The Inversion of Science, Justice and Common Sense

There has been something bouncing around in my mind for some time and I could not put my finger on it. I was vaguely ruminating, as one does, and something clicked. It is not a fully thought-through idea, but I’ll write this as I think.

I am sure that we are all aware that the WHO has recommended that ecigs should be banned in enclosed places (surprise, surprise). This propaganda suggestion is blatantly the work of the Big Pharma Companies which the WHO represents. And the reasoning is also blatant nonsense – literally. “We do not know what the long-term effects on ‘passive vapers’ will be, so make sure that there are no passive vapers so that no one will EVER know what the effects on passive vapers will be”. Re-work that sentence with a few clever words, and Bob’s yer uncle – vaping banned in pubs. But it was the evidence that the WHO produced which led me to think.

Here is a quote from the McTear Case (2005) [See Sidebar]. The Judge said:

(1.5) The pursuer can succeed in this case only if she proves all of the following:

(1) that cigarette smoking can cause lung cancer;

(2) that cigarette smoking caused Mr McTear’s lung cancer;

(3) that Mr McTear smoked cigarettes manufactured by ITL [Imperial Tobacco] for long enough and in sufficient quantity for his smoking of their products to have caused or materially contributed to the development of his lung cancer; 

(4) that Mr McTear smoked cigarettes manufactured by ITL because ITL were in breach of a duty of care owed by them to him; and

(5) that such breach caused or materially contributed to Mr McTear’s lung cancer, either by making at least a material contribution to the exposure which caused his lung cancer or by materially increasing the risk of his contracting lung cancer.

Now then. Can you see the similarity between that and Science? The connections are the precision, the required ‘proofs’ and the ‘quantification’. There is nothing vague about it. [In the event, the Judge said that ‘the pursuer’ had failed on every point, and kicked the whole thing out. He complained strongly that ‘the pursuer’ (nominally, Mrs McTear, but actually ASH, acting for The Medical Profession’, especially the Royal College of Physicians) had brought no evidence that smoking causes lung cancer]

Now, let us consider Tobacco Control. What are TC’s stated objectives? The overall objective is “to make the smoking of tobacco history” (paraphrased). Suppose that objective was placed before a Judge. Would not that Judge lay out the required actions with some precision, one by one, and require TC to lay out its programme before him to achieve that objective? Who is the Judge in ‘The Case of Tobacco Eradication’? In the UK, it is Parliament. It really is, because Parliament exists to stop injustices being perpetrated by the Executive.

But TC has never been required to lay out its FULL programme, and Parliament has never had the opportunity to examine that programme. Taking the smoking ban to start with, how did TC manage to wangle a ban for adults, especially in places which children rarely go, and almost never alone, and then, once that ban have been forced, move on the children? It seems to me to be similar to the idea of the Victorians ignoring vast numbers of infant mortalities and concentrating on deaths due to horse trampling. (In fact, they might have done just that, for all I know).

So let’s just consider the WHO recommendation about ecig use with the above in mind. We are thinking in terms of SCIENCE and JUSTICE. Let us imagine that the WHO has already laid its full programme for ‘the eradication of tobacco smoking ‘before The Court, and received approval. Now, it has approached The Court with an amendment to its programme to include ecigs. What will the WHO be require to show?

(1.5) The pursuer can succeed in this case only if she proves all of the following:

(1) that ecig smoking can cause lung cancer;

(2) that ecig smoking caused Mr McTear’s lung cancer;

(3) that Mr McTear smoked ecigs manufactured by XXX for long enough and in sufficient quantity for his smoking of their products to have caused or materially contributed to the development of his lung cancer; 

(4) that Mr McTear smoked ecigs manufactured by XXX because XXX were in breach of a duty of care owed by them to him; and

(5) that such breach caused or materially contributed to Mr McTear’s lung cancer, either by making at least a material contribution to the exposure which caused his lung cancer or by materially increasing the risk of his contracting lung cancer.

When the WHO made its recommendation, did it produce any evidence of that nature? Absolutely not. Nothing at all remotely connected. Nothing. It said that ecigs produce SOME particulates from the gradual deterioration of the tiny heating element, and claimed, without specific evidence, that these particulates are as bad as tobacco smoke. The only other ‘evidence’ was, “We do not know [and do not want to know] what the long-term effects might be” (which I have already mentioned), which is not evidence of long-term harm.

Why have they not done lab experiments with hamsters? They did with tobacco (failed – perhaps that is why they have not). And it would be extremely simple, since hamsters have a short life-span. Just have 100 hamsters, genetically engineered to get lung cancer easily (how do they do that?) and let them run about in cages as they do, but ensure that they breath an atmosphere which is laced with ecig vapour. Also, have a similar control group which does not. Treat both groups equally in terms of warmth, food, water, etc. Wait for them to die. Do ‘post mortems’, looking for evidence of particulates of burnt tungsten, cyanide, etc, and record the events. The evidence would be:

1) More hamsters died in the affected group than in the control group,

AND

2) Those that died in the affected group had more burnt tungsten, cyanide, etc, in their lungs than the control group,

AND

3) It was the excess of burnt tungsten, cyanide, etc which caused their death.

Do you see how we are approaching something scientific and just? The just and scientific demands are:

1) That the exposed hamsters inhaled more ‘toxins’ than the control group.

2) That it was the toxins which caused the deaths of the hamsters in the exposed groups.

3) That more hamsters in the exposed group died than in the control group.

Even if all these requirements were present, there would still be uncertainties, but, at least, it would be reasonable evidence.

—–

Clearly, the WHO Tobacco Control charlatans have over-reached themselves. They have resorted to easily debunked lies.

But will The Court, Parliament, fail in its duty to ensure that the SCIENCE and the JUSTICE are compatible with the WHO’s recommended ban? It completely failed with the smoking ban, and has completely failed with the proposed PP and smoking-in-cars ban, and we know why. It is because The Courts (being Parliamentary Committees), which examined these matters, were rigged.

If it is so bad in an ancient democracy (of sorts) like ours, think how bad it is in the EU and the UN. Bribery and Corruption cannot help but be rife. Let’s face it, if a person has the opportunity to raid the open treasure chest without the possibility of repercussions, who could resist the temptation?

—-

I haven’t even mentioned ‘Common Sense’.