Researchers Dave Kuneman and Michael McFadden have been submitting an "Anti-Helena" study to medical journals for the past year and getting rejected, seemingly on frivolous or unwarranted grounds.
We are not surprised: the Helena junk study, co-authored by Stanton Glantz who is a hefty recipient of pharmaceutical grants, wanted to confirm the erroneous notion that passive smoking induces heart disease.
The American Council on Science and Health has accepted and published an article about Kuneman’s and McFadden’s experience and about what can be appropriately called the "passive fraud" of the medical journal world in refusing to give fair treatment to studies that contradict their political or financial goals, at least in the area of smoking-ban-related research.
Read further important information at The Smokers’ Club
Read the comments from Michael Siegel’s blog
Why this story is important – Thanks to Big Pharma and public funds, antismoking forces outgun those of truth and freedom in many different ways: money, organization, personnel, and outreach. The one real strength we have going for us is the fact that their castle is built on the basis of lies.
The timing of this event is particularly important, as the fight against the ban in Hawaii and UK is at a very delicate and important stage: if successful, those episodes stand a good chance of being imitated and multiplied, resulting in the fall of some of the industry of frauds’ most successful efforts to date. Even if not successful immediately, the rebellion of smokers and liberty lovers against institutionalized fraud already has an important foundation for the undermining of the prohibition to smoke today, and the prohibition of cigarettes engineered by the World Health Organization crooks for the entire world in the near future.
What to do? – This study puts together the debunking of a typical passive smoke study, the concept of bans and the lies at the foundation of those bans – lies that are embraced by corrupt health authorities that pipe political power through the channel of “public health”. Read it, distribute it, educate and instigate. As “the debate is over”, it is useless to waste time in arguments. It must be spent, instead, to gather political forces to destroy the antitobacco machine. Then the debate will be over for real.
0 Comments