Who you gonna believe It becomes more dificult by the day, to sort out the real from the rhetoric

In reviewing the Heather Crow WCB documents it becomes clear her diagnosis was likely a political statement much more than a learned opinion, or an attempt by a doctor not well schooled in Cancer diagnosis. This can be shown in a CDC investigation of a suspected Cancer cluster. The findings showed that no such cluster existed due to a single word explanation “Latency”.

The latency period would be the time between exposure and the onset of disease. For smokers this has always been understood to be a period between 20 and 30 years following prior smoking habits. In fact this stands as the only excuse for the significant declines over the past 45 years in smoking prevalence not resulting in parallel declines in related diseases. Offerings to the public could be seen now to be mistaken unless Heather’s diagnosis was flawed or fraudulent both stories would have a hard time to co-exist in any sense of credibility. Cancers manifest in smokers in the vast majority in later years. Although there are exceptions, which are argumentative, for the most part this has always been the rule with the larger numbers in those later years elevation risk and strong associations could only decrease.

What would be the effect of accepting a shortened latency period? Undoubtedly this would give evidence a lot less Cancers are caused by smoking than previously believed. Now we come to Ms Crow. Who in contracting a workplace injury with less than 5 years total exposure developed a smoker’s tumor? Total smoke ingested in her 5 years employment by calculation in the smokiest of conditions would amount to less than 2 packages of cigarettes smoked. The ban fans would jump for joy at this realization confirming the deadly attributes of the smoke however in comparison to a time in 1960 when everyone was exposed in daily life why did we not see lineups at the cancer wards? If indeed the smoke affected her, the thousands who contract cancer only in later years could not be as strongly associated with smoking as previously believed. For smokers, their spouses, Children and co workers cancer would have manifested much sooner in life.

Lung Cancers could be more significantly associated to some other factor, which could in fact be seen as simply old age, a depreciated immune system not able to fight off one of many viruses responsible, as we know for at minimum 20% of total cancers. Lung cancers account for less than 1% of total mortality yet when we think of smoking we assume Lung cancer to be the most significant outcome. In SAMMEC research a smoker below 35 years of age has little significant mortality risk especially with males who traditionally smoke a lot more. Certainly in most research, risk varies significantly according to how much you smoke and for how long. Perhaps there is something to Heather’s case and as common sense would dictate smoking is not as deadly as we once believed. With a shorter latency period aligning with all other known toxins named in the smoke, air pollution can now be seen the most likely cause of a lot more shortened lives than we gave it credit for in the past.

Latency proves Heather was not a great candidate for the poster girl in tobacco control. She did not work her entire life in this bar and only started after the age of 50 when the risk of cancer increases with age. If she were predisposed to Cancer this would be the time in her life it would most likely appear regardless of ETS in her life. The overall exposure, the amount of time between exposure and onset or Latency, along with a number of other entirely suspicious indicators connected with this story. I personally find it very difficult to accept what is offered is the basis for smoking bans around the globe protecting workers from smoke which can kill with such minor exposure indicates they are all already doomed.

Heather may be the piece of the puzzle, which unmasks the advocates for who they really are and what it is they represent. As an action plan if we could organize a lot of questions regarding latency periods to start swamping Healthcare professionals Heather I would guess would finally be unmasked and her Doctor could be held to account for defrauding the WCB as justice would demand.

Sidebar information from the 50 Year study of doctors who smoke.

Mortality in relation to smoking: 50 years' Observations on male British doctors

Richard Doll, Richard Peto, Jillian Boreham and Isabelle Sutherland

About half of all persistent cigarette smokers are killed by
their habit—a quarter while still in middle age (35-69 years)
After a large increase in cigarette smoking by young people,
the full effects on national mortality rates can take more
than 50 years to mature

British men born in the first few decades of the 20th century could be the first population in the world in which the full long term hazards of cigarette smoking, and the corresponding benefits of stopping, can be assessed directly Among the particular generation of men born around 1920, cigarette smoking tripled the age specific mortality rates Among British men born 1900-1909, cigarette smoking approximately doubled the age specific mortality rates in both middle and old age Longevity has been improving rapidly for non-smokers, but not for men who continued smoking cigarettes Cessation at age 50 halved the hazard; cessation at 30 avoided almost all of it On average, cigarette smokers die about 10 years younger than non-smokers Stopping at age 60, 50, 40, or 30 gains, respectively, about 3,6, 9, or 10 years of life expectancy

It cannot be said any clearer than that by a source who cannot be associated to the Tobacco industry. At 30 after 14 years of smoking no significant risk compared to ETS which can have devastating effects in as little as 20 minutes according to ASH. At measured levels in the norm at 250 Milligrams per cubic meter of air a deadly risk more deadly than Benzene with a known safe level at 1 part per million or 360 milligrams per cubic meter of air. Personally I would prefer to take my chances with the second hand smoke or ETS, Benzene would worry me. If Government information was not so misleading, it should affect you the same way. I sincerely hope no one is injured while they sort this one out.

Equality of all citizens as guaranteed in the Canadian constitution and a view of reality

As portrayed at tobaccolaw.org

..............

_______________<Sponsored by: <,,,,,!...Funded by:

© HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA (1999) as represented by the Ministry of Health

Hearing for the umpteenth time today how 3000 die every year from the effects of second hand smoke it makes you wonder just how moronic one has to be to qualify as a politician in Canada. This claim must have statisticians around the globe quietly chuckling under their breath in realizing what is truly being expressed. The fact more research studies are false in their assumptions than really show a valid claim can be put aside here in the comic relief already available in exposing the current truth.

It should be understood it would be impossible to avoid the use of an empirical model of mean and variance, in discerning the effects of primary smoking as opposed to simplistic standard deviation. Because the list of other factors which co-exist in study of a population group are so numerous as to be almost impossible to even compile a list and assessing the associated confounding factors in numeric terms will make the task of an unassisted linear principle quite remote even with the computing power available today. The feeding frenzy created by industry promoters who encourage Lobbying to the hilt including strategies for certain success. The W.H.O. with HIA Health interventions, Health Canada with the Social engineering training course for fun and profit and more direct industry involvement as seen with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation presented in a report by Berkley Media services Group in March 2005. The group provides some real world dirty tricks in undermining political authority through planned intimidation schemes one feeding on the last to dominate any area of advocacy. The, at the ready, campaigns waiting for a media event to pounce on, are limitless in scope. Today in reporting the deaths of eight bikers in Ontario the connection was made in advocacy for control in the towing industry, why? Because a couple of the bikers worked for Towing companies drawing the immediate inference, strategically attached, all towing companies must be controlled by bikers. This is so remote from the truth it does not deserve comment. However it illustrates the deceptions at hand. Multiple advocacy campaigns with the speeches in the can are sitting on the shelves of the media groups waiting for a martyr to appear. Prior martyrs would include the gay couple wanting to attend a high school graduation as an official couple, which grabbed international coverage. The Heather Crowe situation despite its lack of credibility or the call to ban all guns based in the January shootings on Young street in Toronto. All grabbed a lot of photo ops with the upset population and all resulted in Politicians of every strife clamoring for superhero status.

There is no shortage of those willing to participate in the theoretic number crunching. All seek fame and fortune as Sir Doll once did in being the first past the post or so we believed at the time he was knighted for his efforts in connecting smoking to Cancer. In fact Hitler’s minions in search of political points proved it many years before however the world was not prepared then to accept he had done anything we could accept as positive considering his other endeavors. The Scientific Community was chastised justly for what created international rights of autonomy being set in stone. That same community seems to have lost the lesson of late, in the failure of integrity in conveying to the public the true nature and place Epidemiology, Biostatistics and the numbers truly represent.

So inspired by those shocking portrayals in nightly reports of this report or that study finding what could hardly be known as a fact the value of real science and discovery has become suspect in the new realities which contradict what was reported prior as observed. The replacement of Informed consent with consensus information destroys the ability to receive informed consent or the rules embossed in autonomy principles. Now the directed research has run it’s race with an overload and so many in attempts to discredit others to give merit to their own position in fact they have succeeded in discrediting themselves. The realization that if a study could be discredited depending on who paid for it alone tells us the underlying secret the true value is little in a process of discovery, which could be directed. We rely now instead on an antiquated system SAMMEC and the newly revised political version with child mortalities added for effect commonly known as SAMMEC II. As a base for all Healthcare interventions to reduce mortality in what are commonly referred to as “preventable deaths”. The comic stream available in connection with that term is equally ambiguous.

The victims of Sin taxes need to awaken and give their own perspectives a little shake. In terms of lost productivity who lost it? The act of premature death seems to come with a huge price tag. Governments expecting to be paid for wages you did not earn? For years that might have cost them real money in healthcare expenses and pensions you will not receive in latter years? The lost productivity, which is in fact said to be lost to employers who are able to replace a worker and regularly do. In Canada the price of those insolent enough to die before the age of 85 owe a great debt to society so they are collecting the debt before you duck out on your obligation. The taxes on the money you will not earn cannot in reality be expected by governments any more than the other 78% of those who die of other causes so why are they targeting you? Because industry Charity Foundations have demanded it and they are being well paid for compliance. The addition of 12 Billion dollars to the costs of those lost years never belonged to the government, so why are they adding them to cigarette taxes? SAMMEC costs were designed to assess costs in litigation against the Cigarette industry and were never intended to be charged to the consumer. Similarly the CSPI lobby group sponsored by large industry charity foundations now claims similar mortality figures in assessing taxes against your unhealthy grocery bill. If you do not buy fat free milk or tofu you will be again charged for your intent to die early before that death has occurred. The truth is in the not too scientific research in a very old spreadsheet based in Relative risks of an unpublished non-peer reviewed study by the American Cancer society. The one study, which trumps all the rest and eliminates their need entirely. A spreadsheet devoid of the rules of lacking statistical significance, there is always one. The process of peer review confounding effects all eliminated with the use of a spreadsheet to unify the inconsistent numbers found in credible research with a consistent model universally applied around the globe. In Germany they loose 1.5 million years of productivity every year. In Taiwan they loose 215,000 male years and 15,000 female years every year. SAMMEC has even produced a civil rights disparity. In the states over 80 billion in lost productivity again all lost to the consumer and with no legitimate reason for a Government stake however they insist the money does belong to them and they intend to be paid because SAMMEC says so. They should have named him Simon we all know that game, “do as I say not as I do”…

Why would huge multinational companies set aside the Stock market investment building of wealth in charity foundations and actually spend some of that tax free cash, [promised to charity yet historically so rarely ever gets there]? I would suggest desperation and fear. RWJF who could be seen as self-serving with connections of smoking patch sales such a profitable venture. When you see the long list of NGOs and Stakeholders investing time and money in UN agencies the W.H.O. in particular one has to wonder, why? The wealthiest corporate personalities on the planet all attracted, like another feeding frenzy to this particular UN agency should concern us all. The effectiveness and timing of; first redefinition of the term public spaces globally, followed in short order by smoking ban interventions?. This illustrates a lot of power, a small agency staffed by delegates with diplomatic immunity from prosecution, sets the plate for going around governments backdooring them through UN agencies. This give a pretty good idea why; Gates, Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Shell oil, RWJF and a cast of thousands are spending so much effort saving the world. If the smoking initiatives are successful, it goes without saying, those who are likely responsible for the destruction of our global air supply will never be held to account. With the blame firmly assessed and paid, how could we possibly ask “the Family company” to pay for the 40 odd thousand chemicals in the air used to create deodorizers and cleaning products. How could we ask the oil companies to explain why Benzene is safer as a replacement for lead in quantities exceeding the known safe levels by 10,000 times. Strange James Repace seems to be telling people the same thing about second hand smoke, only my statement is backed up by real science his in dreaming about hurricane forced winds.

Well it finally comes back to bite them all in the proverbial ass. Lets examine the 3000 ETS deaths in a 30 million population. This is not a body count and can never be described as anything but a statistical calculation. As such it must conform to standard rules. In association principles of deviation a common starting point must be developed which represents a balance known as 1 the sum of known and unknown. The calculation to prove a hypothesis exists produces a number, which if done according to all the rules should reflect a positive a negative or no correlation at all with the stated theory. [1] Is also expressed as 1/ 10-4 or 1 in 10,000 as the acceptable risk resulting in no harm thus a result above one or within the .05 variance which could occur below one in certain cases adds credibility to your position.
When you listen to what you are being told 3000 in Canada if the population were 30 million this would be equal to saying 1 in 10,000 or 1/10-4, which is the point we started from, meaning no correlation or no result at all. The trouble comes when you realize the population of Canada exceeds 30 Million thus we are stating a curative effect the higher the population the more relevant the association although not a lot higher it remains higher which results in a product less than the place we started. The politicians are making asses of themselves outsmarted by those who are apparently much more intelligent.

Now that is entertainment LMAO


Clearing the air

Methodology

Limitations of the realm

Validity of the findings

Bias

Multiple regression theory

Stratification

Intervener status

Informational/International rules of distribution

Exceptions to standard rules of practice

SAMMEC

SAMMEC II; W.H.O. is really hiding in the closet?

Subversive Tactics

Show us the money

Unscholarly Rants

A game plan???