Dear Editor, The World Health Organization’s agenda is
threatened by their 1998 study that was buried. One of the least
known facts in the war against passive smoking is the seven-nation,
12-medical center study of passive smoking in Europe in 1998, done
by the WHO, the findings of which were in direct dispute with the
WHO’s public war on smoking and passive smoke, so it was never
released to the public.
Passive smoking’s truth remains hidden from the public
Dear Editor,
The World Health Organization’s agenda is threatened by their 1998 study that was buried. One of the least known facts in the war against passive smoking is the seven-nation, 12-medical center study of passive smoking in Europe in 1998, done by the WHO, the findings of which were in direct dispute with the WHO’s public war on smoking and passive smoke, so it was never released to the public.
To my knowledge, only two major newspapers ever covered the WHO cover-up. The study looked at non-smokers who lived with, worked with, and grew up with smokers. The conclusions were there were no statistical evidence the passive smoking causes lung cancer, and a possible protective effect in some cases were observed.
This disregarded study flies in the face of the current global deaths study promoted by the WHO. If the WHO has known for over a decade that the reported harms of passive smoking might not be real, why have they continued to promote them? It asks the important question; is the WHO interested in truth or political empowerment?
Those who have used junk science in the past to further the anti smoking agenda will no doubt use these numbers, but the inconvenient truth is political correctness and the real world have nothing to do with each other.
The recent mid term elections pointed out that political correctness and many of the politicians who enforce it have been kicked to the curb by the American voters.
The WHO has no credibility to make pronouncements on information it knows are false, and should be treated accordingly. They should be ignored and the cover-up explained.
Dave Pickrell, President and founder of Smokers Fighting Discrimination, Inc., Katy, Texas
Abandon southeast quad plans and focus on issues in the city
Dear Editor,
I just received a copy of a letter sent to the City from LAFCO, Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County. The agency has jurisdiction over the areas of the county’s portion of the city’s southeast quadrant that the city wants to annex. LAFCO reaffirms the concerns I stated in an earlier letter.
The agency indicates that project may violate many of the county’s own policies and laws of the State of California. It is my opinion as supported by LAFCO that this project of more than 1,300 acres will breach those policies and pose a great threat to the city and its residents as it will heavily impact our community, its resources and our quality of life.
As stated, there is no need for a project of this a magnitude. It will pave over productive farm land, impact our foothills and remove cherished open space. There is only a want by developers and landowners and a wanton disregard by our local leadership with the exception of exiting Councilmember Marby Lee who has indicated personally that she would likely oppose this project. A line is forming in opposition which will not only include our Local and state regulatory agencies but many community groups such as Thrive! Morgan Hill (
th******@ve*****.net
) and environmental organizations such as Committee for Green Foothills, Sierra Club, Audubon Society and many more that recognize the risks, hazards and perils that this project will bring.
It is unfair if not irresponsible for this council to move forward with excessive development that is not even with our city limits, and more so considering this community’s strong support for smart, slow and planned growth.
It does not make sense to develop new lands when there are hundreds of acres of existing and vacant parcels already within our city limits, and at our core, for which LAFCO agrees and for which our general plan has already indicated is an issue and should be our focus.
It does not make sense to continue when there will surely be petitions, referendums and initiatives that will consume valuable resources and unnecessary expenses.
This not a project anyone can disregard. No one can be silent.
Many will say after this project is complete, “How did this happen?” “Where did all this traffic, noise, and pollution come from?” “How did we lose our open space, water and farmland?” “Why do government costs keep rising?”
It is inconceivable to believe that we can build new roads, utilities and infrastructure when we can’t maintain what we have. Well it is all starts here and now, and it is the time to call a halt to this excess.
Please contact our council and commissioners (in care of Ms. Theresa Walker, City Clerk,
th************@mo********.gov
) and let them know that you opposed this project.
Ask them to focus on issues within our city limits, that our limited resources must be used to maintain what we have and to always make sure insure that the needs of residents of Morgan Hill are not displaced by excessive developer wants.
Mark Grzan, former City Council member
