займ на карту с любой кредитной историей

Further Information

The Opinion Of Lord Nimmo Smith In the cause: Mrs Margaret McTear against: Imperial Tobacco Limited. There is no scientific proof that smoking causes cancer | Outer House, Court Of Session [2005] CSOH 69
Article Published: 2005/04/31

Details:
Type: Legal
Published By: Outer House, Court Of Session

Further Information

There is no scientific proof that active smoking causes lung cancer. There never has been. When we read that “smoking is the first preventable cause of death and disease” we hear a piece or propaganda or an ideology – but we don’t hear science.

Again: there is no scientific proof that active or passive smoking cause lung cancer. This truth comes to the surface each and every time the science is brought to court. That is the very reason why “public health” avoids trying the science in court. That is the very reason why “public health” says that the “debate is over” and never, EVER wants to discuss the science. Because the “public health” institutions and Tobacco Control in general know that they are lying.

From the opening comments of Judge Nimmo Smith in this section one can already notice the lack of professional detachment of the authoritative antismoking “experts” called to testify – a detachment which is essential in the field of scientific evidence. The fact that the judge deemed it necessary to highlight the lack of professional behaviour of these individuals in the text of the decision is indicative of the emotions at play. One needn't have much acumen to understand that scientific evidence provided with such emotionality (always present amongst the antismokers, regardless of their academic or social status) cannot be credible because of the glittering bias of the individuals that provide it.

We remind our readers that antismoking “experts” all over the world portray themselves as “scientists” and not as the adamant, emotional politicians or ideologues that they actually are. In reality they use their qualifications (thus credibility) to promote the ideological fanaticism of a conviction for which they cannot provide scientific proof, and – as with all fanatics – they feel hatred and contempt for those who disagree with their theories. Using the false morality of “saving lives,” even while they cannot scientifically demonstrate the extreme dangers they proclaim, the ideologues arrogantly display their contempt for heretics – to the point of refusing public scientific debate unless they are dragged into court rooms and forced to answer to legal authority. Only then does the falsity of what they present to the public emerge, as in this historical case.

Such incredible arrogance is at the foundation of planetary frauds such as smoking and global warming, and it is the cause of socio-economic costs that are astronomical. What is even more incredible is that, despite such evident hauteur, mass-media confer ample voice and respect to these fanatics while ignoring or belittling their opposition. Is this servitude to authority, or perhaps such public disservice is motivated by the thought of acting “responsibly” in the name of “health”?

[6.150] “Mr. McEachran [suing party] did not seek to argue that the causal connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer had been established by any branch of scientific inquiry other than epidemiology. He accepted that it was established on the evidence that the process by which lung cancer developed was not yet known (see para.[6.30]). He also accepted in effect, at para.[6.56], that the averment for ITL at p.16 of the Closed Record was proved, "that over several decades, an enormous research effort has been made to produce in the laboratory the kind of lung cancer reported to be statistically associated with smoking. However, researchers have been unable to produce such cancer in test animals exposed to fresh whole smoke."

[6.151] “To my mind, this means that, despite counsel's criticisms of him, no issue was taken with the substance of Professor Idle's examination-in-chief from paras.[5.484] to [5.694]. In the latter paragraph he said that it was his judgment that cigarette smoking had not been established as a cause of human lung cancer. Indeed the cause of cancer was unknown. Moreover, the mechanisms by which lung cancer developed were not known. Researchers had not produced squamous cell lung carcinoma in laboratory animals by inhalation exposure to cigarette smoke. No constituent or group of constituents, as they existed in the complex mixture which was cigarette smoke, had been shown to be a cause of lung cancer in smokers. Provided that it is borne in mind that, as stated at para.[5.484], he had been asked to give an opinion based upon his own area of scientific expertise, these appear to me to be inevitable conclusions from his very impressive survey of all the relevant literature. His area of scientific expertise did not extend to epidemiology, and he was not asked to consider epidemiological studies in the course of his investigations. Epidemiology apart, no researcher would in my view have reached a conclusion different from that of Professor Idle.”

FORCES is supported solely by the efforts of the readers. Please become a member or donate what you can.



Contact Info
Forces Contacts
Media Contacts
Advertisers
Evidence Categories
Quick Look-Up
List of Methodological Errors in ETS Studies
Hill's Criteria and Authoritative Citations
What Must an Epidemiologic Study Warrant?
Table of All Studies on ETS and Lung Cancer up to 2006

Pie Charts of ETS/Lung Cancer Studies
How many cigarettes must be smoked to create an ETS danger?


Passive Smoking: an Institutional Problem
A 13-minute video to understand the fraud


If you like to read rather then listen, download
Now available for free