Stephen Hecht's Temporal Anomaly

Dr. Hecht, the Wallin Professor of Cancer Prevention and the American Cancer Society Research Professor at The Cancer Center at the University of Minnesota, appears to be at the center of a star-trekesque temporal loop wherein a unique circumstance mysteriously repeats itself.

I first encountered this temporal anomaly after reading an article in the Globe & Mail newspaper, authored by Andre Picard, on December 22, 2003. In that article, Picard stated:
"New research shows, for the first time, just how seriously non-smokers can be affected by secondhand cigarette smoke, even by casual exposure in a public place. The study, published in the medical journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention, found that, after only four hours in a casino, non-smokers had dramatically increased levels of carcinogens circulating in their blood. Kristin Anderson, of the University of Minnesota's division of epidemiology, said the levels of two well-known tobacco-based carcinogens , known as NNK and NNAL, rose two to four times on average in non-smokers. She said that until now, a direct link between exposure to smoke and cancer-causing agents had been shown only in a laboratory setting, not in a commercial one."
Globe & Mail story

Reading those words, I had a distinct impression of deja-vu. There was something so familiar about, as if I had read the same words on the same subject sometime in the past. I started searching through my files and - lo & behold - discovered a Las Vegas Review-Journal story about an amazingly similar study to the one referred to in the Globe & Mail article, which appeared on Wednesday, September 10, 1997.

Not only was the subject of the studies referred to in both articles very similar, some specific phrasings in both articles were nearly identical and both articles - published some 6 years apart - contained an identical "first time ever" occurence.

Globe & Mail, 2003 article:
"New research shows, for the first time, just how seriously non-smokers can be affected by secondhand cigarette smoke, even by casual exposure in a public place....Kristin Anderson, of the University of Minnesota's division of epidemiology, said the levels of two well-known tobacco-based carcinogens , known as NNK and NNAL, rose two to four times on average in non-smokers. She said that until now, a direct link between exposure to smoke and cancer-causing agents had been shown only in a laboratory setting, not in a commercial one"

Las Vegas Review-Journal 1997:
"Nonsmokers who work in a smoking environment have shown physical evidence of a cancer-causing substance in their urine, according to a new study released Tuesday. According to the author, the study, presented at the American Chemical Society convention in Las Vegas, marks the first time research has been conducted in the workplace rather than in a laboratory environment"
"The substance, called NNK, was detected in the urine of nine nonsmoking hospital workers caring for patients in a smoking area of a Canadian veterans hospital, said Dr. Stephen Hecht of the University of Minnesota Cancer Center."
"This is the first time that a metabolite of a tobacco-specific lung carcinogen has been found in the urine of nonsmokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke under field conditions," Hecht said."

Initially, I wondered if reporter Andre Picard - who is openly a partisan advocate for the Health Promotion industry - might have plagarized his story from the Review-Journal story of 1997. However, a little more research revealed the source of Picard's story to be a news item on the University of Minnesota's website:
Inhaling tobacco smoke in public places
wherein the wording is even more identical to the 1997 Review-Journal story:
"A new study by University researchers is the first to measure tobacco-specific carcinogens in nonsmokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke in a public setting."
"This study by University researchers is the first to measure tobacco-specific carcinogens in nonsmokers exposed to ETS in a public setting"

Apparently, this unique circumstance - "the first time that a metabolite of a tobacco-specific lung carcinogen [specifically, NNK] was found in the urine of nonsmokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke under field conditions" - occured twice, the first time in 1997 and then again in 2003. Both times, the study in question was conducted and publicized by Dr Hecht and his team at the University of Minnesota. How could this be? Were they trapped in a time-loop, repeating the same discovery over & over?

Obviously not, but they did report and publicize the same discovery multiple times and claimed to be making the discovery "for the first time" in both instances. Why would they do this?

What does "the importance" of Stephen Hecht's research work reveal about "the purpose" of his work -
In 2006, Hecht was awarded the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR)-Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation (CRPF) Award for Excellence in Cancer Prevention Research: Hecht honored

"Dr. Hecht has been the most cited author on tobacco carcinogenesis, and is generally recognized as the world's leader in research on tobacco-specific human carcinogens called nitrosamines, found in cigarette smoke and smokeless tobacco. Other work in his laboratory, showing that exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke resulted in the presence of tobacco-specific carcinogens in nonsmokers has had a profound impact on clean indoor air laws critical for tobacco control.
"Stephen Hecht's ground-breaking and detailed research on tobacco-specific nitrosamines has enhanced our understanding of tobacco carcinogenesis," said Dr. Margaret R. Spitz, chair of the Department of Epidemiology at The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center and co-chair of the award selection committee. "His research has provided a strong scientific rationale for public policies on smoking restriction."

In honoring Hecht with this award, the AACR clearly states the importance of his work to be the impact it has had on advancing the Tobacco Control public policy agenda. Hecht himself describes the importance of his work: From basic research to tobacco control

"We have quantified total NNAL in amniotic fluid of mothers who smoke, in the urine of newborns of mothers who smoke, in infants exposed to parental cigarette smoke, in elementary school children, in women living with men who smoke, in hospital workers exposed to patients who smoke, in people who frequented smoking sections of gambling casinos, and in restaurants and bars where smoking was permitted. The results of these studies consistently show uptake of NNK greater than in non-exposed non-smokers, with levels of total NNAL about 1-5% as great as in smokers. These data provide very strong supporting evidence for the epidemiologic studies showing elevated risk of lung cancer in non-smokers exposed to cigarette smoke. These studies also have impact, because they inevitably attract media attention. This work has contributed to the legislative momentum for smoke free restaurants and bars, which, along with taxation and anti-tobacco advertising, is a mainstay of current tobacco control strategies. The regulation of indoor smoking can reduce cues for smoking, reduce the amount smoked, and ultimately can change social norms. In summary, some basic research questions involving nicotine chemistry and mechanisms of carcinogenesis of the tobacco-specific lung carcinogen NNK led to more applied studies which have had an impact on tobacco control."

One rather subtle understatement in Hecht's words above is particularly revealing:
"These studies also have impact, because they inevitably attract media attention".
It is particularly important, both to Hecht and to the entire Tobacco Control industry, that his studies attract media attention, that they are widely publicized as a result, and that fear-mongering assessments of the implications of his work be widely disseminated through the mass media. This is essential, as it generates public sympathy toward the Tobacco Control public policy measures that Hecht's research will serve as a justification for. But, why do Hecht's studies "inevitably attract media attention". Is there something about the ways that Hecht and his team promote their studies that media find seductively appealing? Is there something about "the framing" manipulations that Hecht et al use to describe their studies that grabs media attention?

How about, if they were to describe their study as "groundbreaking", "for the first time", or "the first time 'X' carcinogen was measured in non-smokers in the workplace rather than a laboratory". Would that get the media's attention? And if that worked, in 1997, why not use it again in 2003? That could be a deceptive manipulation, but does that really matter?

What Hecht's work really tells us -
In 1999, Stephen Hecht summarized & reviewed the research on tobacco smoke carcinogens and cancer: Tobacco Smoke Carcinogens and Cancer

The importance of Hect's work, for Tobacco Control and apparently in his own eyes, is that he has developed a plausible biological explanation for how tobacco and tobacco smoke might cause cancer - particularly lung cancer - and demonstrated that his most viable culprit carcinogen, NNK, is absorbed by and can be measured in non-smokers. Widespread dissemination of these finding has resulted in a widespread belief that Hecht's work therefore proves that second-hand smoke causes cancer in non-smokers, and that widespread belief has generated public support for a range of Tobacco Control public policy measures. In this 1999 summary, however, what Hecht tells us does not in fact justify belief that second-hand smoke causes cancer in non-smokers:

"...exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is widely accepted as a cause of lung cancer, although the risk is far lower than that of smoking and can be difficult to demonstrate, even in large studies".
Even in the writings of distinguished scientists with great expertise in cancer causes and mechanisms, one can read statements such as: "The carcinogenic mechanisms of tobacco smoking are not well understood".
This review will attempt to provide the generally informed cancer scientist with a distillation of mechanistic information on the subject of tobacco smoke carcinogens and lung cancer and to convince the reader that we know a great deal about the mechanisms by which these carcinogens cause lung cancer. While it is true that we may never be able to map each detail of the complex process by which cigarette smoking causes lung cancer and that there is unlikely to be a single mechanism of tobacco carcinogenesis, there are general principles that have emerged from intensive research in the past four to five decades."

"The tobacco-specific N-nitrosamine NNK is a potent lung carcinogen in rats, mice, and hamsters.
It is the only [nitrosamine] compound that induces lung tumors systemically in all three commonly used rodent models.
Cigarette smoke contains substantial amounts of NNK and the total dose experienced by a smoker in a lifetime of smoking is remarkably close to the lowest total dose shown to induce lung tumors in rats.
The long-term exposure of smokers to the genotoxic intermediates formed from these carcinogens is consistent with our present understanding of cancer induction as a process which requires multiple genetic changes. Thus, it is completely plausible that the continual barrage of DNA damage produced by tobacco smoke carcinogens causes the multiple genetic changes that are associated with lung cancer. While each dose of carcinogen from a cigarette is extremely small, the cumulative damage produced in years of smoking will be substantial".

Note this: "the total dose [of NNK] experienced by a smoker in a lifetime of smoking is remarkably close to the lowest total dose shown to induce lung tumors in rats".
In other words, the smallest dose of NNK that can induce cancer in a rat is equivalent to the total dose of a lifetime of smoking. But Hecht's studies on NNK absorbtion by non-smokers finds that they absorb only 1-3% of the NNK absorbed by the person doing the smoking. That means, a non-smoker would have to suffer 33 - 100 liftimes of second-hand smoke exposure to accumulate the equivalent of the smallest dose that can induce cancer in a rat. If something in tobacco smoke is causing lung cancer in non-smokers, it can't possibly be NNK.

Research scientists should be judged on the basis of their published work and how they represent that work to the public, not on the basis of who provides their funding. If a researcher makes false claims about their work for the sake of attracting media attention - such as claiming to make the same discovery "for the first time" more than once, or allowing their work to be misrepresented as conclusive evidence that something causes cancer in a specific population (when if fact it is merely suggestive of such a relationship) for the purpose of advancing public policy agendas - then it seems fair and appropriate to raise questions about whether or not "the importance" of their work to certain interest groups, or to a sponsor or client, might be influencing the content of that work.

"Politics In The Guise Of Pure Science"

This article, by John Tierney of the New York Times, is quite insightful:
Politics in the guise of pure science

and highly relevant to the previous discussion: Riding the coat-tails of Holocaust certainty

"But climate change, like most political issues, isn’t so simple. While most scientists agree that anthropogenic global warming is a threat, they’re not certain about its scale or its timing or its precise consequences (like the condition of California’s water supply in 2090). And while most members of the public want to avoid future harm from climate change, they have conflicting values about which sacrifices are worthwhile today.

A scientist can enter the fray by becoming an advocate for certain policies, like limits on carbon emissions or subsidies for wind power. That’s a perfectly legitimate role for scientists, as long as they acknowledge that they’re promoting their own agendas.

But too often, Dr. Pielke says, they pose as impartial experts pointing politicians to the only option that makes scientific sense. To bolster their case, they’re prone to exaggerate their expertise (like enumerating the catastrophes that would occur if their policies aren’t adopted), while denigrating their political opponents as “unqualified” or “unscientific.”

“Some scientists want to influence policy in a certain direction and still be able to claim to be above politics,” Dr. Pielke says. “So they engage in what I call ‘stealth issue advocacy’ by smuggling political arguments into putative scientific ones.”

Disgusting and untrue, but legal -
Meanwhile, David Ahenakew has been found not guilty of willfully promoting hatred of Jews, although his remarks were termed "disgusting and untrue" by the judge: Ahenakew acquited

Riding The Coat-tails Of Holocaust Certainty: "Denialist" inquisition is about controlling public opinion and policy, not about scientific debate

There is a currently trendy effort by risk-factor epidemiologists and others working in controversial fields, to ride the coat-tails of Holocaust certainty. They claim to be engaged in "protecting" science and scientific debate from insincere efforts to derail and misdirect such debate, but their own words reveal that their true motivations have to do with creating "dangerous heretic" scapegoats and with controlling public opinion & policy.

[Disclaimer: these "Denialist" witch-hunters have perversely appropriated the term "denialist out from the proper context of "Holocaust denier/denialist". This is inappropriate and offensive: offensive analogies . Unfortunately, it will be impossible to discuss this issue without repeating their offensive usage of this terminology. I apologize to any readers who are offended by this]

Origin of the "Denialist" Inquisition -
In September of 2006, excerpts from George Monbiots book Heat were published in The Guardian newspaper: The Denial Industry Monbiot purported to be exposing a conspiracy by Big Oil to flood the media with intentionally false & misleading propaganda disguised as legitimate "climate science", for the purpose of discrediting global warming science. Monbiot further purported to expose that many of the persons and/or organizations involved in disseminating this 'propaganda' were prevbiously involved in disseminating false or misleading 'propaganda' questioning links between second-hand smoke and cancer, on behalf of Big Tobacco. Monbiot labelled these persons & groups "Denialists".

The story was picked up by Give Up Blog, where an attempt was made to define a set of rhetorical tactics used by industry propagandists and label them "Denialism": Give Up Blog - Denialists

By early 2007, the ball had been picked up by the reigning Popes of the "Denialist" Inquistion - Mark and Chris Hoofnagle - with their original site called "denialism.com" : Denialism.com

In an article from that site, the brothers Hoofnagle define denialism as: "the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none." : What is denialism? What follows this definition are a series of rhetorical devices allegedly employed by all "denialists" to derail "legitimate" discussion on a variety of subjects. An interesting piece of trivia for regular readers of this blog: in the comments section at the bottom of that article, you will find several comments - cheering the Hoofnagles on - from exposed fraud Cathy Bell: Cathy Bell identity revealed

The Hoofnagle Popes later moved their site to Science Blogs: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/

The Hoofnagle's make many claims about their intentions in creating these sites and agressively disseminating the memes "denialist" & "denialism", but their own words & deeds betray very different motivations. What is this "Denialist" campaign really about?

It's a witch-hunt -
This witch-hunt has nothing to do with exposing frauds, scams or hoaxes, it is about construction of a term of disparagement intended to carry the connotation of "dangerous heretic".

The Hoofnagles have created, in their "Denialist's deck of cards": http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/deck.php
and in various other places throughout their articles on "Denialism", a catalog of ways in which opponents of their policy agendas have in the past (or might, in the future) raise objections to those policy agendas. They create such a catalog, and then declare all of these objections to be "proof" that their opponents are "Denialists". Very clever lads, these Popes. So, before anyone even begins to raise objections to anything they say about any person or topic, they can start screaming "DENIALIST!" and point to their own catalog of "denialist tools" as proof! Even Uri Geller would be embarrassed by such a cheap trick.

Having anticipated that their campaign would be exposed for the witch-hunt it really is, the Hoofnagles cleverly list calling what they are up to "McCarthyism" or "witch-hunting", a sure sign that the person is a Denialist! So, already, without having mentioned one word about any specific scientific debate, by their definitions I am already a "Denialist". What a joke!

Nevertheless, they cannot escape the reality of what they've put up on the internet - and that includes lists of "dangerous heretics" to be shunned & harrassed: Who are the denialists?
They claim that their campaign is not about name-calling, they claim that they are just interested in exposing "tactics" employed by persons who intentionally obfuscate discussions of science. If that was in fact their true motivation, surely they would just list these tactics and let others analyze the arguments they might encounter for evidence of those tactics. But, no, they will save you the trouble of actually bothering to analyze what others are saying. They will tell you who is or is not a "Denialist" (dangerous heretic) - and therefore whom you ought to shun, censor and/or harrass - without any accompanying analysis of those person's works as evidence for their "guilt". That is witch-hunting. That is an inquisition. That is McCarthyism.

I hereby predict that, following the posting of this expose, their minions will invade this blog to post all kinds of nasty denunciations of me. Because, that's one of the real purposes of creating such a list of heretics - to direct those of their followers who get off on verbally savaging people on the internet as a form of 'stress release', to their "victim of the day".

Early comments on their blog, by a wise person calling himself "Kevin", very accurately nailed down what they are really up to:

"Why even coin the term "denialism" if not to smear someone through guilt by association? There are plenty of relevant terms to deal with liars, frauds, etc. Nothing about denial per se is even dishonest, so what else could the import of the term be?
If someone is denying a fact you think critical, why even lump them into a group to be dismissed rather than refuting their argumentation? The whole enterprise of categorizing people into 'denialists' and 'cranks' just smacks of mental laziness, i.e. 'here's a quick way to lump all manner of people with a point of view different than my own into a conceptual category I can ignore completely.' "

"The semantic substance of 'denialist' is not denial, even in your estimation, but intentionally poorly founded theories and ignorance of counter arguments. Why invent "denialist" then? Denial doesn't entail fraud, but your objections to "denialism" do. I can't be much plainer; I'm not objecting to you personally, I just don't like the invention of the word "denialism".Many other words in English better serve the purpose for which you are hunting, like 'charlatan', 'fraud', etc. I don't see another purpose to inventing a new word when so many already exist that are more precise and accurate. Rather I do see a reason, the rhetorical goal to equate denial of certain orthodox positions with immorality."

"I have also bemoaned the fact of life that if you don't want to get ripped off you need to research. It applies to everything involving other people you don't know intimately, not just I.D. or climate change. So what? That's life among the non-telepathic. Encouraging people to take a shortcut and lump everyone *denying* a certain position [as implied by the root of 'denialist'] is a rhetorical device which serves a different purpose than pointing out tips to spot frauds"

Yea, verily, Kevin.

It's about controlling public perception and policy-making -
In their own words:
"We don't argue with cranks. Part of understanding denialism is knowing that it's futile to argue with them, and giving them yet another forum is unnecessary."
"Recognizing denialism also means recognizing that you don't need to, and probably shouldn't argue with it."
"They're cranks and we aim to show you how you can instantly recognize and dismiss crank arguments."

Where have we heard this before, eh? Oh yes - in Dr Michael Siegel's expose about how he was taught to handle arguments against Tobacco Control orthodoxy: "Don't debate the person, just smear them by calling them a Tobacco Industry lackey" : brainwashing in tobacco control

Hmmm...the origin of this Inquisition lies in George Monbiot's book wherein he alleges that various persons sceptical of global warming theory are "industry lackeys" and therefore ought to be ignored by both the public & the press, and here we have the Popes Hoofnagle declaring that they don't argue [debate] with "denialist cranks", that you shouldn't either, and that they will tell you when to "instantly...dismiss...arguments". Let's see if the parallels between Tobacco Control Cult brainwashing and the "Denialist" Inquisition continue to hold...

For at least 15 years, the Tobacco Control Cult has been denouncing the traditional "balanced coverage" approach to journalism. They correctly perceived that balanced reporting on smoking-related issues was an obstacle to their control over public opinion and public policy. Tobacco Control's pathological lust for total control over public perceptions about smoking and ultimately public policy-making is well known & documented. It's never been a secret, so this is no "conspiracy theory". Tobacco Control has openly developed & implemented a continuous barrage of Social Marketing campaigns that even they declare to be efforts to control the public's thinking on smoking-related matters. The Cancer Society, for example, has published numerous versions of Tobacco Control Strategy guides that detail exactly how to go about manipulating & control the public's and policy maker's perceptions: Tobacco Control strategy guides

One of their principle tactics has been urging the mass media to self-censor; to stop giving balanced coverage to smoking-related issues, to stop giving space in their news coverage to specific individuals on a list of "industry lackey" heretics, and to instead declare that "there is no longer any debate" about certain issues.

This is also one of the primary "concerns" expressed by the "Denialist" Inquisition: "the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none." and by "in actuality there is none" they mean that Popes in some field have declared a "concensus" on a particular subject, after which "responsible" journalists are supposed to "stop giving our policy opponents media coverage, dammit!"

There are even full-fledged "studies" purporting to demonstrate that "balanced coverage" in media misleads the public as to the "true state" of research in that field: Balance as bias

But what do the Popes themselves say about their interest in controlling public perception & policy-making?
"Mark Hoofnagle has a PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia and is currently a 3rd year medical student. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge"
"Chris Hoofnagle is an attorney with experience in consumer protection advocacy in Washington and Sacramento. His interest in denialism concerns the use of rhetorical tactics by various industries in dumbing down policy debates"

The Hoofnagles themselves state that their "interest in denialism" has to do with public perceptions and policy debates! There's more, of course...

Mark Hoofnagle says: "Look at any group of people that is trying to distort science, and their methods, and they will almost always be using several of these methods. Further, lay people, especially in the press, seem completely unaware that these methods simply aren't valid forms of reasoning for a scientific debate."
"Recognize the tactics, raise awareness that they don't represent legit debate, get everybody on the same page and hopefully when the next form of anti-science denialist BS pops up it won't be half a century before it dies again. We believe if these tactics are made recognizable and instantly illegitimate in the eyes of most people, the BS merchants will be disarmed of their best tactics."
"In an ideal world, for instance, a journalist researching some topic wouldn't end up interviewing one scientist and then some flat-earther for balance."

One of the Hoofnagle's allies is ScienceBlogs blogger Chris Mooney. Mooney was the author of "How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality". Mooney was also a speaker at a presentation at American University titled: "Framing Science: Ways to engage citizens and shape public policy". Some of the highlights from this presentation include;

"Scientific knowledge itself is not enough to win political debates, change government policies, or sway public opinion. Scientists need to learn tactics of effective communication to target audiences. Frame theory explains how communication is transmitted and received in the media and in political discourse. Frames organize issues in ways that give them latent meaning. There are numerous frames that can be employed to package information effectively. Today more than ever, scientists have tremendous power to influence politics and solve pressing problems."

"As issues at the intersection of science and politics gain more and more attention, something more than pure science--more than just "getting the facts out there"--will be necessary to break through to the public"

"Using cutting edge research on public opinion and media coverage of science issues, and drawing on case studies from the battles over stem cell research, evolution, global warming, hurricanes, and other subjects, Mooney and Nisbet show how scientists can learn to frame stories about old issues in new ways, while taking advantage of the fragmented media environment to micro-target specific audiences. In the process, scientists and advocates can engage citizens who are currently tuning out their messages, insulate against likely attacks, and ensure enduring relevance for their work."

This is much more than simply "pointing out the weak rhetorical basis for...arguments", as Mark Hoofnagle has claimed, in fact this has nothing to do with "valid scientific debate" at all! This is about the same kind of calculated manipulation of public and policy-maker thinking for the purpose of controlling public policy that Tobacco Control has engaged in for decades. And one of those manipulative tools happens to be construction and aggressive dissemination of a term of disparagement intended to carry the connotation of "dangerous heretic".

Another of these manipulative tools involves falsely implying that work in such fields as epidemiology or climate change generate "truths" of the same order of certainty represented by the historical reality of The Holocaust. Both of these manipulations are accomplished through the term "Denialist".

Addendum -
I found this wonderful posting by Matthew Nisbet, Chris Mooney's co-presenter at the American University presentation mentioned above: Nisbet on "Denialism"
"The frame device "denier" should be laid to rest in the same rhetorical grave as other terms such as "anti-science." They serve little purpose other than to feed polarization while also frequently backfiring, turning the debate into a discussion of the alleged underhanded or sensational tactics of science defenders rather than a focus on the substance of the issues themselves.
Worse, these terms are also often inaccurate. Few if any people in modern society are actually "anti-scientific," just like on few issues are the facts or evidence as clear as the Holocaust, the comparison called to mind in any use of "denier" in political discourse."

Scientific data doesn't make policy recommendations -
The raw, hard-science data generated by research in any field, is incapable of giving a damn what humans do or do not do. It's just data, it doesn't have policy recommendations encoded within it. Yet, this is exactly how people like the Hoofnagles and many Desmog blog commentators talk about "the science". They make statements along the lines of: "the science says we must do X, Y, or Z", as though the raw data on climate change for example contained a secret gematria (that only scientists who share their policy goals are capable of decoding) spelling out: "sign the Kyoto Accord before its too late, you fools!" That's utter nonsense - the raw data doesn't have opinions about human public policies, it just is whatever it is.

When that kind of argument is made in policy discussions, i.e., "the science says we must do X or Y", opponents of the policies "X" or "Y" may feel compelled to find some way to undermine "the science" in question. That's because, argumentation from "the science says" is extremely compelling - particularly to people who are not scientists working in that field, and certainly including politicians and other policy-makers. Everyone understands how compelling that argument is, especially when it is voiced by an acknowledged expert in that field, even though it is inherently false because "the science" is incapable of holding or expressing opinions on what humans choose to do.

Nevertheless, because the argument is so compelling to so many and because few people understand that it is inherently false, when opponents of policies "X" or "Y" are thrown a bone like: "here's a flaw in that science", of course they latch onto it and repeat it endlessly (often without checking the validity of the source or even bothering to independently verify it). This allows the proponents of policies "X" and "Y" to reply with: "you don't understand the science", or "you're anti-science", or "you're not qualified to express an opinion on the science", etc.

If a person was genuinely concerned to "defend science" in a particular field, they wouldn't make the inherently false statement that: "the science says we must do...", as that virtually guarantees that opponents of the policies will feel forced to attack & undermine the science in question. It is very disingenuous for people who make this argument: "the science says we must do...", to subsequently complain that their policy opponents are attempting to confuse the public's understanding of the science in question, as they have themselves forced their opponents to do this.

Analogies Between Risk-factor Epidemiology And The Holocaust Are Offensive

Anti-smoking advocates Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee continue to repeat their analogy that "scientists who have challenged the causal connection between secondhand smoke and lung cancer are comparable to Holocaust deniers": http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/02/blog-post.html

This analogy is extremely offensive. Asserting that any risk-factor epidemiology generates "fact" of the same class of certainty as historical events, in particular The Holocaust, is utterly ridiculous. Are Diethelm & McKee saying that the historical truth of The Holocaust is no more certain than risk-factor epidemiology "truths"? That would very offensive.

John P. A. Ioannidis has demonstrated that "most published research is false", and that certainly pertains specifically to risk-factor epidemiology: Why most published research is false
Are Diethelm & McKee implying that most Holocaust research is therefore also false?

Diethelm & McKee need to apologize for repeating this analogy, and the European Journal of Public Health needs to apologize for publishing their analogy.

"Denialist" Witch-hunt Expose Delayed

The promised expose of a "Denialist" witch-hunt will be delayed because of persistent wonkiness of the Blogger platform. I'm not taking a chance on ending up with a frozen site, like whatever happened to the original Rigorous Intuition site. But here's a quickie summary:

The term "denialist" has perversely been taken out from the proper context of "Holocaust denier/denialist" and is now being increasingly applied to anyone who raises objections to alleged "scientific concensus" in many fields. There are a complex set of rationalizations for doing this, and doing it in the name of "defending science", but the underlying motivation appears to be control of public perception and policy-making. This witch-hunt has nothing to do with exposing frauds, scams or hoaxes, it is about construction of a term of disparagement intended to carry the connotation of "dangerous heretic".

Initially, the term was primarily applied to persons suspected of acting as propaganda shills for corporate interests but - predictably - it didn't take long for this aggressively disseminated meme to degenerate into an excuse for harrassing and censoring any person that anyone applies the term to.

Victimless Crime - Smoking In Cars

After Nova Scotia passed one of the best examples of a bad law - making smoking in vehicles when anyone aged 19 or younger was present a crime: Nova Scotia makes the law an ass -
and sparked a Moral Panic for similar legislation across the country, I predicted that such laws would become another manifestation of 'victimless crime'. In fact, I even wrote to several law professors across the country who have done work on the subject, and pointed out exactly how & why these laws were likely to become a new class of victimless crime.

Today, the Toronto Sun has a story which proves me right:
Man nailed for smoking in car

"A Port Hope man is the second person in Ontario charged under a new law that prohibits smoking in vehicles carrying children.
And while the 20-year-old man was waiting to be issued his ticket after being pulled over yesterday, his 15-year-old female passenger got out of the vehicle and lit up a cigarette.
Port Hope Police Const. Tammie Hartford said she could only watch in frustration as the 15-year-old smoked.
"She was the reason why I pulled the vehicle over," she said. "She was under the age (of 16)."
Under provincial law, it's only illegal to sell or supply cigarettes to anyone under the age of 19, but there's no law prohibiting a person under 19 from smoking.
Hartford noticed the vehicle travelling on Victoria St. N.
There were four people in the vehicle and she said she recognized one as being under the age of 16.
Hartford said she saw the driver smoking and watched him flick the ashes out twice before pulling the car over.
Under the new Smoke-Free Ontario Amendment Act 2008, which came into effect on Jan. 21, smoking is prohibited in a motor vehicle with persons under the age of 16.
The fine, a provincial offence, carries a $125 ticket, plus court costs that drive the total up to $155. If a person fights the fine in court and loses, the fine can jump to $250."

Who was "the victim" of this 20-year-old man smoking in his vehicle? The 15-year-old girl, who is herself a smoker?

What a load of bullshit.

Social Marketing Distorts Our Perception Of Reality

A popular depiction of "insanity", by our mass media, involves people having perceptions of reality that are greatly at odds with objective facts. By that standard, many Canadians from all walks of life; students, teachers, academics, professionals, politicians, even medical personnel, could be said to suffer from insanity - an insanity induced in them by something that is alleged to be done, ironically, for the sake of our health.

Social Marketing is a collection of techniques by which information is transmitted throughout a population, in a manner calculated to manipulate and control people's thinking about the subject information. This collection of techniques is derived from corporate marketing practices. Like corporate marketing, it's ultimate purpose is to manipulate people's behaviour. Corporate Marketing aims to manipulate our thinking so that we will consume more of some product or service - Social Marketing aims to manipulate our thinking so that we will stop engaging in behaviours that are allegedly 'bad for us' or start engaging in behaviours that are allegedly 'good for us'.

Very few Canadians fully understand how pervasive Social Marketing has become in our society, and how profoundly Social Marketing shapes many people's perceptions of fundamental social & cultural realities.

Matters Of Life And Death -
Because Social Marketing has been generated primarily by practitioners of "health promotion" and "disease prevention", the most profound distortions to our perceptions caused by Social Marketing have to do with matters of health, disease and death. Here are some practical examples of how many person's perceptions of reality in relation to those subjects has been distorted by Social Marketing. Most of these examples have something to do with smoking and "smoking-related disease/deaths", simply because the Tobacco Control industry pioneered adapting & adopting corporate marketing manipulation techniques in service of "the public good".

What caused the majority of deaths in Canada, last year?

Many people would answer that question with: "smoking, of course", and would be utterly certain that smoking caused the vast majority of deaths last year and the year before, and will cause the majority of deaths next year and the year after. Those people would be wrong - their perception of reality has been warped and distorted by Social Marketing.


The truth is that smoking-related deaths accounted for no more than 22% of all deaths that occurred in Canada in 1998, and that percentage was not projected to fluctuate by more than 1-3% in the decade we just lived through. The majority of deaths in Canada, at least 70%, are attributable to some cause other than smoking:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/tobac-tabac/idcds-adctc/index-eng.php

Many people believe that smoking causes the majority of deaths in Canada every year, because they have been repeatedly exposed to the type of Social Marketing information spin you would find in a typical Cancer Society news release like this one:
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2008/16/c8986.html

- "Tobacco use is the number one cause of preventable disease, disability and death in Canada".
Carefully constructed language, calculated to manipulate & distort our perceptions in a specific direction - just like corporate advertising or political campaign propaganda. Read the quoted sentence over again. Does it say that tobacco use causes the majority of yearly deaths in Canada? No. Does it imply that tobacco use causes the majority of deaths? Absolutely!

- "Cigarette smoking causes about 30 per cent of cancer deaths in Canada and more than 85 per cent of lung cancers" & "Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women"

combined with this statement from a Statscan news release:

"Cancer and heart disease, the two leading causes of death for Canadians, were responsible for just over one-half (52.4%) of all deaths in 2004".

Examine the Social Marketing spin in the way this information is communicated to the public; -cancer and heart disease are the two leading causes of death, responsible for over half of all deaths -lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths - smoking causes more than 85% of all lung cancers. The repetitive use of phrasings like "leading cause" in these statements, absent any specific numbers, encourages distorted perceptions such as; that smoking causes 85% of all cancer deaths, or that smoking is 'the leading cause' of 'the leading causes of death' and therefore must be the cause of the majority of all deaths.

How many deaths did smoking cause in Canada in 1998?

Think that's an easy one? Did you remember the referenced Health Canada page with those figures, linked above? According to that Health Canada page: "in Canada, 30,230 men and 17,351 women, including 55 boys and 41 girls under the age of 1, died as a result of active and passive smoking in 1998". So, that seems pretty straightforward. Those are very precise numbers, therefore they must be very accurate - right? "Estimates" don't generate precise numbers like that...

The reality is - those 'precise', 'accurate' numbers do represent estimation. They were generated by a computer program called SAMMEC. Those numbers were not derived from autopsies performed on 47,581 men, women or children to determine the precise cause of their deaths - autopsies are performed on less than 20% of all deceased persons in any given year in Canada. Those numbers were not derived from a direct tabulation of Cause of Death Certificates issued for 47,581 Canadians in the year 1998. The "Smoking Attributed Morbidity, Mortality, and Economic Cost" computer program generates these precise, accurate-looking numbers and it does this on the basis of "smoking attributable fraction" data programmed into it by Tobacco Control technocrats. In other words, SAMMEC is told to "predict" or "estimate" that a certain percentage of various causes of death will be "smoking-related". SAMMEC is programmed to generate estimates of smoking-related deaths based on epidemiological "guesstimates" about what fraction of cancer, heart disease and other causes of death "ought" to be attributed to smoking. The truth is - SAMMEC is programmed to generate whatever numbers Tobacco Control epidemiologists want it to generate. Smoking-related deaths will go up or down on the basis of the "smoking attributable fraction" data entered into SAMMEC, not as a result of painstakingly tabulated Cause of Death Certification derived from autopsy reports.

The reality is that no one really knows how many deaths are a direct result of smoking. The whole concept of estimating and publicizing numbers of "smoking-related" deaths is itself a Social Marketing strategy. The point of "smoking-related" death data isn't to accurately report a verifiable reality, the point is to create & control the population's perception of the death toll tobacco use is taking on their countrymen.

People need to fully understand the fraudulence of "Smoking Attributed Mortality" data social marketing, so they can begin to comprehend the extent to which their perception of reality has been distorted. The "Mortality Attributable to Tobacco Use in Canada and its Regions (1998)" study from which the 1998 estimates on Health Canada's site are taken, makes very serious allegations such as: "...55 boys and 41 girls under the age of 1, died as a result of...smoking in 1998". What a terrible tragedy that would be, if it were actually verifiably true. How many people have read or will read that statement, will assume the precise numbers and gender attributions mean that the data was derived from autopsy or Cause of Death certification, and be powerfully moved by the apparent tragedy? Perhaps they will read that statement, picture a tiny innocent newborn in their mind or a tiny gravestone with "Baby Tyler" or "Baby Sarah" inscribed upon it, and grieve for the loss of these children as though they were their own? Perhaps they might even be inspired to join or start up an anti-smoking campaign in their area, in the memory of these unnamed little victims?

That's a pretty cruel thing to put people through, when the reality is that there are no names of children under the age of one who died in 1998 that could be matched with these alleged 96 tragic smoking-related victims. There are no death certificates for any child who died in 1998, that specify exposure to tobacco smoke as their cause of death. These numbers were generated by programming SAMMEC to predict that a specified percentage of children who die from 4 pediatric diseases - diseases allegedly "linked with maternal smoking" - "ought to be" classified as smoking-related deaths. There was no verification undertaken to establish that 93 children, or even 1 child, really did die as a result of maternal smoking.

A similar manipulation exists in this statement: "...1,107 Canadians who died from either lung cancer or ischemic heart disease attributed to exposure to second-hand smoke". Again, that's a serious and provactive allegation to be disseminating to the public. But, again, there are no names of persons who died in 1998 that could be matched up with these alleged environmental tobacco smoke victims. There are no autopsies or cause of death certifications for 1998 specifying exposure to second-hand smoke as the cause of any person's death. These numbers were generated by programming SAMMEC to predict that a specified percentage of cancer and heart attack victims who were non-smokers "ought to be" attributed to tobacco smoke exposure. There was no verification undertaken to establish that 1,107 Canadians, or even 1 Canadian, really did die as a result of exposure to second-hand smoke.

The reality is, the "Mortality Attributable to Tobacco Use in Canada and its Regions (1998)" study is more of a Social Marketing propaganda tool than a work of 'hard science' research. You can read it for yourself, here: Kaiserman Social Marketing propaganda "study"

and note that one of the authors is Murray J. Kaiserman, who just happens to be Director of Research Evaluation and Surveillance for Health Canada's Tobacco Control Programme. If any further evidence for the real purpose of this study is needed, you'll find it in the Abstract's conclusion: "Cigarette smoking remains the number one preventable cause of death in Canada and its impact on the health of Canadians continues to be an unacceptable burden", or in the final summation - wherein the authors state that "no method" of calculating Smoking Attributed Mortality "is incorrect", you can plug in whatever relative risk factors you personally favor, it doesn't matter what data you plug into SAMMEC because the resulting Smoking Attributed Mortality will always be "an unacceptable burden on Canadians".

Do smoking-related deaths in Canada constitute a catastrophic epidemic?

A team of Canadian Tobacco Control researchers who studied India's smoking rates used that language to describe the fate they see in store for India: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080213193753.htm

and either term, "epidemic" or "catastrophic" is routinely used to describe the 45,000 alleged smoking-related deaths that occur each year here in Canada. Social Marketing propaganda clearly intends to induce a perception that this rate of deaths is an intolerable disaster for our nation. Certainly, all deaths - from whatever cause - are inherently tragic, and it would be a wonderful thing if no person ever died from a smoking-related illness ever again. Nevertheless, is it an objective reality that smoking deaths are at a "catastrophic epidemic" level in Canada?

We've already seen that the perception of smoking deaths constituting a majority of annual deaths is wildly incorrect. Assuming the SAMMEC estimates to be reasonably accurate ( a huge assumption in itself), smoking only contributes to 22% of our yearly death toll, not 85% or 60% or even 40%...just 22%. Is 22% a catastrophic percentage of all deaths?

45,000 persons represents less than .2%, less than two-tenths of one percent of our population. That doesn't seem to be a disasterous rate of death - certainly not one capable of wrecking the economy or overwhelming the health system or dooming us to extinction. Actually, our total annual death rate doesn't seem very disasterous either - a little more than one-half of one percent of our population. On reflection, doesn't that seem admirably low? Perhaps we ought to be focused on celebrating our good fortune that so few of us pass away every year, rather than working ourselves into fanatical frenzies over the relatively tiny percentage who do.

To provide some perspective, the Spanish Flu or influenza epidemic of 1918-1920 is estimated to have killed 5% of the global human population in under three years. Estimates of total deaths range from 50 to 100 million worldwide. As many as 7 million may have perished in India alone, representing about 2.75% of that nation's population at that time. 50,000 Canadians are estimated to have died in that epidemic, representing about 1% of our population at that time. Adding to the catastrophic nature of the Spanish Flu was the unusually high concentration of deaths in the 20-40 year old range, the prime productivity and child-bearing years, compounding the loss of 16 million dead and as many as 21 million disabled during WW1, with many of these also in the prime 20-40 year old range.

Do current smoking-related deaths really constitute either "a catastrophe" or "an epidemic"?

Tuition, Rent Hikes Will Prevent Smoking

Calgary's Action On Smoking & Health spokeszealot Robyn Hauck ought to be delighted by the University of Alberta's announced hikes in tuition fees and accomodation rents for their students:

"University of Alberta tuition and residence rates are going up this fall after the school’s board of governors approved a pair of increases Friday morning.
The governors voted in favour of hikes that will see tuition rise 4.1 per cent and room rents jump eight per cent, drawing the ire of student leaders who derided the decision as an unwelcome hardship during a time of economic stress.
The 4.1-per-cent tuition hike — the maximum allowed by a provincial policy that ties increases to Alberta’s inflation rate — will raise basic undergraduate tuition next fall by about $200 to $5,100. Last year’s tuition increase was 4.6 per cent.
As for room rates, the eight-per-cent rise will be applied across the board at all of the university’s Edmonton residences. That means the monthly cost of a double room in Lister Centre moves to $328 from $304, while a one-bedroom unit in HUB jumps to $878 from $813. The prices include utilities."
University tuition & rent hikes

Earlier this week, Ms Hauck was quoted in several media as stating - despite the fact that "according to a study released by Health Canada Monday, fewer Albertans aged 15 and over are lighting up", a $2 per pack increase in tobacco taxes is desperately need to further prevent smoking in the 15-19 year old age group because "tobacco is too affordable". By this logic, the U of A's tuition and rent hikes ought to reduce or prevent student smoking by eating up a greater percentage of student financial resources which otherwise might have been mis-spent...on tobacco! Robyn Hauck ought to be delighted about this!

All this time, many of us were under the impression that financial distress was a principle cause of ill-health - it took the geniuses in Tobacco Control to figure out that financial distress is actually the key to good health! Poor health is, according to them, caused by being able to afford things that are bad for your health - so society should levy massive taxes on such things. Unfortunately, some things that are bad for youngsters health are beyond the capacity of governments to tax - such as crystal meth, crack cocaine or MDMA - while other things that actually cause youth deaths such as ATVs, winter sports and extreme sports are too socially acceptable to levy taxes on. So, the real answer is probably to institute a special "youth wage" so low that they won't be able to afford any things that could hurt them - say, about $5/hr? ASH says: "Tobacco remains extremely affordable in this province, requiring only 44 minutes of working time for a youth to earn enough for a premium pack..." A special "youth wage" of $5/hr would fix that right up - then they'd have to work for over two hours to earn enough for even a 'cheap' pack!

What a shame that she's more concerned about "attractive" cigarette and cigarillo packaging than about actual causes of death among Alberta youth. "Injuries are the leading cause of death for Alberta children and youth between 1 and 19 years of age. Of all age groups, youth 15 to 19 years have the highest percentage of injury deaths making injury prevention in youth a primary public health issue".
http://www.acicr.ualberta.ca/documents/YouthReviewFinalWeb.pdf

The reality is, that people aged 15-19 - living with their parents and having no food, clothing or accomodation expenses - who can already afford to spend $12 per pack or more for cigarettes aren't going to be bothered much by paying $14 instead.

On the other hand - poor, elderly or disabled Albertans who smoke will have even more food taken out of their mouths by this ASH proposed tax increase. Smoking rates are highest among the lowest income levels, including persons disabled by mental illness (with smoking rates as high as 80%) trying to live on $1200/month from AISH. At the current rate of tobacco taxes in Alberta, a pack-a-day cigarette "habit" will set you back an average of $360/month. That's almost one-third of a disabled person's income.

The working poor will be screwed just as harshly by any tobacco tax increase. A single person working a $10/hr job makes about $1350/month after taxes. If they live as frugally as many University students, they will still require a minimum of $1200/month just to meet food, clothing and accomodation costs. The high level of tobacco taxes will force them into a $200/month shortfall, $260/month after Ms Hauck's additional tax hike. That deficit will come out of their fridges, mostly.

Is this how our society should be "promoting health"? By "starving into submission" our most vulnerable members? Reduce the probability of teens taking up smoking by 1 or 2 percent, by taking food out of the mouths of depressives, by taking clothes off the backs of low income trauma & abuse survivors, by forcing elderly veterans to 'freeze in the dark'?
But, why don't they just quit smoking? Perhaps they don't want to - but even if they did want to, this segment of the population have the least control over their own life circumstances. Frequently, dealing with daily survival issues consumes all of their time and energy.

That's not something I'd expect Robyn Hauck to "get". I'm quite certain she's never lived off of $1200/month or less, not even in her student days:
"Million Dollar Club heiress

What Really Happened With Bill 1 - "The Lobbyist Act"?

As far as most Albertans know, "Bill 1 - The Lobbyist Act" began as a proposal from then PC leadership candidate Ed Stelmach, during the leadership race to replace outgoing party leader Ralph Klein.

I was a fan of this proposal, and the balanced, unbiased comprehensiveness of the originally proposed provisions was one of the things which convinced me that Ed Stelmach was truly "beholden to no-one" and therefore worthy of my support in the PC leadership contest.

I believe in and support regulations which limit the influence of corporate industry on our elected representatives. Particularly at the Federal level, our nation has made significant progress in limiting corporate influence - from the Election Expenses Act of 1974 to 2003's Bill C-24 - and that's a good thing in my opinion.
History of campaign finance legislation in Canada

Lobbyist registries are another significant and positive contribution to regulating and monitoring the influence of corporate entities on our elected representatives. What was particularly significant and unique about Ed Stelmach's lobbyist registry proposal, however, was that it proposed to regulate & monitor the lobbying activities of all special interest organizations - both corporate and not-for-profit.

When the early proposals for limiting the ability of wealthy/business interests to unduly influence government decision-making were being publicly debated, the underlying justifications for such regulation appeared very clear - ensuring that public policy would be driven primarily by a dialogue between elected representatives and the ordinary citizens who comprise the bulk of their constituents, ensuring that this dialogue would not be drowned out or over-ridden by the wealthy & powerful entities seeking to advance their own narrow interests. It seemed clear, decades ago, that the point of these regulations was to increase the influence of average constituents by limiting the influence of special interests. Regretably, it has turned out that some of the advocates of limiting corporate influence on government had very different agendas from that of "empowering the masses".

It has become apparent that some advocates of reducing corporate influence on government were actually motivated by a lust for increasing their own capacity for influencing government decision-making. Reducing, limiting and regulating corporate influence was, for these people, not so much a tool for returning the principle influence on government to the constituents themselves, but rather a means of reducing competing special interest influence over government policy and thereby increasing their own special interests' capacity to control and direct government policy from "behind-the-scenes". Some advocates of reducing corporate influence on government were simultaneously engaged in building their own empires of influence & power, their own networks of highly trained and skillful backroom lobbyists, their own high-powered marketing, PR and policy consultant machines - but building this capacity for advancing special interests and for accumulating wealth and power, in the form of "not-for-profit" corporations and associated 'charitable' organizations.

Despite our national Charities Directorate's prohibition against political lobby groups operating under the guise of charitable organizations, 'grey' areas within the regulations have enabled groups whose principle purpose is to lobby governments and influence public policy decision-making to claim charitable status. It is rational and prudent for these high-powered "voluntary-sector" lobbyists to be included in the same level of regulation and public scrutiny that is applied to corporations and their lobbyists. This is not a matter of "tit-for-tat" or even a question of "fairness" - it is acknowledgement of the reality that corporations are not the only entities capable and desirous of exerting influence over government decision-making from behind the scenes, and it is therefore in the public interest for any and all 'professional' lobbying of government to be publicly regulated and monitored.

It may be an unfortunate consequence of the necessity for public monitoring of professional lobbying, if less sophisticated voluntary organizations that rarely engage in paying someone to lobby governments find themselves lumped under the same blanket categories of "non-profit", "charitable" or "voluntary" alongside organizations with high-powered lobbying capability, and find complying with lobbyist regulations an onerous burden. High-powered "voluntary-sector" lobby groups sometimes exploit being lumped together with tiny, powerless community charities by using their less sophisticated 'cousins' as a shield against regulatory efforts aimed specifically at them. "Why are you subjecting us Ma & Pa volunteer organizations to the same regulatory scrutiny as if we were wealthy & powerful corporations? This is unjust..." they might argue in attempts to weasel out of regulation and monitoring of their own activities.

Stelmach's original proposal was mind-bogglingly straightforward and courageous -
"Bill 1 - The Lobbyist Act" as originally proposed by Stelmach was a marvel of cutting through the bullshit and getting to the heart of the matter:

- everyone who gets paid by anyone else to communicate with a public office holder for the purpose of influencing; legislation, regulations, the development, establishment, amendment or termination of any program, policy, directive or guideline of the Government, or
the awarding of any grant or financial benefit by or on behalf of the Government - would have to register themselves as lobbyists so that their activity could be publicly scrutinized and monitored.
and, more importantly:
- anyone who is being paid to provide advice to government on a particular subject would be prohibited from lobbying activities on the same subject.

This second part of the proposal was very innovative and insightful. It is particularly important to protection of the public's interests that persons who are being paid to provide government with informed advice on any subject should not have their objectivity corrupted by the conflicting interest of being paid to influence public policy on that subject. This type of conflict of interests is especially heinous and it was courageous of Stelmach to call a spade a spade by prohibiting it entirely.

The campaign to gut Bill 1 -
Before Bill 1 could be passed, someone started a fear-mongering campaign to raise alarm about it among Alberta's voluntary, charitable and non-profit organizations. I'm not certain who was responsible for this, but soon a very vigorous and professional effort to kill Bill 1 or at least force amendments to it was being mounted by members and leaders in the voluntary-sector.

Full blown critical analysis and amendment proposal reports were developed by "Volunteer Alberta" and "The Muttart Foundation". Predictably, these reports emphasized the diverse nature of groups lumped together as non-profit, and the practical difficulties that small groups with limited resources in particular would be likely to face in attempting to adhere to & comply with the new lobbyist registry.

They also blasted the proposed prohibition on simultaneously lobbying and holding contracts for paid advice on the same subject matter. The Muttart report stated, about this provision:
"Since the impact of this prohibition is potentially widespread, serious consideration should be given to removing it from the legislation. If that is not possible, consideration should be given to exempting not-for-profit organizations from its application". The Volunteer Alberta brief demanded: "Remove the Nonprofit/Voluntary Sector from Bill 1 entirely..." or alternately "
Support all suggestions for moderating the impact of Bill 1 as outlined in The Muttart Foundation "Bill 1 Lobbyists Act - A Preliminary Assessment of its Implications for Not-for-Profit Organizations in Alberta" - which of course includes dropping the conflict of interest provision entirely or exempting the non-profit sector from its application.

The Amendment to Bill 1 -
Ultimately, Bill 1's critics got their way and it was amended to "exempt all charities and nonprofits serving the "public good" (i.e.: not including those constituted to serve management, union, or professional interests)" from all of its provisions. Including the prohibition against being paid to advise and lobby on the same subject.

The real origin of "The Lobbyist Act" -
According to CBC investigative journalist Kim Trynacity, the idea of an Alberta lobbyist's registry was originally proposed by Alberta's anti-smoking/ Tobacco Control lobby. Trynacity won a Canadian Association of Journalists award for her documentary series exploring the influence of the tobacco industry lobby on Alberta lawmakers in 2004:
Kim Trynacity talks about her documentary and its impact

"After my story aired, a major anti-tobacco lobby group in Alberta issued a news release calling for the establishment of a lobbyists registry. There were also questions raised in the legislative assembly about the role of lobbyists. Curiously enough, the day after my story was published, the Edmonton Journal ran a front-page story about government MLAs being wined and dined by companies, or special interest groups".

The Tobacco Control lobby, which includes the kind of high-powered, professional lobbyist, "charitable" organizations that exist primarily for the purpose of influencing public policy, (described above), proposed a lobbyist registry back in 2004.

You may be surprised to learn, then, that Tobacco Control lobby associates were principle actors in the campaign against Bill 1 and in obtaining the amendment which exempts all charities and non-profits (including Tobacco Control's professional lobby groups) from all provisions of Bill 1.

The "Volunteer Alberta" critical analysis of Bill 1 report was prepared by professional lobbyist Ken Chapman of Cambridge Strategies. Ken Chapman had earlier successfully lobbied the Alberta government for adoption of "The Tobacco Reduction Act", as a professional lobbyist employed by Alberta's Tobacco Control lobby. Ken Chapman was also a vocal supporter of PC MLA Dave Hancock's PC party leadership bid.

While Minister of Health for the Alberta Government, Dave Hancock proposed and oversaw the passing of the same "Tobacco Reduction Act" that Ken Chapman was a paid lobbyist for.
Dave Hancock proposed the Amendments to Bill 1, exempting "directors, officers and employees of the Nonprofit/Voluntary Sector from the Lobbyists Act", in his capacity as House Leader.

I have no direct proof that Ken Chapman and Dave Hancock were instrumental in opposing and then amending Bill 1 on behalf of the Tobacco Control lobby, but contemplate this:

If Tobacco Control first proposed a lobbyists registry, why would two of their most important and influential allies be instrumental in opposing "Bill 1 - The Lobbyist Act" as proposed by Ed Stelmach?

The most obvious answer might be - because the Tobacco Control lobby was dismayed to discover that they and their lobbying activity would be subject to the same regulation & monitoring as the tobacco industry itself. Remember, earlier, I talked about advocates of reducing corporate influence on government - whose real motivation is to reduce competing interest's influence on public policy and subsequently increase their own capacity to influence governments and shape policy from behind the scenes? Ed Stelmach's lobbyist registry proposal would not have given Tobacco Control any advantage over corporate lobbyists, and that was probably the Tobacco Control lobby's real objective in proposing a lobbyist registry to begin with.

But there's still more to this story...
Alberta Tobacco Reduction Alliance (ATRA) was created, in 1998, by the Alberta government as an arms-length front group, primarily for the purpose of agitating for and soliciting public support for a number of "tobacco reduction" measures - most importantly a huge increase in tobacco taxes. ATRA quickly grew to be an alliance of 94 organizations, including virtually every group involved in the Tobacco Control lobby alongside the professional lobbyist "charity" Action on Smoking and Health. ATRA was the archetypal embodiment of rampant conflicts of interest, including the very one that Ed Stelmach's Bill 1 would have outlawed.

To begin with, Alberta Health gave ATRA funding of $1 million/year. One branch of the Alberta government (Alberta Health) paid a special interest lobby group one million dollars a year to lobby the rest of the Alberta government in support of a massive tobacco tax increase that would go into the general revenues of the Alberta government. Our government paid a Tobacco Control lobby group to lobby our government for a massive increase in government tax revenues!

ATRA was also being paid to advise the government on the subject of "a comprehensive tobacco reduction strategy", and was simultaneously lobbying the government to create and adopt legislation recommended by their own "tobacco reduction strategy". This gets even slimier yet...part of ATRA's "tobacco reduction strategy" was a proposal that the government create a Tobacco Control super-fund amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, and supplement the fund with a permanent per-capita yearly stipend that would be divided among the Tobacco Control organizations of which ATRA was composed, and that would be financed by their proposed massive tax increase. In other words, a commitment to massive public funding for every organization involved in Tobacco Control that would continue unto eternity. ATRA advised the Alberta government that the best strategy for reducing tobacco usage in Alberta would be to give ATRA's component organizations an endless cornucopia of public cash!

ATRA was the archetypal example of why being paid to advise government and to lobby government at the same time should be outlawed. The Tobacco Control lobby in Alberta has a documented history of and interest in ruthlessly exploiting just such conflicting interests. Could that be why their allies manuevered the Stelmach government into exempting non-profits from that prohibition?

Will the manipulations never end?
The principle role of Tobacco Control lobby allies in successfully amending Bill 1 to exempt Tobacco Control lobbyist from its provisions may be, in itself, the best example anyone could ask for of why it is essential that non-profit, charitable and voluntary organizations be included in the lobbyist registry regulations.

Tobacco Control Cult Confesses Its "Secret" Nature

A major Canadian branch of the Tobacco Control Cult has publicly 'confessed', on its website, that the Cult conducts significant proportions of its activities "in secret" - on private, members-only websites and in "closed" conferences - deliberately hidden; hidden from members of the taxpaying public who ultimately provide most of their funding, hidden from all but carefully vetted journalists, hidden from independent academics & researchers:

http://www.ncth.ca/calendar/10-09.html

"For your eyes only: keeping our work private
Even a cursory review of tobacco industry documents reveals companies determined to direct or derail the dialogue of tobacco control. The industry establishes and supports seemingly independent organizations (e.g. My Choice.ca, Canadian Convenience Stores Association, etc.) and pays scientists to conduct "independent" research to put forth industry views and obfuscate dialogue. Is it any wonder that the CCTC [Canadian Council for Tobacco Control], by maintaining a members only website and a "closed" conference, seeks to provide tobacco control advocates with an environment in which open and frank discussion can occur?"

Pathetic, red-herring justifications:
In the above declaration, the CCTC employs classic Social Marketing propaganda techniques. The bulk of this communication, from "Even a cursory review..." to "...and obfuscate dialogue", is a type of misdirection which attempts to arouse "righteous indignation" emotions in the reader. By raising the specter of an irrelevant but unpopular entity (in this case the Tobacco Industry) and directing the readers attention to the allegedly wicked & 'sinful' behaviour of this 'devil', the reader is manipulated into focusing on their feelings of anger and indignation about the unpopular entity and away from the complete lack of serious explanation or justification for the CCTC's confessed behaviour.

The tobacco companies may be "determined to direct or derail the dialogue of tobacco control", and they might "establish and support seemingly independent organizations" or "pay scientists to conduct "independent" research to put forth industry views" - but even if they are doing such things, what does any of that have to do with CCTCs claim that tobacco control advocates require secretive members-only websites & closed conferences - hidden away from the ordinary citizens whose taxes fund these activities and the watchful eyes of unbiased journalists or independent academics - in order to conduct open and frank discussion?

What are they trying to hide from you?
There are publicly-funded government services which legitimately keep certain information secret and inaccesible by the public, such as the RCMP, CSIS or the Canadian Military. The CCTC and other branches of the Tobacco Control cult might imagine themselves to be some species of "secret agents" fighting a life & death counter-espionage battle against secret Tobacco Industry operatives more resourceful than the KGB, but they are not intelligence gathering or policing organizations or anything of that nature. What do they have to hide, especially from the Joe & Jane Canucks whose taxes pay their wages and fund their activities?

Could they be trying to hide the squandering of tax dollars they've been entrusted to spend in the public interest, through useless self-indulgent projects that will never benefit anyone except members of Tobacco Control?

Could they be trying to hide their plottings to manipulate & deceive policymakers and the public through emotionally charged yet substanceless media campaigns like the recent "third-hand smoke" canard? :
Third-hand smoke nonsense analysed and debunked

Could they be trying to hide the fact that they have sunk as low as the lowest of corporate scumbags, that they long ago stopped giving a damn about scientific integrity, honesty, truthfulness, ethics, morals, etc. and have become the same kind of conscienceless monstrosity, mindlessly pursuing self-serving goals with no regard for the harm they might inflict on innocents along the way, as the corporate entities they revile so rabidly? Are they trying to hide the fact that they are no longer any more morally righteous than the Tobacco Companies themselves?

A New Roommate

We've taken in a homeless man, as a new roommate.

This man is no "bum", he was one of Alberta's many working homeless. In fact, I'd been working side-by-side with him for almost a month without even guessing that he was homeless. I'd mentioned to him, at one point, that my son had moved out to live in B.C., and that we were thinking about renting his room out to a student - since there's always a shortage of affordable housing for students. He quietly replied that he would like to be our roommate, and then confessed to me that he had been renting a hotel room on weekends but spending weekday nights napping in a 24-hour convenience store. Would we consider him for a roomie? Why yes, of course we would!

Welcome, Brother Smoker!
Yes, our new roommate smokes like an industrial chimney, and yes that was a factor in our decision to give him a new home with us. How many shared housing options are there left for heavy smokers like him? Not very many and soon to be none at all if anti-smoking zealots succeed in banning smoking in all multi-unit housing, which is one of their goals.

This man is a bit older than us and has some physical challenges, resulting from a life of hard physical labor, that limit the kinds of jobs he is able to perform. But, when there is work available that he can do he is a very dedicated and hard worker. Life circumstances have crapped pretty heavily on him, it appears, and a combination of unfortunate personal circumstances and periods of unemployment caused him to fall too far behind financially to maintain a place of his own. Once that happens, it can be very difficult to work your way out of the homeless predicament - unless someone gives you "a break". We hope to provide just such a break for him.

Of course, the high cost of tobacco taxes didn't help him any either. What does he think of the Tobacco Control Nannies and their plan to "help" him quit smoking by taxing him into the dirt? I don't think their middle-class ears & eyes could handle the language. Suffice to say, he doesn't think of them as "heroes".

Two Models Of Helping
There are two principle models of what it means to help others.

In the first model, someone comes to us and asks for assistance with a problem, and we do what we can to assist them to resolve their problem - allowing them to define the problem themselves and also what an acceptable resolution of the problem would be, for them.

In the second model, people with specialized knowledge and expertise in some field define what they perceive to be "a problem" in people's lives and devise various means to acheive resolution of the perceived problem in a manner which is acceptable to the helpers. If the people whom the helpers perceive to possess this problem don't see their situation as being a "problem" for them, the helpers devise means and measures to ensure that these people will come to perceive their situation as a problem, just as the helpers do.

The first model is the basis of all true charity, whether between individuals or between governments/non-profit organizations and individuals.

The second model is the basis of all social engineering, nanny-statism and interventionist foreign policy. Its pretence to being charitable is false and fraudulent, as it frequently has ulterior motivations.

Which kind of helper are you, in your own life?

Michael Crichton Understood

Rest In Peace, Michael Crichton:
Best-selling author Michael Crichton died unexpectedly in Los Angeles Tuesday, November 4, 2008, at the age of 66.

I knew nothing whatsoever about Michael Crichton, until two days ago. You might find that hard to comprehend - that I could have lived my 48 years in ignorance of the existence of such a famous North American - but it is true. I discovered Michael Crichton two days ago when I was attempting to follow a link from one of James Enstrom's webpages and found that it had been replaced with a notification that the man he was referring to had passed away. At that point I googled Michael Crichton, spent about 12 hours exploring his speeches and writings, and was totally blown away by him and what he had to say.

I was blown away, because much of Crichton's recent non-fiction material describes a life history and an awakening he experienced that parallels experiences that I have had. In Michael Crichton I found a total stranger that I knew nothing about who had independently come to similar conclusions, and a similar sense of outrage & betrayal, about righteous social policy goals being pursued through unethical, immoral, unscientific and Machiavellian means.

In my case, the awakening I experienced came as a result of the massive tobacco tax increases instituted in Alberta in 2002 and the subsequent barrage of propaganda in the Mass Media which falsely accused everyone who smokes of being a serial killer of non-smokers. I was appalled by this fanaticism, and many of my friends & family members who are low income or disabled persons that smoke suffered tremendous financial and emotional hardship as a direct result of these radical Tobacco Control tactics. So, I began researching who was doing this to my loved ones and why, which led me to research the whole phenomenon of Health Promotion. Somewhat later, having identified certain patterns of behaviour as a "game plan" developed through Tobacco Control and adopted by other areas of Health Promotion, I was horrified to see the same "game plan" being acted out in Environmental Protection - a cause around which I had devoted every major decision about my personal lifestyle, for some 30 years.

I eventually came to see that, to some extent, like millions of others in my age group I had been "played", "used", manipulated and deceived by (ultimately well-meaning and caring, if somewhat Machiavellian) leaders in the fields of Environmental Protection and Consumer Protection, over the years - but that hasn't caused me to abandon my committments. I still believe that I made good decisions; not to father children of my own, to be a bicycle & transit commuter and never own or drive a gas-powered vehicle, to live a minimalist lifestyle and contribute as little as possible to the consumerist economy. I did eventually decide that I needed to take responsibility and apologize for the small part I might have played in damaging the careers of innocent academics and scientists, in over-zealous pursuit of discrediting consumerism and the corporations that benefit most from it, and my apology was published in Econ Journal Watch this past September:

http://www.econjournalwatch.org/pdf/CorrespondenceSeptember2008.pdf

Similarly, Michael Crichton did not abandon his passions & principles when he came to his own revelations about having been deceived and manipulated by "social policy scientists" that he had laid his trust in. He was a non-smoker, he favored public smoking bans and didn't change that position, but he still had the moral integrity to state plainly what he knew to be the truth - that Tobacco Control and Environmental Protection leaders have committed scientific fraud with respect to second-hand-smoke as a matter of expediency in forwarding their "elimination of smoking" agenda. He clearly cared passionately about Environmental Protection, and never abandoned his concerns about those issues, but he still had the moral integrity to state plainly that there are deliberate efforts to provoke social hysteria on the subject of Global Warming that cannot be justified by our level of understanding about how the ecosystem works, and that there are unwarranted campaigns to demonize and silence anyone who dares speak out against the fraudulent "consensus" model.

Please explore Michael Crichton's speeches and writings for yourself:
I highly recommend this speech: Aliens Cause Global Warming
and this video of a speech he gave at the Independent Institute: States of fear: Science or Politics