|
I believe the statistics on smoking related deaths are
way out out of synch with truth. Many people are actually
saved from an early death by nicotine. The argument is complex
but not too complex. It comes down to an analysis that nicotine
(or whatever the active ingredient in cigarettes is that
causes this effect) is, or was until they have been taxed
to oblivion to fill the coffers of the medical profession,
a cheap and perhaps the single cheapest way to control emotional
highs and lows for some people. It actually helps them maintain
some kind of balance in their lives. If they do not have
access to that they become moody, suffer depression and
other kinds of stress-related illnesses, some of them even
taking people to earlier deaths than they might otherwise
have had. Now these facts ‚ and there have now been some
studies done on it, some of them as a result of a series
of features articles I got published in The West Australian
over here a few years ago ‚ are hardly ever mentioned in
any studies as a counter to the statistics that do show,
and I acknowledge they show, that in other ways cigarettes
also kill.
What I am saying here is that to get the true picture one
has to (a) count up the number of people who die through
lung cancer and all the similar "tobacco-related" diseases.
Then (b) you also have to take into the account all those
others who might be saved from a more premature death because
the nicotine has helped prolong their lives. (b) has to
be subtracted from (a). Then (c) one has to calculate the
cost to the community of all the health expenses incurred
through "tobacco-related diseases" like lung cancer and
(d) subtract from that the costs of the savings for people
who have been able to self-manage their own mental health
and stress levels through nicotine and do not require as
intensive mental health care. When you have done all that
we might have a far more accurate understanding of what
the real cost to the community of smoking is. I suspect
when the research is finally done we might find that the
benefits probably about equal the costs and risks. I don't
know. I do know the existing statistics we are being fed
are lies on an enormous scale of global deceit.
It is my contention that the whole "anti-tobacco lobby"
is an enormous and monstrous scam of the most outrageous
proportions and a zillion times more morally corrupt than
the worst allegations that have been directed against the
"big tobacco giants". This is "the big medical giant", which
has inveigeled in an enormous government-sponsored bureaucracy
that has a very high self-interest in promoting QUIT campaigns
and the like, and whole communities in the Western world
have swallowed the whole lot not just hook, line and sinker
but "hook, line, sinker, jetty and half the bloody coastline
of the Australian continent!" It is now HOLY WRIT that smoking
kills and woe betide any person who would dare not just
to say but to think otherwise. George Orwell warned us about
Big Brother. He is here and has been with us for decades.
And I am not talking about the reality TV show.
Similarly, I think the same applies to the Billings Method
basically along the lines your argue. In that case though
the "Holy Roman Catholic Church" stands in the equivalent
place that the "Multinational Tobacco Satanic Monsters"
stand in the anti-tobacco campaign.
What we cannot claim though is that the Holy Roman Catholic
Church is unfairly singled out in these matters compared
to other institutions in society. That does not solve our
communication problem. Pointing out the truth does not necessarily
solve our communication problem either. Sometimes, as in
the tobacco example I gave above, the whole world is deaf
and simply does not want to know the truth. Everybody hates
the smell of tobacco on clothes and in their hair. The anti-smoking
lobby can call on some deeply emotional stuff to press their
advantage home.
I do want to comment in a particular way on this paragraph
you wrote though:
"I know a little about the man and I doubt very
much if he would make such a statement without serious thought
and advice. What I DO know is that while I remain in doubt
I WILL be trusting the word of a dedicated and holy man
who has nothing to gain from such a statement except persecution
to have his facts straight, rather than (im)moral crusaders,
those who make money from the trade (along with other worse
crimes) and huge international financial consortiums with
interests in the various immoral trades causing and flowing
from this crisis."
What really upsets me about this is that you are investing
faith in this man simply because of the clothes he wears
or because of the title someone has given him. This is what
happened to the thousands of people who had been abused
when they first went to the Church two, three and four decades
ago. Some in the Church ‚ and I can remember the Holy Joes
in my own family carrying on like this ‚ used to say "but
he couldn't have possibly done that. He's a priest ‚ a very
holy man!" Holy, be buggered. They were screwing little
boys. Pete, wakey, wakey mate. This man cannot just rely
on his title or the uniform he wears. His behaviour is judged
by his actions and his words. If he does have the scientific
proof to back up his claims he will produce it ‚ and I will
start the clean up of the damage that my words have caused.
If he doesn't he should start to clean up a few things ‚
including those not highly educated thousands, possibly
millions who have acted on this advice and infected their
wives, husbands and children when they needn't have been
infected if this advice wasn't coming from one in so powerful
a position as this cardinal. If this cardinal is found to
be wrong, will you acknowledge that you have been wrong
or will you still be wanting to carry on with this pathetic
stuff about "he wouldn't do that ‚ he's a holy and humble
man" ( or similar words to that).
I would also dispute your statement that this man "has
nothing to gain". Pete, there is nothing quite so intoxicating
in life as power and prestige. Poor journalists sleep with
this whore all the time. And so do Cardinals and even humble
priests!
| 
