As it is becoming every day clearer to a growing number of people that the “studies” on passive smoking are trash and fraud, the industry that produces those frauds is desperately trying to create more tangible “evidence.”
Here is the case of (emphasis added) “a young asthmatic woman who collapsed and died shortly after arriving for her shift as a waitress at a bar may be the first reported death to be reported [sic] nationally from acute asthma associated with environmental tobacco smoke.”
Please read the article before continuing with these comments.
Obviously there is a great effort here to suggest a “death from passive smoking,” a "sudden" one, at that. Nobody has ever died from passive smoking and this woman did not. The "public health" cons propagandize "attribution" of anything they like to passive smoking. They are trying that here. Their propaganda is utterly basless.
A woman with asthma dies suddenly and out comes the attribution. Does that mean that the attribution is scientifically credible? Of course not. The woman, in fact, was asthmatic before, for whatever reason and cause. As she was a professional bartender, she was exposed to passive smoking every day, without any particular symptom. Rather, the article reports that she appeared happy and vibrant even to the end.
If passive smoking bothered the lady, logic indicates that she would have complained of it, and would have complained of chronic problems performing her work, or sought another line of work, but nothing of this kind is reported. Certainly passive smoking does not kill anybody either "suddenly" or otherwise. Please also note that asthma is generally a disease that leads to death in a slow way, after visible growth of a physical debilitation that lasts many years. This is not the case here. Once again, the woman was apparently in generally good shape and good spirits.
This will be touted as the first “documented” death in the nation from passive smoking. The "documentation" will be a barmy "consensus" amongst some prohibitionists. One wonders: why this sick charade, now, when the idea is to prohibit smoking no matter what the evidence is, and when bans aplenty are appearing despite growing awareness of prohibitionists’ frauds? The Antis have the guns and the power. Opposition in the US has generally been feckless. Thus there is little need to persuade at this late date, but for some reason, these people feel compelled to “convince” the population that passive smoking is a danger to health.
Perhaps the cons are just behaving reflexively. Perhaps they are starting to worry about growing organisation in North America and more effective resistance in Europe. Perhaps they are starting to recognize, themselves, that they are mindless zealots, and seek personal reassurance. One simply wonders. At any rate this is just another ham-handed propaganda tactic.
A similar case happened in Italy five years ago – the case of Monica Crema. In a nutshell, Crema was a bank employee with a history of asthma. One day, after a meal in the bank’s cafeteria, Crema died, suddenly. The day after, all the papers reported in characters bigger than they would have used to announce WWIII, that Crema was killed by passive smoking.
At the original trial, the defence experts were forbidden to testify, so that only the state “experts” could say that she died because of passive smoking and the court could decide against the bank, thus supplying the political fuel to pass the smoking ban in Italy, which happened a few months later.
At the appeal one year later, the defence experts were allowed to testify. Crema died of food allergy from the food she ate at the restaurant. The few newspapers that reported the news did so in the back pages — just a few, meagre lines. Officialdom likewise ignored the news. Who dares to counter "public health" criminals and the greatest superstition of all times? Thus the ban was not questioned, either, on the grounds of this discovery.
The information was simply suppressed. It was a political fraud that exploited a death of an innocent person who in fact never even complained about smoking. It was a golden opportunity taken up by the criminals of “public health”. The politically correct and prohibitionistically inclined mass media of course coöperated.
Still today, in Europe you’ll hear it said that the “first documented case of death by passive smoking” occurred in Italy, in spite of the Appeal court decision, that few in fact know about. The goal is to show that “smoking is no longer acceptable because it kills others." After the message was delivered, facts in the way, were quickly brushed aside. Of course, facts have always been despised, by the prohibitionists.
This case is no different. This Michigan woman simply died suddenly. Her asthmatic condition was long-standing. There is absolutely no reason to believe she died from passive smoking any more than there is reason to believe she died from the exertion of serving customers. She worked in the bar happily serving patrons day after day.
There is no explanation here for why the lady died the day she did. If ever any really pertinent information appears, as with the Italian case, this will be suppressed. Passive smoking kills nobody, but it never has, and that has never really been the point with prohibitionists. They want their prohibition. They will believe, or pretend to believe, and they will propagandize, absolutely anything to advance their agenda of control.