Various Documents



In this section are links to a few selected references, websites, articles and research of interest 
that challenge anti-smoker propaganda. These can raise awareness and educate an unsuspecting (often indoctrinated) public of the anti-smoker deception.

"You owe it to yourself, to your children and to your fellow citizens to find out how and why the anti-tobacco movement has perverted the truth and has driven citizens towards inter-relational and personal dysfunction and how it has caused economic hardship to societies throughout the world.  Find out why it will not stop with tobacco and how 

your lifestyle choices will sooner or later be attacked unless you act now."(Iro Cyr)

***




***

Road To Ruin:  
The Impact of the Smoking Ban on 
 by Rob Lyons June 2017

1st July 2017 marks the tenth anniversary of the introduction of the smoking ban in England. The ban followed similar regulations that came into force in the Republic of Ireland (March 2004), Scotland (March2006), Northern Ireland and Wales (both April 2007). 
 Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) tellingly described the outcome of their campaign to ban smoking in all enclosed public places as a 
“confidence trick”.
Rob outlines some of the numerous adverse effects of these smoking bans.
This impact evaluation was funded by the Tobacco industry, hence the need to add the (disputable) statement that smoking causes serious injury. (To omit this would invite future litigation by the anti-smoker industry) 
Otherwise it is a must-read document.

 ***


Tobacco CONTROL Tactics

(TCTactics)

TCTactics aims to provide up-to-date information on the Tobacco Control Industry, its allies and those promoting the extremist anti-tobacco agenda that no longer targets just tobacco but ordinary adult consumers who use it.
The website explores how this industry – with support from the pharmaceutical nicotine producers and government tax funds – influences and often distorts public health debates, using a whole raft of lobbying, public relations tactics and junk science.

***
NYC CLASH: How to read studies

Medical science over recent years has increasingly abandoned its primary purpose of 'finding the truth' but has become more a tool to serve a pre-determined political agenda.
In this age of propaganda, pseudo and junk science, all used to serve agendas such as anti-smoking, climate change etc it is important to understand that scientists and others, while not always telling outright lies, WILL interpret research findings to their own ends and often do not tell the WHOLE truth. It is important to have a basic understanding of how to understand the data and conclusions of studies. While research studies can be very complex, reading and understanding the results is fairly straightforward. 


***
VELVET GLOVE IRON FIST - EVIDENCE
by Chris Snowden

  An easy to understand explanation of SHS studies and a comprehensive list of those ETS studies


***

LIES, DAMNED LIES AND
400,000 SMOKING-RELATED DEATHS
by
Robert A. Levy & Rosalind B. Marimont



 This is an important document that shows, amongst other things, how anti-tobacco manage to manufacture the absurd guesstimates of smoker related deaths and how using their same criteria;
“the same calculations that yield 400,000 smoking-related deaths suggest that 504,000 people die each year because they engage in little or no exercise. Employing an identical formula, bad nutritional habits can be shown to account for 649,000 excess deaths annually!”

A CHALLENGE TO OUR 'DAMNED LIES'

   Using cdc’s own data, Cigarettes do not kill anyone below the age of 35; nearly 60 percent of the total occurred at age 70 or above. And almost 17 percent of the total occurred at 85 or above. 
 "When Dr. Eriksen proclaims that a checked box on a death certificate corresponds to a death caused by tobacco, he reminds us yet again that cdc’s attributable deaths are no more than a statistical artifact. "

***

LIES, DAMNED LIES AND ... STATISTICS 

By Judith Hatton

"We are told that 120,000 people in Britain die a year as a result of their smoking. Where does this figure come from?"

"A joint report by the Royal Colleges of Pathologists Surgeons and Physicians ("The Autopsy and Audit", 1991), says: "In autopsies (post-mortems) performed on patients thought to have died of malignant disease (cancer) there was only 75% agreement that malignancy was the cause of the death and in only 56% was the primary site identified correctly." 
(So if you are told you have cancer there is a one in four chance that you haven't, and even if you have there is almost a fifty-fifty chance that you're being treated for one in the wrong place).


***

The Modern Inquisition of ‘Concerned’ Science
by Andrew McIntyre (1998)

  Interesting essay on how the anti-smoker industry 'plays the man' rather than the quality of the scientific evidence. 

"political activists are increasingly misusing science as a tool of advocacy with little or no regard for objectivity or truth. The perverted use of science by the academic and political left in its service to the power elite is precisely that danger the post-modern critique wishes to address, but to which, by its own misunderstanding of science, it contributes."
"All scientific evidence, regardless of source, must be considered on its merits. To attack the individual because of the findings or the source of funding of that research is an argumentum ad hominem. The approach may work in advocacy, but has no role to play in science."

***

 LUNG CANCER IS A NON-SMOKERS DISEASE

"Nearly 80% of people diagnosed with lung cancer now, in 2012, are non-smokers. 
All of the anti-smoking campaigns imaginable are not going to make a difference for this 80%. "

***

THE SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL OF ANTISMOKING
 
Above all has been the repeated and world-wide directive that 
smokers should quit and live longer when 
every controlled trial without exception has demonstrated this claim to be false
 It may now be apparent why there is such a general belief that smoking is dangerously harmful. There are 3 reasons. First, studies which in any other area of science would be rejected as second-rate and inferior but which support antismoking are accepted as first-rate. Second, studies which are conducted according to orthodox and rigorous design but which do not support the idea that smoking is harmful are not merely ignored but suppressed. Third, authorities who are duty-bound to represent the truth have 
failed to do so and have presented not just untruths but the reverse of the truth.
When the processes of science are misused, even if for what seems a good reason, 
science and its practitioners are alike degraded.

*** 

RAMPANT ANTISMOKING

Rampant antismoking signifies grave danger
By Vincent Riccardo DI PIERRI


"This book is an examination of some of the telling signs of the time. Ultimately it is a delineation of an unfolding, global scale metaphysical crisis. It could well be asked what the issue of antismoking would have to do with so foreboding a prospect. The argument in the current discussion is that militant antismoking is a critical symptom of rampant materialism, biological reductionism, atheism and moral relativism, behaviorism, and economic rationalism/opportunism."
 The Nazi assault on smoking, which has only been presented in the medical journals recently, is very pertinent to the current discussion. Antismoking was very central to the Nazi mentality. Antismoking provided one moral substitute for a regime that was spiritually, morally, socially, and psychologically degenerate. The materialism of the current antismoking crusade has disturbing similarities to the Nazi mentality.

***

SMOKING IMPROVES BRAIN POWER

 
Smoking gives the brain more stamina, improves short term memory, accuracy - working memory, response time - attention, accuracy - attention, speed - orienting attention. Minor improvement: Fine motor skills. 
Forty eight of the best quality trials prove tobacco boosts brain power by 10 to 30%.


***

LIES, DAMED LIES AND MEDICAL SCIENCE

Dr. John Ioannidis
Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. Peer review examined etc. In 2005, he unleashed two papers that challenged the foundations of medical research.
“The studies were biased,” he says. “Sometimes they were overtly biased. Sometimes it was difficult to see the bias, but it was there.” Researchers headed into their studies wanting certain results—and, lo and behold, they were getting them. 
“Even when the evidence shows that a particular research idea is wrong, if you have thousands of scientists who have invested their careers in it, they’ll continue to publish papers on it,” he says. “It’s like an epidemic, in the sense that they’re infected with these wrong ideas, and they’re spreading it to other researchers through journals.”

***

Big drug's Nicotine War

by Wanda Hamilton

A Comprehensive look at the unhealthy relationship between the Smoker CONTROL industry and the Pharmaceutical industry that works to their mutual benefit, but to the detriment of the smoking community, impartial science and medicine etc.


***

POLITICAL PONEROLOGY :  

A science on the nature of evil adjusted for political purposes  

By Andrew M. Lobaczewski (1984)

This reading is a bit heavy, at times resorts to hyperbole, and I do not agree with all of the conclusions but overall it is an interesting study of essential psychopathy and its exceptional role in the macrosocial phenomenon. It explains how some psychopaths can rise to prominent positions of power and wealth in society. Intelligent pathological psychopaths are not all like the stereotypical character Dr. Hannibal Lecter, of 'Silence of the Lambs' fame; he would be considered an 'unsuccessful psychopath'. Many can be “Likeable”, “Charming”, “Intelligent”, “Alert”, “Impressive”, and “Confidence- inspiring,” ie. appear to be 'normal'. On the other hand they can have little or no conscience, no feelings of guilt or remorse, no shame, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of others no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action they take, suggesting that "psychopaths are human in every respect – but they lack a soul."  Apart from 'likeable', these traits are characteristic of the anti-smoker mind set. Are 'socially adept psychopaths' at the heart of the anti-smoker industry and/or their sponsors?


***

SCIENTIFIC DEBATE BY 'NIGHTLIGHT'
  
Mainly relating to 'hard' science, clinical studies, animal studies etc.

Read all the comments (there are many); Good discussion from both sides of the anti-smoker debate, but the best scientists anti-smoking could provide were destroyed by Nightlight mainly regarding Hard Experimental science - that always 'went the wrong way' (for anti-smokers that is) and demonstrated beneficial health effects of smoking. 

Note; some of the links provided by Nightlight do not work now or are directed to unrelated sites. Evidence of anti-smoker underhand tampering and 'memory hole' tactics that are becoming ever more prevalent? and not just to Nightlight! 


***

Petr Skrabanek

The pursuit of health is a symptom of unhealth. When this
pursuit is no longer a personal yearning but part of state
ideology, healthism for short, it becomes a symptom of political sickness.


***
 The-Truth-about-Tobacco-and-the-Benefits-of-Nicotine
 This is a Sott.net audio discussion covering many aspects of the anti-smoker deception as well as a detailed look at some of the health and cognitive benefits of smoking. (Although nearly 2hrs long it is well worth listening to)
also related; 

The-epidemic-of-junk-science-in-tobacco-smoking-research
by Gordon Vick

*** 
Nicotine - The Zombie Antidote 

Gabriela Segura, M.D.

I'm sick and tired of the anti-smoking culture that has taken over the entire world. I have had enough of hearing "don't smoke, it's bad for you!!" The ignorance that betrays such remarks is utterly abysmal, especially coming from people who should know better. So for all those who have asked me why do I actually smoke, I'm going to explain my reasons in this article. 

***
 The myth of smoking during pregnancy being harmful
by 'anonymous', 
with Ph.D. in experimental psychology

 In about 1999 I was asked to analyze the data of pregnant women with respect to smoking for a major health insurance company. Here is what was found in the data;
4.5% of smoking mothers babies were underweight and 3.3% of non-smoking mothers babies were underweight. This difference is not significant - No indication of a health risk from smoking based on weight;
 No risk from reduced term for smoking mothers;
Non-smoking mothers had 20% more C-Sections. 

Smoking women tend to light up when under stress. This is less harmful to the baby than over-eating. For this reason smoking mothers tended to have better outcomes for baby and mother. They also cost less for the insurance company. 
"You might be interested in knowing that this information was not used" (by the insurance Company, citing government regulation as the reason)

***


WHO, WHAT AND WHY?
Transnational Government, Legitimacy and the
World Health Organization
 By ROGER SCRUTON (2000)
 Single issue, organised pressure groups appear to have an increasing influence on government policies out of all proportion to the extent to which they represent general opinion. Scruton points out how these groups have increased their influence in supranational, and  transnational institutions such as the EU, UN and WHO, using them to force minority views on the populace at large. He argues that the case of the WHO and tobacco is of particular significance, since it shows how an institution with a purpose that few would question, (ie. To promote  international  cooperation  in  the  fight  against disease; Its objective ‘shall be the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health’), can be turned in a wholly new direction, in order  to  impose  the  social  and  political  agenda  of  a  handful  of activists. The case will therefore set a precedent, not only for further legislation by the WHO, but for an ever-expanding raft of laws imposed  on  us  by  unelected,  unaccountable  and  unejectable bureaucrats. The case is also interesting for another reason, in that it raises in an acute form the question of liberty.
Note; As we know the WHO's FCTC, drafted by anti-smoker interests and backed by Big Pharma, was indeed quietly ratified and the precedent set by several governments in 2004 resulting in substantial loss of individual freedoms. This has opened up the pipeline for other minority demands, and resulted in other framework conventions to control other lifestyle issues, yet to be ratified. 
On 23 June 2016  the British people rejected the unelected, unaccountable EU, and it is clear that other peoples in Europe are thinking on a similar plane - the time has come for other similarly unaccountable organisations, such as the WHO, to also be rejected )


***

Personal note and Disclaimer: 
I have higher qualifications in Public Administration and am also the holder of a Bachelor of Arts (Hons) Degree. However, I am not associated in any way (other than as a consumer) with any industry including the Tobacco Industry or the Pharmaceutical industry. I am neither part of the scientific nor medical community and do not claim any special qualifications or expert status, in those areas. Nothing within this blog site should be taken as either medical or legal advice, but instead should act as a resource in providing general information that may be useful to the general public/sceptical public figures, and provide a basis for further research. The information, external links and references within this site are added as is and provided in good faith. While, to the best of my ability, I try to ensure they are always true and correct, they are added on the understanding that the reader satisfies themselves as to validity. 
My comments are motivated by my realization of the escalating crisis of integrity and impartiality in those scientific and medical communities, together with the increasing invasion, by government, into personal lifestyle choices and control of individual freedoms. These are symptoms of a move towards modern day fascism and an invasive cancer that is now spreading throughout the world.  Most of the information I provide on this blogsite is what anyone can access and discover by research on the internet. (They must first wade through reams and reams of anti-smoker propaganda, that swamps the internet, to find that relevant material however). Given the often inherent bias and crisis of trust in medicine and science today it is incumbent on anyone, who values freedom and integrity, to use their own abilities to critically assess the many dubious claims and contradictions. Quite often simple common sense is the only skill needed to identify many of those contradictions. It is only necessary for the lay-person to utilize his or her own god-given skills in rational, logical thinking. I hope that I inspire others to do just that . Kin_Free
***

No comments:

Post a Comment