Dr. Siegel, You have worked very hard to try and show that ANR has accused FORCES as being a front group. However, nothing I read in those quotes shows an ANR accusation. As a medical doctor who works in public health, I am sure you are aware of the difference between advocacy groups and a Public Health Organization. ANR is a lobbying outfit and ASH is run by a private consumer advocacy lawyer. Neither conducts health research, neither purports to be a health organization.
What I don't see in your post is anything from organizations such as CDC, DHHS, WHO, or the Surgeon General.
I was wondering how or why a medical doctor with your obvious abilities would confuse two distinctly different organizations.
I reckon some lawyer must have warned them not to incriminate themselves.
I always hear derision whenever anyone takes the Fifth amendment. He who does so is assumed to be guilty.
Why are doctors so quick to identify themselves as such? It's not as though non-doctors actually believe they are by definition more principled than the common run of humanity.
I decided to look a little further into ASH's background....it seems as though they are joined at the hip with Center for Tobacco Free Kids, the organization started by a $20,000,000.00 grant from the Nicoderm folks at RWJF.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....ealth-
over.html
Oh....but I forgot, there is no impropriety in accepting pharmaceutical nicotine money to spread lies.....only if you accept tobacco money.
Never mind.
Why is it the National Smokers’ Alliance, openly aided by the tobacco industry, is a "front", but antismoking organizations receiving vast public funds—extorted from smokers—and giant pharmaceutical grants are "grassroots?"
Question: Why is it the National Smokers’ Alliance, openly aided by the tobacco industry, is a "front", but antismoking organizations receiving vast public funds—extorted from smokers—and giant pharmaceutical grants are "grassroots?"
Answer: Because polls show that vast majorities support banning public smoking. By definition, this broad support makes them "grassroots" organizations.
The right to smoke in public does not have that kind of broad public support, therefore pro smoking groups (like NSA) usually have to be industry funded.
"By definition, this broad support makes them "grassroots" organizations."
WTF? see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass_roots
"a grassroots national organization...would place as much decision-making power as possible in the hands of a local chapter instead of the head office"
There are many who claim to speak for the "masses" but few who "walk the talk"
The tobacco industry didn't invent 'astroturfing' but today quite a few anti-tobacco organizations engage in it
If the public was invested in CAFE, wouldn't most businesses have voluntarily gone tobacco free because of market behavior [eg only going to smoke free businesses]?
Steve Johnson wrote:
"Answer: Because polls show that vast majorities support banning public smoking. By definition, this broad support makes them "grassroots" organizations."
Absurd. The (supposed) broad support makes them only broadly supported. A Big Pharma front group remains always a Big Pharma front group, no matter how broadly supported it is, and calling it "grass roots" is deceptive.
Has anyone else noticed how recent references to smoking ban issues by smoke haters have been replaced by the terminology "public smoking", intending to apply the connotation that the PUBLIC ACT of lighting a cigarette and inhaling smoke from a cigarette or cigar is a criminal activity? I find the obvious discriminatory substitution really obnoxious. This "cute" little modification by anti smoking activists, to further advance their "1984" semantics efforts in social engineering, needs to be recognized and ridiculed for what it is.
marcus aurelius wrote:
"I decided to look a little further into ASH's background....it seems as though they are joined at the hip with Center for Tobacco Free Kids"
Anyone who thinks that ASH and CTFK are joined at the hip doesn't have a clue about ASH or CTFK.
And on his misinformation blog, marcus aurelius wrote:
"So it sounds to me as though ASH is part of the marketing department for Nicoderm and pharmaceutical nicotine giant Johnson & Johnson Company."
I'd be pleasantly shocked if J&J or RWJF has ever given even one dollar to ASH. J&J and GSK have lobbied alongside Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds for tort deform legislation to prevent their injured victims from accessing the courts for redress.
Meanwhile, RWJF heavily funded the AMA, which also lobbies alongside cigarette and drug companies to deny civil justice to injured victims) and also heavily funded CTFK, which advocated federal legislation to eliminate class action lawsuits against cigarette companies and to cap their damage awards.
In contrast, ASH staunchly opposed protecting cigarette companies from lawsuits.
This debate should reveal a lot of useful information when assessing credibility issues.
The accusation is hilarious to a fault. If any group has done more for the Cigarette industry in history it would have to be the anti smoker cartel. The public information available is enormous in evidence of industries and charities financing these groups. The inclusion of Fascist Politicians in the process adds an air of stench in assessing credibility. Investments by such prominent industries as RWJF. Rockefeller and Ford Foundations creators, financiers and supporters of Eugenics. A gene pool protection project, which included such memorable objectives as castration of Jews and imbeciles and elimination of useless eaters advocacy has come full circle and the rise in protectionist support is occurring again. These wealthy advisors to Hitler aided in planning his personal integrity skill set even helping him decide on the wording of his laws. Most of the North American insurance companies also invest heavily in the big four Cigarette industries. Our own Canadian Government it was revealed was making pension fund investments while feigning a war on Tobacco. If you look at the product, who can say with certainty there is actually a shred of Tobacco in a carton of cigarettes. The fact is the term anti tobacco advocacy is a political fraud.
The so-called war is said to be focused against the cigarette industry, which sells nicotine delivery systems. In truth, the only casualties of this war are the consumers and taxpayers regardless if they smoke. Attack the consumer and always protect the industry is the reality in anti smoker logic. A deadly bag of potato chips obviously more dangerous has ample information to advise the consumer of every potential hazard in the package. A package of cigarettes has political rhetoric however no actual ingredients listings an obvious slip in regulatory process or simply letting them off the hook for the protection of those ingredients and those who sell them. Reduced advertising costs increased product pricing and passing all fines and settlements with a generous markup to the price of the product keeps investors happy and joyfully playing the game. The other competitor in nicotine delivery systems who funds smoker ban advocacy has increased market share and profits as well from the rape of personal finances of the consumers on multiple fronts. Insurance companies charging smoking related premiums not only profits from directly increasing personal insurance but as a convenient excuse to increase commercial policies for companies employing smokers regardless if the risk liability would be increased, any smoker living into their 90s would prove other factors are more significant to increasing the risk associated with smoking. Other products such as Snu in Sweden have been proven to reduce such liabilities enormously however the large-scale use of smokeless tobacco delivery systems with daily use at greatly reduced prices would reduce the market share and end the contrasts of propaganda. The main compelling excuse of government investments in dragon slayers of the current propaganda wars between competing nicotine industries and for this fact alone all anti smoker advocates would scream sacrilege at the mention of products banned from advertising a healthier choice.
Therefore, if anyone doubts who are the advocates for the evil cigarette industries advocates of the good guys in white hats or lab coats. They need look no further than the gang of smoker ban fans who play at a mutually beneficial WWF cage matches in advertising content. Advocates of fascist (also known as industrial socialist) rule who have kept the record profits of the Nicotine industry soaring for over a decade. I say Fascist not as a loose use of the language but based in the logic of the situation. Democratic process is strengthened by the debate. Eliminating the opposition voice as is common among the ban fans, seeks to do just that, at every opportunity avoiding a lack of credible arguments by slandering the opposition to eliminate opposition. Mussolini would have been proud his current followers have learned his teachings impeccably.
Anyone need a hint does an industry connected Finance minister make a logical choice for a political party based in socialist live and let live flower power rhetoric. Doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense does it? The same socialist party usually finds its leadership in former finance ministers. Go figure, not everything is always, as it appears. If you need to validify a theory think of the idea 1- (probable%) = (improbable%) and inversely 1-(improbable%)=(probable%) If you find a balance, it can be equated to a lie or a mistake. The logic of removing the known to find the unknown is the most effective of problem solving strategies.
We invariably find many unassociated balances when we do the math in anti smoker advocacy as such I confidently brand them all, by their own rule of logic in closeness of association, as liars.
Cheers
FXR wrote:
"If any group has done more for the Cigarette industry in history it would have to be the anti smoker cartel."
No cigarette industry executive would agree with that claim. Besides, the term "anti smoker cartel" is nothing more than a delusional creation by naive and silly conspiracy theorists.
When smokefree advocates remain coalesced and united on public policy goals (e.g. smokefree workplaces and public places, cigarette tax hikes), the cigarette industry usually losses.
When cigarette companies have been able to buy off, infiltrate and/or cut deals with selfish government officials and/or health organization executives (e.g. US military officials in WWI and WWII, the AMA in the 1950's and 1960's, Gio Gori in the 1960's and 1970's, CTFK in 1997 and 1998's global bailout legislation and since 2004 with the FDA legislation), the cigarette industry can either prevail or maintain the status quo.
In coping with my delusions it would be helpful to explain to me how the nicotine or cigarette industry has been punished depreciated or lost any cash in the advocacy against them? Profits are way up the value of the product in kind. Reduced labor forces migrating to third world countries unregulated. Tobacco flowing in at much reduced costs from origins of ecological disaster for growing conditions. Smoking although declining slightly seems to be resurging according to latest figures show sales increased again this year in Canada despite not knowing how much was sold in addition on the black market. When BAT attempted to launch a toxic reduced cigarette recently ASH showed their colors as usual by condemning the idea. Reducing toxic content would result in reduced mortality, Poison is after all in the dose or was when I last checked, so many rules have been rewritten lately it is hard to keep up. ASH pronounced from a high that as in the question of smokeless tobacco as an option, trading one danger for another was unacceptable.
This despite their advocacy for extremely expensive patches and gum essentially identical products, always cheered on to the delight of their benefactors. If you believe this is about public safety or saintly benevolence your are the delusional my friend. Educate yourself along with many others you are being had.
In real science, Dioxins are created by mixing chlorine with organic materials and burning at low temperatures. A recent report indicated the known safe levels of dioxins were being approached in the daily use of a pack a day smoking. Governments have known for decades of the cumulative poisoning. A simple ban of chlorine and pesticides in a place they should never be, in cigarettes, you could substantially reduce the risk. Anti smoker advocates, seek to block those regulations and keep the contrasts of propaganda real.
If you wish to reduce mortality as you claim it is beyond me how you moralized the larger majority of consumers who’s deaths are cited in protection of non smoking employees, yet we see no advocacy to reduce the risk of the product or protections of the group most affected. With absolute proof in significant and reproducible fact, Dioxins cause Cancer. With the unregulated inclusion in cigarettes, we can say yes cigarettes do cause cancer, yet the public seems to believe “may cause cancer” is real.
The fact is, as presented cigarettes do cause cancer but the fact which gets in the way of this realization and inconsistency in ASH not throwing the knockout punch, is the realization no one to date has done anything to prevent it.
If the focus should shift to dioxins as a major concern what would become of the new villains in the oil industry in connection with Diesel fuel exhaust. Oil company execs whose promotions of death and disease and dominance principles, taught the evil Tobacco industry execs the rules of the game. In fact, they built most of the medical schools in tune with self-preservation. Don’t you love those violin tunes they play in oil company commercials as they place themselves as J&J in the league of family companies LOL?
Cancer societies worldwide can be seen to have stood silent while drinking Champaign-applauding charity drives gleaning more profits and larger salaries in the advocacy of greed. Do we see those so concerned with the health of their neighbors or skyrocketing costs of healthcare advocating the cheapest and most effective solution found in real science? Rather we see a movement of bullies and psychopaths cheering the unnecessary slander and mortality of their fellows. In what they describe as an inclusive solution. Inclusion of gold rush stakeholders is much more accurate in what you portray. Yes there is another side of the argument if you so choose, you may take a talk to the hand attitude just don’t try to sell me on the hypocrisy of your highly profitable enterprise, based in the misery of others as a high road position.
You may be a salesman’s wet dream, I prefer to make my own choices. That is what democracy is all about choice not imposition of choice but choice through informed consent. The head scientist at Health Canada is a political scientist that should tell you something right out of the gate. The exclusion of environment ministries in consensus decision process in an environmental issue, should tell you more.
Doctors were hanged after the war last time this health advocacy fraud was tried and for good reason.
Want to read more argue with these and before I hear your predictable slander Tobacco companies do not finance me,
I am driven by the acceptance of hate and violence and lack of scientific credibility abdicated by your side of the issue. I don’t even smoke cigarettes.
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=2827
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=2731
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=2732
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=2758
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/mo...rticle&
sid=2769
Cheers
Bill wrote;
"I'd be pleasantly shocked if J&J or RWJF has ever given even one dollar to ASH. J&J and GSK have lobbied alongside Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds for tort deform legislation to prevent their injured victims from accessing the courts for redress."
Bill; in your position, I will not expect an honest answer in fact fully expect you will once more attack the messenger and not debunk the list of issues offered.
Are you familiar with the term “Good Cop Bad Cop"?
Considering what I posted take another look at your statement and tell me would this be a silly and delusional interpretation of the available evidence?
The Nicotine industry is laughing jointly all the way to the bank while our scientific communities wear the egg on their faces, duped again by their masters in industry.
The fact is Bill, people can only be fooled for so long awareness is growing the late night comedians and sitcoms are starting to highlight the inconsistencies of what is offered. Tell a lie long enough it becomes the truth tell bigger lies to hide the others and eventually you gain the reputation you earn. There are no shortcuts, as the medical community will soon learn. Awareness is growing despite what is moulded by purchasing the six o’clock news.
Cheers
To: Bill Goodshall
They just identified the latest "known carcinigen" of Benzene, the main "killer" in second hand smoke, in soft drinks!. Now you have to ban them.....to save the children! Or do the anti-smokers feed the kids their soft drinks to kill them off. Are anti-smokers who buy soft drinks for their kids now guilty of infanticide? Oh! the bodies!!
xxx is a "Big Tobacco Front group or Ally"
Now is that a libelous statement, legally?
What if we said of a lawyer who's defended a child molester that he is a "Child Molester or Ally"? After all, he's not only defending the molester, he's accepting PAY from the molester!
A related question: I believe that in cases of libel the damages awarded often at least partly depend upon "material damages caused." In the case of that particular lawyer, if he was also a school teacher and the accusation resulted in his losing his lucrative position teaching third graders he could sue for the potential loss of those riches. In the case of FORCES I'd say the suit would have two such bases:
1) Loss of potential contributions from donors who will figure "Hey, they're gettin' big bux from Big Tobacco's profits off my smokes already, why should I give them more?"
2) A nonmaterial loss: Since FORCES is not in existence to make money, but rather in existence to bring about social change, and since their potential to do that is damaged by such charges, could they not sue for the worth of repair to such nonmaterial damages? It might be tricky to assign a value to them, but hey, the courts have stuck a million dollar price tag on a human life so I'm sure they can come up with something! And the money could come directly from the Antismoking groups responsible for the loss!
If we accept the Godshallian Hypothesis that FORCES is THE opposition to tobacco control and that all others are merely pawns, then FORCES could sue for half the AMA determined "Tobacco Control Budget" each year.... say 450 million dollars or thereabouts from the State funds and half of whatever ASH, ALF, CTFK and the rest of "The Big Pharma Front Groups and Allys" run on.
AHH.. but then the question would be: if the Big Tobacco money that was laundered by the MSA and given to the Big Pharma Front Groups was then given to FORCES, would it become Dirty Big Tobacco money once again?
:?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Man...cturing_Consent
Michael; When you hire someone they represent you and their actions are legally your actions.
I believe the problem is not so much with the advocates but those who employ them. If described to a Judge in the proper frame the Foundations owned by corporations seeking to profit from the actions of paid mercinaries are the ones who should ultimately face the music.
If a Foundation was directing funds to efforts to cause damage a tort and punishment could be possible at the same time. Bono has been campaigning for .7 of GNP, New Orleans needs new homes.
If slated by the victim properly a Judge could simply redirect the funds promissed to charity by directing a chartity foundation where their funds should go. All of the funds.
That would serve justice to all parties enjoyment.
Cheers
Boston Ray;
The editorial was in fact flawed according to the Niosh guide the safe limits are described below. The article cites Parts per billion when in fact the range I believe should have read Parts per Million. The controversy is in the Government who agree with anti smoker advocates the much smaller amounts found in cigarette smoke can be described in advocacy in those amounts as carcinogenic and a threat to human health when in fact at the levels present there is no proof to substantiate a measurable harm exists. In the same political fashioning of the facts to suit an advocacy, the trace amounts of Dioxins created by burning organic materials mixed with chlorine in cigarettes constitutes the acceptable level of risk of the entire bulk of what is inhaled. This would be seen as ridiculous by anyone with a shred of intelligence however Governments are financing with your tax dollars fear mongering deliberately designed to emulate such nonsense. As for Dioxins in outdoor air levels tested and said to be safe at the Sept 11 site in New York are much higher than the levels produced in cigarettes or found in smoke filled bingo halls another overlooked inconsistency. The acceptable level of harm described to be equated to cigarette smoke would be 16.3 Pico Grams per cubic meter of air one tenth the safe level in New York. This would make cigarette smoke ten times as deadly as Dioxin, found on the top five list of the most deadly toxins known to man. If that is reasonable it severely contradicts level of harm testing of all other toxins which have visible causative reactions immediately after exposure as opposed to the theoretic 20 or 30 year reaction being sold in anti smoker advocacy. Inconsistencies abound when you allow Ad agency spin-doctors to define the logic or facts of scientific evaluation.
The soda pop problem creates a new dilemma the same Governments who say at levels found in cigarettes Benzene constitutes unacceptable risk now say in tremendously higher concentrations they are safe in soda pop. A cannot have your cake and eat it too conundrum. Do they condemn soda pop or admit the cigarette fairy tales are a sham.
Benzene CAS 71-43-2
C6H6 RTECS CY1400000
Synonyms & Trade Names Benzol, Phenyl hydride DOT ID & Guide 1114 130
ExposureLimits NIOSH REL: Ca TWA 0.1 ppm ST 1 ppm See Appendix A
OSHA PEL: [1910.1028] TWA 1 ppm ST 5 ppm See Appendix F
IDLH Ca [500 ppm] Conversion 1 ppm = 3.19 mg/m3
I haven't had a comfortable winter break for two years now, non-smokers have, but I, and close to a quarter of the actual population, and probably close to half of the active population, have been sent home. Freedom 2006, you gotta hate it!
Dr. Siegel, I thank you for your honesty, but you are still against any indoor, protected areas for smokers, this is wrong.
If I'm not wanted, I won't go!
Thanks for the time,
Randy Perry
London, Ontario, Canada
mrrdperry@yahoo.ca
>Dr. Siegel, I thank you for
>your honesty, but you are still >against any indoor, protected areas >for smokers, this is wrong.
Dr. Siegel is supporting indoor smoking bans and other restrictions on smoking. However, he has a different methodology that other organizations that wish to limit tobacco use.
Perhaps his methods will be more effective, perhaps not.
He has already written quite a number of articles on the harms of secondhand smoke.
If he is successful in addressing the last vestiges of people who are still addicted to nicotine more effectively than other groups. So much the better.
Erik wrote: "Dr. Siegel is supporting indoor smoking bans and other restrictions on smoking. However, he has a different methodology that other organizations that wish to limit tobacco use."
You don't seem to notice that there as subtle difference between supporting indoor bans and limiting tobacco use.
>You don't seem to notice
>that there as subtle
>difference between
> supporting indoor bans
> and limiting tobacco use.
Yes, I do. I think people should be able to use as much tobacco and alcohol as they desire as long they don't injure other's health with it.
Erik wrote: "I think people should be able to use as much tobacco and alcohol as they desire as long they don't injure other's health with it."
Erik, alcohol is a Class A Carcinogen. It is also highly volatile although you do not see or usually smell it. See:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/e...7495/
812#105082
By your standards as defined above, public drinking of alcohol should be forbidden.
Do you support that? Or do you just want to forbid what you don't like?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Bill wrote:
"Besides, the term "anti smoker cartel" is nothing more than a delusional creation by naive and silly conspiracy theorists."
It reminds me of:
"Mafia does not exist."
9 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
