4 of 21 people found the following review helpful
Lobby group blather,
This review is from: Bad Acts: The Racketeering Case Against the Tobacco Industry (Paperback)
A work of self sanctimony and purely political spin, by the very people who know how to do spin, all too well.
The cover of the book offensively expresses a duality of meaning, the Title "Bad Acts" expresses the author's, confused prohibitionist zealotry, anti-smoker is the message, although he wouldn't be allowed to admit that in print, as a crime of medical autonomy laws by state interference and of human rights laws if we truly believe; as the Tobacco Industry should have realized, that smoking is now officially an addiction, which makes it a medical condition. Perhaps it has come time to ask the question again, of those on the other side of the table who entitle a new criminal activity vested in hate speech. The picture can both depict a Tobacco Company Executive or a smoker, which ever way one chooses to perceive him, interchangeable as was intended. The "Public Health" for profit industry, no longer speak in concern of populations or human health. One of the authors speaks because he is paid to speak, it is his chosen and obviously quite profitable profession. In praise of a questionable act of Government conspiring with bottom line oriented partners, competing in the same Nicotine industry. A new-speak resurrection of Clintonesque ["I did not have sex with that woman"]Industrial Socialism,by hiring lobby groups[Sock Puppets]to lobby against itself, to force it's own hand, whilst walking with angels.
I take note of the fact a positive review was posted by a similarly driven career advocate of cruel Medicine, who coyly failed to reveal he also authored another book, not mentioned in his review which is a lot closer to the subject matter and the promotions exemplified on the cover of this book. The Nazi War on Cancer [Paperback] Amazon.
"Collaboration in the Holocaust. Murderous and torturous medical experiments. The "euthanasia" of hundreds of thousands of people with mental or physical disabilities. Widespread sterilization of "the unfit." Nazi doctors committed these and countless other atrocities as part of Hitler's warped quest to create a German master race. Robert Proctor recently made the explosive discovery, however, that Nazi Germany was also decades ahead of other countries in promoting health reforms that we today regard as progressive and socially responsible."
Avoiding the obvious; that Hitler was possessed with maximized Power and Control, as the only attachment we should see afforded to his love of a "progressive Public Health movement" [change]and it's special "protections" administered with a legal stick.
Of the subject matter?
The lawsuits were always a fraudulent play for the cameras, in support of a rent seeking agenda. If anyone were damaged by smoking the smokers themselves should have been the recipients of at least some portion of the MSA settlements. In the end they were given the bill the entire punishment and the finger wag blame. At every moment all of the so called "costs of smoking" to the state were available to lawmakers through taxation, they didn't hesitate to tax smokers for their sins. So an exercise in court largess was a huge expense in fortuitous legal fees, a huge waste of tax payers money and a huge drain on the resources of the courts. All to promote smoking patches and child friendly flavored nicotine chewing gum, which surprisingly has never been suspected as being addictive, nor marketed to children? At the end of the day smokers paid the State's claimed damages, in double dipped costs and the tobacco Industry made a tidy profit, a huge injection of cash on hand equal to the money they collected from consumers, and became far more profitable by going along. So where is the punishment? And more important who were punished? At what cost?
If the lawsuit were successful and the Billions awarded, another deal would have been struck, giving them time to pay their debt, the Industry would have done the same thing, passing the costs on to consumers who would have been punished just a little bit more. While in both scenarios the product grew in value and in perceptions of value.
Tobacco Control is the reflection of selfishness. I want what I want and I am more powerful than you, so I will get what I want, and You have no right to argue with those who are better than you.
Nothing more and certainly, nothing more righteous. Just a consortium of "Us" as opposed to "them" with large financial and political connections. Who made it legal to smoke a cigarette and illegal to inhale the leftover smoke. Chaos has arrived, and they call it "protection". As all cowardly dictators will. Smoking Bans should always fail in the courts, because they are in every aspect and unarguably arbitrary in nature. It is an entire discourse from reality and logic to ascertain that a ban on the inhalation of leftover smoke is reasonable and a matter of Health protection, while smoking remains legal. The back to front progression of smoking bans in formerly private spaces, toward challenging a highly unpopular view among lawmakers currently, as well as the medical charities and paid lobbyists; that smoking should be banned, is self revealing as arbitrary and promotional self serving gamesmanship. With a population divisive "denormalization" strategy, targeting not the tobacco Industry as claimed but the users.
The Emperor has no clothes. [and he appears to be morbidly obese?]
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 11-20 of 30 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2012 12:59:34 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 9, 2012 1:27:54 AM PDT
I had to check to see _which_ offending comment was removed. I see it was the truck one, which introduced the language of personal violence to the discussion. In today's world, that is intolerable. Thanks, Michael.
But almost as offensive is the comment exhorting readers to rate this book on Amazon without reading it, imo.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2012 1:20:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 9, 2012 1:26:37 AM PDT
>> In reference to the threat to run someone over with a truck I would certainly be interested if you would be so kind as to supply a link, no one contributing to the blog would condone violence against anyone, including myself
You posted copious notes before and after the truck comment, and had no qualms then. Nor did anyone.
Similarly, no one objected when a commenter urged readers to go rate "Bad Acts" without reading it, since "we have already heard the entirety of what it contains." No one offered a peep in protest to this vile behavior.
On the contrary, in posting your "review" on that very same day, you seem to have followed orders dutifully.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2012 11:24:25 AM PDT
Is there a question or something useful in all of that?
Or is it just more of your "big tobacco under the bed" conspiracy nutter drivel?
Guns don't kill people and cigarettes don't light themselves, so Tobacco Control and its spin doctors at Legacy in particular, represent nothing more than the same divisive bigoted shrill we hear from the skin heads. Nothing that should be taken seriously. Light is finally emerging from the tunnel. The court clearance to proceed on financial and associative conflicts of interest, against the tobacco control Lobby groups controlling FDA committees, was granted. Now we get an investigation in open court of the other side of the table. Hopefully by the evidence we may see some more convictions of real people with names for a change. Nasty business working in government advisory roles, while acting as a domestic terrorist echo chamber, the same echo chamber and personalities comprising a rumor mill, that invented second hand smoke as a significant health risk. And which promoted NRT as a procedural "medical treatment" with more than a 90% failure rate, we could also consider it snake oil. All the while a corrupted FDA were claiming that second hand tobacco smoke and electronic cigarettes are "just as dangerous as smoking"? All this corruption coming to light, so close to an election? hows that one working for you Stan? Will you be writing a book about that case? Not likely, if names are produced and the entire organized tobacco control syndicate is described on the record. I would think that another congressional investigation would be in order and public disclosure of "Tobacco control" documents could then be be put in the public realm, as the next big tobacco dragon we need to slay. It looks like the Rockefeller octopus was reinvented, to serve the same levels of greed.
Of course this is all my personal opinion, time will tell. Nice chatting with you. although I have to question still if it is appropriate within this venue.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2012 11:59:28 AM PDT
What no thanks for me?
I advised Michael of your statements describing a perceived "threat" , and I would have to presume he removed it in response to my own request, asking that he do so, to eliminate any perceptions that could form, by the way you explained it, beyond the facts and the true context. This is a very caring and altogether friendly lady we are discussing here, and I have conversed with her and others in the venue this and many topics for years. She would never threaten or harm anyone knowingly and if you ask her, she would give you a heart felt apology I am sure. However only if she believed you were sincere and not just looking to score cheap political points, to support your screed.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2012 5:36:48 PM PDT
QUOTE: "I'd like to see him fry . . . If he stepped in front of my pickup truck, I'd honestly have to say my hesitation would have him flattened on the pavement."
She introduced the language of violence in a venue that is already steeped in rank vilification. In this day and age, it's inexcusable. As is the tolerance of it.
I'm to thank you for fraudulently posting a review of a book you never read, apparently on orders?
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2012 7:23:18 PM PDT
Ah yet another in a long history of reinvented facts, according to the mystical cult of Stan.
And who pray tell is issuing these "orders"?
Let me guess, the big bad tobacco industry?
Can we file that one under Freud's description of "Projection"?
Get some rest and take your meds things will seem much less terrifying in the morning.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2012 8:17:40 PM PDT
By the way, as this is on a closely related matter.
If you are following his blog you already know, according to Dr. Michael Siegal today;
"You are entirely correct. I was speaking tongue-in-cheek. At this point, it doesn't surprise me at all to see a tobacco control conference sponsored by Big Pharma. Virtually all the major conferences have now sold out their scientific integrity for Big Pharma money."
IOW as mentioned earlier; The Emperor has no clothes.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2012 8:26:01 PM PDT
You seem confused:
You fraudulently posted a review and rating of a book you hadn't read. No reinvention necessary. It's despicable.
You did so after a poster on another board called on readers to "Rate [Glantz's] book on Amazon." No reinvention necessary. It's disgusting.
Your short message is a textbook stew of poor comprehension, unwarranted assumptions, straw-man accusations and gratuitous insults, all couched in a cowardly and painfully obvious bravado. But that's typical, I suppose, of the kind of person who would rate a book they hadn't read. Next time, to allay your confusion before you embarrass yourself further, just read the 2 graphs above; those are the ugly facts.
Or take a good hard look in the mirror.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 9, 2012 9:00:48 PM PDT
Lets add it all up; I reviewed a book you swear I "didn't read", because I chose to talk about the mindset behind this book being the MSA to give the reader a little more in the way of credible insight than what I saw between the covers, before I disposed of it with the rest of the trash. Hard to believe someone gave it to me on the first of July, as a birthday present. With your nonsense that I didn't know this was a book about the Ricco case? and incredibly as evidence of same, you point at a link that discusses this book in detail, in which, a poster you originally said was me? Suggested others rate the book, at a point in time after the review I wrote was already posted. Now you claim I was working under orders?
No one pays me to promote hatred and community divisions as a profession.
There are very few venues in fact where someone with such talents would be employable once they become a political liability, as The National Socialists are long out of business. Perhaps the future for such an individual rests with diminished potentials of groups like the Aryan Nations or something similar, who like the moral busybodies until recently, still need a little work on their Public Branding.
This was me...
And no "shills to big tobacco" were involved?
Interesting research confirming what I suspected; the inflation of risks to non smokers by raising their concern over tobacco smoke [with a "no safe level" claim without scientific justification] is sufficient to offset the proposed risk [believed to be a symptom of the smoke] with the larger risk caused by it's irresponsible promotion.
"Deaths from all causes
We saw a significant association, across the full range of severity, between psychological distress and all cause mortality. Table 3⇓ shows the results for the four categories of GHQ-12 score; even the subclinically symptomatic group (score 1-3) had a 20% increased risk of mortality after adjusting for age and sex. This association was essentially unchanged after adjusting for a range of covariates that included occupational social class, alcohol intake, and smoking. We saw strong evidence of a dose-response effect (age and sex adjusted hazard ratio per standard deviation disadvantage in GHQ-12 score 1.21, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 1.27; P<0.001 for trend). Figure 3⇓ shows the association between risk of death from all causes and the full range of psychological distress."
Tobacco Control increases health risks universally, regardless of smoking.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2012 7:19:44 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 10, 2012 7:35:14 AM PDT
More insight from Siegal's blog again in lieu of the subject matter;
"The technique of responding to a criticism by lying about the individual critic's position is a common tactic used when groups find it difficult to argue the substance of an issue. The idea is to try to discredit the critic by misrepresenting their views to the public and to make the person appear to be a lunatic with outlandish views."
Excellent observation Michael !
A tactic that hundreds of people who have asked thousands of questions over the past few decades, in relation to medical facts and figures that simply don't add up, are not exquisitely familiar with.
Tobacco Control in and of itself. by its very existence is a financially corrupted enterprise pandering to financial conflicts that are entombed in the term "pork barrel politics" which is not an euphemism, but a fact of life in America. A movement of deliberately narrowed focus, with a necessity to maintain a narrowed focus, that protects other "stakeholder" industries, who in the same eras, did everything and more that tobacco industries were attacked for. No person within the Tobacco Industry is held to account, who is personally responsible for illegal acts, just an image that is all encompassing and descriptive of something, somehow quite different, than what remains the norm in the boardrooms of Oil companies and the Pharmaceutical industry, to name but a few. Who are judged absolutely on a different responsibility page when they get caught, over and over again, callously doing damage to the public, in search of more important profits. As an obligation to their respective shareholders in turn, as a legal and binding obligation of the job.The tobacco Industries paid for and received the best possible advertising available, and today the same ad agencies who lost them as clients to the "Movement", continue to keep the same operations alive and well, with new tools of pseudo-scientific deceptions at their disposal now, that were not available before "tobacco control" came a calling.
Is it so difficult for you to see the convictions of the tobacco industry, although likely well deserved, are also now a license for other industries to continue for all this time, out of the limelight and beyond scrutiny. As long as they keep funding the right charities and contributing to the right political candidates; the hypocrisy goes on. While profit motivations and absolute media control, as evidenced by the single side of the Tobacco Control movement, now take away the very rights we once had to keep them in check. Silencing the voices of 60 million people who are being thrown to the curb targeted for taxation while having their integrity and dignity attacked in every possible way? with just the "shill to big tobacco" as defense against those few who might be heard?
That took some deep seated corruption no matter how you slice it.
In closing; [Me again]
The most important arguments proposed by Tobacco Control and the broader UN subservient Public Health "Movement", Comes down to a pretty basic diversity of ideals. One side believes that individuals have rights, while the other believes they have privileges.