Tea Party Speaker Larry Horist Lobbied for Red Chinese and Big Tobacco

Categories: Broward News

fire_ant_logo.jpg

Chicago businessman and GOP activist Larry Horist moved to Boca Raton two years ago and has started to make a splash in local right-wing circles. He's featured speaker at tonight's Wellington meeting of the Palm Beach County Tea Party.

See also:
- Tea Party: Let's Rewrite the U.S. Constitution

Touted as "an outstanding, distinguished public speaker" who "personally knows [Obama confidantes] David Axelrod and Valerie Jerrett [sic]," his hosts failed to mention other aspects of Horist's career. Among them are his lobbying on behalf of the Chinese Communist government of Harbin, Manchuria. The other is his time as a lobbyist for Big Tobacco.

Horist.jpg

Horist had a long, colorful, and controversial career in the fever swamp of Illinois politics. As a consultant and lobbyist, he was consistently on the political right but managed to make enemies on both sides of the aisle. Area columnists labeled him a "loose cannon" with a "grand sense of... self-importance" and derided him as "'Uncle Larry,' a cranky ideologue." According to a 1996 profile in the Chicago Reader:

A search for the "real" Larry Horist uncovered a complex and surprising figure. During a career spent bouncing around business and politics since the early 60s, Horist has exemplified many of the social trends of his generation: Rebelling against button-down corporate culture. Taking up the role of "Mr. Mom" between marriages. Remarrying and deciding to have a baby in middle age. Working as part of a husband-wife team from an office at home. Struggling to hold together ensemble families from different marriages, different religions, and even different races.

Horist told New Times he's semiretired now, though he continues to run the consulting firm Thomas & Joyce, "A Strategic Problem Solving Company."

Horist told us that, based on his Chicago experiences, David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett are "the two people who influence [Obama] most. If you strip off Obama's clothes you'll find Jarrett and Axelrod." He described them as representatives of "the two factions in Chicago politics: the power machine -- Axelrod is a brutal, take-no-prisoners guy, the source of a lot of the divisiveness in the country -- and the left-wing intellectuals, personified by guys like Bill Ayres... Jarrett represents the hard-core, ideological Left." (The supposed Obama/Ayres connection is bogus.)

Horist holds to a typical Tea Party characterization of Obama, "the street activist... a fascist. I say that if you look at the policies... not guys like Hitler and Mussolini but he has a tendency towards authoritarianism... Socialists take over the private sector. His instinct is to co-opt the business sector and bring them in, which is more closely related to what we call the fascist model... It's a quasi-owned relationship to business and Wall Street."

In what followed, Horist, in very calm and reasonable tones, denounced "the bailout," the stimulus, the Department of Education, and "a big, powerful central government" generally.

That last point struck us difficult to reconcile with Horist's work on behalf of the Communist Chinese. The Harbin Business Exchange ("the fast track service to information, contacts and future business relationships [in China]"), an arm of his firm Thomas & Joyce, describes itself as "YOUR ALL CHINA CONNECTION FOR: Joint Venture Partnerships, Outsourcing, Manufacturing, Foreign Investment, Sourcing Chinese Funding, Reaching the Chinese Market, Public Works Investment." According to its website, HBE is:

an international private/public partnership serving as the representative of Harbin in the United States. First proposed by American businessman, Larry P. Horist, the HBE was formally authorized in an agreement signed in Harbin on June, 2002. It is a cooperative partnership between operates in cooperation with the Harbin Municipal Government and TJI International, Inc.

(Harbin sounds like a fascinating place with a particularly complex history. Horist has visited many times and calls it his "second home.")

"They're all a bunch of capitalists over there," Horist said, chortling. "There are egregious things about China -- their policies and their trade practices and their intellectual property issues -- but the one thing I will say with certainty: They're heading in the right direction, and we're heading in the wrong direction."

"The Chinese people, outside of a few things, are much freer than we are," Horist said. "They're like the United States in the 1800s. There's a lot of energy, a lot of excitement among the people. They have an enormous pride in their country. They work very hard for their country."

China is still a one-party dictatorship, Horist acknowledged, but argued that "things are changing... I'm one of those little nuances in the system that's making it a better country." Asked if he then favored an end to the Cuban embargo, Horist said he's "favorable to opening up negotiations on ending it."

Horist's work for Big Tobacco covered several years in the late 1970s, when he was Midwest representative for the Tobacco Institute, pulling down the present-day equivalent of almost $100,000 a year. In that role, he propagated the argument that second-hand smoke poses no dangers. (A good analysis of tobacco industry strategy at the time can be found here.)

"There is no conclusive evidence in all medical literature today that directly links cigaret [sic] smoking to any human disease," Horist told the media at that time. (That cigarettes cause cancer and other diseases has been shown to a virtual certainty since, at the latest, the 1950s.)

Horist is unapologetic about his work for Big Tobacco, citing the small "l" libertarian argument: "People take risk in their lives and they do what they want to do," he said. "I do believe in freedom... Everything in life comes with some risk. Most people who smoke don't get lung cancer... The role of government is to educate, not to regulate."

Does Horist plan to become involved in Palm Beach County politics?

"As a curmudgeon or a raconteur, maybe," he said. "I'm not going to run for anything. I might help some candidates along."

Larry Horist
PBC Tea Party meeting
Today, 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.
Total Wine & More. Shoppes at Isla Verde, 960 S. State Road 7, Wellington.
561-795-9229

Fire Ant -- an invasive species, tinged bright red, with an annoying, sometimes-fatal sting -- covers South Florida news and culture. Got feedback or a tip? Contact Fire.Ant@BrowardPalmBeach.com.




My Voice Nation Help
27 comments
riverrat69
riverrat69 topcommenter

Harleyride1777s is cutting and pasting away as he rides his hog through every teabag ignorant frightwingnut site he can find.

harleyride1777
harleyride1777

I just read your Legacy PDF on his article and you failed to point out that he also said 98% of heavy smokers don't get LUNG CANCER! He was pretty well right on the money on that claim too.


Ive dug into the subject myself and only found that maybe 6% of life long smokers get LC.



Lung and Bronchus. Invasive Cancer Incidence Rates and 95% Confidence Intervals by Age and Race and Ethnicity, United States (Table 3.15.1.1M) *†‡

Rates are per 100,000 persons. Rates are per 100,000 persons.

 Note the age where LC is found…………..OLD AGE group incidence hits the 500/100,000 at age 75-85

 AGE it seems is the deciding factor……….

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/cancersbyageandrace.aspx?Gender=Male&Count=false&Population=false&DataType=Incidence&RateType=CrudeType&CancerSite=All Cancer Sites Combined&Year=2010&Site=Lung and Bronchus&SurveyInstanceID=1






Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/the-mctear-case-the-analysis/



(2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
(2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
lung cancer.


[9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
(paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
[9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to
[7.181]).


harleyride1777
harleyride1777

Horist holds to a typical Tea Party characterization of Obama, "the street activist... a fascist. I say that if you look at the policies... not guys like Hitler and Mussolini but he has a tendency towards authoritarianism... Socialists take over the private sector. His instinct is to co-opt the business sector and bring them in, which is more closely related to what we call the fascist model... It's a quasi-owned relationship to business and Wall Street."



He was right yet again...................


Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign

One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.



Then we have Obama here pushing the smoking bans illegally all across the nation using the federa; grant system as a lobbying tool to fund the smaller groups to go out and do the dirty work.........DIRECT LOBBYING!



Illicit Lobbying
Report: Local health departments illegally used federal stimulus money to lobby


April 16, 2013 2:15 pm

At least seven local health departments illegally used stimulus grant funds to lobby for greater taxes and restrictions on tobacco and unhealthy foods, according to a report released Tuesday by a nonprofit watchdog group.

The stimulus-funded Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) program disbursed about $373 million intended to educate the public about tobacco use and obesity. Federal law prohibits grantees from using the funds for lobbying activities.

According to the group Cause of Action, local health departments from Alabama to California used the funds to devise or promote legislation designed to curb tobacco use or combat obesity.

The report detailing the allegations is the product of a 19-month investigation into the CPPW program.

“[Cause of Action’s] investigation revealed that CPPW money went to support lobbyists and public relations companies who used taxpayer dollars to push laws and agendas that would lead to tax increases on tobacco and high calorie products,” the report said.

The report said illicit uses of CPPW grant funds “essentially transform[ed] the CPPW program into a conduit for lobbying for higher taxes and bans on otherwise legal consumer products.”

Federal law prohibits grant recipients from using federal grant funds to influence “an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation.”

Internal guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which administers the CPPW program, clarifies that the law applies “specifically to lobbying related to any proposed, pending, or future federal, state, or local tax increase, or any proposed, pending, or future requirement or restriction on any legal consumer product.”


http://freebeacon.com/illicit-lobbying/


harleyride1777
harleyride1777

Horist's work for Big Tobacco covered several years in the late 1970s, when he was Midwest representative for the Tobacco Institute, pulling down the present-day equivalent of almost $100,000 a year. In that role, he propagated the argument that second-hand smoke poses no dangers. (A good analysis of tobacco industry strategy at the time can be found here.)


HE WAS RIGHT YET AGAIN...



This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

harleyride1777
harleyride1777

"NO SAFE LEVEL OF SECONDHAND SMOKE"? THAT'S NOT WHAT OSHA SAYS!

Los Angeles, October 26, 2010 – One of the most misused statements in the argument over secondhand smoke is a line on page 11 of the 2006 report of the Surgeon General of the United States entitled "The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke":



The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

That is because the Surgeon General's so-called conclusions have already been rejected by the one governmental agency responsible for safety in the workplace: the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA). The next time someone tries to ram the Surgeon General's view of secondhand smoke down your throat, you may wish to ask him or her to consider:
OSHA lists "permissible exposure limits" (a.k.a. "PEL") for hundreds of different kinds of pollutants in
its "Limits for Air Contaminants" table Z-1 (Click here; also at 29 C.F.R. 1910.1000). This table shows "nicotine" at a permissible limit of 0.5 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) over an eight-hour day.

We are talking about tiny amounts here: remember that there are 1,000 milligrams (mg) in 1 gram! The famed Swiss chemist Phillip von Hohenheim established the principle that "All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous" back in the 1530s, making the point that even water can be poisonous if "overconsumed"... as in drowning.

The studies which measure nicotine in the air do so in micrograms, which are 1/1,000th of a milligram. So, 0.5 mg - the OSHA standard for exposure to nicotine - is 500 micrograms. Keep that figure in mind.

The Web site CleanAirQuality.Blogspot.com tracks the air-quality studies used by the anti-smoking lobby and compares them against the OSHA standard. Typical findings showed:
2009: St. Louis, Missouri: A Washington University School of Medicine study trumpeted "high levels" of nicotine in a study of 20 bars, but the report itself noted that "airborne nicotine levels ranged from 0.015 to 25.14 [micrograms per cubic meter]." Even at the smokiest bar, 25 micrograms is way short of OSHA's permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 500 micrograms!

2007: Baltimore, Maryland: A Johns Hopkins University report claimed that air nicotine exposure in its study of Baltimore bars ranged from 2.1 to 16.9 micrograms per cubic meter; folks, that's not close to 500 micrograms...

2004: The American Cancer Society study of smoking levels in Western New York bars showed air nicotine exposure over eight hours in establishments with no smoking regulations to vary between 539 and 940 nanograms... not really very close to 500,000 nanograms (which equals 500 micrograms)!

In fact, OSHA Acting Assistant Secretary Greg Watchman stated in a July, 1997 letter that "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELs) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)... It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."

The anti-smoking lobby will then posit that secondhand smoke has loads of carcinogenic chemicals such as arsenic (present in seafood), benzene (widely used in industry), cyanide (present in almonds, lima beans, soy, spinach, bamboo shoots and cassava roots), formaldehyde (naturally produced by the human body!) and so on. In fact, all of these chemicals and many more have been evaluated by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, and its Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has published a list of Minimal Risk Levels for Hazardous Substances, which lists all of these items and assigns an actual level of ingestion which is safe! It's the dose which makes the poison.

Finally, you'll hear that even brief exposure to secondhand smoke causes fat and blood clots to form in your arteries. Boston University Prof. Michael Siegel, no friend of tobacco and a long-time campaigner against secondhand smoke, rails against such nonsense in his daily TobaccoAnalysis.BlogSpot.com column, writing on October 25 that:



[T]hese statements are outright lies. You don't get a build up of fat and blood clots in the arteries in just 30 minutes. What happens in 30 minutes is that the cells lining your coronary blood vessels do not function normally, leading to a reduction in coronary flow velocity reserve. This damage to the blood vessel lining is reversible. However, if repeated over and over again and sustained for many years, these effects could contribute to the formation of atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries). But it is a lie to state that 30 minutes of tobacco smoke exposure results in a build up of fat and blood clots in the arteries that increases the chance of a heart attack or stroke.

Moreover, he notes that the 2001 study which is given as proof for these assertions says nothing of the kind. In his October 21 post, he notes that the study "found that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure produces endothelial dysfunction in nonsmokers, and reduces their coronary flow velocity reserve to the same level as that in smokers" and points out that "eating a hamburger reduces coronary flow velocity reserve to roughly the same extent as in an active smoker... If you walk into McDonald's and order a hamburger, you may be at risk of disease, but not from immediately keeling over from a heart attack."

Siegel is right when he moans of his hysterical colleagues in anti-tobacco lobby, "Like so many other social movements, it appears that we, too, are lying to the public in ways that exaggerate and distort the actual science."

The anti-tobacco haters tell an engaging story, just like many others over the centuries: the Earth is flat, the sun goes around the Earth, bleeding a patient will release the "bad humors" ailing him, the art of "medicine" is actually witchcraft and so on. Add "there is no safe level of secondhand smoke" to the pile.
~ Rich Perelman.

http://www.cigarcyclopedia.com/news-views/cigar-news/1937-qno-safe-level-of-secondhand-smokeq-thats-not-what-osha-says

harleyride1777
harleyride1777

There is no conclusive evidence in all medical literature today that directly links cigaret [sic] smoking to any human disease," Horist told the media at that time. (That cigarettes cause cancer and other diseases has been shown to a virtual certainty since, at the latest, the 1950s.)



HE WAS RIGHT...............




JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS"
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.


http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobacco0409


"5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease."

In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

harleyride1777
harleyride1777

@riverrat69 Did you know in the PDF he mentions 1918 prohibition and it was also TOBACCO PROHIBITION before the anti-alcohol Volstead act came around but they were all repealed!


Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10).

1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says.

1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do."

1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

harleyride1777
harleyride1777

Colleges being forced to go smokefree by Obama Administration

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced an initiative to ban smoking from college campuses last month. This is part of the HHS goal to create a society free of tobacco-related disease and death, according to their action plan released by the HHS in 2010.

Colleges who fail to enact campus-wide smoking bans and other tobacco-free policies may soon face the loss of grants and contracts from the HHS, according to the plan. Western receives grants through a subdivision of the HHS called the National Institutes of Health, Acting Vice Provost for Research Kathleen Kitto said.

http://www.westernfrontonline.net/news/article_f8068f12-0efe-11e2-8b41-001a4bcf6878.html?success=1

Obama administration to push for eliminating smoking on college campuses


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/11/obama ... z29zJ2V2TV


President Barack Obama has already promised not to smoke cigarettes in the White House. If his administration has its way, American college students will soon be required to follow suit while they’re on campus.

Howard Koh, assistant secretary for health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, will announce a national initiative Wednesday at the University of Michigan School of Public Health to stamp out tobacco use on college campuses.

fire.ant
fire.ant topcommenter

@harleyride1777  OSHA hasn't "rejected" the Surgeon General's findings. The agency merely accepted that miniscule amounts of nicotine in the atmosphere can be tolerated, not that they're "risk-free." OSHA had permissible levels of arsenic too. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

fire.ant
fire.ant topcommenter

@harleyride1777  

Um..."the causative agents were unknown." The report doesn't state that "smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring)" aren't, um, "smoke induced." They just don't know how, exactly, smoking induces the diseases.

harleyride1777
harleyride1777

@fire.ant @harleyride1777 Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

nap.edu

 This sorta says it all

 These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

 So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''

OSHA SAFE LEVELS

 All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

 For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

 "For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

 "Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

 Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

 "For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.

 For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

 The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

 So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

 Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.

Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

harleyride1777
harleyride1777

@fire.ant @harleyride1777

Some facts that the tobacco CONTROL industry don’t want the people to know about, but that should be of massive importance to lawmakers and anyone who values tolerance, freedom, truth and impartiality;

In the last 60 years or so, smoking prevalence has reduced by roughly half in the USA but Lung cancer cases continue to rise.

Lung and Bronchus cancers in USA ( American Cancer Society; 2010);
NEW Cases;
2000: - 164,100
2008: - 215,020
Increase - 31% in only EIGHT years.
(US population increased by 8% over the same period)

“80% of new lung cancers are now diagnosed in NON smokers in USA” (Dr L Eldridge; cancer specialist; 2012)

The above historic Lung and Bronchus figures, from the American Cancer Society, that are invaluable for comparison purposes and contradict anti-smoker rhetoric, have been removed from their website and replaced by ‘adjusted’ statistics in an impressive looking graph that claims lung cancer (mortality) has been reducing since 1990. This graph is almost identical to Russia and Ukraine showing similar reductions, BUT there, smoking continues to increase, with some of the highest smoking rates in the world;

http://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/ukrain...

Also;
Male smoking rate;
USA; around 25% (or less)
China; around 60%

All cancers male (age adjusted);
USA - 407 per 100,000
China - 205 per 100,000
(The Burden of cancer in Asia; Pfizer 2008)
ie. The USA has less than HALF the male smoking rate of China, but DOUBLE the cancer rate, and China has only 2/3s the lung cancer rate of USA!

ACS now state in 2014, that New cases of lung cancer (male & Female) amount to 224,210. So
L Cancers continue to increase but at a reducing rate. This probably reflects the fact that the reduction in smokers and quitters has stalled since smoke bans, which began in earnest around 2006/7, were forced upon the public.

The generation-long anti-smoker campaign has failed to prevent ANY ill health, in fact it could be argued that it has CAUSED far more. No wonder anti-smoker mercenaries are flapping and squealing as they see the end of their gravy train rapidly approaching and the probability of having to account for their mendacity

harleyride1777
harleyride1777

@fire.ant @harleyride1777 they also don't tell you that 98% of smoekrs never develop LC to begin with in a lifetime of smoking everyday! Its pre disposition of inherited genes that make cancer happen and we are all born with them in us!

harleyride1777
harleyride1777

@fire.ant @harleyride1777 Lung and Bronchus. Invasive Cancer Incidence Rates and 95% Confidence Intervals by Age and Race and Ethnicity, United States (Table 3.15.1.1M) *†‡

Rates are per 100,000 persons. Rates are per 100,000 persons.

 Note the age where LC is found…………..OLD AGE group incidence hits the 500/100,000 at age 75-85

 AGE it seems is the deciding factor……….

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/cancersbyageandrace.aspx?Gender=Male&Count=false&Population=false&DataType=Incidence&RateType=CrudeType&CancerSite=All Cancer Sites Combined&Year=2010&Site=Lung and Bronchus&SurveyInstanceID=1

fire.ant
fire.ant topcommenter

@harleyride1777  Going great! World domination almost complete. You'll be getting your bar code soon.


harleyride1777
harleyride1777

@fire.ant @harleyride1777@riverrat69 That man did get around the world in an evil sort of way it kinda figures he hated smokers too and all the rest of the worlds people! Hows your Aryan progressive development going BTW!

harleyride1777
harleyride1777

@fire.ant You will find there is no effect on offspring. If there were we the baby boomers would never have survived ehh!


As far as cardiovascular disease no effect again!


CVD is a disease that's inherited not caused by outside influences.


The Mummy study brought all this to lite in just the past 3 years and the effect of saturated fats is all Myth and totally abandoned now!


 Mummies' clogged arteries take smoking, fatty foods, lethargy out of the mix

    By Tom Valeo, Times Correspondent

Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:30am
 

You do everything right: You exercise every day, include lots of fruits and vegetables in your diet, never smoke, minimize the stress in your life and take medication to keep your cholesterol and blood pressure under control. You're preventing modern life from ruining your heart, right? • Well, maybe modern life isn't as much of a problem as merely living. CT scans of 137 ancient mummies from three continents show that our ancestors had plaque in their arteries, too, even though they never smoked, never tasted ice cream or pork rinds, and had no choice but to exercise vigorously every day of their lives.

According to the study, which appeared recently in the Lancet, at least one-third of the mummies, who lived as long as 5,000 years ago, had arteries that had narrowed as a result of atherosclerosis — the buildup of fatty deposits in the arterial wall. Apparently the cardiovascular system has a tendency to clog up over time.

"Our research shows that we are all at risk for atherosclerosis, the disease that causes heart attacks and strokes," said Gregory Thomas, medical director of the MemorialCare Heart & Vascular Institute, Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, and one of the authors of the study. "The data we gathered about individuals from the prehistoric cultures of ancient Peru and the Native Americans living along the Colorado River and the Unangan of the Aleutian Islands is forcing us to look for other factors that may cause heart disease."

The diet of the mummies varied widely, but contained ample protein and vegetables (and presumably no cupcakes or pork rinds). Aside from the few Egyptian mummies who lived their lives as pampered royalty, these ancient people used their muscles constantly.

Yet, the atherosclerosis was found in mummies who died in what we today would consider middle age (almost none made it to 60). And just as today, their arteries became more narrow as they got older. CT scans of modern people have demonstrated that after the age of 60 for men and 70 for women, some degree of atherosclerosis is all but universal. One large study found that teens ages 15 to 19 showed early signs of atherosclerosis, and 50 percent already had conspicuous accumulations of plaque.

"All of us age in every tissue of our body," says Dr. Donald LaVan, a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and a spokesman for the American Heart Association. "It's just a question of how rapidly it happens. There's nothing you can do to stop aging. All you're trying to do is prevent it from advancing faster than it should."

The authors of the paper agree. "Although commonly assumed to be a modern disease, the presence of atherosclerosis in premodern humans raises the possibility of a more basic predisposition to the disease," they concluded.


http://www.tampabay.com/news/aging/lifetimes/mummies-clogged-arteries-take-smoking-fatty-foods-lethargy-out-of-the-mix/2114897

Now Trending

Miami Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...