tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6235719694820791790.post7079489709642212449..comments2023-07-15T07:32:39.852-07:00Comments on Stop, Question and Frisk: Disagreement with Tobacco Control Now Punishable By Law Audrey Silkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17886552039453998727noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6235719694820791790.post-58021433865027711442020-10-13T04:36:40.830-07:002020-10-13T04:36:40.830-07:00It is a great website.. The Design looks very good...It is a great website.. The Design looks very good.. Keep working like that!. <a href="https://dankvapesofficialaccount.com/" rel="nofollow">dank vapes cartridges</a><br />Edward Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12464964311357612332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6235719694820791790.post-54295510377799184512014-04-04T21:41:46.831-07:002014-04-04T21:41:46.831-07:00I discuss that later in the column. It's Judg...I discuss that later in the column. It's Judge Kessler's RICO ruling and order for "corrective statements."Audrey Silkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17886552039453998727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6235719694820791790.post-22057534663584519502014-04-04T20:19:24.778-07:002014-04-04T20:19:24.778-07:00First rate effort, and oh, that wonderful writing ...First rate effort, and oh, that wonderful writing style! What does this refer to though? [quote]But when at the same time a U.S. District Court judge, by court order, makes that established truth mandatory of others – dissent punishable by law...[quote] -- Merilee OAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6235719694820791790.post-30302463832958788862014-04-04T14:38:41.391-07:002014-04-04T14:38:41.391-07:00Great post Audrey!
BTW, have you seen this yet?
...Great post Audrey!<br /><br />BTW, have you seen this yet?<br /><br />Prohibits the sale or provision of any quantity of electronic liquid<br /><br />Prohibits the sale or provision of <em>any quantity of electronic liquid</em>; defines "electronic liquid" as any liquid composed of nicotine and other chemicals that is sold for use in electronic cigarettes.<br /><br /><a href="http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S6939-2013" rel="nofollow">Bill S6939-2013</a>jredheadgirlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11078082563556309444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6235719694820791790.post-84842184113271683902014-04-04T06:05:31.598-07:002014-04-04T06:05:31.598-07:00My argument has always been the level of so called...My argument has always been the level of so called proof required to prove disease outcomes where no proof actually exists. The Kessler rulings are based upon NO-PROOF. From the EPA study and Judge Osteens Verdict here:<br /><br />The EPA fought to have Osteen's decision overturned on technical grounds, ignoring the multitude of facts in the decision. They succeeded in 2002 on the narrowest of technicalities. The fourth circuit court of appeals ruled that because the report was not an official policy document Osteen's court did not have jurisdiction. In their appeal the EPA did not answer a single criticism in the 92 page report, nor challenge a single fact put forth by Judge Osteen. Not one.<br /><br />Then we go back to the Doll Hospital study there again no proof given,except to find Sir Richard Doll was using the exact same epidemiological criteria as what the Nazi anti-tobacco researchers used. <br /><br />We then see the introduction of the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE from the RIO environmental summit in 1992 where it became observed law on an international Basis. The principle has become the '' DO NO HARM PRINCIPLE''. It gives no proof the same standing as having actual proof where no proof but a simple claim of harm is now all you need to pass a criminal law or convict!<br /><br />It seems Judge Kessler is a wide believer in the principle yet in her BIO she was a member of the scientific evidence review board for federal guidelines on acceptable research to the courts...........<br /><br />In that guideline Book it clearly states OSHA is the acceptable source on levels of harm!<br /><br />Carmonas '' No safe Level '' Claim is literally not acceptable as evidence to anyone.<br /><br />Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition <br /><br /> nap.edu <br /><br /> This sorta says it all <br /><br /> 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. <br /><br /> So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''<br /><br />So when we state Junk Science that's exactly what it means junk science with out ever producing proof of harm to anyone at any level of actual proof!<br /><br /><br />JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS" <br />7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18 <br />November 2004. <br /><br /><br /><br />http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobacco0409<br /><br /><br />"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." <br /><br />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. <br /><br />The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com