"The rules of the workplace are changing, and personal behavior and lifestyle habits – those unrelated to what you do at work – are now fair game for employers determined to cut health-care costs."
So, we are to willingly lay down and roll over for this, knowing it is based upon "junk science"? Read on to see why we call it "junk science".
"Although thousands of employers have put in place incentives for their workers to live healthier lifestyles, the vast majority of employers have not embraced the approach of penalizing employees who don’t satisfy medical or behavioral dictates. But punitive measures are gaining a foothold in the workplace, according to lawyers and groups that follow insurance and employment trends, because health-care costs are growing at high single-digit to double-digit rates annually. The question for employees is: How far will these requirements on personal habits and penalties go, and what sort of criteria will employers use to define good health?
"Your privacy is being whittled away, piece by piece," said Anita Epolito, who was fired by Weyco, a health benefits administrator, in 2005 after refusing to stop smoking. "They’re trying to change behavior after 5 o’clock. What’s next? No McDonald’s? No caffeine? No Krispy Kreme?"
Yes, Ms. Epolito, they most certainly intend to leglslate and persecute if you partake of those examples you offered, do not doubt it for a moment. The upcoming rules are based upon what are called Studies, not Science, where there would have actually been real measurements to calculate danger or harm. There is something fundamentally and intellectually, morally, and ethically wrong in those studies being cited as reasons for the healthist intrusion into our daily life choices, and it is this.
a) Even if you could control for everything, you still would have a numerical quantification of memories that absolutely cannot be verified or quantified, so you still would have nothing.
b) Even worse, you have a fraudulent intellectual postulation that is totally absurd and that works like this (the numbers are, of course, imaginary, and the "you" is, of course, generic).
You take 100 non smokers without cancer and 100 with cancer.
You ask each individual of the two groups how many cigarettes the passive smoking of which they REMEMBER having been exposed to! You can already guess at this point that the people with cancer will "remember" more cigarettes simply because they are being asked specifically about cigarettes, and because they want an explanation for their cancers!!
It is also clear that ALL individuals in BOTH groups have been exposed to passive smoking – that is why they have been selected for the "study".
Finding never-exposed people is impossible.
You then draw the following, absurd conclusions:
As there are 100 non smokers without cancer who remember that they have been exposed to the passive smoking of, say, 1,000 cigarettes and they got no cancer, you get to the inevitable sub-conclusion that 100% exposure to passive smoking does not cause cancer.
As there is another 100 non smokers with cancer who remember that they have been exposed to the passive smoking of say, 1,100 cigarettes and got cancer, you get to the inevitable sub-conclusion that the exposure to the 100 EXTRA cigarettes that they remember is the cause of all their cancers.
It is important to know the questionnaire often offers no other source or cofactors (a cofactor is any other possible source) for their cancer.
General conclusions: remembering 100% exposure "demonstrates" that passive smoking does not cause cancer. Instead remembering 110% exposure "demonstrates" that the extra 10% remembered is the cause of all the cancers!!!!! This crooked logic applies, of course, to any and all diseases "attributed" to passive smoking — from heart attacks to bad marks at school!
But it works the other way around too: if those with cancer remember 10% less cigarettes than those without cancer, then passive smoking has a protective effect against cancer, as it happened in the WHO’s trash Multicenter Case-Control study of 1998. This "technique" has been vastly applied by supporters of marijuana legalization to "demonstrate" that, contrary to the smoke of tobacco (chemically almost identical), the smoke of marijuana has "anticancer" effects!
So, never mind the cofactors which no doubt are a serious aggravation to this epidemiological trash. Also, never mind that those who produce these studies are using trashy questionnaire-based recollections of un-quantifiable MEMORIES, which is another absurdity.
The core of the matter is that the core logic used to compare is an intellectual and scientific fraud. Nothing has ever been "measured", all has been imagined.
0 Comments