Finally somebody has answered Michael Siegel’s challenge to prove that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke causes clogged arteries that increase the immediate risk of a heart attack: TobaccoScam.
These guys of course forgot the word “anti” in their pens when they wrote their name, but we can easily add that for them. How does AntiTobaccoScam reply to Siegel? You guessed it: with a personal attack and an accusation of being uninformed! As Siegel explains who the uninformed party actually is in his comments, we draw attention to something more fundamental, which is at the core of the antismoking fraud: the game of authority referral.
"If you carefully look at the peer reviewed papers on secondhand smoke, as well as the most recent Surgeon General and California Environmental Protection Agency reports on secondhand smoke (linked from the Resource Library section of the web site), you will see that the statements on the web site represent the scientific consensus. Mike Siegel has a blog, which is his (rather uninformed) opinion." …
So the message of these “informed” people is that the “authority” says that the studies say — therefore there is scientific consensus. Wait a minute. The peer reviewed studies are junk that proves absolutely nothing regardless of what they say. Here they are – all of them. The junk studies say that the risk elevation is too small to represent a real risk: here are "authorities" that say just that. So the AntiTobaccoScam people are liars right along the rest of the antismoking cartel – and, folks… a consensus of cons is still a fraud.
The best for last: The Surgeon General and the CARB refer to each other and to other “authorities”… but all these authorities are not scientifically demonstrating anything. Doesn’t this sound like a bureaucratic run-around sold to the public by a vacuum cleaner salesman (no offence intended to honest vacuum cleaner salesmen)? Perhaps it would be useful, once again, to look at the mechanism of this referral fraud once again. Where is the beef?