Hitching on to yesterday's discussion about the (im)morality of accepting tobacco company or a gun lobby funding for any kind of research --no matter how accurate or useful it might be-- on the grounds that the funders could "market" any positive (to them) findings, or use their good deeds to burnish their image....
Here we have a case of "marketing" science (through rank misrepresentation) to burnish the halo of the sponsoring group ("we good-hearted folks are here to help and inform you in the name of Public Health) and also as a way to "market" an agenda.
How moral would it be, then, for scientists or institutions to take money from the likes of Smoke Free Ohio? Or even the ACS (which also, if I recall, has marketed bald lies)? Or even from the SG's office itself, since it "marketed" hysterical crap in its release?
Then too, in reverse, should the guys who did the studies (mis)cited by Ohio be blackballed on the grounds that they indirectly allowed their own exploitation?
I pause to note, too, that there's no lack of funding for bizarre and arcane studies whose intention is to "prove" that secondhand smoke causes... anything and everything anybody can think of.
;
Seems to me that we ought to discount all studies ever done, on anything.
If the "right" thing to do is to debunk good science merely because we dont like the sponsor then it follows that they are all biased.
I guess the old saying is correct: he who pays the piper calls the tune.
There is only one conclusion any reasonably intelligent person can come to based upon the mounting evidence against the fallacious claims (aka LIES) of the anti-smoker cartel:
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO IMPOSE SMOKING BANS ANYWHARE.
If there was solid, concrete evidence of harm by SHS exposure there would be no need for the anti-smoker cartel to resort to more and more absurd claims (aka LIES.) In the beginning of the demonization campaign against smokers properly worded press releases were able to put the fear of God into normally ratonal people with no background in epidemiology. But those days are gone and as more and more people question the shaky science behind smoker bans, the anti-smoker cartel needed more ammunition........and now they are starting to shoot even more blanks than before.
My guess is that the reason diabetes got included is that it is a disease that's been getting alot of press lately, so they figured it would be politically prudent to say it's linked to secondhand smoke.
I honestly don't think there's any more to it than that.
I find it inconsistent for Mike Siegel to claim he supports 100% smokefree workplace laws, while he repeatedly criticizes an organization that is campaigning for that very type of ballot initiative.
I also find it inconsistent for Mike to remain silent (i.e. no criticism)
about the massively misleading campaign by Smoke Less Ohio to pass a ballot initiative that would preempt all local smokefree ordinances and allow smoking in many workplaces.
In a recent posting, Mike criticized what he referred to as "partisanism" in science, and yet Mike is the most partisan critic of those who advocate
for what Mike claims to support: smokefree workplace laws.
This is the same misinformation that the "Smoke Free" organizations are plastering everywhere. Look at smokefreecolumbia.org. Its the same listing of bullshit. People like this will never be happy until you tell them it's raining when they pee on your head.
A few things struck me while reading this and your other piece today. One I'll post to the other thread as it's more appropriate there, but:
1 How can SmokeFreeOhio possibly make claims about heart attack risk from a study that simply measured platelet activity?
You have suggested two possibilities: scientific incompetence or intentional deception (although, to my mind, deception is too mild a word....I think fraud is more accurate here....we passed the level implied by the term deception a while back).
If I may suggest....the mere fact that they cited any study will be enough to sway the average person reading the fact-sheet, whether it backs up the claim or not.
I doubt that more than one in ten is capable of puzzling their way through the abstract with any hope of accurately understanding the claim let alone being capable of sifting through the full text to spot the faults and/or differences. And that's ignoring the majority who won't even bother glancing at the title, just assume that a study was referenced and that must make it true.
2 First, nowhere did the Surgeon General's report conclude that: "Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack."
Actually, you're both correct here...and it's a product of very careful phrasing on their part, suggesting yet again that this likely is deliberate.
While you may be correct that the Surgeon General's report contained no evidence of it and the reports' conclusions didn't suggest it, the Surgeon General (in his fact-sheet and publicly in the media) did come to that same conclusion. In fact, his fact-sheet says the same thing, word for word (see #4 in the link).
I'm guessing this is their justification for the claim, if ever called on it.
3 Second, I am aware of no evidence that diabetes should be added to the list of diseases caused by secondhand smoke.
Can't say much about this one, I'm afraid, and that also follows for the pancreatic cancer and pulmonary emphysema claims.
Mostly because there seems to be so little information readily available on the topics.
However, a quick perusal of PubMed reminded me of an issue I have with published studies in general.
If a study is going to be published for peer-review, why is it not being made freely available for public viewing and criticism?
Especially when such studies are being cited as justification for the curtailing of personal freedoms and/or privacy.
Far too many of the studies I try to view are only available by paying a ridiculous sum to some obscure journal.
I'm sorry, but if you want to dictate my life-style choices...then you bloody well better not cite some faceless study that I can't even evaluate on my own.
I'm also more than a little disappointed when I search PubMed for studies and turn up more results evaluating the effectiveness of certain "intervention" models than research on the actual health issue in question.
This speaks volumes about the state of mind (deranged? pathologically obsessed?) of the TC community.
Bill Godshall wrote:
I also find it inconsistent for Mike to remain silent (i.e. no criticism)
about the massively misleading campaign by Smoke Less Ohio to pass a ballot initiative that would preempt all local smokefree ordinances and allow smoking in many workplaces.
May I make a suggestion to you Bill -- take a reading comprehension class.......the Doctor has faulted the other side for being misleading.
I disagree with him, because to me you and your type are the proven liars, but to accuse him of not taking the opposition to task is just another show of denseness (or is that denial) on your part.
Gabz wrote:
"May I make a suggestion to you Bill -- take a reading comprehension class.......the Doctor has faulted the other side for being misleading."
I don't recall reading any postings on this blog by Mike Siegel in which the primary subject was the misleading campaign by Smoke Less Ohio.
I do, however, recall reading about a half dozen postings by Mike Siegel that criticized SmokeFreeOhio's misleading ballot initiative that Reynolds cigarette company is paying for.
Bill: I don't recall reading any postings on this blog by Mike Siegel in which the primary subject was the misleading campaign by Smoke Less Ohio.
Why? Is SmokeLess Ohio trumpeting misleading information? I'm under the impression (and granted, I have NOT studied them), that they are simply pushing for a less restrictive laws regarding smoking, whereas, business owners could actually make their own decision as long as they posted signs appropriately.
I do, however, recall reading about a half dozen postings by Mike Siegel that criticized SmokeFreeOhio's misleading ballot initiative that Reynolds cigarette company is paying for.
Ummmm, Bill, are you confused? I believe Reynolds is helping fund SmokeLess Ohio, NOT SmokeFree Ohio.
I will admit though, I do find the use of SmokeLess Ohio (and Arizona as they are here also) to be misleading. At first I thought they were another anti organization. I actually emailed SmokeLessArizona and told them that I thought their name was on the deceptive side. But in truth, they are for smoking restrictions, but they are only for reasonable restrictions and not the ridiculous ones that are popping up all over the place.
Bill Godshall wrote:
I don't recall reading any postings on this blog by Mike Siegel in which the primary subject was the misleading campaign by Smoke Less Ohio.
As I said, Bill, you need a reading comprehension course, I did not mention SmokeLessOhio in the post you quoted, I only mentioned the opposition.
Gabz: As I said, Bill, you need a reading comprehension course, I did not mention SmokeLessOhio in the post you quoted, I only mentioned the opposition.
Ahhhh but Gabz, you forget, SmokeLessOhio doesn't promote draconian laws AND they are funded by RJ Reynolds.......that automatically makes them the opposition in Bill's book....LOL
Bill: I find it inconsistent for Mike Siegel to claim he supports 100% smokefree workplace laws, while he repeatedly criticizes an organization that is campaigning for that very type of ballot initiative.
Translation: If it takes lying and cheating to win, then that's what it takes and shaddup.
Bill: I also find it inconsistent for Mike to remain silent (i.e. no criticism) about the massively misleading campaign by Smoke Less Ohio to pass a ballot initiative that would preempt all local smokefree ordinances and allow smoking in many workplaces.
To which Gabz answers: May I make a suggestion to you Bill -- take a reading comprehension class.......the Doctor has faulted the other side for being misleading.
To which Bill answers: I don't recall reading any postings on this blog by Mike Siegel in which the primary [emphasis mine] subject was the misleading campaign by Smoke Less Ohio.
When proven wrong grasp for straws. Next he'll say that Dr. Siegel didn't say it ENOUGH times. Well, what else to expect from someone who says that SmokeFreeOhio could have meant smokers get emphysema from ETS because they didn't SAY nonsmokers.
Bill: I do, however, recall reading about a half dozen postings by Mike Siegel that criticized SmokeFreeOhio's misleading ballot initiative that Reynolds cigarette company is paying for.
Bill still refuses (read chooses not to) to grasp that Dr. Siegel is trying to act as a watchdog over HIS industry, which naturally makes the PRIMARY focus of negative or positive assessments/comments on what his industry does. I suppose that when a company hires someone to evaluate how their business is being run he should direct his attention at, and report, on what the competition is doing right or wrong.
Hmmm, maybe that explains how the anti-smoker industry will go out of business. They're too busy looking at the competition and doing nothing to clean or tidy up their own business to remain viable.
I think JusttheFacts is exactly right. We need to do a little housekeeping of our own right now, and maybe that means taking a quick break from attacking everyone else to get our own house in order.
I think JusttheFacts is exactly right. We need to do a little housekeeping of our own right now, and maybe that means taking a quick break from attacking everyone else to get our own house in order.
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 09.20.06 - 12:38 am | #
I agree that JTF is correct, but I doubt in the same way you do Doc.
You will never be able to get the house of anti-smokers in order. Anti-smokers are evil, until you all realize what havoc you have begun to wreak on the free-world, you will continue to be evil.
Just wrote:
"Bill still refuses (read chooses not to) to grasp that Dr. Siegel is trying to act as a watchdog over HIS industry, which naturally makes the PRIMARY focus of negative or positive assessments/comments on what his industry does."
Watchdogs that continuously join forces with their opponents to reapeatedly lash out and bite their colleagues aren't very effective watchdogs.
And public health is not an industry,
as I've been advocating smokefree policies for the past 16 years without a paycheck.
Do you see my point? You can't challenge the science. For suggesting that some of the claims we're making are unsupported by solid evidence, what happens to you? You're viewed as 'lashing out and biting your colleagues.' How can there be room for any challenging of the agenda, tactics, and statements of anti-smoking groups if that's the attitude toward the critic?
Godshall writes: "... I've been advocating smokefree policies for the past 16 years without a paycheck."
Seems to me we've been trying to get that out of Godshall for months (unless I missed it somewhere along the line).
So do we now have it on record -- that Godshall's smokefree advocacy activities are entirely without monetary gain? (Hope he's not hiding anything behind that word "paycheck."
As i said earlier Bill,you've got a bee in your bonnet and YOU'VE decided to act as a one man army,you do not act on behalf of anyone it is just your narrow minded view that you promote.I note you never seem to take any of your rabid brethren to task or give one of your rasping "BILL GODSHALL ANNOUNCES TO THE WORLD" FARTS to let them know the error of their ways.Did i ever expect you to!
Harry wrote:
"So do we now have it on record -- that Godshall's smokefree advocacy activities are entirely without monetary gain? (Hope he's not hiding anything behind that word "paycheck."
With Bill you can never tell. He's like Clinton and the word "is".
He did say awhile ago though that he doesn't get paid for his work.
Since Dr. Siegel covered the "watchdog" part, I'll take on the ridiculous minutia:
Bill: And public health is not an industry, as I've been advocating smokefree policies for the past 16 years without a paycheck.
A) It's not all about YOU Bill, but we know you think it is. I mean, really, are you saying that YOU are the ONLY ONE involved in anti-smoking?
B) The definition of "industry" includes the collection of money/payments?? And you wonder why we question your grasp of simple science when you can't even grasp the English language. One of several definitions of "industry" is "work devoted to the study of a particular subject."
James Austin,
Maybe he has a paper route.
Harry for some people its not the monatary gains, but fame and recognition.
There are other ways to get Paid then with a "paycheck".
Maybe he's happy that so many people email him a day?
Although I know that the majority of the funds that are charity raised go to other things then research, I would love to know how may millions the head person at the national "charity" makes. If a provincial executive can make over 200,000 imagine how much the nationa director gets! Yet they still try to tell us its not an industry.
I believe the minute you get a wage paid by anyone, you shouldn't get gov't funding. Afterall the NGO PSFC in Canada gets $282,000.00 from the federal gov't last year, and back in 1994 they were caught by an MP, who is no longer in politics.(1)
http://www.johnbrydenmp.com/
repo...rts1994.html#16
Now this organization is assisting, and part of the recommendation committees. Meanwhile back in 1994 they were 4 people who got together, so that (probably) one person got paid to get their opinion to the gov't. Now that sounds like a charity doesn't it? Almost $70,000 worth in tax exemptions (donations 1994). BTW in 1997 canada had a Canada's $120-billion non-profit and charity sector. In tobacco control they pass the money around like candy. I have lost track of how many organization's the Canadian Cancer ($1,349,450.00 in Health Canada funding)is a member and donator of. Yet its not about the money...... Why do they need gov't funding if such a grass roots organization?
Bill,you represent no-one other than your own interests.Is it a case that now you have stopped smoking,you hate the smell so much because you will never lose the urge to light up ?As to decrying Dr Siegel's rule as a watchdog,the alternative is to go along with the lies and deceit ? Thank you Bill for confirming where you are coming from.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
