One word Dr. Siegel: WOW!
Every US citizen should be frightened right now. Smoker, non-smoker, fat, thin...
What else are the public health agencies supported by our tax dollars misleading us about?
I'm honestly and sincerely afraid of the answer.
Thank you, Dr. Siegel, for pointing out the facts. It is truly scandalous that the Surgeon General himself is distorting the findings of his own study, for reasons I can't fathom. I'm with Eric - I think this is frightening, and I'm not saying this for rhetorical effect. It really, truly scares me.
I know a lot of people see you as the Great White Hope, and ask a lot of you. I'm afraid I have to add to that. Please attempt to start this conversation in the mainstream media. Please find a credible, trained science reporter to actually read the work. Please encourage your level-headed colleagues to protest. Please submit an article to JAMA, the Lancet, whoever.
The rest of us have tried; we have no clout. Those of us with any competency at statistics, or at dissecting logical fallacies, have written thoughtful, logically correct letters to God knows how many editors. It does nothing. If they are printed at all, it's a rare thing. But even if they are, the editors never assign their health or science reporters to check on the facts and see if there's something to our claims. Doubtless, it's because they assume we're delusional (we're smokers, after all), or paid by tobacco interests (as I've been accused of with no evidence).
One ends up feeling like Sarah Good in The Crucible - the more one protests, the guiltier one is judged.
Josh
Josh, good news and bad news:
bad news:
The mainstream media like the AP, NY Times, LA Times, ABC, NBC or CBS won't cover this. The liberal mainstream press will cover it up (sorry Harry O it's the truth)
good news:
Thanks to modern technology, there are other sources of information like the blogosphere to spread the truth. Don't forget that it was the bloggers who broke the Dan Rather CBS 60 Minutes forged document story. Remember?
Dr. Siegel, do not underestimate the power you have to blow this wide open.
Since a large number of readers of this post are likely not to be regular readers of this blog, I want to make it clear that I agree with most of the conclusions of the Surgeon General's report itself and that I certainly (and have for many years) believed that chronic secondhand smoke exposure is a cause of heart disease and lung cancer.
That's good.
I believe that the conclusions of the Surgeon General's report are sufficient to justify smoke-free workplace laws.
Well at least everyone agrees on the central policy issue of protecting people from second hand smoke.
Reading the posts in the last couple of days, it looks like many regular contributors have finally been convinced as well of the dangers of second hand smoke.
mike, once again i thank you for your honesty and intelligence. i suspect most smokers and non-smokers would like to see some sanity and a reasonable conversation around tobacco-control. in this regard, you are leading the way, not people like the ones at ash.
and eric blair--aka orwell--is right about the fact that the means of communicating information has been snatched from the hands of the msm.
we live in interesting times.
Eric,
I fear you're right, but not for precisely those reasons. Having been a former press man, I can attest that there the mainstream media is not unfailingly liberal, by any stretch. More often, its bias is toward parroting words from those in power, and toward protecting its own economic interests at the expense of sound journalism. This had had terrible consequences for issues that are important to liberals, conversatives, and just plain citizens.
It is true, however, that the antismoking hysteria (I am not disparaging reasonable people here, only the hysterics) is a peculiarly liberal phenomenon in many cases. As a social liberal myself, I've been stunned, angered, and ashamed at the knee jerk reaction even some of my closest, most intelligent friends have toward banning anything they believe is a health risk. The contradictions and ironies of hating smoking so viscerally, but preaching live and let live about everything else escapes them.
There is a huge, huge element of class discrimination here too, tarted up thinly as "concern." There are doubtless those who are genuinely concerned, such as Dr. Siegel, but there are many others who get a deep thrill out of socially acceptable bigotry through sanctimonious health pronouncements about those they consider inferior or declasse.
It reminds me of one phone call I received at my job (I'm a white collar professional, by the way, and recognized for expertise in my line of work). For some reason, the caller veered off into a diatribe about smokers, how they were always poor, how you could tell they'd been raised in trailer parks, etc., ad nauseum.
When I replied, "Why that's odd, madam. . would you suppose I live in a trailer park too?" she was silent, she stuttered, stammered, and tried to ignore what she'd said. Not even an apology.
erik, i certainly have never questioned that there are health impacts (what precisely they are is open to debate) from chronic, long term exposure to secondhand-smoke. but i do question people like you who declare that casual contact over short periods is a death ticket. you don't have the science to prove that--and neither does the sg, according to mike.
Erik - are you constitutionally incapable of reading? Even if you don't admit it to us, do you ever get the slightest twinge of a guilty conscience because of your refusal to be reasonable, your refusal to recognize that there are, indeed, problems and distortions with this issue? How can you expect any of us to be able to honestly engage you in a thoughtful conversation when you refuse to acknowledge - or even acknowledge that you've read - what are very legitimate concerns?
Erik, life is not a zero-sum game. Policy is not a zero-sum game. There is usually some truth to competing claims, and the way logical people deal with them is by hashing it out with facts, not by ignoring legitimate claims with sarcasm.
Even if you and I disagree on some things, it does neither of us any good to play the semantic game you're playing. In your formulation, my "side" is wrong on everything by fiat, no need to confront the legitimate claims we raise. That's not how truth works Erik. Acknowledging the other camp's reasonable claims does not denigrate the truth of certain assertions you might make that are based in fact.
Eric Blair -
Perhaps the question ought to be:
"What health issue has ANY health promotion organization been telling us the whole, unspun truth about?"
I'm going to quote from a document called: "Making The Case (Version 2.0, November 22, 2000)" produced by The Health Communication Unit at the Centre for Health Promotion
University of Toronto
This is one of many documents intended to teach advocacy groups of all kinds how to ensure that there cause becomes a priority issue for the public and policy makers, and that they subsequently get public funding for their group.
"Step 1a: Defining the Issue
-Problems and Issues
Problem - Any situation that creates difficulty or hardship
A problem becomes an issue when it becomes a public concern
An issue must be defined so that it:
• Is easily understood
• Mobilizes people to act"
"must be defined so that it mobilizes people to act" - health issues must be defined in such a way as to create maximum fear and anxiety among the public, about their health, about their loved ones' health, about the cost of treating or failing to prevent the health issue.
"Step 1b: Establishing the Object of the Case
-to increase the degree of importance
attached to an issue and the perceived
necessity for action (building an
agenda)
-to increase activity directed towards producing change
-to secure funding for a health promotion initiative
-to bring about the adoption of a health promoting policy or regulation"
"to increase the degree of importance attached to an issue and the PERCEIVED necessity for change" - does that even need further comment?
"Step 2: Compiling
Evidence/Building the Case
a. Gather and assess supporting information
b. Review the information
c. Interpret the information
d. Draw conclusions for your case"
"Draw conclusions for YOUR case" !!
Not, explain ALL of the information available and its objective implications, but deliberately draw and promote conclusions that support ONLY "your case".
The question - are there any health promotion organizations that have NOT been following these kinds of protocols?
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING EXCHANGE IS BETWEEN ME AND JOSH ONLY. We will not discuss politics here as per Harry. Please no comments from the peanut gallery. Thank you.
Josh, lest you think that I am a card carrying member of the Taliban wing of the Republican Party I am not. I might not be a social liberal exactly, but I am at least a social moderate.
I know how you feel. There are plenty of social things that Republicans do (constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage, indecency laws, faith based initiatives) that make me cringe.
I joined the party because I believed it was about limited government. I guess I'm a Republican with a strong Libertarian streak.
Eric Blair wrote: "WARNING: THE FOLLOWING EXCHANGE IS BETWEEN ME AND JOSH ONLY. We will not discuss politics here as per Harry. Please no comments from the peanut gallery. Thank you."
Hey!! Who you calling a peanut gallery....hehehehehe Sorry, just had to do it.......all this crap has me feeling fiesty.
Now, where do I start to get someone to come down on the SG for outright LYING?
All this has managed to do is confirm for me what I've suspected for decades. You cannot trust what anyone says anymore. Between that president they put in white house, so-called public health (what a joke) agencies, the media and now the surgeon general...........I'll never believe another word they say again, and unfortunately, as if I didn't have enough doubts already, that will go for any doctor I am ever reduced to having to see.
Since you are still for smoking bans in the workplace, which would include restaurants and bars, why do you care how it is done?
The end justifies the means. Hysteria is just a form of fanaticism, which we see clearly in the SG's report.
Just what exactly are you trying to accomplish?
If life was fair a simple sign on the door would say this is a smoking or nonsmoking establishment. That would be enough to allow the general public to make a decision on their own. The science sensationalized or not would not matter.
All this nonsense is taking away the individual's right to choose what they want to do with their life and what risks they are willing to take. Tobacco control is reducing the American public to children who are not capable of making an informed decision because they are just "too stupid" to understand such complex subjects.
You can't keep riding the fence get on one side or the other.
Dr.Siegel do you plan on notifying the news media of this travisty? Although you agree with most of this report, the fact that it is twisted and a lie is cause for the American public to have grave doubts as to what else they are being lied to about. I am tired of the emotional drama the government is feeding us, whether it is code yellow at the airports or second hand smoke, or suppliments from herbs. I am begining to doubt that anything the government tells me is honest. Bree
I'm really curious if Eric would rather be in a room with a smoker and second hand smoke or a car that was running for 30 minutes??? Which do you think would kill you quicker? I'm betting the car would. But I doubt you would find the car outlawed. Just some food for thought.
Bree
Dr. Siegel,
The bottom line here is that the Surgeon General of the United States, through press releases and appearances in the media, made statements that were untrue. He KNOWINGLY LIED.
The general public is not going to pore through over 700 pages of a report, nor should they be expected to. Te public relys on those in authority to present accurate information. To see that man, in his official uniform, LYING through his teeth on the Lehrer program, was sickening, because I know what effect this will have on the public opinion and on public policy.
The SG is on record as a tobacco prohibitionist. As such, he cannot be trusted. This is NOT an example of exaggerations made by anti-smoking groups, it is an example of exaggerations made by the Surgeon General himself. The buck stops with him.
This is a man who got on national TV and stated that children exposed to SHS at home WILL eventually get cancer and/or heart disease. He got on national TV and told the public that they were in danger when walking past smokers OUTSIDE. He has also told people in to "stay away from smokers." The effect of statements like this have very serious implications. Statements like this are not just irresponsible, they are reprehensible.
Don't look for any retractions and/or clarifications either. The damage is done, and calculatingly so.
Dr. Siegel, are you willing to admit that the SG lied to the public?
Bree, I would love to see a segment with Dr. Siegel and Steve Milloy from junkscience debating Banzhaf and Al Gore on The O'Reilly Factor. If the American people cared about their government as much as they do American Idol it would double the rating for the Super Bowl.
http://www.junkscience.com/
Josh wrote:
For some reason, the caller veered off into a diatribe about smokers, how they were always poor, how you could tell they'd been raised in trailer parks, etc., ad nauseum.
Josh, we're both white collar workers who have been given the gift of gab. We have to stand up for these folks.
What I can't help but wondering aloud is: how many of these "poor" trailer park or inner city urban voters blindly walked into a polling booth and voted for liberals?
It's a trade off of epic proportions...
Yes, they'll make sure that government will provide for you since you are incapable. We'll give you your health care and your monthly stipend. In return, we make the rules. That means no smoking, no fast food, no drinking.
My house, my money, my rules.
You can't have it both ways. Don't complain, this is what you signed up for.
My statement
He has also told people in to "stay away from smokers."
should read:
He has also told people to "stay away from smokers."
Sorry.
Everything cj eloquently said (ok; excluding the typo)
I googled "Carmona, tobacco, prohibition" and came up with a 2003 article in the DC Post reporting that he testified to Congress back then that he;d like to see to tobacco sales banned in America and tobacco "abolished." (Paraquat the crops?) Thus his current hyperbole is neither surprising ... nor inadvertent.
Somebody up there said:
"Don't forget that it was the bloggers who broke the Dan Rather CBS 60 Minutes forged document story"
But don't forget that it only got "legs" when the MSM picked it up. Which, alas, they did for reasons that don't apply here,
EriK--
What the hell gave ypu the idea that any of us had been convinced by the SG report? Or were you merely making a statement as inaccurate and presumptive as "The debate is over." and hoping that somehow wishing would make it so? Or are you just, as usual, being a backward brat?
Erik has gone from lying to putting words in our mouths. Also could be said that he's gone from lying for himself to lying for us. What a dark, sad, pathetic way to have to live.
Michael Fumento has called the spade a spade!
Won't reprint the whole piece but will entice us -- and smirk at the antis -- with the first and last paragraphs:
Killing the passive smoking debate
By Michael Fumento
Townhall.com - June 29, 2006
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/.../29/
203050.html
“Secondhand smoke debate ‘over.” That’s the message from the Surgeon General’s office, delivered by a sycophantic media. The claim is that the science has now overwhelmingly proved that smoke from others’ cigarettes can kill you. Actually, “debate over” simply means: “If you have your doubts, shut up!”
...The purpose of the passive smoking campaign has never been to protect non-smokers, but rather to cow smokers into giving up the habit.
It’s easy to agree with the ultimate goal, but inventing scientific outcomes and shutting down scientific debate as a means is as intolerable as it was when Nazi Germany “proved” the validity of eugenics.
HAHAHAHA..HEEHEEHEEHEE
Oh but nevermind, right Bill? Only a few delusional smokers who post here think that, right?
The debate is NOT over. I think it's just getting started (rubbing hands together)
Dr. Siegel, you can add Fox News to your report.
Title of article:
"Brief Exposure to Second Hand Smoke Can Cause Heart Disease in Non-Smokers"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2...,176034,00.html
As I stated before in a post yesterday:
Who needs a gun or pepper spray when you have a lit ciggie?
Actually now tho-I carry the pepper spray and I AM GOING TO GET A GUN WHILE I STILL CAN (before the UN decides the WORLD shall be GUNLESS).
This will be for MY PROTECTION against THOSE ANTIS WHO WILL NOW ACT UPON THEIR AGGRESSIONS AGAINST WE-THE SMOKER. THE US SURGEON GENERAL TOLD THEM THEY COULD-A WHIFF WILL KILL YOU.
POPPA BUSH- you and MOMMA LAURA have completely dropped the ball here in not controlling your surgeon general child-who is now the lead public health bully on the playground. SHAME ON YOU BOTH.
EriK: "Well at least everyone agrees on the central policy issue of protecting people from second hand smoke."
Count me out of you consideration, Erik. Everyone does NOT agree on the 'central policy' issue of 'protecting' people from second hand smoke.
Eric Blair wrote:
"WARNING: THE FOLLOWING EXCHANGE IS BETWEEN ME AND JOSH ONLY. We will not discuss politics here as per Harry. Please no comments from the peanut gallery. Thank you."
We probably should respect that and talk politics privately. You're welcome to email me anytime Eric, at joshsmokes@adelphia.net. I think we're probably a lot closer on many issues than we are apart.
Dr Seigel,
I would be very interested to know, given that you suspect that chronic exposure to tobacco smoke in non-smokers causes disease, what exactly is so specific about tobacco that it causes these health problems.
Humans have been subjected to chronic smoke exposure ever since they tamed fire. Indeed, large populations of cold people would have frozen to death, had they not chronically exposed themselves to death in caves/tee-pees/igloos/etc. over many thousands of years.
Now, admittedly these people did not think too much about living for 70+ years, however neither did their civilisations die out as a result of their exposure to plant-based smoke.
I continue to find it incredulous that people who will willingly cook a bar-b-que, or light a camp fire, will cringe like fearful quail at the first waft of tobacco smoke.
They are, indeed, the most pathetic examples of the human condition and would do well to consider those in this world who have real and immediate health problems - malaria, AIDS, Hepatitis - rather than expending billions of dollars on purely imagined risks.
There is an old saying,which holds true to this day, event in the face of ridiculous hysteria regarding tobacco:-
"Would you rather spend anhour in a sealed garage with 50 chain smokers, or with one idling car?"
I know which one I would choose. I would be very interested to hear Dr Camona's answer.
Eric,
I think you need a spanking for assuming facts not in evidence. And maybe we'll wash your mouth out for good measure.
1)For assuming the debate is over on smoking, on the contrary, it has only just begun.
2)For assuming I don't vote, can't research a candidate, and would pick one that can't win.
3)For assuming I'm trailer trash or that all smokers are. What I am or am not is NONE of your business. But making value judgments on people because of something they choose to do is a dangerous thing.
4)For assuming I'm incapable of anything, let alone standing up to you or any anti smoking moron with a keyboard who can type. Your money, your rules, your house??? I don't think so.... When the lies come crashing around your head, and they will, you are going to look mighty pathetic. Liars and Loosers both have a big L on their foreheads.
Bree
A couple of points missed in evaluation of the report. What struck me immediately was the statement "the smoking debate is over" when was it ever more than an imposition. The signed smoking treaty at the WHO was the point all agreed, no discussion was ever to take place in the public. How many fools believe they live in free countries, Freedom is reduced to a matter of political perspective, smoking debates or lack thereof are the absolute proof. The reported "compilation of evidence goes beyond statistical calculations" claim by the ministry of propaganda AKA the AMA, despite the entirety of the evidence appears to be just that, statistical calculations. Epidemiology in a proper perspective can never evolve beyond speculation. In a true sense political opinion to give much more weight to the evidentiary nature of what is deemed research than it could ever truly represent is pure ignorance. The American EPA and the AMA soundly rejected research of both calculated and physical oservational evidence presented this year in the six cities research. Proof of a reduction of one microgram per cubic meter of air would result in a three percent mortality reduction and physical observations in multiple cities which demonstrated proof. If we took the realization; particulate matter represented double the risk previously assumed and applied that as a confounder to all of the smoking related studies done to date, both primary and second hand smoke mortality would be seen to be reduced in virtually all the calculations to date in rough estimation by as much as 50%. The risk Of ETS could in fact be reduced so significantly as to not exist entirely.
The AMA and the EPA similarly ignored for over 40 years the physical proof of the highly carcinogenic abilities of diesel exhaust which grew tumors at record rates. Only this past year was it even added to the list of carcinogens. As with every discussion to date in the realm of public information which could be beneficial to human health, “more research is required” is the standard practice in avoidance of responsibilities. If the real weight of the increased use of diesel engines since 1960 when not many trucks on the road used diesel. In addition to the long term effects of gasoline with lead or the little tin boxes of coal ash which used to line the streets in the 60s. TC has never fully disclosed which of the 4000 chemicals in cigarette smoke can remain in a human body undiluted for 20-30 years expressing the calculated risk they have always determined, and if the lead in fuel and the coal acquired in the lungs of the elderly had little effect in comparison. How do we substantiate the minor exposures of tobacco smoke despite no biological science as with other mentioned inhalation risks as more dangerous and consequential despite the lack of biological proof? The current use of benzene in levels 10,000 times beyond safe levels in every gas tank in America is acceptable risk yet similar toxins in cigarettes measured in Pico grams per cubic meter of air can be expressed as much more dangerous???
The man is a disgrace to his office and demeans the value of real scientific process. His iterations of political prose to glorify himself needs to be met with the respect it deserves. Write the media and politicians and declare a belief the man is self serving and commands little in respect for the association or his politicized office. If the government believes it has a right to control the public at least make the propaganda a little more believable in respect of those listening to the nonsense.
FXR
BH wrote: "Would you rather spend anhour in a sealed garage with 50 chain smokers, or with one idling car?"
I've tried that argument on other boards and all those non smokers come back with "of course not but it's still not the same thing, as we don't run cars in restaurants."
They truly don't see the connection, because they like their cars and have stated the "necessity" of driving, therefore THAT poison is perfectly acceptable to force on everyone.
Eric,
My apologies for misreading your comments. No excuses. In the future I'll be more careful. Hope this is acceptable.
Bree
Having briefly reviewed the executive summary of this report and, doing a few text searches, I have found a number of interesting omissions. Most significantly there is zero mention of the large body of evidence that doesn’t fit the conclusion, most notably the Enstrom and Kabat study. At the same time Glantz and his buddies get lots of ink. [We should remind ourselves that the good “Doctor” is not an MD but a PhD]
It will be interesting to see the press reaction, if any, to the inaccuracies in this report. The main stream media gets in a frenzy over issues like Bill and Monica or George W’s military service record – issues that have no effect whatsoever on our everyday lives. They will ignore the fact that this high ranking, admittedly biased cabinet member is deliberately trying to mislead them and instill hysteria.
[I’m Canadian and don’t spend too much time looking at the US media, but I do have a question for my American friends who read this blog. Which is getting more press coverage, this or the warnings of the heightened risk on the San Andreas Fault?]
It’s also outright fallacy to claim that modern ventilation cannot handle the ill effects of a burning natural substance. Heavens to Betsy, if this is true what’s to become of those who work in coal mines, auto body shops, grain elevators, oil refineries, toll booths or steak houses?
I think we are long over due for a report on the ill effects of Second Hand Stupidity.
News flash;
George Bush has requested funds from congress to replace the small arms of all soldiers in Iraq with Marlboros. The join chiefs agreed unanimously ETS was not listed as a chemical weapon so no international agreements would be breached. New battle formations will include sitting around a campfire smoking the peace pipe. The results would have insurgents falling over amass clutching their chests and dying of Heart attacks. Victory is absolutely assured The Surgeon General in an announcement yesterday confirmed the effects will be seen within minutes. The mass evacuation of innocent children has begun to avoid the devastating effects. They will be assigned to re education camps and taught the rules of Psudo realities as guaranteed in the American constitution. Freedom to act as the rest of the spineless sheep in obedience of the laws of Rockefeller et al Johnson and Johnson and the Nazi, sorry, Health army of disciples.
America becomes a joke on the world stage.
LOL
OR perhaps the antis will come out and ban cigarette lighters,matches,fire itself NO SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE !
Chunk wrote: "but I do have a question for my American friends who read this blog. Which is getting more press coverage, this or the warnings of the heightened risk on the San Andreas Fault?"
I'll give you 2 guesses, Chunk, and the first one won't count....hehehe
I haven't heard squat about the San Andreas fault in I don't know how long, but the SGs words are THE highlight of the week, all OVER the place. I can't possibly respect even CNN anymore since they are playing this up all day long, day after day after day (can you tell I'm stuck with cnn in my face all day at work? hehehehehe).
cj,
I wouldn't go as far as saying that the Surgeon General is lying. I think that the press release and ancillary communications surrounding the report have exaggerated, overblown, misrepresented, and distorted the science that is actually presented in the report itself. To make a judgment as to the intent of the Communications Office in portraying the information and its actual beliefs about the effects of a brief secondhand smoke exposure is something that I am not able to do, since I don't have enough information to do this. What I think it's fair to say is that the science was exaggerated, overblown, misrepresented, and distorted. This resulted in what I view as a misleading communication to the public.
It's not clear to me why it was necessary to communicate distorted and exaggerated findings, since it seems to me that the actual findings of the report are enough to warn people of the dangers of secondhand smoke.
Dr. Siegel wrote: "I wouldn't go as far as saying that the Surgeon General is lying. I think that the press release and ancillary communications surrounding the report have exaggerated, overblown, misrepresented, and distorted the science that is actually presented in the report itself."
Well, if "exaggerating, misrepresenting and distorting" the truth isn't lying, what the hell is?
There are laws in place regarding "truth in advertising", whereas ads that "exaggerate, overblow, misrepresent, distort, or in some way mislead" are not allowed. Ads MUST be backed up by substantial proof.
Seems to me, we need to start holding government agencies to the same standard.
As far as I'm concerned, the SG deliberately lied, to mislead and instill fear in people in order to reach HIS personal goal of a smoke-free country.
Call it whatever you want, but the man LIED, pure and simple. You yourself have pointed out the discrepencies. He didn't say "may" and/or "could"....as the report actually says. He said "does" and "will". Looks like a LIE to me.
So, where do we go to start having this investigated and having him answer for his lies?
Once upon a time, there was a little fish. He had a hook in his mouth and could not figure out for the life of him how to get the godforsaken thing out from his oral cavity. Then the big fish ate him.
Moral: Cigarettes will hook ya, but what'll kill ya is the big fish (aka car exhaust, chemical pollution, water pollution, don't even try to say cars don't run in restaurants because if secondhand smoke is unventilatable... then what is car exhaust?! AND if they REALLY cared, they would have done as much studies on these environmental factors as they have cigarettes.) Apparently Merck just scored a 3 Billion dollar/yr deal with the government to vaccinate girls with cervical cancer vaccines. (So THAT'S what they've been curing all this time) Nicotine gum costs 50 bucks for a 20 pack. (Get real, nicotine gum is nicotine replacement therapy. Besides nicotine and gum, what else is in there? Gold?) David Graham of the FDA blew the whistle on his organization's tendencies to "overlook" malrepresentative studies for sake of getting their drug out on the market. Doctors are human too, just doesn't mean they should all be dope dealers.
End of debate you nitpickers. This truly is a Brave New World. Everyone take your Soma!
Anyone fancy a laugh ? Biologists are now introducing and farming a vaccine for the papiloma virus ?Guess what plant they are extracting it from ?TOBACCO plants are one of the best things.(NCSU Crop Science Dept).Antis go eat your heart out !
Lynda, you and others are the exact reason why Prof Siegel started this blog. The evidence on the smoke has been studied to death and what was found about secondhand smoke 20 years hasn't changed one iota. Someone overselling the science runs the risk of having the main points discounted. The immediate effects to respiratory and circulatory system from smoke has been known for years, the most current research has just explain the mechanism. The effects are immediate. (Benpal will of course state that sex causes immediate effects too-good rationalization since a smoke after sex seems to go together. I only wish I could experiment what 150,000 doses would do-only Wilt the Stilt could come close but that is another story)But the disease process while it begins with each exposure, will only proceed with continuous exposures. Prof Siegel is excited about the particular semantics. The 30 minute reality is more easily explained by repeating that many such exposures are required. You'll probably still get the "we don't know what the minimum or safe level of number of exposures is". I'm very comfortable with Phillip Morris' statement on the advise for the public in regards to secondhand smoke.
Well Geo it can't have been studied all that well since it cannot be proved that there is a causal link between smoking and lung cancer.Nor can it be shown that SHS poses heath risks other to those who are already seriously incapacitated.Provide the evidence if you can but we already know that it doesn't prove squat.Have you accepted the words of Richard Doll yet ?You refrain from making any comment.You give the impression that you are Father Time in the way you select your vocabulary but ,sorry,it cuts no ice,be happy thinking what you will but it aint the facts.PM are rotten to the core ,they can't even copy Player's or Bensons without making them taste so foul so whatever they say is for the ears of the FDA not me.
The SG stated flatly "Stay away from smokers". What a hate-filled statement. He is telling Americans that smokers are to be treated as lepers, killers, societal outcasts, in all situations and places, that it is okay to despise them. His personal goal of total prohibition is apparently overriding his scientific and moral integrity.
Based on the press release, this hysteria is spreading rapidly as articles and commentaries enhancing the hatred and fear appear in newspapers and other media outlets nationwide, as draconian bans in private cars, outdoor spaces, and eventually the home, are given new life through the SG's fearmongering.
Dr. Siegel, I have a request that will certainly take personal courage, considering what you have faced from "the movement" in the recent past. Submit this article, or something similar, to the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times - any major national paper - as an Op-Ed piece. Start the debate on a national level, before the hysteria gets out of hand. As it surely will if no one with academic and scientific standing speaks up, and quickly.
Yes, he LIES. When he says that there's "no safe level of exposure," when he says that merely passing an airport smoking room is dangerously toxic ,when he says that kids of smokers almost definitely grow up to get cancer and heart disease, when he says that even a few brief minutes of exposure sets everyone on a one-way passage to Horrible Death, it's not only a simple lie, it's a dangerous Big Lie. And done for the same reasons:
The Final Solution to the Smoker Problem.
Tell me, Dr. Siegel, would you, in Germany, the night before Kristalnacht still have been oh-so-carefully temporizing about whether or not Goebbels was actually lying or merely "distorting the truth"?
And what of the morning after? Tho of course that's irrelevant; by then it'll be too late.
"The effects are immediate. (Benpal will of course state that sex causes immediate effects too-good rationalization since a smoke after sex seems to go together. I only wish I could experiment what 150,000 doses would do -- geo"
150'000 doses of what, geo? Cigarettes after?
Yes, living organisms are biological systems which adapt to their envorinment: action reaction. If this wasn't the case, the organism wouldn't be living to begin with.
If each reaction was considered hazardous, where would the human species be?
EXCELLENT Walt!!
and geo prattles on about doses. Let's not anyone forget that even those studies using long term and continual exposure by nonsmoking spouses (the study having flaws over ex-smokers and recall bias to boot, among other things) still does NOT reach the gold standard of a 3.0 RR or higher!
Why are any giving credence to "long term" exposure? Even those results are weak!
The SG does not have to be lying just not relaying the whole truth to be accused of violating international Law. Review the following from the BMJ from an ethical standpoint the no safe level allows the ethical highroad to be siezed by the tobacco maufacturers who happily parrot TCs conclusions giving TC enough rope to hang themselves. The Industry will not stand silent forever. Many in TC have a false sense of security being nurtured at the moment. Eventually every exageration and coercive action taken today will be a potential weapon to discredit you in the future. Don't think The industry Lawyers are not compiling a chronological record as this witch hunt develops and grows in ferocity. You can not legally punish an addiction. Or can you coerce health descisions. It is only a matter of time before that becomes painfully clear. For many in TC it may well become an expensive lesson.
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/
co...fb51ee231739f0c
The right to health relevant information derives from the principles of autonomy and self direction and has been recognised in international declarations. Providing accurate health information is part of the basis for obtaining "informed consent" and is a recognised component of business ethics, safety communications, and case and product liability law. Remarkably, anti-tobacco and pro-tobacco sources alike have come to emphasise the message that there is "no safe cigarette" or "no safe tobacco product". We propose that the "no safe" message is so limited in its value that it represents a violation of the right to health relevant information. There is a need to go beyond saying, "there is no safe tobacco product" to indicate information on degree of risks. The "no safe tobacco" message does not contradict, for example, the mistaken belief that so called light or low tar cigarettes are safer choices than higher tar cigarettes. We encourage a kind of "rule utilitarian" ethical position in which the principle of truth telling is observed while trying to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Although harm reduction approaches to easing the burden of tobacco related diseases are founded on science based comparative risk information, the right to health information is independently related to the need to promote health literacy. This right should be respected whether or not harm reduction policies are judged advisable.
As a non-smoker, studies like this do not really bother me much. Say second-hand smoke really does increase my risk of lung cancer by 30%. What is my chance as a non-smoker of getting lung cancer anyway? 1/10000? It is probably less than that even. So now second hand smoke makes that 1.3/10000. I am REALLY scared. As for heart disease, I figure truely relevant factors will likely decide my fate like diet, alcohol consumption, and genetics. I would be more interested in a study on how dangerous it is to live in smog cities like Los Angeles, New York, or Houston. I would not be suprised of that was equivelent to smoking several packs a day.
This seems a moot point. None of this changes the fact that smoking should not be allowed indoors in public and in the workplace based on the effects of daily exposure to secondhand smoke, a point on which Dr. Siegel still agrees (correct me if I'm wrong).
Smoking is definitely is not good for our health it not only cause heart,lungs diseases but also cause different diseases.
Commenting by HaloScan
