There was an error in this gadget

Sunday, 18 December 2011

SECOND HAND SMOKE STUDIES CONTESTED BY A TEXAN PHYSICIAN / LES ÉTUDES SUR LA FUMÉE PASSIVE CONTESTÉES PAR UN MÉDECIN TEXAN


FRANÇAIS À SUIVRE

Some truth about the flawed environmental tobacco smoke studies and the vested pharmaceutical interests that command them surfaced in a hearing in Muncee, Ind where local tavern owners, fraternal organizations and a chain of tobacco stores are challenging the local smoking bans.  The key testimony was delivered by Dr. John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D. Read more about him here.

Will it be enough to win this particular case? We will just have to wait and see but either way it will hopefully encourage other doctors and scientists to join those who are already denouncing the flawed science behind pharmaceutical funded scientists, activists and studies.



The comments in both articles are also a must read.

Muncie (Indiana-Comté du Delaware)  - Un médecin texan, à la faveur d'un témoignage devant un tribunal, a déclaré jeudi que les conclusions du Surgeon General publiées en 2006 sur les dangers de la "fumée passive" se fondaient sur une science erronée.
Lire l’histoire ici :  Un médecin américain conteste les dangers de la "fumée passive"

Monday, 12 December 2011

CHEX-TV CONTRIBUTES TO MAKING SMOKERS HOMELESS


Can you see how CHEX-TV an affiliate of CBC, evidently a public broadcaster, simply picked up the pre-recorded interviews and scenes that the lobby group Smoke-Free Housing Ontario handed to the media on a silver platter? 

We are not dealing with a petty situation here.  Smoke-Free Housing Ontario is using fear mongering propaganda to garner support of the population for smoke-free housing which they reassure us should be voluntary but as we all have learnt to expect, it will undoubtedly eventually be made mandatory by law following the bullying and harassment of the anti-smoker cartel.  If we can violate private clubs without the Supreme Court deeming it important enough to hear the case, what makes us so confident that the government won’t step in people’s homes sooner than we think under the pressure of NGO’s that government themselves finance for these explicitly described reasons? 

Considering the magnitude of this ultimate violation of private property - one’s own home - how can the reporter repeat the lobby group’s press release almost verbatim, use the pre-recorded video scenes of the lobby group and serve it to the public without a minimum of questions asked?  And all this leaving the uninformed masses with the impression that it’s investigative journalism since there was filming and interviews of  a ''real sufferer'' involved!  

Does the reporter know who this ‘’Margo’’ in the video is?  Is she related to Pippa Beck or anyone else from the anti-smoker cartel?  Is she their employee?  Is her health truly affected from the smell from other apartments?  Has it been testified by a doctor?  Does the reporter even care? 

What is the evidence that such low magnitudes of smoke (faint smell probably describes it better) affect anyone unless they have serious intolerances?  Isn’t it reasonable to assume that for such people it would be more than just tobacco smell that would be affecting them?   Society simply can’t cater to everyone’s hyper sensitivities.   On which studies do they base their contentions that such low magnitudes of tobacco smoke are a serious health problem?  Does the reporter even care?  

What does the Cancer Society’s paid Ipsos poll ask?  Does the reporter even care?  

Here are the questions that were asked that have allowed the Smoke-Free Housing pressure group to propagandize that a majority seek a smoke-free apartment but are unable to find one. http://stream1.newswire.ca/media/2011/12/08/20111208_C5038_DOC_EN_7973.pdf 

The 2010 question was: 

''If two buildings were the same in every way, including cost, except that one did not allow smoking anywhere, while the other building allowed smoking, to what extent would you be likely or unlikely to choose the “no-smoking” building over the building where smoking was permitted?''

Let’s change the word smoking in the ''did not allow smoking anywhere'' phrase, to read any of the following:  '’cooking with garlic, curry, frying'', and bets are that most people would have answered the same way. Does that mean that these people actively seek buildings with such restrictions?  Of course not. However, if given a hypothetical choice, it is natural that they would pick a building that is totally smell free be it tobacco smoke, cleaning products, pet smell, garlic, bacon or other smells they may dislike.   

The Cancer Society 2011 question was: 

''To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements dealing with smoking in multi-unit dwellings (i.e. apartments, condominiums, co-ops, etc): Smoking should not be allowed in-doors in multi-unit dwellings?''

Where does this make it clear that ''in-doors'' means in people's private apartments?. It could be the hallway, the laundry room, the stairway, the indoor pool, anywhere but people's private apartments. Why did they not specifically ask the question this way: ‘’Do you agree that people should be forbidden from smoking in their own apartments?’’  Bets are that formulated directly and clearly the question would have gotten totally different answers, because despite how smokophobic Canadians are, they have one big quality that supersedes it: They believe in the privacy of the individual.  We can safely say that the majority of the public would never go so far as to endorse something that would violate one’s privacy in their home.  

The only consolation about this blatant biased journalism is that not too many newspapers or broadcasters picked up the Smoke-Free Housing lobbie’s press release.  Perhaps some media are more aware of what is unreasonable and unpopular with the public than others. 
 
We intend to file a complaint with the CBC ombudsman against how CHEX-TV reports the news.



Friday, 9 December 2011

FAGERSTRÖM HAS A CHANGE OF HEART / ON EFFACE ET ON RECOMMENCE

ENGLISH TO FOLLOW


Disponible chez Amazon
Le professeur Robert Molimard l'a dit et redit et ce depuis très longtemps : la nicotine seule ne peut pas expliquer la dépendance au tabac.  Ses appels auprès du milieu scientifique à l’effet qu’il est nécessaire de pousser les recherches sur le tabac plus loin et de cesser de les étouffer sous prétexte que la nicotine explique tout, sont pourtant tombés dans des oreilles sourdes.  Mais voilà qu’après tant d’années Karl Fagerström, un joueur de première ligne dans la création du dogme de la dépendance à la nicotine, change d’avis.  Pourquoi maintenant?  

Lire l’article du Pr. Molimard, Fagerström trouve son chemin de Damas, au site du FORMINDEP pour tout comprendre.  Vous trouverez l’article de Fagerström (traduit en français) auquel il se réfère au site d’ airneuf.org



Professor Robert Molimard has been saying it again and again for the longest time:  nicotine alone cannot explain dependence to tobacco.  Yet his appeals to the scientific community to stop stifling tobacco research under the pretext that nicotine is the culprit, fell into deaf ears each time.  Yet suddenly and after all these years, Karl Fagerström, a champion of the ‘’nicotine dependence’’ dogma has a change of heart.  Why now?  

Please read the English translation of Pr. Molimard’s French article Fagerström Finds His Way To Damascus at the C.A.G.E. special reports website for the answer.    You can read an extract of the original article that Karl Fagerström published and to which Pr. Molimard refers, at :  http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/10/20/ntr.ntr137.extract





Saturday, 26 November 2011

POT POURRI II


Little does it matter that contrary to what he claims alcohol consumption has decreased in Canada since 2004, the Nova Scotia Chief Medical Officer, Robert Strang is launching a crusade against alcohol . 

Alors que l’O.M.S. nous annonce qu’ ‘’en matière de boisson, il n’existe aucun seuil de sécurité’’ une étude norvégienne effectuée auprès de 149 729 personnes nous confirme qu’une consommation modérée d’alcool serait bénéfique pour le cœur et réduirait les risques de décès par maladies coronariennes de 40 %.  Le Canada pour sa part, adopte désormais des nouvelles normes de consommation d’alcool. 



The myth that smokers and the obese are burdening the healthcare system has once again been debunked.  A leading actuary has lampooned health lobby figures on the costs of smoking and obesity as being extravagantly inflated and based on suspect methodology.’’


‘’Smokegate’’ happened long before climategate as we can read from this 1995 letter from one of Australia’s top anti-smoker activists to his colleagues.    http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/ETS1.jpg
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/ETS2.jpg
 
Climategate 2.0: Une nouvelle publication de courriers électroniques refait tanguer le débat 
sur le réchauffement climatique.


Chemins de fer autrichiens : le retour du compartiment fumeurs.  ‘’En bon businessman, 
l'ancien directeur  des CFF a compris qu'on ne peut se priver impunément d'une clientèle qui représente  30 % de la population: les fumeurs.’’

The British Medical Association (BMA) retracts original press release that uses bad science to justify car smoking bans.  Brian Monteith: BMA’s ‘facts’ prove to be all smoke and mirrors 


Un juge fédéral américain a émis une injonction préliminaire bloquant  les avertissements graphiques sur les produits de tabac, jugeant que ceux-ci enfreignaient les droits constitutionnels des compagnies de tabac. 



 Irvin Leroux, the beleaguered taxpayer who suffered financial ruin following a nightmare audit by Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), has won the right to continue his lawsuit against the CRA in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

 
Le Canada part en croisade contre le sel malgré qu’une telle campagne peut être néfaste 
pour la santé d’un bon nombre de personnes.  Lire notre analyse (en anglais) à http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2011/11/is-sodium-reduction-campaign-worth-ones.html 

Friday, 25 November 2011

IS A SODIUM REDUCTION CAMPAIGN WORTH ONE'S SALT?

Instead of constantly meddling in our lives to reduce healthcare costs, how about our elected officials stopped pushing on the panic button every time some epidemiologist, health lobbyist, pharma lobbyist, politician investing in future votes, or anti-this and anti-that comes up with a ‘’brilliant’’ solution for the betterment of the collective ‘’we’’, often to justify their raison d’être?   Contrary to cattle feeding on the same diet and in controlled living environments, we all have different genetic heritage, lifestyles and habits that can and do influence our health and a universal remedy will not fix the problem.    It can even make it worse.  What is good for a person with a tendency to hypertension is not necessarily good for someone with hypotension and what is beneficial to a healthy person can be fatal to an unhealthy one.  Isn’t this the reason we each (hopefully) have a doctor looking after our individual needs?  If we were all the same, wouldn’t the on-line advice of a medical site published by the government substantially reduce healthcare costs?   It doesn’t work that way, otherwise our public healthcare problems would have already been fixed.

The incessant public health campaigns and the ‘’one fits all’’ preventive measures confuse and cause unnecessary fear to the individual who runs to the E.R. and to his doctor to be reassured that his pain, discomfort or temporary loss of appetite doesn’t hide something more insidious.  This and the easily prescribed medication that usually follows such visits, is precisely what increases healthcare costs.  The body is not perfect nor should we expect it to be in an always optimal condition.  We are neither gods nor semi-gods and there are no magic pills that will make it so no matter how much we spend in medicating our less than perfect bodies.   What will temporarily soothe our aching body might cause us even less desirable permanent side effects and will definitely further burden the healthcare system in the short and long term. 

One of the latest health scares is sodium intake (salt).  There is now a global campaign against it and as we have learnt to expect Canada is following in the steps of other countries.  An article in the Globe & Mail (linked at bottom of this page) informs us that the provinces (Quebec excluded) are looking for a health funding deal with Ottawa to campaign for the reduction of sodium consumption in an effort to reduce visits to the hospital and the doctor.  

But the scientific literature does not warrant such universal measures in reducing salt consumption.  Albeit the studies we reviewed generally seem to agree that salt consumption influences the health of the elderly, the obese and people with hypertension and heart disease, it does not suggest that it is harmful to otherwise healthy individuals.  As a matter of fact one recent Canadian study demonstrates that reducing it to levels governments suggest can be hazardous to one’s health as we can read in this analysis of the study from the American Council on Science and Health.  

Another unintended consequence of legislation against excess sodium in processed foods or even voluntary compliance from the food industry is that when sodium is lowered or completely removed from foods, it is replaced with potassium chloride.  This substance and salt substitutes derived from it can be  dangerous to some people and even fatal to the uninformed yet they are available on supermarket shelves for all to buy. 

Considering that some 6 – 7% of Canadians still can’t find a family doctor, surely our taxes would be much better spent in filling that shortage rather than mimicking international preventive campaigns that, depending on the individual, can cause more harm than good.  

Provinces seek Ottawa’s help to lower Canadians’ sodium intake

Wednesday, 16 November 2011

THE DIRECTOR OF THE HEALTH POLICY PROGRAM AT THE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION WAGES WAR ON THE OBESE

The opinion piece we link to below perfectly illustrates the slippery slope in which we are now well engaged ever since we allowed our governments to control people’s smoking behavior without raising our voices loudly and unanimously to protect our fellow citizens’autonomies. 
   

As much as they like to gloat that it is thanks to their heavy handed policies that smoking prevalence decreased significantly in the last decades, the reality is somewhat different.  While it is true that public health campaigns against smoking did well in lowering the number of smokers, they stopped being effective the day they became a ruthless war against smokers themselves.  Very few people like to be bullied and shamed into compliance for the betterment of the ''collective we'' and this is exactly what public health has been doing to smokers in the last decade.  The unintended, albeit predictable, consequences are that smoking rates have been more or less stagnating both in the U.S.A. and Canada and even increasing in some countries ever since public health went from educating the people to brow-beating them into complying with its dictates.  Did the writer consider how human nature works before advocating to follow the same path for people who are overweight or obese?   


If we obstinately refuse to learn valuable lessons from the war on smokers and foolishly repeat the same error of allowing the state to go into a heavy artillery war against another ‘’drain on the economy’’ (their words) and shame the obese like this writer suggests, why would we expect to be able to stop the state when one day they wage wars against people who want to bring to term their less than perfect fetus or who wish that their old and sick parent dies naturally?  If we accept that public health policy is based on collectivist and economic perspectives rather than human and compassionate bases and we irresponsibly jump on the bandwagon of shaming overweight and obese people , we would be clearly inviting eugenic and Soylent Green type of ethics to take over our societies sooner than we realize.  
   

Is this what we want? 

What can we as individuals do to stop it?  Be proud of who we are and respectful of ourselves and what we want or don't want out of life.  Keep informed, critical and alert and explore various perspectives that we don't necessarily hear from the mainstream media.   Be tolerant and respectful of our fellow citizens' differences.  Offer our unconditional assistance and compassion only to those who solicit it.  Tell alleged do-gooders that our minds and bodies are ours and not open to public scrutiny or criticism.  Express to our politicians, the media, forums and on open lines how we feel about public health stepping way out of line and robbing us of our most precious belonging - our intimacy.  








Monday, 7 November 2011

LES PROFITS DES GÉANTS PHARMACEUTIQUES SONT MENACÉS

Nous vous dirigeons vers deux articles (au bas de la page) d’un très grand intérêt, publiés dans le site http://www.unairneuf.org
Le premier rapporte les résultats d’une étude récente sur le Champix, médicament prescrit pour la cessation du tabagisme.  L’étude ( PLoS ONE: Suicidal Behavior and Depression in Smoking Cessation Treatments ) conclut que les risques pour des problèmes d’ordre psychiatrique chez les utilisateurs sont beaucoup plus élevés que pour le médicament Zyban et les produits nicotiniques qu’on trouve en vente libre dans les pharmacies.  Sans grande surprise, Pfizer dément ces allégations et conduit sa propre étude avec une date projetée pour la publication des résultats en 2017. Study Links Chantix to Suicide Risk, but FDA Disagrees

Encore cinq ans à profiter des revenus que Champix rapporte est certes très intéressant pour Pfizer, mais qu’en est-il des fumeurs à qui on continuera de prescrire ce médicament susceptible à mener jusqu’au suicide? 
     
Le deuxième article expose les craintes de l’industrie pharmaceutique en rapport avec la menace que la cigarette électronique présente pour leurs profits.  Rappelons-nous que la cigarette électronique est bannie au Canada mais est légale en France et dans la grande majorité des autres pays occidentaux  y compris les États-Unis.  Lire ici (en anglais) la correspondance de C.A.G.E. avec Santé Canada :  http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2009/05/e-cigarettes-letter-to-health-canada.html 


Friday, 4 November 2011

WHY ARE SHELTERED DESIGNATED SMOKING AREAS OR E-CIGARETTES NOT AN OPTION?

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.  C. S. Lewis

Excerpts from an article that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press. 
 

‘’ She wanted a smoke.
An hour later, she was found comatose in a snowbank. The woman had suffered hypothermia and frostbite to her hands and feet. Four fingers on her right hand had to be amputated. She was left with limited mobility in her left hand.’’

‘’ The woman successfully sued Seven Oaks Hospital and the nurses. The hospital secured a confidentiality agreement.’’

‘’ Dr. Michael Routledge, in charge of population and public health at the WRHA, said city hospitals are proud of their smoking bans. Security guards enforce them by asking patients who smoke to move away from hospital entrances.

"We try to create a smoke-free atmosphere," Routledge said. "And this is about making sure everybody knows we have a policy."

Did the ''omnipotent busy body'', Routledge,  ever question Health Canada why they have nixed electronic cigarettes which is a perfect solution to the predicament that anti-smoker zealots and their pimps at Big Pharma created not only for patients in hospitals but for old age people, prisoners, and even common citizens who just want to get their social and family life back?

For those who still don't know what e-cigarettes are, look them up in this blog or elsewhere. In summary they are nicotine delivery devices that mimic the act of smoking without the smoke and the smell. They have been shown to be a) not any more harmful to the user than overpriced pharmaceutical inhalers  b) harmless and odorless to by-standers c) satisfying for the cigarette craving when it's just not possible to smoke. d) some people have quit smoking altogether thanks to e-cigarettes. In fact the quit success rate is magnitudes higher than NRT.

Why did Health Canada ban them? From all looks of it they want to protect both  the pharmaceutical industry that peddle ineffective NRT, and perhaps even Big Tobacco, not to mention their own tax revenue. ( http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2009/05/e-cigarettes-letter-to-health-canada.html ) Meanwhile sick and frail patients and old people will continue suffering injuries, or dying from hypothermia or frost bite. Shame on our medical authorities, shame on Health Canada, double shame on all those passive aggressive citizens that find it all perfectly normal because it is only smokers who have brought it upon themselves after all!
And does this study Smoking bans backfiring at some hospitals  that appeared in newspapers across Canada at the same time, have anything to do with compassion and attempting to find real solutions to a problem they have created or is it another marketing ploy for the nico/gummy/patchy partners of the medical community?  Label us cynical, but we believe it’s the latter.  

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is soliciting the citizens’ opinion here.  Please take a few moments to let them know how you feel even if this does not touch you personally because you don’t smoke.  Today it’s the smokers, tomorrow it might be you.  

Monday, 24 October 2011

UPDATE ON ANDRINA'S MOTHER

Thank you Andrina for this update on your mother.  Kudos to you for helping her do the right thing for herself. This new place sounds just right for her in many ways.  Of course we would have preferred that she had a warm dry place indoors to indulge in her enjoyment of two or three cigarettes per day, but hopefully one day, through hard work, devotion, perseverance and patience we will knock some sense into the public health tyrants' heads and we will see civility and harmony reinstated in society starting with our most deserved members:   the vulnerable elderly. 

We have managed to find a private facility for my mother. It too has a non smoking policy but as long as she is well enough and  wishes to have a cigarette she is free to go outside to smoke and join others who also enjoy a cigarette a couple of times a day.  Chairs and ashtrays have even been provided for this purpose! A simple chair and ashtray have become a treasure.
 
Those in wheelchairs are taken outdoors if they wish to smoke. When seniors are given access to the outdoors they are also enjoying  nature, fresh air and friendship with others who have a common interest. The most important thing is freedom to choose and not to be stuck in a lock-up facility like street criminals! 

It has been difficult to take her outdoors twice a day but with the help of friends we managed to do just that. We could not stand by and watch her beg staff to take her outside for just ten minutes. Begging became her nightmare and ours too and not one that any of us will soon forget.

My mother will now have all meals provided in a beautifully appointed dining room , assistance with bathing, a hairdresser in the facility, medications dispensed and a measure of safety as well as privacy. Most importantly she will have freedom of access to the complete facility and be encouraged to talk with others at the same level as herself. Until now she has been with residents who for the most part are unable to speak because of dementia or severe strokes and other impairments. She has been using plastic cups for coffee and plastic juice glasses like one would give a little child.  Thank goodness she is a reader and listens to world issues on TV. There have been few activities in the time she has been in this lock-up facility.
 
God bless the other individuals who are such lovely people but for the moment my mother and her happiness has become our only concern.

Basically at the new facility they are given their rights as they would be at home. Independence is encouraged and so is wellness. There is a  bill of rights in Canada for seniors in long term care facilities private or government run. This should be read by all Canadians especially those who have loved ones in Ontario long-term care homes. Please read this and pass it along if possible.

We all know there is not a perfect place for seniors to live once they have given up home ownership or private apartments. What is important  is that family, friends and community attempt to ensure safety, security, wellness, happiness and independence. We must do more for seniors both in private and government run facilities. Surely at this point in their lives it is wrong to put them to bed at 6.30 PM as is often the case in government  run facilities. My mother was unable to have a bath because one staff member called in sick and that situation made it impossible to give baths that evening. 

I am sad for those we leave behind but happy for my mother who might have a few years of enjoyment left in her life. She will now be able to have her own bed and chair from home and even her own linens. She might for the first time in months find a little joy in living. She is happy to make the move and though a bit anxious about the changes she looks forward to a better life. 

Thanks everyone for your support.

Andrina Lejon