If a researcher has been paid by tobacco companies, their research should not be dismissed out of hand.
However, it does show bias which is always a fair inquiry.
The fact is that tobacco companies have had a long history of funding studies that favored them.
The Tobacco Institute was the umbrella trade association for the U.S. tobacco industry. It was parodied as the Academy of Tobacco Studies in the 1994 Christopher Buckley novel and 2006 film "Thank You For Smoking."[1]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/
index...bacco_Institute
The documents from the Institute are now online at
http://tobaccodocuments.org/
Their interal documents did alot of damage to the tobacco companies.
Erik--
Did you READ "Thank You For Smoking"? It was an equal-opportunity satire that viciously pilloried your side too. But the real point is... the novel was-- how can I put this-- a novel. And Buckley's mother smokes.
Dr S--
Since the article is subscription only, can you slake my curiosity as to who the other 3 allegedly junk scientists were? And the grounds on which they were junked? Thanks
In Defense of Science and Common Sense.
If you have an axe to grind with scientists, then show me your proof of scientific error. Otherwise, in the future, please spare me the cloak and dagger innuendo.
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/
n...news_detail.asp
Franz H. Müller, "Tabakmissbrauch und lungecarcinoma", Zeitschrift für Krebsforschung 1939, Vol 49, pages 57 - 85.
A piece of junk science, commissioned by the Nazi party, to produce 'scientific evidence' that smoking tobacco 'causes' lung cancer. Published in a peer review magazine.
Appears as number 2, on Richard Dolls list of references to Doctors Study, 50 years report, BMJ 2004, Vol 328, pages 1519 - 33. The authors declare no conflicts of interest, despite all being prominent members of ASH-UK.
Junk begets junk.
Yes, yes. That's the central issue here.
Some bloggers here still don't believe first and second hand smoke causes disease.
As long as they disbelieve the conclusion of every state health department of the US, the EPA and the CDC there is going to be little to agree upon.
Chain smoking in cars with the windows up is going to be considered benign ro passengers. I guess we can agree to disagree.
Conflict of interest
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, a politician, or an executive or director of a corporation, has competing professional or personal interests. Such competing interests can make it difficult to fulfill his or her duties impartially.
Even if there is no evidence of improper actions, a conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the ability of that person to act properly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Con...ict_of_interest
"Chain smoking in cars with the windows up is going to be considered benign ro passengers."
First cigarette smoking, now chain smoking? You must be kidding. Is second hand chain smoke (SHCS) a health hazard?
You seem to have a very peculiar perception of the intelligence and behavior of smokers.
The point is that you want to delegate the judgment whether lighting up a cigarette in a car is a health hazard to the police force. They don't even have the qualification for such a judgment.
Erik's stuck needle:
"As long as they disbelieve the conclusion of every state health department of the US, the EPA and the CDC there is going to be little to agree upon."
Regarding ETS, either provide the independent studies conducted by "every state health department of the US" (which you imply is the case) or admit that you distort. Or you can repeat after me: These groups have AGREED to conclude...
As for this: "That's the central issue here. Some bloggers here still don't believe first and second hand smoke causes disease."
No, the central issue here is SECONDHAND smoke. Firsthand smoke is more of a digression. And though I believe the risks and body counts are exaggerated and that it's true that no one in the scientific or medical field can actually show how smoking creates tumors or any other physical effects, I concede that smoking has its risks. But as long as tobacco remains a legal product then I find absolutely no reason to debate primary smoking and my choice to smoke with anyone, or whether anyone believes or disbelieves primary smoking causes anything. Past advisories it's none of your business. End of discussion there. Period.
But I damn won't let you get away with dismissing us as people who just won't get with YOUR program in the debate over ETS.
The father of the "conclusion" (something you fancy so much) that primary smoking causes lung cancer -- one who has the background to recognize most how tobacco smoke "works" has said:
"The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
Sir Richard Doll, 2001; interview on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/healt...lth/
3826939.stm
One sentence from one very prominent man in the field of tobacco control chills your whining to the contrary to the core. It's like the nuclear bomb compared to your water balloons.
"As long as they disbelieve the conclusion of every state health department of the US, the EPA and the CDC there is going to be little to agree upon. "
Erik, I am reminded of a US defence secretary that testified not so long ago that "we have solid evidence that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction".
Could it be that justification of wars is sometimes conjured up from nothing? - that even (gasp) the (always completely truthful) US might be liable to manufacture rubbish? - the end justifies the means....
Lookee what I just remembered and found in my files. Jill especially should pay attention since she continues to deny (even after I provided Dr. Madden -- though I made a bet that Jill would pretend it was never provided) that there are others in the medical profession that take the same (some even stronger) position as Dr. Siegel.
A conversation with Dr. Dean Edell
Buffalo News 11/18/01
http://www.buffalonews.com/edito...118/
1042197.asp
"Secondhand smoke stinks - but is it killing people? There was a study of the wives of the smokers - they have crummy health habits. They eat terrible diets of meat and fat, they don't get any exercise, but when they show up with worse health statistics, it's blamed on secondhand smoke, not on all the other factors.
"We don't even know how cigarettes affect us. We don't know what causes cancer. We don't know what causes the increase in heart disease. It's not nicotine - nicotine gum actually helps heart disease patients. Carbon monoxide? Well, any kind of smoke has a lot of carbon monoxide - that's a possibility - but carbon monoxide has a temporary effect; it blocks the oxygen linking to your hemoglobin, then you take a breath of fresh air and it goes away.
"Is that the cause of chronic problems in smokers? We don't know - now we're into secondhand smoke when we don't even know what firsthand smoke does. I think we're becoming a really, really neurotic, fearful people, and politicians and the media love it and know how to feed that monster."
Bio: Before there were Drs. Laura, Ruth and Drew, there was Dr. Dean -- Dr. Dean Edell. At a time when most news networks have a regular stable of on-air doctors -- one for every calamity -- Edell was a pioneer as one of America's first media doctors. Edell is the host of The Dr. Dean Edell Show, heard on more than 400 radio stations, as well as host of a daily medical report seen in 75 television markets.
Edell website: http://www.healthcentral.com/
Hey Jill! That's TWO! (and there ARE others). Come on, make my day. Ask us again to name one other doctor besides Dr. Siegel who takes an anti-anti position. They say laughter is healthy. Help me improve my health.
Erik wrote: "A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust, such as a lawyer, a politician, or an executive or director of a corporation, has competing professional or personal interests."
Erik, I have a very serious question, which I would like you to answer: In your view, and based on the above definition:
Does Stanton Glantz have a conflict of (professional and personal) interests in the Helena study?
Do the 65 or so public health advocates which published the claim about the 30 minutes have a conflict of (personal) interests with regards to their publication?
Thank you for your honest answer.
Trial by Jury ? You gotta be joking,trial by God(shall) more like it.Eik you suggest the majority of smokers on this blog deny the "damage" that smoking "causes".Are we not here to look at this question and how do you know what other smokers actually think.A direct question of this nature has never been asked so you are guessing again.
W. Kip Viscusi has been a thorn in the paw for many public health advocates for over 25 years for arguing that the effectiveness/efficiency of governmental health & safety regulation have been vastly overstated relative to individual perceptions of risk and corporate response to market forces. In 1992 Oxford U Press published his "Smoking : Making the Risky Decision" which drew the ire of anti-smoking activists. Even if one questions the data Viscusi analyzed, this book contains some provocative thoughts.
First, smokers'response to surveys about wanting to quit [~70%] should be viewed as an indicator of the impact of warnings AND as desiring to smoke without risks, rather than having much to do with quitting intentions.
Second, smoking risk communication has been relatively unsophisticated: Smoking Kills, Smoking Causes Cancer; etc. [One wonders "You want the numbers [truth]? Well, you can't handle the truth!!" In addition to asking WHY, one is alerted to how smokers might overestimate the dangers [of lung cancer]...
[ERGO, even a whiff of ETS can kill, not that our best estimate for lung cancer is that there might be a 20% increase in risk for heavy, long term exposure]
Third, if smokers have overestimated the dangers, #1 becomes more interesting: as risk perception becomes more accurate, smoking might increase, other things being equal.
It's no wonder Viscusi has been vilified by anti-smoking zealots. Although he agrees that risk perception and behavior are correlated, he had the temerity to imply that tobacco control had failed, not because it failed to publicize the risks, but how it had done so.
A recent NBER working paper presents some additional insight:
"While Americans are less healthy than Europeans along some dimensions (like obesity), Americans are significantly less likely to smoke than their European counterparts. This difference emerged in the 1970s and it is biggest among the most educated. The puzzle becomes larger once we account for cigarette prices and anti-smoking regulations, which are both higher in Europe. There is a nonmonotonic relationship between smoking and income; among richer countries and people, higher incomes are associated with less smoking. This can account for about one-fifth of the U.S./Europe difference. Almost one-half of the smoking difference appears to be the result of differences in beliefs about the health effects of smoking; Europeans are generally less likely to think that cigarette smoking is harmful." [Why Do Europeans Smoke More than Americans? David M. Cutler, Edward L. Glaeser, NBER Working Paper No. 12124, March 2006]
Walt-
The other examples given in the article referred to groups, not individuals, and were more reasonable to consider under the heading of junk science. First was the Whitecoat Project, which allegedly screened out scientists who would not produce the desired research; second was ARISE, whose alleged primary purpose was to advocate for smoking; and Healthy Buildings International, which allegedly falsified data. These other examples are reasonable to include under junk science because they are anything but solid, valid, reputable science. But including Dr. Viscusi's work under this heading is unfair and inaccurate, because the work is scientifically sound, even though I may disagree with its ultimate implications for making a judgment about whether smokers fully understand the risks of smoking.
It would be nice from Erik's part if he would stop trying to drive the debate off-topic (and in a very disrespectful way) every time the Doc posts something.
Personally, i'm interested in the posts and in the debate around them, not in Erik's slanders, innuendos etc that, apart from being questionable both in the ethics and in the contents, have little or nothing to do with the topic being discussed. They are nothing more than an annoyance for someone who scrolls the comments.
[Warning: I've always been crazy but it's kept me from going insane.]
Has W. Kip Viscusi, HARVARD professor & soon to be co-heading a new a new Ph.D. in Law & Economics -- the first program of its kind in the nation --at Vanderbilt, drawn the ire of the anti-smoking movement because of his personal success? Or maybe because he's a traitor to liberals, generally? ["While a student at Harvard he spent two summers working for Ralph Nader. Viscusi was also deputy director of President Carter's Council on Wage and Price Stability, which was responsible for White House oversight of major new regulations." http://www.econlib.org/library/e.../
JobSafety.html ]?
Perhaps his analysis of costs to smokers has been embarrassing: Viscusi, Kip, "Cigarette Taxation and the Social Consequences of Smoking," in Tax Policy and the Economy, 1995, J. Poterba, Ed. MIT Press, see CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE Report 97-995 E, "The Proposed Tobacco Settlement: Effects on Prices, Smoking Behavior, and Income Distribution," Jane G. Gravelle, May 5, 1998, http://countingcalifornia.cdlib....rs/ascii/97-
995
{Effect on Income Distribution
The previous analysis suggests that as a result of the proposed settlement, the price of cigarettes would rise, with modest effects on quantity consumed, especially in the short run when existing adult smokers dominate the market. Some of the payment, especially the up-front payment, could be borne by stockholders. However, most of the burden will likely fall on consumers.
Tobacco taxes, which are presumably passed on and are similar in effect to the annual payments, are estimated to be
the most regressive of any important federal tax levied currently (i.e., income, payroll, estate and gift, and excises taxes on alcohol and fuels are either progressive or not as regressive). Smoking prevalence is higher at lower income levels. The following results are based on Viscusi's data for 1990. (See Endnote 43.) For those with incomes of less than $10,000, which account for the bottom 10% of the population, smoking prevalence is 31.6%, current cigarette taxes are 1.62% of median income in this class, and 5.1% of smoker's median income. Since the cigarette tax would be more than doubled under the June settlement proposal, smokers in this class would pay in excess of 5 per cent of their income in additional taxes.
For the $10,000-$20,000 income class, constituting the next 18% of the population, with a participation rate of 29.8%, the existing federal and state taxes are 0.5% of income for all individuals and 1.7% for smokers. For the $20,000-$35,000 class, constituting the next 22% of individuals, where the participation rate is 26.9%, the tax is 0.25% of income for all individuals and 0.93% for smokers. In the next group, with a smoking prevalence of 23.4%, $35,000-$50,000, the tax is 0.14% of income for all individuals and 0.6% of smokers' incomes. Finally, for the $50,000 and over class, with a smoking prevalence of 19.3%, these current taxes are 0.08% of total income and 0.4% of the income of smokers.
In sum, for the lowest-income families with smokers the cigarette tax increase is a significant percentage of income and of an order of magnitude similar to the individual share of the payroll tax. The effect of the Commerce Committee plan would be at least twice as large. Some consideration might be given to using some of the funds to provide benefits for lower-income families.}
Erik, I have a very serious question, which I would like you to answer: In your view, and based on the above definition:
Does Stanton Glantz have a conflict of (professional and personal) interests in the Helena study?
That's an interesting question.
Does he benefit financially if death and disease rates rates go down from tobacco use?
I am not aware that he has any incentive pay in that manner.
Benpal,
I think where there is a serious conflict of interest that has not been adequately disclosed is in the American Legacy Foundation's role in evaluating and reporting on the effectiveness of its "truth" campaign, and in the amicus briefs of the Citizens Commission to Protect the Truth in a number of tobacco cases, including the DOJ lawsuit.
In the first example, the American Legacy Foundation actually authored the relevant paper, yet that is not revealed in most of the public communications about the paper (it is revealed in the paper itself).
In the second example, the fact that the Citizens Commission to Protect the Truth is funded by the American Legacy Foundation is either not revealed at all, or revealed but the association denied, in lawsuits in which the Legacy Foundation has a clear financial interest (such as the DOJ lawsuit, where one of the proposed remedies would bring in billions of dollars to Legacy).
While we in tobacco control are quick to reveal and attack any conflicts of interest when the involved group or individual is on the other side, we are apparently not so concerned when the conflict of interest is our own.
"That's an interesting question.
Does he benefit financially if death and disease rates rates go down from tobacco use?
I am not aware that he has any incentive pay in that manner."
That's an interesting non-answer, Erik. Says it all.
EriK sez:
"As long as they disbelieve the conclusion of every state health department of the US, the EPA and the CDC there is going to be little to agree upon. "
Historical fact:
"...Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.
These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.
All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected. "
(excerpt from Crichton's Author's Note in The State of Fear.)
The issue approximately 100 years ago was eugenics. People just like EriK, Bill and Jill no doubt supported that cause too.
benpal wrote:
"That's an interesting non-answer, Erik. Says it all."
And it's non-honest too, IMO.
Kathleen Leech: "People just like EriK, Bill and Jill no doubt supported [eugenics,] too." I can't disagree, but suggest a better comparison would be to the "temperance" crusaders. Perhaps M Siegel's concerns about the tobacco control movement mirror the triumph [& then collapse] of that movement. The German Nazis supported eugenics & tobacco control for "racial" motives. Gusfield argued many years ago that some prohibition supporters were influenced by "racial" [nation of origin, recent immigrant status] motives but were perhaps more motivated by Weberian social-status - Marxian social class competition.
The US initiated a war on cancer, but remains bogged down. If one hasn't cured cancer yet, why not shift the paradigm to 'prevention?' If prevention doesn't prove a 'magic bullet', why not shift the paradigm again? And so it goes...
John Ferguson wrote:
"Kathleen Leech: "People just like EriK, Bill and Jill no doubt supported [eugenics,] too." I can't disagree, but suggest a better comparison would be to the "temperance" crusaders."
For the past 20 years I have repeatedly stated my opposition (including on this blog) to the prohibition of the manufacture, sale, distribution, purchase or possession of cigarettes or other tobacco products.
I support reasonable and responsible measures to reduce smoking.
Criminalizing cigarette sales would simply create an enormous and dangerous black market.
I support reasonable and responsible measures to reduce smoking.
In your veiw is it reasonable and responsible to harass well informed adults to be coerced into quitting?
Is it reasonable and responsible to make it impossible and unaffordable to smoke anywhere while not actually banning a product?
I'm just curious. Personally, I consider it to be lunacy. It's the ultimate Orwellian doublespeak.
Bill Godshall: "For the past 20 years I have repeatedly stated my opposition (including on this blog) to the prohibition of the manufacture, sale, distribution, purchase or possession of cigarettes or other tobacco products."
My apologies, Bill. When I re-read my post it did seem to cast you as a tobacco PROHIBITIONIST, which I did not intend, given your well-known position on this issue. Mea culpa
JF - It's very comforting to me to know that Bill has no objections to anyone selling or buying tobacco products. Afterall "public health" officials need the revenue to protect their turf.
Now - what I want to know is when and where it is acceptable for us to use our legally purchased product. If Bill has his way, I can't smoke indoors, I can't smoke outdoors, I can't smoke in my car and since I have children I can't smoke in my home. Can I decorate my Christmas tree with my legally purchased product? Hold it in my hand as a prop? Oh no - can't produce a "tobacco impression". What am I to do with it?
Well Bill?
" Before anyone complains, I'd like to congratulate Elk Grove, IL Mayor Craig Johnson for proposing a ban on all tobacco sales in that Chicago suburb." -- Bill Godshall 01.14.06 0 2:17 pm
"For the past 20 years I have repeatedly stated my opposition (including on this blog) to the prohibition of the manufacture, sale, distribution, purchase or possession of cigarettes or other tobacco products." -- Bill Godshall 04.27.06 - 6:47 pm
My how time flies!
I wonder if he can do a peace sign gestured impersonation of Tricky Dick's "I'm not a crook" or in his case... "I'm not a prohibitionist!"
Gorgeous Godshall Gotcha, Walt. 
Twice in the past two days, Walt H. has intentionally distorted my previously stated position on the prohibition of cigarette sales by cutting and pasting just one sentence that I wrote in a former tread and omitting another qualifying sentence that I wrote in that same thread on January 16, which stated:
"My opposition to prohibition of the manufacture, sale, use or possossion of tobacco applies to federal prohibition."
"My opposition to prohibition of the manufacture, sale, use or possossion of tobacco applies to federal prohibition."
Why aren't you just plain saying what you mean? Are you for prohibition or not? Smokers don't really care about your politico-judicial games.
Ah so Mr Bill is a proponent of states rights. IOW every city township county and state can --and should be congratulated for prohibiting the sale, mfr, use and possession of tobacco, but it's only the feds he thinks shouldn't do it. Thanks for the semantic clarification. Somehow we missed it right off the bat.
Of course that also gets him and his buds off the hook of having to disastrously amend the US constitution, ie Volstead, and saves them the embarrassment of having it repealed a couple of
years later. Though what makes him think that local prohibitions will have rosier scenarios (no crime, no enrichment of criminal gangsters, no smuggling, no shootouts, no arrests and incarcerations of otherwise peaceable and productive citizens) beats hell out of ME.
"Twice in the past two days, Walt H. has intentionally distorted my previously stated position on the prohibition of cigarette sales by cutting and pasting just one sentence that I wrote in a former tread and omitting another qualifying sentence that I wrote in that same thread on January 16, which stated:" -- Bill Godshall
Actually both comments were posted several minutes apart. (Walt H. | 04.27.06 - 8:53 pm | # ) and (Walt H. | 04.27.06 - 9:05 pm | # ) Mr. Godshall is grossly mistaken about the two days.
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Further I provided a link in the above message so that more of the discussion could be read. It is not my responsibility to equivocate for Mr. Godshall, when he contradicts himself.
If there has been any distortion, it would be with the statement "For the past 20 years I have repeatedly stated my opposition (including on this blog) to the prohibition of the manufacture, sale, distribution, purchase or possession of cigarettes or other tobacco products." Which fails to mention the fact that Mr. Godshall actually endorses local prohibition. This is especially significant since he took exception to being compared to a temperance crusader, and made the statement subsequently that he opposed the prohibition of the sale of tobacco products.
"Erik, I have a very serious question, which I would like you to answer: In your view, and based on the above definition:
Does Stanton Glantz have a conflict of (professional and personal) interests in the Helena study?
That's an interesting question.
Does he benefit financially if death and disease rates rates go down from tobacco use?
I am not aware that he has any incentive pay in that manner.
Erik | 04.27.06 - 1:46 pm"
No Erik? Dr. Glantz is smart enough to get his Nicoderm money up front from the Robert Wood Johnson Fondation.
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/r...044070&
iaid=143
To an unbaised observer this is enough to discredit Glantz's opinion or "research" on the issue. But of course not to Erik or the other activists.
Yet if I received funding from Phillip Morris you can bet Bill, Erik, and all would be trying to discredit the St. Louis Park AQ testing:
http://
cleanairquality.blogspot....secondhand.html
I'll still stick by my attempt to shift the comparison regarding 'eugenics' to 'temperance.' Prohibition [as in the amendment & it's repeal as part of the US Constitution] was the product of a social movement which incorporated some people who wanted to reduce the harms of alcholic beverage consumption. It may seem a dodge, but Bill Godshall supporting local prohibition of tobacco product sales is not the same as supporting national prohibition. If Godshall denies being a prohibitonist, I give him the benefit of the doubt!
Once again, I am only hoping that common sense will take the lead again.
I do not understand why so many shady and, basically stupid, characters are belonging to this "anti-smoking" craziness.
Marco from Rome Italy.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
