September 29 [19:30 GMT] - We link to a series of pieces describing the false information disseminated by antismoking organizations in the United States to obtain prohibition of smoking in public places. This is part of the general multi-pronged attack to deprive smokers of jobs, homes, cars and even the enjoyment of public beaches and parks. Of course they can have all that back if they just surrender their lifestyles. The fact that smokers are part of and important contributors to society makes no difference at all: we do want their contributions, but not their right to enjoy what they have earned with that contribution. It is the old story: we need disposable citizens - all obscurantist societies have been like that --  why should we be different?

As we keep on saying, fraud is now a legitimate tool for achieving "public health" goals. The reason is this: there is no other way to show that passive smoking is a public menace. The scientific (or even epidemiological) evidence is simply not there. This situation is going to persist until sufficient force is accumulated to stop and reverse the phenomenon, and to punish those responsible. Until, in other words, we find our moral compass again.

Michael Siegel	Editorial Criticizes Minnesota Anti-Smoking Groups for Withholding Data Showing Decrease in St. Paul Bar Patronage		According to Minnesota Anti-Smoking Group's Claim, Eating in a Smoky Restaurant Five Times is More Dangerous than Smoking	Pueblo Study Concludes that Smoking Ban Reduced Heart Attacks by 27%; Conclusion is Premature and Based on Shoddy Science
Clearing the Air	Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco (MPAAT) / ClearWay MN proves smoking bans eliminate customers in 7 out of 10 establishments		After reading the St. Paul Pioneer Press editorial page this morning...	Pharmaceutical nicotine (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) funding influence in research (reference article here) "It's odd how 1 or 2 studies funded by tobacco interests are so quickly discredited. Yet the hundreds, perhaps thousands funded by pharmaceutical nicotine interests (RWJF) are given "proof positive" status." Now that RWJF has put smoking bans in place, here's how they capitalize... Will there be an investigation into this nationwide government scandal? Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) is probably one of the boldest liars in the tobacco control movement ...Meanwhile, American Cancer Society air quality testing proves secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations.
...and THIS is the "scientific basis" for all the mumbo-jumbo:		A QUESTIONNAIRE ... There is no other "science" available. ALL smoking prohibition on Earth is based on THIS. ALL the "science" there is, is based on questionnaires like THIS. ... Hard to believe? Click on the link and download the World Health Organization questionnaire. "Public health" says that this is science! What do YOU say?...

The people above (and so many others) use blogs, personal resources and time to fight this public fraud - even against colossal pharmaceutical and public budgets available to corrupt public authorities. Some of them are against smoking (even have the faith that "smoking kills"); others are non smokers; other again smoke - but all of them have something important in common: they don't accept fraud and paternalism as social policy. To them all goes our sincere appreciation and gratitude for their courage and their determination. Of one thing we are sure: their efforts will not be wasted.

Norman Kjono's corner

September 29 [19:30 GMT] - How the pharmaceutical industry, with the complicity of Philip Morris, wants to establish a nicotine market monopoly using trash science and legislation -  This is important work on an important issue. Let's not forget the goal of the antis and of the pharmaceutical industry that pays them: eliminate cigarettes and smoking with the use of false information and the complicity of governments catering to the interests of the pharmaceutical multinationals. This is heavy but interesting and essential reading. As will be evident from the content, the posting lead should encourage readers to contact their U.S. Congress representatives and urge them to vote “No” on the referenced bills that would give FDA authority to regulate tobacco.

If readers really want to do "something" to begin to break the back of the anti-tobacco criminal enterprise, now is the time. If the bills pass it means serious trouble for smokers - more than meets the eye. Those bills will make it possible for those who finance the antis, such as Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to garner literally billions in profits by replacing heavily taxed cigarettes with ZERO TAXED “Smoke Free” nicotine delivery devices and pocket the tax differential as pure profit. What’s more, there is a published and written plan to accomplish precisely that outcome (scroll down to "IARC and antitobacco: a fraud delivery device"), and the plan explicitly says that is what they will do. Add to that smoking bans, inability to find a job or a house, social pressure and orchestrated social rejection. Now imagine that extended throughout the planet (as the Communist doctrine dictated, to be effective communism had to be applied world-wide to eliminate choice and comparison - what do you think the WHO antitobacco treaty is there for?...). Finally, imagine that a product trumpeted as "pure"  nicotine is dangled in your face. Remember that you have been conditioned to think that you are addicted, thus you believe it.  Its price lower than a pack of cigarette (assuming that they stay legal), there is no social rejection and it is recommended by the "health authorities". What would you do? You'd quit smoking and be a junkie - exactly the goal of Big Pharma and its corrupt friends in the ministries of "health". Now you've got it.

Straightening up Eaters

September 29 [19:30 GMT] - Forget French fries and margarine, they are no good for you, now they will be illegal - Anti-obesity strikes at fast food restaurants with trans fat, just as anti-tobacco struck bars. Plus, restaurant associations brought it on themselves by catering to anti-tobacco. The pharmaceutical Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is heavily behind Bloomberg and his health squads. Try this for state paternalism: "Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden acknowledged that the ban would be a challenge for restaurants, but he said trans fats can easily be replaced with substitute oils that taste the same or better and are far less unhealthy. “It is a dangerous and unnecessary ingredient, no one will miss it when it’s gone.”

Note the use of the Precautionary Principle at work: “Artificial trans fats are very toxic, and they almost surely cause tens of thousands of premature deaths each year,” says Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard University School of Public Health. “The federal government should have done this long ago.” Suspicion is enough, proof is not necessary. How can one be "almost sure" of death?... Ah, never mind anyway - they have the power, and that's all that matters. Obey for your own good, or shut down your business and go to jail.

Educational tidbits: what is the story behind trans-fat?

Q: What is trans-fat?
A: Hydrogenated vegetable oil. The hydrogenation process transforms the liquid into a more solid substance, such as margarine.

Q: Why is it used to fry instead of vegetable oil?
A: The hydrogenated oil does not oxidize (become rancid) as fast as non-hydrogenated oil does at the cooking temperatures. This reduces significantly the cost of production, thus the cost of goods, because of the vastly smaller quantity of oil used.

Q: Is trans-fat toxic?
A: No, it is not. It has been (and it is) used for the last 60 years by literally billions of people all over the world.

Q: If I have 100 g. of French fries cooked with trans-fat and 100 g. cooked with vegetable oil, which one is healthier?
A: We do not know. Nobody knows.

Q: Does trans-fat cause heart disease as health authorities claim?
A: We do not know – they don’t know either. But we know this: since the introduction of trans-fat the heart disease incidence in the population has considerably declined. That DOES NOT mean that the decline is due to the use of the trans-fat. But if the trans-fat were causing heart disease as the healthist propaganda says, we would have seen a sharp increase of heart/circulatory problems - and we have not.

Q: Does trans-fat make you fat?
A: Not anymore than any other fat. Moderation – not deprivation - is the key to good health.

Q: How do health authorities know then, that trans-fat because is bad for you to the point of banning it?
A: For the very same reason they “know” that passive smoke “causes” disease. People are asked to remember what they ate in the last 30, 40, 50 years. If the group that says that it thinks it remembers having eaten more trans-fat has more heart disease than the group that says that it thinks it remembers having eaten less trans-fat, the excess of disease is then ATTRIBUTED by the “experts” (on the basis of sheer opinion) to trans-fat, totally bypassing the scientific establishment of cause-effect. That’s all. There is no scientific evidence that trans-fat causes any disease, as there is no scientifically established causality due to the 300+ co-factors in heart disease. It is junk science used for political reasons, identical to the junk science used against passive smoke.

Q: Why would honest health authorities use such an unreliable tool?
A: If they were honest they would not use it! The fact is that epidemiological trash science is a formidable tool, for it allows quick results that are always in agreement with the political/mercantile agenda that uses it and often funds it. It is relatively inexpensive for there is no need for laboratories and experimentation, thus large quantities of "studies" can be quickly created. This "mountain of evidence" is then used to fool people and politicians into the belief that there is a real danger for public health -- thus vast amounts of public money are diverted against the "danger". In economic terms, the return on investment in junk epidemiological junk science is immense. Fraudulent junk science is good business. It neatly bypasses the need to scientifically demonstrate causality thanks to the mechanism of attribution mentioned above. Attributions are nothing more than mere opinions of people who very often have no clue as to the real origin of the disease in question. The opinions of the "experts" can quickly change according to the needs of the sponsor of the research. Combined with the Precautionary Principle (which requires no need for scientific proof and indeed elevates this trash to the rank of science), it is easy to understand why the entire health establishment strenuously defends this rubbish and implements politics based on it -- steamroller style. Power was never so easy.

Tobacco lobby? No. Germany remembers. Do we?...

The fight for liberty

September 28

September 27 [11:10 GMT] - Social and moral schizophrenia: in today's academic system "tainted" money must come from all sides - Provocative as always, Michael Siegel raises some interesting points about the funding of science in today's institutions. But he fails to zoom out and see the big picture and follow his own logic where it would lead. For the rot goes a bit deeper that Siegel concedes. Let's face it: who is the researcher that would seriously jeopardize his share of public funding (thus his livelihood) with a study showing that passive smoke does not hurt or that active smoking does not "cause" the umpteenth (attributed) disease in the book, thus displeasing fanatical, antismoking "public health"? Realistically, no one. And it is for that very reason that universities must accept funding from all sides. - (Continues inside) Article by Gian Turci, C.E.O.

Big Pharma: firmly in control of "public health" and politics

September 27 [11:10 GMT] - IARC and antitobacco: a fraud delivery device - Read the abstract below. Those who doubted the existence of a mercantile plan to replace cigarettes with Nicotine Replacement Therapy now have a response from the pharmaceutical promoters of “mainstream nicotine” -- in their own words. Some of the statements in the study are simply explosive as to a clear declaration of intent. This study is a statement of self-fulfilling prophecy for tobacco control. It is also what legislators will be aware of when considering new bills. Now, keep in mind that the quasi-religious statement so common in this kind of antismoking trash "study" is not demonstrable for two reasons: the scientific un-demonstrability of smoking-related deaths; even in the assumption that "tobacco kills", it is impossible to calculate the number of deaths/diseases because of the multifactoriality, thus we are talking about the usual epidemiological fraud. Add to that the passive smoke fraud - and now you see the stage set for a world-wide pharmaceutical nicotine monopoly with the complicity of criminal health "authorities". This is not a public health plan: it is marketing plan for the benefit of pharmaceutical multinationals, extremely influential with IARC and WHO, and with the complicity of ministries of "health" interlinked by the international antitobacco treaty. It must be stopped.

The collapse of human dignity

September 26 [11:10 GMT] - Ireland - Firing of store chief for letting upset worker smoke 'unfair' - Some may call this "good news". That depends on the point of view, of course. The good news is supposed to be that a department head who allowed a smoker who had a tragedy in his family to light a cigarette - and was fired for that - won a lawsuit for wrongful dismissal.

The ugly news is that the criminal antismoking propaganda has created such a hateful society that a perfectly natural act such as that of lighting a cigarette is not only illegal, but allowing it may be seen as an act of "compassion". Really -- think about this: allowing a smoker to light up a cigarette (because his father is dying) becomes an exceptional act in exceptional circumstances - and that's where the "compassion" issue kicks in. Compassion is a beautiful Christian virtue; we respect the department head for that, and we are happy he won the lawsuit. But that is not the point. The point is that smoking is a personal right that harms no one, and as such the smoker can exercise it without the need for exceptional circumstances - or compassion, pity, begging, shame or permission. It is time that smokers (and the other targets of the Therapeutic State) re-conquer their dignity with whatever means is necessary, for they are not those who need compassion. Lots of compassion will be needed, in fact, when antismokers are punished for the frauds and the hatred they have disseminated.

Liberty and expression

September 26 [11:10 GMT] - A new generation is getting fed up - Bureaucrash is a young Libertarian-inspired site with a refreshing take on a whole host of issues, catering to and apparently written mostly by those of college age. Check out their manifesto, the teensploitation section (which chronicles abuses of school authority that range from the merely questionable to the nutty to the incredibly offensive) and the sharp blogs that are being developed here. Also, check out what they have to say about smoking prohibition.

The Health & Safety state in Italy

September 26 [11:10 GMT] - "We can't steal your scooter because we have to rely on thieves!" - We always hear how absurd things are getting in the US, England and other countries, as if there was a competition for the Idiocy of the Year in the form of "tough love", I-abuse-you-because-I-love-you sort of excuse. As Italy is an important member of the G8, it deserves a place in the race. "Health & Safety" often used to be a phrase to indicate petty captiousness by low-grade bureaucrats, but today it has become the maximum ideal and aspiration of the Therapeutic State, which is rotten to the bone. Try this: in the name of safety Italian scooterists not only get a fine, but they get their vehicles confiscated - forever (law 168/2005). What do you have to do to earn this? It is enough not to respect a stop sign, or forget to latch up your helmet and - zac! - your scooter is stolen by the police and you'll never see it again, so "you'll never endanger public safety again with that machine". How's that for paternalism?

This, however, does not happen in the city of Naples. Why? Did Neapolitan institutions get infected with honesty and liberty? Not at all.  The reason is much simpler: The state cannot steal the property of the citizens because all the tow truck companies in Naples are involved with thieves and buy-sell stolen property! A noteworthy distinction is to be made here: state-class thieves cannot mix with cheap private thieves! Tickets are not issued, either - for what good is it for the state to issue just a ticket if it cannot steal your scooter as well? It's simply not worth it! Because of this fortunate state of affairs, Neapolitan scooterists are left alone and enjoy happy driving. What lesson can we get from this story? This one: it takes private low-life to control state low life - something Americans know as well. It is thanks to Al Capone and his imitators, in fact, that they don't have Prohibition -- although their current "health & safety" low life is sure giving it another (and far more comprehensive) shot. -- Comments by Gian Turci; click here for a link to the story (Italian)

Ireland - Smoking bans are good for business, didn't you know?...

September 24 [17:30 GMT] - Dublin Pubs Call Last Orders - The antismoking-related economic disaster continues in Ireland. Sad Ireland reports: "In the last six months 24 Dublin Pubs have called last orders for the final time. Despite having only 10% of the bars in Ireland to cater for 35% of the population Dublin pubs are closing in unprecedented numbers and being turned into apartment and retail complexes. ... The smoking ban has reversed the once lucrative business potential of Irish bars." If at least there was a real threat for public health from passive smoke, the civic behaviour of smoking bans would have an explanation. Instead fanaticism and dirty politics drive the economy and livelihoods into the grounds - In Ireland and everywhere else.

Junk science

September 24 [17:30 GMT] - Smokers may have higher risk of HIV - The antismoking junk science of this week concerns smoking and HIV - yes, as in AIDS. If you smoke you have more chances of getting HIV, says junk science. Let's see how the trick is done this time: "British doctors said five of the six studies they analysed showed smokers had a higher chance of becoming infected." This is done with the usual questionnaires (there is no other way know). To this absolutely unreliable data collection follow the usual biased speculations: "Furber and his colleagues ... said tobacco smoke may increase susceptibility to HIV infection by modifying a variety of immune system responses." Of course there is absolutely no way to demonstrate this scientifically, but we already know that this does not matter. "The researchers suggest in the study that public health measures that encourage smokers to quit could also improve the effectiveness of HIV/AIDS prevention programmes." Of course. Statistics on AIDS mortality follow for additional effect.

Junk science has long stated that smoking is a "leading cause of preventable death", but never demonstrated that scientifically. Now it's the time of HIV. The next very predictable stage is that (junk science) research "shows" that smoking causes HIV through inhalation. So predictable, in fact, that our C.E.O. concluded an article he wrote in 1996 with these words: "Maybe some day, the news will report: 'Link between smoking, AIDS, and oral intercourse found.' " Done on both accounts: now smoking is "linked" with HIV and oral sex is linked with mouth cancer. There is no "link" that trash epidemiology can't find - when motivated by appropriate hysteria and corruption.

Straightening up Drinkers

September 24 [17:30 GMT] - The Dawn of Passive Drinking (or, reinventing an old message in expensive post-modern packaging) - An expensive question is being worked out for the collective good by expensive people in the new Europe’s expensive meeting rooms: will the coming assault on alcohol consumption be known by the moniker “passive drinking”, or not? “Passive drinking” is good, because like “passive smoking”, it is a propaganda slogan that attacks the individual as an enemy of society. But is it credible, when it is so obviously a crock? Or, to put it another way, is the public really as stupid as it would be convenient to believe? The experts are still debating the question at public expense. Meanwhile, check out this article from Spiked, which pins the tail on the collectivist donkey:

“Today’s public health outlook on drinking dovetails neatly with other powerful contemporary trends that emphasise human vulnerability or undermine trust between individuals. Linking drinking to free-floating risks, independent of the intentions of individuals, is a characteristic of today’s anti-humanist climate. But 200 years after his birth, we can take heart from the works and legacy of Mill. He stood against the tide in his day and won. We owe him a debt and we owe the future of freedom a duty to make our own stand against the new public health alliance of the twenty-first century.”

Prohibition

September 24 [17:30 GMT] - Slouching towards criminalization - While it sounds like arch-antismoker Glantz is promoting no penalties for youth smokers, what he is really doing is trying to keep his "pet" the anti tobacco control movement focused upon one single agenda: "increasing cigarette taxes or imposing smoke-free laws limiting indoor smoking in all public areas." There can be no variance from the party line or the anti tobacco agenda will fail with no public support.

One teen, who has already been fined for smoking, says, "If they make it illegal, more teenagers will want to smoke. If they don't want us to smoke, they should ban cigarettes in the United States." That in fact is what a lot of the antis plan to do, but they are still a little unsure of their ground. So the plan is to sharply discourage policies that are perceived as going too far, too fast, then swoop down at the “right” moment for a comprehensive criminalization – much more serious than a petty fine and no record for teenagers.

Humour - Deflating Health and Lifestyles

September 24 [17:30 GMT] - Is broccoli in or out this week? Does today’s most recent study “raise concerns about” or find “promising” therapeutic effects for nicotine, carbs, mangos, sunlight, video games or even your favourite exercise?
If you’re tired of what you read and see in the Health and Lifestyle department of your newspaper or on TV, check out this one and settle your most pressing questions once and for all (the source for this piece is, alas, unknown).

HEALTH QUESTION & ANSWER SESSION

Q: I've heard that cardiovascular exercise can prolong life; is this true?

A: Your heart is only good for so many beats, and that's it... don't waste them on exercise. Everything wears out eventually. Speeding up your heart will not make you live longer; that's like saying you can extend the life of your car by driving it faster. Want to live longer? Take a nap.

Q: Should I cut down on meat and eat more fruits and vegetables?
 
A: You must grasp logistical efficiencies. What does a cow eat? Hay and corn. And what are these? Vegetables. So a steak is nothing more than an
efficient mechanism of delivering vegetables to your system. Need grain? Eat chicken. Beef is also a good source of field grass (green leafy vegetable).
And a pork chop can give you 100% of your recommended daily allowance of vegetable products.

Q: Should I reduce my alcohol intake?

A: No, not at all. Wine is made from fruit. Brandy is distilled wine, that means they take the water out of the fruity bit so you get even more of the
goodness that way. Beer is also made out of grain. Bottoms up! 

Q: How can I calculate my body/fat ratio?

A: Well, if you have a body and you have fat, your ratio is one to one. If you have two bodies, your ratio is two to one, etc.