CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT ENCROACHMENT CITOYENS ANTI GOUVERNEMENT ENVAHISSANT

LES PRODUITS NICOTINIQUES INEFFICACES

2012-01-17T06:13:00.000-05:00

Malgré qu’elle n’est pas la première étude qui trouve que les substituts nicotiniques n’ont pas plus d’efficacité que du placebo pour arrêter de fumer, les résultats d’une étude récente de Harvard a eu l’effet d’une bombe dans le milieu anti-tabac et pharmaceutique. Comment est-ce que Harvard, en l’occurrence le co-auteur Greg Connolly, un anti-tabagiste notoire, a pu publier une telle étude qui remet en question tout le dogme de la dépendance à la nicotine et qui peut compromettre de décennies de recherches et des politiques sur le tabac?

Pour notre part nous nous demandons plutôt pourquoi qu’il a attendu six ans après la fin de l’étude pour la publier. En effet, son étude a été complétée en 2006 et a été rendue publique en 2012. Six ans et beaucoup d’argent dépensé sur des produits inefficaces ont écoulé depuis, pourquoi?

La réponse se trouve peut-être dans le fait que Connolly a donné sa démission auprès du FDA en tant que conseiller scientifique au tabac à la fin de l’année 2010 pour des raisons pas trop clairement exprimées mais qui laissent entendre qu’il avait des différents avec certaines opinions et politiques du FDA et qu’il considérait que son ouvrage était susceptible d’avoir plus de valeur de l’extérieur plutôt que de l’intérieur de cette organisation . Lire FDA loses two top members . Cela en dit long sur les politiques du FDA et la liberté des scientifiques de s’exprimer ouvertement.

Si les produits nicotiniques sont inefficaces et plusieurs études avant celle-ci le confirment aussi, nous revenons à ce que le Pr. Molimard dit depuis longtemps – la nicotine seule n’est pas la substance qui rend les fumeurs dépendants. Il a par ailleurs publié un autre article à cet effet en réaction à cette étude que nous vous invitons à lire à : Patches et gommes à la nicotine ne servent à rien

Voici l’étude (en anglais) de Harvard : A prospective cohort study challenging the effectiveness of population-based medical intervention for smoking cessation

OUR SISTERS AND BROTHERS

2012-01-15T10:59:00.001-05:00

Following my last post on the issue of hospital smoking bans, let’s contrast the opinion of a retired Irish doctor with the opinion of some of the more callous professionals who blinded by their personal ambitions, zeal and biases, have forgotten what the ‘’first do no harm’’ Hippocratic oath stands for:

Excerpts from: Clampdown on hospital smoking

‘’ I have looked in dismay at the degradation heaped on smokers in our hospitals in recent years. Forced to huddle under an outdoor lean-to roof for a drag on a desperately needed cigarette, often with intravenous drips in their arms and frequently wearing only pyjamas and a dressing gown on a cold, wet day, now even this solace is to be denied to them.

Lepers in the dark ages received greater care and more love than our enlightened age allows to the poor, old, ill smoker.

If Minister for Health Dr James Reilly is worth his salt, he will overturn this appalling ruling immediately. Indeed he will go further and require hospitals to provide safe, warm and properly ventilated indoor smoking rooms for those sufferers who need them.

After all, even smokers are still our sisters and brothers.’’

COMPASSION FOR FELLOW CITIZENS AND PASSION FOR TRUTH AND CLARITY ARE COMPETING INTERESTS ACCORDING TO THE CMAJ

2012-01-14T00:36:00.002-05:00

****** After publishing this post, it was brought to my attention by a reader that my first letter is posted but under a different URL at http://www.cmaj.ca/content/183/18/E1334/reply . I don’t quite understand why that is, but different URL’s show different letters. Sometimes mine appears, sometimes it doesn’t. I think apologies to the CMAJ are in order as far as the first letter goes but I still don’t understand how intellectual passion can be viewed as a competing interest so I will leave my post up. ********

Please note that I have been having a lot of problems getting my links to work in these posts lately. If any link doesn't work for you, please copy paste it in a new browser. Thank you.

There has been a lot of talk in the last few months about unintended consequences of smoking bans and how they may actually be hurting the more vulnerable members of society.

In November The Winnipeg Free Press reported the case of a 54-year old woman who found herself locked out of the hospital when she exited to smoke and was a victim of severe frost bite. Four fingers on her right hand had to be amputated. She was left with limited mobility in her left hand. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/hospital-smoking-bans-endanger-patients-study-132980933.html

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association reacted to this tragic story by inviting citizens to express their views on hospital smoking bans. http://www.ccla.org/rightswatch/2011/11/01/do-hospital-smoking-bans-put-addicted-patients-in-danger/comment-page-1/#comment-28655

The CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) published an article highlighting that hospitalized smokers require more assistance with compliance and nicotine withdrawal symptoms. http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2011/10/31/cmaj.110235.full.pdf+html

There were a few responses to this article. One was from Dr. Stuart H. Kreisman, endocrinologist at St. Paul's Hospital who opined that ‘’ The distinction between smoking (which is just a habit) and nicotine (which is the addictive drug) becomes blurred at several points in this article and the responses to it. (…) Viewing smoking as addictive, which most of the population superficially does, plays directly into the hands of "smokers' rights" advocates and their claims that smoking bans (be it in hospitals or elsewhere) are discriminatory. Remembering that the actual addiction is to nicotine leads directly to realizing that there are many other forms in which nicotine can be delivered (even if less gratifying) without exposing others.’’ Read complete comment at http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2011/10/31/cmaj.110235/reply#cmaj_el_674876

To this, I, Iro Cyr, the writer of this blogpost, replied under my personal name with the following comment:

Conscientious professionals must stop perpetuating the ''nicotine addiction'' theory

It is unfortunate and even a tragedy that so many, if not most, health professionals bought into nicotine being the only substance responsible for addiction in people who smoke. Unbiased studies have consistently shown that NRT has a 93 - 98% long term failure rate to help people stop smoking. Already this should be ringing loud bells. Isn't it time that the medical community who would like us to believe that they care for people, started exploring different avenues that will lead them to understand what motivates a person to continue smoking? How many more years and unnecessary suffering will it take before serious and conscientious professionals stop perpetuating the ''nicotine addiction'' theory and started looking at the issue with an honest critical mind?

In the wise words of Pr. Robert Molimard who spent most of his career analyzing tobacco and helping smokers quit '' The big fraud in the tobacco issue was none other than the publication of the 1988 Surgeon General Report entitled "Nicotine Addiction''. This fraud is incomprehensible unless one sees the link with the launch of the nicotine gum. The major premise of the Report seems to be a syllogism that states: "Tobacco products cause a powerful addiction'' The minor premise is: "Tobacco contains a neurotropic poison - nicotine''. Hence follows the conclusion: "Therefore nicotine is responsible for the addictiveness of tobacco''. But there is no evidence that allows us to draw such a conclusion. A host of other assumptions are possible, and there are even major arguments to oppose it, such as the fact that no cases of nicotine dependence have ever been documented when this substance was used in isolation (...) This duplicity is more than amazing when you consider how common it is for addicts to experiment with the purified extracts of their plants of choice. Since no formal evidence of dependence to pure nicotine has yet to be produced, the conclusion that nicotine alone is addictive is not a syllogism, but rather, pure sophistry. And yet, against all scientific rigor, this fallacy was implanted through repetition, hammered in as an unassailable truth, all with the support of health authorities and politicians (...) '' End of citation. Read English translation of the French original at:
http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2010/12/beliefs-manipulation-and-lies-in.html

But let's pretend that we agree that smoking is a habit and that addiction is caused by nicotine alone, does the medical profession truly believe that an already stressful hospital stay is the right time to break one of their lifetime habits whether ones wants to or not, causing additional suffering and stress? And being quasi-prisoners of the healthcare establishment, wouldn't insisting on medicating someone with NRT to alleviate them of their withdrawal symptoms caused by their inability to smoke, be considered a form of forced medication? Isn't it comparable to deliberately causing unnecessary physical pain to someone and later insisting that they take pain relievers to make it all better? Only dogmatic ideology bordering sadism justifies entertaining such beliefs.

The CMAJ published my comment and left it posted for a few days but then I received a letter from them as follows :

Good afternoon Ms. Cyr:

Thank you for your recent eLetter to CMAJ, which was posted on our website (www.cmaj.ca) Dec. 5 in response to the article “A qualitative investigation of smoke-free policies on hospital property.” It has since been brought to my attention that your affiliation with CAGE, a competing interest, was not disclosed in your letter. Could you please comment on that?
Many thanks,
Leesa D. Sullivan
Managing Editor, CMAJ

To which I promptly replied the following:

Hello Ms. Sullivan,

Thank you for checking with me about this. Perhaps you are relying upon a definition of “conflict of interest” that I am unaware of? I don't understand how being an unpaid volunteer for a 100% non-profit grassroots organization that is comprised of ordinary citizens would be a “competing interest.” I am neither a remunerated activist nor a registered lobbyist. Sometimes I sign under my own name, sometimes I sign as vice-president of CAGE (I hope you can see clearly that if I had the intention of hiding my affiliation with CAGE, I would not have used my real name in my submission to your publication).

In any case, I am not paid to do what I do. Are volunteers for groups concerned with patients rights, the Canadian Civil Liberties Union, or similar organizations considered to have “competing interests”? If you could make clear your working definition of “conflict of interest” and “competing interest,” I will be happy to provide you with any additional information to help you determine if such concerns apply in my case.
With thanks,
Iro Cyr

After a couple of days of not getting a reply I attempted to post the following comment, again under my personal name.

Following my last comment, a very timely article appeared (that I translated with Pr. Robert Molimard's kind permission) on how and why Karl Fagerstrom has now changed his famous dependence to nicotine test to become a dependence to cigarettes test. You can read it here :
http://cagecanada.homestead.com/fagerstromfindshiswaytodamascus.html
Dr.Fagerstrom's article that Pr. Molimard refers to can be found here: http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/10/20/ntr.ntr137.extract

It all makes sense when one considers what pushed the nicotine addiction theory to become dogma.

Closer to home, ''The Ottawa Model'' is a program implemented in hospitals that seizes the opportunity hospitalization provides, to get as many smokers as possible to quit. The program they offer is strongly focused on pharmacological therapy including nicotine replacement and bupropion and varenicline. When one reads the conflicts of interest of those who promote ''The Ottawa Model'' is it really surprising that they offer pharmacotherapy to supposedly alleviate the symptoms of those patients who have clearly expressed that they don't wish to stop smoking? Wouldn't a sheltered warm designated area be more respectful of these patients' wishes? Apart from conflicts of interest that may arise from '' research support, speaking fees, and honoraria from Pfizer'' to at least two of the promoting medical professionals of this program, Pfizer has financed the Smoking Cessation Rounds Publication that describes the program. http://www.smokingcessationrounds.ca/crus/screng0507.pdf

Note: It has been brought to my attention that I should be declaring my affiliation to C.A.G.E. a 100% Canadian grassroots group that is comprised of a 100% ordinary citizen membership. I do not get paid either directly or indirectly for expressing my own opinion or C.A.G.E.'s point of view. (I am the president of a private company totally unrelated to health, tobacco, pharmaceuticals or anything remotely related to health). Neither I nor C.A.G.E. are registered lobbyists. C.A.G.E. receives no funding from anyone with any competing interests and gets by on tiny donations from its members to cover some of the costs of maintaining its websites, stamps, stationary etc. I am above all a concerned citizen and it is because of my personal deep concern towards the sick, the elderly and the psychiatric patients that I expressed myself in this forum.

I understand that a number of interested parties have made complaints or accusations against me, but these are usually done covertly, in secret and without my having an opportunity to respond. Should you receive any such accusations, I would request that you accord me the basic courtesy of disregarding any statements to which I am not made a party and to which I have not had an opportunity to respond.

The CMAJ editor replied with this comment:

Thank you for the following eLetter to CMAJ and your email of Dec. 7. I
want to clarify what is meant by competing interests from the point of
view of the journal. It is not just about a monetary association.

For the purposes of the journal, the International Committee of Medical
Journal Editors has defined competing interests as:

"Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author's institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions
(such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties). These relationships vary from those with negligible potential to those with great potential to influence
judgment, and not all relationships represent true conflict of interest. The potential for conflict of interest can exist whether or not an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific
judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion."

You are an author (given that you have submitted and have had a letter posted online at cmaj.ca) and therefore should have mentioned your affiliation for the benefit of our readers.

We ask that you declare your involvement in CAGE as a potential competing interest. If you agree to cite this information as we suggest, then perhaps you'll want to revise the final two paragraphs in the
letter below before we consider it for online publication.

With thanks

To which I replied :

Thank you for your explanation of your working definition of "competing interests." I suppose your journal believes that CAGE represents a "competing interest" as a result of "intellectual passion," since I don't see any other way it could be constructed as a competing interest. In this case, the "intellectual passion" comes from a commitment against coercive forms of health promotion. I personally do not feel that such adherence to basic liberal principles represents a competing interest (and I would ask you to apply the same standard as you do to other authors and organizations), but I defer to your judgement on the matter given that this is your journal. If you prefer, I can sign as Iro Cyr, Vice-President, C.A.G.E. but I will not declare any competing interests because that would
neither be true nor fair.   I have less of a competing interest than Mr. Povah from the anti-smoking group Airspace Action on Smoking and Health, who did not declare any competing interest when he submitted his letter to you.

If you agree with this I can revise my letter taking off the two last paragraphs and resubmitting it under Vice-President of C.A.G.E.. Would you like me to resubmit it through an e-mail form or through the comment section of your website?

Thank you very much.

Evidently that wasn’t good enough because she replied :

I have added an editor's note to your first letter, stating your affiliation, and reposted the letter it this morning.

I have spoken at length with our senior editors about your latest email. We will consider posting your second letter, but only if you declare your affiliation with CAGE as a competing interest, according to the definition I sent you previously. If you agree, then yes, please resubmit your revised letter (with the deleted two paragraphs, as discussed) through the CMAJ eLetters process.

Many thanks for your patience

She never reposted my first letter that she had taken down although she said she would. And because I refuse to declare a competing interest that I absolutely don’t consider I have, she never posted the second either. ****please see note on top of this page****

If the CMAJ considers intellectual passion a competing interest, why are the letters from the following two entities still up with undeclared competing interests?

Dr. Stuart H. Kreisman has been instrumental in instituting smoking bans in parks and beaches in Vancouver and is now actively promoting multi unit housing bans.

Errol Povah, President of Airspace Action on Smoking and Health B.C., as it appears on their web site:   ''Canada's Sworn Enemies of the Tobacco Industry’’ ****Mr. Povah's letter no longer appears on the URL mentionned on top of this page****

In conclusion, it appears that concern and compassion for fellow humans is considered a "competing interest" according to an association that purports to care for the health and well being of the people. The CMAJ will not tolerate our efforts to state documented facts that may help hospitalized patients for the sole reason that these facts contradict the accepted dogma of The Canadian Medical Association. Being a member of any organization that questions the established medical and scientific dogma is a competing interest according to them. How reasonable is that? I call it tyranny of the medical establishment. I have no stakes whatsoever in this issue except for a deep concern for the truth. If working hard for the purpose of truth and clarity is considered a competing interest by the CMAJ who will apply a double standard depending on who the authors are, then I am now certain that the medical establishment is suffering from its own form of competing interests bias.

SMOKING BANS: KILLING OUR JOBS, OUR HEALTH, AND OUR FREEDOM

2012-01-12T13:26:00.001-05:00

A must listen audio explaining what is going on with the smoking ban issue. Please spread it far and wide.

LORSQU’ON COMPARE DES POMMES AVEC DES POIRES !

2012-01-11T23:46:00.000-05:00

Voici une étude qui arrive à la conclusion que fumer occasionnellement un joint de marijuana ne causerait pas de dommages aux poumons. Tout à fait plausible comme conclusion.

Mais pourquoi fallait-il qu’on ajoute à la conclusion que ‘’la marijuana n'a pas semblé affecter la fonction pulmonaire, contrairement au tabac’’ lorsque 83% de sujets étudiés fumaient en moyenne 9 cigarettes par jour et seulement 1 joint de marijuana par semaine ? Comment peut-on oser prendre le monde pour des idiots à ce point ? C’est comme dire qu’une pomme par semaine apporte beaucoup moins de calories que 9 poires par jour ! Vous m’en direz tant ! Y-a-t’il une limite au ridicule lorsqu’il s’agit de propagande contre le tabac?

La marijuana ne causerait pas de dommages aux poumons?

CHEX-TV WON’T HEAR THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY UNLESS THERE IS A ‘’HERE AND NOW’’ VICTIM

2012-01-09T13:32:00.009-05:00

On December 12^th we reported about CHEX-TV and how they not only repeated verbatim a press release from the Smoke-Free Housing Ontario but they left the impression that the video footage was their own when in fact it was more or less an ''infomercial'' from Smoke-Free Housing. Read it here: CHEX-TV CONTRIBUTES TO MAKING SMOKERS HOMELESS

We stated that we intended to file a complaint about biased reporting with the CBC Ombudsman since CHEX-TV is a CBC affiliate therefore a public broadcaster. We did file the complaint with the CBC but they advised us that CHEX-TV is private and only some segments of the news are shared with the CBC. Following the ombudsman’s advice, we filed the complaint with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, the entity that rules over private stations.

Following is the self-explanatory correspondence that we exchanged with Mr. Michael Harris, General Manager of CHEX-TV to who the CBSC referred us to begin our complaint process.

We are happy we were able to obtain that CHEX-TV from now on specifically identifies third party video footage as not being their own, but very disappointed with Mr. Harris’ refusal to let the public hear the other side of the story. It is obvious to us that CHEX-TV and more particularly Mr. Harris either doesn’t believe that all science (including the Surgeon General’s) is open to constructive criticism or for reasons known only to him, he refuses to make public any dissent to the mainstream scientific consensus.

December 13, 2011

To: complaints@cbsc.ca

Sir/Madam,

On December 8, 2011 CHEX-TV in Peterborough, presented a news segment on Smoke-Free Housing that still appears on their website at this address
http://www.chextv.com/news/ln/11-12-08/Smoke_Free_Housing.aspx

Anyone watching this news segment can mistakenly confuse it with investigative journalism, where the reporter has done careful research, interviews and has more or less verified her ''facts''. The segment is presented in the style of an investigative journalism story.

Unfortunately this news segment can be qualified as nothing more than an infomercial, with the reporter repeating almost verbatim what the lobby group Smoke-Free Housing supplied to the media in their newswire that you can read at this address:
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/892061/80-of-people-living-in-apartments-condos-and-co-ops-want-to-live-smoke-free

Not only did the CHEX-TV reporter not do any research to verify any of the advocacy group's contentions, but she used segments of the pre-recorded videos and b-rolls that were supplied with the press release, leaving listeners with the impression that it was the reporter herself that had done the collecting of information and interviews.

A minimum of professional research from the reporter would have revealed that the IPSOS opinion poll survey results to which the advocacy group refers do not in fact demonstrate that people are actively seeking smoke-free apartments but can't find any. For example, the question that was asked of 810 Ontarians in 2011 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?''

People answering this question may well have assumed that in-doors refers to the hallway, the laundry room, the stairway, the indoor pool, anywhere but people's private apartments. Had the survey clearly asked ''Do you agree that people should be forbidden from smoking in their own apartments?'', the advocacy group and the reporter might have been in a better position to make their claims.

Had she done further research she would have discovered that the Canadian Cancer Society, which paid for the IPSOS poll, is an integral part of the Smoke-Free Housing lobby group. The group has a clear, unambiguous agenda of "back-door" prohibition of smoking in every context possible. Shouldn't this conflict of interest have been at least mentioned in the "news story"?

Pushing for smoke-free MUDs (multi-unit dwellings) is a very serious issue that does not only violate one's privacy but can eventually result in increasing homelessness amongst the poorest, most vulnerable segments of the population, people who can't afford single family homes. Poor people who violate new private dwelling smoking bans may get evicted and have difficulty finding new accommodations. Is it not the reporter's responsibility to have investigated such a contentious issue further instead of just repeating the press release verbatim and using videos that the Smoke-Free Housing lobby group pre-recorded and handed to the media on a silver platter?   Would it not have been relevant to at least seek to hear the other side of the story and perhaps examine some scientific literature supporting the advocacy group's statements? We certainly feel that it is
.
For these reasons we are by the present lodging an official complaint against CHEX-TV and the reporter, Pamela Vanmeer, for unprofessional and biased journalism. CHEX-TV might show some good intent by now giving equal air time to a point of view diametrically opposed to that of Pippa Beck and her "Smoke-Free Housing" lobby group. We would be happy to offer our assistance in this.

Yours Truly,

Iro Cyr – Vice-President
C.A.G.E.

------------------------------------------------------

December 16, 2011

From: Solange Courteau
- CBSC

Dear Mrs. Cyr,

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) has received your correspondence concerning a report about smoke-free housing on Newswatch broadcast on CHEX-TV on December 8, 2011. First of all, I apologize for having addressed you as Mr. in my previous letter.

By copy of this letter, we are asking CHEX-TV to respond to the concerns you have raised and to hold a copy of the logger tape of the broadcast which concerned you. This is always the first step taken by the CBSC in pursuing a complaint. Broadcasters who are members of the CBSC take their responsibility to respond to audience concerns very seriously and the dialogue between broadcasters and members of their audience is a cornerstone of the CBSC's complaints resolution process. In fact, concerns are often resolved satisfactorily for all parties through this dialogue phase. We hope that the response you will receive from CHEX-TV within the next 21 days will resolve the issues you have raised to your satisfaction.

If, however, after you have received and carefully considered the broadcaster's response you remain concerned, you may request a Ruling by a CBSC Panel by filing the form available on our web site at http://www.cbsc.ca/english/complaint/rulingrequest.php You should do so within 14 days of receiving the broadcaster's response. More information on the CBSC complaints process is available on our web site in the FAQ section ( http://www.cbsc.ca/english/faqs/index.php ).

If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me and I will be glad to be of service.

Sincerely,

Mrs. Solange Courteau
Communications Coordinator
Canadian Broadcast Standards Council

----------------------------------------------------------

December 20, 2011

From: Michael Harris – CHEX-TV

Dear Ms Iro Cyr,

Thank you for taking the trouble to share your concerns about CHEX TV's coverage of Smoke-Free Housing with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC). The CBSC has passed your complaint along to CHEX TV for our response.

Part of your concern seems to centre around the belief that we at CHEX TV were somehow disguising our regular coverage of a story as "investigative journalism". By "investigative journalism", I presume you mean the kind of coverage CBC's the fifth estate or CTV's W5 occasionally mount, with producers, on-air reporters and researchers checking and uncovering facets of a story over a period of weeks or months before presenting a finished piece. I wish we had the resources to do that. In fact, if you had the opportunity to view our newscast on a regular basis, you would soon realize that we have no producers or researchers, and that our reporters often cover three stories a day. I'm not sure what it was about our report that made it look like "investigative journalism", but it wasn't our intention to deceive anyone about the amount of work that went into the story. It was completed by one person over the course of several hours in one day. To the extent that your characterization of our piece as "investigative journalism" puts our local news in the same category at W5 or the fifth estate, we are flattered that we have attained a level of professional presentation that allows us to be grouped with them. Certainly we did nothing, either implicitly or explicitly, to indicate that the piece was the result of extensive in-house research.

Another part of your concern seems to centre around our use of CNW copy and video. CNW distributes press releases and press kits to newsrooms across Canada on a daily basis. Many organizations have recognized that offering enhanced press releases to television newsrooms through agencies like CNW increases the probability that their client's story will get wide circulation. CNW makes available packages of quotes, research, photographs, and, often, video footage and interviews to help reporters construct stories, and ultimately to make it more likely that the CNW releases will get picked up by media outlets. Here is a brief description of CNW taken from Wikipedia:

CNW Group (CNW) is a commercial news release service established in 1960 and jointly owned by PR Newswire and The Press Association. CNW distributes media materials on behalf of a variety of customers such as companies, governments, non-profit agencies and other establishments.

CNW distributes informational and promotional items for media outlets in a variety of formats such as press releases, photographs, corporate webcasts and B-Roll video footage.

Every newsroom received dozens of such releases each week. It is a fact of life in the contemporary television newsroom. We receive many of our news story leads from agencies like CNW. We understand CNW's business, and the responsibilities involved in taking information from third party sources. Much of our news information every day comes from wires services, police stations, CBC reporters, and other third party providers. Part of the job of the newsroom is to evaluate the information in terms of its accuracy and relevance to our audience. That evaluation is not always based on recreating the story from scratch, but on judging the credibility of the source and the data presented.

It was through CNW that we received news of the Smoke-Free Housing study by the Canadian Cancer society, along with related footage and comments both from the resident who was forced to move because of smoke in her home environment, and from the head of Smoke Free Housing Ontario. We were intrigued by this CNW release primarily because the subject of the piece, the woman whose health was affected by living in housing that was not smoke-free, was from Peterborough. Our reporter went out to interview a local expert from the Peterborough County City Health Unit about the story, an expert who is often used in our coverage at CHEX TV.   She agreed with the general tenor of the press release, that people should have a right, if they want, to live in a space that is free from any danger of second-hand smoke. And she contributed the local information, included in the piece, that there were 15 smoke-free social housing institutions in Peterborough, and hundreds more multiple dwelling units that had enacted some form of limitation on smoking.

I know it is not relevant to your complaint, or to the CBSC deliberations, but our reporter did spend time both on George St. in Peterborough and at the Peterborough Regional Health Centre at the exit where employees and patients go for smoke breaks, asking smokers for their opinion about smoke-free housing. But, to a person, they refused to comment, some saying they already felt shunned as smokers and didn't want to make their habit more public. I wish our reporter had included a line in her story saying that she had asked several smokers for their comments about smoke-free multi unit dwellings, but none was prepared to offer an opinion. Such a reference would have made it clear that we did put effort into finding other points of view.

With regard to the finished piece, which was a mixture of material, some provided by CNW and some gathered by our reporter, I can understand that viewers, as you suggest, might have the impression that the reporter had done all the collecting of information and interviews. It would have been better had the CNW-supplied footage been identified with an on-screen super to clarify that that part of the story came from a third party. We have now instituted a policy to identify all third party handout video material used in our newscast to eliminate any such misapprehension in the future.

You also complain that the Ipsos Reid question about whether people think smoking should not be allowed indoors in multi-unit buildings was ambiguous.   I enclose the relevant questions and results from the Ipsos Reid 2010 online survey for Smoke-Free Housing Ontario, and the Ipsos Reid 2011 online survey for the Canadian Cancer Society as released by CNW. The questions probe the preferences of the subjects without becoming entangled in issues of human rights or personal freedom. Although the question is not perfect, I believe it is reasonable to assume that almost all the people who agree with the statement -- "Smoking should not be allowed indoors in multi-unit dwellings" -- would prefer to live in smoke-free buildings. The question you would have asked -- "Do you agree that people should be forbidden from smoking in their own apartments?" -- isn't very helpful in a context where the focus of the study is on people being able to find living units within smoke-free buildings.

Your complaint talks about the Canadian Cancer Society's "unambiguous agenda of 'back door' prohibition of smoking in every context possible". The Society's campaign, or the Smoke-Free Housing lobby, working to increase smoke-free space is hardly "back door". This is an excerpt from the Canadian Cancer Society's website:

Multi-unit buildings
Your first step is to stop the smoke from getting inside your unit. Look for cracks and spaces between walls and floors and for openings around windows, doors and plumbing. Then block or seal all these open spaces with filling or sealing materials.
Tips

·         Use materials like caulk or spray-in foam to fill all the small openings or spaces.

·         Add weather-stripping around your front door and balcony door.

·         Put door sweeps on the bottom of those doors.

·         Place special gaskets behind electrical switch plates and outlet plates to block smoke.

·         Get the property manager to make the repairs to seal off the smoke if you can't.

·         If the smoke is coming from a specific unit, ask the landlord or property manager to try to block it using the same methods you used.

·         Read your rental agreement. If all or part of your building is smoke-free, ask the management to enforce it.

·         Get together with neighbours who are concerned about second-hand smoke to advocate for a no-smoking policy in the building or on your floor.

I don't quite understand what your point is here. I don't think anyone would be surprised to learn that the Canadian Cancer Society or Smoke-Free Housing Ontario would prefer a world in which no one smoked anywhere.

Your suggestion that we cover the issue of the increase in the number of homeless smokers resulting from the creation of too many smoke-free multi-unit dwellings is an excellent idea. I'm not sure that that is happening yet in Peterborough, or anywhere in Canada. CHEX TV would be most interested in following the story of someone from the Peterborough area who was evicted from his/her apartment because of a private dwelling smoking ban, and was subsequently having difficulty in finding new accommodations. We would certainly give air time to that story. Even so, I'm not sure such a story, as you say, would represent a "point of view diametrically opposed to that of Pippa Beck". I don't know how she feels about assuring the provision of reasonably priced accommodations for smokers. That's quite a different issue, and quite a bit further down the road, than the story we were covering. Be assured that as issues of smoking in public places continue to make news that we will continue to cover them in a balanced and fair manner.

Again I thank you for taking the trouble to file a complaint against our coverage. As a result of that complaint, we will institute a policy of identifying all third party material that we use in our newscasts. As you know, if this response does not satisfy your concerns, you may request a Ruling by a CBSC Panel.

Sincerely yours

Michael Harris

General Manager/CHEX TV

743 Monaghan Rd.,

Peterborough, ON

K9J 5K2

Cell: (416) 825 1951

Emai: mharris@corusent.com

-------------------------------------------------------

December 23, 2011

To: Michael Harris – CHEX-TV

Dear Mr. Harris,

Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful reply. It's heartening to see the "fifth estate" in general (as opposed to the show of the same name) take people's concerns seriously. I detected sincerity in your explanations and I appreciate it. However, although I am happy you showed a good effort to eliminate misapprehension in the future by instituting a policy that would identify all third party handout video material, it would be wonderful if you would permit me to reply to some of the points you made, and forgive me if I sound argumentative at times.

You state that the credibility of the Canadian Cancer Society warranted your report. But Sir, this is exactly what my complaint was about. How credible is the source you relied on to broadcast the story? You admit that the CCS would like to see a smoke-free world yet you don't see how their press release could have been biased towards that end when claiming that minute amounts of smoke drifting from one apartment to the other can be a serious health hazard or even noticeable to the average person? Any scientific studies demonstrating this? When we have safe levels of exposure to everything from arsenic in drinking water, fumes in underground mines, parking garages and so forth, and anything in sufficiently diluted quantities is safe (the most basic principle of toxicology), are they being honest when they say "there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke" (a claim you repeated unchallenged in the segment you aired). You may want to read how anti-smoking groups rely on exactly this kind of presumed credibility to impress the media and the public. From http://tools.iscvt.org/advocacy/stories_from_the_field/coalitionstories

"A key factor," (…) "was that the CCS was able to give credibility and stature to the campaign which the NSRA could not provide. The CCS entered the fray ardently, something it had never done before. The media and politicians took notice.''

Your station irresponsibly repeated what the press release stated, never giving a second thought to how truthful and accurate the advocacy report was thus contributing to create a future homelessness problem for the poorer segment of society. There is a sick homeless man right in your backyard who can’t get shelter because among other issues he smokes ‘’ Joe says he has been kicked out of the Brock Mission for smoking and ordered not to come back for the maximum expulsion time of six months.’’

Were you aware of the story? You can read it here: http://www.mykawartha.com/news/article/1260474--peterborough-angels

Joe might be an extreme case and he may have brought much of his condition upon himself, we don't know, but how many people do we intend to let freeze outdoors because they are smokers who can't kick the habit? There were at least four victims of such intolerance that we reported in 2008. http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2008/01/victims-of-intolerance.html

How many more did we not hear of since? If nothing else, the media has an ethical obligation to weigh all sides before alarming the public with such news reporting. There exists no independent study that comes even close to proving that second hand smoke drifting from one apartment to another causes serious harm to anyone except perhaps for a tiny minority of hyper-sensitive individuals. If your reporter had made the effort to look for organizations such as C.A.G.E. and our sister organization Citizens for Civil Liberties in Ontario and read a minimum of the material we attempt to bring to the media's attention, she would have had ''the other side of the story''. Of course, we don't have the vast funding of the CCS, so we didn't deliver you a ready made story to get your attention, but we would like to remind you that we are here…

Going back to ''Margo'', did your reporter interview her herself and find out what exactly her underlying problem was that may have caused her hyper-sensitivity to even minute traces of smoke? Did anyone go to her former apartment (in Peterborough) to verify that there was in fact smoke permeating the dwelling – a short enough trip to make, and a lot better than placing complete faith on a lobby group's version of reality. As it is, perhaps you underestimate the power of the media to influence public opinion if you consider that your only duty as reporters of the news is to verify the ''credibility'' of the source. Had you at least mentioned that according to THEIR opinion the situation was such I would have had less of a qualm.

You state that the IPSOS Reid questions probe the preferences of the subjects without becoming entangled in issues of human rights or personal freedom. Although you agree that the question is not perfect, you find it reasonable to assume that almost all the people who agree with the statement -- "Smoking should not be allowed indoors in multi-unit dwellings" -- would prefer to live in smoke-free buildings. ''Preferring'' and actively seeking smoke-free housing and unable to find any as the news report stated, are far from being one and the same. If someone offered me the choice between two homes of identical size, price, location and told me that one would smell of garlic while the other one would not, of course I would have picked the smell-free apartment. But this is not a realistic scenario. In any case, a smell does not a health risk make, contrary to what Pippa Beck and the CCS want people to believe. The poll question only leads up to the desired answer and extrapolates conclusions that have nothing to do with what those surveyed may have meant. Unless the question is clearly asked, no conclusions can be drawn and believing these manufactured conclusions based on the CCS' ''credibility'' should be avoided.

People will take as much of anything as they can get, as long as it is free and does not inconvenience them. Let us pretend that the question had been worded "Do you agree that people who live in multi-unit residences should not smoke, use candles or chemical air fresheners, cook with strong-smelling ingredients and use only chemical-free household cleaners" This question more closely resembles the real-world situation where there are any number of particulates and odors which may bother the neighbors (if smoke can drift between units, it is reasonable to assume that other nuisances can as well). Now, when everyone must be subjected to invasions of privacy and control, I wonder how many people would continue to support the proposal.

If the media doesn't help in safeguarding this most basic right of privacy in one's own home who will? Besides, this has absolutely nothing to do with health, as mentioned previously, since no health risks exist for such low magnitudes of smoke. It has to do with marching to the next frontier of tobacco prohibition ''through the back door'' into one's home. This can have serious consequences and the prohibitionists should not be supported and encouraged in any way or form towards invading our private home. That's what I mean when I talk about ''back door prohibition'' instead of outright prohibition where tobacco would be made illegal without demonizing and shunning the smoker in the process. "A world where no one smokes" is very different from "a world where no one is allowed to smoke." The CCS's tactics take us the latter rather than the former.

I am gratified to hear that you wish to cover these issues in a balanced and fair manner. It's because I still have some faith in the system and the media that I complained about this. In the meantime, your reporter experienced firsthand how smokers will NOT come public with their complaints. As they have told you themselves, they already feel shunned as smokers and don't want to make their habit more public. Do you realize to what point this issue has gotten out of control when people won't even speak up for their rights to be left alone in their private home? They rely on groups like CAGE and Citizens for Civil Liberties to do the talking on their behalf because they can protect their anonymity this way.

We have had old, sick and frail people complain to us but refusing to take it any further. We have had sick people being refused treatment who nonetheless refuse to go public. We have had smokers complain they lost their jobs because they were smoking on their OWN time, yet they will not allow us to act on their behalf unless they remain totally anonymous. They have been victimized, demoralized and demonized and are not only afraid of public opinion but of possible repercussions if they do publicly complain. We instead propose that one of our representatives is interviewed by you and given a fair chance to expose how this situation has deteriorated into a witch hunt and how it will only get worse if the ''fifth estate'' fails to wake up to the situation. Our representative will point out, among other things, how the likes of Pippa Beck and her funders claimed just a few years ago, during the campaign to ban smoking in restaurants and bars, that no one would intrude into people's homes.

Thanking you in advance for this opportunity, I remain,

Yours Very Truly,

Iro Cyr

Vice-President

C.A.G.E.

--------------------------------------------------------

December 30, 2011

From: Michael Harris – CHEX-TV

Dear Ms Iro Cyr,

Re: CBSC File C11/12-798

Thank you again for taking the time to share your concerns. Like you, I will try to respond to the points you make without sounding too argumentative.

First, and I know this does sound argumentative, I didn't state that the credibility of the Canadian Cancer Society warranted our report. I said that it is part of the job of the newsroom to weigh the credibility of third party sources.

Second, I think you are consistently mixing up two things: (a) a CNW press release on a survey that says a significant majority of Canadians living in multi-unit dwellings would prefer that those dwellings be smoke-free; and (b) the scientific basis for a statement in the report that there is no level of second hand smoke that can be considered safe.

Yes, there is some mixing of those two threads within our report. But your chief argument rests on your contention that there are no scientific studies that show that minute amounts of smoke drifting from one apartment to another can be a serious health hazard. The major source of data on the effects of smoking and second hand smoke, as I'm sure you know, comes from the Office of The Surgeon General of the United States, who has compiled and analysed hundreds of major studies from around the world, in its report of 2006. Here's part of the Executive Summary of that report:

The health effects of involuntary smoking have not received comprehensive coverage in this series of reports (The Surgeon General's Reports) since 1986. Reports since then have touched on selected aspects of the topic: the 1994 report on tobacco use among young people (USDHHS 1994), the 1998 report on tobacco use among U.S. racial and ethnic minorities (USDHHS 1998), and the 2001 report on women and smoking (USDHHS 2001). As involuntary smoking remains widespread in the United States and elsewhere, the preparation of this report was motivated by the persistence of involuntary smoking as a public health problem and the need to evaluate the substantial new evidence reported since 1986. This report substantially expands the list of topics that were included in the 1986 report. Additional topics include SIDS, developmental effects, and other reproductive effects; heart disease in adults; and cancer sites beyond the lung. For some associations of involuntary smoking with adverse health effects, only a few studies were reviewed in 1986 (e.g., ear diseases in children); now, the relevant literature is substantial. Consequently, this report uses meta-analysis to quantitatively summarize evidence as appropriate. Following the approach used in the 2004 report (The Health Consequences of Smoking, USDHHS 2004), this 2006 report also systematically evaluates the evidence for causality, judging the extent of the evidence available and then making an inference as to the nature of the association.

((U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General—Executive Summary. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Ofﬁce on Smoking and Health, 2006)

This substantial research effort led to the following major conclusions:

Major Conclusions

This report returns to involuntary smoking, the topic of the 1986 Surgeon General's report. Since then, there have been many advances in the research on secondhand smoke, and substantial evidence has been reported over the ensuing 20 years. This report uses the revised language for causal conclusions that was implemented in the 2004 Surgeon General's report (USDHHS 2004). Each chapter provides a comprehensive review of the evidence, a quantitative synthesis of the evidence if appropriate, and a rigorous assessment of sources of bias that may affect interpretations of the ﬁndings. The reviews in this report reafﬁrm and strengthen the ﬁndings of the 1986 report.

With regard to the involuntary exposure of nonsmokers to tobacco smoke, the scientiﬁc evidence now supports the following major conclusions: (my emphasis in bold -MH)

1. Secondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in children and in adults who do not smoke.

2. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems,and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children.

3. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.

4. The scientiﬁc evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

5. Many millions of Americans, both children and adults, are still exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes and workplaces despite substantial progress in tobacco control.

6. Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces fully protects nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke.

(2006 Surgeon General's Report)

I realize your professional position must frequently put you up against the US Surgeon General's report of 2006, and its stark conclusions. In response to your suggestion, I did visit your website (http://www.cagecanada.ca) and that of the Citizens for Civil Liberties in Ontario (http://www.citizensforcivilliberties.ca). I found a collection of articles and citations on unethical, unprofessional and biased research that has led to some flawed and failed conclusions linking tobacco and cancer.   I read a chapter of "In Defence of Smokers" by Lauren Colby about the 1964 US Surgeon General's Report, pointing to possible questions about some aspects of that early research. Such scholarship is important in keeping scientific inquiry pure and value-free, and I credit the researchers in their constant vigilance over built-in biases and procedural irregularities in published studies. I found no article on either site disputing the methodology or the findings of the 2006 Surgeon General's Report.

I will address some of your other concerns. Yes, CHEX TV is aware of Joe's story as reported on mykawartha.com. We routinely survey all other local media in the Peterborough area. The issue of being evicted from a homeless shelter for behavioural problems, including refusal to stop smoking within a dorm-style sleeping arrangement, is not exactly the same issue as the one we were following in our report. The complicated issues involved in providing shelter for the homeless is a story we have covered in the past and will continue to cover in the future.

Our reporter did verify the identity and story of Margo before compiling her report. We judged Margo had valid reasons for keeping her full name confidential.

As I said in my previous letter, we would consider covering a story of the demonization and victimization of a local person because of his/her smoking habit. But I don't think we would be interested in a generic debate on the "witch hunt" currently underway in the broader society, a debate that wasn't grounded in a local incident or personality.

Finally, a reminder that we presented a simple piece on a survey showing public demand for smoke-free living environments. It was sparked by the story of a local woman. It brought a local health official's angle to the story, about local smoke-free multi-unit and social housing. The report made statements about second-hand smoke that are supported by massive research undertakings. It used third party footage in a confusing way, and we have instituted a policy to eliminate that confusion. Thank you for drawing attention to that problem.

I understand that CAGE must keep its antennae active to protect its constituency, to worry about "a future homelessness problem" for smokers. That's not a current problem in Peterborough.   If it were a problem, we would be covering it. We stand by the story we did. We will consider future coverage of stories on the same issue within the parameters of our daily assignment decisions.

Again, thank you for raising these issues, and keeping us mindful of our responsibilities. And again, I remind you that if this response does not satisfy you, that you may ask the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council for a Ruling.

Best to you in 2012.

Michael Harris

General Manager/ CHEX TV

743 Monaghan Rd

Peterborough, ON

K9J 5K2

Cell: (416) 825 1951

Email: mharris@corusent.com

-------------------------------------------------------------------

January 9, 2012

To: Michael Harris – CHEX-TV

Dear Mr. Harris,

Thanks for your latest letter in regards to smoke-free homes. Apologies for the delay, but due to the holidays I was unable to reply before today.

Although you believe that you do not have a known homelessness problem for smokers in Peterborough as of the present time, I can't understand what harm it can do if the media contributed to preventing future problems. I am beginning to believe that you really don't want to air the other side of the story for other reasons that are only known to you. Notwithstanding your decision which seems to be firm unless I can come up with a smoker in Peterborough willing to go public, allow me to point out to you some facts about the 2006 surgeon general's report to which you referred to justify your repeating the ''no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke', anti-tobacco message.

The statement does not come directly from the report. It comes from a statement he made during the press conference. The closest thing comes on page 65, which reads:

''The evidence for underlying mechanisms of respiratory injury from exposure to secondhand smoke suggests that a safe level of exposure may not exist, thus implying that any exposure carries some risk. For infants, children, and adults with asthma or with more sensitive respiratory systems, even very brief exposures to secondhand smoke can trigger intense bronchopulmonary responses that could be life threatening in the most susceptible individuals. ''

This is clearly speculative ("suggests...may") and it only applies to people who are extremely susceptible. Specifically, he seems to be referring to chronic asthmatics but there is no definition of what "very brief exposures" are. It does not seem to be referring to tiny drift in mult-unit apartments. Ultimately, 'no safe level' means that no safe level has been detected with accuracy; it does not mean that exposure at any level is dangerous.   Although the more accurate phrase that is used by some anti-tobacco lobby groups doesn't necessarly spell that out, it tends to be more honest by at least hinting as much: ''there are no known safe levels of second hand smoke''  ''known'' being the operative word here. Much like potatoes, another nightshade plant that contains potentially harmful glycoalkaloids, it would take great effort to determine such levels. In the case of second hand smoke, ''the ends justify the means'' anti-tobacco philosophy will never allow such efforts to be undertaken. The potential end of making smokers homeless, however,  far from justifies such extreme means. Similar to the conclusions about harm from potatoes, it's safe to say that common sense, decades of real life experience and epidemiological studies that don't indicate any harm from such low levels of SHS (faint smell describes it better) drifting from one apartment to the other, dictate that there should be no reason for concern.   From: http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v30je19.htm

''The Committee considered that, despite the long history of human consumption of plants containing glycoalkaloids, the available epidemiological and experimental data from human and laboratory animal studies did not permit the determination of a safe level of intake. The Committee recognized that the development of empirical data to support such a level would require considerable effort. Nevertheless, it felt that the large body of experience with the consumption of potatoes, frequently on a daily basis, indicated that normal glycoalkaloid levels (20-100 mg/kg) found in properly grown and handled tubers were not of concern.''

As long ago as the 16th century, people recognized that there is no such thing as an absolutely safe chemical. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy. Let's read what Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health and a strong proponent of workplace bans had to say about the ''no safe level of exposure'' of second hand smoke: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/06/surgeon-generals-report-publicity.html

''One can say that there is no safe level of exposure to any carcinogen. There is no safe level of exposure to car exhaust. There is no safe level of exposure to the sun's rays. There is no safe level of exposure to X-rays. There is no safe level of exposure to the benzene that is found in some sodas. There is no safe level of exposure to radon in homes. There is no safe level of exposure to arsenic that is found in many people's drinking water.

For that matter, there is no safe speed at which you can drive a car without risk of injury or death. There is no risk-free way to have sex with someone who has HIV infection. There is no safe method to travel from one place to another.

(...)

It seems odd to me that the tobacco control field is the only one where we seem adamant on emphasizing the concept of no safe level of exposure (with the possible exception of the "you have to use a condom every time" advocates). I'm not sure what the point is. Perhaps it's to scare people into avoiding smoke. And maybe that's a good thing. But perhaps, instead, the effect will be to obscure intervention and policy priorities. And to pit nonsmokers against smokers more vehemently. And to allow the anti-smoking movement to shift its attention from workplaces to the great outdoors, and then to cars and homes. And to discourage smokers from quitting.''

More of what he had to say about the Surgeon General's Report:http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/06/surgeon-generals-communications.html

''The rest of the story is that the Surgeon General's press release distorts the science presented in the report and ends up presenting misleading and inaccurate information to the public.

The press release claims that a significant finding of the Surgeon General's report is that: "Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer."

But there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Certainly, no evidence is presented in the Surgeon General's report to support this claim. And certainly, the Surgeon General's report draws no such conclusion.

In fact, such a conclusion flies in the face of common medical sense. How could it possibly be that a brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart disease? It takes many years for heart disease to develop. It takes years of exposure to tobacco smoke even for a smoker to develop heart disease. I estimate that it takes at least 25 years of exposure (based on the fact that very few smokers are diagnosed with heart disease before age 40).''

He also goes on to explain how misleading it is to claim that such brief exposures can cause cancer:

''It is also quite misleading to tell the public that a brief exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer. There is certainly no evidence for this and the Surgeon General's report itself draws no such conclusion. In fact, the report makes it clear that most of the studies linking secondhand smoke and lung cancer studied nonsmokers with many years of intense exposure.''

And concludes that :

''Unfortunately, I'm forced to reach the conclusion that tobacco control organizations are simply unable to accurately communicate secondhand smoke science to the public. They are widely distorting the science to create a more sensational and emotional impact on the public. When this phenomenon goes all the way up to the level of the Surgeon General's office, you know you've got a serious scientific integrity problem.''

The following is a statement from OSHA on workplace safety extracted from http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=24602

''Because the organic material in tobacco doesn't burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.''

Please note that the preceding deals with workplace exposures whereby workers would be exposed to much more tobacco smoke than a faint smell drifting from one apartment to the other!

An independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs (if the following link doesn't work for you, please copy paste it in a new browser).    www.forces.org/evidence/download/ntp915c.pdf

Following are the mainlines of their findings:

"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.

"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.

"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.

"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.

"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

Additional reading on how the science on second hand smoke has been distorted can be found at : http://fightingback.homestead.com/

Science is never settled and whether it is the Surgeon General's or Albert Einstein's theories, every scientist deserving of the title agrees that it is through criticism and debate that it can progress. Obviously, for reasons only known to you as I said earlier, you don't seem interested to air such criticism and debate unless we come up with a ''here and now'' victim. I do not intend to pursue this any further with the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council because although I believe that your stance of refusing to tell our side of the story which can help prevent making many victims in the future is ethically wrong, as general manager of a private station it is your right and privilege to make such decisions.

Thanks for your time and attention.

Yours Truly,

Iro Cyr
Vice-President - C.A.G.E.
http:///www.cagecanada.blogspot.com

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES DIGEST

2012-01-06T22:46:00.000-05:00

Cellphone bans haven’t made roads safer, after all

“According to a study by the U.S. Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI), texting bans have actually increased accident rates.’’

‘’ According to the HLDI, it’s not the concept of preventing in-car typing that is driving the seemingly wonky statistics but rather the execution of the ban. In a classic be-wary-of-what-you-wish-for unintended consequence (…) drivers are simply holding their smartphones lower to escape detection, resulting in even greater distraction.’’

1 in 10 Smokers Keep the Habit Secret from Doctors

‘’Increased public health efforts to ban smoking in public places and create smoke-free workplaces may unintentionally lead smokers to feel marginalized, and less willing to discuss smoking with their physicians’’

Boy, 12, taunted about being 'chubby' had to be force-fed in hospital after eating just 50 calories a day

‘’ 'I was not fat but I was a bit chubby,' he said. 'Other children made comments and I wanted to be healthier, I wanted to lose weight. ‘’

‘’ Also while the healthy eating campaigns by people like Jamie Oliver do a lot of good, they can make children think about weight loss in the wrong way.'

Streatham pensioner died after smoking cigarette out of window

‘’ A pensioner plunged to her death after leaning out of her bedroom window for a cigarette, an inquest heard.

Smoker Elena Brennan, 79, died from the massive head injury she sustained after falling 20 feet onto a concrete ramp beneath her second storey flat at Coventry Hall in Polworth Road, Streatham. ‘’

The downside of a good education: food allergies

‘’ The link to higher education may be explained by what is called the hygiene hypothesis, the unproven idea that smaller families, cleaner homes, more use of antibiotics to treat infections and vaccines to prevent them have curbed development of the immune system, said Dr. Moshe Ben-Shoshan, who led the research. That in turn could make some people more susceptible to allergy.’’

Childhood obesity ads spark controversy in Georgia: 'Horrible!'

‘’ The childhood obesity ad is short, stark and to the point: A child named Tina says she doesn't like going to school because the other kids pick on her. "It hurts my feelings," she says.

Then text appears: "Stop sugarcoating it, Georgia."

"Horrible! As a 42 year old woman who struggled with anorexia as a teen and now a mother of a 6 year old girl who is taller and thicker than the average children her age and gets picked on by all ages including adults with inappropriate comments you have no idea obviously of the damage this will do with the ad. You will hurt more than you help. Self esteem is built with smiles and no pointing."
More comment at : Anti-Obesity Ads Won’t Work By Telling Fat Kids to Stop Being Fat

ENFIN LES MÉDIAS QUÉBÉCOIS ET CANADIENS PARLENT DE LA CIGARETTE ÉLECTRONIQUE

2012-01-05T01:49:00.001-05:00

Les médias québécois et canadiens parlent enfin de la cigarette électronique. Il n’est décidément pas trop tôt.

Analysons un article parue dans La Presse du 4 janvier 2012 portant le titre : Faut-il légaliser la cigarette électronique?

Quoi que le ton général de l’article est juste, il contient deux faussetés.

L’auteur nous relate que ‘’ La Food and Drug Administration, qui n'a pas juridiction sur les produits du tabac, a publié un communiqué soulignant que les cigarettes électroniques contiennent «des éléments cancérigènes comme le propylène de glycol, un ingrédient qu'on trouve dans l'antigel’’.

Contrairement à ce que le journaliste nous rapporte, La Food and Drug Administration a pleine juridiction sur les produits du tabac depuis 2009. Elle a perdue une bataille légale lorsqu’elle a tenté d’interdire les cigarettes électroniques sous le prétexte qu’elles étaient un produit pharmaceutique qui devait être réglementé comme tel. La cour a statué que c’était un produit du tabac. Puisque le tabac est une substance légale, les cigarettes électroniques ne peuvent conséquemment être bannies en attendant des études scientifiques plus approfondies qui impliquent des centaines de milliers de dollars et plusieurs années d’attente. Lire notre lettre à Santé Canada et leur réponse à cet effet : http://www.cagecanada.blogspot.com/2011/04/e-cigarettes-letter-to-health-canada-re.html

Aussi, il ne faut pas confondre l’ethylène glycol avec le propylène glycol. Ce dernier n’est pas reconnu pour être cancérigène. Il est approuvé par Santé Canada pour des usages multiples y compris en tant qu'additif dans les aliments. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/consultations/_prvd2008-17/index-fra.php et http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/addit/diction/dict_food-alim_add-fra.php . En plus des études démontrent qu'il est sans danger lorsqu’on l’inhale. Preclinical safety evaluation of inhaled cyclosporine in propylene glycol.

Maintenant que les langues des journalistes se sont déliées sur ce sujet (voir aussi un article anglais à cet effet au http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/02/jesse-kline-e-smoke-em-if-you-got-em/ , espérons que nous obtiendrons non seulement de l’information plus précise par rapport à cette merveilleuse invention au fur et à mesure que les journalistes s’instruisent davantage, mais que Santé Canada cessera de protéger les intérêts de l’industrie pharmaceutique (qui voit les profits de ses produits nicotiniques fondre au même rythme que la e-cigarette gagne en popularité) et suivra l’exemple de la plupart des pays occidentaux qui permettent sa vente et utilisation.

JOYEUSES FÊTES - HAPPY HOLIDAYS

2011-12-23T07:48:00.000-05:00

Joyeuses Fêtes

Happy Holidays

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

2011-12-18T23:03:00.000-05:00

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.

Doctor says smoke findings faulty

Studies under fire as smoking-ban trial concludes

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"

CHEX-TV CONTRIBUTES TO MAKING SMOKERS HOMELESS

2011-12-12T00:52:00.005-05:00

Please watch this video from CHEX-TV http://www.chextv.com/news/ln/11-12-08/Smoke_Free_Housing.aspx

And now the one you will find in this link : http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/892061/80-of-people-living-in-apartments-condos-and-co-ops-want-to-live-smoke-free

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.

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

2011-12-09T07:25:00.002-05:00

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

POT POURRI II

2011-11-26T20:57:00.000-05:00

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

IS A SODIUM REDUCTION CAMPAIGN WORTH ONE'S SALT?

2011-11-25T05:39:00.004-05:00

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

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

2011-11-16T22:07:00.002-05:00

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.

Let’sStop Being Passive About Fighting Obesity

LES PROFITS DES GÉANTS PHARMACEUTIQUES SONT MENACÉS

2011-11-07T02:08:00.001-05:00

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

Pfizer conteste la majoration des risques par Champix (varénicline)

La cigarette électronique menace le business des anti-tabac, sérieusement

FROM NYC C.L.A.S.H. - CAIN CAMPAIGN FOR DUMMIES

2011-11-05T12:18:00.001-04:00

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

2011-11-04T11:57:00.001-04:00

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.

Hospital smoking bans endanger patients: study

‘’ 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.

UPDATE ON ANDRINA'S MOTHER

2011-10-24T21:34:00.000-04:00

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.

http://www.cleo.on.ca/english/pub/onpub/PDF/seniors/everyres.pdf

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

DRUNKOREXIA

2011-10-20T00:45:00.000-04:00

Drunkorexia: A term coined to refer to condition of binge drinking combined with the typical self-imposed starvation seen with anorexia nervosa. It has also been used to refer to individuals who use purging (as seen with bulimia nervosa) to try to reduce caloric intake to offset the calories consumed in alcohol. The typical individual described as a drunkorexic is a college-aged woman who is a binge drinker, starving all day in order to get drunk at night. (Source: MedicineNet.com)

The Calgary Herald reports that a non-peer reviewed study (aka Science By Press Release) found that one in five students in campuses suffer from drunkorexia, and that this ‘’disorder’’ could affect their ability to learn, to make decisions, and to ultimately damage their internal organs. They sure give new and awful connotations to something many students have been doing ever since universities were established and mostly all grew out of it alive, don't they?

''Valerie Taylor, the chief of psychiatry at Women's College Hospital in Toronto, told the paper that “alcohol abuse and mental-health issues are on the rise in Canada and schools continue to try to address the problem.”

Perhaps Taylor should be looking elsewhere for the cause of the rise in mental health issues in Canada because according to Statistics Canada alcohol consumption is not increasing. Actually it has decreased significantly since 2004. Rather than blaming an increase in alcohol consumption that simply didn’t happen for the rise of mental issues, Taylor should be looking at psychotropic drugs that her profession is now over-prescribing to ever younger children.

(Hat Tip to Andrew Phillips at http://www.andrewmphillips.net/Adhd.php for the video)

What we're witnessing is only the beginning of the modern day alcohol prohibition and there will be a lot more from where this came from. Better get used to reading results from junk studies, bogus statistics, sound bites such as no safe level of alcohol, harm to the ''kiddies'', new disorders, new drugs, higher taxes, no advertizing, gory health warnings on the bottles…There is lots of money to be made from selling anti-alcohol propaganda. http://www.wikihow.com/Quit-Drinking-Alcohol-Using-Anti-Craving-Medication

The WHO propagandists are talking about it here European Region has heaviest drinking in the world - Countries seek to reduce the harmful use of alcohol where you can read that ''There is no safe level of drinking, and in many societies no difference in the risk for men and women.''

The CDC talks about it here Alcohol & Public Health

Haut du formulaire

So does anyone want to wager on how many years before we are no longer allowed to drink in a bar if we don’t seriously fight against these neo-prohibitionists? Get involved now! Write, phone, use public forums and open lines to make your opinion known before it goes too far.

'Drunkorexia' growing problem on campuses, research suggests

LE C.D.C DONNE LA RÉPLIQUE À L'O.M.S.

2011-10-19T01:34:00.000-04:00

Le 22 septembre dernier nous écrivions que malgré que le Plan d’action européen visant à réduire l’usage nocif de l’alcool 2012-2020 touche prioritairement l’Europe, l’O.M.S. cherche néanmoins la collaboration de tous les pays membres.

Voilà que les instances de santé américaines le CDC (Center for Disease Control) n’ont pas tardé de répondre à l’appel. Ou serait-ce peut-être que l’offensive s’est faite simultanément et que les nouvelles américaines nous seraient parvenues avec un décalage de quelques semaines?

Il importe peu qui l’a prononcé en premier ou même en simultané, la rhétorique est à peu près la même. Le CDC, à l’instar de l’OMS, sonne l’alarme sur les décès reliés à l’alcool aux États-Unis qui se chiffrent selon eux à 79000. Au fait, d’après vous, si vous étiez buveur, fumeur et sédentaire à la fois, quel lobby profiterait de votre décès pour renflouer ses statistique? Sans aucun doute les trois, car aucun de ces chiffres représente des décès réels. Seulement des estimés basés sur des calculs effectuées par des logiciels programmés selon les résultats d’un nombre d’études épidémiologiques sélectionnées. Si on ne se fiait qu’à ces chiffres chacun de nous mourrait certes deux ou trois fois selon s'il était fumeur, buveur, sédentaire ou les trois à la fois.

Dans le cas d’une femme, le CDC estime une consommation excessive d’alcool à plus de quatre verres lors d'une même occasion et à plus de cinq pour un homme. On qualifie de ‘’gros buveur’’ une femme qui consomme plus d'un verre quotidien et un homme qui en consomme plus de deux.

Sans doute pour impressionner le lecteur, le CDC fait ensuite le bilan du coût de la consommation d’alcool à la société tout en confondant les dépenses personnelles avec les dépenses publiques mais heureusement ils (ou le journaliste) se révisent par après indiquant que ces coûts faramineux sont partagés à part égal entre la société et l’individu.

Ils suggèrent une hausse de taxe sur l’alcool et une réduction des points de vente. Êtes-vous surpris? Et pourtant la consommation de l’alcool a baissé considérablement aux États-Unis dans les dernières décennies tel qu’illustré dans cette excellente analyse : Alcoholic Beverage Consumption in the U.S.: Patterns and Trends . Par ailleurs, nous prédisons sans trop de crainte de nous tromper que, si les politiques anti-alcool deviennent aussi agressives et répressives que les politiques anti-tabac, cette tendance à la baisse se verra compromise tout comme fut le cas avec le tabac dans le pays d’Oncle Sam ainsi que la plupart des pays qui ont adopté des lois anti-tabac abusives.

États-Unis: 79 000 décès par an liés à l'abus d'alcool

"Principles are never a good enough excuse for cruelty and lack of compassion" -- Dan Romano -- C.A.G.E

2011-10-13T16:57:00.000-04:00

A comment to the following letter that we received from one of our readers would be tainted with mixed emotions such as anger, sadness and resentment. Nothing constructive is ever obtained from such emotions we will therefore abstain from commenting.

My mother, a recent but hopefully temporary resident of a Stratford Ontario Nursing facility is 82 years old. She has smoked for 62 years! Some idiots in the health ministry/ Stratford Ontario bylaws have decided to ban smoking within 9 meters of this facility. Also, staff are not allowed to accompany her to smoke outdoors. My mother has become slightly physically disabled and she requires assistance even to go outdoors. It matters not that a verandah of 70 ft or more is in place because that verandah (mostly unused) is off limits also. This facility is a relatively good care place to be but unfortunately the short staff situation has become a problem. If the government would provide even one more staff my mother and others could have a daily cigarette. Has anyone ever seen or heard an elderly person beg for a cigarette while in a nursing home? Sadly, this is the case for my mother. She quite literally begged them to let her have a cigarette. She was independent until a short time ago so begging is new to her.

I should mention she smokes 2 perhaps 3 cigarettes a day and healthwise when this is withdrawn, her last enjoyment of life is being denied. Firstly it was her driver license, secondly her partially disabled body was in trouble and now she is forbidden to smoke ( a legal cigarette ) even on the verandah. How anyone in power could do this to an elderly citizen is beyond my scope of understanding especially one who has smoked for 62 years and is unable to defend or protect her rights. Strangely as a smoker she is very beautiful in appearance and looks 10 years younger than her age.

Compassion has vanished and so has her right to smoke. They protect her privacy but strip her freedoms. It is horrifying to think what else Canada might do or is doing to its elderly. None of us expected this to be happening in my mother's new residence. For God's sake someone help the elderly who are being denied their basic rights! At some point we will all have to walk the walk and I wonder what it will be like for us in the hands of these fanatics who have decided to remove all of our risk behaviors. I can only say this is not done with

" alcohol" because many of our law makers are drunks! Believe me when I say that I would prefer to sit next to a smoker than a "drunken" arrogant law maker! Only drunks and idiots believe the manipulated stats if it will reduce the payouts for elderly in long term care.

Allow her to smoke on the verandah with the assistance required.. It is her right to do so. Dictated by compassion instead of draconian laws would enable us to rectify this for an elderly citizen, who does not have many years left. She did pay her taxes for decades and this is her reward -- often referred to as the "golden years". Let me mention that my grandmother (her mother) lived to age 99 complete with second hand smoke. She never had a surgery of any kind in her life. My mother had one surgery at age 60 or so. Health wise the smoking itself had not harmed my grandmother and if in fact it finally does harm my mother at 82 years old that is her own choice from a life time of smoking but not from 3 cigarettes a day at this point in time. Her doctor knows about her smoking and of course he prefers she does not smoke but he does not dictate her life and agrees that a couple of cigarettes a day no longer can harm her at this age. She has told me to be sure and let her smoke as a last wish before she dies.

Part of the year (in winter ) I live with my Italian born partner who has Parkinson's disease and for this reason we must return to Italy for his health and for him to visit specialists and take part in the trials of new medicines. Because of this we had to arrange a compassionate man who will take my mother outdoors once a day. Also, a female caregiver who is willing to take her outdoors three times a week. This is all at our own cost. What do residents do who are living on a small govt. pension? My family is very much anti smoking and believes she is better off to be distracted from her dirty harmful habit. I feel alone in my quest to give her assurance that she is a worthwhile effort no matter her addiction. I believe she has a right to smoke. This is a lady who reads world history and economics and is not easily distracted by child-like activities that take place in many nursing homes today.

It has left a foul taste so I have begun to think of my own aging and will have to make a decision on which country I should live in and what care might be provided. We must begin at a younger age so that we have a measure of control regarding the facility where we will spend our "golden years" should we ever reach them. Who will protect our rights and who will deny us the simple pleasures we have gotten used to throughout a lifetime? Who will it be to lock the doors and inform us we must stay indoors because there is a lack of staff to

assist us to the outside for a fresh air walk, and/or a cigarette? Pity the poor souls who must live in these conditions of fanaticism set down by our health ministries and governments. The elderly have been silenced and have no hope to recover a measure of independence. God help us all for allowing this to happen.

Last night in the rain I managed to push my Mom in a wheelchair outdoors. Having a slight disability myself made it next to impossible but after some effort we managed with an umbrella in tow to let her have the evening enjoyment of a cigarette. She said «thank you thank you thank you" Poor lady outside in the rain like a second class citizen but it was worth it just to see her smile.

"This ministry thought it could de-normalize smoking but what it has achieved is non other than the normalization of bigotry and intolerance. "

"Principles are never a good enough excuse for cruelty and lack of compassion" -- Dan Romano -- C.A.G.E

"Why, then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad,
but thinking makes it so: to me it is a prison."
- William Shakespeare

Thanks for reading this letter.

Andrina Lejon.

How long does it take someone who gets occasional whiffs of smoke in the great outdoors to die?

2011-10-13T00:27:00.000-04:00

1915 No smoking sign - Note how the lady posed in front
of the sign while holding a cigarette in each hand

Not content to have implemented smoking bans in beaches in Vancouver, there is now talk from one City Council that they will ban it in parks because ‘’ Second-hand smoke is a known health hazard, even outdoors, and so banning smoking in parks would help protect children and others from being exposed’’.

It takes about 20 years, if ever, for a heavy smoker to develop a disease suspected to be caused by smoking. This is why the Center For Disease Control SAMMEC software does not compute any ‘’smoking related’’ morbidity and mortality that occurs before the age of 35 in their computer generated estimates. How long then does it take someone who gets occasional whiffs of thousands of times diluted smoke in the great outdoors to get seriously sick and die? Five hundred, a thousand, a million years? How can outdoor smoking ban proponents insult our intelligence when claiming that breathing tobacco in the outdoors is a health hazard? They must really think we are idiots!

And what's this about banning all tobacco products? Are they telling us that smokeless tobacco can also hurt the kiddies in the great outdoors? Naturally there is no talk about banning pharma nicotine inhalers, patches, gum and lozenges. Doesn’t nicotine come primarily from tobacco? Aren’t then these pharmaceutical nicotine products much like the smokeless tobacco products they consider banning? In the face of such incoherency, we can rightfully wonder what ''incentives'' this City Council gets from Big Pharma to consider such absurd ordinances.

If some people still can't see that smoke-free laws never had anything to do with harming bystanders and everything to do with making Big Pharma even richer, they'll never see it. If more people don’t wake up, God help us all when they start getting even more aggressive against obesity in a concerted effort to push their wares down our and our children’s throats. Andrew Phillips has recently written an article in his blog on how medicine is now seriously suspected to be responsible for the rising obesity rates. You can read it here: Antibiotics, Antidepressants, Antipsychotics, and the Rise of Obesity

City council weighs outlawing tobacco in parks

Schmidt goes on hunger strike - The Post - Ontario, CA

2011-10-12T22:45:00.000-04:00

Schmidt goes on hunger strike - The Post - Ontario, CA

Raw Milk Farmer Suffers Setback, Vows to Continue Fighting :: Canadian Constitution Foundation

2011-10-12T22:44:00.000-04:00

Raw Milk Farmer Suffers Setback, Vows to Continue Fighting :: Canadian Constitution Foundation

LE LOGEMENT SANS-FUMÉE - UNE ACTION SPONTANTÉE DES PROPRIÉTAIRES?

2011-09-24T22:18:00.000-04:00


Annonce d'une réunion pour un domicile sans fumée. Remarquez le message subliminal au coin supérieur gauche: La fumée forme un crâne.

Nous, qui militons pour le droit à la propriété et les lois du marché libre, serions très mal placés pour nous insurger contre les propriétaires qui choisissent d’interdire de fumer à leurs locataires. En effet, si la situation actuelle de pénurie de logements pour fumeurs aurait été le résultat des décisions spontanées des propriétaires, il n’y aurait pas matière à discussion. En réalité, si les propriétaires ne s'étaient pas fait influencer par des groupes de pression, il n’y aurait pas de difficulté de trouver un logement pour fumeur car il n’y a qu’une infime minorité de gens qui sont biologiquement affectés par la fumée au point d’être physiquement incommodés par la faible odeur de tabac qui peut parfois provenir de l’appartement du voisin.

Malheureusement la situation troublante qu’on observe aujourd’hui ne s’est pas développée spontanément et elle n’est pas le fruit du hasard. En réalité elle a été provoquée par les lobbies anti-tabac, qui, ayant ciblé le domicile privé comme prochaine étape vers leur monde utopique sans fumée, et sachant bien trop que le gouvernement leur accordera difficilement (si non jamais) des lois qui violeraient le domicile privé, militent avec beaucoup d'ardeur et de zèle auprès des corporations des propriétaires et les agences de location pour qu'ils adoptent des clauses ''non-fumeur'' sur les baux. 656 666,00 $ de nos taxes ont été octroyés à l’Association des droits des non-fumeurs dans la seule année 2009 pour un projet qui a en partie le but d’encourager ‘’ la promotion des immeubles à plusieurs unités de logement sans fumée grâce à la sensibilisation des fournisseurs de logements, des associations de locataires ainsi que du grand public en la matière. (…) la tenue d’ateliers et de consultations à l’intention des fournisseurs de logements et des locataires sur les immeubles à plusieurs unités de logement sans fumée; la conception d’un site Web sur les immeubles à plusieurs unités de logement sans fumée pour la région du Québec précisément; et l’élaboration de fiches de renseignements visant à sensibiliser le public.’’

Cela fait déjà quelques années qu’ils tentent de trouver une façon d’imposer leur volonté dans le domicile privé. Déjà en 2006 une coalition portant le nom de Canadian Smoke-free Housing Coalition fut fondée par les anti-tabagistes professionels et dont un site francophone en fait partie : http://www.habitationssansfumeeqc.ca/hsfq/

Leurs conférences nationales anti-tabac traitent du sujet et des façons de parvenir à leur fin depuis 2007.

Devant l’incapacité de violer le domicile privé avec des lois anti-tabac, il ne restait comme option aux militants professionnels anti-fumeurs, que de convaincre le secteur privé de s'y soumettre volontairement. Aussi, ils font miroiter des économies aux propriétaires, et les effraient avec des discours de risques à la santé alors qu’il n’existe aucune étude crédible et sérieuse qui est parvenue à démontrer que la santé de ceux qui respirent des quantités infinitésimales de fumée de leur voisin est compromise.

Pour leur part, nombre de propriétaires profitent de l'hystérie anti-tabac moderne pour économiser et pourtant les dépenses d'entretien d'un logement sont tout à fait normales qu'elles soient occasionnées par l'usure, par des animaux domestiques ou par des enfants, et font partie du prix calculé du loyer. Ces propriétaires ne réfléchissent guère au préjudice qu'ils causent aux citoyens moins fortunés incapables de se payer leur propre chez soi et qui sont d’ailleurs reconnus pour avoir une prévalence de tabagisme disproportionnée.

Si la situation continue de se détériorer, le gouvernement se ramassera avec un joli problème dans les bras. Tôt ou tard nos élus seront obligés de trancher. Soit qu'ils déclarent que le tabagisme est une addiction comme l’alcoolisme et doit alors être intégrée dans la charte des droits de la personne, soit qu'ils bâtissent des logements à prix modique (un ghetto pour fumeurs quoi!) pour accueillir ceux qui ne trouveront plus de logements, soit qu’ils admettent ouvertement et officiellement qu'une odeur de tabac qui provient de l'autre appartement n'est pas plus néfaste qu'une odeur d'ail ou de bacon et qu'il y a des limites au militantisme zélé des anti-tabagistes qui ne cherchent qu’à justifier leurs carrières lucratives.

Locataires indésirables

Les fumeurs peinent à dénicher un logement

GUEST POST - COLLUSION

2011-09-23T23:47:00.001-04:00

Guest Post from Andrew Phillips - Ontario Libertarian Party

Collusion

USA Today Article

As Jonah Goldberg points out in a book you should all read Liberal Fascism , ".. perhaps the best modern example of fascism at work is the collusion of government and the tobacco companies". In the 90's the tobacco companies were demonized for selling "the only product which, if used properly, will kill you". Bill Clinton and Al Gore staked vast amounts of political capital in their war against "Big Tobacco".

Out of this environment sprang forth the - unconstitutional - tobacco settlement whereby "Big Tobacco" agreed to pay $246 billion to state governments. They were also forced to take out ads disparaging their own products and pay for educational efforts to dissuade children from ever becoming their customers. The reason, quite simply, is that it was in their interests. They not only had their lawsuits settled; they bought approval of a new illegal cartel. "Big Tobacco" raised prices above the costs imposed by the settlement; guaranteeing a tidy profit.

Smaller companies who did not agree to the settlement are still forced to make large escrow payments. When these firms started to thrive; cutting into the market share of the big tobacco companies ; state governments jumped in and ordered them to make even larger payments . The government in effect enforces a system by which small businesses are crushed in order to maintain the high profits of "Big Tobacco".

Now you might think this is all fine. But how - exactly - is this a free market approach? How - exactly - is this unlike the corporatism of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Hugh Johnson's NRA? They have done this before folks and it worked once before so they're doing it again. So ignore the cries of rage from Big Tobacco they're in on the game. And for the sake of your children and their future read the book.

Andrew Phillips

OFFICIEL - EN MATIÈRE DE BOISSON, IL N’EXISTE AUCUN SEUIL DE SÉCURITÉ

2011-09-22T01:44:00.000-04:00

Effacez tout-ce qu’on vous a dit jusqu’à maintenant sur les bienfaits de l’alcool lorsqu’il est consommé avec modération. Educ’Alcool doit dès maintenant changer son slogan ‘’la Modération a bien meilleur goût’’ pour le slogan plus à jour : ‘’Attention : danger peu importe la quantité’’. C’est du moins ce que l’O.M.S. prétend dans son communiqué de presse du 13 septembre 2011 ‘’ En matière de boisson, il n’existe aucun seuil de sécurité, et dans de nombreuses sociétés, il n’y a pas de différence entre les risques encourus par les hommes ou par les femmes.’’

Malgré que le rapport auquel on fait référence dans le communiqué de presse est rédigé par le Bureau régional de l’Europe, on cherche néanmoins la collaboration des pays outre-européens membres de l’O.M.S selon ce qu’on peut lire à la page 4 : ‘’comme de nombreux problèmes politiques liés à la consommation d’alcool traversent aisément les frontières européennes, une action cohérente sur le plan international apportera une valeur ajoutée. En outre, les cadres internationaux devraient permettre à chaque pays (plutôt que de les en empêcher) de faire preuve d’audace et d’innovation dans l’adoption d’approches fondées sur des bases factuelles en vue de réduire l’usage nocif de l’alcool.’’

Le plan d’action peut vous paraître raisonnable et dans le bon ton, cependant ne vous y méprenez pas. Souvenez-vous comment que les lois draconiennes en matière de tabac nous ont été imposées de la même façon qu’une grenouille qu’on ébouillante dans un récipient d'eau dont on chauffe progressivement pour l’accoutumer à la chaleur de plus en plus intense. En effet, l’O.M.S. recommande que les lois sur l’alcool soient introduites de la même façon. De la page 7 du document :

‘’ Les pays font en sorte que leurs populations soient progressivement mises au courant des méfaits potentiels de l’alcool sur les individus, les familles et les communautés, et des mesures qui peuvent être prises pour réduire ce risque.’’

Leurs buts à moyen terme les plus susceptibles d’affecter nos lois actuelles au Québec sont :

- L’augmentation du prix des boissons alcoolisées et la révision régulière des prix par rapport au taux d’inflation et aux revenus ainsi que la fixation d’un prix minimum
- La réglementation des jours et des heures de vente au détail
- La baisse du taux d’alcoolémie au volant pour l’amener entre 0,2 g/l et 0,5 g/l
- Des restrictions sévères sur la publicité et le parrainage d’événements
- La réduction de la teneur en alcool de différentes catégories de boissons
- L’indication des méfaits de l’alcool sur l’étiquette des boissons alcoolisés

Avec une résolution de cette ampleur, force est de constater que nous ne sommes pas très loin de la signature d’une convention mondiale contre l’alcool basé sur le modèle de la convention contre le tabac. Nous osons espérer que les populations auraient appris de leur expérience avec la réglementation du tabac et qu’elles s’objecteront vigoureusement à la signature d’une telle convention sans des consultations publiques et l’autorisation préalable des citoyens de chaque pays respectif.

YOU CAN RUN BUT YOU CANNOT HIDE

2011-09-20T20:48:00.004-04:00

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

2011-09-15T19:44:00.002-04:00

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