...And They Call This "Science"!

Prologue

Related links
PROLOGUE The long list of methodological errors in the junk science of passive smoke The questionnaires of the epidemiological fraud Downloadable list of all base studies on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, including financing sources The list of all the lung cancer studies by category updated to 2006 on passive smoke: no dangers

May 4 - ...And they call this "science" - Nearly ten years ago FORCES began denouncing the passive smoke fraud. During this time we accumulated and put on line a vast amount of evidence. The crowning of our efforts to date is this new compendium, which does not just explain the Great Fraud in simpler than ever terms, but also makes available ALL the studies ever conducted on passive smoke and lung cancer/cardiovascular disease. All the original studies are downloadable, one by one or all together in zipped files. Statistical significance, authors, financing; it is all there, a quarter century of research on passive smoke — to prove what? Nothing, other that it is impossible to demonstrate that passive smoke is harmful.

The evidence we supply is now complete — and we can support it with epidemiological consulting by professional epidemiologists in any courtroom anywhere in the world. Yet there are still those on our side who question the validity of the scientific approach as the one tool that can really put an end to this war on public smoking with the victory of liberty and truth. Business associations, lawyers, politicians, media persons — even tobacco executives and pro-choice activists are still largely ignorant of this statistical fraud/false representation of (junk) science, and thus question its effectiveness as a legal and political tool.  Rather, they bring forward trite and worthless arguments such as local or general economic issues, freedom of personal choice, constitutionality, “cool” lifestyles, endless analyses of motivations and even antismoking psychology.

Hold on! Those are not worthless arguments — have we gone insane?  Not at all, but we have to face reality.

In today’s enmeshed social values, it is unarguable that “health” is paramount in society. Whether that health is real or presumed has become utterly irrelevant — perception is all that matters. Thus, as long as the public perceives passive smoke as a public health threat, it will be closed and deaf to any other argument, no matter how important and fundamental, no matter the consequences.  It follows that only when the perception of threat is removed by demonstrating the false representation of evidence is it going to be possible to have any other argument considered. Given the endless propaganda against smoking and the ensuing hysteria, almost the only place where it is possible to establish that the dangers of passive smoke are a fraud is in courtrooms. Of all the political/legal/cultural arguments against smoking prohibition and antismoking campaigns, however, the passive smoke fraud is what has been used the least — in fact, wielding the categories above is a stubborn refusal to use the only thing that would succeed.

Why is this? The list of speculations is endless, but one is worth mentioning: those angered by anti-tobacco coercion believe the lies disseminated from the authorities they fear: Somewhere down deep, they believe that smoking is bad, and passive smoking must be bad also — or, at least, the fraud and ensuing prohibition is what it takes "to make them quit" such a "bad habit".  So, they refuse to educate themselves using the excuse that "fighting the science is not gonna work", forgetting that it is not science, but junk science. In that way they don’t have to challenge the health authorities and endanger the very structure that oppresses them, but that they believe in nevertheless. On the other hand they don’t like prohibition, thus they keep on fighting (and losing) with the same blunt weapons hoping that one day it will "go away". It will not, unless it is forcefully uprooted at the base, which once again is the junk science.

Of course, antismokers wisely refuse to engage their adversaries on scientific grounds, as they know quite well that they would not stand a chance in a scientific debate, and they make sure that their opponents also believe that the scientific weapon is useless! So, here we have a war unilaterally declared — thus an aggression — where the attacked defend themselves with whine and blunt weapons, keep on missing the targets, and are afraid to winby using the only real weapon they have. How ironic.


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
Links To Archived Categories

The Evidence
Inside Forces
About Forces
Research
Writers
Book case