In other news, heart attack admissions in NE and SC fall by 28.5% and 12.5% respectively, but smoking prevalence remains essentially unchanged.
State 2003 2004
NE 21.3% (+-1.4%) 20.3% (+-1.2%)
SC 25.5% (+-1.4%) 24.5% (+-1.3%)
While the figures are slightly lower for 2004, (1% less in both states), the difference is within the margin of error for both years.
Further, given the current political climate where anti-tobacco groups are attempting to portray tobacco use as socially unacceptable, the observed decline may be attributable to response bias.
Definition of reporting bias:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Res...i/
Response_bias
CDC 2003 state specific smoking prevalence: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/...ml/
mm5344a2.htm
CDC 2004 state specific smoking prevalence: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/...ml/
mm5444a3.htm
Anyone here believe they should have a right to smoke with a infant to 4 year old in the car?
Michigan: New Bill Would Limit Smoking When Kids are In The Car [05/24-3]
Excerpts from: Bill Would Limit Smoking When Kids are In The Car
WTOL [05/12/06]
Smoking in a motor vehicle with a passenger under 4 years old would become illegal in Michigan under terms of legislation pending in the state House. The proposed penalty would be a civil infraction or a ticket. Courts would determine the cost of the fine if the bill becomes law.
The bill is sponsored by Republican Representative John Moolenaar of Midland. He says children are particularly vulnerable to second-hand smoke, especially in a tight, closed space such as a vehicle.
A House committee is expected to take testimony on the legislation next week.
"Much like not wearing a safety belt, being exposed to secondhand smoke in the close quarters of a car puts children at tremendous risk," Moolenaar said in a prepared statement. He referred to pneumonia, bronchitis, lung cancer, ear infections and children’s prolonged colds, coughs, sinus infections and asthma.
The WHO/IARC study: "CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk."
Don't let the science get in the way of Moolenaar's political carrier.
"Anyone here believe they should have a right to smoke with a infant to 4 year old in the car?"
Yes, I do. And I did, and continue to do so with both of my kids. They're 7 and 10 now, and still alive as of this morning.
How many children die annually from second hand smoke? Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Compare this to the number of kids under 4 who died in car accidents in 2003: 529. Five hundred and twenty nine babies died because mommy and daddy didn't love them enough to walk instead of drive. These are real children, not statistical estimates, for whom the name and circumstance of each death can be verified.
You ought to ask, does anybody have the right to put an infant to 4 year old in a car to begin with, whether or not smoking is taking place?
I've never seen the so-called conclusion of a study that benpal attributed to WHO/IARC.
Regardless, according to benpal's logic, there also is no justification for laws to reduce deaths and injuries from automobile crashes since they haven't been linked to lung cancer.
Even if tobacco smoke pollution didn't cause any deaths, there is
more than adequate scientific and medical evidence justifying public health law interventions to protect children from tobacco smoke pollution, particularly in automobiles.
Perhaps benpal can explain why he/she advocates child abuse.
more than adequate
Sorry, I forgot to cite my source, which is the National Highway Transportation Safety Board.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf...2006/
810568.pdf
Hey Bill,
Here is the abstract for the WHO/IARC study, since you're apparently too lazy to google for it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entr...9&
dopt=Abstract
Says it right there in the abstract.
For a tobacco control expert to say he hasn't read this highly publicised study kind of makes me think you're not the expert you claim to be.
Mike - I LUV it when you are sarcastic and/or satirical 
You make your points very effectively, that way, IMO.
General Alert! :
An expose of false martyr Heather Crowe will appear on the following blog, sometime over the next 48 hours. Keep watching for it:
http://surrealitytimes.blogspot.com
Mike wrote:
"Massachusetts is a great example of this. There was a 12.0% decline in heart attacks in Massachusetts in 2004. This is in sharp contrast to the average 9.2% increase in heart attacks in Massachusetts during the period 2001-2003. Does this mean that something which occurred in late 2003 or early 2004 caused the sharp decline?"
Let's see. Boston's smokefree workplace law went into effect in May 2003. During the following year, at least 22 more smokefree workplace ordinances were enacted in MA.
And in June, 2004 the governor of MA
signed a statewide smokefree workplace law.
Thus, it appears that the 12% decline in heart attacks in MA in 2004 may have been largely due to smokefree workplace laws.
I've never seen the so-called conclusion of a study that benpal attributed to WHO/IARC.
--- Bill
It's about time you see it ...
For a tobacco control expert to say he hasn't read this highly publicised study kind of makes me think you're not the expert you claim to be.
ed psycho |
Some tobacco control experts just don't want to see ugly things like these.
And just in case Bill misses the WHO/IARC report: the OR of 0.78 is the ONLY significant result of that study.
ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96).
Not only was it not associated with an ioncreased risk, it was definitely associated with a significantly reduced risk.
But the press release of the WHO never mentioned this result, all they trumpeted was: "PASSIVE SMOKING DOES CAUSE LUNG CANCER, DO NOT LET THEM FOOL YOU"
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/e...en/pr98-
29.html
Bill's reasoning would make sense - except for the fact that heart attack rates in Massachusetts rose sharply in the state during the precise period when most of the local smoking bans were enacted.
The point is simply that this type of data is just not adequate to draw causal conclusions of the effect of smoking bans on heart attack rates, especially when you have only a five-year period prior to the law and a single data point following the law and when there is so much underlying variation in the rates.
I reiterate my opinion that this is shoddy science, and I think we in the tobacco control movement should be able to do better than this.
ed said of Bill:
"For a tobacco control expert to say he hasn't read this highly publicised study kind of makes me think you're not the expert you claim to be."
This reminds me of when this study first came to light:
"This was certainly nothing done in my office."
"But if my organization, as you say, commissioned it, it's strange I haven't heard of it. Particularly strange, since it's said to have been eagerly awaited."
(Neil Collishaw, acting chief of the UN organization's tobacco program)
"This is simply not sound science. The only place we have seen this kind of garbage is from the tobacco industry."
(David Sweanor, the Ottawa-based lawyer for the Non-Smokers' Rights Association)
James Repace described the study as "propaganda, not science."
Bill wrote: "Even if tobacco smoke pollution didn't cause any deaths, there is more than adequate scientific and medical evidence justifying public health law interventions to protect children from tobacco smoke pollution, particularly in automobiles."
If tobacco smoke pollution does in fact cause death, produce the death certificates where the "cause of death" listed is tobacco smoke (with NO other possible cause). According your statement here then, everyone over the age of 40 should already be dead for we were born into and raised in a more prevalent smoking environment than any 20 year old could even dream of. Produce the death certificates where SHS killed all by itself with no help from any other possible confounder or contributor (like air pollution, high cholesterol, etc). Until you can cease with the words "kill" "abuse" "death" "murder" or whatever other derogatory term you can come up. That statement is 200% unadulterated bullshit and you know it.
As far as more than enough evidence.........prove it. Normally healthy children are not affected by SHS as anyone over the age of 40 can attest.
then Bill wrote: "Perhaps benpal can explain why he/she advocates child abuse."
Child abuse? Who is advocating child abuse? YOU and yours are the ones calling it child abuse. I grew up in a smoking home and I don't consider my father having abused me because he smoked. IF a child has serious asthma or respiratory problems that are exasperated by exposure to cigarette smoke, or pet dander, or even foods, then maybe continually exposing said child to that which does make him ill might be considered abuse. But in general, healthy children are not abused by a parent smoking any more than they are abused by a spanking when necessary.
And then you have the gall to say you have never seen anyone condemn the smoker? Bill, you really need to pay better attention because your constant contradictions just prove our points more and more.
Get out in the real world Bill and try actually living instead of sitting in your bubble trying to tell others how to live.
I have to disagree with Dr. Siegel on one statement he made.... That is it's too early to tell if heart attacks are really dropping.
i think the HCUP data tell us they are, which is good news.
First, in most states which allow the public to view their data, downtrends are observed since years 2000 or 2001. this is reinforced by the HCUP data for the USA overall, an even larger database which is also declining year-over-year. Even before 2002, when the USA's heart attack numbers peaked, each year leading up to 2002 had a smaller increase than the prior year. That is to say, the annual rate of increase was slowing long before 2002.
This despite more and more post WW II babyboomers entering the age group where heart attacks are common. EG the percent of our population in the heart attack age group is increasing year-over-year, and without any info to the contrary, one would expect our heart attack incidences would be accelerating accordingly.
While examination of one state with only 2 or 3 years of declines would not be convincing enough to conclude heart attack incidences are declining, when one looks at the multitude of states the picture becomes clear. Overall, declines are happening way too frequently and in too many places to be due to chance. The states with year-over-year declines outnumber the states with increases by more than 2 to 1 since 2001.
This generalized "peaking" of heart attack incidences coincides with increased usage of statin cholresterol-lowering drugs with about a 2-year lag time. This decline also coincides with the redefining of former prediabetic conditions as now being classified as type 1 diabetes, and physicians are more aggressively treating patients with less severe diabetes than in the past. I think we have plausibility here. Two strong risk factors for heart attack are being more agressively managed with new drugs, and lifestyle changes.
Bill Godshall:
"I've never seen the so-called conclusion of a study that benpal attributed to WHO/IARC."
Even by your own standards this is a truly disgraceful comment. If you take only half of the interest in anti-smoking research that you claim, it would be impossible for you not to have seen and read this particular study.
Furthermore links to it have been pointed out to you and others many times on this blog, AND it figures prominently on the Forces web-site of which you must be an avid reader, since you regularly tell us about all the lies contained therein.
So, since it is clear that facts need to be put to you in simple terms, let me reiterate and elarge upon benpal's posting in case it failed to sink in:
The study was commissioned by IARC (that's the International Agency for Research into Cancer, Bill), which is a part of WHO (that's the World Health Organisation, Bill). It was intended to lead to the once-and-for-all proof that ETS caused lung cancer, and as such was conducted simultaneously in a number of centres (12) across 7 European countries.
The various 'risks' were presented as Odds Ratios which always produce an inflated result compared with RR (thats 'Relative Risk', Bill), but still arrived at ORs of only 1.16 (95% CI 0.93-1.44) for spousal and 1.17 (CI 0.94-1.45) for workplace ETS exposure. Remember, Bill that 'Odds Ratios' always produce higher values than RR from the same data so the equivalent RRs would be more like 1.05 to 1.1 in each case.
In any event, these results were not statistically significant (I probably need to explain statistical significance to you Bill, but I doubt you will understand it).
As benpal pointed out, there was one statistically signficant result which is worth repeating, in that the OR for children who were exposed to ETS succumbing to lung cancer in later life was 0.78 (which as a RR would be more like 0.65-0.7) with a CI of 0.64-0.96.
In other words, Bill, in the knowledge that in your world a statistically significant association means causation, this finding offers definite proof that children raised by smoking parents gain protection from lung cancer in later life. It's true, Bill, it's not my study, its WHO's so it must be right, eh?
So it now becomes my sad and solemn duty to inform you, Mr Godshall, that by working to try to prevent children having access to this protection, you must be responsible for many lung cancer deaths.
At the very least, it is you that really should be indicted for child abuse Mr Godshall.
Or is it just that you are a so-called cretin?
You can't forget the trouble that the Paper in Britian (Telegraph) had with the extremists for publishing it. After all how many papers actually go to the trouble to give background, and back up their evidence in the paper after publishing something in the paper?
THE PRESS Complaints Commission has rejected a complaint by Ash
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlC...25/
nsmok25.html
Thanks l. duguay for the additional link to the Telegraph. That was a missing link in my documentation on ETS.
And thanks Brian for your brilliant explanation.
The Daily Telegraph is the one newspaper in the UK which consistently opposes unwarranted smoking bans - and does so by proper analysis and presentation of the evidence before it.
Clowns like ASH will not be able to take on the Telegraph again so readily in the future.
Now if only the rest of the media would aspire to meet the high standards of the Telegraph.
oh, and Bill, do make sure you read the article at l. duguay's link, especially the last 2-3 paragraphs.
Then come back here and tell us:
1. Who were the heroes - who care about scientific integrity, and
2. Who were the villains - who don't give a fig for scientific integrity
It's very easy, I promise.
Bill do you copy and paste all of your comments or just copy them from previous comments ? Still i am glad to announce i don't see any deliberate LIES AND ATTEMPTED CHARACTER ASSASSINATION ON THIS THREAD )so far anyway).What is the point of going over this again ? Bill you have been given a very nice report to go and digest and endeavour to twist to your satisfaction.Erik i suggest you read a very interesting article posted earlier by Colin re: diesel,which as you should recall topped ETS with its carcinogen level but was politically swopped so that ETS came out on top-good science that eh? To my point you coccoon a little monster in the car (how about a diesel one ?) and light your fag, now if you turn your air conditioning on where is the air drawn from ? What are the ramifications ? Let me know.As to ASH UK and Master Bates is he trying to emulate "Ayatollah" Banzof or just being a Richard head ? More rabids who just won't accept that they are WRONG. it must be a genetic balls up in their DNA or something.I still want to know why the French smoke their Gauloises/Gitanes (both fairly high in CO) AND HAVE THE LOWEST INCIDENCE OF HEART DISEASE IN EUROPE.Probably because they can smoke generally anywhere thus reducing the stress of trying to find a smoking zone.I suggest one week in the US should put their rates back to where the rabids "know" it should be.What sort of employee makes a good Public Health worker ? a desire to help their fellow man,a feeling that you are helping and advising morons who have made a wrong choice in their lifestyle?a tidy paypacket for thinking up possible links to this and that,and you can play with numbers and hey presto you are doing your job ? the power of being able to change someone and their habits,a feeling that you are making a positive contribution to your own self-importance,the list can go on and on BUT what is the point of it all if it is FALSE? FALSE IN FACT & FALSE IN DUBIOUS CREDIBILITY .
my homie bill godshall writes:
"Perhaps benpal can explain why he/she advocates child abuse."
hey bill, so now people who smoke are 'child abusers' in addition to being "rapists"? please explain your logic using criminal statutes. if anyone wants to see where bill called smokers rapists, go to:
http://www.theagitator.com/archi...ives/
026176.php
so come on, bill, start explaining your logic since you are so sure of your definitions.
"Five hundred and twenty nine babies died because mommy and daddy didn't love them enough to walk instead of drive...."
Ed psycho .....pure genius.
I laughed my ass off.
Brian--
I'd be most interested in learning the difference between ORs and RRs (which I've always thought were synonymous.) If you don't feel like explaining (and I wouldn't blame you) have you got a link?
Many thanks
Walt
I must confess (as a Mathematician/Statistician) that I had never come across the Odds Ratio until I started reading up on anti-smoker research - I just thought it was synonymous with Relative Risk. Now that I know that it isn't the case, I always take care to see which measure is used in published findings, as it would be natural to read 'OR' and compare with 'RR' values - which is not valid.
A good explanation - with which, from your postings I sense you will have no difficulty - can be found here:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/RR&OR.htm
This is Professor Brignell's site, well worth a regular visit (if a bit UK-centric) if you've never been there before (see, for example, this page too:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/200.../2006%
20May.htm.
)
I also bought Prof. Brignell's book 'The Epidemiologists - Have They Got Scares For You!' which first introduced me to the horror that is the US EPA - and led me to be much more inquisitive and sceptical of what I know now to be junk science.
Enjoy reading
Best wishes
Brian the comments Prof.Bignell makes on his site were enough for me .Everything you ever wanted to know about the studies regularly spouted by the rabids nicely taken apart with such precision and ease.I reckon Bill ought to sit down with a pipe and digest it all,even the appeal that Bill always makes so much of was debunked.It makes me wonder with so much epidemiological wizardry going on to "prove" this, that and the other there should be a universal ban on reporting the findings until further more robust scientific studies have been undertaken.Having it cleared by
Steven Milloy would also be very advantageous.(www.junkscience.com)
Sorry just fell asleep there,i am also refering to the EPA and its infamous study.
Mike wrote:
"Bill's reasoning would make sense - except for the fact that heart attack rates in Massachusetts rose sharply in the state during the precise period when most of the local smoking bans were enacted."
It appears that Mike is confusing the dates of enactment with the dates the smokefree policies are actually implemented.
Besides, most of the 22 smokefree ordinances in MA that were enacted between May 2003 and June 2004 went into effect during the last few months of 2003 and during 2004, and the state law didn't go into effect until 2004, the year Mike cited a 12% decline in heart attacks.
I suspect that it many bars and other workplaces in Boston didn't become smokefree until several months (or more) after the ordinance went into effect.
Actually, the truth is that there were more than 70 smoke-free restaurant ordinances IMPLEMENTED in Massachusetts prior to 2002, and only about 10 or so implemented in 2004. So one would have expected to see some drop in heart attack admissions by 2003, rather than the sharp increases that were observed.
But that's not the point. I'm not arguing that smoke-free laws increased heart attack rates. I'm sure they didn't. I'm simply pointing out how ridiculous this whole exercise is. You simply cannot draw valid causal conclusions from this type of data, especially when you have only one year of data following the smoking ban. The conclusions are far too premature. We should be reporting better science than this in the movement. Otherwise, we're no better than those who we repeatedly and incessantly criticize.
Put the spin in the opposite direction and prove that the smoke free laws didn't increase heart attacks !How does one do that ? WAFFLE
I think the Professor is right. The tobacco industry has known for years just how harmful their products are. Tobacco smoke results in more illness and death to users and those exposed. The question is what if anything is done about it. Most folks on this site say, leave the smoke alone (it's no different than standing in a busy street, or eating twinkies). where people in public health say, It's no different than removing the Broad Street pump handle, it's a toxin that needs to be removed.
I think this whole site by the good Professor is about making sure decisions are made by "good" science. Fair enough. Even the Professor looked at the issue over a decade ago. See: Waiters and waitresses have almost twice the risk of lung cancer due to involuntary exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). (Siegel, Michael, "Involuntary Smoking in the Restaurant Workplace," Journal of the American Medical Association, July 28, 1993; 270: 490-493.)
For myself, I think one should just follow what the makers of the products say. That is the market approach. They're the ones making the money (and the state...which is another issue)
Geo,
The study of Dr. Siegel's that you cite from 1993 has been heavily taken to task by Martha Perske: http://www.nycclash.com/
CaseAgai...taurantAir.html
Plus, please prove your statement that "Tobacco smoke results in more illness and death to users and those exposed." I'm sure I'm not alone in being interested especially in the "and those exposed" part.
"I suspect that it many bars and other workplaces in Boston didn't become smokefree until several months (or more) after the ordinance went into effect."
I suspect many are still not smoke free, to this day.
Recent news and journal articles indicate that in Bakersfield, CA and San Francisco, CA, compliance with the state anti-smoking laws in bars may be as low as 50%.
Bill, if the law were repealed today, how many bars do you think would remain smoke free?
Hi Harry. Please help yourself...literally thousands of studies and research done by the industry itself.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/industrydocs/
Some refer to the shortnosed dog study's that demonstrated higher risk of lung cancer among dogs exposed to smoke.
Geo wrote: "Tobacco smoke results in more illness and death to users and those exposed."
Geo, I'm going to say to you what I have said at least a dozen times on another blog: Produce the death certificate where the SOLE cause of death listed is second hand smoke. I'm sure the good doc will correct me if I'm wrong here (and no bill you are NOT the good doc), but there isn't a single disease or ailment or illness that I've ever heard of that is caused by second hand smoke ALONE. SHS may indeed be a contributing factor in some cases, but it is hardly THE SOLE CAUSE.
Geo dogs weren't designed to smoke 300-400 cigarettes a day nor are we as humans for that matter .Unlike dogs though we can drawer on a cigarette ,we don't need a continuous feed of smoke.I suppose it's like the rat experiments isn't it ? if you paste gallons of tar on rats they will eventually keel over,just like you would to.You are an anomaly ,on one hand you echo vague overtones of rabidity and on the next go totally the opposite direction.Is it your sarcastic side or do you genuinely hold such a wide viewpoint?
Geo, give me a break.
You wrote: " "Tobacco smoke results in more illness and death to users and those exposed." MORE DEATH TO THOSE EXPOSED?!! DEATH? If you're going to make statements like that you should be willing to back it up with hard evidence. There's not even any hard evidence in the dozens of epidemiological studies made over the past quarter century, 80 percent of which show only a statistically insignificant relationship between secondhand smoke and either lung cancer and heart disease. And that's after decades of exposure in close quarters such as the home.
Please spare us tobacco industry documents and dog stories. If you've got any hard evidence, don't be shy -- let's have it.
geo wrote:
"Some refer to the shortnosed dog study's that demonstrated higher risk of lung cancer among dogs exposed to smoke."
Well, if you subscribe to:
“A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”
(Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA)
it might be worrisome.
Here's one that says that once a place goes smokefree, very unlikely to go back.
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/co...stract/15/3/
242
I suppose lot's of studies could ask, how much $$ have you saved on your dry cleaning bill.
Hello Michael,
I know it may have nothing to do with the heart attack rates, but I know you will not be offended if I just put this in your article, I am not a doctor just an angry at the moment Joe public.
Massachusetts is a great example of this. There was a 12.0% decline in heart attacks in Massachusetts in 2004. This is in sharp contrast to the average 9.2% increase in heart attacks in Massachusetts during the period 2001-2003. Does this mean that something which occurred in late 2003 or early 2004 caused the sharp decline?
http://www.countrydoctor.co.uk/p...%20-%
20WMDs.htm
Country Doctor article check out the dates or am I barking up the wrong tree
Sept 2003 White House Report shows savings of $193BN from PM2.5 cleanup relating to just hospital savings & days off work savings, clearly mostly since 1997 rule, & 7 times investment cost. Okopol report 1999 & USEPA both agree Spend 1,1 save E6 NHS C4 Social costs. Compare UK health probably best 1994/5 but downhill under Blair/Prescott with 2000 IPPC downgrading of BAT to anything will do, just to maximise profit. Also unlimited imports of world hazardous waste mixed into "fuel" and for disposal by incineration. UK & importerd radioactive waste incinerated by 34 incin. England/Wales eg Grundon,Colnbrook (1990-)
Also going by dates
Vioxx lawsuits could total over 30 Billion dollars over the course of the next few years.This number may seem astronomical, though when compared to the revenue generated from vioxx, it's not. Vioxx sales exceeded 2.5 billion last year. After studies suggested serious side-effects, Vioxx was recalled on September 30, 2004. Consumer activists have argued dangers associated with Vioxx were clear from earlier studies and that company officials downplayed the heart risks. At the time of the Vioxx recall about 2 million people were using it. If you or a loved one have taken Vioxx, you may want to contact a vioxx attorney to see how to proceed.
Regards mandy
Hey Geo you could also ask how many lungs did carbon tetrachloride damage after dry cleaning ?There is talk that Vioxx was taken off the market prematurely since the report on Ibuprofen and Diclofenac confirmed an additional heart disease rate of 3 in a 1000.
This type of reasoning is called post hoc ergo propter hoc... Non sequitor as well, but seriously, the transparency of the anti-smoking crowd is extremely revealing: they are as dumb as rocks.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
