Fraud existed since the first random conglomerations of humans appeared on Earth hundreds of thousands of years ago. That is because deception is part of our nature. We use it is because, when coupled with fraud (and some intelligence), it actually pays off quite well and, at times, it is a tool for survival.

Deception, however, only works in the short and medium term. It damages others and it is eventually deleterious in the long run. To counter the devastating effects of deception and similar behaviours, humans invented religions, their primary function being to provide societies with moral frames and points of reference to help us navigate existence and tell right from wrong. Little surprise, therefore, that every religion on earth punishes deception and fraud in its own way, often quite severely.

Today, as we know, we rid ourselves of religions and labelled them “backward” superstitions – for indeed, in a mature world where truth is the standard and (real) science the religion, there would be no need for any religion at all. We are certainly not there, but we got smart enough to legitimize the crime by getting rid of the judge. And the result is that we have no moral guidance to tell right from wrong. And since deception yields good short-term returns it has become a “normal” tool to obtain what we want, and has even evolved into methodologies and social policies, which brings us to the issue we want to discuss today.

This blog by Michael Siegel is yet another example of deception turned into a system where a well-established fraudulent methodology has been developed to support the fraud-based smoking bans all over the world. It is clear that the antitobacco fraud is built stone upon stone. Starting from the scientifically indemonstrable “tobacco-related” diseases, we went on with the impossible to calculate “tobacco mortality” figures. We then moved with the total fraud of second hand smoke, which in turn created a scam-based antismoking culture that evolved into social hatred. Picking up on that, politicians without morality, themselves products of an amoral society, use fraud and hatred to install regulation and prohibition. Then more frauds are needed to show the “benefits” of the fraud-based prohibition, and so on. Once you start on the path of lying, your only choice is to keep on lying. The end result of the process is that we have a society governed by con men who use fraud to govern. Indeed, a system based on fraud and deception becomes a filter against honesty and truth that only deceitful elements can go through. That is why it also becomes important to crush minorities who still uphold honesty, refuting deception and oppression. This hideous system now carries the fashionable name of prevention. The moral inversion is complete.

If that sounds like antitobacco, you hit the nail on the head. In the case of passive smoking and heart disease, a totally fraudulent methodology is now in place to be built upon, and to show that smoking bans are of benefit to public health. “Public health” ‘s political swindlers, then, tout the fraud as "scientific consensus" (thus proof), fully conscious that they are deceiving the public (deception pays off, remember?…).

The methodological vein in this case started in 2003 with the Helena study by Stanton Glantz, a manipulateur extraordinaire, which falsely represented reductions in hospital admissions for heart attacks since the inception of that city’s smoking ban. The study, preposterous from the outset due to the compressed time frame, attempted ineptly to show and convince people that second hand smoke “causes” heart attacks. The study was exposed for the fraud it was by many parties (examples here and here), but that did not matter, as it established a methodology. The health authorities embraced and used it to justify their deceptions while banking on the fact that a mostly amoral public (told to “hate” smoking) would profit from “believing” because it is an instrument against those who are hated. The idea was to create yet another “mountain of evidence”, and then state that it is “scientifically” demonstrated that smoking bans improve public health.

The Helena “study” was followed, in fact, by the Piedmont “study” in Italy, also based on deceitful separation of data (data stratification, then pick only the strata that fit the agenda) to show a benefit while in reality the number of heart attack hospitalizations increased since the ban. That was followed by a battery of “studies” (click here for an example, and here for another) and statements based on the same criminal methodology, to show that exposure to passive smoking for 30 minutes, then twenty then five were affecting the cardiovascular system, all the way down to 30 seconds.

Now the professional “public health” gangsters in Ireland state:

“Ireland’s rate of heart attacks fell by around a tenth in the year following the introduction of the world’s first nationwide ban on workplace smoking, boosting the case for more similar bans, doctors said on Tuesday. Edmond Cronin and colleagues at CorkUniversityHospital said an analysis of people admitted with heart attacks to public hospitals in southwest Ireland showed an 11 percent fall in the year after the ban came into effect in March 2004."

Useless to say, these doctors – a real insult to the medical profession – are conning the public. Here is how they do it: “What these news articles and quotes do not tell you is that while the study authors compared the number of heart attack admissions in southwest Ireland in the year following the smoking ban with the number of heart attack admissions in the year preceding the smoking ban, they only looked back an additional nine months in order to assess the baseline trend and year-to-year variability in the number of heart attack admissions in this region”, explains Michael Siegel, a tobacco control advocate who is rightfully appalled at the deception practiced by his colleagues. Once again, pick and choose the data like every good fraudster should do. And servile and corrupt mass-media don’t tell you that, for they have to cater to “public health” and to the crooks who are running it.

When there is no moral guidance honesty becomes a crime. Treachery rules and becomes truth and law. And if you think about it, it cannot be otherwise.



Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder