Healthcare fraud

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.


Post a Comment

<< Home