Who denies the Holocaust?... It’s a religion!
Author: Gian Turci
Article Published: 27 March 2009
The message is that the “evidence” they are referring to is so glaringly clear, so indisputably correct, and so rigorously scientific that only a corrupt individual, or someone sick in the head or extremely ignorant, would dare dispute it. They also claim that they are not for the censorship of the “denialists” although, for some mysterious reason, dissent today is dealt with by walking out of rooms, or even by preventing people from being in those rooms.
The parroting proclaimers are, needless to say, prevaricating on all counts, especially when they shriek that "the debate is over." What they really mean is: "My intellectual ability to debate is over." They are themselves, in truth, the ignorant flat-earthers on the smoking issue, despite their vaunted positions and their academic qualifications. They are not the enlightened, they are the dark ones. They are the product of the education system "reforms" that started the assault on rational thinking forty years ago or so. Fortunately, a significant, curious minority survived those reforms, and today constitute the opposition to fraud.
Let us look at this article from Reason magazine (stored copy), which reports the argument on how much exposure to passive smoking is "harmful".
Since there is NO genuine scientific evidence supporting the theory that secondhand smoke is harmful, a discussion about "how much" harm can derive from "how much" smoke is an exercise as pointless as estimating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. As to the matter of a relative risk of 1.3 differentiating from one of 100.3, that is a point that all sides of this “debate,” which more appropriately should be labeled an exercise of name-calling, completely miss.
A Relative Risk (RR) of 3.1 shown by a well-conducted epidemiologic study on a contagious disease which has a monofactorial and scientifically demonstrated causation (a specific germ) just might actually mean roughly a trebled (or so) risk increase of contracting the disease, i.e. of catching the known bug, relative to some particularly well-delineated exogenous factor, or clearly distinguishable aspect of inherent susceptibility.
An RR of 6.2 derived from a multifactorial lung cancer study that is relatively well-conducted with data largely verifiable means actually far less than the aforementioned RR of 3.1 on the germ-caused disease because of the multifactoriality issue, although it may indicate that further investigation is necessary because there could be an influence, amongst other potentially compounding or confounding influences. This is never clear when cause is unknown. Statistical association is not cause. Influence, or potential influence, is not cause. Understanding this is vital. Such understanding, however, is non-existent amongst the bulk of researchers.
Active smoking is not "the cause" or "a cause" of disease. It's said to be by fools. By compounding fallacy upon fallacy these same fools arrive at the ludicrous idea of "secondhand smoke kills." An RR of 1.1 or of 10.5 or of 0.2 or of any number at all pertaining, for instance, to multifactorial lung cancer, obtained by interviewing non-smokers with lung cancer on the memories of exposure to passive smoking in decades past, is patently meaningless, because nothing has been measured but words on impossible-to-measure exposures. See note The words are then turned into numbers to make them look like "science." But words expressed in numbers are still words and not a measure. And precise measurement is what science is all about.
As we all should know by now, such studies of passive smoking mean and can only mean precisely nothing, a fact that has been explained over, and over and over. Few seem willing to hear this – though it is logical, clear, intuitive and accessible to the dumbest of individuals: a study is as good as the quality of its base data. If the data is no good, the numbers are meaningless, no matter what they are. Distant memories of exposure are not even real data. All the studies that are at the foundation of the passive smoking myth are based on memories of exposure, so there is no scientific evidence whatsoever. As there is no scientific evidence, then the issue cannot legitimately concern public health.
Why all the hysteria, then? Because such studies are not about public health. They are ideological tools and, let’s say it, religion.
The Reason piece documents the squabbles between different persuasions of the same religion – antismoking – and this is not all that different from doctrinal arguments between two Bible thumpers of different denominations. Let's use one of the examples of these anti-science people who think that they are scientists: that of the date of the creation of the Universe.
When the universe was created in the year 4004 BC (undemonstrated postulation based on faith), was the creation done at noon Central European Time, or at noon Eastern Standard Time? Here come the “scientists” of one denomination arguing with the “scientists” of the other, while the media idiots count the scientists’ heads to see who has got the most cowlicks showing, and thus the "consensus." If the majority say that Creation occurred at 12:00 CET, that’s “science,” and journalists can then copy-paste that "scientific truth" into their rags for any and all baboon readers to believe and gape at in awe.
The opinion of the baboons is very important: it means grants and lots of power. The foolish factions may continue playing their quibbling game: let’s call each other names and let’s stick the Holocaust Denier label on each other, but, by God, let us agree all to ignore the fact that the universe was created by the Big Bang a few billion years earlier. In fact, let us join together to silence, ignore and forbid such blasphemy... and then we can resume the personal conflicts between us!
In this specific piece, one faction calls the other “Holocaust Denialist,” while the other responds with “indoctrinated religious fanatics,” or something to the effect that they are fascists. Next will come the reciprocal accusation of corruption and fanaticism – a politically correct euphemism for the old fashioned but more honest “son-of-a-bitch.” In the meanwhile we, at FORCES, go totally unheard when we state and demonstrate that it is all trash science in the first place.
I have just described the pitiful conditions of “scientific” debate amongst Tobacco Control “public health” advocates (and, unfortunately, that applies to many other fields too.) It has nothing to do with science. Again, it has to do with quasi-religious beliefs, love of money and power, all expressed through numbers to disguise that all the hot is merely ideology. To demonstrate ideology with numbers is a fool’s errand but, unfortunately, those fools are driving politics and public opinion whilst killing liberty, peaceful coexistence, and economies.
I light up my cigarette and watch the show, which should be called “Miss the Point and Win a $10-Million Grant”. The comedy in this sure beats the hell out of stupid television. The trouble is the fools here are making policy we have to live under in real life. That is great tragedy that has to change and we are going to change it.
Note: Ditto for environmental studies on air pollution. Yet even our side, from time to time, points the finger at the air pollution environmental/epidemiologic trash studies, hoping to divert the attention from passive smoking to another “cause” of disease, so that smokers can be "left alone." The only result obtained is that of further legitimizing junk science in the eyes of public and politicians. That technique has never worked and it never will, but it keeps on being used. Some people never learn. For a thorough and indisputable debunking of the environmental studies fraud, read "Junk Science Judo", by Steven Milloy.