I have chewed my way through the
verdict of Lord Nimmo Smith in the case of Mrs. McTear versus Imperial Tobacco
Limited, Edinburgh, Scotland, published on May 31, 2005. On the basis of the
verdict, I claim that smoking tobacco has not been shown to cause cancer of
lung.
Read the verdict
here. It is a daunting task, but in the pursuit of truth well worth the
effort.
As for the credibilty of Forces, I present the following
statement by the judge (Mr. McEachran represents the pursuer, and Mr. Jones the
defender):
[6.166] Mr McEachran's main
argument, as I understood it, was that the conclusion that cigarette smoking
could cause lung cancer had met with general acceptance in the scientific
community by the late 1950s, was accepted by the media in the 1970s, was
taught at medical schools and reflected in textbooks, and could be seen
stated in a series of substantial multi_disciplinary reports, which he
called the "multi_doctor studies", listed at para.[6.30], to the extent that
the conclusions of IARC 1986 had never been challenged. This is all very
well, 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 is
true". But however often a conclusion may be repeated, it is only as sound
as 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 many
articles they may have read before preparing their texts, however many pages
their reports may run to, are to no avail if I am then shown no more than
the conclusions reached after all this effort. It is no good to tell me that
a report is 400 or 600 pages long, and indeed to ask me to weigh the report
in my hand, as Mr McEachran at one time asked me to do with UKHC 2000
Vol.II, and its list of references extends to several hundred items, without
letting 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 the
inappropriateness of going simply to its conclusions: the length shows
how much ground there was to cover before the conclusions could be stated.
The conclusions, taken on their own, are no more than oracular
pronouncements.
Isn’t that what Forces has been saying for a decade? Layers of
lies have been troweled upon each other. Repeating a mantra may result in the
increase of its murmerring, but that does not make the mantra any truer.
Long term members of Forces should take a well deserved moment
of reflection. Breathe in the feeling of vindication. The battle has not been in
vain. This is a victory! The fighting is not over. It helps to recognize a
victory. It gives impetus for further battle.
As for the credibilty of the WHO, the following excerpt from the
WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, article 8.1 springs to my mind:
"Parties
recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that
exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability.”
Oh, yeah?
Why is it that this unequivocal scientific evidence did
not 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 way
through the doors of a court of law?
The only evidence that exposure to tobacco smoke
causes death, disease and disability is purely epidemiological. This must
mean that, according to WHO, the only credible type of science is
epidemiology! No other form of hitherto recognised science has been able to
establish that tobacco smoke causes anything but irritation.
Are we to understand that WHO believes that Isaac Newtons
observations in the world of physics are invalid, because these were not
inferred through the use of epidemiology? Gone must also be Einsteins
theory of relativity, since it was not based on epidemiology. Can we rely
on the observations that the world is round? Was it established through the use
of epidemiology?
Rubbish!
Epidemiology is not science. It’s mostly junk science.
According to real science smoking tobacco does not cause
cancer of lung. Join Lord Nimmo Smith in his trashing of anti tobacco attempts
to spoof it with statistical mumbo jumbo!
Cigarettes don’t cause cancer!
That’s our call for battle!
|
