October 20 [18:30 GMT] - It is now confirmed: smoking protects from degenerative neurological disorders: no "should", or "would", or "ifs", or "buts" - How come this particular aspect of smoking is not advertised by "public health" which is otherwise so quick to inform us that "smoking kills" at any opportunity and with any possible bit of junk science at hand? This information has been available since August 10. Shouldn't health institutions and their media lackeys print this everywhere: "Smoking prevents degenerative neurological disorders" to educate the population on the effects of smoking? Isn't this what the ministries of health everywhere claim to do? We are waiting!

Also, this is not epidemiological trash science, either: "Scientists have uncovered a gene that helps protect smokers from Parkinson's disease. ... US geneticist Professor Jeffrey Vance, from Duke University in North Carolina, has told the International Congress of Human Genetics in Brisbane he has found a gene that helps explain the link. The gene - known as NOS2A - is found in every cell of the body and is responsible for the production of nitric oxide. ... Prof Vance and his team realized that while everyone has this gene, in smokers it appeared to be 'turned down', limiting cell death and ultimately disease. " 'We think that something in smoke keeps the level of the NOS2A down so cells don't produce nitric oxide, which decreases cell damage', he told AAP."

Furthermore, as "public health" is so fond of playing bean counter on the "costs of smoking" (without ever being able to demonstrate the causalities), why don't we hear about the cost of non-smoking, as the vast majority of degenerative neurological disorders are in non smokers? Those diseases are immensely expensive to the health systems of every nation. In Australia alone (with a population of just 20 million) there are 40,000 people affected by these diseases - and this is no "estimated" attribution: all those people cost billions that smokers do not cost -- for they keep on living for decades, and needing ever-growing medical care and assistance. In full compliance with political correctness, Prof. Vance states: "It really is ironic that something good might ultimately come out of smoking". We beg to differ: it is not ironic at all -- once you get rid of the false information and hate propaganda perpetrated daily by heath authorities against smoking and smokers.

Well?... We are still waiting for your information, esteemed ministries of "health" all over the world! We are waiting for health authorities and mass-media to become honest. Well then, we guess we'll have to wait for a long, long time, won't we?...

Signs of the times

October 20 [18:30 GMT] - Tagged out: starting early with the production of intellectually crippled citizens  - "Tag is now out during recess at Willett Elementary School in Attleboro. So is touch football and any other unsupervised 'chasing' games that are deemed to pose the risk of injury as well as liability to the school". This is a typical example of the prevailing mentality today. It has nothing to do (but at the same time everything to do) with the smoking issue: it concerns the "zero risk" mentality, for which individuals, authorities and society in general tend to the elimination of risk - even the slightest -  in the name of "health and safety", while life almost depends on dodging responsibility as much as possible. Children have to be insulated to the extreme and never, ever exposed even to the slightest risk. And adults increasingly follow the same pattern. Health and safety have become the political pass-par-tout for all and any abuse of power, and curtailment of even normal activity.

The result of this absurd mentality -- driven by fear of lawsuits much of the time (time for tort reform) --  is that we all become weaker and more dependent, socially, intellectually, in every way. So we turn to others to negotiate our problems of life, and, in turn, this means more and more surveillance and micro-managing by "authorities" as the individual ability for judgment and self-managing becomes more and more atrophied. The final victim of it all is liberty, perceived as an ever-growing social threat. The intellectually crippled citizen agrees with the elimination of that "threat" and invokes more "guidance" by authority, thinking that trading a devalued commodity such as liberty for a feeling of security is a hell of a good deal. But authority, in turn, is as intellectually crippled as the population it "protects" and comes from. The end result of this process is, inevitably, a society of physical and intellectual weak links with no personal liberties whatsoever and no intellectual ability to discern and react against state abuse. A society with totally planned, controlled and homogenized people where individuals make no difference at all. The Communist dream is coming true: has the Soviet Union really lost the cold war?

There is only one cure for this disease -- and that is a 180-degree turn-around: more risk taking, less state "protection" and "supervision", more personal responsibility and the personal power that comes from them. A healthy body is that which is exposed to disease and survives it. A healthy social body is that which is exposed to risk, freedom and self-determination - and survives them. There is no progress and no growth without risk, and a society turned to risk reduction to today's extremes is a society that has redefined stagnation as progress. But renaming lead as gold does not make it so.

October 20 [02:30 GMT] - Overeaters, smokers and drinkers: the doctor won't see you now - or: "I am God and I shall judge you" - And here is another manifestation of the sick mentality we describe above: the tendency of certain doctors (or "public health") to punish those who have "vices", and their arrogance in using medicine as blackmail to force people's choices. "At issue: health care for patients with self-destructive vices -- overeating, smoking, drinking or drugs. More and more doctors are turning them away or knocking them down their waiting lists -- whether patients know that's the reason or not. Frightening stories abound." Think about this: people who are supposedly there to "cure" people refuse to cure them on the basis of either their moral judgment, or that of statistical trash science used to justify the moral judgment in the first place.

We at FORCES would have a simple, practical cure to fix these "doctors": revoke their licence to practice medicine. Since it can be easily argued that each person (no exception) has some “self-destructive vice" (according to some junk science, anyway), then these “doctors” would be able to do what they seem best suited for: join the Puritan or fanatical group nearest them. People like that should not be allowed to practice medicine, for they go straight against what medicine should be all about: treat the patient regardless of anything else. Those mechanics of the body who have elevated themselves to the status of some kind of deity are as arrogant as the car mechanic who would refuse to fix your vehicle because you don't drive as he sees fit. Finally, try this for size: "...in a health system... where doctors have discretion over whom they'll take on, some say it's inevitable that problem patients will get shunted aside in favour of healthier, less labour-intensive cases." In that case there is one more reason to trash those "doctors", as there is no need for them when the "patients" are all healthy.

From Michael Siegel's blog

October 20 [18:30 GMT] - New Zealand health group calls smoking by or around pregnant women child abuse - These comments by Siegel highlight yet another point of confusion (and dishonesty) in today's "health and safety" mentality: the distinction between harm and risk. Even in the wildest possible assumption that passive smoke represents a risk for anybody, risk does not represent damage, but the possibility of damage.

October 20 [18:30 GMT] - Former FDA Commissioner pleads guilty to lying about holding stocks in companies he regulated - This update seems to be dedicated to the confusion and enmeshed moral values of healthist institutions, but it is just a coincidence. Here Siegel reports on the umpteenth case of "public health" institutional corruption. After pleading guilty to blatant conflict of interest, the FDA commissioner has the face to state: "Nothing that I have done, I hope, can be construed to affect the integrity of the FDA". Siegel's ensuing sarcasm is only too appropriate, especially in consideration that this is the Agency that should regulate the production of cigarettes in the US - if certain antismoking groups and bent-over Philip Morris have their way. This ex-FDA Commissioner has been replaced - with whom? With somebody who has an even greater conflict of interest. Well, let's put it this way: if a Mafia boss is eliminated, who do you think his successor is going to be -- a honest person?...  That is as probable as the next minister of health being honest about the effects of smoking on health!

October 20 [18:30 GMT] - Letter informing anti-smoking groups of their misleading claims about secondhand smoke widely disseminated; now it's time for action - Those readers of FORCES all over the world who are interested in the evolution of the antismoking fraud are certainly familiar with hundreds or thousands of "fact sheets" on the effects of active and passive smoking on health.  Siegel writes: "I sent the following letter to my private secondhand smoke mailing list, consisting of a large number of anti-smoking groups involved in the secondhand smoke issue, many of which are making misleading and/or inaccurate claims about the health effects of secondhand smoke. Now we'll see what these groups are really made of. Will they correct their fact sheets to reflect the science, or will they intentionally retain their misleading claims to deceive the public?" Well, Michael, we don't need to wait and see what those antismoking groups are made of - for we know already that they are made of something that would be too indecent to print if we really wanted to be scientifically accurate...

October 20 [18:30 GMT] - Just make it up as you go - The latest work of fantasy of James Sargent and Stanton Glantz says that, if we rate as "R" a movie where smoking is depicted, we reduce the number of kids who start smoking by 50%, or 200,000. Of course there is absolutely no scientific or even statistical foundation for such an assertion, and Siegel comments on that. But the implication here is that the opinion of antismoking windbags IS science, just because they say so, and in virtue of their stupid crusade. And how could it be otherwise when fortunes have been made by inventing data and making up frauds? Siegel also points out how ridiculous their arguments really are - in fact, we add, the whole rating system is ridiculous to begin with in an era where only a tiny portion of the public goes to the theatres (the only place where age limitations can be actually enforced), and most people watch movies at home, where they can smoke, drink, eat, with the whole family seeing the movie for half the price of one moviehouse ticket.

Furthermore, even assuming that parents are dim enough to believe antismoking propaganda and follow the "R" rating, kids nowadays can download their own movies through the Internet - legally or not - even without the knowledge of their parents. So the whole thing is just another rhetorical position: smoking is bad absolutely, so no institution will support it. But in reality youngsters are smarter than they're given credit for and there's always some of them who are ... born to be Glantz-blasters! The young guy in this video  won't be invited to one of Glantz's chillingly obedient young movie "reviewers" anytime soon -- bless his cursing, contrarian heart! (warning: "R" rated language and profanities used).

October 18 [02:30 GMT] - Junk Science plus propaganda equals dirty politics - Two years ago as the bitter presidential campaign staggered towards Election Day Dan Rather, the iconic anchor man of CBS news, dropped a bomb shell on the incumbent, President Bush.  Proof, in the form of official documents, had been obtained verifying that a nasty rumor regarding his military service was true.  Days later the documents were proven to have actually been faked and poor, duped Rather lost his job, his substantial career reduced to a cautionary tale of journalistic ethics trashed to make a splash.

This year the political stakes might be higher as Democrats lick their chops at the prospect of taking over Congress.  President Bush isn't running but the Iraq War is.  On cue critics of the invasion and messy aftermath have released a study tabulating the Iraqi death toll wrought by the American-led coalition that removed the Saddam Hussein regime.   Appearing in The Lancet, a medical journal, this supposed scientific analysis claims that the coalition, and by extension the President and the Republican Party, is responsible for the deaths of upwards of 600,000 Iraqis. 

Did the intrepid researchers tally actual dead bodies?  Of course not!  What they did do was canvass a handful of households in various regions asking about deaths in the family.  Yep, the old questionnaire method, so popular with socio-political engineers who concoct evidence to advance a particular agenda, rears its deceptive head.  With an error margin of plus or minus 200,000 deaths, this “study” screams unreliability. 

For a delightful thumbnail analysis of the Iraqi death toll study, read the acerbic comments of Medpundit, a blogging M.D.  Scroll down to October 11, 2006 and enjoy his take on how for far too long Public Health has influenced public policy, including tobacco, alcohol and food issues, by manufacturing evidence that always supports its goals.

As for the Republicans and the president, karma will have smacked them in the butts if the Iraqi death toll junk study swings votes over to the Democrats.  Earlier this year Surgeon General Richard Carmona, inflicted upon the public by President Bush, brayed to all and sundry that secondhand smoke is responsible for a horrific death toll and attendant misery suffered by hundreds of thousands of Americans.  His proof?  The same junk techniques that form the core of the Iraqi death toll study.  The Bush administration loved junk science in that case.  It's likely it will suffer politically from the junk published in The Lancet.  Live by the junk, die by the junk.

Media

October 18 [02:30 GMT] - Heathen tackles global warming - While the media report breathlessly on the Democratic Party's effort to root out homosexual congressmen one senator's iconoclastic message about global warming, its causes, its consequences and its policy implications, is ignored.  Rather odd considering that many in the political class, Al Gore as a shrill example, claim global warming is the single most significant issue facing the planet.  Senator James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, doesn't worship at the altar of politically motivated science and while what he has to say is backed up by numerous scientists and organizations his skepticism is treated more as heresy than as an alternate, honest view on a complex phenomenon.  Homo Sapiens and this species' activities must be the cause of the planet's warming.  To point out that the science hasn't proven this assertion is to risk immolation on the burning pyre reserved for unrepentant heretics.

Last month Inhofe delivered a speech that challenged the media's coverage of global warming.  While the entire speech is well worth reading, we highlight here his comments about how the media covers global warming.  Inhoffe echoes many of our observations on the lazy, deceptive and downright fraudulent media coverage relating to tobacco, alcohol, obesity and other issues that are near and dear to the behavior modification engineers.  Rather than report the facts or God forbid indulge in any investigative reporting, the news business swallows hook line and sinker every preposterous pronouncement of those who push the agendas that are pleasing to the elite.  Whether Inhoffe's honesty makes headway is problematic in a culture that embraces its prejudices as an act of faith.

The consequences of smoking bans

October 16 [19:45 GMT] - Scotland: cigarette sales up 5% despite (or because of?) smoking ban - Is it that people are born suckers for lies and frauds or is it that they are inherently dishonest? People keep on falling for the same promise by the same dishonest public health authorities: forbid smoking because that will induce people to quit. What a stupid joke.

After Ireland and Italy, Scotland gives us the good news that the number of smokers has increased after the smoking ban. Since its inception, FORCES has stated something that should be obvious and crystal-clear to anyone - and what has been demonstrated by history everywhere: prohibition increases the consumption of the prohibited good. This is good news for fighters against totalitarian-minded lifestyle micro-managers, because it confirms another indisputable reality: like Communist economics, prohibition-based policies have failure built in because they do not deal with reality but with a theoretical model which is necessarily imperfect. The reality is that people like to smoke, they intend to continue, and no longer believe the lies of health authorities. In fact, the more they lie and forbid, the more smokers smoke. Scottish smokers, well done! Time to light up another one - and to stay home where you can smoke like free people.

October 16 [19:45 GMT] - Some common sense from the prairies - Common sense is hard to come by these days. We are glad to link to this site, which points to the inevitable consequences of stupid policy. "Smoking bans have increased alcohol consumption, turned cops into bouncers and caused violence and death. Look at our evidence - decide for yourself." This is the header of the website of the Manitoba Association of Rural Hotel Owners. Although they yield to some disinformation on tobacco and to a little bit of paternalism, these people are witness, once again, to the devastating social and economic effects of smoking bans, and the consequences that bans have on alcohol consumption. "This site examines the disaster of smoking bans all over North America. As well we show you how legislation designed to make you drink less has actually made you drink more." -- nothing new for government intervention policies to obtain exactly the opposite if what they intend.

In spite of the fraudulent propaganda by health authorities about non-smokers "pouring" into establishments, these folks recognize that, under a ban regime, people stay home and save money - that is, they buy much more alcohol: "Did you know that your government will pay you $9 to $22 to drink at home? It is true. That is enough to buy twice as much booze - and like good consumers that is exactly what you have done." The end of the first page introduction is equally commonsensical: "For the health and safety of society pragmatism is required. It is time that legislation that restricts or prohibits smoking in bars be repealed." That would be nice. But what antismokers have in mind is not public health: it is fanaticism and prostitution of authorities to the pharmaceutical multinationals' mercantile agenda.

The fight for an antismoking-free world

October 16 [19:45 GMT] - Montreal: Demonstration against an unfair law based on fraud - "Not a day too soon, the U.T.B.Q., the association of bar owners challenging the Quebec smoking bans, have finally got their day in court to ask for a temporary injunction for bars until the challenge on its merits that was filed over a year ago is heard. Although attorney Julius Grey representing them admits that it will be very difficult to win this case, the precarious situation that the smoking ban has created for many bars since the legislation came into effect on May 31, 2006, justifies that the bar owners put up a good fight to save their businesses. In fact they report that a number of bars have already closed and many others are struggling more every day for survival as Quebec cold temperatures settle in."

"In the name of fairness for all citizens and less government encroachment in our personal lives, C.A.G.E. has been very active supporting the bar owners in their fight and will continue doing so every step of the way in this long and challenging battle they have promised to take all the way to the Supreme Court if they had to. In this spirit, we the people should show our support and be present in big numbers on November 13th and 14th 9:00 am at le Palais de Justice, 1 rue Notre Dame W., Montreal. A fight for justice is a fight for civil liberties and democracy." For more information on the who, what, when, where and why click here.

The Theatre of the Absurd

October 16 [19:45 GMT] - Health ministry operatives believe their own therapeutic state BS - Freud’s out, crystals too – what’s a sucker gonna do? Even British health secretary Patricia Hewitt and her civil servants – even some people at Number 10, according to this report -- have embraced the new health nostrum of “life coaching” – at tax-payer’s expense! If you don’t want to take mood-altering drugs, if the traditional and largely discredited analyst’s couch seems too square, but you just have to get the buzz that comes from getting “therapy” -- you can get a life coach. And if you work for the government, maybe it’s even free! Better yet, become a life coach! At the top end, you might reel in £200 an hour helping someone to better mental, spiritual and all round health just by typing a warm, inspirational message into an email and pressing the send button. No qualifications required. Woo-hoo! So the next time someone from the British government starts rattling your cage over smoking, give them the respect they’re due … these folks are serious and credible!

Humour

October 16 [19:45 GMT] - This Bronx boy is #!$]% angry - “Not since the Continental Congress has anyone heard a speech so powerful and yet so eloquent as the gentleman in this video, telling us what he thinks about smoking bans. A must for anyone looking for insight as to what is going on with the issue!” Well, kinda...

This New Jersey strip club owner is #!$]% angry about the smoking bans and – since he’s apparently in a non-ban zone – he’s inviting the world to come and visit his club. We can’t help but wonder whether he’s actually fighting the #!$]% smoking bans, or just video-trolling for new customers until the axe of a new ordinance falls! (Warning: strong #!$]% language).


Søren Højbjerg - The proliferation of trash science

October 14 [17:33 GMT] - Scottish Spin - As the voices criticizing the adoption of junk science multiply, so does the production of a particularly trashy kind of junk science where the methodology has been modified ad hoc to show that, inevitably, smoking bans have "positive results" for health, thus encouraging the dissemination of this social and economic plague. Søren Højbjerg comments on the last one, coming from Scotland. What is particularly irritating about these sorts of "studies" is the cynical failure to provide meaningful and credible information: where is the control group, for example? Why such a short period of study? Are we rushing to demonstrate that total bans are good for health? Guess so -- the press release contains an editors note instructing the media to interpret the study as an argument for smoking bans! Using methods like these, you could basically put a thermometer out your window in summer, do the same thing again in January, and send out a press release announcing that the planet was going through a period of global freezing!

It's a shame to contemplate how many people have turned into veritable propaganda whores. It's time that the public was educated about the fraudulent representation of evidence that abounds on this issue, and the constant misrepresentation of reality to the public that the anti-smoking movement engages in. What is infuriating is that the perpetrators of all this not only get away with what is morally (and often legally) a crime, they get lavishly rewarded by a political and social system which, literally, has adopted a moral inversion: he who commits a crime in the name of public health is a good guy, and the victim is the bad guy.