There was an error in this gadget

Tuesday, 8 December 2009

LA DÉCLARATION DE BRUXELLES SUR L'INTÉGRITÉ SCIENTIFIQUE SOUTENUE PAR DES SCIENTIFIQUES DE RENOM


Communiqué important de la part de l'organisation mondiale TICAP sur la déclaration de Bruxelles.

Veuillez noter que le texte de la déclaration sera traduit en français dans un proche avenir, mais pour ceux qui lisent l'anglais vous le trouverez au http://www.brusselsdeclaration.org/pages/home où vous pouvez y apposer votre signature si vous êtes en accord avec le contenu. Pour les autres, la version française sera rendue disponible dans les plus brefs délais.


La Déclaration de Bruxelles sur l’intégrité scientifique soutenue par des scientifiques de renom

Des scientifiques mondialement reconnus soutiennent le lancement de la Déclaration de Bruxelles sur l’intégrité scientifique [1], document qui exige que les éthiques professionnelle et scientifique prévalent sur le bénéfice financier et politique ou sur l’idéologie personnelle.

Ce document est une déclaration des principes appelant au retour de la méthode scientifique comme principe directeur pour qualifier une étude scientifique. Centrée sur l'épidémiologie et la toxicologie, la Déclaration concerne notamment l'alcoolisme, l'obésité et le tabagisme passif.

John Gray, porte parole de la Coalition internationale contre la prohibition (TICAP [2]), affirme: « La Déclaration de Bruxelles est le résultat des résolutions prises lors de la conférence mondiale contre la prohibition du TICAP en Janvier 2009 [3]. La Déclaration a pour but d’ouvrir la voie pour le retour à une intégrité scientifique indéniable et fiable, essentielle pour la crédibilité des institutions scientifiques et l'avancement général de l'humanité.
»

Il est souhaité l'adhésion à la Déclaration par les responsables politiques de tous pays et tout niveau gouvernemental, les responsables de communautés, les chercheurs et universitaires, les écrivains, les journalistes et les organisations non gouvernementales.

Ce document complet demande la détermination de normes uniformes et précises concernant la collecte de données des études épidémiologiques, l'indication obligatoire des marges d'erreur et le rejet des avis d'experts fondés sur des études qui ne remplissent pas ces critères de base.

Il exige en plus le rétablissement de la notion de seuil de risque et demande à ce que les gouvernements et agences de régulation rejettent tout travail scientifique qui ne respecte pas ces normes.

Il condamne l'usage d'études non validées comme base pour les politiques publiques et les diverses interdictions et demande l'annulation des politiques et des règlements qui sont fondés sur de telles études.

En plus des conclusions des études scientifiques, il appelle les institutions officielles et les médias à rapporter avec précision les limites et les incertitudes de ces conclusions afin de respecter le droit du public à des informations complètes et exactes et ainsi éviter les appréhensions et la panique inutiles du public.

« Au même titre que les effets de la Déclaration de Manhattan [4] commencent à se faire sentir, tant au niveau du public que politique », poursuit John Gray, « les effets de la Déclaration de Bruxelles se feront sentir au niveau de l'intégrité scientifique quand il s’agit d’interdictions qui affectent nos habitudes et modes de vie.
»


Contact : John Gray - Président de TICAP – courriel : info@antiprohibition.org

Porte-paroles

Pays

Nom

Téléphone

Courriel

Danemark

Ole Gilberg

+4562533949

gilberg@gilberg.dk

Allemagne

Christoph Loevenich

+491712048698

c.loevenich@antiprohibition.org

Pays-bas

Wiel Maessen

+31615941282

w.maessen@antiprohibition.org

RU

Bill Gibson

+441576203639

b.gibson@antiprohibition.org

[1] http://www.brusselsdeclaration.org/pages/home/
[2] http://antiprohibition.org/index.php?v=1
[3] http://antiprohibition.org/ticap_pages.php?q=12
[4] http://www.climatescienceinternational.org

Sunday, 6 December 2009

THE BRUSSELS DECLARATION


An important message from TICAP (The International Coalition Against Prohibition)

Please invite as many citizens as you can to sign this very important declaration, direct result of the Brussels Forbidden Conference of January 2009.

Concerned scientists and ordinary citizens now have the opportunity to join others in making their voice heard.

We seek endorsement of the 'Brussels Declaration on Scientific Integrity' by politicians, community leaders, academics, writers, journalists and non-governmental organisations from all all over the world.

This Brussels Declaration is a statement of ethical and scientific principles calling for the return to the Scientific Method as the guiding qualifier for the definition of a study as scientific. It was initiated during the TICAP conference in Brussels that was held on January 27-28, 2009.

By choosing to sign the Brussels Declaration you have an opportunity to show your support for change and demand your government act to protect your freedoms.

Wednesday, 2 December 2009

GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON FIGHTING FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS


Following the absurd verdict from the Ontario Court of Appeal on the private club issue, Mike Kennedy displayed all the signs of a tired out, discouraged and disillusioned man. The system he believed in and defended with patriotic passion had once again let him down. What was most alarming to him is that the decision the three judges rendered against private smoking clubs is in essence an open invitation for the state to arbitrarily invade our privacy even into our own homes. ‘’This can’t be happening in my Canada’’ he told us in total disbelief.

Indeed, the verdict from the Ontario Court of Appeal has extended the definition of the term ''members of the public who need the protection of the state'' to include anyone who, after being forewarned of the nature of the legal activities that will take place, willingly accepts an invitation to a private gathering in a totally private setting. This is a very loaded verdict that gives the state the necessary power to cross that sacred line that separates private life from public life on the whim of potentially zealous elected officials that might see no problem in using the power such a decision grants them to shamelessly invade our most private spaces as long as they can proudly proclaim that they're doing it for our own good!

‘’I cannot let this happen’’, Mr. Kennedy told us after he picked himself up and dealt with the emotional blow the Ontario Court of Appeal served him ‘’but I just don’t know how I will manage to carry on with the fight. Where will I get the money to bring this case to the Supreme court?’’ he questioned with grave concern. For the first time since the beginning of his combat he felt that he might be forced to call it quits. But luckily for all of us, as the 60-day period to file for leave was coming to an end, a happy turn of events occurred. With a little help from friends with deep democratic values, Mike Kennedy was able to seek pro bono representation from one of the biggest lawyer firms in Canada - Gowling Lafleur Henderson - in his pursuit to protect private property rights in Canada through the highest court of the country. Only expenses will be charged to him which are estimated between three and five thousand dollars that he hopes to fund raise between now and the hearing if the leave is granted.

We commend Mr. Kennedy for his perseverance and courage to not only have prepared and personally presented his previous cases against a very powerful and wealthy bureaucratic machine, but to have the strength to carry on with the fight until he’s satisfied that justice has been rendered for privacy and democracy in his Canada - in our Canada. If the leave is granted, we will assist Mr. Kennedy every way we possibly can and stand alongside of him all through the final phase of his long battle. We hope every freedom loving individual in Canada and elsewhere, will too.

If you want to write or donate to Mr. Kennedy, please address your letter or pledge to
mikekennedy@cagecanada.ca and we will make sure he gets it and communicates directly with you if he so wishes.

You can read the Ontario Court of Appeal decision at: http://http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2009/2009onca685/2009onca685.html

Tuesday, 1 December 2009

LE PROFESSEUR ROBERT MOLIMARD SE PRONONCE UNE FOIS DE PLUS CONTRE LES CROISADES ANTI-TABAC ET LEURS BAILLEURS DE FONDS


Le professeur Robert Molimard a fait publié deux nouveaux articles dans le site du FORMINDEP.


Le premier dénonce une fois de plus la campagne agressive anti-tabac que le professeur qualifie plutôt de politique anti-fumeur et qui finit par faire du tort à ceux même qu’on prétend vouloir aider. Le notoire tabacologue fait en effet une autre tentative pour mettre en garde les ‘’bien-pensants’’ anti-tabagistes contre les politiques répressives qui finissent par mettre le fumeur dans un tel état de résistance, que la prévalence du tabagisme augmente au lieu de baisser. Le deuxième décrie le très peu d’indépendance qu’affichent certaines revues dites scientifiques sur le tabagisme et plus en particulier la désormais défunte revue ‘’Sevrage Tabagique Pratique’’ qui était plutôt une vitrine corporative qui n’avait que pour but de colporter l’aide pharmaceutique à la cessation du tabac, tout en prenant bien soin de se déguiser en revue indépendante.

Vous pouvez lire les deux articles directement dans le site du FORMINDEP en cliquant sur leurs titres :

Croisades anti-tabac

Friday, 27 November 2009

SONNONS LA CLOCHE sur la grippe porcine - BELL TOLLING for the Swine Flu



ENGLISH TO FOLLOW

Beaucoup d’information circule autour de la grippe H1N1 et si vous êtes comme la plupart de citoyens, vous ne savez plus qui et quoi croire. Toujours à la recherche d’information objective et véridique, nous avons déniché cet excellent reportage sur la ‘’nouvelle grippe’’ qui tente de tout mettre en perspective et sépare les mythes de la réalité. Avec une lucidité et objectivité impeccables, Teresa Forcades, réligieuse et médecin en santé publique en Espagne, explique clairement tout-ce qui entoure l’enjeu de cette grippe autant du côté scientifique, moral et politique. La vidéo est en espagnol avec des sous-titres en anglais. À écouter attentivement et à distribuer à volonté.

So much has been said and written about the H1N1 flu that many citizens of the world, unable to separate truth from fiction, are at a total loss when deciding whether to inject or not to inject. In our constant quest for objective and truthful information, we came across this excellent and particularly transparent documentary on the ‘’new flu’’ narrated by Teresa Forcades, a nun and public health physician, who analyzes the issue from all perspectives - scientific ethical and political . The video is in Spanish with English subtitles, to be viewed and distributed at will.

Local Governments bring cyber-SLAPPs against bloggers

Some of our allies in the legal profession have provided us with the following warning about Government Encroachment:

****************************************************************************

One to Watch: Local Governments bring cyber-SLAPPs against bloggers

Leblanc et als. v. Municipality of Rawdon et als.
(Quebec Court of Appeal)
February 2010

How would you feel if a local Municipal Government, and its officials and officers, did not like your criticisms of them contained in your postings on an internet blog?

How would you feel if, said Municipal Government, and its' officials, managed to convince municipal council to sue you for alleged “defamation” with the use of taxpayer's dollars?

This is not George Orwell's 1984 – this is actually Quebec, 2008 where just such a proceeding was undertaken with taxpayer's money in the small community of Rawdon, Quebec.

At this point, alarm bells should be going off:

How can a Government sue for “defamation” (and pay for it with taxpayers dollars) ?

Isn't this a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (a SLAPP)? Doesn't Quebec have legislation, the Anti-SLAPP law (Bill 9 – in force, June 4, 2009) which should be able to prevent this?

These precise issues are presently before the Quebec Court of Appeal in Leblanc et als. v. Municipality of Rawdon et als.. following the granting of an interlocutory injunction by a Quebec Superior Court judge ordering all Defendants to the “defamation” lawsuits not to “defame” the Government, nor its' Mayor or Director-General pending the hearing of the lawsuit.

As you might imagine, this case is of considerable importance not only for freedom of expression but also for a healthy, functioning democracy in the Province of Quebec.

This appeal has drawn both daily newspapers. La Presse and The Gazette, as well as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) as interveners in the matter. The CCLA, has sought to intervene before the Quebec Court of Appeal for the first time in its' four decade history given the issues at stake, and its written submissions can be seen at:

http://ccla.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Memoire-Rawdon-v-Leblance-appel-CCLA-FINAL.pdf

***************************************************************************

C.A.G.E., and all freedom-loving individuals, should be greatly worried about any legal judgment or administrative decision that leans towards allowing politicians and civil servants to use public funds in order to sue private individuals who have criticized them. C.A.G.E. will be closely following the progress of this case.

Thursday, 26 November 2009

WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TURNS AGAINST ITS OWN CITIZENS


A letter from one of our readers addressed to C.A.G.E.'s vice-president Iro Cyr, that speaks volumes on how public health is hurting more than it is helping. And please don't think that Nadia is an isolated incident. We are surrounded with persons that are either too afraid to say what is on their mind or too fearful to tip the pot in fear of being labelled as negative or disgruntled. If you have had just about enough of your life being dictated by those who are paid to serve us, please remember that you are not alone. Massively expressing it to our elected officials will inevitably turn our whispers into cries.

Quite frankly, I don't know where to begin.... I have often felt as the "odd" duck throughout my life. I am a 43 year old woman living in Ontario and I am filled with such anger and feel as though my opinions and beliefs have been ignored. I am known as a very outspoken and passionate person. I have a problem being told what I should think and how I should act or react in a situation. It's not that I have an issue with being told what to do but I do have a very BIG issue with being told what to do when not given a good enough or valid reason for doing it.

When I read your biography on line, I was so inspired to see that you had the ambition and drive to go after what you believed in. I respected your passion and commitment for the cause at hand. When I was reading your biography, I had shivers up my back as I truly made a connection with what you stood for. It never ceases to amaze me as to how many people fear "freedom of speech & expression". I am in an environment that feels as though I am surrounded by robots that are willing to go day to day without having an option or at least not bothering to express what they really feel.

I HAVE HAD ENOUGH WITH OUR GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION!!!! I am a first generation Canadian. My parents immigrated here from Europe almost 50 years ago and when they arrived, they weren't given any sort of financial or emotional support like they do for the immigrants of today. My parents recalled having a bus pick them up early in the mornings to go work in the fields. My parents never collected a dime from Welfare as the were never told what Welfare was or what Government programs were available to them. They lived in Montreal when they first came and then made their way to Hamilton, Ontario. Not only did they not know the system but they also had a language barrier issue. I have enormous respect for both of them and it angers me so much to see that some of their liberties are being taken away after sacrificing so much to the success of this country. It was on their broken backs that this Government prospered and now that they are retired, this Government will not allow them to sit in a cafe and have a cigarette.

My parents are seniors and live in an apartment and just recently I heard that these non-smoking advocats are now considering the banning of smoking in apartment buildings....Where the hell do they get off???

My parents are old and they both smoke, have always smoked and will continue to smoke. What right do persons have to tell other people what they can do in the privacy of their own home? What will be next?? Don't people see that everytime we allow the government to create another senseless law that we are giving up another one of our freedoms. Just because a particular law may not apply to someone, the public fails to see that the Government is closing us in more and more. These bureaucrats that sit in parliament get paid to make up and support laws regardless of how stupid or inappropriate they may be. They need to justify their jobs and positions at the expense of Canadians and their rights.

It makes me ill when I hear persons say "we are a free country"!!! Everyday we are becoming less free than the day before. Now with the excuse of a recession, the term "socialist" is becoming clearer. A system of social organization (namely our Government) in which the means of producing and distributing good is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. Ontario's Premier, Dalton McGuinty has now passed a Harmonized Tax in Ontario stating that the reason for this is to help the Ontario economy to recover from the recession. What a lot of hogwash!!! This is going to cost the average home an extra $500 to $600 annually. We are already tripled taxed!! I pay tax to work, I pay tax to eat and soon we will be paying a tax to breath!

I am so tired and frustrated with the people of this country for being so passive. I am now frustrated with Health Canada and their failure to actively reasearch the ecigarette that is now available in the USA and abroad. I have been a smoker for over 20 years and I have tried every method available to quit. I am very interested in this new electronic cigarette and would like it available to me. Now, I am a level headed and reasonable person and do know that the FDA in the US is a lot quicker at releasing items to the public a lot more freely than Canada. I do think that Health Canada should further reaserch the ecigarette but I want them to assure me that they will examine it and not sweep it under the carpet. If they can allow the patch, the inhaler and the gum just to name a few, then why not allow this gadget. We all know why and it's about time that we step up.

I have so many more issues that I want to get off my chest and do not have platform to do so. I am sorry for sending such a long winded email but I am at my witts end. Thank you for listening and most importantly for what you stand for!

Nadia Kosta

Monday, 23 November 2009

HACKERS BROKE INTO THE CLIMATE RESEARCH UNIT SERVER AND EXPOSED COMPROMISING MATERIAL ON THE INTERNET


Michael Crichton (Author of the State of Fear) must be applauding from his grave.

Hackers broke into the Climate Research Unit, UK and have exposed on the internet compromising internal correspondence and documents regarding the climate change issue. You can read some of this material here.

We will have to wait to see how the case of the hacked e-mails develops and how the AGW supporters will defend themselves, but we feel that it’s quite appalling to have to resort to hacking servers in order to expose possible manipulation of data and scientific facts on issues of such magnitude that affect the future of humanity.

The scientists apparently involved in manipulating scientific data to tell the story they want people to hear, probably believe that climate change is happening and largely caused by human activity. They may even be right about this. Nothing justifies manipulating the data beyond recognition, or spinning it to the point of deception, however. Issues of such magnitude need honest analysis. One can only imagine what hackers might discover if they break into tobacco control or obesity research databases, for instance...

Climate Emails Stoke Debate

Thursday, 12 November 2009

LEQUEL DES DEUX ENTRE LE TABAC ET L'ANTI-TABAC DRAINE LES FONDS DU SYSTÈME DE LA SANTÉ ?

Nous sommes tombés par hasard sur un article d’un blog français qui relate l’intention du gouvernement du Québec de poursuivre les fabricants de produits du tabac pour le coût estimé des soins de santé attribués au tabagisme. Nous avons couvert cette nouvelle dans le passé sous la rubrique DANS L'ACTION EN JUSTICE CONTRE L'INDUSTRIE DU TABAC, LES GRANDS PERDANTS SERONT NOUS LES CITOYENS

Le fait intéressant qui ressort de cet article qui fut rédigé selon les informations obtenues entre autre auprès de Mme Flory Doucas directrice du bureau du Québec de Médecins pour un Canada sans fumée, est, que les coûts pour soigner les fumeurs au Québec sont estimés à 1 milliard par année, mais que ce sont surtout les coûts pour prévenir et cesser le tabagisme qui prennent la plus grande part du gâteau soit 11 milliards de dollars annuellement. Selon ses dires, ce montant inclut les campagnes de sensibilisation et les aides thérapeutiques.

Sans avoir fait des calculs savants, nous avons toujours soupçonné que l’industrie anti-tabac coûtait plus cher à la société que le tabagisme lui-même mais nous n’aurions jamais imaginé qu’un porte-parole de cette industrie aurait ouvertement avoué que ce qui draine les coffres de l’état en matière de tabagisme est l’industrie anti-tabac elle-même et ce, aussi disproportionnellement que onze fois contre une!

Sachant que le taux du tabagisme est resté presqu’inchangé depuis les campagnes anti-tabac agressives des dernières années et a même augmenté pour certains groupes d’âge, sachant que cette même campagne a occasionné un problème de contrebande de l’ordre de 40% soustrayant ainsi les revenus de l'état de l'ordre de 40%, sachant que les produits pharmaceutiques dits ‘’thérapeutiques’’ n’ont qu’une efficacité de 2% sur le long terme, ne serait-il pas plutôt temps que les fonds alloués à même nos taxes à l’industrie anti-tabac soient rationnés et qu’on revienne aux programmes raisonnables et moins dispendieux qui ont si bien fonctionné dans le passé en baissant la prévalence du tabagisme de plus de la moitié avant 2005 ? N’est-il pas aussi temps que la publicité de la santé publique favorise la méthode de cessation de fumer qui a fait ses preuves à travers les décennies et qui ne coûte absolument rien à l’état, soit celle de jeter son paquet de cigarettes et de ne plus le retoucher? Mais hélas, les organismes anti-tabac et leurs supporteurs, l’industrie pharmaceutique, seraient laissés pour compte dans la course effrénée de ''bien faire'' contre des gros profits !

Québec part en guerre contre les fabricants de cigarettes

Extraits

Alors que l'idée d'une poursuite judiciaire semble insensée aux yeux des fabricants de cigarettes, c'est du montant que Flory Doucas souhaite s'entretenir. « 30 milliards, ce n'est pas une si grosse somme », estime-t-elle :

« Le Québec dépense 1 milliard de dollars par an en soins de santé directement liés au tabagisme. Mais les coûts des soins indirects, telles les campagnes de sensibilisation ou les aides thérapeutiques, s'élèvent eux à environ 11 milliards par an. »

En effet, au Québec, les timbres de nicotine et autres soutiens à l'arrêt du tabagisme sont remboursés par la Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec.

Monday, 9 November 2009

L'OBSESSION DE LA MINCEUR


L’article de Canoë Santé (relié plus bas) nous rapporte que les jeunes filles obsédées par la minceur, ont recours à la chirurgie esthétique et bariatrique à des âges de plus en plus jeunes.

Nous sommes d’accord que le phénomène de l’obsession de la minceur pour le paraître et non pas par souci pour la santé n’est pas nouveau, cependant nous sommes d’avis que la campagne anti-obésité de plus en plus agressive n’aide en rien à cette situation. Tandis-ce qu’un parent ou un médecin dans le but d’assister une jeune de s’accepter comme elle est pouvait toujours avoir recours à l’argument qu’il n’y a rien de mal d’avoir un excès de poids et que l’important était d’être en santé, la tendance anti-obésité claironnées à outrance par la santé publique d’aujourd’hui a non seulement soustrait cette arme aux parents et aux médecins, mais donne un argument de plus aux jeunes obsédées par leur image. En effet, elles sont nombreuses celles qui ont recours au prétexte que l’excès de poids n’est pas bon pour leur santé pour convaincre leurs parents d’intervenir dans le but de les aider à perdre du poids, souvent au détriment de leur santé. Aussi, plusieurs parents ayant embarqué à pieds joints dans l’alarmisme des méfaits de l’obésité ne prodiguent pas de bons conseils à leurs enfants et les privent même de manger à leur faim. Et que dire de ceux qui qualifient l’obésité de maladie, une notion qui devient de plus en plus répandue et qui n’a aucun fondement logique. On peut en effet être malade tout en étant mince comme on peut être obèse mais en parfaite santé.


Il est grand temps que la campagne anti-obésité s’ajuste à la réalité et redevient une source d’information responsable au lieu de l'alarmisme démesuré actuel dont elle se souscrit et qui ne peut faire que contribuer à des troubles alimentaires et psychologiques de plus en plus répandus parmi la jeunesse.

Rapport troublant sur les jeunes filles

Thursday, 5 November 2009

DELTA AIRLINE'S ''NO MIMICKING OF SMOKING'' POLICY

One of our members had an intriguing experience with Delta Airlines that we would like to share with you. After reading the self-explaining correspondence that was exchanged with Delta corporate office you will understand that anti-smoking has now become a moral crusade that has absolutely nothing to do with non-smokers’ health. Not that it ever did, but at one time it was a lot less obvious than it is today. Today it has become so transparent that one would have to be totally blind not to see it.

Please do not hesitate to let Delta know what you think of their rabid no tobacco and their ‘’no mimicking the act of smoking’’ policy. You can write to them at:
Delta.OnlineSupport@delta.com

Our member wrote to Delta inquiring about their no tobacco policy as follows:

I would like to know why smokeless tobacco is forbidden on Deltaflights. SNUS (which is spitless and smokeless) as well as electronic cigarettes can offer some comfort to smoking travelers. Why are they forbidden? Very very strange policy and for this reason alone I will never travel Delta again.

The reply from Delta:

Thank you for contacting us through delta.com. We are sorry for the delay in responding to your message.
A device known as electronic cigarette or e-cigarette is available to the public.


- It is marketed as a healthier alternative to smoking and used to assist users in their efforts to quit smoking.

- E-cigarette may look like a cigarette, cigar or pipe.


- The cigarette makes a mist that resembles normal cigarette smoke. The mist dissipates quickly and is both odorless and colorless.

- Due to continued instances of passengers attempting to smoke real cigarettes on board and the potential concern from passengers, the use of electronic, simulated smoking materials including cigarettes, pipes and cigars, is prohibited on all Delta flights.

- While Delta / Delta Connection do not permit the use of electronic cigarettes on board, they are permitted in the passenger's carry-on luggage.

Again, thank you for writing. We appreciate your selection of Delta and will always welcome the opportunity to be of service.

Sincerely,

Serena BeckOnline Customer Support Desk

To which our member replied (pending answer) :

Thank you for replying.

I know exactly what an electronic cigarette is, I own one myself. But it's not tobacco, or smokeless tobacco. It is not much different in principle than a pharmaceutical nicotine inhaler. Why would you allow those, or do you? It is only a substitute to smoking and as you say it is colorless and odorless and it contains absolutely no tobacco. Perhaps if the attendants would explain to the ''concerned'' assistance in the plane what this device is all about at the very beginning of the flight, they wouldn't be so ''worried'' about thinking someone is lighting up? This would not only enhance smokers' traveling experience, it would also appease those craving nicotine and you would have less of the incidents of people lighting up as you say. Why not offer complimentary e-cigarettes on board, or even sell them? That would make you stand out, wouldn't it? What good is an e-cigarette in the carry-on luggage?

But this doesn't explain why all smokeless tobacco is banned. What about SNUS? Why would you not tolerate that? Isn't enhancing your customers' flight experience part of good business?

Friday, 30 October 2009

COLLISION BETWEEN SCIENCE AND POLITICS

The article from the BBC we link to below is self explanatory and proof positive that scientific integrity and public health policy are not always synonym.

Professor Nutt was head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in the UK. Obviously his qualifications had merit when he was first named to hold that position. Why then was his advice not only totally discounted but was also shown the door after alerting the UK government that reclassifying cannabis as a more potent drug than what it is presently classified did not have any scientific merits and would not do the population any justice?

The man deserves credit and the public's thanks for standing behind his scientific findings and having the courage to not cave in to what the higher authorities wanted people to hear. How many scientists simply parrot the predetermined results governments and private funders strongly ‘’suggest’’ for them to find in fear to lose their job or their grant money?

When will our elected officials learn that fear mongering based on puritan and moral values is not the solution that will ever bring positive results towards a healthier population? Thinking that the public will believe everything they hear regardless of their eyewitness and life experiences is not only an underestimation of people's judgement but a true insult to their intelligence. How much more credibility does public health intend to lose before they pull their act together and start basing public policy on scientific values?


Cannabis row drugs adviser sacked

Thursday, 29 October 2009

FATTISM


More disturbing than the article from the BBC itself ((linked below) are some of the comments from the readers that somehow condone discrimination against overweight people and blame them for being fat whether willingly or through no choice of their own.

While we may speculate that one woman’s assault against another because she’s fat may hopefully be just an isolated incident, how can we possibly let go unheeded the number of comments that blame overweight people for being who they are and the rising costs to the national healthcare system?

Have the anti-obesity propaganda and healthism in general rendered us so arrogant that we feel that the way public health deems we should be and act is the only right way to live? Who has died and named the approved ‘’normal’’ members of society the moral guardians of other citizens who don’t fit the predetermined mold? Are we as individuals no longer allowed to make the right or wrong decisions according to our own perceptions of what life represents for us and what makes it worthwhile?


Why are fat people abused?

Sunday, 25 October 2009

SILENCE ON VACCINE

Afin qu’on puisse prendre une décision si l'on doit se faire vacciner ou non, on doit être en mesure de connaître les pours et les contres de la vaccination et ce selon le degré des risques et notre tolérance à ces risques. Le gouvernement, le milieu médical et les médias penchent plutôt du côté du ‘’pour’’ faisant en sorte qu’il nous est donné que très peu d’information sur l’envers de la médaille des vaccins et souvent on y perd notre latin à essayer de démêler les diverses théories de complot des vrais risques et effets secondaires de la vaccination.

Lina B. Moreco a produit un film auprès de l’ONF qui a permis la sortie du documentaire sous condition qu'aucune personne, aucun commerce, ne puisse acquérir le film pour la revente. De plus aucune publicité ne sera faite pour faire connaître la sortie DVD.

Sur sa page au http://argcitoyen.skyrock.com/2623019388-SILENCE-ON-VACCINE-Lina-B-Moreco.html on peut y lire ce qui suit :

‘’Loin de rejeter les avantages indéniables et largement documentés de la vaccination pour l'ensemble de la population, Silence, on vaccine met en lumière la nécessité de soutenir des recherches pour mieux comprendre les effets à long terme des vaccins et ainsi mieux protéger la minorité à risque. Ce documentaire profondément humain soulève une question aussi fondamentale que troublante : combien de personnes peut-on accepter de sacrifier dans le silence au nom du bien commun?’’

Si on fait abstraction des diverses théories de complot et tout-ce qu’on entend sur la vaccination dernièrement, il est néanmoins vrai que comme toute médication, il y a des personnes qui développent de l’intolérance et des effets secondaires graves à la vaccination et ils sont en droit de prendre leurs propres décisions sur les risques qu’ils veulent assumer.

Pour quelle raison alors est-ce qu’on soustrait à la population le droit d’être informée des contres de la vaccination en interdisant la diffusion de ce film au grand public tout en piétinant sur la liberté d’expression ? Est-ce que le gouvernement considère une fois de plus que nous sommes tous des imbéciles heureux incapables de prendre nos propres décisions sur l’avis de nos médecins et autres professionnels de la santé à qui nous faisons confiance ?

Le film ‘’Silence on Vaccine’’ est diffusé sur l’internet au : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8503852033482537965#

Bon visionnement et n’oubliez surtout pas de le faire parvenir à vos proches et connaissances. Il est également souhaitable que vous écriviez à votre député et autres instances gouvernementales pour exiger des explications sur l’interdiction de ce film. Serait-ce par hasard parce qu’au parlement il y a plus de lobbyistes pharmaceutiques qu’il y a des députés ?

Saturday, 24 October 2009

INTERDICTION DE FUMER DANS LES PÉNITENCIERS LEVÉE PAR LA COUR FÉDÉRALE


La cour fédérale a renversé l’interdiction de fumer à l’extérieur des pénitenciers en statuant que les détenus ne devraient pas être soumis à des interdictions qui n’ont aucun lien avec leurs crimes et que de leur interdire de fumer dans la cour des prisons va trop loin surtout que ceci n’a aucune incidence sur la santé des non-fumeurs.

En voici une décision sage du juge qui présidait la cause soumise par des détenus représentés par nul autre que le constitutionaliste notoire Me Julius Grey.


Cette décision est plus que la bienvenue dans un contexte où fumer est considéré presqu’un crime en soi. Il est cependant triste de constater que dans notre système judiciaire c’est seulement ceux qui ont les moyens de se payer des avocats du calibre de Me Grey qui réussissent à trouver justice. Peut-on espérer que cette décision créera une jurisprudence pour les malades, les psychiatrisés, les personnes âgées, qui, selon la province, certains n’ont pas le droit de fumer nulle part sur le territoire des établissements publics qui les hébergent.

Nous félicitons Me Grey et les détenus qu’il représentait pour leur victoire et espérons de tout cœur que cette décision servira aux membres les plus vulnérables de la société qui n’ont pas d’autre choix que de cesser de fumer ou d’être forcés à consommer des produits pharmaceutiques tel que le Chantix/Champix, le Zyban ou les produits nicotiniques pharmaceutiques.

Les détenus peuvent fumer, tranche la Cour fédérale

THE WHO EXPOSED FOR THE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED AGENCY IT HAS BECOME

After rewriting the definition of obesity by lowering the acceptable Body Mass Index, redefining diabetes by lowering the permissible threshold and the same with blood pressure and cholesterol, now we have a newly manufactured definition for a ''pandemic''. (Read more at: http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/10/epidemics-by-definition.html )

We will echo some of the comments posted following the article linked to below and congratulate the author for his audacity to expose the WHO for the politically motivated agency it has become. The health of the populations seems to be very low on their list of priorities. Validating and sustaining their existence is what’s on the very top. Using unjustified fear mongering and sustained social engineering to subtract independent nations of their right to govern according to the specific needs of their respective citizens, has become a very dangerous tactic used by the WHO through their healthscare campaigns and shenanigans. We certainly hope that this will soon be halted before it is really too late.

Michael Fumento: The WHO's political pandering