Previous 11 - 20 Next
Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation! It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’): http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/the-mctear-case-the-analysis/ (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in 2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages. (2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right, therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused lung cancer. [9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation. Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker, it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer (paras.[6.172] to [6.185]). [9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to [7.181]).
Adenoviruses Cause COPD Meanwhile, the central investigator in many studies of adenoviruses and COPD, James C. Hogg, MD, of St. Paul's Hospital and professor of pathology at the ... www.smokershistory.com/adencopd.htm - Cached - SimilarAcute and latent adenovirus in COPD - Elsevierby TE McManus - 2007 - Cited by 2 - Related articles Nucleic acid extraction was performed on sputum specimens from patients with COPD. Copy numbers for GAPDH, and adenovirus 5 E1A DNA and mRNA were determined ... linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0954611107002272* Latent Adenovirus Infection in COPDby S Hayashi - 2002 - Cited by 24 - Related articles Key words: adenovirus; COPD; latent infection; viral DNA. Abbreviations: .... from patients with COPD carries more group C adenoviral ... chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/121/5_suppl/183S.full.pdf ...
Toxicol Rev. 2003;22(4):235-46. Idiopathic environmental intolerance: Part 1: A causation analysis applying Bradford Hill's criteria to the toxicogenic theory. Staudenmayer H, Binkley KE, Leznoff A, Phillips S. Source Behavioral Medicine, Multi-Disciplinary Toxicology, Treatment and Research Center, Denver, Colorado 80222, USA. hstaudenmayer@comcast.net Abstract Idiopathic environmental intolerance (IEI) is a descriptor for a phenomenon that has many names including environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity and chemical intolerance. Toxicogenic and psychogenic theories have been proposed to explain IEI. This paper presents a causality analysis of the toxicogenic theory using Bradford Hill's nine criteria (strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, biological plausibility, coherence, experimental intervention and analogy) and an additional criteria (reversibility) and reviews critically the scientific literature on the topic. The results of this analysis indicate that the toxicogenic theory fails all of these criteria. There is no convincing evidence to support the fundamental postulate that IEI has a toxic aetiology; the hypothesised biological processes and mechanisms are implausible. ...
Smoke any smoke can be an Irritant and episodal Hypocondria is an example of what pushing anti-smoking junk science causes! Id seek help my dear lady!
The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%. “Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders. The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens. “These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.” They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology Volume 121, Issue 1 , Pages 38-42.e3, January 2008 http://www.jacionline.org/article/S00...(07)01954-9/abstract . This is a Swedish study. “Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7) CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.” Clin Exp Allergy 2001 Jun;31(6):908-14 http://www.data-yard.net/30/asthma.htm ...
Now we have the Smoking Gene is there anything EUGENICS of the new age era from the old wont come up with for any other lifestyle choises for government run PROPAGANDA Machines! Large-scale study focuses on heavy smokers Smoking gene increases tobacco consumption The researchers have also studied a special gene variant that impacts heavy smoking: The smoking gene has no influence on whether you start or quit smoking. But if you do smoke, the gene will make you smoke more. People who have inherited the gene variant from both their parents smoke 20 percent more than those without the special gene variant. http://www.sciencecodex.com/la... Do You Have the Obesity Gene? – US News The Gay Gene: New Evidence Supports an Old Hypothesis Researchers Identify Alcoholism Gene – WebMD Obesity in soda drinkers may bubble up from genes | The … The aim of the Harvard School of Public Health Nutrition Source is to provide timely information on diet and nutrition for clinicians, allied health professionals … The Sugar Gene is Found – Sugar Science Forum – Index
Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League. http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html
That's what created smoke easys/speak easys. Al Capone and all the other rackets were supplying the booze but nowhere to drink it or have fun. The same is true of smoking. If they ban it everywhere like they are trying to do its only natural cause and effect that smugglers will branch out into smoke easys andsell or graft products to besides food and alcohol. Its been happening all over the world........In Ireland its called ''ME MUMS PLACE'' Here in America they rent one of the milions of empty wharehouses across the country and turn it into a weekend smoke/easy party house and then folks get the word via instant messaging and word of mouth where its going to be. They even provide bus service as to keep the car count down and law enforcement at bay. They have big bands come in and never shutdown til sunday evening. Then in Ohio the Bingo veteran clubs were caught running BINGO games with pass words or you didn't get in...............Its like this everywhere its just not talked about!
The report of the 3 years’ study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapors in a children’s convalescent home showed a marked reduction in the number of acute respiratory infections occurring in the wards treated with both propylene and triethylene glycols. Whereas in the control wards, 132 infections occured during the course of three winters, there were only 13 such instances in the glycol wards during the same period. The fact that children were, for the most part, chronically confined to bed presented an unusually favorable condition for the prophylactic action of the glycol vapor. An investigation of the effect of triethylene glycol vapor on the respiratory disease incidence in military barracks brought out the fact that, while for the first 3 weeks after new personnel entered the glycolized area the disease rate remained the same as in the control barracks, the second 3 week period showed a 65 percent reduction in acute respiratory infections in the glycol treated barracks. Similar effects were observed in respect to airborne hemolytic streptococci and throat carriers of this microorganism. I don’t expect the prohibitionist lawmakers to delve this deeply into this subject on their own, but I certainly hope that when presented with this data that they reevaluate their stance on the subject and consider what science has to say. If they don’t, they’re simply basing their judgement off of rhetoric, misinformation, and personal bias and we all know where that gets us. http://mnvapers.com/2014/04/epa-fda-vapor-harmless-children/
General Toxicity Observations Upon reviewing the available toxicity information, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. This conclusion is based on the results of toxicity testing of propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol in which dose levels near or above testing limits (as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines) were employed in experimental animal studies and no significant toxicity observed. Carcinogenicity Classification A review of the available data has shown propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol to be negative for carcinogenicity in studies conducted up to the testing limit doses established by the Agency; therefore, no further carcinogenic analysis is required. (page 10, paragraphs 1 & 2) Ready for the bombshell? I probably should have put this at the top, as it could have made this post a lot shorter, but I figured the information above was important, too… 2. FQPA Safety Factor The FQPA Safety Factor (as required by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996) is intended to provide an additional 10-fold safety factor (10X), to protect for special sensitivity in infants and children to specific pesticide residues in food, drinking water, or residential exposures, or to compensate for an incomplete database. The FQPA Safety Factor has been removed (i.e., reduced to 1X) for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol because there is no pre- or post-natal evidence for increased susceptibility following exposure. Further, the Agency has concluded that there are no endpoints of concern for oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure to propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol based on the low toxicity observed in studies conducted near or above testing limit doses as established in the OPPTS 870 series harmonized test guidelines. Therefore, quantitative risk assessment was not conducted for propylene glycol and dipropylene glycol. In a paper published in the American Journal of Public Health by Dr. Robertson in April of 1946, Robertson cites a study published in the Edinburgh Medical Journal, which was conducted in 1944:
J Sammet needs a long Prison sentence along with John Banzhaft. Repace,Ellen Hahn,Stanton Glantz and about 1200 others from the Whitehouse all the way down to the local state health depts. Crimes against Humanity
Previous 11 - 20 Next