There was an error in this gadget

Friday, 30 October 2009

COLLISION BETWEEN SCIENCE AND POLITICS

The article from the BBC we link to below is self explanatory and proof positive that scientific integrity and public health policy are not always synonym.

Professor Nutt was head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in the UK. Obviously his qualifications had merit when he was first named to hold that position. Why then was his advice not only totally discounted but was also shown the door after alerting the UK government that reclassifying cannabis as a more potent drug than what it is presently classified did not have any scientific merits and would not do the population any justice?

The man deserves credit and the public's thanks for standing behind his scientific findings and having the courage to not cave in to what the higher authorities wanted people to hear. How many scientists simply parrot the predetermined results governments and private funders strongly ‘’suggest’’ for them to find in fear to lose their job or their grant money?

When will our elected officials learn that fear mongering based on puritan and moral values is not the solution that will ever bring positive results towards a healthier population? Thinking that the public will believe everything they hear regardless of their eyewitness and life experiences is not only an underestimation of people's judgement but a true insult to their intelligence. How much more credibility does public health intend to lose before they pull their act together and start basing public policy on scientific values?


Cannabis row drugs adviser sacked

Thursday, 29 October 2009

FATTISM


More disturbing than the article from the BBC itself ((linked below) are some of the comments from the readers that somehow condone discrimination against overweight people and blame them for being fat whether willingly or through no choice of their own.

While we may speculate that one woman’s assault against another because she’s fat may hopefully be just an isolated incident, how can we possibly let go unheeded the number of comments that blame overweight people for being who they are and the rising costs to the national healthcare system?

Have the anti-obesity propaganda and healthism in general rendered us so arrogant that we feel that the way public health deems we should be and act is the only right way to live? Who has died and named the approved ‘’normal’’ members of society the moral guardians of other citizens who don’t fit the predetermined mold? Are we as individuals no longer allowed to make the right or wrong decisions according to our own perceptions of what life represents for us and what makes it worthwhile?


Why are fat people abused?

Sunday, 25 October 2009

SILENCE ON VACCINE

Afin qu’on puisse prendre une décision si l'on doit se faire vacciner ou non, on doit être en mesure de connaître les pours et les contres de la vaccination et ce selon le degré des risques et notre tolérance à ces risques. Le gouvernement, le milieu médical et les médias penchent plutôt du côté du ‘’pour’’ faisant en sorte qu’il nous est donné que très peu d’information sur l’envers de la médaille des vaccins et souvent on y perd notre latin à essayer de démêler les diverses théories de complot des vrais risques et effets secondaires de la vaccination.

Lina B. Moreco a produit un film auprès de l’ONF qui a permis la sortie du documentaire sous condition qu'aucune personne, aucun commerce, ne puisse acquérir le film pour la revente. De plus aucune publicité ne sera faite pour faire connaître la sortie DVD.

Sur sa page au http://argcitoyen.skyrock.com/2623019388-SILENCE-ON-VACCINE-Lina-B-Moreco.html on peut y lire ce qui suit :

‘’Loin de rejeter les avantages indéniables et largement documentés de la vaccination pour l'ensemble de la population, Silence, on vaccine met en lumière la nécessité de soutenir des recherches pour mieux comprendre les effets à long terme des vaccins et ainsi mieux protéger la minorité à risque. Ce documentaire profondément humain soulève une question aussi fondamentale que troublante : combien de personnes peut-on accepter de sacrifier dans le silence au nom du bien commun?’’

Si on fait abstraction des diverses théories de complot et tout-ce qu’on entend sur la vaccination dernièrement, il est néanmoins vrai que comme toute médication, il y a des personnes qui développent de l’intolérance et des effets secondaires graves à la vaccination et ils sont en droit de prendre leurs propres décisions sur les risques qu’ils veulent assumer.

Pour quelle raison alors est-ce qu’on soustrait à la population le droit d’être informée des contres de la vaccination en interdisant la diffusion de ce film au grand public tout en piétinant sur la liberté d’expression ? Est-ce que le gouvernement considère une fois de plus que nous sommes tous des imbéciles heureux incapables de prendre nos propres décisions sur l’avis de nos médecins et autres professionnels de la santé à qui nous faisons confiance ?

Le film ‘’Silence on Vaccine’’ est diffusé sur l’internet au : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8503852033482537965#

Bon visionnement et n’oubliez surtout pas de le faire parvenir à vos proches et connaissances. Il est également souhaitable que vous écriviez à votre député et autres instances gouvernementales pour exiger des explications sur l’interdiction de ce film. Serait-ce par hasard parce qu’au parlement il y a plus de lobbyistes pharmaceutiques qu’il y a des députés ?

Saturday, 24 October 2009

INTERDICTION DE FUMER DANS LES PÉNITENCIERS LEVÉE PAR LA COUR FÉDÉRALE


La cour fédérale a renversé l’interdiction de fumer à l’extérieur des pénitenciers en statuant que les détenus ne devraient pas être soumis à des interdictions qui n’ont aucun lien avec leurs crimes et que de leur interdire de fumer dans la cour des prisons va trop loin surtout que ceci n’a aucune incidence sur la santé des non-fumeurs.

En voici une décision sage du juge qui présidait la cause soumise par des détenus représentés par nul autre que le constitutionaliste notoire Me Julius Grey.


Cette décision est plus que la bienvenue dans un contexte où fumer est considéré presqu’un crime en soi. Il est cependant triste de constater que dans notre système judiciaire c’est seulement ceux qui ont les moyens de se payer des avocats du calibre de Me Grey qui réussissent à trouver justice. Peut-on espérer que cette décision créera une jurisprudence pour les malades, les psychiatrisés, les personnes âgées, qui, selon la province, certains n’ont pas le droit de fumer nulle part sur le territoire des établissements publics qui les hébergent.

Nous félicitons Me Grey et les détenus qu’il représentait pour leur victoire et espérons de tout cœur que cette décision servira aux membres les plus vulnérables de la société qui n’ont pas d’autre choix que de cesser de fumer ou d’être forcés à consommer des produits pharmaceutiques tel que le Chantix/Champix, le Zyban ou les produits nicotiniques pharmaceutiques.

Les détenus peuvent fumer, tranche la Cour fédérale

THE WHO EXPOSED FOR THE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED AGENCY IT HAS BECOME

After rewriting the definition of obesity by lowering the acceptable Body Mass Index, redefining diabetes by lowering the permissible threshold and the same with blood pressure and cholesterol, now we have a newly manufactured definition for a ''pandemic''. (Read more at: http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/epidemics-by-definition.html )

We will echo some of the comments posted following the article linked to below and congratulate the author for his audacity to expose the WHO for the politically motivated agency it has become. The health of the populations seems to be very low on their list of priorities. Validating and sustaining their existence is what’s on the very top. Using unjustified fear mongering and sustained social engineering to subtract independent nations of their right to govern according to the specific needs of their respective citizens, has become a very dangerous tactic used by the WHO through their healthscare campaigns and shenanigans. We certainly hope that this will soon be halted before it is really too late.

Michael Fumento: The WHO's political pandering

Friday, 9 October 2009

THE BULLY STATE

Rarely has anyone expressed so many thoughts about the ‘’bully state’’ more succinctly than the author of the article we link to below. His article perfectly expresses many of the points we have been bringing forward since our 5-year existence. Whether explaining the differences between a nanny-state and a bully-state, or the multi-issue aspect of government encroaching in our day to day lives based on misconceptions, or the even more harmful unintended consequences bully laws cause, he’s got the global plight of state bullying ‘’for our own good’’ down to a t.

Enjoy the article and please take a few minutes to drop Mr. Monteith a word in the comment section at the bottom of the page.

Live to a hundred? You choose!

Monday, 5 October 2009

HEALTH CANADA'S REPLY TO OUR 2ND LETTER ON E-CIGARETTES





See follow up at :
http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2011/04/e-cigarettes-letter-to-health-canada-re.html

Health Canada’s reply to our 2nd letter. Their analogy between pharma inhalers and electronic cigarettes namely the way in which the nicotine is absorbed hardly explains why inhaled conventional tobacco products are still lawful, or all energy drinks except for Red Bull that have not yet been approved by Health Canada remain on the shelves for people of all ages to consume. It is obvious that Health Canada is sending the message to all vapers that they should go back to smoking conventional tobacco products until such time as Health Canada gets around to testing the new e-cigarette technology, if ever! May we remind our readers that the only ones who profit from such policies are Big Pharma and Big Tobacco.
Thank you for your correspondence dated July 27,2009, in which you voice your concerns about the availability of electronic cigarettes in Canada. We apologise for the delay in our response.

Electornic smoking products that deliver nicotine are subject to the Food and Drugs Act whether or not they are associated with a smoking cessation claim.
Exemption (d) for nicotine under Schedule F., Part I, of the Food and Drug Regulations targets an inhalation device that differs from electronic smoking products like the electronic cigarette. Therefore, the 4 mg limit set in the exemption to Schedule F for the inhalation device does not apply to electronic cigarette. The nicotine delivered from the exempted inhalation device is deposited in the mouth and absorbed via the buccal membrane whereas the nicotine delivered by the electronic cigarette is delivered directly into the lungs. The absorption of nicotine via the pulmonary route is more complete and more rapid than via the buccal route would lead to a different pharmacokinetic profile. Greater and more rapid absorption of nicotine can lead to a greater risk of poisoning and addiction. In the absence of clinical data showing the pharmacokinetic profile of the substance administered under those conditions, the safety of nicotine inhalation from the electronic cigarette remains unknown.

Your suggestion that Health Canada stipulates recommendations and warnings about the product and guidelines as to what maximum nicotine levels per dose can be marketed would only apply after the safety, efficacy and quality of such a product has been demonstrated. This could only be done after Health Canada has assessed and successfully approved a submission for market authorization. The market authorization process for pharmaceutical products applies to all products in that category. For example, each of the four nicotine products currently exempted under certain conditions from Schedule F status (i.e., chewing gum, transdermal patch, inhalation device and lozenge) have been subject to this process prior to being granted market authorization.
Health Canada is committed to protecting the health of Canadians by ensuring that health products meet requirement for safety, efficacy and quality.
Yours, Truly,
Diana Dowthwaite
Director General

Saturday, 3 October 2009

PRIVATE CLUBS ARE NOT PRIVATE IN CANADA

Jean-Serge Brisson, Deputy Leader of the Ontario (Canada) Libertarian Party provides an update on Mr. Mike Kennedy's legal challenge to allow for private members only clubs where people can enjoy tobacco products along with some potentially dangerous unforeseen consequences

C.A.G.E. will comment the decision once we will have analyzed the transcript.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziGBAYO9Kns

You can read the decision at:
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/ onca...009onca685.html