danger is present to credibility of process and all those involved Stakeholders. As in gold rush mentality in get rich quick schemes, they rarely pan out.

The many potential components and many products described by the EPA and others in epidemiology research simplistically as cigarette smoke or tobacco smoke. An ethical malaise exists in the fraudulent representation in the research of the smoke defined as a single dimensional disease vector. This would explain the vast diversity of outcomes as a result of these studies and in perspective how much value they truly represent. In an overall inspection of the outcomes, the larger studies have consistently shown inconclusive results in ETS research.

The WHO study although the conclusions were largely ignored, the findings should have shown; when taken into perspective a margin of error the study was marginal or in respect to curative indications in children’s studies, to be a pretty good indication of the limitations of this research method. Elimination of physical science from the evaluation was deceptive. Research based in environmental controls and ingredients regulations based in product safety are well known to be much more suitable for the task at hand. Widespread victim bashing was financially beneficial to all parties or stakeholders involved, including the product manufacturers, however a strategy based in deceit is destined to fail.

Further in evaluating the credibility of the presentation included it needs to be understood; deaths formerly attributed to other sources are now possibly associated to and more likely to be caused by PM2.5 the former associations would understandably decrease significantly. In some cases, the RR factor of these disease categories would require re-evaluation in deciding significance if any, in human population and reduced ETS advocacy relevance.

Information from the ALA website the latest research indicates the following;

Daily exposures to Particulate matter result in premature death three times greater than previously reported.

Some of the highlights of the more than 50 new studies summarized include:

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

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

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

• Many studies elucidating the biological mechanisms and pathways for cardiovascular effects;

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

• Research showing that coarse particles exacerbate respiratory disease;

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

• Intervention studies showing that reductions in air pollution yield measurable improvement in children’s respiratory health and reduction in premature deaths; and

• Policy analyses showing the need for strong annual and daily fine particle standards to protect susceptible populations and provide equivalent levels of protection to different regions of the country.

Links to the full articles or abstracts are provided. A copy of the bibliography is attached.

Attached files

2005 Research Highlights: Air Pollution and Health

( 1-32-2005 2005 Health studies final.pdf 357.56 KB )

Highlights of 2005 Health Studies on PM and Ozone

ALA Testimony at Chicago Public Hearing

( ALA testimony Chicago Public Hearing PM NAAQS 3082006.doc 55.00 KB )

Testimony of Janice Nolen 3-8-06

Testimony of George Thurston

( EPA_GDT_testimony061.doc 106.00 KB )

4-6-05 testimony at Philadelphia public hearing





Holiday Inn Historic District

400 Arch St.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


MARCH 8, 2006

I am George D. Thurston, a tenured Associate Professor of Environmental Medicine at the New York University (NYU) School of Medicine. My scientific research involves investigations of the human health effects of air pollution.

The adverse health consequences of particulate matter are serious and well documented. This documentation includes impacts demonstrated by controlled chamber exposures and by observational epidemiology showing consistent associations between this pollutant and adverse impacts across a wide range of human health outcomes. Unfortunately, the implementation of the NAAQS standards proposed by the U.S. EPA on January 17, 2006 will fail to provide sufficient public health protection to the American people, as is called for by the Clean Air Act, and as indicated is necessary by the latest air pollution health effects science.

Particulate Matter (PM) air pollution is composed of two major components: primary particles, or "soot", emitted directly into the atmosphere by pollution sources such as industry, electric power plants, diesel buses, and automobiles, and; "secondary particles" formed in the atmosphere from sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) gases, emitted by many combustion sources, including coal-burning electric power plants.

Observational epidemiology studies have shown compelling and consistent evidence of adverse effects by PM. These studies statistically evaluate changes in the incidence of adverse health effects in a single population as it undergoes varying real-life exposures to pollution over time, or across multiple populations experiencing different exposures from one place to another. They are of two types: 1) population-based studies, in which aggregated counts of effects (e.g., hospital admissions counts) from an entire city might be considered in the analysis; and, 2) cohort studies, in which selected individuals, such as a group of asthmatics, are considered. Both of these types of epidemiologic studies have confirmed the associations of ozone and PM air pollution exposures with increased adverse health impacts, including:

- decreased lung function (a measure of our ability to breathe freely);

- more frequent respiratory symptoms;

- increased numbers of asthma attacks;

- more frequent emergency department visits;

- additional hospital admissions, and;

- increased numbers of daily deaths.

Among those people known to be most affected by the adverse health implications of air pollution are: infants, children, those with pre-existing respiratory diseases (such as asthma and emphysema), older adults, and healthy individuals exercising or working outdoors.

The state of the science on particulate matter and health has undergone thorough review, as reflected in the in the recently released U.S. EPA Criteria Document for Particulate Matter—of which I am a contributing author. Since the fine particle (PM2.5) standard was set in 1997, the hundreds of new published studies, taken together, robustly confirm the relationship between PM2.5 pollution and severe adverse human health effects. In addition, the new research has eliminated many of the concerns that were raised in the past regarding the causality of the PM-health effects relationship, and has provided plausible biological mechanisms for the serious impacts associated with PM exposure.

In my own research, I have found that both ozone and particulate matter air pollution are associated with increased numbers of respiratory hospital admissions in New York City, Buffalo, NY, and Toronto, Ontario, even a Furthermore, I was Principal Investigator of an NIH funded research grant that showed, in an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), that long-term exposure to particulate matter air pollution is associated with an increased risk of death from cardio-pulmonary disease and lung cancer, as displayed in Figure 1 (Pope et al, 2002). In fact, the increased risk of lung cancer from air pollution in polluted U.S. cities was found in this study to be comparable to the lung cancer risk to a non-smoker from living with a smoker. Thus, the health benefits to the U.S. public of reducing long-term exposures to particulate matter can be substantial. But the January, 2006 EPA proposal ignores this new science, and the ignores the sound scientific advice of its own CASAC panel of scientists. The EPA NAAQS proposal therefore also fails to sufficiently protect the U.S. public from this serious health risk.t levels below the current standards. These results have been confirmed by other researchers considering locales elsewhere in the nation and the world, as documented in the most recent PM Criteria document, which was prepared by the EPA staff and reviewed by the EPA’s independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.

Figure 1. Lower PM2.5 Levels Are Associated with Lower Mortality

Source: Pope, Burnett, Thun, Calle, Krewski, Ito , and Thurston. (Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA, 2002)

Especially a problem is the fact that the EPA Administrator has ignored the new information regarding the increased risk of lung cancer and cardio-pulmonary mortality now known to be associated with long-term exposure to PM2.5. For example, new scientific documentation from both epidemiological studies, such as the JAMA paper I co-authored (Pope et al., 2002), and toxicological studies, such as the recent JAMA article showing increased accumulation of plaque in the hearts of mice as a result of long-term PM exposure (Sun et al., 2006), are effectively ignored by the Administrator

The Administrator has instead chosen to raise and over-emphasize certain scientific issues in order to support his inaction on the issue of protecting the public from the dangers of long-term PM air pollution exposure. For example, the preamble to this decision (Federal Register, January 17, 2006, Vol. 71, No. 10, pp. 2652) raises education and sulfur dioxide (SO2) as issues. These comments in the preamble do not represent a full and balanced consideration of all the facts. Indeed, when the HEI Reanalysis of the ACS data reported these associations, they also noted that “The Reanalysis Team concludes that this modifying effect is not necessarily attributable to education per se, but could indicate that education is a marker for a more complex set of socioeconomic variables that impact upon the level of risk.” The Pope et al. (2002) study does correct for these issues through the inclusion of education indices. Similarly, the HEI report also notes that the SO2 association with mortality was unlikely to be causal, but was more likely a marker of another component of the air pollution, stating: “ The absence of a plausible toxicological mechanism by which sulfur dioxide could lead to increased mortality further suggests that it might be acting as a marker for other mortality-associated pollutants.” Based upon my own recent analysis, it is apparent that SO2 is acting as a marker for coal combustion fine particle pollution in this PM2.5 dataset. However, the HEI Reanalysis report’s clarifying statements are ignored by the Administrator. In no way do these factors, fully considered, take away from the scientific evidence, both from the ACS and other studies, that long-term exposure to PM2.5 is causing needless deaths every year. They also do not justify the Administrator’s ignoring of the ACS JAMA manuscript and the other recent studies providing confirmation of PM’s long-term adverse health effects, and additionally indicating mortality impacts even larger than that reported by the ACS study (e.g., from the Veterans Cohort by Lipfert et al, 2003; and from the 6-Cites Study cohort follow-up by Laden et al., 2006).

Instead of a balanced and full view of this issue, the Administrator apparently decided to selectively choose the “scientific intelligence” that fit the decision he wanted to make, as has ignored the overwhelming evidence that ran opposite to the proposed decision to do nothing to further protect the American people from the health dangers of long-term exposure to PM pollution. EPA’s own analyses (U.S.EPA Staff Paper, 2005) indicate that the Administrator’s inaction on this standard will result in thousands of avoidable deaths each year. I hope that the Administrator will reconsider this decision, listen to the advice of the health experts on CASAC, and instead act to lower the annual PM2.5 standard, thereby avoiding thousands of needless deaths in the U.S. each year. I recommend an annual standard of 12 ug/m3.

As to the short-term (24-hour average) standard proposed by the Administrator, the level chosen is insufficiently stringent to adequately protect the public health. It is so lax that it provides little public health benefits when compared with the present standard. Indeed, the study of older adults in more than 200 counties across the nation that was released today in the prestigious journal, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), further documents that short-term excursions of fine particle air pollution are associated with a significant increase in the daily risk of hospital admissions from cardiac and respiratory causes. (I have attached a copy of that new paper to my testimony for your examination.) Even eliminating all days above 35 ug/m3 from consideration from the study (as per the U.S. EPA’s proposed standard) failed to change the conclusions of this study, with significant associations still being found between PM2.5 exposure and excess cardiac and respiratory admissions at levels of PM2.5 below 35 ug/m3 (Personal Communication, Francesca Dominici, March 8, 2006). In my view, the available science supports a short-term PM2.5 standard of 25 ug/m3, in order to most appropriately protect the health of the U.S. public.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue.


Dominici F, Peng RD, Bell M, Pham L, McDermott D, Zeger J, Samet J. (2006). Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Hospital Admission for Cardiovascular and Respiratory Diseases. J. Am. Med. Assoc. (JAMA). March 8, 2006 Vol. 295, No. 10, pp 1127-1134.

Krewski, D. et al. Reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities Study and the American Cancer Society Study of Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality: Investigators' Report Part I: Replication and Validation. 2000. Health Effects Institute, Cambridge, MA.

Lipfert FW, Perry HM Jr, Miller JP, Baty JD, Wyzga RE, Carmody SE. (2003). Air pollution, blood pressure, and their long-term associations with mortality. Inhal Toxicol. 2003 Apr 25;15(5):493-512.

Laden F, Schwartz J, Speizer FE, Dockery DW. Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality: Extended follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities Study.

Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006 Jan 19.

Pope, C.A. III, Burnett, R.T., Thun, M.J., Calle, E.E., Krewski, D., Ito, K., and Thurston, G.D. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. J. Am. Med. Assoc. (JAMA) 287(9):1132-1141 (2002).

Sun Q, Wang A, Jin X, Natanzon A, Duquaine D, Brook RD, Aguinaldo JG, Fayad ZA, Fuster V, Lippmann M, Chen LC, Rajagopalan S. (2006). Long-term air pollution exposure and acceleration of atherosclerosis and vascular inflammation in an animal model. JAMA. 2005 Dec 21;294(23):3003-10.

U.S. EPA (2004). Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter (October, 2004). EPA/600/P-99/002aF. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development. Washington, DC.

U.S. EPA, (2005). Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information OAQPS Staff Paper. EPA-452/R-05-005. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

He said she said…

A new email arrived from a previous inquiry, which denied Dioxin in cigarettes is a health and safety issue.

It gets worse…

Hello Kevin,
Your email was forwarded to us for response.
We apologize for the delay in responding; we have been overwhelmed with
numerous requests.
Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including at least 50 that
cause, initiate or promote cancer.  Most of these chemicals, including
carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, acetone, hydrogen cyanide, benzene, toluene,
benzo[a]pyrene and many others are formed during the combustion of the
tobacco.  Others, such as lead, nitrosamines and nicotine, are found
naturally in the tobacco and are released as the tobacco burns or as it is
chewed.  Manufacturers do not add these chemicals to their products.
There are no provisions for reporting dioxins in tobacco products.  Given
the inherent high toxicity of tobacco smoke, and all the other compounds
present at much higher level in tobacco smoke, such as tar, carbon
monoxide, and so on.  Manufacturers report to Health Canada on over 40
chemicals present in tobacco smoke.  Dioxins are found naturally as a
result of the combustion of the product, it's the BURNING of tobacco that
is responsible for the creation of toxic compounds.
For more information on what is reported in tobacco smoke, please see the
Go Smoke Free web site:
A/Information Officer
Tobacco Control Programme, Health Canada
Forwarded by TCP-PLT-QUESTIONS/HC-SC/GC/CA on 2006-03-17 07:58 AM
                      Emily Wahl                                                                                                       
                      2006-02-06 01:06         cc:                                                                                     
                      PM                       Subject:  WWW Form Submission                                                           
Good afternoon,

Coincidentally I was sent this link today you decide what to believe


I only wish; I live so long to be the defendant to be judged by 12 of my peers.

With the onus on the fear mongers to provide convincing evidence. something not shown to date.

My reply follows; do I send it or should I just save it for a future lawsuit???


I am pleased to respond to your attempt to educate me in the contents of Tobacco smoke Unfortunately I am a little more informed than you are it would appear, from the response you provided.

I read this in an article recently and in reviewing your letter it seems to bear a lot in the way of truth.

"Health protection has to be about limiting the effects of unsafe products not punishing the victims. If chlorine and pesticides were removed from cigarettes decades ago, as they should have been, the resulting mortality would have dropped tremendously. Anti smoker advocates, describe environmental smoke to be as dangerous as Dioxins however never mention the fact Dioxins do exist in cigarettes. With proof, in hand they promote the idea smoking “can cause Cancer” why have they been so silent with absolute proof it does. We could counter of course does it have to? The answer lies in where the realization would lead next. How many informed mothers would avoid public transit if they knew how many millions of cigarettes it would take to equate the dioxin levels on every bus platform? The lobby calls itself anti tobacco yet they are all well aware of the fact Tobacco has limited if any significant danger compared to the other ingredients, which could be included in a cigarette. They always seem to avoid talking about the other ingredients for good reasons. Many reasons would affect potential future funding sources. The official carefully worded statements of Government offices and close inspection of what they actually say will bear this out. The constructing of the “no safe cigarette” myth so all smoking can be expressed as an equal risk. Constructions while avoiding the protection of those who have no idea what each cigarette may contain."

Perhaps you mistook me for someone needing political rally information.

My inquiry was in fact very serious. I am in search of valid accurate science based information.

Not the consensus view as planned in social engineering efforts of the new Propaganda ministry formerly known as Health Canada.

The Government I understand has much more information than is being revealed to the public in the anti smoker hate campaign. The failure to disclose information; health related especially, is in direct contravention to international covenants of informed consent. My right to know.

Has Canada without noticed denounced the human rights commission and the values directing the United Nations validity?

I am aware of what the anti smoker lobby groups are saying with respect to 4000 chemicals.
I am also aware of basic common sense principles for instance poison is in the dose. Of the chemicals you listed are you aware of any in sufficient quantities to breach known safe levels in environmental controls and industry standards? I am alarmed to discover from your reply the Government trusts the Tobacco companies to do their own testing and so few of the 4000 ingredients in smoke are actually being monitored. The United states is at least actively reducing Dioxins. in Canada no concern is apparently required with respect to possibly one of the larger and major sources of Lung Cancers. Do you have an air miles card in your wallet and do you allow children to breath the air in bus and train stations? Likely because no one is properly informed as to toxic levels, because all our resources are being wasted in hate campaigns, distracting the public from the truth.

When the pristine Atlantic Provinces start to grow Cancer clusters and oil slicks kill what is left of the fish. it is going to get a lot harder to point at cigarettes as the cause of the inevitable disaster.

Is not enough just enough. Or do we wait until the confidence in Government is completely gone.

The American lung association recently has been lobbying to have the Particulate matter in outdoor air lowered to 25 Micrograms per cubic meter of air. Apparently the standard in outdoor air quality is not regulated to even a close reflection of air quality standards of indoor air.

James Repace has been quoted as stating indoor PPAH acceptable levels are 16.4 Pico grams per cubic meter of air this in fact was his stated justification for classifying Tobacco smoke as a carcinogen despite the non existence of science to give the number any credibility. He admitted himself in his presentations the research was flawed because a true control group could not be found. You need to compare case (exposed study group) to control (not exposed to smoke). And calculate a relative risk taking into consideration all confounders which could affect the result.

A non-exposed control group would have in fact lowered a positive result if any.

So in effect I gather from what you wrote and please correct me if I am wrong here.

You believe Canadian cigarettes contain no additives and no Chlorine residue in the paper or pesticide residue, which would be a cause for concern, as the levels if any, would be too low compared to other toxins as you stated.

This research is not to be believed?

The Tobacco companies are now self-regulating and provide the only source of science based information The Federal government is privy to, aside from theoretic research.

The Government supports strictly the type of opinion based information deriving from this source.

Despite the fact statements made conflict with targeted larger research they did themselves more recently the study was not mentioned. They preferred to mention as they put it a classic from 1950. The WHO claimed their research was Epidemiology the way it should be done, and now Neil Coleslaw of Doctors for a smoke free 3rd reigh or something similar who apparently missed it while he oversaw the department at the WHO makes claims also not consistent with what was found. One could guess his embarrassment was such, it created a mental block allowing him to replace reality with his fantasy world where he rules the evil Tobacco Empire, As he wrote in his fictional adaptation of the great Tobacco war. A creation of an adolescent mind, dedicated to revenge.;90/19/1440

The WHO has never explained why they do not stand behind what their research found.
Now with new research provided by the American Lung Association the theoretic ETS disease associations would have to be substantially reduced. The PM identical diseases previously thought to be related to smoking are known to be associated to 3 times as many polluted air related diseases. Unless the disease category has increased, the deaths have to come from somewhere and it just would not be right to use the same corpses in two different fear campaigns.

As the 1997 audit showed incompetence and rogue player attitude would cause the department to be an international embarrassment and as predicted the audit was right on target.

Health Canada places little or no value on real science found here;

And here

Information currently not provided to the citizens of Canada. In fact on the list of countries with lists of actual ingredients Canada and the USA are not included. Is it not reasonable Canadians have a right to know. Considering the analysis of every ingredient used in other countries remaining below known safe levels one would have to wonder how factual the Consensus information we are receiving really is. Alternatively, how much bias was presented in the creation of facts by that consensus.

Perhaps the strategy mentioned here might be conflicted with our right to know.

The following should be reviewed prior to providing your answers.

Here is a detailed description of what I believe is being ignored in the Denormalization of smokers {You know them as smelling like dog crap, Child abusers and murderers of babies. } as portrayed in Tax paid presentations. Tax dollars 480 million supposedly to denormalize the industry a campaign I have yet to hear much about.

ASH describes smokers as not worthy of Healthcare, Housing, Employment or shelter from the elements. They are a group who really detest the smell or the right of someone to enjoy something on privately owned land, something they also know little about, all because mommy will not allow smoking in the basement where they learned their reclusive life skills, while the rest of us worked and raised families.

The Ontario Government expresses its education of hatred to children and endorses its use expressed in government opinion in a website called stupid. How proud we are of that? We hear glowing reviews in the media presentations. An official with the Ontario health ministry in June was quoted in a London Newspaper as saying, "quit or be punished". A Quebec Health Minister declared smokers as being under the influence of tobacco have no right to an opinion.

The Federal Government gave an award to Heather Crowe because her Doctor a quite shy individual apparently spoke for her in an effort to be paid Compensation in a workplace claim.

It is reported the Doctor has a process of determining the specific cause of her lung Cancer. He even defined it by a unique name. A smoker’s tumor was found the first one ever in fact. A process of cause and a disease not yet known in the medical community. Heather will likely get her wish and be the last one to ever die of a smoker’s tumor. Why has this doctor been so selfish in not sharing his newfound knowledge with the world? The CMA and OMA apparently see no reason to review the license of an apparent fraud or quack, if everything we have heard is true. The doctor has the full support of the Medical boards shedding their own integrity in full public view. They can refuse to allow immigrant doctors to practice here, not recognizing foreign credentials. With such a lax attitude concerning Canadian doctors. That sounds discriminatory would you agree?

From the World Health organization;

"HIA provides decision makers with information about how any policy, programme or project may affect the health of people. HIA seeks to influence decision makers to improve the proposal. WHO supports the use of HIA because of its ability to influence policies, programmes and/or projects. This provides a foundation for improved health and wellbeing of people likely to be affected by such proposals"

Sounds surprisingly similar to this;

Definition of a Power Elite: 'A group of men, similar in interest and outlook, shaping events from invulnerable positions behind the scenes.' C. Wright Mills 'The Power Elite'

Here is a training course for healthcare professionals to speak on behalf of the public on our tax paid dime. The course explains how to partner with others and in turn Lobby the government, for more Tax dollars.

Does this sound a little bit like an abuse of the public purse to you? Gomery gone wild you could have a whole series of Jerry Springer style hate smokers punch ups on episodes based on this, in line with the credibility of the rest of the known to be corrupt former Liberal Government agenda.

Here is the format of the liberal red book in fact;

Perhaps the ultimate overlooked point of this work is the suggestion that Adolph Hitler with his anti-tobacco, anti-religion, pro-animal rights, pro-government intrusion would find success as a modern day liberal." --Steve Fantina

Perhaps it may be time to reconsider the flawed assumptions in the level of risk of ETS considering the common sense and historical evidence, which have always been given little credibility or consideration for that matter, in what was being said in support of Smoker Bans, and hate campaign advocacy.

The good old days when we were not afraid to speak out when mistakes were being made. When they took a precautionary view of preliminary research before the days when the rush to press created immediate facts gathered on the hour irrespective of source or peer review.

1953 a full 3 years after Doll revealed his classic research paper. Could you imagine such arrogance today?

What is already known on this matter is that there has been an increase in deaths from lung cancer in this country which began in 1919 and has continued ever since. That increase is much greater in males than in females. In 1931 the number of deaths attributed to lung cancer in England and Wales was1, 358 for males and 522 for females. In 1952 there were 11,981 male and 2,237 female deaths from this cause. The highest mortality from lung cancer in males occurred in the 65-74 age group while in females the highest rate occurred in the 75 and over age group.

Comparable increases have been reported in all countries from which reliable statistics are available. Tobacco smoking plays some part in this increase but it is certain that it cannot be the only factor since the disease occurs in non-smokers.

Apparently the now also dated research studies on Environmental Tobacco smoke were flawed.
New research has found a major confounder was under estimated by triple the risk it actually represents. When you take into consideration the marginal findings in the bulk of research done to date, the dilute mixture of air and ETS being comprised of volumes higher quantities of air.

The older research from as late as 5 years ago simply is no longer sustainable.

From the American Lung association;

The Substantial new research from a number of sources, indicates by lowering the air Particulate matter from 35 Micrograms/M3 to 25 Micrograms/M3 a safe level of PM2.5 air quality could be achieved.

Now if we follow the same logic by reducing the permissible smokers per cubic meter of air diluting the smoke in the room, in addition to increased ventilation.

A similar safe level could also be achieved without insult injury or Hatred being necessary.

Amazing what good old common sense will do for you when opposing tyrants.

Next we could deal with ethics in the punishing Taxation levels for universal SAMMEC healthcare costs currently being over collected in direct contravention to the rights to healthcare with no extra billing guaranteed in the Canada healthcare act. I heard about that act during the federal election the one bill all political parties swear to protect.

Billing for use of a legal product, which is generally thought to be addictive and we conveniently punish those described as addicts for its use. Despite how differently we treat others with an addiction supplying needles and replacement drugs and heaps of that "compassion" stuff we hear about the stuff of legends apparently.

Outdoor Particulate matter PM2.5 with assumed equal percentages .08% of PPAH derived from over 40,000 chemicals in outdoor air is currently considered safe at [35ug/M3] 35 millionths of a gram per cubic meter of air. By scale irrespective of 90% of the additional ingredients PPAH levels would be 28 Nanograms per cubic meter of air.

Tobacco smoke with particulate matter of the same description diluted with outdoor air known to be above 35 millionths of a gram /M3 the risk they tell us has already reduced over the past decade still included as the majority ingredient of the mixture. ETS cannot be safe at levels higher than 20.5 Nanograms PM (Billionths of a gram} and associated PPAH levels of 16.4 Nanograms {Trillionths of a gram}

Actual PM averages in a smoky bar stated as 205 Micro Grams total RSP resulting in 164 Nanograms With no smoke in the room PM standards would exceed safe level standards set for tobacco smoke by more than a thousand times. We really need to go back to the manufacturers information and think about adjusting the known safe levels found in the product or concede the current agenda is based on some very poor science. Does the public have a right to decide?

I am curious how the two PM types would be investigated separately and what dangerous toxins found in cigarette smoke are not found in higher quantities in ambient air?

Tobacco smoke could be easily avoided with a sign on the door dangers decrease rapidly with cessation of such small comparative exposure. The toxins in ambient air however cannot be avoided. There will be no cessation and toxins and carcinogens will accumulate in us all. So in a purely logical perspective, which would the experts afford the greater harm. Even the most dedicated fanatic would have to concede the ETS fraud does not look so rosy when dragged into the light of day, exposing a lot of credibility issues best left to fight for amongst yourselves..

Does Health Canada respect; ethical values in its operations, The autonomy rights to quality information, Do they denounce violence or intolerance against any identifiable group? This would be consistent with Canadian values and traditions. Are we to accept in Globalization where the new reality will be Industry paid lobby groups who will control Government ethical considerations independent of the will of the people? Those sitting in Parliament apparently no longer rule this country. Corrupted UN agencies and their valued NGO partners in American Industry now control our values.

This is what organized crime looks like

With Trillions in Tax-free charity dollar assets paying the bills.

"...Somebody has to take governments' place,

and business seems to me to be a logical entity to do it."

- David Rockefeller - Newsweek International, Feb 1 1999.

Rockefeller Foundation

Here's the Money Incidentally CSPI wrote Ralph Goodales Pan Canadian strategy RWJF also financed Smoking ban advocacy in support of Nicoderm cq smoking patches. Charity at its finest, from the Family Company, Does the public have a right to know?

It is funny how that name CSPI keeps popping up everywhere we look

"Fascism should rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merger of state and corporate power"

- Benito Mussolini

My evidence at the British Medical Journal

Who would you trust with Healthcare advice?

"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than a small one" Adolf Hitler: 'Mein Kampf'

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

" President Eisenhower - farewell address to the nation - Jan 16th 1961

Back in the days when life was better and a man could afford to support his family

And people understood integrity and respect for each other

Before Trudeau and deficit financing the new energy policy and a host of other free spending projects designed to destroy our economy and our quality of life.

No justice was ever afforded to shoeshine boy Emanuel Jacques he didn’t survive

Trudeau’s new ethics policies. Some of us remember what really happened, despite the closed court and the history rewrite on the CBC. The day Toronto actually lost its innocence


"What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler

Currently we are being given great cause to think.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Gahndi can kick ASHes ass anyday

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Mahatma Gandhi

If Gandhi was right, the following scenario becomes a concern for the industrial socialist war room.

Recent demands of ASH for smoker bans in the workplace could result in some unintended benefits to those employed by companies following the ASH dictates. In an employee-employer relationship, it could be shown if an employer directs the actions of their employee during out of plant hours; how can the employer deny, the employee is not off the clock.

This leads to the reality; two thirds of employee’s wages along with applicable overtime, is not being compensated.

We go beyond this; the liability of workers compensation boards would have to pay compensation to anyone falling off a ladder cleaning the eave troughs or claims of twisted wrists on the golf course. Compensation boards to rectify the situation would have to fine employers for under estimation of hours and wages. Insurance costs to employers would soar as a tripling of operating hours a job is suddenly a 24-7 career akin to compensated slavery. Liability for employees injured on the job, companies being associated with criminal activities during paid hours, drinking on the job and other unforeseen liabilities, resulting in litigation to separate actions of the employee from actions of the company will emerge.

The labor unions would of course be the major supporters of ASH in these endeavors, if not, they should be. If a union representing say 100,000 employees took, employers to court to reclaim the unpaid wages Union dues alone on those payments could amount to hundreds of millions of unclaimed compensation for services already provided.

Insurance companies forced to pay for litigation efforts will in support of smokers bans be paying hundreds of billions in liability claims. lawyers will keep this point unresolved in courts for decades increasing profits to the legal industry. Stock markets will be unstable as well as rumors fly and increase dramatically fluctuations in stock values by the minute. The effect of lobby groups, will seen as the cause of instability, Industry lobbies will be heavily regulated or outlawed many prominent advocates and their benefactors found to be profiting from provocations will result in long term partners being pitted against each other in litigious battles decidedly favoring the larger industry bankrolls and ability to buy the best representation. Many advocates will be arrested and sued.

The medical charities and doctors will, although not likely to be hanged this time around, for deliberate ignorance of autonomy laws will suffer immeasurably (Cigarette smoke being defined as tobacco smoke along with the inclusion of smokeless products fails miserably the test of informed consent.) The entire medical community will pay through loss of credibility for decades having gone down the same road again a second time after seeing the effects of the last political healthcare campaign, how could they ever rise to a level of trust again. Heavy regulation and arrests will also no doubt follow.

Who will laugh last will be the last man standing, as industries legislate themselves into oblivion, to suit the rewards of greed. The financiers of bans seeking to take market share in the nicotine market may ultimately be the largest losers as other major industries seek revenge, likely originating from the actions of a single CE who doesn’t like the smell of smoke.

With all this money flying around short term, increases in taxation and costs of goods, this will result in an eventual catastrophic deflation resulting eventually in higher standards of living for all. as large industries cash reserves deplete returning cash into the common market.

Free spending Liberalism with high costs and impositions gaining the fascist reputation will once again be put down to the level of faint support. They will remain marked for decades as dictators. Conservatives will fail to be seen as the only political option as they too are responsible for rise of the chaotic community, in respect to other options. Smaller parties based in community values regionally will form coalition governments to hold the reins of power. Protection of one’s body will return to a matter of personal choices as common sense and community values once again are left to regulate democracy and freedom.

Yes Gandhi really did know how to kick some ass.