Skip navigation.
Home

Smoking Ban


posted under

The research I have been doing since 1998 has shown me the real truth of the myth being spread about Second Hand Smoke worldwide by the Pharmaceuticals. They do this to boost their profits into the Billions through the sale of pills and patches.

I found the largest studies ever done. These studies were completed by the American Cancer society, the World Health Organization, the National Oakridge Labs, one simply called The Enormous German Study and a few others. These were all long term and the largest ever done to date. NONE have been larger or longer in years to complete. None have ever been more complete in their investigation of the supposed problem. The largest percentage started their studies to prove the link of SHS to cancer.

They all agreed in their findings. None found any connection of SHS to cancer. The World Health Organization even stated they also found no connection of SHS to Heart Disease. They also stated there is the possibility that SHS may have the beneficial effect of helping the immune systems of children to develop. The WHO also found that Children of smokers are 22% less likely to contract cancer.

I also fond an almost unbelievable co-operation between Government Agencies, Studies by non-profit organizations, scientist, National Media, Doctors and almost everyone of which stands to profit by spreading the misinformation provided by the Big Pharma.

The worst of the myth spreaders are the EPA and the American Cancer Society. The EPA study was no study. They came up with 3,000 deaths a year caused by SHS by computer generated junk science and that so called study has been proved rigged and false. Even our Surgeon General is still using that figure today,, and the 3,000 figure is still the same. He couldn’t even adlib. His review of studies was a farce and he is no longer the Surgeon General.

The Surgeon Generals study by press conference ( his study of selected studies provided by the EPA) is the product of politically connected charlatans led by Jonathan M. Samet, who has been the ringleader of every major anti-smoking fraud since the EPA ETS report. Like ALL the anti-smokers' reports, it is founded on the deliberate and systematic use of defective studies to falsely blame passive smoking for diseases caused by INFECTION or VIRUS as stated by the ACS in 1955. It is also the most flagrantly politically corrupt: Fred Malek, who was deputy director of President Nixon's board of directors of the contracting firm which concealed the identities of the anti-smoker authors of the EPA ETS report behind illegal pass-through contracts. The EPA’s own scientists would not stand behind this false study but it is being used by every Health Department here and overseas.

The American Cancer Society is the worst offender of all the NON-Profits. The last figures I have are they have over a Billion dollars in cash and they have over 23 fundraisers a year and poormouth at every one of them. Most of their money goes into six figure incomes and more misinformation. They even get in a huff if there is mention of a cure. Why kill the Goose.

The RWJF (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) was set up by Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceuticals to fund the smoking bans through the ACS. Johnson and Johnson is the largest seller of stop smoking products. They own over 260 drug companies with the aim of controlling the nicotine market. The ACS was about to lose its tax free status because of their political funding of smoking bans and they had to create the ACSCAN foundation as a for profit agency to provide funds for pushing the bans.

It’s been a long, deliberate process that continues to become evermore sophisticated in its manipulation of the minds of the American public.
One of the principle architects in the takeover of the American mind is a man named Edward Bernays, who is considered the father of the American public relations industry. If his name doesn’t ring a bell, then maybe his Uncle Sigmund Freud’s will.
In 2002, the BBC broadcast a four-part documentary called “The Century of Self,” covering the story of the relationship between Freud and his American nephew, as Bernays learned about the human mind and how to manipulate the masses. Bernays’ goal, from the early part of the 20th Century, was to be able to teach corporations how to make people want things they didn’t need through a variety of manipulative techniques appealing to people’s unconscious fears and desires.
What makes this production interesting is that it covers post-war America and illustrates how politicians and policymakers learned to use Freud’s ideas in their desire to control the masses as well. It shows how Sigmund Freud’s daughter, Anna, and his nephew Bernays, were central players, along with the U.S. Government, corporate America, among others by controlling the masses via engineering consent.

Lasker (a student of Bernay) and his wife, Mary, longtime board members of the American Cancer Society, realized that really big money could be had for research, if only the public could be convinced that tax dollars -- if poured into research year after year -- might lead to cures for all sorts of diseases, particularly cancer.

Over the years, Lasker had developed a number of Madison Avenue propaganda techniques similar to Bernays that he applied to motivate people to generously fund the American Cancer Society (ACS). Lasker’s campaign strategy detail Lasker’s central role in creating the money hungry machine we call the National Institutes of Health, which began when he retired as the richest man in the history of advertising. was based on our fear of death and the hope that with enough money, we could cure cancer. He coached his friend, Elmer Bobst, president of the American branch of Hoffmann-LaRoche and later Warner-Lambert drug company, to start every fundraising speech with the following statement, "One in five of us here - every fifth person in the audience - will die of cancer.” He would then turn the fear he had engendered into hope with his next line, "We want to cure cancer in your lifetime…donate generously.”

If you have been mislead into believing that SHS is killing people you are just part of the millions so don’t feel too bad. Our City Councils have fallen for this overload of junk science by hearing and reading the same lies everyday since Surgeon General Coop had the first cigarette labels warn about cancer.

The Fat Police are coming. Can you even guess how many Billions the Big Pharma will make on diet pills? I may be wrong on this; they may go after alcohol next.

I’m up to over 278 studies and reports on the myth of SHS and growing. I know I can’t stop this control of our lives by myself. There are too many people and too much money against me and too many people who won’t believe and won’t take the time to find the truth.

We don’t have an immigration problem either. Do you believe that?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

I have all the facts needed to show that this push for smoking bans is about money not health.

Virgil Kleinhelter
8804 Brown Austin Rd.
Fairdale, Ky. 40118

v.kleinhelter@insightbb.com
CELL 502-727-4747

Richmond and smoking ban

I have been going to Richmond for almost 2 years now to get a reprieve from Ohio's smoking ban. Everytime I count the numerous Ohio license plates in the parking lots. I know people who have not spent a dime in Ohio since the draconian ban. They buy gas, groceries, clothes and dine out in Richmond. I can assure you that if the smoking ban goes through in Richmond, that will no longer happen.

According to the Ohio Dept. of Taxation, 313 drinking establishments closed in 2007. More than 5,400 employees lost their jobs. This does not include the restaurants that closed. Think again Richmond!!!!

re: smoking ban

Virgil,

Civilization is the restriction of individual freedom. For instance, we have fire codes. You can't build your apartment out of kerosene-soaked cardboard because it endangers other people. We have a thousand laws that restrict what an individual can do because it is singularly destructive to the larger community.

Smoking in public places falls into this category. It makes other people and clothing smell foul. It makes many people cough or become sick, even if you disbelieve the cancer connection.

This video explains more about the related ethics, although it is specifically about transportation, not smoking.

Kerosene soaked houses?

Mark, if you honestly think that living in the midst of kerosene soaked houses is the equivalent of allowing some businesses the option of allowing people to smoke...

... Well, I don't think anything I say here will change your mind.

Other folks who might like to see the kinds of lies smoking bans are based on should visit:

http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257.html

and read the free "Stiletto" booklet you'll find there. It's one-sided, making the argument against bans, but it's accurate and honest. You may be surprised to find that the "studies" you hear about all the time are not quite what you might think: they're often deliberately designed to give certain sorts of hi-publicity results and then presented to the public in ways that make those results even more outlandish.

It's a quick read, and worth it.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

still not convinced

I read through some of your pamphlet and found it unconvincing.

For example, it went to great detail to document that some bars went out of business after a smoking ban. The fact is that most businesses fail, and I'm sure many would prefer to blame it on some something external rather than their own management. That kind of data may be compelling if you contrasted the rate of bar closings compared to the *normal* rate of bars of going out of business.

I found flaws in the other arguments and presentation as well, but am not inclined to spend my time going through them blow-by-blow.

Response to "flaw" ....

Mark, you wrote, "For example, it went to great detail to document that some bars went out of business after a smoking ban. The fact is that most businesses fail, and I'm sure many would prefer to blame it on some something external rather than their own management. That kind of data may be compelling if you contrasted the rate of bar closings compared to the *normal* rate of bars of going out of business."

Mark, all of my arguments and data are accurate. You bring up one point from my writing and make a reasonable request: that I contrast the rate of bar closings to the *normal" rate of bar closings.

No problem. I stand behind that just as I stand behind everything I write.

If you go to England's Morning Advertiser at

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/news.ma/article/57964

you will find that in the two years prior to England's smoking ban pubs there were closing at an average rate of 3/week. In the one year since their ban that rate has increased to 27/week.

That's a 900% increase in closure rates.

I believe I have answsered the single criticism that you offered and shown it was not indeed a flaw. You say you found "other" flaws as well. If you have others I would be happy to answer them.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Correction: I was wrong.

Four days ago I told Mark that the British pub closure rate had gone from a two year average of 3/week before their ban to 27/week since their ban.

I was wrong.

Yesterday's Sunday Mirror now puts the post ban rate at 36 per week.

Mark, that's a 1,100% increase in pub closure rates. You asked me for the figures, citing my lack of them in the "Stiletto" as a flaw. I've now given them to as well as updated them and am waiting for the OTHER flaws you claim to have found.

Meanwhile, think a bit about this. The Mirror's figures indicate a total loss about 7,000 pubs in the first five years of their ban. That's a total loss of livelihood, figuring just five employees per pub, of 35,000 jobs.

Even if you uncritically accept the EPA's claims of deaths from secondary smoke exposure, and assuming 25,000 of those 35,000 are nonsmokers, that would mean just about 25 of those workers will not develop lung cancer in 40 years or so from now.

Meanwhile the other 34,975 Brits can just go starve to death for all the Antismokers care I guess. And maybe their kids with them, eh?

Do I sound a bit touchy on the point? Yes.

How about those other flaws you claim to have found Mark. They sure better be better than this one.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Flaws 'n Fleabites...

It's now going on three weeks as I wait for Mark (or anyone else for that matter...) to point out any substantive flaws in the material presented in the Stiletto booklet at:

http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257.html

Come on. It's short, it's big print, and it points out the lies of the antismoking movement on virtually every page.

If you think smoking bans are justified you ought to be able to rip it apart easily.

So why do I hear nothing other than the crickets chirping?

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Re: Flaws 'n Fleabites

Michael,

Thanks for posting on the site. You clearly have some strong opinions about the smoking ban that is being considered in Richmond, and we appreciate you sharing those here.

Mark indicated a while ago that he wasn't interested in continuing this discussion with you in this format, so I would ask that you respect that and not continue to use the forum to call him out for a response.

The PWC forums are generally low-traffic anyway, and there's no particular expectation at this time that any given question or post will receive a response - it doesn't mean that no good response is out there, nor does it mean that the people who participate in one phase of a conversation have given up their interest in the topic just because they don't participate in another.

But, unless anyone else indicates an interest in engaging you on this issue here, I would suggest you direct your future comments to the Richmond Common Council (or, your own local legislative body if you don't live here in Richmond), since it is those entities that are continuing this discussion actively and in a way that will impact the laws here.

Thanks again for your participation!

Chris

Thank you Chris!

Thank you for taking the time to explain, and I'll respect that. :) I'd thought he had more problems with what I'd written and might have more to say.

I wish you well, and appreciate greatly the fact that you're such a courteous board host! Heh.... there are a lot of net folks out there who could learn from you!

:)
Michael