Add new comment

And again, the ad hominem attack...
Shut my dumb mouth?
Tsk, tsk, such anger, such vitriol...

It's obvious that you haven't read any of the pages I’ve referred to which contain volumes of documentation at the sites which you refer to as "nonsense". Sites which do in fact, offer cited, sourced, peer reviewed, scientific evidence.

However, I did read the page you provided with all of the American Heart Association's unsubstantiated claims.

So, you believe the AHA is a non profit entity, with only our health and best interests at heart?
Why then, is the United States Senate interested in investigating the ties between the AHA and the pharmaceutical industry?
Check this out this document if you don't believe me:
http://www.senate.gov/~finance/press/Gpress/2008/prg012408a.pdf
Or, if you’d prefer, here’s the html (from Google) version for you:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:I_vr0mr76yAJ:www.senate.gov/~finance/press/Gpress/2008/prg012408a.pdf+www.senate.gov/~finance/press/Gpress/2008/prg012408a.pdf&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

This is the same pharmaceutical industry that offers "nicotine replacement" therapies at great cost to consumers that simply don't work…
But please, don't take my word on it, check out this link; it's from a medical doctor and a philosophical doctor (Ph.D.) offering a well sourced rebuttal to the efficacy of nicotine replacement to the New England Journal of Medicine:
http://www.data-yard.net/3/patc1.htm
(This was published in The New England Journal of Medicine -- October 7, 1999 -- Vol. 341, No. 15)

Now, allow me to quote the page from the AHA you referenced:

QUOTE:
"Cigarette smoking is the most important preventable cause of premature death in the United States. It accounts for nearly 440,000 of the more than 2.4 million annual deaths."

REBUTTAL:
And yet, there is no reference to the study or studies verifying these numbers, no example of where these numbers come from at all.
Without specific sources being cited, there’s no way to authenticate this claim.
This is a claim with no substantiation.
Now, amazingly (according to this page you cited), the number of smoking related deaths per year is 440,000. And yet for all of this, I've not been able to authenticate even one death certificate that labels either primary or second hand smoke (or ETS) as the primary cause of death. And still, as of this writing no-one has been able to give me the name(s) of anyone that I can verify as having died from smoking. (And please don't even go down the Heather Crowe avenue, because that story is quite frankly, an easily provable FRAUD!!!)

QUOTE:
"Many studies detail the evidence that cigarette smoking is a major cause of coronary heart disease, which leads to heart attack."

QUESTIONS/REBUTTAL:
Why are none of these “many” studies named or referenced?
With so “many” studies to choose from, you’d think that a reference in a footnote on the page wouldn’t be too much to ask for.
Again, without specific sources being cited, there’s no way to authenticate this claim.

Who CONDUCTED these studies?
Do the claims include recommendations for changing social or public policy or changes in law? Research that includes social or political agendas are far more likely to express the researcher's personal bias and beliefs than work that merely presents data and findings. This is why finding out who conducted a study is important. This is why objective, verifiable replication by other studies is very important.

Who FUNDED these studies?
Are these studies (including all data and methodology employed to reach these conclusions), available for examination, authentication and replication? If not, then the researcher is asking us to accept their word for their findings, with no EVIDENCE offered to support those claims.
Beyond this, knowing who paid for a study usually gives a fair clue as to the direction of bias under which a study was conducted.

What was the METHODOLOGY used to determine the causative (rather than correlative) factors linking cigarette smoking, coronary heart disease and heart attack(s)?
Remember: Correlation does NOT equal causation.

These are just a couple of examples that I’ve culled from the page you offered. There is much more that I could go after to show that the page you offered was nothing more than social engineering and propaganda, and not scientific evidence. It is a page designed to convince you by offering “because we said so” as evidence, rather than actually presenting any real, scientific evidence.

Neither your opinion, nor my opinion, nor even their opinion matters; what matters is the TRUTH.
What can be proven is the truth. All else is merely speculation and opinion.

I've offered in several posts on this page web sites to go to with well sourced, peer reviewed, highly documented, verifiable, scientific evidence that runs contrariwise to the propaganda and the "you must believe it because we said so" approach of the AHA, ACS, EPA, WHO, CDC, etc.

AND YET, NO ONE HAS OFFERED A SCIENTIFIC REBUTTAL TO ANYTHING THAT I HAVE OFFERED!!!

If you, dear responder, have actually gone to the journal of theoretics, or forces.org, or davehitt.com, or junkscience.com pages, and have found the data there in error, or scientifically fraudulent, dubious or invalid, then by all means, rebut the evidence that is presented there.

Don't offer an OPINION, or more propaganda; offer a rational, reasonable, scientifically valid and defendable REBUTTAL to the information that I've provided.

Unless and until you can, perhaps it is you who should shut your mouth...