 I have chewed my way through theverdict of Lord Nimmo Smith in the case of Mrs. McTear versus Imperial TobaccoLimited, Edinburgh, Scotland, published on May 31, 2005. On the basis of theverdict, I claim that smoking tobacco has not been shown to cause cancer oflung.
Read the verdict here. It is a daunting task, but in the pursuit of truth well worth theeffort.
As for the credibilty of Forces, I present the followingstatement by the judge (Mr. McEachran represents the pursuer, and Mr. Jones thedefender):
[6.166] Mr McEachran's mainargument, as I understood it, was that the conclusion that cigarette smokingcould cause lung cancer had met with general acceptance in the scientificcommunity by the late 1950s, was accepted by the media in the 1970s, wastaught at medical schools and reflected in textbooks, and could be seenstated in a series of substantial multi_disciplinary reports, which hecalled the "multi_doctor studies", listed at para.[6.30], to the extent thatthe conclusions of IARC 1986 had never been challenged. This is all verywell, but I have to say that I am reminded of the Bellman in Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark, who said: "What I tell you three times istrue". But however often a conclusion may be repeated, it is only as soundas the research on which it is based, and of this I have seen none.However eminent and numerous the authors of a report may be, however manyarticles they may have read before preparing their texts, however many pagestheir reports may run to, are to no avail if I am then shown no more thanthe conclusions reached after all this effort. It is no good to tell me thata report is 400 or 600 pages long, and indeed to ask me to weigh the reportin my hand, as Mr McEachran at one time asked me to do with UKHC 2000Vol.II, and its list of references extends to several hundred items, withoutletting me see any of the text on which the conclusions are based. Indeed,as Mr Jones pointed out, the very length of a report may emphasise theinappropriateness of going simply to its conclusions: the length showshow much ground there was to cover before the conclusions could be stated.The conclusions, taken on their own, are no more than oracularpronouncements.
Isn’t that what Forces has been saying for a decade" Layers oflies have been troweled upon each other. Repeating a mantra may result in theincrease of its murmerring, but that does not make the mantra any truer.
Long term members of Forces should take a well deserved momentof reflection. Breathe in the feeling of vindication. The battle has not been invain. This is a victory! The fighting is not over. It helps to recognize avictory. It gives impetus for further battle.
As for the credibilty of the WHO, the following excerpt from theWHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, article 8.1 springs to my mind:
"Partiesrecognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established thatexposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.”
Oh, yeah"
Why is it that this unequivocal scientific evidence didnot manage to find its way into the court of law in Edinburgh, Scotland"
Is it because the mountain of evidence that tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disablity is so great that it cannot make its waythrough the doors of a court of law"
The only evidence that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability is purely epidemiological. This mustmean that, according to WHO, the only credible type of science is epidemiology! No other form of hitherto recognised science has been able toestablish that tobacco smoke causes anything but irritation.
Are we to understand that WHO believes that Isaac Newtonsobservations in the world of physics are invalid, because these were notinferred through the use of epidemiology" Gone must also be Einsteinstheory of relativity, since it was not based on epidemiology. Can we relyon the observations that the world is round" Was it established through the useof epidemiology"
Rubbish!
Epidemiology is not science. It’s mostly junk science.
According to real science smoking tobacco does not causecancer of lung. Join Lord Nimmo Smith in his trashing of anti tobacco attemptsto spoof it with statistical mumbo jumbo!
Cigarettes don’t cause cancer!
That’s our call for battle!
|
