|
|
|
June 3, 2005 |
|
|
NO SCIENTIFIC
PROOF THAT SMOKING CAUSES CANCER:
GAG THIS MILESTONE DECISION!
|
The
story in short and the essence of the decision |
|
The
case starts with a story which nowadays, unfortunately, has become
routine. After contracting lung cancer, smoker sues cigarette
manufacturer and says he has been seduced by cigarette
advertisement. He also says he was not aware of the risks when he
started smoking. After over 10 years, during which time he dies, the
case eventually gets to a Scottish court in 2003. With an innovative
act of rare courage against “public health” orthodoxy and
superstition, Imperial Tobacco decides not to bend over as the rest
of the industry does, and to fight the public health fraud in court
on a scientific basis.
This is the approach that FORCES has always
adamantly championed since its inception 10 years ago, as only by
exposing the base scientific fraud on active and passive smoke is it
possible to demolish the fortress of antismoking beliefs and lies.
We hope that we were influential!
After
a very meticulous examination of all available scientific and
statistical evidence to date (no convenient omissions), the court rejects the request for
compensation and decides in favour of Imperial Tobacco and against
Margaret McTear, widow of Alfred McTear, who died in 1993 at the age
of 48. In an 800-page decision, jurisprudential milestones are
firmly established:
-
The
notion that McTear was unaware of the dangers of smoking is
rejected.
-
The
notion of addiction – that is, the fiction that McTear was so
dependent on nicotine that he was not able to quit is rejected.
-
The
notion that advertisement was responsible for McTear’s decision to
start smoking is rejected.
-
The
notion that there is scientific proof that smoking causes cancer
is rejected.
|
|
PROFILE OF
THE SMOKING "VICTIM" |
|
THE STATEMENT OF JUDGE NIMMO SMITH (13 pages pdf) |
|
READ
THE ENTIRE DECISION |
|
The interesting parts of the
decision:
General Causation and Individual Causation |
|
Finally
the truth comes out
June 3 - There
is no scientifically proven causality between active smoking and
lung cancer. Rather, the preponderance of the scientific evidence
seems to lean towards improbability. These are the conclusions of
the historic decision of a Scottish court in a lung cancer lawsuit
against cigarette manufacturers, made public May 31 – just in time
for World No Smoking Day. The dream of
£500,000 in compensation has
gone up in smoke.
Yes,
it is possible to gag and suffocate the truth and sometimes this can
be done for centuries, as happened with knowledge in the Middle
Ages. But truth cannot be killed, and eventually it emerges. At that
point, the only thing that can be attempted is to avoid
disseminating the
information, or to lie. Some of the media that reported the news had a
slant such as this: “Court denies lung cancer compensation”, as if
an unfair and mean-spirited tribunal had denied a right that should
be taken for granted: the right to milk a legal
industry before destroying it. But this “right” is based uniquely on
hypotheses that are not scientifically demonstrated, and on
idiotic hatred induced by con artists. A veritable
white mafia that has institutional power tries hard to pass those
hypotheses as indisputable reality upon which to base the extinction
of smoking. We always said it and now we repeat it with gusto.
Enough cons. Enough with statistics and computerised death: you
scientifically prove ONE death, rather than quote
huge and meaningless
numbers!
Protect the mafia!
The
reaction of the antismoking mafia and its media accomplices is easy
to predict. All over the world, the first approach will be to ignore
this milestone decision as much as possible, or underreport it with assorted negative
spins. Maybe that is all that’s necessary
–
since even those parties
who can immensely benefit from this seem literally terrified of
appearing "politically incorrect", and since many have become
comfortable in the underdog position. Why upset the apple- cart?
If
silence does not work, then the next logical
step to take is to set up long parades of medical “authorities” –
the usual gurus who tell us the faith that we must live by: it is
indisputable that smoking causes cancer. The omertà will be honoured
to uphold a well-established profit-making enterprise, and a popular
superstition that may be jeopardized. We count on their zeal: if
people were to figure out what’s really going on, that would spell an
unprecedented political and ethical disaster for this mafia, with
repercussions on a planetary scale. The fraud must go on.
In
this scenario, it’s logical to assume that very few journalists
would dare to publicly challenge these Mafioso with aggressive questions such
as:
-
“Can
you scientifically prove a single death from smoking?”
-
“Has
it scientifically – not statistically – been demonstrated that
smoking causes cancer, when the origin of cancer is still unknown?
Yes, or no?”
-
“In
any cancer case of your choice, are you able to reliably separate
the co-factors, identify them, quantify them, and/or establish
with reasonable certainty their percentage of contribution to that
cancer, so that its causality is scientifically credible?”
-
“In
the active/passive smoke studies, are you able to specify their
margin of error?
THESE
are the scientific questions that a real scientist must be
able answer with
either a yes or a no – and then demonstrate with the appropriate
documentation (this is common practice in real science). And
THESE
are the questions that the anti-smokers systematically refuse to
answer. The reason for the refusal is clear: they know damn well
that the only possible answer to those questions is no, and thus the
“smoking causes cancer” statement would be degraded from the status
of science to that of personal belief, thus unveiling the perceptional fraud they have perpetrated for years!
-
Why
has no journalist ever asked these direct key questions to
the antismoking health "authorities"? Why do they
limit themselves by allowing these high-level charlatans to shout
their revealed “truth” from media podiums (and never in the
presence of scientific opposition, of course)?
-
Why,
in the rare cases when a (token) opposition is allowed during
mass-media broadcasts, do the hosts often seem to have the duty to
try to make that opposition look like a trivial, corrupt or
lunatic curiosity?
-
Why
do media not allow or encourage public debate on a scientific
basis? Maybe they think that the public is too stupid to
understand and would switch to some soap opera? Who do they want
to protect?
-
If
the antismokers have nothing to fear and are so sure of their "science",
why do they refuse to take on publicly those very
face-to-face debates
that could quickly put an end to any opposition?
Instead, the faith of these gurus is permitted to be presented as
scientific fact. Talk show hosts nod their heads understanding
nothing, but deferring to apparently authoritative people who are
taking them – and the public – along for a ride! This is the reason
why we have always insisted that these people be taken to court: in
front of a court they cannot refuse to appear or to answer
–
and
cannot dodge key questions. And the truth, finally, comes out. The
case in Scotland is certainly an enlightening example. |
|
|
June 2, 2005 |
|
|
Justice June
2
-
Blasting it open -
The
case began as a run-of-the-mill action against a cigarette company.
After contracting lung cancer a smoker sued the cigarette manufacturer,
claiming he was seduced into smoking by advertising. The plaintiff
also contended that he wasn't aware of the health risks when he started
smoking. After more than a decade and the death of the plaintiff,
justice was finally rendered in a court in Scotland.
Rejecting the plaintiff's claims, the judge
ruled in favor of Imperial Tobacco and against Margaret McTear, the
widow of Alfred McTear, who, at the age of 48, died in 1993 of lung
cancer. Rejected was the notion that Alfred McTear didn't know the
risks of smoking. Rejected was the fiction that Alfred McTear was
so addicted to nicotine that he couldn't quit smoking. Rejected
was the conceit that advertising was responsible for Alfred McTear
taking up smoking. These components
in Judge Nimmo Smith's ruling are not unusual. Juries throughout
the United States have ruled in favor of tobacco companies on just such
grounds. Juries, of course, have also ruled in favor of
plaintiffs, finding merit in all the claims that Judge Smith rejected.
The real import of this decision has nothing to do with cigarette
company behavior but everything to do with the core issue of the war on
smokers. Imperial Tobacco, for
reasons as yet unknown, decided to fight the suit on scientific
grounds, rather than with the legal technicalities and minutia that
corporate attorneys feel most comfortable. Its decision to defend
itself with the scientific facts produced a blockbuster of a decision.
While it was not in dispute that Mr
McTear died of lung cancer, there was no proof that Imperial Tobacco's
product had caused the cancer which killed him, the judge said.
The BBC reporter is being overly circumspect
here. The judge's own words in his lengthy decision do not warrant
such a narrow interpretation. The judge is not solely exonerating
Imperial Tobacco as if Alfred McTear's particular brand had been alleged
to be defective. What the judge said is far more expansive:
Smoking tobacco has not been shown to cause lung cancer.
We are still studying the 800-page decision
and will be presenting its salient points in the near future. What
is clear, even from a cursory reading, is that Judge Nimmo Smith, using
the massive scientific evidence on smoking and disease, blasted a
crater in the seemingly seamless surface of conventional wisdom that
long ago accepted the equation that smoking tobacco equals disease and
death. |
|
|
Prohibition June
2
-
When politics is personal -
Washington,
DC Councilwoman Carol Schwartz has historically been the principal
opponent of DC smoking bans, and Councilman David Catania long sided
with her. Three weeks ago at a Council session, Mr. Catania
attempted to add a series of "no-bid grants" to the Health
Department budget, and Ms. Schwartz questioned this.
We wonder about it ourselves, given that
Catania reacted with anger and defensiveness to Schwartz's
questions, then swiftly changed the subject to smoking bans.
Suddenly, he was all for a ban, and boldly proclaimed that he was
going to "move it out." Fellow councilors attest both to the
dramatic nature of his turnaround and to his potential political
ability to move the ban. Was
this simply a nasty fit of pique on Catania's part as the Washington
Post suggests? Perhaps, or perhaps support for no-bid grants related
to public health, a sudden love of smoking bans, and Mr. Catania's
odd explanation that "I felt I didn't need to be restrained
anymore," might suggest a growing closeness between David Catania
and what the Post calls "incessant" anti-smoker lobbyists. The
lobbyists' capacity for incessance is of course just one power
rooted in their deep pockets.
Catania still pleads lamely that he doesn't want to hurt the
hospitality industry, but we are left to wonder what industries he
means to help, or which might be helping him. Voters, including
smokers and bar owners who may previously have supported Catania,
can also make dramatic turnarounds. If they played a part in putting
Catania in his Council seat, they can tell him to take that crucial
part, and "move it out." |
|
Business June
2
-
Tobacco control is blowing smoke - As
a threat of a United Kingdom smoking ban becomes more eminent the
somnolent hospitality is getting worried. With Ireland and
Italy both suffering under draconian smoking bans the small business
in the UK envision the same dire economic fate washing onto their
shores in the next few years.
The Centre for Economics and Business
Research took a look at studies examining the economic fallout when
smoking bans are imposed and discovered what we have known for a
very long time. First of all, the overwhelming number of the
economic studies were conducted and funded by the tobacco control
industry. Second of all, the methods by which those studies
were conducted are questionable, to say the least. Finally,
there is no doubt that banning smoking results in lost sales and
lessened tax receipts. What needs to be determined is not
if smoking bans are bad for business but how bad they are
and whether the ephemeral gains in "public health" are worth the
economic losses.
PropagandaJune 2
-
The life of Reilly -
After
pouring through millions of cigarette company documents for over a
year a gang of Harvard grant junkies has produced a report that is
earth shaking in its import:
Big Tobacco conducted marketing
research on what products would appeal to women who smoke.
Wow, what a bombshell! Imagine
a company hoping to sell its product to half the adult population.
How low can you go? |
|
|
|
June 1, 2005 |
|
|
Hysteria
June 1
-
Smoking a Coke -
There
may be very good reasons to take a dim view of first-graders
guzzling carbonated drinks containing caffeine, especially during
school hours. Although they are full of calories they don't
contain many nutrients and the large doses of sugar and caffeine,
while perking up the harried office worker, are likely to give young
children the fidgets.
One can still deplore the insanity of
a gang of shrinks, gathered together for their annual meeting,
issuing a statement equating drinking a Coke with smoking a
cigarette. Surely these quacks must know that if the
first-graders smoked cigarettes during instruction they would be
more receptive to learning, quicker to solve problems and far better
behaved. We don't advocate elementary class-room smoking but
we really hate highly educated professionals mixing apples with
oranges as a deliberate bid to hop on the latest panic-stricken
gravy train.
ScandanaviaJune 1
-
Scandinavian Prohibition - We are a long way from the days
of the proud Viking. While we're obviously much better off not
having tough, aggressive Norsemen plundering the coasts of Europe it
is truly sad to see these once formidable people quaking and
cowering before a wisp of tobacco smoke. Norway capitulated to
the tobacco fanatics several years ago with hardly a whimper.
According to our correspondent, |
|
Anti-tobacco Morons
June 1
-
But drug money is just fine -
An
upright politician from Australia is waxing eloquent about the need
to remove blood money from the political process. Despite it
being a legal, highly regulated business, cigarette manufacturers
should be prohibited from donating money to politicians, a corporate
self-defense tactic practices by every other industry.
While accepting money from
Australia's burgeoning alcohol industry is moral, donations from Big
Tobacco are immoral, according to Duncan Kerr, a Labor backbencher.
It is likely that Duncan Kerr is one more useful idiot in the
pharmaceutical industry's pocket, doing that industry's bidding
while hamstringing the competition.
JusticeJune 1
-
Age verification struck down -
The
state of Maine, once a paragon of New England rectitude, some years
ago became a fussy anti-smoking state, obsessed with hassling its
citizens who smoke. One petty rule requires package delivery
providers to prove that those ordering cigarettes are 18 years or
older. If the buyer is 27 years or younger the delivery
service must demand a government-issued piece of identification.
Since few minors have unrestricted use of a credit card, online
sellers preferred mode of purchase, Maine's law is not only
ridiculous but, according to a federal judge, illegal. A rare
win for common sense. |
|
|
|
May
31, 2005 |
|
|
Tobacco Settlement
May 31
-
State Monopoly -
It's
46 state attorneys general, the 200 or so wealthiest trial lawyers
in the world and the six largest tobacco companies against a bunch
of very small businesses who are losing money
It's not about health care or
safety; it's about market share.
It's not often that we praise the
Associated Press but an article by business reporter Stephanie
Stoughten is recommended reading for those who wish to understand
what the "historic" 1998 tobacco settlement is all about.
As time goes by it is increasingly clear that this deal is a massive
scheme to transfer billions of dollars from smokers to state
governments. On that level it is a privately-negotiated tax
imposed by entities that have no authority to raise taxes. On
another level it is an agreement between state attorneys and the big
cigarette manufacturers to establish a state-sanctioned monopoly.
The settlement has been financially rewarding for Big Tobacco, the
tobacco control industry and trial lawyers. For the country it
has been a disaster in that it entwined public and corporate greed,
blurred the rule of law and relegated a huge number of Americans
into cash cows for the rich. |
|
Washington State
May 31
-
The Beat Goes On - Anti-tobacco and its partners in the
press are on a roll! Now is the time, it's never looked
better, for Washington State to join the civilized world of
prohibition. For years anti-tobacco has been rebuffed by the
people's representatives, the legislature, but 2005 is when all the
pieces will fall into place for the smoking ban that the people
don't seem to want. Norman Kjono looks at the big-money full
court press to thwart the legislature, buy a smoking ban and corrupt
the political process.
Prohibition
May 31
-
Last Call -
A
one-time popular restaurant and bar in Columbus Ohio has shut its
doors, another victim of smoking bans. After the city
installed prohibition and the citizenry voted its approval, Julian
Sanfillipo sadly terminated the business that had been his life
since 1979. The wake for the restaurant attracted the
customers who had been driven away because they couldn't smoke.
One wonders how many of those who tearfully attended the farewell voted to uphold the smoking ban or
didn't bother to vote at all. |
|
|
|
May 30,
2005 |
|
|
Prohibition
May 27
-
Screwing their constituents -
Michael
Logan, the owner of Trumps Sports Bar and Grill in Lexington that is
expanding to Georgetown, said Lexington's ban has "devastated my
business." He asked the council to amend the ordinance to allow a
smoking section if 20 percent or more of a restaurant's sales are
from alcohol. Council members didn't respond.
The Lexington Kentucky smoking ban
has been such bad news for local restaurants and bars that one fed
up businessman is expanding to nearby Georgetown. Too bad for
him, and the Georgetown taxpayers, that the city council in that
city is "considering" an even more draconian smoking ban. In
these shaky economic times the politicians would rather cater to
anti-tobacco, an enterprise that pays no taxes and produces no goods
or services, than the business people who pay the city's bills.
Hysteria
May 27
-
Expanding the customer base -
''This
is an incredible, unique opportunity on how to help people get
better before they have the worst health event in their life,'' says
[Jack] Lord, who has the title of chief innovation officer.
What the Chief Innovation Officer is
talking about is getting "pre-sick" people integrated into the bowls
of Big Health. On the quest to wellness, a made up word
designed to soften the negative connotation of health hysteria,
perfectly healthy people are to be badgered into turning themselves
over to the caring and well paid health professionals for
conditioning. |
|
Tobacco Taxes
May 27
-
Renegade postal services -
Warning:
Standing between Eliot Spitzer and a television camera is hazardous
to your health. Failure to heed this warning could result in
multiple injuries from trampling hooves as he rushes to bray out the
latest tobacco control industry talking points.
Spitzer, New York's attorney general,
not content with bullying credit card providers and package delivery
services, is going after the U.S. Postal Services. Spitzer is
incensed that the post office has the temerity to deliver mail that
he finds distasteful. He's not concerned about child
pornography or weapons through the main. No, he is livid that
the post office continues to ship cigarettes, a legal product, under
the bizarre theory that privacy trumps Spitzer's political
ambitions.
"Tobacco is a legal, mailable
product," Mary Anne Gibbons, the Postal Service's general counsel,
wrote last month in a response to the association of attorneys
general. "It would be impracticable for postal acceptance clerks to
make determinations on any given mailer's compliance with state
excise or tax law or Jenkins Act filings."
So that's that. If Spitzer were
truly concerned about "illegal" cigarette sales depriving his state
tax revenue he would use the megaphone beneath his nose to call for
lower state cigarette taxes. Cutting them by a buck a pack
would end the online sales he claims to deplore. That
approach, of course, is anathema to the pharmaceutical industry. |
|
|
|
Population Control
May 27
-
Mean spirited nastiness - A
captive population is the goal of every anti-tobacco operative.
The "war on tobacco" is a war on the working and middle classes since
the rich and powerful are not affected by high tobacco taxes or smoking
restrictions. The ultimate wet dream, however, is power over a
completely helpless group of people such as those confined to hospitals.
For Memorial Day we are sad to relate how our veterans are treated by a
less than grateful country. The reporter is James Austin who had
occasion to visit the Minneapolis Veterans' Administration hospital:
Starting June 16, smoking will no
longer be allowed on the sidewalk in front of the glass enclosed
smoking area. Visitors and patients who wish to smoke out in the
open will now have to walk around to the side of the hospital. The
enclosed smoking area will be locked from 11PM to 5:30am. No form of
tobacco will be allowed during these hours. Employees will now only
be allowed to smoke on the loading dock. These new rules are for the
health of everyone and to promote health. (That's what I recall from
a sign posted there)
The Minneapolis VA is like many
hospitals; it's big. It has two front entrances, one near the
smoking-allowed area. The smoking-allowed area is probably 30' of
the front of the hospital where the sidewalk runs and on the far
right. The total length of the sidewalk is probably 200 feet I don't
think even 1% of people entering the hospital walk in front of the
smoking area.
I was there Tuesday. I took a count
of people outside the hospital when I left. There were 30 in the
smoking area and 4 in the nonsmoking area. There were 3 more people
smoking in front, but they were on the fringe of the nonsmoking area
on the other side.
I talked to two veterans in the
smoking area, both were missing their legs. And both were PISSED!
But for their own health and for the health of others, if they want
to smoke in the great outdoors they'll have to wheel themselves
along some imaginary path to the side of the hospital. And if
they're inpatients they won't even be able to smoke or chew tobacco
after 11PM.
We live in a truly sick society.
By the way, anybody sitting in front
of this hospital is subjected to exhaust from an endless stream of
vans and buses dropping off and picking up veterans in wheelchairs.
I don't recall seeing a sign warning people of the risk they're
imposing on themselves by sitting out there.
In an update this week Mr. Austin find
the deplorable situation has woresened:
- The Minneapolis VA isn't through screwing with smokers yet,
whether it's employees, visitors, or veterans.
- Making them smoke outside wasn't good enough for them.
- Making them smoke outside in designated areas wasn't good enough
for them.
- Making them smoke outside in a glass enclosure wasn't good
enough for them.
- Restricting their tobacco use (including SMOKELESS tobacco) to
certain hours of the day.
- Smokers are no longer allowed to smoke in a glass enclosure in
front of the building, they've been shoved to an enclosure behind
the hospital.
I think veterans, visitors, and employees can thank one person
for this policy: Dr. Anne Joseph.
"Dr. Anne Joseph has worked almost exclusively in tobacco control
since the mid-1980's. Under her leadership the Minneapolis V.A. was
one of the first acute care hospitals in the nation to become
smoke-free. Joseph was also instrumental in developing and
implementing the national Department of Veterans Affairs smoke-free
policy."
"As UMN TTURC's policy director and member of the board of
directors of the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco,
Joseph emphasizes that "we need a comprehensive approach to reduce
the harm from tobacco." This includes science, legislative policy
and changes in our social norms to cut through the smoke and
make a difference in all people's lives."
Wanda Hamilton adds an appropriate coda to this tale of nasty
bullying:
Ah, so Dr. Ann Joseph, who has been on the front lines of the
domestic tobacco war (i.e., sitting on her ass in an air-conditioned
office and attending meetings in posh hotels courtesy of the
tax-payers) is engaged in making even more miserable the lives of
those who have been engaged in REAL wars, defending their country,
sweating in deserts and jungles, facing death, losing limbs and
sleeping in the dirt.
What a peach!
This heartwarming account of how the country honors the men and women
who serve the country comes from
SpeakEasy,
an online forum for those interested in tobacco issues as well as those
concerned over the loss of freedom brought to us by Big Health.
Join the dialogue. |
|
|
FORCES
INTERNATIONAL (Forces, Inc.) is a non-profit educational corporation
organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA. Forces, Inc. has
received a charitable tax exemption under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)3.
Your contribution is tax deductible.
FORCES INTERNATIONAL © trademark,
logo and original material copyright © 1995-2004 is property of FORCES
INTERNATIONAL unless otherwise indicated. Original FORCES material may be
reprinted or used in any non-commercial form if proper credit is given to
FORCES and original intent remains intact. All other material remains
property of its creator/owner. |
|
|
