Lying Is A Scienc

Posted in Anti Smoking, Australia, Global Warming on December 19th, 2008 by Jacob

19 December, 2008.

Not quite a Tennessee Williams but here is a small play:

Charlie is my conscious, he always tells me things and stuff, sort of keeping me on a straight and narrow, Charlie’s moralising do not stop me from doing anything I want, only from enjoying it.

Scene 1: Sometime In mid-1980

Charlie: Hey Jacob, the scientists have found a hole in the ozone layer, they recon it is because of you using your spray shaving cream and stuff and your car’s aircon.

Me: Hmm that bad heh? Should I stop shaving and turn off the aircon?

Charlie: Oh no, they found another gas that you can use, it will cost you more but it will close the hole in ozone layer.

Me: OK (to myself: We all must pay a price to save our planet)

(Curtain – intermission)


Scene 2: Year 2008

Me: Hey Charlie, remember that hole in the ozone layer we talked about 25 year ago? I did everything you told me to do but I see now that the hole is still getting bigger, what did I do wrong? (you see according to Charlie, everything is my fault)

Charlie: Don’t worry Jacob, it took more then 50 years for all those gases to reach the hole and open it up, so it will take another 50 years for it to close, just be patient.

Me: (thinking for a while and then saying) Hey Charlie, I remember that they found the hole in the 1970’s, right? 50 years earlier were the 1920’s, they did not have spray cans, air conditioners and staff in the 1920’d, did they?

Charlie: You are a bloody skeptic and denier, Jacob, shame on you, how dare you question scientific consensus?

(Curtain – The End)


* * * * *

You see? Like many other people, I once accepted that science is fact and if scientists decree it, it must be true. But unfortunately, the greatest liars in history (in terms of affect on people) have sought, with some success, to use science to give credence to their lies, more so, enlist corrupt scientists for their cause.

So we get science that does not require proof, history that reflect made up facts to support an agenda, unprovable theories that are suffixed science or not (such as Political Science, Behavioural Science, economics) and a myriad of studies that sprung in recent years, I guess that we call them Politically Correct Sciences. I refer to subject such as Cultural Studies, Peace Studies, Race Studies, Social Justice Studies,

All these so-called studies have one common goal and that is making hatred of your country and America a science, just look at the products (graduates and writings) of such “studies” and you will see what I mean. In countries where the regime is less tolerant to criticism from academe , the hatred is directed at Israel instead whilst the freedom to hate America is always maintained.

Lying is wilfully describing facts as they are not. This includes presenting opinions as facts.

There has been an increase in global temperature between 1975 and 1998, it is a fact. There has been an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere during the same time, that is a fact too. The carbon dioxide is the cause for the increase, this has never been proven therefore it is an opinion. Human activity is cause for the increase in concentration of carbon dioxide, an opinion; 2,500 scientists think so, 2,500 opinions.

* * * * *

I don’t do celebrities, nor am I belong to the fans club of Nicole Kidman. She is an Aussie, good looking, a good actress and, from a distance appears to be, a decent woman too, that’s about sums up my relations with Ms. Kidman.

However, I was taken back the other day when I heard that the Aboriginal Branch of the Misery Industry lunched an savage attack (hey Charlie, can I say “savage” in here? Ok let’s settle on “very angry”) for playing, or rather attempting to play, the didgeridoo on German TV. Didgeri what?

Didgeridoo is a traditional Aboriginal musical wind instrument that is made from a limb or a trunk of a tree hollowed by termites (white ants). If you wish to have the Stradivarius of didgeridoos, otherwise you will have to be happy with the Bamboo or plastic made in China version.

Watch On YouTube

Poor Nicole, she did not know what hit her; “Nicole Kidman deeply offended …”, “blunder”, ” .. angered Aboriginal groups ..” shouted the headline of newspaper and websites around the world .. shock horror!

The Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian version of the New York Times was quick to enclose the word horrified in an inverted commas citing Nicole’s reaction to the news claiming that she was not aware that the didgeridoo is taboo for women and that playing it offend our indigenous people.

I did not know it either. One can buy a didgeridoo in any one of the hundred souvenir shops around Australia complete with quick instruction how to play it by a female saleswoman, some of whom are definitely with Aboriginal blood in their veins.

I bet you that the bleeding hearts journalists who criticised Nicole, were not aware of such taboo, ley alone the enlightened Lefties of media outside Australia, who have had never heard the word didgeridoo and nearly cause DOS (denial of service) to the Wikipedia quickly learning the meaning of this strange word so they can appear knowledgeable to their readers, lister and viewers.

How come no one knew about the taboo? You may ask, Simple, because it ain’t true! The social engineers and the PC brigade have made it up as they went, a definite lie. Bear in mind that the didgeridoo is part of the Aboriginal culture only in northern Australia.

Needless to say the claim for taboo was not made by Aborigines themselves, but by white Anglo-Saxon European lefty loons PC brigade, the very same people who think that Australia is an evil country and that marry Christmas is offensive.

These are the very same people who tell the Aboriginal people that we, wicked white fellas, forcefully removed some 100,000 Aboriginal children from their parents, dobbing them (the children) the Stolen Generation. This is a lie! Intended to portray Australia as evil country. You may wish to read my essay So You Want Me To say “Sorry” of 6 February, 2008 for further details.

These people went after Nicole for sometime now because she is a proud Australian who advance the cause of Australia on every opportunity, something that those loons distaste.

And then there is Nicole’s cardinal sin; No, Nicole did not undress in front of the Pope, nor did she bring a pork sandwich to the Great Synagogue in Sydney or has a 14 years old lover. She has not stolen any Aboriginal kid and to best of my knowledge, she has never use the “N” word, but this an opinion only.

Her ultimate sin is that Nicole Kidman smokes, oy vei, and she did it on camera in front of million impressionable kids (all of whom took up smoking the same day) and if that is not bad enough, she had the audacity to tell PC brigade to nick off, or unmentionable words to that affect.

* * * * *

This brings me to another established set of lies, smoking.

I do not claim that smoking is good for you, this is not my intend, my aim to demonstrate how self interested social engineers lie to us and how the “establish truth” is far from established.

We are all aware of the lies perpetrated by the tobacco industry in the 1970’s in their battle with the anti smoking lobby, particularly in the USA. What many of us are not aware of are the lies that are perpetrated by the anti smoking lobby ever since. Apparently the anti smoking lobby had learnt the tricks from its opponents and greatly improved in their contribution to the science of lying.

Let us look at an example of an Australian anti smoking TV commercial.

Watch on YouTube

Pretty bad, isn’t it? But … what you see is not what you get. If you feel pitty for the lady in the ad, you can relax, the lady is fine, as soon as the shooting of this commercial completed, the woman return to her make-up table and removed her “cancer”. Yes it was all make-up!

The Australian Cancer Council, who is responsible to this ad, confirmed the fact that they used an actress and that that it was just make-up but excused the stunt with “the end justifies the means” (or words to that affect).

Let me see, the Cancer Council want me to believe in their true message by lying to me? Surely if smoking really cause mouth cancer, the Cancer Council should have no trouble locating a real case.

(Please note that I am a financial contributor to the Australian Cancer Council, they do a magnificent job in may other aspects, but unfortunately the were wrong on this occasion).

The anti-smoking lobby won their case against the tobacco industry lock stock and barrel. In fact they were so successful in achieving their goals, that they just about did themselves out of a cause, their self preservation instinct kicked in

The anti-smoking lobby needed a issue that enables them to continue with their cause (cause=fame + funding), such cause needs to be related to the old cause but ideally it should have objectives that can never be achieved (or takes long time to attain) to ensure the continuity and viability of the cause. Passive smoking was born.

The passive smoking cause rely on the fact that as long as smoking is not criminalised, there will be smokers meaning there will be a cause. Anti smoking lobby do not want smoking criminalised, because if it did, it would become a law enforcement issue not a cause.

Passive smoking has also marked a new era in the war over our minds. It was the first time (to my knowledge) that science was used heavily in the rhetoric when there was no science behind it at all. More so, when science was used, it was fraudulent.

Let explain that, science is observations of events, definition possible explanation (or theories), hypotheses and testing such hypotheses. If an hypothesis is proven a scientific rule is created, otherwise the hypothesis remain unproven.

Being unable to prove a claim does not prove a claim to the opposite. In other words, being unable to prove that passive smoking is harmful, is not a proof that it is not harmful.

Last March I wrote an assay Is Smoking A Sexually Transmitted Disease? In which I explained how the concept of cause and effect has been abused to provide “scientific” proof that passive smoking is harmful. I let you read it in your own time but basically I show that statistical relation (correlation) by itself does not prove a thing, least a proof of cause and effect.

In my essay I explain the concept:

Let me explain this, 95% death of people occurs in whilst they are laying in bed, you cannot get a much stronger (prima facie) statistical relation than that. Does that mean that we can extend our life expectancy by sleeping on the floor? Of course not, because laying in bed is not a cause of death, the real causes of death, illness, injury, frailness etc, also cause people to lay in bed, this is the real link.

[bold highlighting in the original ]

In the same essay I showed how reverse research is was used and how cause an effect and (statically) biased sample have been manipulated to prove the desired results.

No Charlie, Doctors are well aware of the concept of cause and effect – just ask your doctor about research that have shown that smokers are less likely to suffer from Parkinson and Alzheimer Diseases and you will get a chapter and verse lecture about … cause and effect. They would correctly point out that there might be other factors that create such correlation.

Apparently the same concept does not exist when it comes to passive smoking.

* * * * *

Whilst the anti-smoking social engineers were busy banning smokers from airplanes, scientist discovered a hole in ozone layer in the atmosphere above Australia. As chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gas is known to interact with ozone gas in a lab, the eco-whacko ecoholics decided that somehow, our antiperspirants, shaving gels and aircon are responsible for that hole.

Theories upon theories were expunged as to why the offending gas decided to come all the way from the northern hemisphere where its was mainly used, and end up on top of the most sparsely populated continent.

The explanation about the hole in the ozone layer, as later with the global warming “science” THE basic law of climate was fraudulently ignored. I say fraudulently because the most basic law of Meteorology – it is the Law of Coriolis.

The Law of Coriolis is that (because of the earth rotation) in the northern hemisphere, winds around barometric high pressure (and sea currents) rotates in a clockwise direction whilst winds around barometric low pressure rotates in anti-clockwise direction. In the southern hemisphere it is the exact opposite.

Further, barometric high or low pressure systems (including tropical storms) never cross the equator. This means that there little “leakage” of air and ocean currents between the two hemispheres.

Yet, as basic as it is, no one ever explained, let alone proved, how the CFC gases ended up on top of Australia.

Unfortunately for the cause, technology quickly replaced CFC gas, planet save! Or has it?

In a very similar process of cause creating as passive smoking, global warming was born.

* * * * *

From its inception, global warming has proven a social engineering goer. Unlike its predecessors, (real) pollution and the hole in the ozone layer, global warming was constructed correctly to ensure emotional wide appeal, cross disciplines and most important, continuity into the 22nd century (it started in the 20th century).

The eco whackos like it because, unlike real air and water pollution which, with, can be resolved, removing carbon dioxide from the Atmosphere is impossible meaning a continuity to the cause.

What a megalomaniac moron thinks that man has the power change the climate? What is next? Stopping earth rotating around the sun? or maybe “just” reversing the direction.

Global warming has nothing to do with the environment and all to do with social engineering. The quicker you recognise this the quicker yo recognised the magnitude of deception it is.

The fact that is “global” makes it attractive to politicians, global problems (oops, challenge) requires robust global solutions meaning more conventions in exotic place, more UN protocols, more declarations, more treaties, more accords, more agreements … more Champaign?

In order to make global warming more acceptable to the masses, it was made threatening with forecast of rising oceans, sinking islands, bleached coral reefs, melting ice, floods, droughts, storms and any other meteorological event are upon us … help!! Save the planet! – mix in emotion, about all those disappearing cute species forgetting the most important one on earth, humans. There

nothing like a bit of fear to get the folks focusing on the planet instead of on incompetent politicians and bureaucrats.

Back to melting ice. Yes I did. Did you watch Al Gore’s docoganda An Inconvenient Truth? Did you see those melting ice caps? If you did (or not) here is something for you:

Again, what you see is not what you get. Although the woman from the (sci-fi movie) The Day After Tomorrow appears unconcerned about Al Gore’s graphic plagiarism, she also seems to be previously unaware of it. The great Caesar of global warming, and a Nobel Price winner could not only produce a real shot melting ice but surreptitiously used someone else’s computer graphics to support his lies.

Al Gore lies? Is that possible? Well, at a day which for Al Gore was “a day after tomorrow I am getting my Nobel price” (two days before his Nobel price was announced) a British judge ruled that Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth has nine inconvenient facts, or according to the Times On Line:

The judge said some of the errors were made in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration” in order to support Mr Gore’s thesis on global warming.

Come-on Judge, “alarmism and exaggeration” in the context of Al Gore? Not possible, beside we all know that Bush lied too, so here!.

* * * * *

And where is the scientific proof for the fact that global warming is anthropogenic? (man made) Oh that? Again and again we hear the mantra scientific consensus of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Wait a minute, consensus? Since when consensus is a scientific proof? You do not need to be a scientist to know that consensus may be a valid way to elect Miss World but it has little to do with science.

In fact had Copernicus put his theories to a vote the scientific consensus at his times the vote would have gone to “the world is flat” way.

* * * * *

Apropos nothing, why all the environmental activists in Australia have a North American accent? Don’t we have our own whackos?

Tags: , , ,

Enlightenment Vs. Orthodoxy

Posted in Anti Smoking, Global Warming, Islam & Terror, Multiculturalism on August 11th, 2008 by Jacob
11 August, 2008

In ten years time, perhaps a bit earlier, perhaps a bit later, historians will ponder over a phenomena that became a global orthodoxy in the 1990’s known as “Global Warming” or in its more “correct” term “Climate Change”. What was it that made so many people believe in such a lie?

The world has known doomsday prophecy going back to biblical times, but nothing ever got close to the current global warming phenomena that invades every aspect of our life in a futile attempt to stop some imaginary calamity with as much probability as somehow stopping mother Earth rotating around the sun, or even slowing her down.

What are the underlining dynamics that lead to vast acceptance of the largest fraud ever perpetrated on human kind? A question that may well be a subject of a PhD thesis in History, Psychology, Political Science if those disciplines would ever develop the moral courage to say “we were wrong”.

It seems that there are elements in our times that wish to take us back to the eighteenth century, back to the squabble between the enlightenment movement and the orthodoxy.

By Orthodoxy I mean all forms of conformity without challenge including, but not limited to, religion and politics. The enlightenment movement refers the eighteen and nineteen centuries philosophical approach using observation, reason and/or proof. It sometimes referred to the period from Newton to Jefferson.

Earlier enlightenment brought philosophy and science together, Spinoza, Pascal and Leibniz did not distinguished between philosophy and mathematics. In fact mathematic theories are based on “logical assumptions” known as axioms (or postulates) that cannot be proven, for example if A=B and B=C then A=C (in fact the axiom is about all relations not only equality).

Orthodoxy is not necessarily negative as enlightenment is not inevitably positive, although enlightenment brought us Voltaire, Rousseau and Jefferson, it also brought us Karl Marx and subsequently Stalin. The Enlightenment era also brought us Liberalism a political term which means different things in different countries.

In America a liberal is often used as synonym to socialist whilst in Australia the Liberal party is the conservative side pf politics, for this reason I prefer the use of Leftist or socialist to describe the non conservative part of politics.

New Orthodoxy

In recent times we are called to forget all about reason and proof and to accept dogmas put before us as truths. I refer particularly to issues that are shoved down our throats without reason or proof. We suppose to accept theories such as anthropogenic (human caused) global warming and damage to the ozone layer, other alleged human induced damage to the environment from shopping plastic bags, plastic bottles, fertilisers etc etc etc.

The different between Neo-Orthodoxy and the traditional one is that the very same philosophies that opposed the (traditional) orthodoxy in favour of reason and proof are those who stifle discussion about reason and proof by using the very same tactics of the old orthodoxy; calling names and excommunication. Back in the nineteen century the church label you as sinner or a deviant and bar you from community activities by a decree, or by hanging, burning, stoning or beheading you depending on your religion.

In case of global warming the neo-orthodox will have you believe that the science is settled, that there is a scientific consensus and that their modelling represents a scientific proof that global warming is a result of human activities. (I have already dealt with those lies in past blogs).

However, if you are a scientist and wish to validate, let alone disprove the global warming hypothesis, you will quickly be labelled denier or skeptic, accuse of being funded by the oil companies, be effectively excommunicated from the scientific community and research funding. Some of the proponent of global warming have gone even further calling for silencing any dissention to global warming by legislation. Middle ages stuff.

Far fetched? Not at all. If you present radio or TV In Australia you will be taken of the air with a large fine for your station if you broadcast or allow the broadcast of any information questioning the harm from smoking (active or passive) or broadcast any information on possible beneficial qualities of smoking, e.g. that smoking seems to be beneficial in combating Parkinson Disease. The Global warming Nazis are pushing for a similar laws for their issue.

The neo-orthodoxy is not limited to global warming. Multiculturalism is often confused with multi-racism, extols the diversity of cultures within one community for the sake of diversity and opposes assimilation of cultures. Again you are asked to accept multiculturalism as if it was part of the Tables of the Covenant, no discussions, just (neo) orthodoxy.

You are not permitted to question multiculturalism without being labelled “racist”

Again there are anti-vilification laws in the (people’s republic of the) State of Victoria in Australia that will ensure your imprisonment if you are convicted of vilification against Islam but you mat vilify Christianity or Judaism all you like. You will still be convicted of vilifying Islam even if you quote the Koran’s inconvenient (to Muslims) bits, in other words, the truth is not a defence (!?).

I define the multicultural equation as:

To criticise the majority is a human right but to criticise a minority is vilification (or racism).

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is Somali born, a woman who suffered genital mutilation as a young girl, who escaped from an arrange marriage by seeking and receiving refugee status in the Netherlands. She became a member of the Dutch Parliament and come into the forefront of the news when her partner in production of anti Islam movie, Theo Van Gough, was murdered in mid daylight Amsterdam Street by a Muslim. Her name was found on a note pinned to Van Gough’s body by a knife. She now lives in The USA.

According to her web site:

She has since [the murder of van Gough] become an active critic of Islam, an advocate for women’s rights and a leader in the campaign to reform Islam. Her willingness to speak out and her abandonment of the Muslim faith have made her a target for violence and threat of death by Islamic extremists.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has 24/7 protection from Muslims that declared her a target, one would expect that she know something about being frighten by Muslims, yet there are still neo-orthodox in the media who are convinced that they know better. Watch one such attempt by one Avi Lewis who must be the greatest dickhead (oops) in Western media:

On The Map with Avi Lewis: Ayaan Hirsi Ali & Islamophobia

Here you have it, super arrogant neo-orthodox moron, who incidentally now works for Al-Jazeera. Yes, there are people in position of influence that despite all evidence to the contrary protray Islam is just another religion (of peace).

The Science Of Marxism

No inverted commas! No, this is neither a joke nor a sarcasm. This is what true Marxists believe even as we speak. Marxism is a science no different from mathematics physics and astronomy hmmmmm hahahha (sorry I could not stop myself)

According to The History Guide dot org:

Just as Darwin discovered the law of development or organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history”

And if you think that this is a oncer here another one; someone named David North gave a series of speeches to the Social Equity Party (SEP), an American Marxist organisation, in August 2005 and among other thing he said:

But whether Marxism is a science depends, to a great extent, upon 1) whether the laws which it claims to have discovered reveal the real objective mechanisms of socio-economic development; 2) whether the discovery of those laws can adequately explain the preceding historical evolution of mankind; and 3) whether the understanding of these laws makes possible significant predictions about the future development of human society.

[Emphasis & highlight provided]

(In fact if you Google the term “Marxism as science” you will get some 2.7 million hits an indication that at least some people take the possibility seriously.)

We are all aware of the Marxist explanation of preceding evolutions and their ability for “significant predictions” in what they called Five years plans that were published at the expiration of the five years “proving” the soviet “success”. Well comrade, please tell me how come that the science of Marxism did not “significantly predicted” the fall of the Soviet Union?

It is no accident that the so-called science of global warming has been taken up by the Marxism “scientists” albeit they often deny their past.

The Anti-Smoking Neo-Orthodoxy

Try to debate the global warming deception and before long you will be reminded of the anti-smoking campaign as a parallel. By some twisted logic if you accept the “science” that smoking is harmful, you must accept the global warming “science”.

In fact the only larger deception ever perpetrated on mankind, is that of the anti-smoking lobby. Before you jump at me I will say this; smoking is addictive and smoking may be harmful to smokers in certain circumstances – how harmful and what circumstances we don’t know or are not told.

The allege health damage from passive smoking is a fraud!!! But more about it later (By the way, I don’t smoke).

We have legal limit for alcohol consumption, we are even told that consumption of red wine, within reason, is beneficial to our health. We have many safe intake limits on intake of all sorts of chemicals (we call medicines), including arsenic, but we have no such limits on cigarettes.

Why? Because cigarettes and smokers have been demonised by the neo-orthodoxy. Hey, they have never established, to my knowledge, what is the harmful substance in cigarettes, is it nicotine, is the tar or perhaps the (cigarettes’) paper.

Fact: Most of conclusions on the harm of cigarettes comes from statistical observations – NOT CLINICAL ONES!

(You do remember that I sleep on the floor because 95% of people die in bed, don’t you?)

In recent TV ads it transpired that a featured terrible looking woman with what was described as mouth cancer from smoking is in fact a (non smoking) actress and her mouth cancer was pure makeup! I would have thought that if indeed smoking causes moth cancer they would have found a real candidate with no trouble.

The is true for some terrible looking muck that comes out an artery of a smoker, EXCEPT that the photo on packets of cigarettes is of an artery of a non smoking …. Pig!

But to the neo orthodox you are denier and anti social if you dare questioning their “science”.

Next time when someone comments on your smoking and its harm ask him/her what proof do they have (“everybody knows that” is not a proof).

Amazing, the very people who regard themselves as enlightened behave exactly as the middle ages Church did.

Have a fag.

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2008 (except attributable quotations)
Tags: , , ,

Is Smoking A Sexually Transmitted Disease?

Posted in Anti Smoking on March 6th, 2008 by Jacob
6 March, 2008

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate how a deceptive use of statistics and (misguided or not) opinion leaders can create “truths” that are “beyond question”, such as the current attempts by the global warming scare mongers.

For a sake of full disclosure I am a smoker in remission. There are a number of reasons why I don’t consider myself “ex-smoker”: Firstly I am ex-nothing (except perhaps to my ex-wife but yet she is an ex too), secondly, I have nothing against smokers nor do I care when they smoke near me, thirdly, I do not believe the anti-smoking “science” which is in fact the forerunner of the global warming “science” – I have no doubt that you have noticed the global worming scare mongers’ identical terminology and tactics as the anti-smoking ones.

Whilst I agree that smoking MAY BE harmful, it is certainly not as bad for you as you are led to believe, the so-called harm from passive smoking is only second to the con job of Global Warming or is it the other way around? Having defeated the tobacco industry on the issue of smoking, the anti-smoking lobby took dirty tricks that they had learnt from the industry improve on them and applied the enhanced version in their pursue of social engineering control. The tools: abuse of Statistics and “experts” opinion.

All successful propaganda campaigns start with “experts” and “opinion leader”, someone that the unsuspecting target of the propaganda trust. The medical profession was selected as the “expert” and “opinion leader” due to its respectable status and the high trust it holds with the general public. If only the medical profession join the anti-smoking campaign, the Anti Smoking Lobby concluded, they, the medical profession, will do the legwork for the social engineers. This in fact has happened.

Statistics has been used in medicine for years for two purposes, a) to test effectiveness of new medicines or other treatments and b) to establish a (mathematical) relationship between a suspected cause of a medical condition – the effect which is the resultant ailment.

Once a mathematical (statistical) relation is found, it provides a basis for a clinical tests whereby the hypothesis that the suspected cause is in fact THE cause or one of the causes for a particular condition. If and when such hypothesis is proven clinically, then there is a proof between a cause and effect, otherwise we say the the (suspected) cause has not been proven. In other words, the mere existence of a statistical relation is not a proof for cause and effect.

Let me explain this, 95% death of people occurs in whilst they are laying in bed, you cannot get a much stronger (prima facie) statistical relation than that. Does that mean that we can extend our life expectancy by sleeping on the floor? Of course not, because laying in bed is not a cause of death, the real causes of death, illness, injury, frailness etc, also cause people to lay in bed, this is the real link.

Whilst in this example it is easy to see that laying in bed is not a cause of death, in the majority of tests, it is not that clear. For example, according to Gallop Poll survey in the USA 15% of The Democratic party voters consider their own mental health “fair to poor” whilst among the Republicans the ratio is 8%, or about half that of the Democrats. The question is; does voting for the Democrats makes you crazy? Or do you have to be crazy to vote for the Democrats?

Now that you understand the concept of cause and effect, lets bring the doctor in. Until the 1960’s the collective medical wisdom was that stomach ulcers are caused by fried and fatty foods, people who were diagnosed with ulcer were place on diet of well cooked bland food to avoid further exacerbation of their condition. The reason was: studies (statistics) showed a strong relation between fried and fatty food diets to stomach ulcer.

Believe it (or not) we still don’t know what actually causes stomach ulcer but we do know that it is associated with stress – the fatty and oily foods, the fast food of the 1940’s and prior, were only another effect of stressful lifestyle,  the real cause for ulcers. Had such “study” be carried out today the same relation would have been found between fast food and ulcer, I can just see the headlines: MacDonald Causes Ulcer.

If The doctors got it wrong only 40 years ago! What makes you so sure that the doctors did not get it wrong only 10 years later with (active) smoking and 20 years later, when the concept of “passive” or (“second hand”) smoking was introduced?

The success of the anti passive smoking campaign has nothing to do with science and all to do with the smell of cigarettes smoke. People who do not like cigarette smell readily accept any reason or no reason to demonise those with “filthy habit”, the “science” and the doctors were needed to get the media attention thus tip the opinion of those who did not care one way or another.

In 1999 the New England Journal Of Medicine (NEJM) published a (statistical) Meta-Analysis about “Passive Smoking And The Risk Of Coronary Heart Disease – Meta-Analysis Of Epidemiologic Studies”, by a number of researchers. By all account a respectable publication not to mention the impressive title and titles (I told you not to mention it).

In lay terms “meta-analysis” is consolidation of a number of statistical studies into one, something akin to “an average of averages”. Such analysis is as valid as the studies it is based on, the principle “garbage in garbage out” certainly apply to such studies and the implicit assumption that the parts that makes this study were done correctly is A BIG ASK without further supporting evidence that this is the case.

That said, I went looking for signs of reverse research. Reverse research is a process whereby the starting point is the “proof” from which the researchers focus only on data that support such “proof”. In plain words: fudge the data by selecting bias information that supports the desired results. Look at the data in the following extract from the NEJM:

View a in full size

We can see that risk was measured in ALL cases against FAMILY members, namely spouses. Think about it, tit  is an identical scenario to people dying in beds. People who live together have a similar lifestyle, they eat the same food, breath the same air (with or without smoke), exposed to the same cleaning materials etc, etc. etc. … and … yes when we talk about spouses they also have sex.

Of all the possible common causes the researchers pick smoking, unless they can support their assertions by clinical research, it just as valid as to suggest that Coronary Heart Disease (CHD), lungs cancer or perhaps smoking itself is a Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD)? I am told by two independent medical practitioners that they are not aware of any clinical study  on the cause and effect of passive smoking.

The fact that couples have so many aspect of their lives in common may be a proof that CHD, is not a result of first hand smoking (meaning that smoking is harmless to smpker) but that CHD is caused by some unknown common food or particular chemical that is hidden under the kitchen sink.

The duplicity of the anti-smoking lobby and the medical profession (on the smoking issue) is further comes to light when it was found that, statistically, smoking may prevent Parkinson Disease or otherwise it is medically beneficial – almost with the same breath as admitting the (possible) benefits from tobacco smoking the anti smoking lobby is quick to point out that statistical relation is not a proof of “cause and effect” and that “more research is needed”, isn’t it exactly what I say in relation to smoking?

OK, let’s have the “more needed research” on ALL aspects of smoking, good and bad! In the meantime, excuse me, do you have a light?

© Copyright Jacob Klamer 2008
Tags: , , ,