|Return To Front Page News...||Send this page to a friend|
Genetically Defective Healthists Strike Again
4th April 2008
In the piece we are connected to, the word “cancer” is mentioned 35 times on the page, the word “addiction” nine times, 14 times for “quit” and 24 times for “lung.” This is a pummelling propaganda piece for sure.
This piece of trash antismoking propaganda published by MSNBC is an excellent example of how aggressive the brainwashing of the public against smoking and smokers can be.
The authors mean to nail into your head all the fundamentals of the antitobacco para-scientific ideological crusade. Of course we know contemporary antitobacco is an outgrowth of eugenics. So why do you smoke? Because you are genetically defective. Yes, you have a bad gene that prevents you from quitting. You have a “genetic quirk” that the genetically superior non-smoking Master Race may not have – take it from the genetically defective ideologues of “public health.” And why do you NEED to quit? Because smoking CAUSES lung cancer … lung cancer ... smoking… lung cancer … quit … smoking … addiction … lung cancer … Everywhere you put your eyes on the page you find these words, relentlessly, torrentially. We have to learn how to defend ourselves from this psychological rape – and we have to teach others not to be psychologically sodomized by the antismoking bastards as well.
What the bastards do not tell you is that – IN NOT EVEN ONE CASE IN HISTORY – has smoking been scientifically proven to have caused lung cancer. Don't expect perspective or logic from eugenicists. Expect self-deception dressed as science aimed at mass deception. Read this piece in that light.
Say, for the moment, that it is true, and that a gene actually makes you inclined to like smoking. Certainly then there are, waiting to be "scientifically discovered," genes that make folks inclined to like drinking, sugar, or chocolate. As addiction has been redefined to fit any piece of lurid “health” agenda for behaviour control and cultural engineering, liking is equated to addiction because, the explanation goes, those who really like something find it harder to let it go than those who like it less. We can ask: why should they let it go in the first place? Does it mean that they are sick because they like something? Careful: according to these bastards, the answer is yes.
This means that, soon (if it isn't happening already), genes will be linked via trash epidemiology (guaranteed always to find "causal links" out of sheer chance) to put your tastes, and you, into the class of genetic defects. Then you may weep, but shall find that “public health” offers solace: yes, you sick defective, even you can be “helped” with more targeted “quitting” therapies – produced by Big Pharma, of course, that pays the bastards off handsomely.
The pivotal point, however, is completely eluded by this piece of propaganda: is smoking really causing lung cancer? The clear implication is yes, of course, and the rest of the piece gravitates around the UNDEMONSTRATED assumption.
We have to note again, after reading this crank article, that the drone really does keep ringing in your ears: Quit smoking, lung cancer, cancer, tobacco, related, cancer, cancer, cancer, behaviour, therapy, quit, lung, cancer, cancer … It won't stop till you have a cigarette.
Have a few, and don't forget that by far most smokers do not get lung cancer, and that non-smokers get lung cancer. Also recall that innumerable and imponderable factors interplay in who gets it and who doesn't. Very simply, the cause of cancer, including lung cancer, is not known. Incidentally, the average age at death from lung cancer is virtually identical with the average age at death for all causes combined. In both cases death in one's seventies is typical. Death in one's seventies is not, as barmy propaganda would have it, "premature." We are all mortal. Non-smokers are mortal. Attempting to make you forget that one is how the industry of fraud perpetuates itself.
The piece of crafted interactive “education” on the right side of the MSNBC page also deserves attention.
In frame one (topmost on this page) we already have double-talk: “cigarette smoke is blamed for 85 to 90 percent of lung cancer cases.” In any dictionary of any language, “blaming” does not mean proof or demonstration: it means accusation based on personal opinion. This alone is already sufficient to invalidate most of what follows. Incidentally, when smokers get lung cancer, it is always blamed on smoking. Non-smokers get lung cancer. If the smokers had not smoked, inevitably, some of them would have gotten lung cancer because smokers and non-smokers, i.e. humans, will inevitably experience a degree of lung cancer. This is virtually never considered when it comes to the "blaming."
In frame two the deception continues (emphasis added): “The reason why cigarette smoke is so deadly is because it contains so many carcinogens. If you smoke or live with someone who does [read: “he is killing you!” The fraudsters here do a “touch and go” on the passive smoking fraud] you are breathing formaldehyde, ammonia and tar.” What is not said is that the amount of these substances is incredibly small and utterly insufficient to cause harm. After this “scary” statement, the explanation shifts to a substantially correct description of the dynamics of lung cancer; every lie must have some truth in it to be credible. Putting the description of how cancer works right after the false implication that the quantities of “carcinogens” (that are carcinogenic only in disproportionate amounts administered to laboratory animals and not representative of normal human exposures) substitutes for causation, and lets your imagination do the work unconsciously. The technique is the same as showing a random picture of a man firing a gun followed by a random picture of another man dead in the street, the first picture actually unrelated to the second one. The implication that the man with the gun is a murderer is clear, but the bastard who made the association, without stating it, can legally get away with it.
Frame 3 continues with the correct representation of the function of the bronchi, while frames 4 and 5, to "confirm" what has been suggested to your imagination, do state CAUSATION, again ignoring that by far most smokers do not get lung cancer. As we have said, there must be differences between those who do and those who don't get lung cancer, whether smokers or non-smokers. This is not and may never be fully understood. Those who "blame" smoking as the "cause" of cancer will never understand. They stand in the way of understanding. Why? Because of blind prejudice which, by definition, is the enemy of science and truth. By the way, everybody has always breathed air, which has never been "pristine" anywhere. Because of natural selection, lungs are designed to take pollution — and the perfectly pink lungs that antitobacco bastards would have you believe that non-smokers possess are a fantasy — even if you always lived on top of the Himalaya you have breathed in smoke because there has always been combustion on the green Earth. Regardless of habits or circumstances all humans die and all humans run some risk of cancer including lung cancer — and the longer we get to live, the greater the risk of cancer generally. The "causation" fallacy represented in frames 4, 5 and 6 is colossal, although the description of the damaged columnar cells and the multiplication of the cancer cells in those frames is correct. Eugenics, as always, twists selected fact into biased conclusion.
Is there a gene that induces someone to like smoking? Okay let's say maybe. Even if there is these purblind researchers may well have erred in naming it, but let's say for argument's sake, they got it right. Maybe too, if they find the chocolate lover's gene, or the joke lover's gene, or the lazy guy gene, they'll be right about that. Frankly the soul would seem too complex to map in DNA, but we said for argument's sake, what if they're right? So what? That is the way we are built — and what we like and what we do does not make us defective. Good people are not defective and are not in need of therapy and “correction.” Not for sake of argument, but certainly, there are genes that “cause” people to be black or Semitic. The horror is that bastard healthists have not learned from the old eugenics beloved of Nazis that we don’t have the right to modify nature just because it has produced something that is not desirable in the eyes of technocrats.
Perhaps you noticed that we have tried to emulate the harping page we are linked to by repeating (and highlighting) the word “bastards” associated to antismoking as many times as possible but, in spite of our efforts, we could not manage being quite as big bastards as they are, so we repeated the word only 9 times, including this time. We are learning their (defective?) habit of echolalia and we’ll do better next time. By the way, when will they discover the gene that causes people to become antismoking bastards? That makes 10 times! Whatever it is that makes eugenicists what they are, and whatever forms it takes, it must always be recognized, and deplored. Hatred is the great human defect. The justification of hatred and "superiority" based on genetic "defectiveness" is the work of Satan — and history has demonstrated that once already. Love yourself for what you are and be proud of your genes.
Link To Original Article »»
Link To Stored Article »»