The conceptual absurdity of the “there is no safe level of exposure” nonsense so dear to fear mongers of assorted extractions is taken on Michael Siegel, who highlights the striking contradictions within the Surgeon’s General Report on passive smoking.
The 2006 SG Report on Passive Smoking will go down in history as the conclusive proof that medical authorities must not be believed simply because they are untruthful.
Siegel tries to interpret the five variations of the same lie the best he can, and says:
“The Surgeon General completely misrepresented the conclusions of his own report in disseminating his public relations materials surrounding the release of the report”.
Then observes:
“It appears that the Surgeon General’s deceptive and arguably inaccurate propaganda … continues to result in a public misperception of the health risks of secondhand smoke exposure”.
and wonders:
“I don’t see how CDC can continue to remain silent in the face of this kind of distortion of the science regarding the dangers of secondhand smoke.”
The problem with Mr. Siegel is common to all people with integrity: presumption of innocence and search for coherence – and especially faith in the institutions, which will eventually “find themselves”. Yet all that does not square, and many wonder why.
Let us now proceed with something largely unknown to Tobacco Control — that is, the Scientific Method. The Method imposes that, when the assumption does not square with the phenomenon, it is the assumption that must be changed rather than hiding or altering the phenomenon to make it square with the assumption, which is the action of choice of Tobacco Control.
The new assumption is that the institutions are corrupt to the core and beyond repair; that they know they are lying but they have to carry on with their rotten agenda. Now let’s look at those citations again.
“The Surgeon General completely misrepresented the conclusions of his own report in disseminating his public relations materials surrounding the release of the report”, because his intent was to further the cause of antitobacco — as in personal persecution of smokers for the purpose of social behaviour control and repression, as well as furthering the interests of the pharmaceutical multinationals.
There is nothing better than incoherent information to steer popular interpretations in the direction that passive smoking kills absolutely with any exposure without taking any responsibility. In fact, “the Surgeon General’s deceptive and arguably inaccurate propaganda … continues to result in a public misperception of the health risks of secondhand smoke exposure”.
That is exactly what the SG wanted – especially if we keep in account the equally rotten Precautionary Principle, that includes the “when in doubt forbid completely” mentality while reversing the burden of proof on the dissenter. According to the Pecautionary Principle, it is the dissenter (Mr. Siegel) who must prove that 30 seconds of exposure to ETS DO NOT “have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system” as the SG says – and scientifically this time, please! That is because the PP established that postulation by authority constitutes “necessary and sufficient evidence of danger”. Of course Mr. Siegel – and anybody else on Earth – cannot scientifically prove a negative, thus the postulation by authority stands, and becomes scientific proof by exclusion!!
As to the CDC, if it were honest we couldn’t see “how CDC can continue to remain silent in the face of this kind of distortion of the science regarding the dangers of secondhand smoke” either. But we have changed the assumption, and it all squares again. As the CDC is not honest but part of the criminal enterprise that “public health” has become, that fully explains current and future silence, as the CDC will not contradict the SG on tobacco issues not matter how outrageous his lies.
What Siegel ponders is, in reality, how come Don Vito Corleone does not report Tom Hagen and Michael Corleone to the police in the Mario Puzo’s saga The Godfather. That is because “public health” is “Cosa Nostra”, Dr. Siegel. Those who dissent get… well, you know something about that.
The change of assumption above now stands scrutiny, as all the explanations fit the objective phenomenon. “Public health” institutions are corrupt to the core and can never be trusted, thus it is useless to wonder why they do not correct their "errors".
Quod erat demonstrandum. A frightening but inescapable conclusion.
0 Comments