YOU CAN RUN BUT YOU CANNOT HIDE

As much as they would like everyone to believe that ‘’the debate is over’’ and the only entity fighting against tobacco control activity is the tobacco industry itself, many members of the public, a swarm, as blogger Frank Davis described them in one of his recent blogposts, smokers and nons alike are regularly exposing the shenanigans and the shoddy science behind anti-smoking and demand answers from the professional anti-smokers who very seldom make themselves available to the public. If the journalists won’t challenge even their more absurd studies and contentions, somebody has to do it. Ordinary citizens have taken the task into their own hands.

One of the few exceptions to their rule of deafening silence was a facebook group they created to plead their case and gain sympathy on a FOI request from Philip Morris pertaining to the underlying data Stirling University anti-tobacco researchers have collected for a study on young people and smoking. A study that could lead to policy for mandatory plain packaging in the UK. The story has even reached the Canadian media. You can hear it here: Freedom of Information on Kids and Smoking


Because the opportunities to get to question these tobacco control activists and researchers are rare, a few ordinary citizens joined the facebook group that members of the Globalink community created, casted their vote on the poll available to all that asked whether or not one agreed with the university’s stand of refusing to produce the data to Philip Morris regardless of the FOI Act regulations, and engaged in a civil discussion with anti-smoker activists willing to participate in the debate such as Simon Chapman well known Australian tobacco control activist and Rory Morrison from ASH Scotland, both members of Globalink. Not only  were they asked pointy questions, these ordinary citizens (including the writer of this blogpost) clearly and firmly expressed to them that they no longer had trust in the integrity of anti-smoker activists and studies and gave numerous examples of shoddy anti-tobacco science to prove their point.


Not only were the questions not answered, and no attempts to defend the shoddy/fraudulent science behind already published studies were offered, when the heat became too unbearable for this tobacco control community to take, they made the facebook group vanish with no trace of any of the discussions to be found anywhere.


Why? The answer is more than obvious. They had no answers or defense in the face of such public humiliation from ordinary citizens. They ran scared and hid behind private groups such as a newly created Globalink facebook goup that invites tobacco control activists to join upon invitation and/or approval.


‘’ Today, Simon Chapman and I are pleased to announce the launch of a new Facebook closed discussion group, information and strategy exchange site, the Global Tobacco Control Network.
By a “closed” Facebook group, we mean that all members need to be approved and all material posted to the group will not be visible to non‐members nor searchable by outsiders. ‘’


Such lack of transparency and willingness to debate when they are against informed opponents instead of complacent lazy journalists and politicians, is plenty proof that Philip Morris has legitimate reasons to doubt the integrity of the Stirling University researchers’ data, and therefore their FOI request should be respected and obeyed without any further delays. Moreover, it should be made mandatory that the underlying data of any and every publicly funded study that affects public policy, be open and available to everyone to examine. It has become more than obvious that the public cannot rely on neither politicians nor overworked and/or lazy journalists to examine the integrity of the anti-tobacco science before policy that affects numerous societies is enacted.


Let the tobacco control activists be warned: They can continue to try to hide behind anonymous posters planted in different newspaper and other forums, we have learnt to recognize their style and they will be constantly tracked down and asked the same types of questions and explanations as they were asked during this brief encounter between identified anti-tobacco and pro-truth activists. And this until they are forced to resign or become accountable, honest and human.


Some background to our story :


Globalink is a network for international tobacco control activists making use of the internet to communicate ideas and strategies against the use of tobacco. It is part of the Global Control Movement lead by the American Cancer Society and the UICC. Although Globalink don't declare in their webiste that Big Pharma is funding them, here's what we can read in bold on page 34 of the Strategy Planning for Tobacco Control Movement Building at http://www.paho.org/English/AD/SDE/RA/Guide2_MovementBuilding.pdf


Links to Drug Companies That Have Funded Tobacco Control Action


GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)


Pharmacia Corporation (now owned by Pfizer)


In a June/11 blog posting, Dr. Michael Siegel exposed how the groupthink mentality runs rampant in the globalink network. A few excerpts from his blogpost :


‘’It (Globalink) is a mechanism for preventing critical discussion of research, science, and policy issues in tobacco control. It serves to stifle thoughtful discussion of ideas, suppresses dissenting opinions, and plays out as a forum for malicious individual attacks against researchers, advocates, or citizens who dare to go against the mainstream opinions within the tobacco control movement.’’


Another former Globalink member – Dr. Kamal Chaouachi – had this to say:


‘’I was banished (from Globalink) several times and eventually expelled once and for all. Over the years, I have also been amazed by the extent of endorsed intolerance. For instance, there have been, believe it or not, “debates” on whether it is ethical or not to give a last cigarette to a person confined to bed and doomed to death… Then, one discovers the pharmaceutical industry connections (Pfizer in particular)(WCTOH, 2009 ; Mesbah 2009) and how Globalink’s policy has been drawn with “a velvet glove” pulled on an iron fist named Simon Chapman, ex Editor in Chief of the world famous antismoking Tobacco Control Journal’’.

THE TRUTH LIKE A DELICIOUS CREAM ALWAYS RISES TO THE TOP – Kevin Mulvina

Listen to Pam Parker from Opponents of Ohio Bans expose the manipulations of the anti-smoking data on
700WLW
Read more about it here:
Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association Asking for Ohio Department of Health Director Wymyslo's Resignation

and here:
The Ohio Miracle: How Statistics Can Be Used to Create an Effect that Isn't There



From Huffington Post – The ''Heart Attack Miracles'' debunked yet again.
Smoking Bans Have No Connection To Heart Attack Rates: Studies

The tavern owners, fraternal organizations and tobacco shops in Delaware are legally challenging some of the long-standing assumptions" about the dangers of second-hand smoke and argue that public health does not get a boost from a smoking ban.
Arguments ready for smoking ban lawsuit

Anti-tobacco researchers of Stirling University in the UK are defying the FOI act on flimsy reasons. What have they got to hide?
Tobacco wars: University of Stirling vs. Phillip Morris Interntional


Canadian tobacco control prostitute themselves to pharmaceutical interests (again):
Canadian National Conference on Tobacco or Health Throws Scientific Integrity Out the Window; Accepts Major Sponsorship from Pfizer


In Canada, graphic warnings that are about to be renewed at the cost of millions of dollars from taxpayers have not decreased smoking prevalence, in fact they increased it.
FDA Analysis Shows that Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels Increased Cigarette Smoking in Canada from 2001-2008

LE RETOUR DE LA POUTINE ET DES BOISSONS GAZEUSES DANS LES ARÉNAS DE LA VILLE DE QUÉBEC

Suite à une diminution de 30% du chiffre d'affaires des exploiteurs de restauration dans les arénas, la Ville de Québec se voit contrainte de s'avouer défaite dans sa décision d'imposer la bonne nutrition aux jeunes et moins jeunes qui fréquentent les arénas et de faire marche arrière. En effet, depuis l'interdiction de la malbouffe dans les arénas, au lieu de se contenter de ce que les restaurateurs sur place servaient, bon nombre de joueurs et leurs parents apportaient leur propre choix de bouffe qu'ils achetaient ailleurs. La morale de cette histoire? Comme on le dit depuis longtemps, les bonnes habitudes de vie ne s'acquièrent pas par la force. On les adopte petit à petit à travers l'éducation – le seul rôle que l'état doit assumer – l'indulgence et les encouragements positifs de l'entourage proche et aimant. Dire à un jeune qu'il n'a pas le droit de manger une poutine à l'aréna car la loi ne lui permet pas est non seulement un incitatif pour le jeune de faire tout à fait le contraire, mais aussi une absurdité lorsqu'il sait qu'il peut se la procurer ailleurs. Il ne faut jamais sous-estimer la soif de l'individu d'être maître de ses décisions bonnes et moins bonnes et son désir de ne faire qu'à sa tête lorsqu'on tente de lui imposer une façon de vivre malgré sa volonté. Croire le contraire est un gaspillage de ressources humaines et financières. Ressources qui seraient beaucoup plus profitables si elles étaient consacrées à des programmes d'éducation et de sensibilisation. 

Le retour de la poutine à l'aréna

 

BRAVE NEW WORLD - HATCHERIES ANYONE?

The Daily Mail in the UK reports that four children will be taken away from their family risking to never see them again because they are fat and the parents failed to follow the health board’s ultimatum to bring their children’s weight under control.

If the article is accurate and truthful, how can such drastic measures possibly be justified? What good will it do the children if they can no longer see their parents? Not one word in that article about any of the children suffering illnesses because of their weight. According to the article, this decision seems to be based on weight alone. Irrelevant to the Health Department whether that extra weight makes the kids sick now, in the future or never. If the kids are healthy, why would the Health Department choose to cause severe psychological trauma to the children that they will undoubtedly carry all their lives, to perhaps save them from a future illness that might or might not happen? If not outright eugenics, this health board's decision frighteningly resembles it.

Some of the 1005 comments from the readers attempt to compare overweight with underweight and seem to suggest that nobody would have criticized the social workers if the kids were being starved to death by their parents. But there is no possible comparison. Starving a child qualifies as deliberate harm and abuse because it causes certain and immediate harm as opposed to obesity that might possibly cause harm if it persists for long periods of time. Comparing apples to apples, would it be justifiable for the health board to remove a child from his parents if the child was skinny yet he showed no signs of ill health? Not having the ideal weight is not a disease in itself, only a risk factor. If we were to remove children from their loving parents for every risk they take while their children are in their custody, the government would have more children under their care than they would possibly have the resources to handle. Brave New World hatcheries anyone?

The only encouraging sign about this story is that most commentators are outraged at the Health Department’s decision, as they should be.

Parents of seven told: Your children are too fat, so you will never see them again

TAKING MEANINGFUL ACTIONS

We are often asked what a person as an individual can do against the constant government and ‘’busy body’’ intrusion and bullying in their life.  We always come back with the same answer:  The best way to counter this ever increasing meddling in our private lives is to consistently fight for one’s beliefs and convictions, to express it loudly and clearly and to never surrender to bullying and disrespectful attitudes from both government and other citizens.  Joining and backing civil rights organizations has merit because the bigger the membership of groups such as ours the more of a menace our movement becomes, but unless one is willing to also fight this on a personal level, bringing balance and civility back to our society will be a lengthy painful process

When it comes to smoking, with the blessing and encouragement of our elected officials and unelected lobby groups, some fellow citizens are finding it perfectly acceptable to insult, denigrate, harass and bully people who smoke.  One such citizen and her employer has been shown a lesson in civility.  Indeed, Michelle Gervais from our sister organization Citizens for Civil Liberties in Ontario, had an unfortunate experience when checking in at the Bells Point Beach camping grounds in Sault Ste-Marie.  Contrary to some people, instead of becoming apologetic for being a smoker, she did exactly what everyone who is being harassed in similar ways should be doing.  The following self explanatory correspondence between Mrs. Gervais and the Bells Point Beach employee illustrates that meaningful actions such as the one Mrs. Gervais has taken can and will eventually bring back courteousness and respect.

 

To:  info@bellspointbeach.com

Bell's Point Camp Grounds

158 Highway 17 East

Garden River First Nation, Ontario

P6A 6Z3

Phone: 705-759-1561

Fax: 705-759-9084

Toll Free: 1-866-292-9902

Good day

I am the lady who had a reservation for 8 people last Thursday.  Upon our arrival, we were immediately greeted by a lady who threatened to call the police because we were smoking in our cars with our kids.

Ultimately I chose to leave the camp site rather than be harassed by a neurotic zealot during my vacation.

Please be advised that this incident, as well as your campsite location will be advertized on pro-choice websites across the world (Cage Canada, Citizen's for Civil Liberties, Freedom to Choose, Smoker's Club) in order to warn smoker's not to attempt to stay at your campsite.

Smoker's do not go on vacation in order to have other people tell them how to raise their children (I presume even non-smoker's don't go on vacation for that reason either).

I find it laughable that people at this park were so concerned about smoking in cars with kids but are willing to make a profit selling firewood that will be burned and envelop children in smoker.  Please feel free to google the chemical constituents of wood smoke and compare it with the smoke created by burning a handful of dried leaves.

I also find it laughable that you are so willing to "enforce" Ontario law in regards to smoking but still have your dog running loose without a leash or a muzzle and sell fireworks.

I wish you no harm but smoker's should know that you somehow feel qualified to tell them how to raise their children.  Even smoker's deserve to live free of harassment.  By advertising this incident, you will have the pleasure of operating a smoke-free campsite, as that is obviously your choice, and smoker's are free to choose to stay at a campsite where the operate behaves in a civilized manner and does not attempt to raise the children of their camper's.

Yours truly

Michelle Gervais, Director
Citizen's for Civil Liberties

From:  info@bellspointbeach.com 

Mrs. Gervais, you are absoultly right, I am deeply sorry for my behavior,
I have no right or excuse only regret, please be assured that I have
learned a valuble lesson on respect and how NOT to conduct my self from
both my employer and you, again I am very sorry. This is not how Bells
Point Beach conducts buisness.


Good day

OBESITY IS NOT A DISEASE

You’d think that these Canadian studies (article linked below) will finally put to rest the notion that obesity is a disease?  Doubtful.  There is simply too much money involved in the anti-obesity industry to so easily let go of the propaganda that being obese automatically makes one unhealthy.  

Of special interest was the remark from the researchers to the effect that employability and the discrimination that the overweight people face from society are also important in making decisions about obesity treatments.  In light of this, wouldn’t it be much more beneficial for everyone if public health focused its efforts and our tax money towards campaigns aimed at ceasing these discriminatory practices rather than inciting the exact opposite through their anti-obesity fear mongering propaganda?   

We dare hope that this study will motivate more medical professionals to look at the individual on a more personal level rather than basing their advice on the public health’s computer calculated statistical probabilities.  

Fat notnecessarily fatal, new studies find

UNE QUESTION DE VIE OU DE MORT

Est-ce que l’état a le droit de priver ses citoyens de leur seul moyen de défense contre des tireurs fous comme ceux des massacres de la Norvège, du Collège Dawson, de l’Université Concordia ou de l’École Polytechnique entre autres? 

Qu’est-ce que tous ces massacres ont en commun?  Et si seulement une des personnes sur place lors de ces carnages portait une arme, est-ce que ces assassins déséquilibrés auraient fait tant de victimes?  

L’article de Shawn L. Mac Farlane dans le blogue du Québécois Libre nous permet de faire une sérieuse réflexion sur les vrais coupables de ces tueries sanglantes. 

Le vrai tueur de Norvège: le contrôle des armes à feu