Should smokers be allowed to adopt or foster kids?

[Jason Bourne]

A child dies, a Public Inquiry is held by an eminent Jurist, we are assured that lessons have been learned, that codes of practice have been updated, that guidelines have been published, that legislation will be enacted and the whole cycle repeats.

 

I am sooooo tired of hearing that soundbite repeated again and again following every such inquiry

 

x

[Longcol]

You forget, there is no evidence of smoking causing cancer. None, zip, nada. Hence, no matter how many checials you add, the only thing you will support is that there is no evidence of such chemical causing cancer. Further, hydrogen peroxide is also used by hospitals and medical profession to combat a string of health problems (not just cleaning agent), including to combat colds and flue.

 

So the medical profession is wrong and you are right?

 

http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promotion_ethics/tobacco/humancosttobacco.jsp?page=4

[Jason Bourne]

Isn't this thread digressing from the point?

 

It is.

 

As for whether or not smokers should be allowed to foster or adopt, I personally don't believe that smokers should be allowed to live.

 

x

[Phoenix One]

So the medical profession is wrong and you are right?

 

http://www.bma.org.uk/health_promotion_ethics/tobacco/humancosttobacco.jsp?page=4

 

Jay Gordon, MD

 

Pediatrician

Posted February 16, 2009 | 01:23 AM (EST)

 

"There Is No Proof that Cigarettes Cause Cancer"

 

It took fifty years before the courts finally acknowledged that cigarette smoking causes cancer.

 

There were billions of dollars at stake.

 

The dozens of court decisions that there "was no proof" were supported by physicians, expert witnesses of all types and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on attorneys.

 

Experts and doctors alike stated over and over again that we need not continue studying this issue because there was just no proof.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-go..._b_167157.html

[JFKvsNixon]

You forget, there is no evidence of smoking causing cancer. None, zip, nada. Hence, no matter how many checials you add, the only thing you will support is that there is no evidence of such chemical causing cancer. Further, hydrogen peroxide is also used by hospitals and medical profession a combat a string of health problems (not just cleaning agent), including to combat colds and flue.

 

Repeating yourself over and over again only proves my point I made in the second paragraph in my last post.

 

Incidentally, do you also believe that other carcinogens that are present in cigarette smoke like Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, Acrolein and Nitrosamine do not cause cancer?

[Phoenix One]

Repeating yourself over and over again only proves my point I made in the second paragraph in my last post.

 

Incidentally, do you also believe that other carcinogens that are present in cigarette smoke like Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, Acrolein and Nitrosamine do not cause cancer?

 

The only thing you proved is your ignorance.

[Jason Bourne]

"There Is No Proof that Cigarettes Cause Cancer"

 

But it's still a foul, smelly, filthy, disgusting habit. Expensive, too.

 

x

[flamingjimmy]

But it's still a foul, smelly, filthy, disgusting habit. Expensive, too.

 

x

 

No buts, cigarette smoking does cause cancer, there is no doubt. All that Phoenixone has put forward is evidence is the personal opinions of

 

A. A judge without any scientific qualifications.

B. A nutritionist and pediatrician who also happens to be one of those idiots who goes round telling people not to take vaccines.

 

So his two sources are A. someone with 0 relevant qualifications.

and B. Someone with pretty much 0 relevant qualifications who already has a history of bad science.

[Longcol]

Jay Gordon, MD

 

Pediatrician

Posted February 16, 2009 | 01:23 AM (EST)

 

"There Is No Proof that Cigarettes Cause Cancer"

 

It took fifty years before the courts finally acknowledged that cigarette smoking causes cancer.

 

There were billions of dollars at stake.

 

The dozens of court decisions that there "was no proof" were supported by physicians, expert witnesses of all types and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on attorneys.

 

Experts and doctors alike stated over and over again that we need not continue studying this issue because there was just no proof.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-go..._b_167157.html

 

A paediatrician? They treat kids - hardly a cancer expert.

 

Isn't he the guy running the don't vaccinate your kids campaign?

[Phoenix One]

POLITICIANS AND SCIENTISTS WILL ADHERE TO THE PRINCIPLE OF SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITYComing Soon

Posted by: Unrepentant Smoker Yesterday [Extracted from records, an no, I did not post it, although I am posting it now]

THERE ARE TO MANY VESTED INTERESTS INVOLVED IN LOBBYING FOR LEGISLATION.

 

It is absolutely clear that many studies carried out to give support to and influence government legislation are carried out by government funded NGOs or Charities.

 

Many of these Organisations would be unable to exist without such funding and it is obvious that the results of any studies they carry out will agree with the desired aims of government policy.

 

TRUE SCIENCE MUST NOT BE DEVALUED BY SUCH MANIPULATION.

 

The BRUSSELS DECLARATION ON SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY AIMS TO COUNTERACT THIS.

 

 

http://www.brusselsdeclaration.org/pages/brussels_declaration/

http://debate2010.telegraph.co.uk/ideaView?id=087A000000004G3IAI#comments

 

 

 

Download the Brussels Declaration PDF (99 KB)

 

Quote:

 

Annex 3 – The Imaginary Risks of Environmental Tobacco Smoke

 

The absence of credible and defensible primary data on lifetime ETS doses or exposures is prima facie evidence that the claimed risks of ETS are false in any sense of having been proven. Lung cancer develops slowly and generally manifests at advanced ages after cumulative lifetime experiences. This means that even if ETS exposure could predict risk – and it cannot – it should be measured as the sum-total of exposure episodes over the lifetime of individual non-smokers. Yet, as noted, the myriad momentary changes of exposure over lifetimes would be impossible to track, and therefore cumulative assessments of individual exposures are materially impossible. Still, this is what ETS studies falsely claim to have done.

 

Unquote.