MEDICAL STUDIES ARE MOSTLY UNRELIABLE ACCORDING TO DR. JOHN IOANNIDIS

C.A.G.E. has often commented how scientific studies reported by the mainstream media either contradict each other or are not coherent with what we observe in our day to day life to a point where we are now so confused about what is good or bad for us we just don’t pay notice anymore.

Those of us who totally ignore the medical findings that we read or hear, are probably the ones with the right attitude observes Dr. John Ioannidis who has spent his career challenging his peers.

The following article and Dr. Ioannidis’ paper itself (linked below), lucidly explain what makes today’s medical studies so unreliable. Whether it has to do with conflicts of interest because of the funding, the scientists’ ardent desire to be published in a respected medical journal and gain recognition, the insatiable appetite to get more funding, the cozy relationship between the authors and the peer reviewers, the false findings that become infectious and are carried over from study to study, or the disproved results of flawed studies that are still touted as factual, are some of the main reasons why, in Dr. Ioannidis’ expert opinion, medical studies should not be given much credence.

The medical and scientific communities have been given too much latitude for far too long. ‘’University and government research overseers rarely step in to directly enforce research quality, and when they do, the science community goes ballistic over the outside interference,’’ the author of the article tells us. This is quite alarming especially that it deals with our well-being, our medication, our life and our death. Have we come to the point that since the scientific community doesn’t show any encouraging signs to discipline its members and that the government has no particular interest to step in, that we will have to rely only on our common sense and instinct to separate falsehoods from truth? How can we rely on such sloppy science to establish sound public health policies?

Regrettably, even when the more informed of us attempt to engage in meaningful discussions with our doctor, specialists and the medical community in general, we are often dismissed either as arrogant know-it-alls or conspiracy theorists who spend too much time on the internet. This must never stop us nevertheless from keeping the medical community in check. If each and every single one of us asked the right questions to the right authorities, we are bound to eventually see some improvement in the way they deal with our lives.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

''DONC, GÉRONS LE RISQUE. ET VIVONS UN PEU.'' Marie-Claude Lortie

Un excellent article de la très nuancée Marie-Claude Lortie de La Presse aborde dans le même sens que C.A.G.E. en rapport avec la responsabilisation personnelle et la bonne mesure.

S’appuyant sur une récente étude britannique qui nous rapporte que le fait de boire un ou deux verres d’alcool par semaine pendant la grossesse n’est pas néfaste pour le fœtus, Mme Lortie souligne une fois de plus l’importance de la modération et le jugement personnel et dénonce ceux qui prêchent l’abstinence totale et la tolérance zéro face au risque.

Il est malheureux que cela a pris une étude épidémiologique avec toutes les limites qu’on connaît à cette branche de la science, pour délier la langue de certains médecins comme la Dr Diane Francoeur, chef du département d'obstétrique et de gynécologie de Sainte-Justine. ‘’ Bonne nouvelle, car la recherche donne des munitions à ceux qui s'opposent aux extrêmes, à la rigidité, au dogmatisme, au tout noir et tout blanc.’’ nous dit cette docteure par le biais d’une tribune de Radio-Canada.

‘’ Donc, gérons le risque. Et vivons un peu.’’ opine Mme Lortie. N’est-ce pas ce que C.A.G.E. préconise depuis longtemps en se basant sur le principe que la santé mentale est aussi importante que la santé physique et qu’il revient à l’individu de trouver son propre équilibre entre les deux ?

Bonne lecture et n’hésitez pas d’écrire au forum de Mme Lortie pour lui exprimer votre opinion et l’encourager de continuer à dénoncer les excès et abus de la santé publique.

Alcool, grossesse et gros bon sens

PLUS LE MENSONGE EST GROS, PLUS LES GENS Y CROIENT

(Lorsqu’il s’agit de propagande) plus le mensonge est gros, plus les gens y croient. Joseph Goebbels

L’étude vers laquelle nous vous pointons dans le bas de cet article, prétend que le prix réel d’un paquet de cigarette se situe aux alentours de 150 $. Attention, on parle bel et bien d’un paquet et non d’une cartouche. Il paraît qu’ils arrivent à ce chiffre en faisant des calculs ‘’savants’’ sur ce que la consommation du tabac coûte au fumeur lui-même en tant que consommateur.

Une théorie jadis avancée par Joseph Goebbels et Adolf Hitler soutenait que si on exagère seulement de peu notre propagande, le peuple sera sceptique et il risque de nous mettre au défi de présenter nos preuves. Cependant si la contention est scandaleuse elle va au delà du plus haut seuil de scepticisme et redescend dans les limites du crédible. Il est évident que les ‘’chercheurs’’ de cette étude adhèrent à cette tactique propagandiste à la lettre. Il est clair que les anti-tabagistes espagnols se préparent pour justifier une loi anti-tabac drastique prévue pour aussi tôt que l'hiver prochain.

Il s'agit d'une étude qui n’a rien à voir avec une logique mathématique. Ce n’est qu’une bataille de plus dans leur guerre morale contre le tabac. Ne tentez même pas de comprendre quelle formule mathématique ils ont utilisé pour arriver à ces chiffres, vous vous perdrez assurément dans les dédales obscurs de leur doctrine et ce, qu’importe le chemin que vous emprunterez.

Des paquets de cigarettes à 150 $

RAW-MILK FANS ARE GETTING A RAW DEAL

The principles of C.A.G.E. are in full agreement with the notion that public health authorities have the responsibility to protect us from hazards from which we cannot protect ourselves, or those of which we may be totally unaware of. The latter applies especially when we rely on third parties to supply us with food products that we have absolutely no control over with respect to their production, processing and handling. We should all be thankful that we live in a country where Health Canada sets high standards and stringent regulations for food productions, and enforce these by conducting regular inspections in facilities that handle commodities for human consumption. Foodborne illnesses can be a serious threat.

Where we at C.A.G.E. draw the line, however, is when the state's ''protection'' offices and agents seek to protect us from our own choices. We as consumers may wish to, and have a right to make decisions for ourselves that differ from the State-approved norm. We may choose to deviate from the mainstream because of beliefs that differ from those of the health authorities, or because some of us are natural risk takers, or for any other reason personal to us.
For instance, should some of us wish to take the risk of consuming the fish that we ourselves pulled from waters that are known to occasionally exceed permissible levels of mercury, should Health Canada raid our refrigerator and seize our catch of the day? Should they fine us or jail us for it? What if we decided to hire someone to catch that fish for us? Should the person that did the catching under our orders be accused of breaking the law for rendering this service?

The answer to each of the above questions should be a clear and emphatic ''No''. And yet, it seems that the above nightmare scenario is presently occurring with respect to raw milk.

We will refer you to an article by Karen Seleck, one of our good friends at the Canadian Constitution Foundation. After you have read the story, please ask yourselves (and preferably your ministerial representative) the following questions:

- Why are they interfering with our choices when we willfully and in full knowledge decide to consume something that is not unlawful to consume, but only unlawful to sell in a regulated producing facility?

- Would they interfere to the same extent if we raised chickens in our backyard and hired someone to care for them? Would they stop us from consuming the eggs?

- Who exactly are they protecting with such zeal and fervor - we the consumers or the supply management cartels as Karen Selick, the author of the article, observed?

We trust that you will find the article below as infuriating and frustrating as we found it.

Globe and Mail
September 24, 2010

Queen Elizabeth drinks her milk raw. She reportedly thinks so highly of unpasteurized milk that when her grandsons Princes William and Harry were schoolboys at Eton, the famous college near Windsor Castle, she instructed herdsman Adrian Tomlinson to bottle up raw milk from her Windsor herd and deliver it to them at school.

Canadians, however, are not permitted to emulate their head of state. Raw milk cannot legally be sold in Canada, except into government-authorized “supply management” cartels, where it goes to be pasteurized. Only those who happen to own their own cow can legally consume raw milk.

A group of some 450 British Columbia city-dwellers thought they had a solution. They organized Home on the Range Dairy, and jointly acquired a herd of 25 cows. Then they hired farmer Alice Jongerden to look after their cows—feed them, milk them, bottle the milk, and make it available to its owners.

This type of livestock boarding contract has long been known to English law. In fact, there’s even a special name for it: agistment, the taking in of livestock to graze on your land in exchange for payment. Ms. Jongerden is called an agister.

But the Fraser Health Authority disapproved of the arrangement and took Ms. Jongerden to court. The real question, which no B.C. court has yet tackled, is whether she can be considered to be “selling” or “supplying” raw milk in contravention of the Milk Industry Act, when the individuals who receive it are already its owners.

Nevertheless, the B.C. Supreme Court issued an injunction this past March prohibiting Ms. Jongerden and others from “packaging and/or distributing raw milk and/or raw milk products for human consumption.” But the cows took no notice of the Supreme Court and continued to fill their udders twice a day. They had to be milked or else they would soon be bellowing in pain, risking udder infections and possibly dying.

Ms. Jongerden continued milking, placing the milk in bottles clearly marked “Not for Human Consumption” and “Not for Sale”. The owners could have pasteurized it themselves if they had considered it hazardous. They could have bathed in it, used it as plant fertilizer, or fed it to their pets. Only they know what they actually did with it.

Ms. Jongerden, however, was charged with contempt of court. On September 14, a temporary order was made, prohibiting her from engaging in the “further production or distribution of raw milk”. She goes back to court in mid-October.

This leaves the herd owners with three unsatisfactory alternatives:

- Don’t have the cows milked at all, in which case they will suffer cruelly
- Find some new agister who is not subject to the temporary September order, but who is willing to face his own eventual contempt charges for violating the sweeping March injunction, or
-Milk the cows and dump the milk on the ground.

The situation is ridiculous. The milk is there. People have bent over backwards to get it. They’re all aware that the Health Authority thinks it’s dangerous. They still want it. But instead, it will probably be destroyed—wasted—purportedly to protect people from taking a risk they are willing to take.

Canada is out of step with the rest of the world. The United Kingdom, France, Germany and many U.S. states have programs that allow public health authorities to certify a dairy’s output as safe for raw consumption. In France and Italy there are even vending machines dispensing raw milk to eager consumers. B.C. residents can cross the border to Washington state and buy it legally.

Moreover, an overwhelming percentage of conventional Canadian dairy farmers—quota owners who sell milk into the provincial cartels for pasteurization—drink milk raw themselves. In a recent survey of 2,185 milk producers published in Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 88.7 percent “reported that they or their families consume unpasteurized milk from their bulk milk tanks.”

We don’t ban balloons even though some eight or nine children die annually in North America from choking on them. We don’t prohibit skiing, hockey or even parachute jumping despite the risks of injury or death. We don’t ban seafood, ground beef, poultry or coldcuts even though they are far more common sources of food poisoning than raw milk.

One can’t help suspecting that the fanaticism of Canadian authorities towards raw milk has more to do with protecting the supply management cartels than protecting public health.

NICOTINE WARS (2)

Last April we commented on a paper from the Harvard School of Public Health that contended that the nicotine lozenges marketed by Big Tobacco were a lure to children that could even be poisoned by the abuse of such a product. We questioned why they didn’t express any worries about the similar pharmaceutical product, Commit and then went on to compare the pharmaceutical produced nicotine lozenges Commit, to the tobacco produced lozenges Orbs. Our findings were quite interesting:

Orbs contain 0,6 - 3,5 ml of nicotine

Commits contain 2 - 4 ml of nicotine

Orbs are fruit and candy flavored

Commits are fruit and candy flavored

Orbs come in attractive packaging

Commits come in attractive packaging

Because they’re a tobacco product minors cannot purchase Orbs

Commits are marketed over the counter and are available to everyone

Orbs dissolve in the mouth in minutes are small in size and can be conveniently hidden anywhere

Commits dissolve in the mouth in minutes are small in size and can be conveniently hidden anywhere

In the U.S. Orbs are priced at around 4.00 $ before tax for 15 pieces (approx. 15 cents per piece)In the U.S. Commits are priced at around 40 $ for 72 pieces tax exempted (approx 55 cents per piece).

Up until then we could only suspect that this paper was to be served as ammunition to Big Pharma for their scheme to eliminate the cheaper competition, namely tobacco manufactured lozenges, but now our suspicions have been confirmed.

Glaxo Smith Klein, makers of Commits, recently urged the FDA to take dissolvable smokeless tobacco products off the market contending that they are a threat to public health.

But what will the FDA, that has several members with financial ties to Glaxo Smith Klien sitting at the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, do? It remains to be seen. Dr. Michael Siegel has already called for the resignation of such members. Will the FDA do the right thing? We somehow doubt it, but we will just have to wait and see. To follow.

Glaxo urges FDA to withdraw dissolvable tobacco

NO TO STATE FUNDING OF PHARMACEUTICAL QUIT SMOKING PRODUCTS!

Smoking cessation drugs never have been more aggressively marketed than in the last 5 years in Canada, yet smoking rates have remained stagnant in that same period. Are our health authorities and so called experts suffering from a severe case of attention deficit disorder to keep repeating the same errors over and over and over, or just over-influenced (euphemism for corrupted) to keep pushing the same medication down people’s throats and now even asking taxpayers to foot the bill for ‘’remedies’’ that have a documented 98,4% failure rate?

For those who read French, please read our previous article on the extensive enquiry one unbiased French media recently did on the cessation drug market and the lies being served to us left right and center about the remedies peddled from the pharmaceutical giants. Read how instrumental Big Pharma was in implementing smoking bans and heavy artillery anti-smoking campaigns to serve their bottom line. Read how the old inexpensive cold turkey method is the only one that has shown successful long term results in kicking the habit. Do we really want the taxpayers, non-smokers and smokers, alike to subsidize this fraudulent market? Do we really want to raise the already prohibitive tobacco taxes to help make Big Pharma richer all the while creating an even bigger underground tobacco market in Canada? What other medication with a 98,4% failure rate that we know of would be endorsed by the Canadian Medical Association?

Please say a resounding NO to any plans to fund pharmaceutical quit smoking aids. Enough with this incestuous relationship between Big Pharma and a prestigious association that is shamelessly abusing our trust!

Medical journal calls on provinces to fund quit-smoking drugs

ON VOUS ENFUME

Nous avons longtemps décrié l’influence de l’industrie pharmaceutique en politique de santé publique. Nous avons illustré à plus d’une reprise comment que ces géants corporatifs se sont insidieusement immiscé dans nos universités, notre système médical, nos gouvernements, nos familles… dans le but de complètement refaçonner notre pensée par rapport à notre bien-être et notre manière de vivre.

Il n’y a pas exemple plus flagrant de cette réingénierie sociale exercée par l’industrie pharmaceutique sur les citoyens, que celui qu’on observe dans l’enjeu du tabagisme.

Or, nous devenons toujours plus optimistes et refaisons le plein d’espoir de voir une reforme à chaque fois que nous constatons que tout comme nous, d’autres médias se réveillent et dénoncent les manigances corporatives de cette industrie sans scrupule et moralité.

En effet, le mensuel français Rue89 a récemment publié une enquête sur les campagnes anti-tabac et le rôle que l’industrie pharmaceutique y joue. Ce qu’on lira peut choquer les non-informés, désillusionner les idéalistes qui ont longtemps cru le discours des autorités en santé publique, soulever l’ire de ceux qui ont été dupés, mais cela peut aussi donner espoir à tous ceux qui tout comme nous ont vu clair depuis longtemps. L’espoir que cette industrie aura à répondre de ces actes avant longtemps.

La prochaine fois que votre médecin vous propose un ‘’remède’’ pour ‘’guérir’’ votre tabagisme, n’hésitez pas de lui faire lire cet article et de lui dire ‘’non merci, j’y arriverai d’une façon plus efficace et moins dispendieuse le jour que j’aurais la volonté nécessaire!’’.

Extraits de l’article Méthodes pour stopper la cigarette : on vous enfume !

(…)Ce n'est pas par hasard si les campagnes anti-tabac semblent surtout indiquer le chemin de la pharmacie. De la recherche à la définition des politiques publiques, le lobbying des Pfizer, GSK et autres travaille le discours sur le sevrage dans le sens de la médicalisation.

Un système parfaitement rodé, où les liens incestueux entre industriels, recherche publique, médecins et politiques sont omniprésents.

Les géants du médicament ont même réussi à transformer un revers en succès. Les substituts nicotiniques ne font pas de miracle ? « Good news pour le business », si l'on sait jongler, si l'on parvient à transformer le remède pour arrêter d'hier en un chewing gum tendance qui agrémente la vie du fumeur, lui donne bonne conscience et lui permet de remettre éternellement à demain l'arrêt définitif.

C'est ce qui est arrivé avec les produits Nicorette. Il suffit d'orchestrer la « com » ad hoc.
Entre des campagnes qui lui assènent qu'il a besoin d'aide et un discours marketing qui lui propose des solutions pour arrêter à moins que ce ne soit pour continuer, le fumeur qui veut décrocher est surtout… enfumé.

A elle seule, la nicotine ne rend pas accro
Patchs et autres substituts ne vous aideront pas beaucoup
On vous ment : vous pouvez y arriver seul
Les labos sont omniprésents derrière les campagnes antitabac
Médoc, substitut, bonbon… : Nicorette joue sur tous les tableaux
La dépendance a des causes multiples, propres à chacun
Désolé, vous n'y couperez pas : vous allez grossir

On vous enfume !

Have a great Summer - Un bel été à tous nos lecteurs !

There will be no more publications until the fall. Please visit our forum until then. Have a great Summer all!

Il n’y aura pas de publications avant l'automne prochain. Nous vous invitons à visiter notre forum sur l’intérim. Passez un bel été !

LE NARGUILÉ RACONTÉ PAR UN EXPERT EN LA MATIÈRE

La Presse nous rapporte une étude conduite par une chercheuse de l’université McGill, Jennifer O’Loughlin sur les méfaits du narguilé – pipe à eau orientale qu’on utilise pour fumer le tabac.

Nous ne prétendons pas être assez qualifiés pour analyser les ‘’découvertes’’ de cette épidémiologiste en ce qui a rapport à la nocivité du narguilé car nous n’avons pas fait d’analyses exhaustives à ce sujet. Cependant, nous pouvons affirmer sans trop nous tromper, que ce qu’elle a ‘’découvert’’ n’est pas une nouveauté dans le monde anti-tabac, seulement du réchauffé et servi avec une sauce légèrement différente. D’autres avant elle ont tenu le même discours sur les comparaisons entre fumée de cigarette et fumée de narguilé et le Dr. Kamal Chaouachi, anthropologue et chercheur notoire sur tout-ce qui a rapport au narguilé, les a déjà exposés et mis au défi de corriger leur tir car leur ‘’science’’ était truffée d’erreurs très graves. Nous vous invitons à lire l’article de la Presse qui rapporte les ‘’faits saillants’’ de cette étude ici pour ensuite lire les explications d’un vrai expert en narguilé, le Dr. Kamal Chaouachi : Narguilé (chicha) et Pollution Assistée par Ordinateur

Lecture supplémentaire sur l’ouvrage du Dr. Chaouachi ici.

OBESE CHILDREN ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE BULLIED STUDY

Obese children are more likely to be bullied, researchers of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor report following a study that has led them to that conclusion. We are very happy they noticed but this is the sad reality heavier children had to put up with as far as back as any living person can remember and no sophisticated expensive study was required to come to what all parents of fat children and the children themselves already know. The fat kid has always been the victim of his peers’ ridicule, bullying and rejection. The last kid to be picked up on a team, often occupying the last seat in the classroom, tripped or shoved down the stairway, his lunch stolen from him for his own good. The abuse taken is often daily and year round.

You’d think that adults would make an effort to make growing up as a fat kid a little easier? Kids are often lectured and made to feel guilty for their weight by their parents, teachers, school nurse, doctor and public health messages that constantly remind them that they should lose weight whatever it takes if they don’t want to suffer disease and die young. The media still has a tendency to glamorize thinness and ridicule fatness. The line between educating children towards healthy habits and creating an anti-fat psychosis among them is very thin and many have developed eating disorders, depression and even suicide brought about their inability to conform to the ideal weight that public health constantly hammers into their malleable minds.

Public health contributes more than its share of bullying tactics that we feel should be halted immediately to give place to more individual approaches for the obese children. Their psychological and physical well being depend on it.

Obese Children Are More Likely to Be Bullied

CANNABIS - PROJET DE LOI CONSERVATEUR

Six mois de prison pour cinq plants de pot équivaudrait à une congestion des tribunaux et des prisons aux dépens des contribuables et à des jeunes et moins jeunes qui, après leur peine servie, se retrouveraient à l’extérieur des murs avec un dossier criminel qui compromettrait leur avenir et leur habileté de se trouver un emploi ce qui les obligeraient de vivre aux crochets de la société. Avec l'estime de leur personne au plus bas et les relations qu'ils auraient établis avec les vrais criminels à l'intérieur des murs, le climat deviendrait davantage propice à la prolifération de plus gros réseaux criminels pour fournir à la demande, sans que cette mesure diminue la consommation du pot pour autant.

Pourquoi faut-il toujours répéter les mêmes erreurs? Est-ce que le gouvernement n’a rien appris de l’échec total de la guerre contre la drogue de nos voisins du sud ?

Six mois de prison pour cinq plants de pot ?

TWIST AND SHOUT

The twist of the findings in a study that attempted to prove that smoking causes one to put on weight is absolutely staggering.

This research desperately attempted to debunk that smoking suppresses appetite, one positive aspect of smoking which has been a given for years. But rabid anti-smokers and ‘’no safe level’’ dogmatists, cannot & will not allow anything positive about smoking to remain on record. They desperately struggle to disprove anything and everything remotely positive about smoking even if that means they will twist, torture and misrepresent the findings.

The headline of the press release and picked up by the media is: Smoking increases the chances of being overweight according to a study by the University of Navarra

Let’s examine what they found according to their press release alone. Linking to the study itself if we had access to it might reveal further irregularities.

‘’ Participants who quit smoking during follow-up showed a greater relative weight gain, with some difference between sexes: over 1.5 kilos in men and about 1.0 kilo in women. In addition, active smokers had higher weight gain than those who were never smokers: about 0.5 kg in men and 0.36 kg in women.’’

No fancy expensive study was required to tell us what everyone already knows namely that quitting smoking may cause someone to put on weight and it generally does. But this has nothing to do with smoking itself; it has to do with quitting smoking! It is as absurd as claiming that food causes one to lose weight, since one most certainly will if they lowered their calorie intake!

As for the slight difference in weight gain of smokers who didn’t quit vs. non-smokers, if it is in fact a true finding of the study, here’s how the researchers attempt to explain it:

"possible reasons as to why tobacco smoking is related to weight gain are purely speculative. All the details are not known, but in most cases there is a common denominator: they are people with less will power when it comes to looking after their health.’’

Neither finding can justify that smoking itself causes weight gain! The researchers don’t even deserve an E for effort! The only mark that should be given to them for their ‘’twist & shout’’ study is a well deserved FD – Failure for Dishonesty. Talk about junk science and waste of precious human and financial resources!

Smoking increases the chances of being overweight according to a study by the University of Navarra

NICOTINE WARS

According to a new study authored by Gregory Connolly & al of the Harvard School of Public Health, Big Tobacco are being naughty boys again. ‘’ (…) Orbs, pellets made of finely ground tobacco with mint or cinnamon flavoring, are packed with nicotine and can poison children and lure young people to start using tobacco. The pellets dissolve in the mouth, like breath mints. Nicotine is a highly addictive drug, and to make it look like a piece of candy is recklessly playing with the health of children” the lead author told reporters.

Our research led us to the following link which describes what Orbs are and their nicotine yields: Camel Orbs

Their description closely resembles another product presently marketed, namely nicotine lozenges. You can read about Commit Lozenges and their nicotine yields at the following link: Commit Lozenges

We later compared the two products:

Orbs contain 0,6 - 3,5 ml of nicotine
Commits contain 2 - 4 ml of nicotine

Orbs are fruit and candy flavored
Commits are fruit and candy flavored

Orbs come in attractive packaging
Commits come in attractive packaging

Because they’re a tobacco product minors cannot purchase Orbs
Commits are marketed over the counter and are available to everyone

Orbs dissolve in the mouth in minutes are small in size and can be conveniently hidden anywhere
Commits dissolve in the mouth in minutes are small in size and can be conveniently hidden anywhere

In the U.S. Orbs are priced at around 4.00 $ before tax for 15 pieces (approx. 15 cents per piece)
In the U.S. Commits are priced at around 40 $ for 72 pieces tax exempted (approx 55 cents per piece).

Except for the price and their makers, these two products are admittedly almost identical in nature, so why are Orbs a threat to children who are forbidden to purchase them until they’re of legal age and yet we hear nothing but praise from the anti-tobacco cartel on nicotine lozenges which can be sold over the counter to anyone?

Why would kids be lured by Orbs and not by Commits? Why would kids get addicted more to the Orb nicotine and not the Commit nicotine which comes in even higher yields? Why would kids be attracted to the flavor of Orbs and not the flavor of Commits?

Quite simply because Orbs are marketed by the evil tobacco companies while Commits are marketed by the holier than thou pharmaceutical industry and the latter will not tolerate a competing product especially when it’s less expensive.

Proof positive once again that the modern war on tobacco is a war between two corporate giants fighting over the nicotine market with the user caught in the crossfire. Big Pharma will use every soldier, every weapon and will take any hostage needed in their effort to take over the lucrative nicotine market. Unfortunately as long as tobacco users looking for a crutch to help them quit smoked tobacco are made to believe that pharmaceutical nicotine has magical properties nowhere else to be found, they will choose the overpriced Commits and other such pharmaceutical products over the evil tobacco industry’s product. Especially if the pharmaceutical products are covered by private insurance plans or funded by the state through everyone’s taxes! Let's hope that those wishing to quit will instead choose the only proven effective and safe method available: Their own will power!

Flavored Tobacco Pellets Are Denounced as a Lure to Young Users

Additional reading at: R.J. Reynolds Accused of Using Camel Orbs to Lure Kids

Un point de vue en français au: Camel teste les bonbons à la nicotine

DÉPENDANCE OU INDÉPENDANCE ?

Selon une nouvelle ‘’découverte scientifique’’, ceux et celles qui fréquentent encore des salons de bronzage malgré les avertissements des instances sanitaires, présentent les mêmes symptômes que ceux de la dépendance aux substances.

Non mais quelle arrogance que de prétendre que parce-que quelqu’un fait fi des avertissements de la toute puissante santé publique, il doit nécessairement être référé en santé mentale !

C’est peut-être justement la très grande indépendance d’esprit qui permet aux récalcitrants de passer outre les 1001 messages de peur qu’on véhicule au quotidien et qui changent selon l’agenda du jour et le scientifique impliqué. Peut-être que ces insoumis estiment qu’on a crié au loup un peu trop souvent et que la recherche scientifique doit regagner sa crédibilité et sa noblesse avant qu’on recommence à suivre ses recommandations avec un peu plus de sérieux. Peut-être qu’on en a justement assez de se faire dicter quoi manger, quoi boire, quoi éviter, quoi ne pas éviter, pour plus tard se faire dire un peu trop souvent exactement le contraire.

Nous avons nos propres recommandations pour ces scientifiques qui, à travers leur propagande de peur, jouent régulièrement avec notre mental au point de nous rendre soit hypochondriaques soit complètement détachés : Présentez-nous des faits crédibles et bien appuyés, arrêtez de vous contredire entre vous et même avec votre propre personne, et peut-être que le peuple regagnera une certaine confiance en vous. En attendant, nous vous recommandons fortement de vous débarrasser de votre propre dépendance aux fonds qui vous sont alloués pour vos découvertes suspectes et y mettre un peu plus de ‘’substance’’ dans vos recherches.

Dépendants aux cabines de bronzage ?

ALL I WANT TO KNOW IS WHY?

It is always with mixed feelings that we greet a story such as that of Amal Asmar, who was harangued by two police officers and essentially fined for no good reason other than sitting on a bench.

On one hand, such a story proves C.A.G.E.’s message again, as if we needed more proof, that the State is too large and too powerful for the good of individual citizens, and that its many and fast expanding laws are more often used to curb individual liberties than they are to promote the good of society.

On the other hand, our hearts and our sympathies go out to Amal, who was just minding her own business as she tried to get home on a cold February night when the police, those armed agents of the State, decided for some unknown reason that they needed to assert their authority over a private individual.

This story reminds us of another that is still fresh in the mind of concerned Canadians that of Robert Dziekanski, tazered to death by a handful of RCMP officers who all lied through their teeth about the incident afterward.

Fortunately, the case of Amal does not end so tragically. Although roughed up both physically and emotionally, and fined $1040 for inappropriate use of a bench (she was sitting on it) and making a loud noise other than yelling (she was screaming in pain and fear as both officers held her against their police car and twisted her arms), at least she is still alive to talk with us and to wonder why her evening was so rudely and unjustifiably interrupted by two armed police officers. And we wonder “by what right” was it so interrupted?

As he recently explained in a radio interview, Daniel Romano, president of C.A.G.E., believes that the excess of power in the State has led its agents to feel as though they may act with a certain degree of impunity. At the legislative level, they feel that they can create whatever laws they wish without sound, logical or scientific justification, and regardless of repercussions and inconveniences, financial and otherwise. At the enforcement level, police agents parade with an increasing arrogance and attitude of entitlement, sometimes with dire consequences for the individuals who cross them the wrong way.

We at C.A.G.E. believe that these stories all add evidence that our society is burdened with far too many laws, and our government and the State are endowed with far too much power and far too little oversight. We would remind those who are elected, appointed, or otherwise employed within our government and State that their very purpose and raison d’être consist of ‘serving’ the individual, and any behaviour inconsistent with this premise is inconsistent with the pillars of a free and democratic society.

''All I want to know is why?”

OUTDOOR SMOKING BANS

We were asked by the Canadian Press to submit our opinion on outdoor smoking bans and more particularly in Vancouver. The following position is what we have submitted to the reporter who did use part of our take on the issue in his article that you can read here .

OUTDOOR SMOKING BANS

If anyone wanted evidence that indoor smoking bans were more about denormalizing smoking and harassing smokers than public health, the new spat of lobbying for outdoor bans provides ample evidence. Once Canadians accepted the absurd notion that no amount of indoor ventilation could sufficiently address the exaggerated risks of second-hand smoke, it was only a matter of time before the demands and claims of the anti-smoking lobbies became even more absurd.

Let’s be perfectly clear: Whiffs of second hand smoke in the open air pose zero risk to bystanders, and anyone who claims otherwise has only their own ideological zeal to support such a ridiculous notion. The only purpose of smoking bans whether indoors or outdoors is to harass smokers to the point that they will feel coerced to quit, preferably using pharmaceutical nicotine and other medications. Since the long term efficacy of such pharmaceutical products has been shown to be a dismal 1,6%,(1) you will understand why it’s good repeat business for the pharmaceutical industry (the main financial backers, along with tax dollars, of anti-smoking groups who lobby various levels of government for more coercive policies and more funds for their efforts). Ironically enough, however, both in Canada and in other countries where comprehensive smoking bans have been implemented, smoking rates have stopped declining (2). Many smokers have developed defense mechanisms that instinctively resist such coercive measures (3). Ever since the more aggressive anti-smoking campaigns and bans of the last 10 years, native and contraband cigarettes are also increasingly inundating the Canadian market and creating an underground economy, deprive government of much needed revenue and allow children to buy cigarettes on the black market. So who exactly are we protecting with overkill legislations?

Similarly, there is no reason to ban smoking in outdoor settings to save the environment. Litter can very well be taken care of by enforcing already existent anti-littering legislation, which would also have the benefit of controlling all types of litter rather than just cigarette butts.
If some 18 per cent of Vancouver's roughly 600,000 inhabitants smoke, that's about 108,000 smokers. If just 10 per cent of them decide, once a month, to drive outside of city limits to enjoy a beach or park without being harassed by the smoke police and moral busybodies, that's 10800 extra car trips a month, or 129,600 extra car trips a year in and out of the city. The added smog and bigger carbon footprint of Vancouver will have grown considerably, causing everyone to suffer. Contrary to tobacco smoke, car exhaust is a real health hazard outdoors. It also seems safe to assume that even the most authoritarian municipalities don't plan on asking people with cars where and why they are driving somewhere. So municipal leaders would be much wiser, tolerant and compassionate towards smokers, if they voted down these absurd outdoor smoking ban proposals and focused on real city problems.

So what’s left to justify outdoor bans? Nothing but useless, corporate and taxpayer-funded moral crusades! But as long as our politicians look like they’re doing something for their constituents, as long as anti-tobacco activists can justify their funding by ever increasingly absurd demands, as long as the pharmaceutical industry rakes in the profits and governments pocket our extortionist tobacco taxes, all is well in the wonderful world of anti-tobacco lobbyism.

In addition to demanding outdoor smoking bans under a variety of pretexts, anti-smoking groups have also lobbied car makers to stop making cars with ashtrays (after which they demand a ban on smoking in cars, due to the litter produced from smokers throwing butts out the window), demanded that films which depict smoking receive an “R” rating (although shootings and other violence can remain “PG”), insisted on an end to the store display of tobacco products (already accomplished in Canada), and even sought an end to branding on tobacco packages. The list of demands is endless, of course, and the fact that Vancouver’s municipal leaders appear willing to entertain these demands, rather than focusing on more pressing municipal issues and respecting all their citizens, is just depressing.

1) http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-study-demonstrates-how-conflicts-of.html
2) http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2008/12/smoking-bans-are-bad-bad-policy-its-not.html

3) http://cagecanada.homestead.com/CorporateShenanigans.html Chapter 4, paragraph 8.

THANK YOU MR. KENNEDY, YOU'RE A HERO REGARDLESS !

It is a sad day in Canada when the Supreme Court rules without even as much as an explanation that private rights are not worthy of a fair hearing.

It is even sadder that the national media ignored Mr. Kennedy's fight against big government edicts for almost 10 years, but now that the highest court refuses to grant him leave, they bend over backwards to report the story.

Ont. smoking club appeal tossed by top court

HUMANITÉ... OU BARBARIE ?

Le document qui suit nous parvient du Pr. Robert Molimard.

Soyons très clair : le très humanitaire professeur et expert tabacologue est contre le tabac fumé, cependant il n'approuve guère les mesures répressives qu'on réserve présentement aux fumeurs et dénonce énergiquement les manigances de l’industrie pharmaceutique dans cette guerre immorale livrée aux gens qu’on prétend vouloir aider.

HUMANITÉ… OU BARBARIE?

Deux regards sont possibles sur ceux qu'une position de faiblesse met hors des normes bien changeantes et arbitraires qui régissent les communautés humaines, malades, handicapés, dépendants de drogues diverses. Ou bien on s'attache à les amener si possible à la guérison, sinon à améliorer leur sort, et à les intégrer au mieux dans le réseau social. Ou bien on les stigmatise, les cache, les exclut, voire les pourchasse. Même si l'on n'en arrive pas à la solution finale, c'est la voie de la barbarie. Certains même y pensent, comme le montre cette réflexion d'un certain B.W. dans le forum GlobaLink*, que je traduis fidèlement de l'anglais : " Je ne comprends pas le débat sur le SNUS. Evidemment, c'est un bénéfice de santé publique pour les gens qui doivent travailler à côté d'un fumeur là où fumer n'est pas interdit. Mais par ailleurs, les cigarettes ne me soufflent pas la fumée au visage, les fumeurs le font. Donc pourquoi diable se soucier de la morbidité des fumeurs, sinon dire que ce ne sera jamais assez tôt!"

Donc qu'ils crèvent! Que B.W. se félicite de ne pas être enfumé est normal. Mais il ne comprend pas le débat sur le snus! Sucer un sachet de ce tabac suédois est pourtant l'arme absolue contre le tabagisme passif. En toute humanité, il devrait aussi se féliciter que ceux qui le préfèrent à la cigarette ne risquent plus le cancer du poumon, la bronchite chronique ou l'infarctus.

Ainsi la politique anti-tabac vient de prendre un virage que j'estime dangereux. C'est la fumée qui constitue le risque, qu'il s'agisse de celle du tabac, des cheminées d'usine, des pots d'échappement de voitures, des barbecues ou du cannabis. C'est la combustion qui produit les goudrons cancérigènes, les irritants bronchiques et l'oxyde de carbone nécessaire aux infarctus. Il reste des produits nocifs dans la prise ou la chique, comme dans le plastique des biberons, les salaisons au salpêtre ou les viandes et poissons fumés, et même le sel en excès dans les aliments conservés. Mais le snus est 98% moins dangereux que la cigarette, même si on lui attribue autant de cancers de la bouche! Tous les pourfendeurs du tabagisme passif devraient s'unir pour que soit levée l'interdiction de sa vente en Europe, à laquelle la Suède n'a pas voulu se plier.

C'est là que pointe le bout de l'oreille du barbare. Car la cible n'est pas le tabac, c'est le FUMEUR On s'interdit même de lui autoriser une échappatoire en lui permettant d'utiliser le snus, contre lequel on mène une virulente campagne, en l'accusant de favoriser chez les jeunes l'adoption ultérieure de la cigarette, alors qu'au contraire, pour un utilisateur de snus qui passe à la cigarette, 4 fumeurs arrêtent de consommer du tabac en passant par le snus.[1]

"Société CONTRE Fumeurs". C'était le titre prémonitoire d'un magnifique ouvrage de deux psychologues genevois [2]. Leur analyse expérimentale de la réaction des individus face à une société de plus en plus moralisatrice et répressive au nom de l'hygiénisme, du principe de précaution poussé à l'absurde, laissait prévoir combien la politique actuelle des interdictions de fumer tous azimuts serait contre-productive. Et en effet, depuis ces interdictions, l'organisme officiel SLÀN a reconnu que la prévalence du tabagisme était passée de 27% à 29% en Irlande, les italiens qu'ils ont 2 millions de fumeurs de plus et, en France, que les ventes de tabac augmentent sans que baisse la contrebande, et que les jeunes fument de plus en plus. 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.

Je devrais me féliciter que les fumeurs continuent à soulager ma feuille d'impôts de 12 milliards d'euros par an et à cotiser pour une retraite dont profiteront les autres après leur mort prématurée. Depuis les interdictions, je peux savourer un déjeuner au restaurant sans être enfumé. Le tabagisme omniprésent était une nuisance insupportable, et méritait une règlementation. Mais les mesures prises l'ont été, non pas au nom de la gêne occasionnée par la fumée, mais de la MORTALITÉ engendrée par le TABAGISME PASSIF. L'origine en est un rapport pseudo-scientifique, une pure manipulation fomentée par les firmes pharmaceutiques qui vendent des médicaments de sevrage [3].

Or, l'UNIQUE VICTIME DU TABAGISME, c'est le FUMEUR. Il le paie largement de sa santé, consacre à son tabac une part énorme de ses ressources, d'autant plus qu'il est moins fortuné. Non seulement il se sent coupable en allumant sa cigarette du matin, mais voilà qu'on l'accuse d'être l'assassin de son voisin et de ses proches. Cela poussera certes quelques uns à s'arrêter de fumer, mais la réaction normale de défense est le déni et la fuite derrière un écran de fumée. Or, la meilleure arme contre le tabagisme, c'est au contraire que le fumeur abandonne sa cigarette. Le médecin, l'infirmière, le politique devraient être du côté de la victime, pour l'aider à trouver les voies de s'en sortir. La BARBARIE, c'est de prendre le parti de l'enfoncer..

Pr Robert MOLIMARD

* GlobaLink est un site de l'Union Internationale Contre le Cancer, consacré à la lutte contre le tabagisme.

[1] Ramström L M, Foulds J Role of snus in initiation and cessation of tobacco smoking in Sweden. Tobacco Control 2006;15:210-214
[2] Falomir, J. M., Mugny, G. (2004) Société contre fumeur, Une analyse psychologique de l’influence des experts. Grenoble : Presses Universitaires de Grenoble
[3] Molimard R. Le rapport européen "Lifting the smokescreen: Etude épidémiologique, ou manipulation? Revue d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, (2008) 56 ;(°4): 286-90 (Cet article peut être consulté sur le site http://www.tabac-humain.com/, onglet "Altertabacologie"

THE TORONTO MIRACLE

The latest miracle from a series of miracles that occurred throughout the world in the last few years, comes to us from very close to home this time. Indeed, the epidemiologists of the latest anti-tobacco junk study found that in Toronto "Crude rates of admission to hospital because of cardiovascular conditions decreased by 39% (95% CI 38%–40%) and admissions because of respiratory conditions decreased by 33% (95% CI 32%–34%) during the ban period affecting restaurant settings. ‘’

These allegations clearly don’t fly with common sense and at least two scientists have already spoke out against the findings .

Dr. Samy Suissa, director of clinical epidemiology at the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, opined the findings in these terms: ‘’(…)to say that by having a smoking ban you've wiped out 40 per cent of the cardiovascular events, hospitalized cardiovascular events, is I think quite optimistic. (…) it is hard to believe banning smoking in restaurants led to a 17 per cent decline in heart attack rates across the entire population, regardless of whether they smoked or frequented restaurants. The best medications we have on the market are associated with a 10, 12, eight per cent decreases. But not 17 per cent. And these are directly in patients who are taking these medications carefully. (…)"The numbers don't add up. Scientifically they don't add up."

But the most extensive analysis on this study was again done by none other than Dr. Michael Siegel who has debunked every single one of these ‘’miracle’’ studies as they popped up.

Excerpts from Dr. Siegel’s thorough analysis that you can read on his blog entry: Study Attributes Fall in Cardiovascular Admissions in Toronto to Smoking Ban and Decrease in Secondhand Smoke Exposure, But Methods are Faulty

‘’ The rest of the story is that we have yet another study purporting to show a dramatic and immediate effect of smoking bans on acute cardiovascular event admissions which turns out to be severely flawed. In this case, the data presented in the paper (or at least in the appendix) not only fail to support the study conclusion, but they actually refute that conclusion. They also refute the findings themselves as presented in the paper.

(…) I believe the actual data is quite clear in showing that this study failed to accurately present the findings and therefore resulted in an unsupported and unjustified conclusion.’’

But as we have grown accustomed to expect from agenda driven tobacco control lobbyists, as long as the results justify anti-smoking policy and their own future funding, it doesn’t matter how we skew the findings to come to these results. Roberta Ferrence executive director of the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit at the University of Toronto and the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, hazards even as far as comparing it to another piece of junk science - the Bowling Green, Ohio ‘’miracle’’ - which has also been expertly debunked by Dr. Siegel. Clearly, grasping at straws takes its full meaning from these desperate anti-tobacco attempts to defend the indefensible.

Smoke-free restaurants may be keeping Torontonians out of hospital: Study

MONKEY SEE MONKEY DO

When there is no science to back anti-tobacco activists’ claims, generalizations should do the trick. At least this is what two critics of the second hand smoke hysteria are suggesting to the ban smoking in cars proponents.

It appears the researchers of a paper titled ‘’ Second-hand smoke in cars: How did the "23 times more toxic" myth turn into fact?’’ desperately attempted to find the scientific literature backing up the ‘’second hand smoke being 23 times more toxic in a car than in a smoker’s home‘’ claim, but found none. They traced the contention down to a U.S.A. newspaper article that anti-tobacco lobbyists as well as the government picked up and repeated ad nauseam since.

The Ontario Medical Association (OMA) stretched the science even further by claiming that it was 27 times more harmful! The monkey see monkey do mentality was also demonstrated through the Ontario Lung Association, the Canadian Cancer Society and who knows how many more such ‘’me too’’ organizations.

The researchers therefore suggest that any anti-tobacco activist pushing for smoking bans in cars should stop using this argument and use generalizations instead: ''Researchers and organizations should stop using the 23 times more toxic "fact" because of the lack of evidence in scientific literature, the authors suggest. Instead, advocates of the ban should just make sweeping generalizations about the risks of secondhand smoke exposure and mention children if possible. Something like, "exposure to second-hand smoke in cars poses a significant health risk and...vulnerable children who cannot remove themselves from this smoky environment must be protected," would be a good substitute for the bogus statistic.''

As long as we are made to believe that ''it's for the children'' who needs science?

Researchers Criticize Secondhand Smoke Hype