In the world of psychology, Hans Jürgen Eysenck needs no introduction. One need only consult Wikipedia, for example, to have at hand an impressive profile of this important figure.
LINK TO WIKIPEDIA (* also please read footnote)
The antismokers who cruise Wikipedia routing out dissent, however, are ignorant of one important work by Hans Jürgen Eysenck exposing the fraudulent computations for “smoking-related” mortality. Wikipedia is not to be blamed for this omission. Eysenck ‘s work is unknown. Why? When Eysenck submitted it to scientific journals for publication shortly before his death in 1997 it was rejected. The disinformation of “public health” had to be protected then as it is protected now.
Even closer to death, Eysenck then gave the manuscript to a close friend, expressing the desire that it would be published, one day. The friend turned to some British smokers’ rights groups at the time, thinking that they would have an strong interest in publishing a powerful work from “the psychologist most frequently cited in science journals” that argued that tobacco mortality quantification is a fraud based on junk science. No dice. Unfortunately for Eysenck, and knowledge as well, these smokers’ rights groups believed that the idiotic “smoking-is-bad-but…” public approach was key to attaining their goals. They had no interest in publishing Eysenck’s work as they did not want to ruffle the political feathers of “public health”. They believed that acquiescing to anti-tobacco’s basic tenet of "smoking is bad" would work better than rocking the boat on which the tobacco mortality fraud floats. We can see the results of their cowardice today.
Years later, Eysenck’s friend discovered Forces and gave us the original manuscript, hoping to fulfil at last his friend’s desire. We present it here in its original form, typewritten with hand numbered pages. Those who know his work will recognize his style. We never met Eysenck personally, but we have absolutely no indication that he had ties with the tobacco industry, even though we do not concede that ties between an independent researcher and the industry would be relevant to conclusions rigorously and legitimately reached. Eysenck denounced the tobacco mortality fabrication spontaneously, moved solely by the outrage that any honest scientist should have for a fraud, especially one involving the highest levels of “public health” authorities.
Requiest in pace, Professor Eysenck: your work is finally published. We may not be one of the high-ranking scientific journals that you sought, but we rank high on the Internet and you will be read by many more people than had one published your work. If we were one of these journals, in fact, we could not publish it at all, fearful, as they are, of the anti-smoking mafia frothing at the mouth, and certain that our pharmaceutical support would be promptly pulled as a punishment for printing the truth about the most revolting fraud in history.
We close this presentation with the closing lines of the work itself:
“The answer to the question: ‘How many people does smoking actually kill?’ is at the moment no more susceptible of a scientific answer than the question: ‘Who killed Cock Robin?’ Indeed, as Evans has asked, is health promotion science or ideology? Sir Ronald Fisher many years ago said: ‘The question seems to be a serious one; when is a serious investigation going to begin?’ He might ask the same question today”.
That was written around 1997. The same question can be asked again today, in 2007 – for the answer has not changed.
LINK TO, DOWLOAD AND DISTRUBUTE “HOW MANY PEOPLE DOES SMOKING ACTUALLY KILL?”
______________________
* Footnote
Incidentally, it is important to know that Wikipedia is massaged by antitobacco activists to consolidate the false beliefs on the “dangers” of smoking, active and passive, at the popular level and especially amongst the young people who consult it frequently. It is also instrumental in attacking scientists who have denounced the antismoking fraud, and it goes out of its way to try to find links with the tobacco industry to discredit scientific work – in typical antismoking trash style. Click here for just one example of slander through partial information.
Wikipedia is so infected by antitobacco activism, in fact, that repeated submissions on the passive smoking junk science are systematically removed – regardless of how much scientific references and details are submitted. This is done to cater to the deceptive and fraudulent agenda of “public health” authorities and antismoking fanatics. We know this for a fact because we tried to submit information ourselves, and our information was repeteadly removed by the editor with the following sequence of excuses:
(a) “We need to see the studies” [we submit studies];
(b) “We can’t publish the studies, we need references” [we submit references];
(c) “Too many references” [we cut references];
(d) “Insufficient references” [we guess an average];
(e) Go back to point (a): “We need to see the studies!”
We repeated the closed loop several times as we wanted to remove all doubts: obviously these folks don’t want the truth to be known because they have to show that there is a scientific “consensus.” Once again a typical footprint of the antismoking enterprise. What is said on tobacco by Wikipedia, therefore, is not to be believed, or at least it must be strongly questioned. That is because Wikipedia is “the antismoking fraud encyclopaedia”.
0 Comments