Nice Smoke Ban Covers Up Crimes of The Most Toxic Industries.

PhillyIMC's web-radio

Recent Similar Articles

health care:

Media:

Nice Smoke Ban Covers Up Crimes of The Most Toxic Industries.

by Watchdog | 01.05.2009

Barely a day goes by that we do not hear that "smoking" causes diseases that are oddly identical to diseases caused by industrial chemicals. Only in extraordinary cases do we hear that industrial toxins and carcinogens even exist.
This article, and the "study", work to blame heart attacks on smoke from an unpatented public domain natural plant...one that is conveniently "sinful". God (or Mother Nature) strikes again.

An Inquirer article tried to suggest that smoke bans cut heart attacks. But the item needs a touch of care in the reading.

"Heart Hospitalizations fall after a city's smoking ban." Jan 1 09

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/health_science/daily/20090101_Heart_hospitalizati\
ons_fall_after_a_city_s_smoking_ban.html

It would be funny...if so many didn't fall for this stuff, or die from the consequences of inaction.

The Associated Press version of this PR scam notes at the end of the article that...
" The study assumed declines in the amount of secondhand smoke in Pueblo buildings after the ban but did not try to measure it. The researchers also did not sort out which heart-attack patients were smokers and which were not, so it is unclear how much of the decline can be attributed to reduced secondhand smoke. "

Not much of a study. I would have put some emphasis on the lines that would have given this "study" an F in a high school journalism class, but that would have meant highlighting almost the whole thing. That part of the article utterly debunks the gist of the headline.

Anyone reading just the headline might call for "tougher" smoke bans, not investigation into the research team. Calls for removal of non-tobacco cigarette adulterants known to cause heart problems are, of course, Off the Table.

This again shows that the "concerned" public health officials don't really care much, if at all, about people getting or even dying from heart problems. Those govt officials have refused, and still refuse, to inform anyone about, warn about, complain about, or prohibit non-tobacco cigarette adulterants that are already known to cause cardio-vascular problems...heart attacks. (And that's just tip of the iceberg of what they allow in so-called "tobacco products".)

Such officials let people be unwittingly hit with industrial substances that cause heart attacks and then pretend to Ride To The Rescue, once again...by blaming and putting the legal burdens on the victims. After all, they couldn't very well prohibit tobacco (for the benefit of pharm and other chemical industries) unless tobacco and smoking products were made as deadly as possible.

(Tobacco Prohibition, like cannabis prohibition, greatly serves corporate pharms and chem industries by eliminating competition from public domain plant substances, by distracting from crimes regarding industrial toxins/carcinogens, by taking the natural substances from the public...via Controlled Substance laws...for the exclusive use of private industries, by dis-uniting the public into "pro" and "con" camps fighting each other instead of uniting to fight the corporatocracy, and by making corporate-serving public officials seem to be wholesomely serving the public.)

We need to ask officials and the media, at every turn "When you say 'smoking', do you mean smoking unregulated, industrially- contaminated products that deliver known heart damaging substances such as dioxins?"

http://www.consumerlawpage.com/article/dioxin.shtml
http://www.eponline.com/articles/69449/
...and other search hits for "dioxin heart disease".

Further:
* It may be that, what with globalization and outsourcing and factories shutting down due to the recession, there's less pollution in the air and water...which could account for fewer heart
hospitalizations.

* How many people, in this period, lost or gave up on private insurance and didn't seek medical care for heart problems?

* Fewer hospitalizations does not mean fewer heart problems.

* Were people in Pueblo. Colorado. checked before, or now, for levels of heart-damaging dioxins? (Rhetorical question.)

* Since there were no studies at all of "second hand" smoke measurements in Pueblo buildings, there were no studies of what that smoke was from or what it contained. No measurements were made of dioxins, pesticide residues, DDT, PO-210 radiation (from certain still-legal tobacco fertilizers) , or anything.

* Did those who made this finding about fewer heart hospitalizations happen to be linked to health insurers that have investments in cigarette manufacturing and/or the chlorine industries responsible for dioxin? That is...did the researchers have any motives to protect those insurers from liabilities related to their investment properties in the cigarette industries?

* The American Cancer Society was involved...though the ACS has been well-outed for its multiple links, staffing and financial, to the chlorine industries. The ACS, of course, works to blame smokers and a natural plant for all possible diseases that are already known to be
caused by dioxin and other industrial chems. Creed is: Thou Shalt Not Cast Harsh Light, Or Any Light, On Chlorine or Dioxin.
http://www.preventcancer.com/publications/cancer-gate.php