Mike,
I'm pleased you exposed the Tobacco Control article by Kozlowski and Edwards about the ethical duty of public health officials to provide accurate health information to the public.
But you failed to reveal that their article was written to expose and criticize the various outrageously misleading statements by the US Surgeon General, NCI, SAMHSA about the comparative risks of smokeless tobacco versus cigarettes (and the Congressionally mandated SG warnings on smokeless tobacco products that states "This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes").
But as I recall, Kozlowski and Edwards primarily criticized misleading and inaccurate health claims made by government health agencies and public health officials, while you've focussed your criticisms on private advocacy organizations.
bill, just out of curiousity, are you up for doing a 'study-study' that i've been asking the doc to host?
the idea is to take the ACTUAL results of a study (not the summary or the press release) and learn to read it for ourselves. you're invited, everyone is.
here are the links provided by another commentor that i thought would be appropriate;
chapter 7 is carciogenic effects
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/pdf/chapter7.pdf
chapter 8 is cardiovascular
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/pdf/chapter8.pdf
Per Annette's inquiry, I've been following the CA Air Resources Board's new report on tobacco smoke pollution, including all of the submitted comments on the draft and the Air Resources Board's responses.
The final report is clearly the most comprehensive scientific review to date on the health hazards attributable to tobacco smoke pollution.
no bill, that was NOT my inquiry.
i asked if you would care to have a little discussion on a couple of study results with the rest of us. you know, read the results, explain what we each see and why?
oh, btw, did you catch the news about all those researches getting nailed for falsifying data? hang on, here you go...
http://www.canada.com/national/n...75-
86cdef0b4228
mike,
i started to read the paper on tobacco control that you include in this blog entry.
"This paper notes how the tobacco industry has established a particular frame that it is the protector of individual rights and that the public health community is trying to eliminate those rights."
you know doc, that phrase right there tells me the agenda. BIG T is protecting my rights? the tobacco industry? that's like the government is taking care of my retirement. you guys actually believe that nonsense?
check this out...
This paper notes how the public health community has established a particular frame that it is the protector of individuals and that the tobacco industry is trying to eliminate them.
pretty easy, eh? a couple of more words here and there and i'd be asking you if you'd want fries with that report.
how freaking arrogant of public health if it cannot believe that people can't make up their own minds in their lives, or need to be legislated to for our own good all the time.
yet, we as the public have helped to promote that view as well, haven't we? and, this is the U.S. isn't it? suddenly we've found out we're not as insulated from real life as we thought we were. so in the interest of preserving that illusion, let's quickly compromise all the personal freedoms (and of course the responsibilities that go with them) so that 'everyone can feel safe'.
i'm not counting on anyone other than other individuals interested in preserving their own rights to support me in this particular fight. even there, i've found not to expect much.
but i would like to very much know something; please tell me whether you see the smokers on this site acting on behalf of their own interests, or because we've been 'programmed by the tobacco companies'.
"But as I recall, Kozlowski and Edwards primarily criticized misleading and inaccurate health claims made by government health agencies and public health officials, while you've focussed your criticisms on private advocacy organizations."
Bill, let me understand what you mean. Are you saying that private advocacy organizations should not be judged based on ethical principals?
But then, it is not illegal to be unethical, there is no state law regulating ethics.
Annette-
I view the smokers on this site as well as in most smokers' rights groups as acting on behalf of their own interests and not because they have been programmed by the tobacco industry. This includes FORCES. My view is clearly in stark contrast to that of the bulk of the anti-smoking movement.
thanks for the answer mike, and i believe you.
what still bothers me is that you may not see the issue of civil liberties here, or that you may consider those of us who choose to smoke as 'victims' of the tobacco industry.
i know a few non-smokers who don't like the idea of being told they are 'good' and that i am 'bad'. and they support my own pursuit of defending my civil liberties; a couple of them even acknowledge the association between my own personal freedoms as a smoking citizen to their own as non-smoking citizens. but because the issue is not in their face (any more than my cigarette smoke is) they really can't drum up a lot of energy to be more active on my behalf.
but then, there's still a lot tobacco users out there who don't want to be bothered with it as well. they've been nagged and bullied so much it's gotten easier to just roll their eyes, act like a child, 'admit' how bad it is, how 'bad' they are and keep smoking until they either are nagged and bullied to quitting or to finally have enough of it.
i'm hoping you saw jerry thomas' post on the 'new paternalism'.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...03227140/
#40025
what is your perspective on that?
ben wrote:
"Bill, let me understand what you mean. Are you saying that private advocacy organizations should not be judged based on ethical principals?"
Government public health officials should be (and usually are) held at a greater level of accountability for unethical conduct than private advocacy organizations.
But private advocacy organizations also should be (and often are) held accountable for unethical conduct, which explains why FORCES has no public credibility.
"Government public health officials should be (and usually are) held at a greater level of accountability for unethical conduct than private advocacy organizations."
Right on, Bill! Once in a while it even happens to private public health officials. A good example is how you got yourself sacked for your insubordinate extremism.
"Forces has no credibility" and yet you suggest ASH has.You can mail Forces ,you can't mail ASH it's members only.Banzaf or Banzai or Bonzo whatever you want to call him spouts verbal diarrhea and then hides ! That's credibility .Forces do not suggest they have all of the answers Banzai gives a pretty good impression of being the "chosen one" who knows everything and is going to change the world.I wish he'd try Afganistan .
I'm glad to see that Bill does agree that non-smoking advocacy organizations should be held accountable to ethical standards of conduct, one of which I assume is not deceiving the public. So I look forward to him joining me in my efforts to get organizations like ASH to correct their deceptive and inaccurate public claims about secondhand smoke. It will be great to have another tobacco control advocate helping me in this effort.
Mike:
There are vastly different levels of
misrepresentations (e.g. egregious vs insignificant), as well as differing views on what may or may not constitute misrepresentations.
As such, I find your relentless criticisms of ASH and ANR to be little more than petty nit picking.
I've also found some of your blog rants to contain (and rely upon) far greater levels of mirepresentation than what you've accused ANR and ASH.
And if you were truly concerned about exposing and correcting inaccurate claims about secondhand smoke, you would simply criticize, correct or challenge the many dozen blatently inaccurate and misleading comments about secondhand smoke that have been posted on this blog by the folks affiliated with FORCES who have claimed that secondhand smoke isn't harmful.
bill, just for you (again),
did you catch the news about all those researches getting nailed for falsifying data?
hang on, here you go...
http://www.canada.com/national/n...75- 86cdef0b4228
Annette wrote:
"did you catch the news about all those researches getting nailed for falsifying data?"
Yes. So what? That situation has no relationship with this issue.
Bill wrote that "the news about all those researches getting nailed for falsifying data?"
has nothing to do with the issue here. Bill, you know how I hate to contradict you, but that story has EVERYthing to do with the issue here.
Antismoking research grants have been a GOLD MINE for the universities over the past 10 years. And how do they keep the gold flowing? By carefully designing and producing study after study that will keep the people with the deep pockets happy and keep the grant money rolling in.
And what happens when even AFTER all your careful design and production when your study says secondary smoke ain't hurtin' a fly? Well, if you want to avoid being thrown out to sit with the panhandlers you damn well better find SOME way to make that data come out the way you want it to... and if you have to lie a little bit along the way... hey, it's for the GREATER GOOD right?
So Bill, as usual, you're wrong. And, as usual you've posted again without answering the simple little question I've asked you that would help show your integrity. (12th time here btw... got 12 examples for me Bill?)
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://www.AntiBrains.com
Michael J. McFadden
Dr. Siegel, for all your efforts to remind the anti-smoking organizations of their duty to truthfulness, apparently it's not working. A story from the AP today regarding the Calabasas smoking ban quotes a "legislative advocate for the American Cancer Society" as saying "We salute Calabasas for raising the bar". The news media is treating the story without critical analysis or, for the most part, opposing views.
If the media only heeds the dishonest and misleading groups while advocates for the truth are destroyed personally and professionally by those same groups, how does the truth reach the public?
"But private advocacy organizations also should be (and often are) held accountable for unethical conduct, which explains why FORCES has no public credibility."
Bill, have I missed your stating that ASH also should be accountable. You sound like his master's voice.
But why lookest thou on the mote that is in the eye of FORCES, but observest not the beam that is in the eye of ASH?
Kudos to you Michael;
An excellent article as always.
This whole debate requires a good cleaning and a re-evaluation Top down from an ethical standpoint. The Tobacco control movement is allowing the Tobacco industry the highroad as evident in disclosures on the Philip Morris website contrasting the bullyboys at ASH disrespecting every principle of integrity in moral/ ethical responsibility, dragging all their partners down with them.
You and I would be on opposite sides of the fence in tobacco control however I compliment your adherence to integrity. I belive the message is getting through, as I was quite surprised in a show of ethical consideration Chapman allowed my letter to be published in TC quite gratuatously labeled scientific buffoonery.
Keep the faith Mike some still value the rules in respecting our peers, and understand why we need them.
FXR
In a pot calling the kettle black argumen
If anyone goes to the Philip Morris international site
http://
www.philipmorrisinternati...educed_risk.asp
you can search the total 333 additives used world wide in each brand they sell. research is presented testing toxicity in rats and comparisine to known safe levels. The manipulations done to assure safety standards are not surpassed. Unfortunately the search for countries to get specific ingredients does not include Canada or USA
The USA has their own division website who do not post mixtures citing trade secrets and the value of recipies. Canada is privy to no information. Both Canada and the USA Governments are given the ingredients however do not reveal those ingredients to the public as informed consent would dictate.
On the other side of our face we can identify human experimentations from the Tobacco research papers violating international laws of informed consent as in this article [below] In a purely ethical perspective although it could be seen as a criminal act by the tobacco companies do health agencies privy to the ingredients not allie themselves with the criminal act by allowing smokers to be the subjects of those same experiments lacking information many smokers started smoking with no idea what they were ingesting. now the state in denormalization seeks to punish them into quiting and gratuitously collecting taxes in the interim.
The WHO is sadly amiss of their own mission statement in advocacy for punishing the victims of a despicable crime and not admonishing those governments who fail the test of human rights integrity.
Article;
In the United States, companies that use their own funds to test consumer products on their employees are subject to few regulations. Using previously undisclosed tobacco industry documents, we reviewed the history of that industry’s efforts to create internal guidelines on the conditions to be met before employee taste testers could evaluate cigarettes made from tobacco treated with experimental pesticides.
This history highlights 2 potential ethical issues raised by unregulated industrial research: conflict of interest and lack of informed consent. To ensure compliance with accepted ethical standards, an independent federal office should be established to oversee industrial research involving humans exposed to experimental or increased quantities of ingested, inhaled, or absorbed chemical agents.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/...bstract/96/1/
37
FXR
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
