Does an Alibi Prove a Negative?

I’m struggling to find anything to talk about tonight. There is a lot going on in the USA about ecigs but it is all very convoluted. Actually, it is that very convolution which has prompted the title of this post.

It is said that it is impossible to prove a negative. In general terms, that is mostly true. For example, if you were to test 10,000 eggs and find not a single bad egg, that does not mean that the next egg that you test will not be bad. It simply reduces the likelihood that the next egg will be bad.

But suppose that I was accused of a crime committed in, say, London. Suppose that I could prove, beyond doubt, as a result of having many reliable and trustworthy witnesses, that I was in Moscow at the time when the crime was committed, would I therefore not have proved a negative? Being, that I could not possibly have committed the crime in London? In fact, is it not true that negatives are ‘proved’ again and again? For example, does not forensic evidence in criminal trials not often prove the innocence of the accused?

I mention this in connection with the ‘trial’ of ecigs which is going on at this time in the USA. The FDA (Food and Drugs Administration) is supposed to be bringing in regulations about ecigs and has been taking evidence. These regulations are called ‘deeming’ regulations. If the FDA ‘deems’ ecigs to be ‘tobacco products’, then it can regulate them as though they were cigarettes. The problem for the FDA is that it can only act upon evidence. It has to take evidence from various quarters.

Needless to say, Charlatans like Glantz and Frieden are trying to claim that there is ‘evidence’ that toxic emissions are created by ecigs and/or that nicotine is a tobacco product, so that any device which exudes nicotine is a tobacco product.

It is at this point that the ‘alibi’ kicks in. The ingredients of ecigs are well known. They are nicotine, propylene glycol and flavourings. The heating element in the ecigs warms the mixture sufficiently to vaporise it. You might reasonably say that the vaporisation point will be around 100C – the boiling point of water. Compare that temperature with that of burning tobacco – around 600C.

So, other things being equal, you know precisely what compounds are being acted upon, and you can precisely measure the result of these compounds being warmed and the toxicity of the resulting vapour. The alibi is NOT that the toxic vapour has not been seen, but that it is not possible for the ingredients to produce toxic vapour. For example, propylene glycol is used in hospitals in a vaporised state as an atmospheric anti-bacterial agent. Nicotine is a ‘stand alone’ molecule which does not interact with propylene glycol. The flavouring molecules likewise ‘stand alone’. It is easy to see why that is so – the temperature is too low to excite the molecules enough to cause interactions, if such interactions were possible. As I understand it, experiments have been done which confirm the above.

Of course, it is not possible to confirm that every single possible element of a flavour cannot interact and produce a toxin. But that is not what I am talking about. The ‘alibi’ is that flavours have been warmed for thousands of years, and no toxic effect has been observed as a result. Human beings have been inhaling warm flavours since forever with no damage within the normal lifetime of a human being. Is there any substance which is not toxic at room temperature but which becomes toxic when warmed? I don’t know. I suppose that it is possible. But the ‘alibi’ says ‘I cannot be in Moscow and London at the same time unless I am a godlike spirit’; in this case, it says ‘As a flavour, I cannot be toxic and not toxic at the same time, unless I have magical characteristics’.

The FDA has got itself into a really, really stinky position. In my opinion, it has no right to decide. It ought to say so. It ought to say, “We are between a rock and hard place. We do not have the legislative ability to decide”.


Linked to this is another matter – Corruption in the World Bank. Do you know that the World Bank is privately owned? Yes, I too was surprised. It is in the nature of a private company. The major ‘shareholder’ is the USA (about 60%). I watched an hour-long video earlier which was an interview in the USA, on air, with a whistle-blower. This person was formerly a lawyer working for the World Bank. She claimed, essentially, that the World Bank Gang was financing third-world activities which were contrary to its rules, and that profits were being siphoned off.

There is a terrible problem with our General Election. The Media and the Political Parties want it to be ‘normal’ – Political parties A, B and C joust, and one wins. Your turn. All are essentially the same. Profits accrue.

There are two levels of Government. One is the political parties. One might call them “The Provisional Government”. One might call the other level “The Real Government”. The ‘Real Government’ is the Civil Service; the ‘Provisional Government’ is the Political Parties. The EU Government is absolutely ‘Real Government’, and it is aristocratic. Is that the reason that the Socialist Greek ‘Provisional Government’ is acting up? Is the contrast between ‘socialist’ and ‘aristocrat’ the REAL argument in Greece? In the UK, there is little difference between Conservative and Labour, which is that, for years and years, both have been trying to appeal to ‘the middle’.

I hope that UKIP do well. They do not need to have many MPs, or any at all. They need only to have a big share of the votes.

Do not denigrate the value of a big share of the votes. Remember the ‘Real Government’ and the ‘Provisional Government’. If UKIP had a big share if the votes, it would have power.


Finally, in this rather disjointed post, I remember saying to my three daughters, some years ago, that they should be intensely interested in politics. I believe that young people today should be far more interested in politics than young people needed to be in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. They need to know about the New Aristocrats in the World Bank, the IMF and the EU. They need to know about the corruption, and they need to determine to stop it.





%d bloggers like this: