Dr. Mike - I've been in HC for over 25 years. There's a whole lot of misrepresentation of "science" going on. I used to think it was just unintentional misguided thinking. Now I'm convinced that it's deliberate. Once a well intentioned program is rolled out and a whole lot of people derive their livlihoods from the endeavor, how do you admit that you were mistaken or you jumped the gun? You can't. More and more I see practices being continued more on "faith" than on evidence.
Everyone just "knows" smoking isn't good for you. Who needs scientific evidence anymore?
this sort of misinformation strikes me as being akin to the soc-alled drug czar's claims about marijuana.
Welcome to the propaganda war as being fought by the anti smoking faction in society.Was there really any doubt as to the levels they would go to in order to achieve their smoke free nirvana ?When they cannot win the arguement they scream moral indignation and produce junk science to suit their agenda.Worse still are the scientists who peddle the junk science and benefit very handsomely.The term fraud springs to mind.
"Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that this is intentional. It may all just be a mistake in the interpretation or presentation of the science"
I honestly believe you know better by now, Dr. Siegel.
If you truly intend to fight even ONE aspect of this increasingly vicious movement - ie: smoking=child abuse - you must accept the true nature of your enemy. The time for giving them the benefit of your doubt is long past.
This all must be terribly frustrating for you, Dr Siegel!
Before sending you more of my reciprocity hypothesis, I did a bit of research into what you yourself had said in the past regarding smoking initiation and resistance to cessation. In one of the papers/ articles I sifted through, you were talking about the power of mass communication campaigns as public health tools.
I was impressed, because you seemed primarily interested in the spread of genuinely educational factual data. I don't remember you extolling "social marketing" at all in that particular piece. (I could be wrong about that)
I think that we are watching the inevitable consequences of the shift in focus from 'educational' campaigns to 'social marketing' campaigns, in health promotion, being played out here. Having discovered the power of marketing manipulation techniques to change people's thinking and behaviour, and having decided it was morally acceptable for public health to use them, people in those fields made a kind of pact-with-the-devil.
It was inevitable, that CONTROLLING PEOPLE'S THINKING AND BEHAVIOUR would eventually overwhelm and over-ride the legitimate goal of improving states of health. Who cares about what is or is not 100% factual? What is important now is - what will most powerfully motivate people to think and do what we want them to (for their own good, of course).
Take a look at this research program:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/gui.../PA-05-
016.html
"Decision making in health: behaviour maintenance"
Personally, I think the ethical implications of this program are frightful! Researching how people make decisions, so you can better MANIPULATE their behaviour...
Just look at the money on offer to those lucky shysters ? "Where the costs exceed $500,000 in a SINGLE year" now this refers to ONE STUDY.I am sure there are far more worthy causes if they really feel the need to WASTE tax payers money.Is it any wonder stanton glans et al churn out shit with these sort of incentives are on offer.
sorry, the above comment refers to Robin's link
In the 60's, a person out of 2 smoked. Smoking was permitted everywhere and parents happily smoked in front of their children. Every nonsmoker was subjected to a passive smoke exposure far greater than today. If ETS is so deadly, why everyone isn't drop dead in that period?
Is there such thing as a partially fallacious claim?
Tricky - a gunman can enter 10 banks and spray each place with automatic rounds. According to your logic there would be zero survivors ever. Yet, you know that each back will probably have a few that aren't killed. The same is true for car accidents and tobacco. Tobacco doesn't kill everyone. It only kills some.
Steve---Your gunman analogy misses the point. No, tricky is not saying that "there would be zero survivors left," despite his hyperbolic statement about everyone dropping dead.
The point is this: If secondhand smoke were really as dangerous as (or more dangerous than) firsthand, and it was omnipresent throughout the cold-war period, then HOW IS IT POSSIBLE that smokers were identifiable as a high-risk group at the height of that period (1964, to be exact, when the Surgeon General's warning was first issued)? How could smokers have been dying at a higher rate, if everyone was receiving the same poison?
tRicky since there wasn't the major incidence of deaths caused by SHS in that period it makes me wonder if there would be a direct corelation to be made in bar employees etc now ? It makes one wonder if SHS has been overstated to the nth degree.Especially given the modern technology of air ventilation and extraction.As a capitalist society market forces dictate,so ,since non smokers are clearly in the majority how come given the option most bar owners would cater for smokers.
Awareness of such tactics and the underlying visceral/moral agenda is old hat to anti-drugwar activists.
It appears that Mike's strategy of publicly denouncing those with whom he disagrees isn't a very effective method of encouraging those same folks to address his concerns.
"It appears that Mike's strategy of publicly denouncing those with whom he disagrees ..."
Bill, are you saying you agree with these fallacious claims?
Well Bill if you have sought to disabuse your fellow lackies of speaking with a forked tongue your track record isn't all that much to write home about either.You either continue to cover up the fraud that is being perpetuated or you take a moral stand and shout it out to whoever chooses to listen.Unfortunately in the US today your politicians are either living in a dreamworld (and bending their cars up ) or are in dire need of some corrective vision and rectification of their hearing impediments and removal of their heads from their rectal orrifices.Your suggestion of writing nice little love letters to these organisations who wantonly spread fraudulent data is therefore in keeping with your valiant attempts at ensuring NOTHING is done to hamper their message of attack the SMOKER not the burning weed.
To further illustrate my point, I just came across this abstract.
http://www.data-yard.net/10/asthkid1.htm
Read this conclusion:
CONCLUSION High levels of parental smoking in the home are associated with a reduction in health care contacts for asthma. This could be due to a lack of awareness of asthma symptoms among heavy smokers or a reluctance to visit the GP. Children with asthma who have parents who smoke heavily may not be receiving adequate management.
FACT - In this study the asthmatic children which were exposed to SHS required less health care contacts.
Most researchers would conclude that these children had fewer asthma attacks.
But that just can't be - because we all know SHS aggravates asthma.
So we must use conjecture to assume that smoking parents are just too dumb to recognize an attack when they see one and get their children proper care.
It's logical to assume the parents are stupid isn't it? After all they are so stupid they still smoke!
Dr. Mike, might I suggest that instead of worrying about the credibility of Tobacco Control advocates maybe what you should really worry about is the credibility of brainwashed researchers.
Steve-- your reply has nothing to do with what i said. Next time first read the question, then post the answer. Thanks.
Melle-- thanks, your reasoning is valid as well. But my objection was slightly different. Some anti-smoking sects claim that even an exposure of 20 minutes of ETS may trigger heart attack in otherwise healthy people. In the cold-war period the vast majority of the population was exposed to ETS for several hours per day EVERY DAY. If what they say would be true, then in the given period there should have been a true epidemic of heart attacks among people. There's no evidence of such a thing, so their claim must be false, by a simple step of logic.
cj-- i'm against smoking bans for reasons that differ from health considerations. But i agree with you when you say that the risk has been deliberately exaggerated by some scaremongers that care little (or nothing at all) about public health.
Bill: Why do you insist on misconstruing Dr. Siegel's articles as attacks on individuals? Now you say he's "publicly denoucing" those with whom he disagrees---like Stalin?Give it a rest. Dr. Siegel usually doesn't even mention individuals by name, and as for "public denunciation" with its jackbooted implications, I can't think of anything further from it than the honest examination of disagreement to be found here.
Its funny reading Melle's response,
which associated me with "Stalin" and Hitler "with the jackbooted implications", and called me a "creep" in just one paragraph.
C'mon Melle, I'm sure you can come up with more creative insults than those worn out ones.
Bill, If you didn't behave like one of those you mentioned, most would not associate you with their names, but, since you continually try to use the same tactics and propaganda they were famous for, well, I guess the saying that best applies is "if the (jack)boot fits, wear it!".
You have time and again treid to put forth fallacious claims as truth and scientific fact, yet whenever asked to document even a shred of these claims, you disappear, change subject, try to attack the person asking for honest truthful guidance, or just plain ignore them. your efforts are appreciated by some, especially as more of the real truth about your ilk's misuse of soundbytes, true out and out lies, and blind parroting of the key phrases, which were so carefully researched by professional spin doctors, funded by the millions you've stolen from true health research, but as I said, your posts are invaluable as they allow me at least to show my local leaders just how far out on a thin limb your crusade is going. Keep up the good work, with your blabbering, it shouldn't take long to repeal the bans in place locally, then we can begin the next phase, taking out the funding nationwide of all you nanny types.
Jill, the SIDS argument has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, and the national SIDS foundation has said, repeatedly, that stating that SHS causes SIDS is a lie, quit using it or admit you are nothing but a liar.
Looks like Jerry got far more insults into one paragraph than Melle. But Melle's were funnier.
The application of one of Bill's methods for dealing with something that he either cannot argue with or prefers not to be drawn is ATTACK THE PERSON.I can't see anything remotely insulting either intentionally or not.You have proven the synopsis given by Jerry is accurate by way of your response,if you object to the term nanny i could come up with several others but which would be a little more condescending.I think Jerry has characterised you perfectly well ,so after this little interlude business as usual ?
Bill: Since your reading comprehension is obviously pretty low, I'll help you out: I only insulted you once (to wit, "creep").
I did NOT associate you with Stalin and Hitler. On the contrary, that's what YOU'RE attempting to do, by tarring Dr. Seigel's posts with the loaded phrase "public denunciation." I was only calling you on it. (Yes, the phrase has totalitarian implications---just to inform anyone who wasn't aware of that---I'm reasonably sure Bill already knew it full well, & used it for that very reason.)
Just to make my point doubly clear---the Oxford English Dictionary gives 2 definitions for the word "denouce" as applied to individuals---it means to:
(1) Proclaim or pronounce a person to be cursed, a rebel, etc.; publicly declare a person or thing to be wicked or evil, accuse publicly, openly inveigh against.
(2) Make known an offender to the authorities; inform against.
Maybe Bill Godshall can give us some examples of Dr. Siegel doing either of these things to "those with whom he disagrees," either on this blog, or anywhere else?
Bill we tried holding our breath in anticipation of a response but unfortunately we all turned blue and passed out.Just to ensure that you don't attempt to blame the cyanosis on smoking,it was due to the general lack of oxygen and we've all recovered now.
Commenting by HaloScan
