It is like a sad game: the more the junk science is produced, the more it gets debunked.
Here is a short and partial compendium of the “latest and greatest” absurdities and ridiculous claims of Tobacco Control in the UK. The public health cons are in full propaganda swing to support their fraud-based fascist law.
Ironically Michael Siegel, a tobacco control advocate who got kicked out of the movement for having dared to dissent on some important details – but still advocating both tobacco control and smoking bans – finds himself in the paradoxical position of having become a professional debunker of the false claims of Tobacco Control.
When moral sense, scientific rigour and logic are utterly abandoned in favour of corruption and social engineering, this is exactly what happens – for smoking or for anything else.
The claim: A British article (stored copy) claims that “the national smoking ban in England is a major cause of an observed 49% reduction in heart attacks in north Cumbria during a three-month period”.
The fraud: “The control group in this case – England – is not a control group but is, in fact, the intervention group. In other words, the smoking ban was implemented in all of England, so a 49% decline in heart attacks in North Cumbria in light of a much smaller 2% decline in the rest of the country cannot be attributed to the smoking ban.” Conclusions: “These data suggest that the conclusions from Helena, Pueblo, and Bowling Green are wrong and that smoking bans do not produce the kind of dramatic declines in heart attacks that anti-smoking researchers have claimed.”
The claim: "Exposure to SHS has immediate health effects. It can reduce lung function; exacerbate respiratory problems; trigger asthma attacks; reduce coronary blood flow; irritate eyes; and cause headaches, coughs, sore throats, dizziness and nausea." ASH UK back up its contention that brief exposure to secondhand smoke reduces coronary blood flow by referring to the 2001 article by Otsuka et al.
The fraud: "The problem is that the 2001 article by Otsuka et al. found the exact opposite of what ASH UK is claiming. That article found that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure had no effect on coronary blood flow in exposed nonsmokers. All you have to do is read the abstract of the study to find that out: ‘Passive smoking exposure had no effect on basal coronary flow velocity in either group.’ "
The claim: Heart attacks have decreased in Wales after the implementation of the smoking ban.
The fraud: "How did the anti-smoking groups pull off this miraculous feat, given that the data so clearly indicates no reduction in heart attacks? They used a technique known as cherry-picking.
By citing data for the few specific months in which there was a decline in heart attacks from 2006 to 2007, they purported to show that the smoking ban had resulted in a reduction in heart attacks." Also, see Velvet Glove in Iron Fist, who obtained the actual data used to perpetrate the public health fraud under the Freedom of Information Act, by clicking here.
The claim: "A study published in the current issue of the New England Journal of Medicine reports that the smoking ban in Scotland resulted in a 17% decline in hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome (including myocardial infarctions [heart attacks] and unstable angina) (see : Pell JP et al. Smoke-free legislation and hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:482-491)" Click here to see the junk study.
The fraud: "The problem with this article is that its conclusion is based on a comparison of apples to oranges. In order to compare the change in heart attacks in Scotland from 2006-2007 to the trend in heart attacks during the preceding ten-year period, one needs to use the same data source to compare these trends.
In this article, the researchers use one source of data to estimate the change in heart attacks from 2006-2007 (observed changes in admissions for nine hospitals representing a portion of the country) and a different source of data to estimate the trend in heart attacks from 1996-2006 (national data from the Scottish National Health Service)."
Another take at the debunking of this trashy study, created for obvious political consumption by corrupt health authorities comes from Christopher Snowdon, Velvet Glove, Iron Fist (stored copy). Snowdon concludes:
"This is not science. Using the same techniques I can ‘prove’ that the Scottish smoking ban led to an increase in skin cancer incidence and a rise in oil prices. Nonsensical though this study is, its publication in a prestigious medical journal will no doubt give it another ill-deserved moment in the sun. At the time of writing, The Times, The Guardian and the BBC – who had their fingers burnt with the story last time – have declined to report it again, but it is being covered by, amongst others, Reuters, The Vancouver Sun, The Herald, USA Today. According to The Herald: ‘The findings of a major study into the smoking ban in Scotland supports calls for a worldwide ban of the practice in public places, health officials said today.’ "
Of course it is not science. It is propaganda. And the mass-media have something big in common: pharmaceutical advertising. They therefore fuel the passive smoking public fraud to feed more lies to a misinformed public and to avoid displeasing their pharmaceutical benefactors. In fact, when the media are sent the debunking of the trash, they don’t publicise it at all – to support their own lies and, once again, to avoid displeasing their masters.
And they call themselves "independent" press. That’s a joke, alright.
Please note that all of this trash has been produced by the public health shysters in less than a month. This is what the public health institutions, all over the world, have become: an industry of fraud and a bastion of evil and corruption. Like all evil entities, they have many servants; but all it takes is a few courageous people, and they are already under siege in spite of all their might. Such is the nature of evil: no matter how tall its mountain is, it is made insecure by good, even if it is only a grain of sand.