There was an error in this gadget

Thursday, 25 November 2010


La cigarette électronique «sabote» la lutte contre le tabac, peut-on lire dans un article de Agence France-Presse repris par Cyberpresse.

Que des énormités véhiculées dans cet article !

La lutte contre le tabac est en effet en train d’être sabotée, non pas par la cigarette électronique mais plutôt par les croisades agressives et inhumaines auxquelles les anti-tabagistes se livrent sans aucun égard à la psychologie de l’humain. Le Pr. Robert Molimard, qui a consacré la majeure partie de sa carrière à tenter de comprendre et assister ceux qui voulaient cesser leur consommation du tabac, nous avait pourtant mis en garde contre ces tactiques barbares et néfastes : ‘’ La cigarette fait partie de l'IDENTITÉ même du fumeur. L'attaquer, c'est l'exposer à un repli sur soi des fumeurs, un tabagisme retranché, insensible aux messages de santé,’’ a-t-il vainement répété à qui voulait bien lui prêter une oreille attentive. Ses avertissements sont malheureusement tombés dans des oreilles rendues trop sourdes par l’appât du gain.

Depuis que l’OMS en
partenariat avec l’industrie pharmaceutique, tout en se servant des anti-tabagistes professionnels en tant qu’armée en première ligne, s’est livrée à une guerre sans merci contre les fumeurs à travers le monde avec le résultat que le taux du tabagisme a non seulement demeuré inchangé mais a même commencé à emprunter une pente montante dans plusieurs pays entre autres :
États-Unis – Pour la première fois en 10 ans le taux du tabagisme a augmenté. The Lancet avril 2009
Canada – La prévalence du tabagisme est stagnante et a même grimpé selon la Société Canadienne du Cancer 2010.
France – Une hausse significative du taux du tabagisme depuis la Loi Evin - Stopsanté.com octobre 2010

La cigarette électronique a été bannie au Canada pour des raisons plus que nébuleuses tel que vous pourriez constater par vous-même en lisant la correspondance entre C.A.G.E. et Santé Canada (en anglais).

Ce merveilleux bidule électronique sans fumée et sans odeur a assisté plusieurs fumeurs aux prises avec des problèmes de santé d’abandonner la cigarette traditionnelle. Parallèlement, il a rendu à d'autres leur harmonie familiale et sociale qui était sévèrement compromise par la dé-monisation de la fumée du tabac. La cigarette électronique a fait ses preuves parmi des milliers, voir même de millions d’usagers à travers le monde qui n'ont que des éloges pour ce produit.

Les cartouches de nicotine ou sans nicotine, selon notre préférence, contiennent des saveurs qui sont déjà approuvées par Santé Canada en tant qu’additifs alimentaires. Pour ce qu’il est du propylène glycol, voici en bref en quoi consiste cette substance selon les recherches de Wikipédia : ‘’ Le propylène glycol ou propane-1,2-diol appelé aussi 1,2-dihydroxypropane, methyl glycol est un alcool utilisé principalement comme additif alimentaire considéré comme généralement non toxique’’.

Il est aberrant, mais pas surprenant, que les anti-tabagistes professionnels ainsi que l’OMS condamnent d’emblée et sans l’avoir testé, un produit qui a un réel potentiel de remplacer le tabac fumé nettement plus nocif tout en persistant à garder ce dernier légal. Il est clair que ces ‘’bien-pensants’’ n’ont qu’un seul but derrière leur position par rapport à la cigarette électronique, soit celui de protéger les intérêts de leurs bailleurs de fonds corporatifs : l’omnipuissante industrie pharmaceutique.

La cigarette électronique «sabote» la lutte contre le tabac

Wednesday, 17 November 2010


There is much ado these days in the anti-smoker industry about the Federal Government’s decision to suspend the plan for new health warnings on cigarette packages. The outrage of the various anti-tobacco industry representatives has been largely covered by all major newspapers in Canada. The general public’s opinion leans more in favor of the government’s decision than the anti-smokers groups, if we judge by the comments of the posters in the different newspaper forums. Most commentators feel that wasting money on new health warnings when those present already cover 50% of the packages and are plenty explicit, is not a good idea. Keeping in mind that since it is the consumers who already absorbed the millions it cost for the research of these labels and who will ultimately absorb the costs of the tobacco industry’s obligation to change the packages, many are asking for proof that they will work before further millions, public or private, are injected in what they feel is only another piece of useless “straw-man” legislation.

The core argument of the anti-tobacco groups is that from a leader in anti-tobacco policies, Canada has now fallen to 15th when it comes to health warnings. This can easily bring to mind images of some sort of nanny-state Olympics or anti-smoker Oscar Night celebration. Indeed there is just such an awards event: From page 10 of the Report of The Framework Convention Alliance.

The Bulletin also served as the podium for the daily conferring of the Orchid and Dirty Ashtray awards. The former award recognized individual or group of Parties that have made considerable strides in implementing the WHO FCTC since its conception, commendable country position, and/or playing a constructive role during the talks; while the Dirty Ashtray denounced those that played a negative role throughout the negotiations, or failed to meet the obligations of the WHO FCTC.

Never mind if the Canadian society cannot bare further regulation without indignation and revolt, oh the embarrassment if from one time “Orchid Award” winners our Canadian do-gooders ever get the much dreaded “Dirty Ashtray Award” !

For the highly paid anti-smokers who tour the world with our tax money to want to be champions in some global zealot competition, it is par for the course in conducting business to survive in the competitive market of anti-smoking activism. Governments are now slashing the anti-tobacco funding and our do-gooders are desperately struggling to gain back what they consider to be due to them. In our opinion, wanting to be 1st in anti-tobacco activism, is their way of standing out in their pursuit for more grants that will secure them another couple of years of prosperity at our expense in a society that has just about had enough of these insatiable do-gooders.

We are especially surprised that the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has actively pronounced itself in favour of the new health warnings. It is puzzling and alarming that the CMA finds it appropriate to condone the anti-smokers’ outrage and criticize the federal government who seem to be resolved to not give in to the pressure tactics currently being exerted. Perhaps the good doctors and representatives of the CMA have failed to take any notice of this article from one of their American peers, Health Agencies Boast of Dramatic Impact of New Cigarette Warning Labels


Smokers are already aware of the harmful consequences of smoking and lack of knowledge of the health effects is not a significant factor in explaining why millions of Americans continue to smoke or why youths begin smoking. Research shows that warning labels have a limited impact on smoking behavior.

The real threat to the tobacco industry would have come from eliminating the warning labels on the packs, and thus opening up the companies to devastating lawsuits. Congress chose the weaker approach of requiring mildly stronger warning labels but completely immunizing the tobacco companies from any prospect of serious financial damage in future litigation.

And perhaps part of the answer for the CMA’s position can be found in the following article:


(Pfizer) is currently on a very aggressive campaign to do more than sell drugs. It is staking out new territory and investing in innovative ways to influence the people who make decisions about healthcare.''
''it (Pfizer) has also established a new “partnership” with the Canadian Medical Association, which represents Canada’s 70,000 doctors who were recently on the receiving end of $780,000 new Pfizer dollars to help educate our physicians.''

We remind our readers that Pfizer just happens to be the maker of Champix and nicotine replacement therapies. Pfizer has a vested economic interest in this matter, and the actions of the anti-tobacco industry appear to be serving those economic interests.

The concept of “doing good” and turning a profit at the same time is one that we can accept in theory, as long as the “good” is being done in an honest, transparent and evidence-based manner. The anti-tobacco industry and the pharmaceutical industry appear very closely linked, and their consistent collaboration with one another is cause for concern. The position of the anti-tobacco industry with respect to the health warnings appears to be far more helpful to the pharmaceutical industry than to the people at large. The general public in this case are correct to follow their instinct and disbelieve the propaganda campaign of the anti-smoking industry and its financial supporters.

One of the most vocal groups against the US health warnings that are also making the news, is one of the largest e-cigarette communities, aka vapers, who are now standing tall beside smokers and their fight for truth, justice and evidence-based policy. They are now seeing clearly that the war against tobacco has turned into an ugly, out-of-control war against smokers and not only do they sympathize with the smokers in a compassionate way, but they are realizing that nothing will stop the zealots in their fight to eliminate electronic cigarettes on absolutely no evidence of harm to either the vapers or the bystanders. We are delighted to have their support on this particular issue.

Logic dictates that if the anti-tobacco industry were primarily concerned by the well-being of the people, they would abandon the wasteful campaign for additional health warnings and actively support truly effective alternatives to smoking, such as the e-cigarettes.

Sunday, 7 November 2010


San Francisco health authorities voted 8 - 3 to take the ‘’happy’’ out of the happy meal by forbidding McDonald’s to offer a toy with any meal that contains more than 600 calories and does not contain at least half a cup of fruit and 3/4 cup of vegetables.

Parents who have/had to raise children with their very own likes and dislikes, finicky tastes and stubborn personalities, know first hand how they have to struggle to get their children to ingest a few calories to supply them with the energy they need. Are San Francisco legislators sending parents the message that kids who totally refuse to eat fruits and vegetables should be punished and sent to the naughty stool with nothing to play just because they will not let their taste buds be dictated by their parents and legislators?

Fact: Some children will not eat what we as parents feel is best for them and we would rather see them eat less healthy than not eat at all.

Fact: It is counterproductive to punish a child because he won’t eat according to his own preferences and penalizing him for it only reinforces his refusal to comply to our dictates.

Fact: We know our children better than the state and if we feel that they won’t stubbornly refuse and pout over eating what the state deems best, we will gladly choose another place than McDonald’s to take them, toy or no toy!

But there are also some children who are the complete opposite. Inveterate gluttons who will be willing to sacrifice the toy just as long as they get to eat what they want and…more of it. So if the toy incentive to convince them to eat a reasonable size meal is no longer there, they will simply go for 2 cheeseburgers instead of one, a soft drink instead of juice and medium or large size fries instead of small. Who will this legislation have helped then? Neither the child’s health, nor the parent’s wallet.

The bottom line is that children have their own personalities, strengths, weaknesses, likes, dislikes and who better than their parents to know how to deal with that? It is not up to legislators to make the best decisions for our children and they should butt out of the challenges we are faced with day and day out when trying to find a balance between our children’s unique personalities and the need to get them to adopt healthy choices.

Tuesday, 2 November 2010


À la lumière du projet de stratégies mondiales visant à réduire l’usage nocif de l’alcool orchestré par l’OMS qu’on peut lire au on commence déjà à nous bombarder avec des études de nature à faire appel à nos émotions plutôt qu’à notre intellect.

La dernière étude qui a vu le jour en est une qui nous parvient de l’Angleterre et prétend que l'alcool est plus nocif que l'héroïne ou le crack.
Le Professeur David Nutt, un des auteurs de l’étude, a déclaré à la BBC que dans l'ensemble, l'alcool est la drogue la plus nocive car son usage est très répandu. Il justifie ceci sur le fait que malgré que le crack est plus addictif que l'alcool, il y a des centaines de milliers de personnes qui ne reculeront devant rien pour en obtenir lorsqu’ils ont envie de boire et portent ainsi préjudice à la société. Il poursuit en nous mettant en garde qu’il était important de faire la distinction entre la nocivité individuelle et la nocivité collective.

Si on se fie sur la philosophie qui a permis au Pr. Nutt de déclarer l’alcool plus nocif que l’héroïne ou le crack, nous pourrions conclure qu’il serait préférable à l’individu d’avoir recours à l’héroïne ou le crack pour son ‘’buzz’’ plutôt qu’à l’alcool, au nom du bien-être de la collectivité qui en serait ainsi moins perdante ! Alors chers parents, la prochaine fois que vous surprenez votre adolescent en train de siroter une bière, offrez-lui donc une dose ou deux d’héroïne. Après tout que vaut l’individu si la société est mal en point?

Soit-dit en passant le Pr. David Nutt mène en parallèle une équipe de chercheurs à l’Imperial College à Londres, qui est sur le point de mettre en marché un substitut à base de substances tels que les benzodiazépines dont en contient le très connu médicament Valium. Ce substitut à l’alcool provoquerait un sentiment de bien-être sans conduire à l'ivresse! En outre, il serait possible d’éliminer ses effets par l'ingestion d'une pilule qui permettrait d’éliminer la gueule de bois du lendemain. Conflit d’intérêt flagrant? Tirez-en vos propres conclusions !