Declaring smoking bans, as Toxic risk factors

One of the topics the anti-smoker cartel will always avoid like the plague [pun intended] is the topic of medicinal smoke. They tell us that the principles of dilution and evacuation by environmental controls don’t work. Yet if we look at the safeguards in place in a safe room? When a contaminant is released, the most efficient means of evacuating that toxin from the room is to inject particulate fog and evacuate it with air continuously until the toxin is no longer in the room but now trapped in the particulate that left before it had a chance to settle on other solid objects that remain in the room.

In a smoke free environment the toxicity of airborne contagions become much more deadly, because there is a reduced level of particulate to collect them. In the reductions of indoor ultra fine particulate the same is true. Your dosages of a much more dangerous form of particulate than is found in cigarette smoke are tremendously increased.

Cigarette smoke if you can follow the consistent portion of legitimate unbiased research over the years, is evacuated by bodily functions over time. This is why they tell you if you quit, over time your health risk will eventually align with those of a non smoker. Ultra fine particulate such as coal and diesel particulate remains within the body and accumulates, because the lungs are powerless to evacuate it.

Black lung is entirely evident during autopsy whereas cigarette smoke is virtually undetectable, with no connection to the pictures in your mind that Public health has been painting for years [smokers lung?], a surgeon can’t tell if a person smoked for decades or if they never smoked by visual inspection. They have no problem at all telling that someone worked in a coal mine or in a diesel engine repair shop. Just like asbestos it becomes an irritant which leads to breathing ailments and the eventual total destruction of your lungs with no viable treatment, beyond making you more comfortable as the process of destruction continues.

Utilizing tobacco smoke particulate to reduce the risks of both viral infections and ultra fine particulate exposures, is a taboo subject because the Public Health entourage doesn’t feel comfortable. They in fact become quite violent in their reactions, to what they consider damaged thinking.

Irrespective of their emotions and comfort levels, the logic and science is squarely on the side of increased health risks by a tremendous degree, in a smoke free environment. If tobacco smoke is thought to cause the deaths of 3000 in a 300 million population as a lifetime risk perspective [requiring a lifetime of exposures at very high levels in order to see even one] and the same population produces by a shorter process of exposure and immediate effect 35,000 deaths per year by common flu alone. Think of all the other things in your life that could cause mortality by inhalation exposures. The odds that someone in a crowded bar or stadium might cough or sneeze and infect a greater number of those present, than would be possible in the same venue with cigarette smoke present, requires a pretty twisted evaluation process, devised in corruption and emotional trash to argue against.

So do the Public Health “experts” in their current rendition, offer increased protections or increased risk, when the predominance of what they study and profess, is based in purely emotional analysis, as opposed to science and legitimate unbiased observational skills?

We already know the answer to that one. What is missing is a way to divide the soothsayers emotion tested rhetoric, from the professionals with something real to say, so we can judge fairly among the many “the sky is falling” promotions, understanding which one should be taken seriously, or as the growing norms are demonstrating today; in reaction to all alarm bells; we simply shrug and open another beer.

The world has not gone mad around us, the opportunists are simply growing more efficient in the production of propaganda.

Clearly the self regulation of mainstream media groups, considering the sources of their funding in the financially conflicted behemoth ad agencies, is simply not working out. Currently we are trapped within an environment where politics guides scientific oversight. While emotionally enhanced promotions, are destroying the very sustenance of personal and parental autonomy.

Vote them all out; allowing the medical mafia and big pharma / big Oil prosecutions to begin.
 

Why is this idea important?

One of the topics the anti-smoker cartel will always avoid like the plague [pun intended] is the topic of medicinal smoke. They tell us that the principles of dilution and evacuation by environmental controls don’t work. Yet if we look at the safeguards in place in a safe room? When a contaminant is released, the most efficient means of evacuating that toxin from the room is to inject particulate fog and evacuate it with air continuously until the toxin is no longer in the room but now trapped in the particulate that left before it had a chance to settle on other solid objects that remain in the room.

In a smoke free environment the toxicity of airborne contagions become much more deadly, because there is a reduced level of particulate to collect them. In the reductions of indoor ultra fine particulate the same is true. Your dosages of a much more dangerous form of particulate than is found in cigarette smoke are tremendously increased.

Cigarette smoke if you can follow the consistent portion of legitimate unbiased research over the years, is evacuated by bodily functions over time. This is why they tell you if you quit, over time your health risk will eventually align with those of a non smoker. Ultra fine particulate such as coal and diesel particulate remains within the body and accumulates, because the lungs are powerless to evacuate it.

Black lung is entirely evident during autopsy whereas cigarette smoke is virtually undetectable, with no connection to the pictures in your mind that Public health has been painting for years [smokers lung?], a surgeon can’t tell if a person smoked for decades or if they never smoked by visual inspection. They have no problem at all telling that someone worked in a coal mine or in a diesel engine repair shop. Just like asbestos it becomes an irritant which leads to breathing ailments and the eventual total destruction of your lungs with no viable treatment, beyond making you more comfortable as the process of destruction continues.

Utilizing tobacco smoke particulate to reduce the risks of both viral infections and ultra fine particulate exposures, is a taboo subject because the Public Health entourage doesn’t feel comfortable. They in fact become quite violent in their reactions, to what they consider damaged thinking.

Irrespective of their emotions and comfort levels, the logic and science is squarely on the side of increased health risks by a tremendous degree, in a smoke free environment. If tobacco smoke is thought to cause the deaths of 3000 in a 300 million population as a lifetime risk perspective [requiring a lifetime of exposures at very high levels in order to see even one] and the same population produces by a shorter process of exposure and immediate effect 35,000 deaths per year by common flu alone. Think of all the other things in your life that could cause mortality by inhalation exposures. The odds that someone in a crowded bar or stadium might cough or sneeze and infect a greater number of those present, than would be possible in the same venue with cigarette smoke present, requires a pretty twisted evaluation process, devised in corruption and emotional trash to argue against.

So do the Public Health “experts” in their current rendition, offer increased protections or increased risk, when the predominance of what they study and profess, is based in purely emotional analysis, as opposed to science and legitimate unbiased observational skills?

We already know the answer to that one. What is missing is a way to divide the soothsayers emotion tested rhetoric, from the professionals with something real to say, so we can judge fairly among the many “the sky is falling” promotions, understanding which one should be taken seriously, or as the growing norms are demonstrating today; in reaction to all alarm bells; we simply shrug and open another beer.

The world has not gone mad around us, the opportunists are simply growing more efficient in the production of propaganda.

Clearly the self regulation of mainstream media groups, considering the sources of their funding in the financially conflicted behemoth ad agencies, is simply not working out. Currently we are trapped within an environment where politics guides scientific oversight. While emotionally enhanced promotions, are destroying the very sustenance of personal and parental autonomy.

Vote them all out; allowing the medical mafia and big pharma / big Oil prosecutions to begin.
 

Review the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008

Review and revise the HFEA to end research on embryonic stem cells, which has produced NO feasible treatments for any diseases. Re-focus the money on adult and umbilical cord stem cell research, which has already produced promising treatments for leukemia, Crohn's Disease, heart disease, with other treatments in the pipeline.

I'm not suggesting the government has to say that an embryo has a complete set of human rights, but the government must at least acknowledge that there are many people, both religious people, medical ethicists and philosophers, who are deeply uncomfortable with the idea that an embryo is created with the specific purpose of being destroyed in research.

Proposed European legislation to change the rules on medical testing may make embryonic testing even more common, and it is necessary that we legislate now to prevent this further attack on the integrity of human life at its' origin.

Why is this idea important?

Review and revise the HFEA to end research on embryonic stem cells, which has produced NO feasible treatments for any diseases. Re-focus the money on adult and umbilical cord stem cell research, which has already produced promising treatments for leukemia, Crohn's Disease, heart disease, with other treatments in the pipeline.

I'm not suggesting the government has to say that an embryo has a complete set of human rights, but the government must at least acknowledge that there are many people, both religious people, medical ethicists and philosophers, who are deeply uncomfortable with the idea that an embryo is created with the specific purpose of being destroyed in research.

Proposed European legislation to change the rules on medical testing may make embryonic testing even more common, and it is necessary that we legislate now to prevent this further attack on the integrity of human life at its' origin.

Repeal human tissue act and take mice, rats and fish out of animal research regulation

The Human Tissue act was a hasty response to a tragedy.. the Alderhay scandal…   but it is always a mistake to change laws in haste.  The response has simply made research much more difficult, has lead to large numbers of bureaucrats.  Alderhay was a mess.. but it was a mess caused by the behaviour of one person.

 

Animal research has virtually stopped in the UK and the result is big pharma are moving to China and the East..   while large animals clearly need to be covered, most bureaucratic effort is expneded on mouse and rat work…

Why is this idea important?

The Human Tissue act was a hasty response to a tragedy.. the Alderhay scandal…   but it is always a mistake to change laws in haste.  The response has simply made research much more difficult, has lead to large numbers of bureaucrats.  Alderhay was a mess.. but it was a mess caused by the behaviour of one person.

 

Animal research has virtually stopped in the UK and the result is big pharma are moving to China and the East..   while large animals clearly need to be covered, most bureaucratic effort is expneded on mouse and rat work…

Reduce the Testing Requirements for new Drugs

I think the testing requirements for new drugs and other medical treatments may have gone too far towards the "precautionary principal." Every tragic case of a new drug turning out to have dangerous side effects pushes us a bit further the same way, whereas countless cases of people dying, or having greately reduced quality of life for want of new treatments goes unremarked.

Getting a treatment to market is now so expensive that only a handful of companies can now afford to attempt it, creating a kind of complex monopoly. Treatements derived from proper, open, scientific research tend to be unpatentable, and consequently nobody will fund the necessary trials.

Why is this idea important?

I think the testing requirements for new drugs and other medical treatments may have gone too far towards the "precautionary principal." Every tragic case of a new drug turning out to have dangerous side effects pushes us a bit further the same way, whereas countless cases of people dying, or having greately reduced quality of life for want of new treatments goes unremarked.

Getting a treatment to market is now so expensive that only a handful of companies can now afford to attempt it, creating a kind of complex monopoly. Treatements derived from proper, open, scientific research tend to be unpatentable, and consequently nobody will fund the necessary trials.