Is the goal of TC to reduce mortality, or to protect the consensus view
It is more than obvious a lot of people have some pretty polarized
views on tobacco issues, which is entirely positive, in the fact we are
finally really discussing the issues instead of simply following lobby
demands for a change. I like many others in the public not knowing what to
make of the contrasting views. In an attempt to avoid being duped by the
slickest advertising campaign I set out to find the truth. Personal
research has allowed me a contrasting perspective certain to raise a few
more arguments and perhaps a wider understanding of the entire situation.
In discussing international trade referenced to the sale of tobacco,
it appears control groups have in effect inadvertently increased the
mortality risks among smokers and non smokers alike. The focus of public
health campaigns have always been attracted to punishing the consumers
into submission, while totally ignoring the product. The Canadian
experience has been seen as a direct result of the new norm "there is no
safe cigarette" we find all tobacco carries substantial risk so all
tobacco can now be seen essentially as the same. This resulted in reduced
trade restrictions, allowing imports of cheaper non regulated products
with much higher carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA)
measured in NNN and NNK content preexisting in the formed tobacco.
Allowing manufacturers to import products with higher carcinogenic
tobacco content to compete with domestic highly regulated products. In
effect putting many local producers out of business being forced to
compete with less expensive imports. Uninformed local politicians publicly
stated; “there is absolutely no proof tobacco produced in Canada is
safer then products produced elsewhere” in spite of the science
which would absolutely disagree. Flue curing processes reducing 90% of
histamines regulated soils and fertilizers eliminated Radon daughters in
the much discussed radiation in some tobacco products. The use of lighter
colored tobacco plants and the restrictions in not using roots and stems
reduce the carcinogens by as much as 97%. The no safe cigarette massage is
gladly sung by both tobacco control and the manufacturers alike. The
adjusted focus in an unsafe product has lead to blaming the consumer who
in reality has no way to know what they are smoking.
If the goal is to reduce mortality current rates were resultant of
smoking 20-30 years ago, without time travel they can not be prevented.
Continued declines in users will eventually have positive effects in the
future, however the WHO should examine it's own research completed over
the past two decades, including a study completed in March of last year
which was funded by the American CDC and the WHO which agreed with all
prior conclusions; there is no safe cigarette, no safe air, no safe water
and no safe toe nail clippers. The message reveals nothing. There are
however much safer cigarettes. More disturbing the manufacturers have the
ability to change the carcinogenic content as demonstrated in the research
of Brazilian Tobacco in the same vein, yet they are not being ordered to
do so. No labeling of packages is being demanded to reveal Nitrate levels
in preformed Tobacco or for specific additives included in the mixtures.
The idea "they are just smokers and no one cares" needs to be the focus of
media, in what amounts to a combined effort to cull as many of them as
possible.
Science has one rule; reproducible consistently. Consensus or
Political Science is derived of another principle completely; in what you
can make others believe.
Political science shortcomings could include the burning of witches,
Eugenics and the aftermath in Hitler’s Germany, The Iraq war and the
search for weapons of mass destruction and a number of other notable
mistakes throughout history.
Autonomy rights were supposed to correct a lot of those ideas
apparently the media put profit above the motivation to put out the trash,
in keeping the radicals under control.
Now they say "fat is the new tobacco" how hard will we now work to
demonize those neighbors in our highly compassionate and ethical
communities?
The surgeon General reiterated the no safe cigarette song in his
recent report, in spite of research available to his office which could
benefit all who would be effected, in simple regulation which would not be
destructive to hospitality venues, or require the massive tax increases
planned in the future.
“TSNA levels measured in the present study (8.7-312
ng/cigarette) suggest that manufacturers can lower the carcinogenic TSNA
levels and that, for similar filter ventilation, carcinogenic TSNA levels
in the tobacco filler of a cigarette are a useful indicator of the
corresponding levels in mainstream smoke.”
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubm...
Rapid Response:
Is the goal of TC to reduce mortality, or to protect the consensus view
It is more than obvious a lot of people have some pretty polarized
views on tobacco issues, which is entirely positive, in the fact we are
finally really discussing the issues instead of simply following lobby
demands for a change. I like many others in the public not knowing what to
make of the contrasting views. In an attempt to avoid being duped by the
slickest advertising campaign I set out to find the truth. Personal
research has allowed me a contrasting perspective certain to raise a few
more arguments and perhaps a wider understanding of the entire situation.
In discussing international trade referenced to the sale of tobacco,
it appears control groups have in effect inadvertently increased the
mortality risks among smokers and non smokers alike. The focus of public
health campaigns have always been attracted to punishing the consumers
into submission, while totally ignoring the product. The Canadian
experience has been seen as a direct result of the new norm "there is no
safe cigarette" we find all tobacco carries substantial risk so all
tobacco can now be seen essentially as the same. This resulted in reduced
trade restrictions, allowing imports of cheaper non regulated products
with much higher carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA)
measured in NNN and NNK content preexisting in the formed tobacco.
Allowing manufacturers to import products with higher carcinogenic
tobacco content to compete with domestic highly regulated products. In
effect putting many local producers out of business being forced to
compete with less expensive imports. Uninformed local politicians publicly
stated; “there is absolutely no proof tobacco produced in Canada is
safer then products produced elsewhere” in spite of the science
which would absolutely disagree. Flue curing processes reducing 90% of
histamines regulated soils and fertilizers eliminated Radon daughters in
the much discussed radiation in some tobacco products. The use of lighter
colored tobacco plants and the restrictions in not using roots and stems
reduce the carcinogens by as much as 97%. The no safe cigarette massage is
gladly sung by both tobacco control and the manufacturers alike. The
adjusted focus in an unsafe product has lead to blaming the consumer who
in reality has no way to know what they are smoking.
If the goal is to reduce mortality current rates were resultant of
smoking 20-30 years ago, without time travel they can not be prevented.
Continued declines in users will eventually have positive effects in the
future, however the WHO should examine it's own research completed over
the past two decades, including a study completed in March of last year
which was funded by the American CDC and the WHO which agreed with all
prior conclusions; there is no safe cigarette, no safe air, no safe water
and no safe toe nail clippers. The message reveals nothing. There are
however much safer cigarettes. More disturbing the manufacturers have the
ability to change the carcinogenic content as demonstrated in the research
of Brazilian Tobacco in the same vein, yet they are not being ordered to
do so. No labeling of packages is being demanded to reveal Nitrate levels
in preformed Tobacco or for specific additives included in the mixtures.
The idea "they are just smokers and no one cares" needs to be the focus of
media, in what amounts to a combined effort to cull as many of them as
possible.
Science has one rule; reproducible consistently. Consensus or
Political Science is derived of another principle completely; in what you
can make others believe.
Political science shortcomings could include the burning of witches,
Eugenics and the aftermath in Hitler’s Germany, The Iraq war and the
search for weapons of mass destruction and a number of other notable
mistakes throughout history.
Autonomy rights were supposed to correct a lot of those ideas
apparently the media put profit above the motivation to put out the trash,
in keeping the radicals under control.
Now they say "fat is the new tobacco" how hard will we now work to
demonize those neighbors in our highly compassionate and ethical
communities?
Here is proof from the medical research and the related articles
available at this link.
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&lis...
The surgeon General reiterated the no safe cigarette song in his
recent report, in spite of research available to his office which could
benefit all who would be effected, in simple regulation which would not be
destructive to hospitality venues, or require the massive tax increases
planned in the future.
References
No safe cigarette is not safe enough
[http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/14/suppl_2/ii3?ijkey=51532084...
Preformed NNN and NNK risk in tobacco smoke
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dop...
“TSNA levels measured in the present study (8.7-312
ng/cigarette) suggest that manufacturers can lower the carcinogenic TSNA
levels and that, for similar filter ventilation, carcinogenic TSNA levels
in the tobacco filler of a cigarette are a useful indicator of the
corresponding levels in mainstream smoke.”
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubm...
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dop...
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests