To me quoting the Helena study seems more like salesmanship than actual policy. You know, quote a higher price, or stake out a stronger position than one you actually want, and move back. That, combined with the ASH's rather creepy views on smokers having kids in a custody battle or owning pets, seems to mark a path that relies more on emotional resonance than on science. And so they can't fully claim(as they should be able to) that, say, tobacco ads try to do X to kids, because they are doing similar things.
And now tobacco companies, or 15 year olds who try to get other kids to smoke(there are enough such "commission free sales agents" in high school. I remember,) will be able to say, out of both sides of their mouth, "You might as well have a cigarette, it's no worse than 2nd hand smoke" or "Oh, of course second hand smoke isn't that bad(as the Helena study)...lighten up, have a cigarette." Leaving a lot of people who never wanted a cigarette habit to have one, ready for vilification by the more strident anti-tobacco folks who fish for the research that agrees with them the best and drown out those who prefer to make sense of things before moving on.
We're still in the realm of stating SHS is hazardous but there is no study that proves this.Therefore the rest of the "science?" falls flat on its face.The whole setup is fraudulent from taking money under false pretences (providing at best dodgy science to support an agenda) to proclaiming the contents of the study PROVE (invariably falsely) to utilising the "findings" to coerce smoking bans.The ability to deceive is endemic in the anti smoking movement.The money spent on providing the luxury to these fraudsters with their fixed agendas must run into billions over the years.How much has been screwed out of big T for "health care cost recovery".The millions that line fraudulent scientist's pockets is far in excess of the cost of health care costs.It is perverse and a racket that far exceeds the "crimes" committed by big T.
Dr Siegal wrote
-The flaw here is that the paper attributes all of the observed increased risk of myocardial infarction among nonsmokers due to secondhand smoke to an immediate (within 6 months) effect of that exposure, and assumes that none of the effect requires more than 6 months of exposure...-
Isn't there further flaws. Are they also assuming exposure to secondhand smoke dropped to zero for all non-smokers? What effect does the on-going exposure in homes where a smoker resides have on the calculations?
Did they measure secondhand smoke exposure levels on groups of residents?
Once the ban was lifted did they measure second hand smoke levels then. (Some people may have given up or continued to not smoke in public places).
If you have a scientific basis for questioning the validity of the study, you should submit your critique to the journal who published the study or another scientific peer reviewed publication.
This has been pointed out to you months before. However, apparently your analysis of the study has no scientific basis or you would have long ago published your analysis of the Helena study in a scientific journal.
Blogging that you disagree with it serves no purpose and is no more scientific that people who regularly post here that second hand smoke (or first hand for that matter) poses no health threat.
Erik PROVE shs poses health risks.
The significant issue here is that when it comes to a study purporting to show increased or new danger associated with cigarettes--especially if it can be used to influence public policy--even prestigious medical journals like the BMJ suspend any semblence of peer review. This charade has been going on for a long time.
Oh and by the way Erik have you found the evidence yet for your other little contentious accusation on one of the other threads ?
Erik's comments are one of many similar ones among anti-smoking advocates who have attempted to silence me or discredit my opinions. What they all have in common of course is attacking me personally rather than addressing the science itself. My sense is that these advocates shy away from addressing the science itself because they are in a difficult scientific position. They can't defend something which is so full of flaws.
Which brings us to west2's comment. Yes - you're right. I should have said "one of the flaws" rather than "the flaw." I have already pointed out many other flaws elsewhere on the blog. The signficance of this one, however, is that it is something directly addressed in the study itself. In other words, the study has itself acknowledged that the plausibility of its conclusions are a problem. And in its attempt to defend the plausibility, the study was forced to make a drastic and scientifically unsupported assumption. The fact that it takes such a wild assumption to support the plausibility of the study conclusion is an important fact that I think deserves being highlighted to readers and to the public.
Erik, your post shows how well you are informed:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/e...7446/
977#125901
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/e.../7446/
977#62381
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/e.../7446/
977#60213
Erik, your post shows how well you are informed:
Your links point to letters apparently posted by pro-smoking advocates.
I do not see any scientific journal article listed whatsoever that places the Helena study in question.
If you see one, please link it so we can review it.
Erik who is the we you refer to ?
"Your links point to letters apparently posted by pro-smoking advocates."
Erik, you continue to make unsubstantited claims? Were they born pro-smoking adovates or do you declare them pro-smoking because you don't like what they have to say?
Isn't Glatz a anti-smoking advocate? What makes him seem, in your view, to be above any conflict of interest.
"I do not see any scientific journal article listed whatsoever that places the Helena study in question."
I don't see any scientific journal article, that confirms the Helena study.
Not even the authors of the study came to its defense by presenting hard facts.
"Your links point to letters apparently posted by pro-smoking advocates.
I do not see any scientific journal article listed whatsoever that places the Helena study in question.
If you see one, please link it so we can review it."
Erik, acting like an ostrich and burying you head in the ground does nothing to improve your position. There are plenty of qualified comments questioning the Helena / Pueblo studies in the BMJ comment section. Whether they constitute actual articles is of little relevance.
I thought maybe there was a limit to how many times the same article could be recycled. Apparently there is not.
It's great to see another pithy discussion on Helena that really helps move things forward.
So why promote moving things backwards oh mighty mouth ?
Erik,
"Blogging that you disagree with it serves no purpose...."
I disagree......it serves a great purpose. Because the next time a pro-smoking ban activist tries to testify that the Helena study justifies a smoking ban, those of us about to lose our jobs because of that ban can point to this post or the Kuneman McFadden Study and show lawmakers that they were once again hoodwinked by the anti-s.
Re: Glantz, "What makes him seem, in your view, to be above any conflict of interest..."
benpal, this link shows Glantz has no conflict of interest:
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/r...044070&
iaid=143
Oops, sorry that was the $678,819.00 he received from the Nicoderm folks at RWJF......nevermind.
Jill says "I thought maybe there was a limit to how many times the same article could be recycled. Apparently there is not."
Nope,you are right. You guys keep pushing the study (with more holes in it than a piece of swiss cheese) in city council chambers all over the country, while insinuating such results would be seen in these communities if only they would pass such a law.
Or better yet, they get the untrained minions to make such a claim to avoid professional embarrasement when the promises are not met.
I guess that's why ANR gave the author the propagandist of the year award.
Walt, There's nothing new here. Must have been a slow week for Tobacco stories. Nothing like a another regurgitation of the Helena study critique when there's nothing else to post about.
Jill what do you mean nothing new?
So you already knew about Glantz's $678,819.00 payday from Nicoderm interests at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation?
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/r...044070&
iaid=143
Just half of that would pay the mortgage on my foreclosed home....foreclosed I might add because of the job loss due to the smoking bans.
Oh well.....it's for my own good I'm sure.
Erik--
Read all of the critical posts in the BMJ comments. You'll see that at least a quarter of them come from highly qualified researchers, many with university posts and records of publication.
You also fail to get that Journals don't publish articles that debunk studies (any studies)-- they only publish debunkings as Letters or occasionally Editorials. That holds in the print as well as online versions. Post-publication battles have always been fought in the Letters column.
Okay, Jill. As soon as you banners stop promoting Helena (what THAT old thiing again?) and admit to its patent flaws, the debunkers can stop debunking it,. But you don't get immunity based on the venerable age of a lie.
Oh ,i thought he was looking for those reports he was advised to provide before making his ridiculous allegations on a previous thread.
Jill,if only you would read before your mouth kicks into hyperdrive,you would see there is a plethora of information,a lot of which remains unanswered.Very similar to you demanding someone provides the evidence so that you can state Dr Siegel tells porkies or whatever it is that you are trying to prove.I asked you to provide evidence that SHS is harmful.You made no comment BUT if there is insufficient evidence to confirm that it is, then the Helena study is pretty well up shit creek before it starts.You are perfectly aware that you don't stop saying something is wrong just because you've said it before ,so why advocate it?
And let's not forget publication bias. The journals are filled with people with similar biases to Erik's. Erik, aside from the fact that Dr. Siegel's work need not be "published" to be factful, why don't you go and find out how many studies that find no risk to health due to ETS have been turned down for no rational reason. We'll wait.
"And let's not forget publication bias.......need not be "published"....find out how many studies that find no risk to health due to ETS have been turned down...."
We could ask my "pal" Dr. Chaloupka why the studies which contradict the Tobacco Control Movement never get published.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....ng-
smoking.html
Marcus - you're comments in this thread hit the nail on the head with precision.
The whole Health Promotion movement is about money. It's a billion dollar (or more) a year corporate/ beaurocratic/ academic scam preying on people's natural fears about illness and death. It recruits and exploits sincere practitioners like Dr Siegel and many others, to give itself credibility and hence ensure the continued rape of the public purse.
I appreciate all your documentation of this reality, but people shouldn't have to look beyond this simple fact:
the percentage of people who smoke continues to decline every year, but the number of people deriving their primary income from Tobacco Control grows every year and so does their funding.
"Marcus - you're comments in this thread hit the nail on the head with precision."
I was afraid I was just beginning to sound like an angry cynic......which of course I am.....on the smoking ban issue, that is.
What I find interesting is that in the tobacco control Journal they published a letter where biopsies are said to "prove" the cause lung cancer. This same letter is used to back up the claim in a no smoking wesite.
I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) that you can tell cause of lung cancer by type. Since there's many reasons for lung cancer (not jsut smoking); how can type tell them?
http://you-are-the-target.com/TCC.html
I. duguay:
I believe that Dr. Siegel explained that there are four lung cancer types (correct me if I'm wrong, doctor), and that there's no one type specific to smokers. I’ve posted this before, but if that’s correct, I think it needs repeating, since a medical worker in New Hampshire, who claimed she has never smoked, said that she was diagnosed with a form of cancer that smokers commonly develop. She’s 33 years old, and as far as I know, her testimony was not disputed.
So either 1) she was lying; 2) the doctors who diagnosed her were lying; or 3) the doctors don’t know what they’re talking about. At least, that’s what I gather, and I'd like to see it nailed down once and for all.
marcus:
you are most NOT a cynic, anymore than anyone else with a speck of common sense!
It always is, has been, and will continue to be about:
It's the SMOKER, not the smoke.
It's the SMELL, not the smoke.
It's the COUNTERFEIT COIN OF THE REALM (THE RFP), not the smoke.
It's the LIFESTYLE "they of the RFP" have become accustomed to, not the smoke.
It's the TAX for the STATES they have become accustomed to, not the smoke.
It's the CONTROL they have become accustomed to, not the smoke.
Cynics, I think not!
Thanks for "listening"
capri
oh, and I just read on MSN-the movie "CARS" and NASCAR are now being used as an example of hypocrisy for $$$ and global warming. hmmmm, I am just appalled...NOT. NASCAR deserves every bit of bad press they can get-NO SMOKERS being pushed at all the tracks.
CYNIC=HELLO-do you see what I see???
thanks again!
Commenting by HaloScan
