Smokers die older (3/3)
Mabel Dooings, the eldest resident of Swindon GB, started her 107th birthday by doing something for her health. “She still lives in her flat but she’s a little less active than in previous years,” says her son Ken. “But she gave up smoking last year. She has been smoking all her life, but I think she just does not feel like it any more. “
This statement is indicative of today’s state and media manipulation by interested parties in the background. Lust is being abolished in our society. We have lost the ability to think for ourselves and question the media and politicians – somewhere between kindergarten and retirement. “But she is a little less active than in previous years”, says her son Ken. I would be the same if I quit smoking, but people who never smoked cannot comprehend this.
Taking a look at German Burda magazines, “Bild” newspaper, “Focus”, or whatever these overpowering national dumbing-down products are all called, which, as trend-setters and opinion creators of the people, repetitively sweep the puppet politicians into a direction, from which even intellectually demanding magazines occasionally cannot escape, or, asking an expert directly, the information imparted by medical professionals, who actually should know better, but were exposed to some indoctrination during their training periods, and adopt these stances against better judgement in order to pass their state examination regardless if right or wrong, and thus no longer are committed to the truth and the Hippocratic oath, is that at least, depending on the age at smoking uptake, life expectancy is reduced between ten and twenty years of life. (The latter would apply to me, I started smoking at the age of 12, the twenty years would have to be increased to thirty years, taking the use of other substances into account that then were only partially illegal).
Still following the WHO dogma, another 20 years of reduced life span would have to be added because of my alcohol consumption, by which we arrive at a premature death by 50 years. That means I would either have died by the age of 14 when, at that age, I “accidentally” drank a bottle of “Ballantine” within 20 minutes (and no, no-one rushed me to a hospital for treatment – I had to get back to child labour the following day despite running a 40° C fever; during the stay at the semi-state owned company I damaged my back for life hauling crates, which did not impress the authorities that forced me to do that in the slightest – we even were allowed smoking at the age of 14 (despite the ban for under 16s), according to the official motto of the supervising Christian Black Forest sect: “those who work may also smoke”, which at least corresponds to then existing common sense, or, according to the dogma and propaganda of the WHO, I would take over the record set by the oldest, documented longest lived person, Jeanne Calment from Arles/France, who died in 1997, and who also was a smoker until her death at the age of 122 years, had I not consumed tobacco or alcohol.
Well, for me, my smoking acquaintances and friends such WHO statements do not apply. My best friend’s mother just turned 90 and she still smokes her 40 cigarettes a day. Many of my non-smoking friends, however, are already six feet under – largely due to risky sports accidents.
Billie Engelhardt celebrated her 104th birthday at the hairdressers with a bottle of Chardonnay. She enjoys her life, free of constraints and regulations, which includes physical pleasures such as good food and … chocolate. She stopped smoking ten years ago, at the age of 94.
Thus, according to the allegedly ‘medically proven doctrine’, a woman who reaches such an old age with continuous smoking of 40 cigarettes daily, if one could take the phrase “the sooner one stops smoking, the longer one lives”, for serious, this woman would (still according to the WHO Framework Convention and medical indoctrination) get much older than 115 years old (70 years of continuous, cumulative smoking), had she never smoked – which she still can reach despite cigarette smoking.
The 107-year-old would reach the age of at least 127 years and thus would have exceeded the record of the oldest, ever-lived person, Mme Jeanne Calment, smoker to the end of life by five years, had she never have smoked. Here you can see the bullshit we are being told very well. No-one asks if this woman or anyone else even would like to get this old. In any case, I do not want to languish for years or even decades suffering from dementia and in nappies just because I’m old and my bodily functions are declining.
Who knows, maybe Billie Engelhardt is still alive and extremely focused and healthy and, by continuing to smoke, could reach an age that non-smokers only dream of. However, such cases are usually kept under wraps, because it must not be what should not be. Maybe the doctors will do anything to prevent this from happening, otherwise they will have to face their own life-long lies and selfish greed and ask themselves painful questions. I advise this woman to stay away from medics so as not to die prematurely from the so-called passive smoke. No one will ever know what a doctor will write after one’s demise as the cause of death on the death certificate. This very much depends on the company from which the physician receives ‘supplementary benefits’. Paper is always patient, especially in the name of “medical science,” which was and still too often is, responsible for inhumane atrocities.
Interestingly enough, no physician or researcher personally included and/or considered me in his/her “anti-tobacco study”. Makes sense, too, because people like me would, taking into account the desired statistics results, completely mess up these results, thus correct the targeted statements of the thousand-fold pharma-sponsored studies too much towards reality. Symptomatic or with calculus? I cannot imagine either that the WHO would enjoy reading my personal smoker’s medical history simply because in this case they would finally have to abandon their fanaticism, begin to reconsider, and subsequently revoke their case or false studies; or just pretend they never existed. If they are willing and able to recognize themselves and their own stupidity, they would have to reassess their relationships with the pharmaceutical and medical technology companies, publicly justify and disclose the baksheesh to pharmacists and alternative physicians – and who does that? Enron, Monsanto, Novartis, the EU, and many others send their regards!
They would have to disclose the initiating backers and companies and it would be the biggest scandal in the history of the already noncredible WHO       , because the World Homicide Organization has never reproduced the study cited for its standard contracts with the countries of the world, let alone checked its plausibility. Nor does it support or cite its own long-term study because of the WHO’s own embarrassing results, in particular the finding that children from smoking households are 22 per cent healthier than those from non-smoking families; a circumstance which would make second-hand smoke an approved prescription drug in Switzerland. (Study conducted by IARC – WHO-affiliated 1988-1998). And the additional study cited and used involving rats, which were fortified with an estimated lethal dose of second-hand smoke for humans, is simply not comparable to humans. If the WHO had conducted a review of this questionable experiment, the investors, or other WHO-affiliated business magnates and subcontractors, entangled and benefiting equally from those plots, would presumably quickly find themselves exposed to what they are, namely, junk science producers of pseudo-scientific papers. And the principle of “he who pays the piper calls the tune” would, for once at least, no longer apply, because the WHO is financed exclusively by donations, 80 percent of which come from the pharmaceutical industry. But this requires courageous politicians with a backbone – a species that, I believe, has already become extinct.
Why does the WHO need to have a specific study, which is neither conclusive nor reproducible and most certainly not transferable to humans, contractually recognized by member countries and also sold to subcontractors, i.e. states? Why impose upon all the countries of the world with more or less pressure added by means of credit pledges? As already mentioned, a reputable study is, reproducible at any time. But it must also be able to explain the causal correlation to people. The study, which only flatters the mind-set of US puritans and WHO re-educators, a study that produced the desired result assigned to the researchers (quod erat expectandum), is not worth being taken seriously! Consequently, in order not to jeopardize this WHO compliant study by serious future scientific work, all the countries that have signed the WHO treaty must recognize this junk study and declare it to be valid forever, contrary to the knowledge that the contractual text does not correspond to reality. But how are the states brought to heel? We do not know (yet).
The WHO can do one! – For as long as more than a billion people in the world die every year from starvation, water and hygiene deprivation, of which people in the West can be cured by antibiotics within a week, the WHO should address this with its business sponsors – and not focus on restricting the freedom of the Western world or even strive for the creation of the perfect human being. We have already had that idea 80 years ago.