Ignored by the mass media all over the world because they have to cater to the antismoking fraud, “a University of California Los Angeles School of Public Health report said

a new review of existing studies seems to confirm it, with long-term and current smokers at the lowest risk. The review also found that the effect seems to extend beyond cigarettes to pipes and cigars, and possibly to chewing tobacco, and that it persisted among those who had stopped smoking years earlier. What would cause such a preventive effect is not well understood, said the report in the Archives of Neurology, but studies on test animals suggested two possibilities. One is that carbon monoxide or other agents in tobacco smoke exert a protective effect and promote survival of brain neurons that produce dopamine, which allows muscles to move properly and is lacking in Parkinson’s cases. Cigarettes may also somehow prevent the development of toxic substances that interfere with proper neurological functioning.”
Why quit smoking? Why not starting instead? Over one million people are affected by PD in the United States, and that is no junk science. Furthermore, "Prior to the introduction of levodopa, PD caused severe disability or death in 25% of patients within 5 years of onset, in 65% in the next 5 years, and in 89% of those who survived for 15 years. The mortality rate from PD was 3 times that of the general population matched for age, sex, and racial origin. With the introduction of L-dopa, the mortality rate dropped approximately 50%, and longevity was extended by several years, although no evidence suggests that L-dopa actually alters the underlying pathologic process or stems the progressive nature of the disease." Further scientific information on Parkinson’s mortality can be found here – including risk ratios of four and five (to be compared with the 0.2 or so for passive smoking, the excuse for all smoking bans). The origin of the disease is unknown.
As a disease, long-term Parkinson is more expensive to society than lung cancer is! Where is the taxation of non smokers? This may sound tongue-in-cheek, but it is not: we are simply applying the rules and mentality of our enemies. Is this junk science — whilst that which says that “smoking is bad” is not? That is irrelevant. Since we seem today to measure studies by the kilo, well, dear “health authorities” and bureaucrats, there are kilos and kilos of studies that say smoking has a protective effect against Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Thus, non smokers represent a cost to society. Don’t all those kilos make for “scientific consensus” (AKA "a mountain of evidence", or "overwhelming evidence")? We therefore expect a “therapeutic” tax on non smokers to induce them to take up the habit. After all, their behaviour (failing to smoke) costs society money. Perhaps their tax can go to pay for children’s insurance — instead of the taxes stolen from smokers under false pretences.
We really need to make a decision, here. Of course epidemiology cannot prove that smoking causes cancer – and, equally of course, epidemiology cannot prove that smoking has a protective effect against Parkinson or Alzheimer. That is because in both cases, the key documents — the fundamental data — are the responses people give on questionnaires. But if we have accepted the elevation of non-science (such as multifactorial epidemiology) to the rank of real science, then we have to accept it as such even when it says that smoking is good. Accordingly, we should create LAWS and TAXES based on that junk science, in this case against non smokers, who should — if we are to be consistent — enjoy their portion of social hatred as well.
If “public health” (and the politicians who sing its tune) cannot find it in themselves to be honest, at least they should be expected to be coherent.



Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder