The Farce of “Second Hand Smoke”
PART 2 – The “Science”
“But, the EVIDENCE Shows !!!”
Very well, let us actually LOOK at the evidence.
There are certain news stories that, curiously,
seem to become instantly buried from public view
– for example:
“Passive smokers inhale the equivalent
of just six cigarettes A YEAR
from other people’s smoke;
according to the largest ever study
of actual exposure levels
The figure, which undermines previous warnings
about the dangers of passive smoking,
is a Thousand times LOWER than that
faced by direct smokers –
and so tiny that it could not
be measured statistically … “
[ Matthews & MacDonald, The Telegraph, 16 August 1998 ]
Other media stories merit screaming headlines
and bold capital letters – BUT NOT this exposure
of the farce of “Second Hand Smoke”.
“But, the MEDICAL Evidence Shows … “
“Three thousand dead, per year, from lung cancer
due to second hand smoke?
The production of one official coroner’s report indicating death
caused by “Second Hand Smoke” has NEVER been forthcoming …
for the simple fact that
… it does not exist.
Statistics offered in conjunction with phrases such as
“can have”, “can lead”, and “may have”,
are conducted solely upon long-term
CHRONIC exposure cases.
All others were discarded.
SPORADIC exposure cases are not even applicable,
whilst sporadic cases in the OPEN AIR are
(if intelligent thought were but to be applied)
observable, vacuous Absurdities.
But all this is of little consequence as,
in the “studies” — NO EXPOSURE TIMES
were ever MEASURED.
The “studies” are based upon participants
as to the number of hours they were subjected
to “passive” smoking throughout their lifetime.
Prohibition and the Control that accompanies it,
along with pharmaceutical industry Profits,
are the only realities
in the “Second Hand Smoke” hysteria.
An American Congressional Research Service report
[ Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Risk,
CRS November 1995 ] found the December, 1992
American Environmental Protection Agency … “study” …
into ‘passive smoking’ as a “Class A” carcinogen … to be
“CHARACTERIZED by both scientific and procedural
irregularities” – and noted that
“… studies relied primarily on QUESTIONNAIRES
to the case and control members,
or their surrogates,
to determine ETS exposure and other information
pertinent to the studies.”
“… very few or even no deaths can be attributed
to E[nvironmental] T[obacco] S[moke] “
“…conflicts of interest by both Agency staff involved …
and members of the science Advisory Board panel selected
to provide a supposedly independent evaluation
of the document.”
The conclusion noted that “the Agency
ABUSED and MANIPULATED
the scientific data
in order to reach a
predetermined POLITICALLY motivated result.”
[ All emphasis mine ]
Yet THIS is the “study” that is quoted ad nauseum
by those who have a political, authoritarian,
or commercial agenda to pursue.
A federal court in America determined that the
same report “publicly committed to a conclusion
BEFORE research had begun … and made findings
on SELECTIVE information …”
The packet of lies uncovered by the 17 July, 1998
United States federal court decision under Judge Wm. Osteen,
regarding Plaintiffs, V. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, and CAROL BROWNER,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
It took the American EPA four years to have the finding
dismissed on the technicality of the judge
not having appropriate jurisdiction.
But the court’s findings – which have never been rebutted –
“… In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion
before research had begun;
adjusted established procedure and scientific norms
to validate the Agency’s public conclusion,
and aggressively utilized the Act’s authority
to disseminate findings to …
to influence public opinion …
“… EPA inexplicably departed from its stated procedure
for selecting risk estimates from the spousal smoking studies
when that allowed the Agency to increase its
summary risk Estimate for particular studies;
(2) EPA did not include certain studies and data
in its meta-analysis …
(3) EPA adopted statistical testing methods rejected
by epidemiologists …”
“… the Agency withheld significant portions
of its findings and reasoning
in striving to confirm its a priori hypothesis.”
Nicholas Wald, a British government scientist declared
a 26% increase in death from “second hand smoke”.
His “evidence” for what would become known as
‘The Wald Report’???
The recollected ESTIMATIONS of Widows and Widowers,
of the amount that their deceased spouses had smoked.
Whenever ‘studies’ concerning “Second Hand Smoke” are cited,
“Wald, 1997” will invariably be found in the ‘reference’ works.
It is this “scientific” “evidence” upon which blanket
malicious discrimination is founded.
But, repeat a lie often enough to self-obsessed,
knee-jerk reacting multitudes
and they will believe it –
particularly if the mantra is repeated
through the television set.
Present the liar dressed in a white lab coat,
and this multi-million euro/pound/dollar social engineering programme
will absolutely thrive …
on no stronger “evidence” than the mantra of
“the evidence shows”.
By all means, consider the EVIDENCE:
A human being would have to breathe, in a room
THICK with smoke, for 4,000 hours BEFORE
he would inhale tobacco smoke equivalent to ONE cigarette.
[ Hinds & First, “Concentration of Nicotine and Tobacco Smoke
in Public Places” New England Journal of Medicine,
volume 292, 1975]
A 39 YEAR study of non-smoking spouses married
to smokers revealed NO “causal relationship”
between so-called second hand smoke and mortality.
[ “ Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Tobacco related Mortality
in a Prospective Study of Californians, 1960-198”, Engstrom & Kabat,
British Journal of Medicine, volume 326, 2003 ]
Common sense (a quality now absent
from the majority of the human race)
will make it self-evident that undiscerning,
‘blanket’ “studies” are farcical:
APPLY COMMON SENSE:
The man who smokes a pipe twice a Week,
is NOT the same type of smoker
as the individual who sucks down three packs
of cigarettes a Day.
And the child playing in the city park is at more risk
from the high-pressure exhaust of automobiles
all around him,
than he ever will be from the little old man
with a briar pipe,
sitting on a park bench thirty feet away.
Yet, so Mentally Incapacitated by television and the Internet
are the modern hordes, that the ability to discern –
to exercise what was once known as “common sense” –
is now utterly eradicated from the minds
of media-dependent masses.
It used to be Known as “Common Sense”
There is a world of difference between … Use and Abuse.
The discernment that is non-existent in many
… is vanishing rapidly, in the rest.
And for governments to tyrannise people over mundane
matters of mature common sense – such as a puff of smoke
in the open air – is an appalling indication of the lack of
maturity, reason, and intelligent thought
in modern humanity.
I have not the slightest doubt that
furiously sucking nicotine into the lungs
is detrimental to health.
What is equally disgusting, is that the moderate
– the self controlled – the considered – user of pipe tobacco,
is placed in the same category
as the butt-flicking, furiously sucking cigarette addict.
And to have a population that blindly accepts
every notion that emanates from their television set,
without any discernment whatsoever –
is the real threat to modern children.
But I have witnessed, in the last 25 years,
the appalling spectacle of infantilised people:
1. who blindly – and without any mature consideration
whatsoever – bow to the utter absurdity of potential death
from an old man with a briar pipe;
while they sit at a café patio table, in a parking lot,
thinking nothing of the car exhaust which blankets
the air they inhale.
2. who swill coffee; devour fluffed lard
from the ‘doughnut shop’; and shovel junk food
down their family’s collective throats –
but consider the moderate use of pipe tobacco,
a threat to their life.
“Ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee,
and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee …”
Animals, in the 21st century, have evidently
come to excel human beings
in the ability to think, and discern …
Why do the little birds that frequent our garden,
come to eat chipped sunflower hearts
while I am sitting three feet away?
Because they exercise discernment
– they know that I am no threat to them …
… yet will fly away
if a visitor to our home steps out into the garden.
Even an animal thinks … discerns …
and applies something of wisdom.
What an indictment of the state of modern humanity,
that multitudes are incapable of doing the same.