Healthcare fraud

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Everyone has a right to an opinion, although…

As the surgeon General has demonstrated his once quite credible office, is now an excellent source of speculation and political opinion, recently severed from the burdens of integrity or that more cumbersome burden of protecting public health. The SG in his finest hour demonstrates examples of social engineering even Sadam would be proud of. A self appointed referee who seeks to end the petty squabbles of the discovery process in his recent decree “we already know all we need to know”.

The CDC will now be transformed as the international clearing house and numero uno supplier of low quality but acceptable statistical facts and the international benchmark of acceptable medical belief. Some interpretations of the presentations made could generously be described as merely controversial as enthusiastic overstatements however some are no less than outright lies; none the less the General has spoken; ”the debate is now over”.

It all began with the demonstrated ability of healthcare professionals global power in redefining property rights shown in the redefinition of the term “public spaces”. Then moving into domination of environment and emission standards, in asserting new non linear associations to replace complicated cause and effect principles. Eliminating previous belief in the effect of poison is in the dose as now an outdated theory. We now we move to replacing the word correlation with cause. In declaring the mystery of SIDS is in our past and although science and medicine does not support it; severe asthma has also been given a specific cause. The win-win situation will allay all swimming pool off gas theories. Accusations made by wrong headed individuals for decades, which were coming dangerously close to public liability which could of course would involve compensation. We don’t want to see another messy agent orange or gulf syndrome episode on our hands after all.

Smoking is the cause of all evil in mortality and morbidity with that said, the savings in wasted research dollars can be better used enforcing the power of democracy around the globe.
“because I say so” will soon be printed on all American currency to establish healthcare as supreme rule in globalist democracy with the recently integrated socialist reforms. Healthcare is not finished yet, a lot of work needs to be done. Abortion and assisted suicide were successful in establishing the beach head. The cloning of human embryos is almost within our grasp. This will soon lead to a full term clone. After establishing the civil rights of that future clone; we will establish a moral authority to replace the recently departed aunt Martha, and alleviate the health concerns associated with the sadness in her passing. Soon all petty superstitious values can be set aside, affording all charity be directed to its rightful place to the auspices of deserving permanent medical charities. The soldiers who have fought long and hard to supplant the new reality of global dominance in respect of the deserving and superior components of the human gene pool.

Churches and the old moral values of the dinosaurs are soon to be replaced permanently with the tailoring of the term miracle of creation to more closely align with clinical realities. Church doctorates were inconsistent in allowing the drinking of wine the eating of living creatures and smoking of a peace pipe. Darwin can be our only true savior. We don’t live in silos was the rallying cry to end discontent in severance of rights to nationalist self determination. The authority of the UN is now accepted as supreme rule in all law above the petty laws of member states. How much more efficient will this world be for the right headed, when we live in miniaturized silos, now carelessly defined as test tubes which will can one day replace the definition and use of the retro terms; womb and parent.

Lets deal with the present situation, in a more immediate reality shall we?
I have made every effort to demonstrate my arguments in use of sources solely deemed in the opinions of healthcare stakeholders, in dispensing only so called right headed evidence. Tobacco Control has been successful in solidifying the interests of the Tobacco industry the recent surgeon generals report stands as proof of that reality. Tobacco Control has been successfully subrogated as an asset of tobacco company interests and increased profitability.

It would now be no longer necessary to expend vast fortunes in the defense of OJ Simpson type legal defense. Once the legal profession catches on, the undermining of forensic evidence will be reduced to a matter of process within reach of a moderately trained Para-legal or legal assistant. This could lead to the retrying of many criminal cases with the once quite credible evidence of science now seen to be reduced to political consensus opinion.

Page 4 of the SG’ handout displays a number of poison gases as the reason to fear the deadly Tobacco smoke. He incredibly lists the most common sources of every one of those named poisons and proof of their existence in ambient air a forgotten component in the second hand smoke promotions. Their has to be somewhat of a credibility concern in declaring more non linear danger exists in trace amounts measured in cigarette smoke at almost undetectable levels with little concern for the major sources of those same contaminants. Unfortunately his wisdom ends at the business end of what ever it is he or silent Bob prefers to smoke, and of course he would never inhale.

Here is a selection of choice pronouncements from the Grand Pubbah of Quackdum County

■ There is no safe amount of secondhand smoke. Breathing even a little secondhand smoke can be dangerous.

■ Breathing secondhand smoke is a known cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Children are also more likely to have lung problems, ear infections, and severe asthma from being around smoke.

Secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer.

Separate “no smoking” sections DO NOT protect you from secondhand smoke. Neither does filtering the air or opening a window

Did you know for instance although ETS is an unacceptable risk dangerous in all levels of exposures it only caries half the cancer risk of living in racially divided neighborhoods

“Multivariate modeling showed that, after controlling for tract-level SES measures, increasing segregation amplified the cancer risks associated with ambient air toxics for all racial groups combined [highly segregated areas: relative cancer risk (RCR) = 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01–107; extremely segregated areas: RCR = 1.32; 95% CI, 1.28–1.36]. …Results suggest that disparities associated with ambient air toxics are affected by segregation and that these exposures may have health significance for populations across racial lines.”

This is an example of a .32 increased risk to see the really scary and quite significant numbers we have to look at urban centers individually where disparities can be more focused in observation non urban and areas of varying cultural diversity can tend to lower the outcomes. Here is a study of Maryland the significance of the numbers can tell you a lot in how easy it is to make grand and quite misleading statements in pointing at smoking when they know smoking is much more prevalent in lower socioeconomic sectors poverty is much more significantly associated to cancers and a host of other mortality and morbidity figures, which as economic inspired risks, coexist with cigarettes in disproportionately much larger but parallel numbers in all health risk categories.

The idea of higher taxation to lower mortality and morbidity, can be shown to be having a devastating effect in tremendous mortality and morbidity increases. This doesn’t even consider the corresponding increased violence consistent with increased poverty, which is the real pandemic we should be dealing with.

These are really scary cancer risk numbers much more decisive and credible than anything coming out of Tobacco control.

Census tracts in the highest quartile defined by the fraction of African-American residents were three times more likely to be high risk (> 90th percentile of risk) than those in the lowest quartile (95% confidence interval, 2.0–5.0). Conversely, risk decreased as the proportion of whites increased (p <>. Census tracts in the lowest quartile of socioeconomic position, as measured by various indicators, were 10–100 times more likely to be high risk than those in the highest quartile. We observed substantial risk disparities for on-road, area, and nonroad sources by socioeconomic measure and on-road and area sources by race. There was considerably less evidence of risk disparities from major source emissions. We found a statistically significant interaction between race and income, suggesting a stronger relationship between race and risk at lower incomes.

Consider the CPS11 study for perspective.

. Lung cancer death rates, adjusted for other factors, were 20 percent higher among women whose husbands ever smoked during the current marriage than among those married to never-smokers (relative risk [RR] = 1.2, 95 percent confidence interval [CI] = 0.8-1.6). For never-smoking men whose wives smoked, the RR was 1.1 (CI = 0.6-1.8). Risk among women was similar or higher when the husband continued to smoke (RR = 1.2, CI = 0.8-1.8), or smoked 40 or more cigarettes per day (RR = 1.9, CI = 1.0-3.6), but did not increase with years of marriage to a smoker.

Most CIs included the null. Although generally not statistically significant, these results agree with the EPA summary estimate that spousal smoking increases lung cancer risk by about 20 percent in never-smoking women. Even large prospective studies have limited statistical power to measure precisely the risk from ETS.

The SG also failed to mention in assessing indoor to outdoor air risk and total exposures when smoking is not a factor indoor air presents 3 times the cancer risk as outdoor air. Simply working indoors presents a much higher risk than ETS measured indoors or out.

Some of the personal measured exposures are interesting to note. The EPA and CDC can be shown the errors in their ways, in assessing and portraying to the public the ETS soup as a whole, devoid of measurements of the known ingredients or expressed as individual levels actually existing. The term “ETS causes 3000 cancer deaths annually” in a 320 million population this would represent in a 1 excess death per million standard 9.375 per million in comparison in evaluation of air toxics the air soup containing 10s of thousands of potentially toxic ingredients only 168 were determined worthy of monitoring by the EPA. The results of measurements showed a number of ETS ingredients when measured alone in non smoking environments were proven in many instances to be much more toxic than the total of ETS assessments.

This is the most significant and compelling of all the facts presented here;

The right to health relevant information derives from the principles of autonomy and self direction and has been recognized in international declarations. Providing accurate health information is part of the basis for obtaining “informed consent” and is a recognized component of business ethics, safety communications, and case and product liability law.”

More research can be found here

although the content is legitimate I fully expect the self serving critique of the healthcare lobby as unacceptable regardless of content or the origin of the links posted.

If anyone wants to offer an alternate opinion please feel free to comment.

My opinions are based in continuing research and of content which I have studied in depth. I have changed opinions many times in the process on a number of issues, changes were made based in discovering more credible research and it’s investigation.

In direct comparison all units of one excess cancer risk per 1 million population.

ETS 9.375 lifetime risk [Calculated above]
From personal monitoring of exposures; 3 days in primarily non smoking indoor environments, measured excess risk assessments

Benzene 133

Carbon 31.3

Tetrachloride Chloroform 801

Ethyl benzene 13.4

Methylene chloride 6.39

MTBE 41.4

Styrene 5.25

Perc 135

No safe cigarette? Hides the knowledge some cigarettes are much safer than others. By as much as 97% reduced carcinogenic risk. The scary part is the CDC has known for years manufacturers can alter the carcinogenic content substantially, yet took no steps to reduce those risks, allowing unnecessary increased carcinogen exposures to continue, while claiming to protect the public??? In many countries including Canada the risk was substantially increased by lowering trade barriers allowing the Tobacco Industry to use cheaper much more dangerous products. The Ontario Government all but destroyed the source of safer domestic products and allowed their own tobacco growers to be all but eliminated without debate. The government sings their own praises as protectors of the right, enforced in a threat to smokers “Quit or be punished” from the Health ministry, the supreme rulers of newly claimed public spaces, is this the punishment phase, a return to capitol punishment and a bypassing of the courts?

As proof; research of the physical variety, which should be more convincing than the calculations of biased political opinions.

Tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) comprise one of the major classes of carcinogenic compounds in mainstream cigarette smoke.

From Brazil

In only one country, Brazil, were the carcinogenic TSNA levels in mainstream smoke from Marlboro cigarettes significantly lower than in the locally popular brand. However, carcinogenic TSNA levels in mainstream smoke from Brazilian Marlboro cigarettes were usually lower than those in mainstream smoke from the Marlboros purchased in the other 13 countries, suggesting a reason for the difference. The wide range of mainstream smoke carcinogenic TSNA levels measured in the present study (8.7-312 ng/cigarette) suggest that manufacturers can lower the carcinogenic TSNA levels and that, for similar filter ventilation, carcinogenic TSNA levels in the tobacco filler of a cigarette are a useful indicator of the corresponding levels in mainstream smoke.

Need more proof testing of 170 commercial brands throughout Europe and north America 15 years ago along with a multitude of research since found in the associated articles link.

Both primary as well as secondary smoke would have a tremendous increased risk as a result, affecting all of community. This makes the recent announcements by the surgeon general kind of self fulfilling prophesy which he admits to the harm he caused in callous depraved indifference unbefitting his office.

From the peanut gallery, the much acclaimed and much quoted sergeant pea brain himself;

James Repace likes to discuss Particulate matter and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PPAH sounds like scary stuff, in fact the known safe level is .2 Milligrams or 200 micrograms. As far as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are concerned no real risk is present in his averaged levels found in the bars and casinos he tested. He made paid announcements for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation declaring indoor air he tested had much higher concentrations of toxins. Dispelling the truth in where the higher volume toxins actually existed; diluted in vastly larger volumes of outdoor air, despite his preparations. If the air outdoors was as high as indoor concentrations, with or without tobacco smoke we would already be extinct. He likes to hide the volume of dilatants and how they may affect the levels of toxins he uses in his scary story promotions of childish rhetoric, selling his credentials and integrity to the highest bidder

Hookers are honest in their presentations of what they do for a buck, no one doubts who they really are, Repace? A kindred associate still hiding in the closet.

He was once paid to establish a known safe level

today he sing the praises from the no safe level hymnbook.

PPAH is assumed by Repace to be a component of all respiratory particulate matter in cigarette smoke in a proportion .08% for calculation 205 Micrograms particulate measured times .0008 = 164 Nanograms

In a smoking allowed Casino the average smoke measurements were 205 Mg/m3{RSPs} and .08% =

163 Ng/m3 {PPAH}before a ban and 9Mg/m3{RSPs} and 4Ng/m3{PPAH} after a ban

Reality Bites Repace on his lying backside; safe level 200 micrograms measured level 0.164 micrograms

He contends this is 10,000 times the known safe level, requiring hurricanes to evacuate it from the bar???

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has set a limit of 0.2 milligrams of PAHs per cubic meter of air (0.2 mg/m³).

The reality in upsetting the calculated applecart is in the real science of observation.

When air pollution in a city declines, the city benefits with a directly proportional drop in death rates, a new study has found. For each decrease of 1 microgram of soot per cubic meter of air, death rates from cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness and lung cancer decrease by 3 percent -- extending the lives of 75,000 people a year in the United States. The association held even after controlling for smoking and body-mass index Particulate air pollution consists of a mixture of liquid and solid particles, mostly a result of fossil fuel combustion and high-temperature industrial processes. By definition, the particles have a diameter less than 2.5 microns, or about one ten-thousandth of an inch.

"For the most part, pollution levels are lower in this country than they were in the '70s and '80s," said Francine Laden, the study's lead author, "and the message here is that if you continue to decrease them, you will save more lives."

Further declines in air pollution are within reach, said Laden, an assistant professor of environmental epidemiology at Harvard. "The technology is out there," she said. "The cities that we've covered have cleaned up considerably."

Laden said the study supported what the federal scientific advisers had advocated: tightening the air quality standard below the present 15 micrograms per cubic meter.

"There was discussion about lowering it to 12," she said, "and this study supports that."

Here is a real shocker which would he ban first, a pack of cigarettes or a Truck?


WASHINGTON, DC, July 12, 2001 (ENS) - Exhaust from diesel engines accounts for 78 percent of the total added cancer risk in outdoor air from all hazardous air pollutants combined, shows a new analysis of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data.

The analysis by the conservation group Environmental Defense is based on a massive EPA study, which provides detailed estimates of the levels of 41 top hazardous air pollutants in every community in the U.S. EPA's previous version of the air pollutant report did not include information on diesel particulate emissions.

"The dominance of diesel in the unhealthiness of our air is a revelation," said David Roe, Environmental Defense senior attorney. "It couldn't be seen before, only because studies weren't trying to look for it."



Post a Comment

<< Home