And yet, still arguing that Tobacco alone should be denied the chance to contribute to truthful research. Not one word about Anti Tobacco funding for the "studies" which have been Proven to be false, misleading, tortured data to get results so far from the truth as to be fiction. And still not one mention of curtailing the funding from Big Pharma, whose lists of misdeeds and criminal acts was shared on the previous thread, not one mention of other industries using fraudulent science to back up fraudulent attacks against smaller groups of our population.
"And I think those who truly support integrity, honesty, and the highest standards of research as well as public governance need to call out Bustamante on this issue.".
I'm calling you out here doc, your personal dislike for the tobacco industry is seeping through your good judgement. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter who funds the studies, as long as truthful, reproducable, scientific methods are follwed, as for what use the results are put too, see the ATI posts you yourself have written about the fallacious claims.
kettle calling a pot black here doc.
How much of American society is peppered with this sort of hypocracy and how many are in trusted influential positions within Government.How amusing that the USA spouts it is the world's biggest democracy,but allows Taliban style governance when it suits.Cleaning ones own house has never had such a pressing priority.Racketeering is alive and thriving and doesn't just reside in the ivory towers of big tobacco.There's a smell drifting across the pond,a smell of corruption ,and boy,it smells bad.
From what I have seen being spewed by UCal in the past, I would not place it at the centre of the universe as far as scientific research is concerned. If there is a wacky study doing the rounds, you can bet your bottom drachma that it will have come from there.
All studies appear to be biased in one way or another. Who cares who finances them? Clever people here, and elsewhere, just analyse them and we find the truth of what they are saying in the end.
When you get down to brass tacks though, this is purely censorship. Bustamante has his blood money and now fears for everyone else's souls? This is an exercise in shutting down the other team.
We ought to be very worried about that.
According to research from UCSF, Bustamante accepted more than $60,000 in Big Tobacco funding during the 1995-1996 legislative session alone
One of the authors of this research from UCSF is - no surprise - Stanton A. Glantz.
Yet, Glantz writes in his letter to Bustamante in support of the ban of tobacco money for universities:
I am writing to support your effort to bring the issue of continuing to accept tobacco industry funding of research at the University of California before the Regents and to support a policy in which the Regents adopt a policy declining all money from the tobacco industry. - http://www.ucsf.edu/senate/townh...te-
Complete.pdf
GREAT! As long a it goes into their own pockets, money doesn't smell tobacco smoke. But any occasion to bash tobacco is ok.
First, I'd like to point out a technicality. That Salon piece was not written by Salon staff. It is a transcript of a speech written by then gubernatorial candidate Arianna Huffington who is taking her whacks at one of her opponents. I think it needs to be read in that context. Strictly to be fair (I'm not taking Bustamante's side nor her's), the charge "Big Tobacco has gotten its money's worth" was made as part as a candidate's campaign slur.
The hypocrisy at hand is indeed of high note. More stunning is that he apparently didn't even consider it being problematic in the public's eye (regardless of what he thinks of it himself) and choose to play it safe by keeping his mouth shut and his two cents out of it.
HOWEVER, considering exactly the point of the matter, -- that credibility involves consistency -- I personally have no condemnation for Bustamante in accepting a legal company's campaign contributions. And that point shouldn't be missed among the separate issue of his act of hypocrisy.
I'm back to arguing that it's not the taking of the money that is the issue but what each individual can articulate and prove was the effect it had (influential or non-influential) on their behavior. It boils down to an individual's ethics and integrity, not where the money came from. In that case he is entitled to the same chance as Enstrom and Kabat to openly explain/provide evidence for all to consider before passing judgement. So far, Enstrom and Kabat have gone above and beyond in providing the evidence that any unbiased person would find exonerates them. I, for one, would afford Bustamante the same respect -- for him to state his case and let the evidence speak for itself. For THIS individual, it might turn out differently. But it IS a case by case basis.
JTF, of course, you are right. It's not where the money comes from but what it is used for. What's wrong with Bustamante's initiative is that he bashes and blackens the tobacco industry in the case of the UC, critizising the SOURCE of the money, not HOW it is being used.
While the source of the money CAN be a source of bias, it doesn't have to be. E.g. Bill Godshall claims to receive no money for his actions, but he is so convinced that he MUST be right, that his views narrow to whatever suits his believes.
While money doesn't have to lead to corruption, there is nonetheless an increased risk, especially if that money is earmarked with a clear purpose. And of course, accepting money can always be used for fingerpointing by the opposition in politics and science.
My interpretation of one of Dr. Siegel's statement about scientific studies: it's not the source of the money, but its how it is being used. Science should reinforce safeguards in that respect. These safeguards could include peer-reviews (not only by "friends"), debates, scientific competition, open discussions.
In one of his responses to my question how we could reestablish a fair balance in the publication of facts, Dr. Siegel seems to resign by saying that as long as the ATI holds back the truth and as long as no other advocates stand up and speak out, he sees no solution.
Without wanting to belittle Dr. Siegel's much appreciated efforts to put up some lights in the tunnel, this is clearly unacceptable, there is still no light at the end of the tunnel.
As you might be able to tell, this whole situation riles me up to no end which is why I'm writing as much as I am about it. It's twofold in its offense to my senses.
The first is the unbending prejudice against a legal company (that I too have personal problems with) where all usual rationality and application of a standardized principle is suspended. It's where "religious faith" replaces it. "Big Tobacco is bad" and that's that. If they're within ten feet of the tub then the baby MUST go out with the bathwater --then the tub. No consideration to inspect the baby for "contamination" first, let alone the water. It's faith-based that both are bad because the devil -- as solely defined by the anti-smoking bible -- has looked upon it. Believers in the bible just don't question any of it and cannot believe otherwise.
But more than anything I'm utterly incensed over the treatment of "the baby." The persecution of two people -- I don't care who they are or what the issue is -- over unfounded incriminations is an injustice of the highest degree. In this case, that's Enstrom and Kabat, and I'm compelled to stay on this case to do what I can to keep the light shining brightly on it until it's rectified. As the real bible says, "Do unto others..."
With that, I bring you the two latest articles about the Bustamante/Regents story (which is nothing but a veiled attack on these two men):
UC regents discuss tobacco company grants
Associated Press - Sept. 20, 2006
My impression of this one is that it indicates we're at least not facing a kangaroo court. Then there's:
Tobacco funds face UC scrutiny
Regents debate industry's role as research sponsors
Sacramento Bee - Sept. 20, 2006
Here (even though I'm not comfortable with the sentiment) we have Thomas Jue, a biochemistry professor at the UC Davis medical school, who says the research funding he gets from Philip Morris is the cigarette maker's "penance":
"I can do more good by getting the money than refusing the money," said Jue, who is developing new ways to
measure oxygen levels in blood. "They have not interfered with my research. They have not dictated anything at all."
Considering the funding does this research not work for you either, Dr. Siegel?
You did say, "I strongly support the proposal for the University of California to refuse tobacco industry funding of research in order to protect the academic integrity of the institution,..."
I hope you don't mean it is just tobacco funds for epidemiologic research that produces the "wrong" results that you're opposed to.
Well put, benpal.
A professor of law at the University of Geneva was mandated recently by Japan Tobacco International to study the compliance of a (pending) ban for smoking on private premises (restaurants) with the Swiss constitution. He came to a negative conclusion, basically by saying that as long as there are other means to prevent (potential) health hazards to the public, such as ventilation, freedom of choice of a restaurant, the state has no right to infringe the constitutional rights of individuals and enterprises.
Uproar! Even the director of the university trumpeted that one of "his" professors was payed by tobacco. The fact is that the professor had done the study under his own business as law counselor. He stated the source of funding openly and was legally entitled to conduct the study.
A few months earlier, the same kind of study was conducted by a professor of law at the Univerity of Zurich. He came to the conclusion that a ban is perfectly constitutional. He was payed by a militant Swiss anti-tobacco organization (probably with state subsidies).
Nobody complained, the media swallowed this study without any questions.
Who is to believe? Does money corrupt? If it does, it corrupts whoever wants the money, no matter who's side they are on. Pecunia non olet (Money doesn't stink).
I sent a letter, as advised on Stanton A. Glantz's listserv, to Bustamante, cc all the others regarding the allegations of tobacco and industry fundings, including Glantz's RWJF funding.
Surprisingly, Stanton A. Glantz replied and provided an excellent answer which mkeans that Dr. Siegel can close the discussion on this subject. Let's go on to more important things.
People learn and their positions change. Bustamante has also taken several actions to support tobacco control. Bill Lockyear, our Attorney General, has an outstanding record on tobacco control now. 15 years ago he was horrible.
'Horrible' means he was on the wrong side of the fence?
New "study" shows second hand smoke can cause miscarriages. How can such a statistically insignificant study make the news?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060...HBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-
Julie wrote: "New "study" shows second hand smoke can cause miscarriages. How can such a statistically insignificant study make the news?"
I'd bet that the "study" was funded by a pharmaceutical company or anti-smoking organization.
What I found interesting was: "Given the high prevalence of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and the fact that spontaneous abortion is the most common adverse outcome of pregnancy,
I'm sorry, "high prevalence of exposure"? Currently? Where? Who are they kidding? Smoking rates have dropped drastically over the past 20 years, as has the number of places a person is exposed to SHS. So if miscarriages are suddenly up, then I have to wonder why.
Combined with the fact that spontaneous abortion IS a common problem (but then again that is exactly what our cycles each month are), the only reason to connect the two is to push their own anti-smoking agenda. This just falls in line with the "for the children" mantra. Miscarriage is a very personal and emotional thing for every woman, so they of course are using it as a weapon along with the children.
This is slightly off topic, but I have to ask: WHAT is so special about this number of 400,000?
I saw an article/report last week claiming that obesity kills 400,000 people per year; and just this morning CNN is doing a piece on medical errors in hospitals and they claim that 400,000 people per year are victim of medical errors per year.
What the hell is it with that number that everyone seems to love it?
Lynda, I must have told you this 400,000 times now.....they are pathological liars.
Sheesh!
Doc, i think i understand your position Tobacco funds should not be used for research, even if the research is honest, the association with Tob funds draws it into question, but you need to put yourself in enstrom/kabat's shoes.
After years of studying the CPS-1 data for SHS and disease, all with the blessings of the CA tobacco control board, when the results become known, E/K funding is suspended in hopes that this suspension will prevent publication.
i really sympathize with E/K when this happened. First, it becomes obvious the Tobacco control board is just as sleezy as big tobacco, and second, after all that work, which E/K beleive is good work, they find themselves thinking the same thoughts you think, that dishonesty has pervaded the antitobacco movement. If the tobacco cntrol board were honest, they would not have suspended the E/k funding even after becomming aware the results are null.
Next, big tobacco comes forth offering to fund the publication phase with no strings attached, while from their point of view, they have learned tobacco conrtol board funding is only available WITH strings attached.
So from their prespective, who becomes more dishonest?
i think the question 'should all tobacco funding be rejected?" can only be fuly addressed in terms of how the funds are to be used. If Big tobacco does not stipulate that the funds can only be used for studies which bolster thier claim SHS is not dangerous, then I think funds are funds, and the use of tobacco funds is OK.
Most bothersome is that no arguments can be made against tobacco funding, usig the E/k example without addressing if E/k were dishonest. In all your posts, i have yet to read where you answer the most important question " was the E/k research tainted by the source of funding?"
If you agree, if in the case of this UCLA study, that the results were valid, and forthright, then, in this case, the use of tobacco funds was OK,
maybe there are past examples of tobacco funds used for tainted research, but untill we can answer the question was the research tainted in this example, we have no way of knowing if the current use of tobacco funds are still going to aways lead to tainted research. and Bustomente and ourselves, cannot address if the E/K research proves tobacco funds are still tainted, or if it is Ok to use them so long as no strings are attached.
I've been reading your posts for months; many of us beleive the E/K UCLA, 35,000 californians study is more valid that many SHS studies, because it is large, and it is a cohort study which epidemiology texts teach are less prone to bias than case-conrtol studies, myself included.
What's your opinion, is the E/K study a good study? does it make a valuable contribution to the state of knowlege on SHS?
If you beleive it is a valuable valid piece of research, then I think the use of tobacco funds was justified because without them, the results of this study would be unknown.
Dave K
Whether Bustamonte is successful in strongarming UC to refuse tobacco industry finding for any research almost is beside the point. The message is clear: any researcher, regardless the source of his funding, who produces a study which does not support the goals of Tobacco Control will be villified.
Jerry,
I understand your point about the integrity of the research being the main concern, and your suggestion that if the research is not influenced by the funding, then its integrity is not compromised. I also agree with you that Big Pharma has misused science in much the same way as Big Tobacco, at least in some circumstances.
However, I still do think that there are situations in which it would be inappropriate for the University to accept funding, even if the funding will not have any effect on the research.
For example, I wouldn't support the acceptance of money from the Nazi Party. I think that would be completely inappropriate, even if the money was given in an unrestricted grant and the Party had no control over its use and the conduct of the research.
I wouldn't support the acceptance of money from the drug cartel, even if the cartel would have no influence over the conduct and reporting of the research.
I wouldn't support the acceptance of money from gun manufacturers, even if they guaranteed that they would in no way influence the conduct and reporting of the research (and even if the research had nothing to do with guns).
I wouldn't support the acceptance of money from the NRA.
I wouldn't support the acceptance of money from a terrorist group, regardless of whether that group has anything to do with overseeing and controlling the research.
My point is simply that by accepting money from a group, you are associating the good name of your university and GIVING that group something of value. If the group supports values and principles that are completely contradictory to your own, then you are doing a tremendous disservice to the university's mission.
Obviously, there is room for a variety of viewpoints on whether Big Tobacco's mission is completely contradictory to that of the University's, but I would submit that the question of where one draws the line, rather than whether or not a line needs to be, and should be drawn.
Dave K-
I agree that Enstrom and Kabat were treated very unfairly, and that the anti-smoking movement made an attempt to discredit them as individuals, rather than to simply address the research itself. This is unacceptable.
In terms of the research itself, I have mentioned before that I think the control group was not a truly unexposed control group, because at the time of the baseline assessment of ETS exposure, there were practially no nonsmokers who were not exposed to secondhand smoke. The group treated as being unexposed was most likely exposed considerably to secondhand smoke. This creates what we call a differential misclassification of exposure and it biases the results towards failing to find an effect. In my opinion, this is why the study failed to find an effect consistent with the effects observed in many other studies.
Nevertheless, I don't suggest here that the authors were influenced by the funding. It was probably the other way around. The authors were able to obtain the funding from the tobacco industry because the companies were aware that this data set underestimated ETS exposure among the control group and would probably produce favorable results to the industry.
Benpal-
I understand (and noted in the post) that it is possible for people to change, and that perhaps Bustamante had an epiphany and realized the errors of his past ways (although it must have been a very recent and quick epiphany since his escapades with the insurance industry were reported as recently as March of this year).
But to regain credibility, he needs to admit his wrongdoing and apologize to the people.
Short of that, I still view his actions as hypocrtical and don't think he has any credibility from which to tell other people whether to accept Big Tobacco money or not.
This reminds me of another great hypocrisy with respect to tobacco industry funding - the American Legacy Foundation's policy that no school it funds can accept money from tobacco companies, even if the researcher being funded by Legacy is completely different from the researcher who receives or will receive tobacco funds.
Legacy is, after all, COMPLETELY funded by the tobacco companies. And in fact, Legacy has tried to get the tobacco companies to fund the "truth" campaign, even though the prescribed funding has run out.
So again, tobacco money is fine as long as it is Legacy getting the money. But if anyone else gets the money, it is despicable.
"In light of the rest of this story, Bustamante calling on the UC Regents to reject tobacco company funding of research wreaks of hypocrisy."
REEKS, not WREAKS.
carry on.
Dr. Seigel If the e/k study isn't a nonsmoking group, who is? From what I can understand it used the same type of questionaires as other studies, for possible confounders.
They keep saying that there was the ability to exposure control in all the other studies (ever since 1980's). How can that be they can control for smoking as far back as 1950's (in some cases), and you are now saying that this group aren't SHS free? Isn't this timeline the basis for the science of tobacco control studies?
Does this also mean that the other studies that relied on this same data are null as well then, since the data was started by the ACS?? Does this mean that all those studies (back then) don't have good case control of who is exposed to smokers too?
Doc.........
If there were problems/questions/whatever about the control group, why was that not dealt with years pruior to the study getting to the publication phase?
I'm not buying it.
Not when the funding was continued for years and years. The pulling the funding rug out from under E/K at the last minute is just further proof that ALL SHS studies done by the anti-smoker cartel are tainted, insofar as they are being intellectually and scientifically dishonest in refusing to accept ANYTHING that even hints they may be wrong in their continued assault on smokers and private property.
The recent escalation in the number of out right lies coming from your side is another example of how badly the anti-smoker cartel has screwed up with their totally unethical (and possibly criminal) behavior.
What exactly is it that your side is hiding with all the assinine smokescreens being thrown to the wind? It's very suspicious, indeed.
Mike and others who criticize Bustamante of hypocrisy because he accepted tobacco industry money a decade ago appear to oppose forgiveness for those who make amens for past misdeeds.
That attitude is inconsistent with fundamental tenets of all major religions as well as secular humanism.
It is also particularly ironic that Mike states his support for Bustamante's proposal (to eliminate tobacco funding of research at UC universities), but then Mike devotes two blog postings to attack Bustamante and defend cigarette industry funded research at UCLA.
Bill, where did you see Dr Siegel "defend cigarette industry funded research at UCLA"?, idid you even bother to read the posts or the following comments on them? I have been very close to attacking the good Dr's posts due the the fact that while he vehemently supports curtailing funding from Big Tobacco, regardless of how the oney is used, whether or not there is any influence in the results from said funding, he has not made ONE SINGLE Statement against using Anti Tobacco funding, even when known that the results will be used as propaga to further demonize we the people who are being attacked by these trends.
In what fantasy world do you read these posts as defending tobacco funded research?
Really, you have lost all grip on reality haven't you?
Michael Siegel wrote:
However, I still do think that there are situations in which it would be inappropriate for the University to accept funding..."
"For example, I wouldn't support the acceptance of money from the Nazi Party."
That's exactly what the Nazi Party would enact for other political parties if they were in power.
"I wouldn't support the acceptance of money from the drug cartel..."
An illegal enterprise. You're straying.
"I wouldn't support the acceptance of money from gun manufacturers...even if the research had nothing to do with guns)."
Simply stunning.
"I wouldn't support the acceptance of money from the NRA."
Because their view differs from yours on the 2nd Amendment?
"I wouldn't support the acceptance of money from a terrorist group"
Another not legal enterprise. Btw, some people consider Israel a terrorist nation. Would Israel and supporters of Israel be on your banned list too? Israel's been caught spying on us several times. You can't get any sneakier than that. Imagine what they'd do funding a study.
"My point is simply that by accepting money from a group, you are associating the good name of your university and GIVING that group something of value. If the group supports values and principles that are completely contradictory to your own, then you are doing a tremendous disservice to the university's mission."
I'll bet $100 you're not a vegetarian or a member of PETA. Because if you were I'm positive that (unless you just forgot to) you would've included the meat industry on that list.
Dr. Siegel, I agree the question is not whether or not a line should be drawn, but I highly question where you are drawing it.
Just one simple statement that supports restricting the funding of Big Pharma, known for it's illegal activities as well as Big Tobacco, one statement supporting restrictions on political, or "Public Health", activist funding, for we have seen the results of their use of these studies, and proven them to be either totally incompetent (Your fallacious claims), or downright liers (Most of our personal belief concerning those in "public Health" who are trying to decide how we can live our own lives), so my point is, your line is not where it should be drawn, for the universities to distance themselves from the association with political activists who are right now demonizing and supporting discrimination of a quarter of the population, for using a legal product, which while it may have an increased risk factor has yet to be PROVEN to CAUSE any of these diseases, they must also refuse to allow funding from those who have broken the laws regarding public welfare (Big Pharma), and those whose agenda is to discriminate against a legal section of the population, all else is hypocrisy at it's finest.
Jerry
I think the most benefit to science would be to welcome research money from any and all sources, as long as those funding sources are advertised front and center on any output. Eventually they may trip across some useful info.
It is somewhat adolescent to automatically assume that any and all tobacco or pharma money is tainted. All that ASH and their ilk do when confronted with science that runs counter to their dogma is to find some tenuous trail back to Philip Morris or RJR. They then play this as some sort of magic trump card that absolves them of any further scientific discussion. Sorry folks, you have to do better than that.
I have seen significant amount of research reported in the media lately finding a direct correlation between light beer consumption and attractiveness to young nubile females. The fact that a company named “Coors” funds this research does not, in my mind anyways, infer that the science is tainted. Personally I have noticed no such correlation, but I am continuing to conduct my own experiments nonetheless.
l. duguay asked: "Does this also mean that the other studies that relied on this same data are null as well then, since the data was started by the ACS?? Does this mean that all those studies (back then) don't have good case control of who is exposed to smokers too?"
My answer to this excellent question is that studies based on the CPS are not reliable to assess the effects of secondhand smoke because there really is not a valid control group. The study was not designed to examine the effects of secondhand smoke. There is nothing really wrong with the study. It's just that its use was not intended to be for an examination of secondhand smoke effects because it did not strive to obtain a control group with nonexposure to secondhand smoke.
However, studies of the effects of active smoking using the CPS are free of this bias, because there were people who were clearly smokers or nonsmokers back in the 1950s and 60s.
Finally, I wouldn't characterize the studies that did use CPS as null and void. They are just subject to a significant misclassification bias, and need to be interpreted as such. But I wouldn't consider them to be null and void, as if we can pretend that they don't exist.
Bill argues that I am somehow inhuman or incosnsistent with religious practice by criticizing Bustamante for what he describes as happening over a decade ago:
"Mike and others who criticize Bustamante of hypocrisy because he accepted tobacco industry money a decade ago appear to oppose forgiveness for those who make amens for past misdeeds."
Bill clearly doesn't know me too well, because I happen to be a very forgiving person. However, I disagree with Bill's contention that Bustamante's criticism stems from behavior of over a decade ago. In fact, his acceptance of insurance compnany money in his campaign in which he wanted to reach a position where his role would be to regulate the insurance industry was reported in the San Francisco Chronicle just last March. So I would say that the hypocrisy stems from an action that occurred only 6 months ago.
Even so, I am still willing to 'grant forgiveness.' However, I think for that to happen, a person needs to admit the error of their ways, admit their wrongdoing, and apologize to the public. Unless I'm missing something (which is always possible), I'm not aware of any such thing.
In fact, if he really wanted to be taken seriously, I think that admission and apology should have come in the letter to the Regents itself. Without it, I don't find the letter particularly credible, and find it highly hypocritical.
Michael Siegel, I do not like your reasoning on the issue of denying tobacco companies use of university research. Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that a tobacco company is dragged to court with claims that second hand smoke from its products caused somebodys emphysemia. Wouldn't it be fair for the tobacco company to comission a study of its own from a university, to place as evidence in the court? I don't think its fair to disallow a defendant the opportunity to comission a study at a university for its defence.
By the way, would you be willing to defend the tobacco company in such a case?
Oh dear,when Bill strays into the religious doctrines ,it can only mean one thing,he is running out of arguements in order to condemn Dr Siegel.Please,i can't cope with the bible bashing element.Going back to the funding issue and somewhat of a dogma concerning tobacco money,i see no difference whatsoever in the Pharma industry BUYING SMOKING BANS IN ORDER TO MANUFACTURE A READY MADE MARKET FOR ITS OWN NICOTINE REPLACEMENT PRODUCTS.Dr Siegel how can you argue that the Pharma industry is cleaner than the tobacco one ?Without their billions of funding we may still be arguing about the real issues of smoking and what science makes of it,instead numerous farcical reports have been concocted to produce the ammo for the antis to run riot,which now keeps you happily blogging away.Why not have one big pot which ALL contributions go into and then are dispersed when required,so no one industry can be tied to any one research project.Money laundered,research gets done.If the anti faction ,as Bill as already proved,don't want a cure for lung cancer to be sought,and tobacco money just won't do are you suggesting Dr Siegel that the research should not occur.Is this the view of Public Health that you want to project ? If this is the American way of getting things done ,then no wonder Hurricane Katrina did so much damage.Hang on folks we have a dilema here,who is going to fund this and that,errrr i think..........shit too late.
Dr.
Given the fact that AQ testing proves secondhand smoke is NOT hazardous, (any substance that does not exceed OSHA permissible exposure limits (pel) is not considered hazardous (in any other workplace)) yet U of California studies show quite the contrary.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....st-
results.html
Doesn't that indicate that funding by the industry which competes with big tobacco ....pharmaceutical nicotine (RWJF)...is having an unfair (biased) effect on those "research" studies?
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....at-
started.html
Dr. Siegel: I wouldn't support the acceptance of money from gun manufacturers, even if they guaranteed that they would in no way influence the conduct and reporting of the research (and even if the research had nothing to do with guns.
Gun manufacturers arm our country's police officers and military personnel TOO.
Dr Siegel states:
For example, I wouldn't support the acceptance of money from the Nazi Party.
I wouldn't support the acceptance of money from the drug cartel
I wouldn't support the acceptance of money from gun manufacturers
I wouldn't support the acceptance of money from the NRA
I wouldn't support the acceptance of money from a terrorist group
dr. siegel, while i'm not a great fan of big tobacco, do you honestly associate the above groups with big tobacco? the simple association with nazi and drug cartel and terrorists clearly shows your biased opinion. i'm just stunned you would make these comparisons.
brandz,
I'm not making any comparisons between the tobacco industry and those others. The sole point of listing those others was simply to make the argument that this debate is not about WHETHER a university should accept money from a funder under all circumstances, but WHERE the line should be drawn. And I'm pointing out that I would certainly draw the line at the Nazi party or the Ku Klux Klan or drug cartel. Somebody pointed out that the drug cartel is not a fair example because it is illegal. Well so is racketeering, conspiracy, and fraud, which the tobacco companies were found guilty of. They were engaged in an illegal enterprise that violated the laws of this country. So I don't think it's completely unreasonable to argue that one should draw the line at illegal conspiracy, racketeering, and fraud.
"....conspiracy, racketeering, and fraud....."
Mark my words.....the next trials will be against pharmaceutical nicotine interests (RWJF / J & J) and the fraud of SHS being reported as hazardous to implement smoking bans. Even though ACS and SLP found quite the contrary:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....st-
results.html
http://
cleanairquality.blogspot....secondhand.html
Then Dr. will you list pharmaceutical nicotine (RWJF) funding to Universities as off limits as well?
They were engaged in an illegal enterprise that violated the laws of this country
isn't that exactly what the anti-smoker cartel does and retains its tax free status? they lobby government officials with tax-free contributions and get away with it. isn't that against the law?
Michael Siegel wrote:
"Somebody pointed out that the drug cartel is not a fair example because it is illegal. Well so is racketeering, conspiracy, and fraud, which the tobacco companies were found guilty of."
Selling cigarettes is a legal enterprise. Selling drugs is not.
Companies break laws all the time. Look at restaurants. They're continually hit with violations; food not hot enough, food not cold enough, etc. That doesn't make selling food an illegal enterprise.
"They were engaged in an illegal enterprise that violated the laws of this country. So I don't think it's completely unreasonable to argue that one should draw the line at illegal conspiracy, racketeering, and fraud."
For how long? If they keep their noses clean for 5 years will you forgive them? 10 years? 1,000?
What about a brand new tobacco company which begins operations tomorrow and is owned and run by nuns? Can the universities take their money?
You call that corruption? What an amateur. Come to NJ and I'll show you what real corruption looks like.
I'm cynical enough to suggest that Bustamante's sudden "conversion" was at Glantz's "suggestion," for which you can read "blackmail."
Remember, Mr Glantz did a "study" in the '90s (with NCI money) whose sole purpose was to tarnish every pol in the entire history of California who'd ever taken a dime of Filthy Tobacco Lucre and to then imply they were "bought." At times this hypothesis could twist him into a pretzel. A guy who'd voted for bans or exorbitant new taxes (quickly siphoned by Glantz's group) was still to be labeled"pure" even in the face of really huge contriubutions, but a guy who'd voted No had obviously sold his soul for a beer and a ham sandwich. So Glantz is an old hand at playing his own tag game of Guilt by Contribution. And Bustamante sounds vulnerable to exactly that kind of game. And November's coming around.
New subj:
IIRC, the CPS studies knew which of the subjects had smoking spouses. And 95% of all ETS studies used the same sole crinterion. Further, any study using anybody alive as of 1959, would have to also be invalid if E&K is-- and if (as is now contended) everybody alive was exposed to ETS, whether they knew it or not. This would also invalidate studies done in the 80s using anyone over 40, or studies done in the 90s using anyone over 50, The argument doesn't wash. Or if does, then it's ALL a wash, and no study is valid,
Then too if you read the caveats-- either within the studies or as noted in the official summarizing reports ((EPA, CalEPA, etc, etc) almost all present a great list of cautionary buts-- many having to do with Misclassification or lack of tested confounders, or, or, or...
The ultimate point being that all the studies are crap; that it's folly to try to "control" for every uneaten orange and every wisp of imagined smoke and every possibly bent chromosome and every everything else, and when results, in either direction, cling so laughably close to 1, then the answer's probably 1.
Dr Siegel ,do you believe that the Pharma industry is acting with dubious intent or not by funding billions of dollars to those groups whose sole intent is to create smokefree legislation? YES OR NO ?
And what about car manufacturer? According to AG Lockyer, who has also received considerable industry funds?
[i]California’s attorney general has sued carmakers DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, Ford and subsidiaries of Honda, Nissan and Toyota for [b]global warming impacts[/b] on the state. Interesting that the state isn’t trying to hold individual car owners – the ones who actually drive and produce the emissions at issue – liable for the alleged damage.
This suit seems rather reminiscent of the lawsuits first filed by U.S. cities against [b]gun manufacturers[/b] in the late 1990s. http://www.ceiopenmarket.org/
ope...er_suvs_do.html[/i]
Should universities accept funding from car manufacturers for studies on improving engine efficiency?
While I respect Dr. Siegel's refusal to accept money from the tobacco industry and while I understand his reasoning, he is only expressing his personal opinion. Other people - other opinions. Let's keep it that way.
What Lockyer's example shows is how widespread bigotry is in politics. And there seems to be no shame.
Earlier, I had written "...Enstrom and Kabat have gone above and beyond in providing the evidence that any unbiased person would find exonerates them."
Later, Dr. Siegel was kind enough to be open with his opinion on their study and write (snipping to save space) "In terms of the research itself, I have mentioned before that I think the control group was not a truly unexposed control group,... This creates what we call a differential misclassification of exposure... In my opinion, this is why the study failed to find an effect consistent with the effects observed in many other studies."
I didn't expand on my earlier comment because it's common knowledge among most of us what the "above and beyond" entailed. But considering your insistence on repeating the party-line criticism, Dr. Siegel, I feel the need to go into the details and then to ask you to please explain your opinion again.
The entire prepublication history of their paper is online at http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/...6/7398/1057/
DC1. It was an inquisition of the sort that I don't know any other researcher has had to go through! But they did it and they did it openly. And when they were through it satisfied the reviewers' concerns about exposure misclassification. This is why they now have a peer-reviewed paper in a major medical journal like the BMJ.
And not just any assortment of reviewers but one that included Kenneth J Rothman of Boston University/Harvard, one of the world's leading epidemiologists. His bio includes this: "Dr. Rothman has more than 30 years professional experience in Epidemiologic research. Dr. Rothman authored two widely used textbook of epidemiologic methods, Modern Epidemiology and Epidemiology: an Introduction, and is the founding editor of Epidemiology, a leading public health journal."
Doesn't sound like he'd be one to let any questionable epidemiologic work get by him. It's hard not to presume he takes it very seriously.
But wait! They didn't explain once, but twice! They shouldn't have had to do that, but they did. They addressed the unrelenting critics again (harder than usual peer review and publication not good enough) about misclassification in their August 30, 2003 BMJ letter
Dr. Siegel, with the utmost respect for you (sincerely), you practice "tobacco control." That's what it says in your "About Me." Rothman has 30 years in epidemiology and Enstrom and Kabat have a combined 60 years of publishing peer-reviewed EPIDEMIOLOGIC (not tobacco control) research.
Based on the wringer they had to go through, coupled with all that experience, how can you ignore all of this and continue to assert there were these flaws?
To recap EPIDEMIOLOGY is an indicator of co-relation and risk,it is not a true science.If Sir Richard Doll was unconcerned about smoke engulfing him,stating the risk to his health was so small then everything ,EVERYTHING,that relies on this,i cannot think of anything that the antis state that does not arise from epidemiology ,is grossly overstated as a means to an end.FRAUD IN MY BOOK LEADING TO RACKETEERING BY PUBLIC HEALTH.
JTF, thanks for your links. I just went over the author's comments and Rapid Responses again. It is indeed to what level E/K jhad to defend their study, mostly against unsubstantiated attacks from scientists.
My question: have any of the other studies on ETS gone through as much scrutiny before publication? Where can we see the discussions and the answers of the authors? Helena, Pueblo, just to mention some ...
Dr. Siegel,
I propose, at least on this blog, we stop calling the tobacco industry "Big Tobacco." It is a term, similiar to a racial epithet, designed to incite prejudiced rather than objective thinking. I would say the same for "Big Pharma."
JustTheFacts asked: "Based on the wringer they had to go through, coupled with all that experience, how can you ignore all of this and continue to assert there were these flaws?"
I can only offer my own opinion, and the fact that others may disagree doesn't change my opinion. However, it does cause me to carefully re-assess my opinion. But I stick with it because I really think that the control group was not truly an ETS-unexposed group. That doesn't invalidate the study; it simply creates a bias that needs to be considered in interpreting the results. All of the studies on ETS have certain biases. This is not unique to the Enstrom/Kabat study. I think that the literature needs to be interpreted in its entirety and that the biases of all the studies, not just one, needs to be considered. I am not arguing with the decision of the journal to publish the paper - I think it is important to publish papers even if there are biases, because otherwise we would never have any studies to work from. But once published, I think it's fair game to assess the validity of the studies, even if they have passed peer-review.
si asked whether I think "the Pharma industry is acting with dubious intent or not by funding billions of dollars to those groups whose sole intent is to create smokefree legislation?"
I guess I don't really see what the dubious intent is that Johnson & Johnson might have in funding research on substance abuse, including alcohol and tobacco. Maybe it would help if you explain specifically what you find dubious about their funding of this research.
JTF, you beat me to it. I was going to post the same link that you did.
And well done for pointing out Dr Siegel's obvious problem with scientific objectivity. I'm sorry to say this, but despite the fine sentiments expressed in this blog, Michael Siegel is still very much an unreformed anti who remains wedded to his quasi-religious beliefs, whilst lacking the level of open-mindedness that is a required characteristic of a true scientist.
I justify my assertion simply by pointing out, as I have done before in another thread on this blog, that the problem of misclassification is not limited to the one-eyed view expressed by Dr Siegel. There is a very clear and present problem in asking the terminally ill what levels of smoke exposure they were subject to. This is even worse when the exposure recall is coming from a proxy (eg a bereaved relative), and this common type of misclassification will most definitely cause a bias away from the null hypothesis.
I'm sorry Dr Siegel, but it just won't wash. Misclassification is a problem which is endemic throughout all epidemiological research studies which are dependent on the accuracy or otherwise of man's ability to remember events and conditions from the distant past. To suggest that 'your' definition of misclassification (which , incidentally is 'non-differential', not 'differential' as you stated) serves to invalidate someone else's work, just because you don't want to agree with the results, whilst failing to even acknowledge the type of misclassification which has an equal and opposite effect on your favoured studies places you in the same league as many of those groups that you so regularly criticize in this blog. In my humble opinion that is.
So, if misclassification bias is a reason to reject the Enstrom & Kabat findings, then there is no basis on which we can accept any research studies which are liable to misclassification bias. And that means every one of the ETS studies ever carried out which is not based on direct measurement. Maybe then there will be a chance of a real level playing field.
In the meantime, Dr Siegel, you may wish to ponder the words of Professor Enstrom and Associate Professor Kabat in their 30 August 2003 letter to the BMJ.
"Finally, we too are in favour of the strongest possible protections for non-smokers. However, the attempt to suppress any divergent results because of their possible effect on public policy can only harm science in the long run. In a rational society, there are ample grounds for regulating involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke without manipulating scientific results. What is most dangerous is the willingness to distort the truth to defend one's position, claiming all along that science and righteousness are on one's side."
Frankly, Dr Siegel, reading this in conjunction with your overarching (and welcome) sentiment within this blog suggests that Enstrom/Kabat and yourself are on the same side. Maybe you should take a leaf from their book rather than the whole of Michael Thun's.
.
Benpal asked: "My question: have any of the other studies on ETS gone through as much scrutiny before publication? Where can we see the discussions and the answers of the authors? Helena, Pueblo, just to mention some ..."
Benpal- I only wish that the Helena study had gone through as much scrutiny. I think it is unfortunate that the study conclusions have been disseminated so widely and definitively, even though I think they are scientifically implausible.
I think that we in tobacco control need to critically evaluate ALL research - not just the research that finds conclusions opposite to our agenda, but also conclusions that support our agenda.
I think you're correct in pointing out an unequal degree of scientific critique in the tobacco control community of research that supports vs. opposes our agenda.
Right on...Walt and Linda....
Dr siegel, the pool of nonsmokers is highly contaminated, not only by past exposure to SHS almost everywhere but also by the fact (and i quote Harris, JNCI 1983, who presented smoking data by birth group 1890- 1950) that the pool of population available for SHS studies consists of 20% current smokers, 40% ex-smokers, and 40% never smokers.
Most studies on SHS only use current nonsmoker as the criteria for a control group. Many of those current nonsmokers, then are exsmokers. This imparts a seroius error into any SHS study, not just E/K. and if we can't draw any conclusions from E/K, then we can't draw any conclusions from any other studies either.
For example, Ever smoking status seems to impart a relative risk of lung cancer of 30% of those who continue to smoke. Since smokers have 10-17 fold more LC than true never smokers, taking the lower estimate of currrent smokers ( 10-fold) we have exsmoking status related to LC at 3-fold. So half the pool of classic nonsmokers used in SHS studies have a 3-fold excess risk from exsmoking status. So the whole pool of nonsmokers has an excess risk from exsmoking status of 1.5 for LC.
Now we examine the consensus claim SHS causes a .2 to .3 excess LC risk.
We are testing for this in the presence of a 1.5 fold excess risk from exsmoking status in USA studies. Can anyone really detect the presence of .2 to .3 excess risk from SHS in the presence of an across-the-board risk of 1.5????
It would take a huge study, perhaps with 35,000 subjects to have the statistical power to detect a .2-.3 added risk in the presence of a 1.5 risk from exsmoking. See where I'm going with this???
In reality, if the claim SHS elevates the risk of LC .3, is true, what the data we cannot "see" underlying all the studies would really consist of 1.5 added risk from exsmoking status, and an additional .2 or .3 risk from SHS exposure status. So the general pool of nonsmokers used in USA studies would ahve a 1.5 baseline risk, and those exposed to SHS a 1.8 total risk of LC. Can small studies be expected to relaibly detect this ? I really doubt it.
I have Cancer Epidemiology, Principles and Procedures. Johns hopkins press, 1967. It teaches, it is only possible to make conclusions about low risks like .2 .3 when no other cause of the disease exists. This is because the book regards it impossible to detect a low level risks in the presence of much greater risks for the same disease.
if say, SHS exposure elevated LC risk 6-fold, then it would be easy to produce relaible studies finding a 6-fold risk in the presence of a 1.5 risk from exsmoking status. Even exsmokers married to current smokers would have a lot more LC than exsmokers married to never smokers who could serve as controls. Small studies would produce substantial differences between controls and exposed groups which would be relaible within ,limits definitely above 1.0.
Number two.... Even in the case of E/K which was intiiated in 1959, nonsmokers exposed at home were exposed to more SHS than nonsmokkers who were only exposed in public. If it is possible for the other studies using the same population pool of nonsmoekrs except not from CPS-1 to find a risk in the presence of half of nonsmokers being of exsmoking status, then it should ahve been possible for E/K to find one too. Especially, since CPS-1 had records of who was an active smoker in 1959.
I realize many SHS studies do control for exsmoking status, but others do not. I'm looking at my copy of the 1992 EPA report. Chapter 5, section 4... "Study results On factors that may affect lung cancer risk": History of lung disease, family history of lung disease, heat sources for cooking, occupation, and dietary factors. The EPA report did not address exsmoking status as a counfounder. and this should be the biggest counfounder of all.
Incidently, upon finding that cities had about 30% more smokers, and reasoning therefore that nonsmoking spouses were therfore urban residents 30% more often, I prepared a model explaiing almost all the excess risk blamed on SHS as really being due to picking up the urban risk factor.
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/u....com/
urban.html
I realize E/K is not perfect. But for all the same reasons, none of the otehr studies are perfect either.
Most studies which do find a risk are case-control, and rely on biomarker data to establish recent exposure. But the presumption is that since the controls have lower biomarker levels, that the always had so, and this cannot be known with the certainity necessary to draw relaible conclusions. I think cohort studies, where the subjects report their exposure years before the appearance of disease are much more relaible
Dave K
UC Berzerkely:
Accepting "tobacco money" for research is appalling when every activist knows quite well that "tobacco Money" must make five points of transfer and distribution to hide the moneys origin before the now "politically correct" tobacco money can be used for approiate research by righteous institions like UC Berzerkely..and of course Gadfly researchers like Stan Glantz, The nerve !
To Continue....
recently, we had an infant abduction in our area which was reported all over the news. The mother's throat was slashed by the abductor, but fortunately she survived. Also, fortunately, the infant and the abductor were located, and the infant is OK. BUTTT before finding the abductor, the mother had worked with police to prepare a sketch of the abductor which was plastered all over the media. When the abductor was finally arrested, her real life profile looks nothing like the police sketch. The police sketch had wide eyes, heavy eye brows, and a female-type moustache. The real abductor had none of those features, infact, no facial hair, thin eyebrows, and "slitty" eyes.
So if someone steals your child, and slashes your throat, and you cant remember what that person looks, like, a day later, can a nonsmoker (who may be an exsmoker) and has LC really be expected to recall how much smoke exposure that pateint had decades ago???
Law enforcement researchers ahve studied recent human recall and found it highly unrelaible, but they are forced to use it as a tool in the absence of anything better. Knowing that, the law enforcement was able to catch the abductor because they knew the police sketch might be wrong. if law enforcement had considered the sketch reliable, they may still not ahve caught the abductor, becasue they would not be looking for a person with different features.
So apart from biomarker data, we have recall data, and neither are really suitable to define which subjects belong in which exposure groups.
All I'm really saying here is all studies are so counfounded that it is impossible to tell if SHS causes disease.
regarding funding, the same problems exist. Who is going to fund a SHS study without any interest??? What I've read in these comments is that really all funding sources should be suspended. I remember on the news once, judge Osteen attended a judicial conference and part of the cost was paid for by big tobacco. The media , of course, was trying to hint Judge Osteen was in the pocket of BT, and thus hinting that was the reason for his EPA ruling. As it turned out, Sponsors of judicial conferences all contribute to a blind pool which the fiduciary then spends on the judges travel and lodging, ect. This way, none of the judges integrity can be compromised becasue they do not know where the funds came from.
perhaps a system like this could be used to finance SHS studies in the future. As an example, we all know Dr. siegel would not have defunded E/K if the results were null, so they could have continued without accepting BT funds. Same, if perhaps, Frontham published another SHS study finding a 5- fold increase in LC from SHS. Us smokers rights people couldn't call "foul" either. Dr. Siegel could take a fiduciary oath, and provide funding for honest studies on all sides.
The bottom line, is we all spend lots of time posting comments and Dr Siegel lots of time doing research for blog stories many of which concern claims widely disputed between various parties because of all these monetary and scientific factors I just spoke of. The source of all this controversey is the very uncertainity I have just presented, with a mix of good old fashioned politics added in for kickers. Dave K
Dr. Siegel, commenting on the Enstrom/Kabat study, you wrote: "In terms of the research itself, I have mentioned before that I think the control group was not a truly unexposed control group, because at the time of the baseline assessment of ETS exposure, there were practically no nonsmokers who were not exposed to secondhand smoke. The group treated as being unexposed was most likely exposed considerably to secondhand smoke. This creates what we call a differential misclassification of exposure and it biases the results towards failing to find an effect. In my opinion, this is why the study failed to find an effect consistent with the effects observed in many other studies."
Now, I'm not one to evaluate that, but I think everyone should be reminded what Enstrom had to say on that score, in a BMJ Rapid Response dated 24 January 2006:
“ ... we have refuted Thun’s unsubstantiated claim that our BMJ study is “fatally flawed because of misclassification of exposure” (“Passive smoking: Tobacco industry publishes disinformation” http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/...327/7413/502-c)
. He implied that our findings were meaningless because virtually everyone in the US during the 1950s and 1960s was equally exposed to pervasive ETS. However, results from five independent surveys show that Americans were not all equally exposed to ETS. Indeed, there was a clear relationship between spousal smoking and self-reported ETS exposure among never smokers who lived a major portion of their life before the introduction of restrictions on public smoking in the 1970s. One of these surveys uses ACS data not cited by Thun. Also, additional surveys have found that exposure to ETS comes primarily from spousal smoking, not public smoking.
"When all relevant studies are included in the meta-analysis and the results of the individual studies are appropriately combined, current or ever exposure to ETS, as approximated by spousal smoking, is associated with roughly a 5% increased risk of death from CHD in never smokers, not the widely cited 25%. Furthermore, there is no dose-response relationship and no elevated risk associated with the highest level of ETS exposure in males or females.
"As an important indication that we are being taken seriously by our colleagues, we have been invited to give a Symposium entitled “Reassessment of the Long-term Mortality Risks of Active and Passive Smoking” at the 2006 Congress of Epidemiology (http://www.epicongress2006.org). At this Symposium we will present a strong case that the mortality risks of both active and passive smoking are being distorted by ideological and political forces that are dangerous to the scientific integrity of epidemiology. In addition, we will argue that the unethical tactics used by the ACS and others, including ad hominem attacks and condemnation of legitimate research based solely on the source of funding, have no place in scientific discourse."
Dr. Siegel, it's very difficult to believe that the criticism you set forth was not in their long study foreseen and taken into account, since both men are highly professional and expert in their field, and it’s just that sort of criticism that they’d be most wary of. Moreover, Enstrom and Kabat have stated that they approve of regulating involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke. So one cannot, I think, say – and I know you’re not trying to say it – that they have a bias on the side of finding little or no effect from ETS.
"can a nonsmoker (who may be an exsmoker) and has LC really be expected to recall how much smoke exposure that pateint had decades ago???"
No, they cannot. My father smoked his whole life both at home and at work. I remember him having most of the time an extinct butt between his lips. I'm absolutely unable to say how many packs a day he smoked. I don't remember having ever been annoyed by the smoke in the house. I don't know exactly when he started, except by proxy. I only remember his smoking from the years when I was a teenager. No recall for the years before, although I know by proxy and family photographs that he also smoked then.
I'm really questioning how - at the time when nobody talked about tobacco - somebody can recall anything quantifiable. It might be different today, because we are inundated with ads about tobacco - by the anti-tobacco propaganda.
"Furthermore, there is no dose-response relationship and no elevated risk associated with the highest level of ETS exposure in males or females."
Even if it was true that everybody was exposed to some ETS, there still is a huge different in exposure, both dose and duration, between an exposed spouse and somebody who might be exposed - to a much lower extent - in other social settings or even the workplace.
Or does anybody want to invalidate the following studies because cases and controls were equally exposed?
• Wu-Williams, et al., conducted in northeastern China. This large case-control study reports a statistically significant neqative risk associated with ETS exposure.
• ...there was no elevated lung cancer risk associated with passive smoke exposure in the workplace. Brownson 1992
• ...an odds ratio of 0.91...indicating no evidence of an adverse effect of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace - Janerich 1990
• ...the association with exposure to passive smoking at work was small and not statistically significant. - Kalandidi
• ...No association observed between the risk of lung cancer and smoking of husband or passive smoke exposure at work. - Shimuzu, 1988
• ...no statistically signficant increase in risk associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at work or during social activities. - Stockwell, 1992
* There was no association between exposure to ETS at the workplace and risk of lung cancer. - Zaridze, 1998
• Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk – WHO/IARC
Uhh benpal - first tell us who funded those studies.
Apologies for my last, which I posted before reading the above entries on Enstrom/Kabat. (I tried to post it in the wee hours, without success -- receiving one of those frustrating notices that makes you grind your teeth -- so I just posted it without looking.)
Let me add, however, that I think JTF got it exactly right when he wrote that Dr. Siegel practices TOBACCO CONTROL, with the implication that he's simply incapable of accepting any study that disputes the TC mantra. And I think that's the impression most of us have, doctor. And that that's part of the quarrel. With all due respect.
P.S. And I think, doctor, that Brian Bond got it right, too.
And the consensus that SHS increases LC in nonsmokers 30% makes SHS the weakest of all known lung carcinogens in nonsmokers.
So, this means the exposure of all control and exposed nonsmokers to all these other 40 or so lung cacrinogens has to be known very exactly before any residual effect due to SHS exposure can be accurately known.
This of course, is impossible because although they try to rely on recall and biomarker tests to characterize exposure to SHS, they have no way to characterize the exposure of the other 40 or so lung carcinogens the nonsmoekrs were exposed to. In fact most nonsmokers are probably unaware of any other lung carcinogens they may have been exposed to, and the reserchers have no tools to replace that missing information.
As a result, any conclusions that SHS causes 30% increase in LC is based on incomplete information, and researchers should be cautious in the intrepretation of such results. Dave K
But back to the main discussion point, it appears all agree E/k were treated unfairly.
Some say the E/k study is valuable, some do not.
I Think everyone agrees the funding of SHS studies needs to be reformed somehow.
If it were not for tobacco funding, we would not know the E/k study even exists, and all-in-all I think the fact we all know the E/k study exists is good.
For example, Thun could take the E/k study, correct what he thinks are the misclassification problems, and publish his own study, so we could learn more about how misclassification affects results in SHS studies. This would be good, and would improve the knowlege base of SHS studies.
While some claim the funding resulted in a ban defeat in MO, i have stated i was intimitely involved in the defeat of the Mo ban, and the defeat would ahve happened anyway.
So exactly how did the use of BT funding cause harm????? Dave K
marcus wrote:
"Given the fact that AQ testing proves secondhand smoke is NOT hazardous"
That statement is false, as are dozens of others posted by marcus.
A new Global Air Monitoring Study http://www.tobaccofreeair.org/
do....v7_Sept_06.pdf
of 1,212 indoor workplaces in 24 different countries at found that:
- Air pollution (PM 2.5) averaged 317 ug/m3 in smoking workplaces, and 36 ug/m3 in smokefree workplaces (89% less).
- Air pollution (PM 2.5) averaged 261 ug/m3 in smoking restaurants, and 36 ug/m3 in smokefree restaurants.
- Air pollution (PM 2.5) averaged 494 ug/m3 in smoking bars, and 28 ug/m3 in smokefree bars.
- Air pollution (PM 2.5) averaged 265 ug/m3 in smoking workplaces in the U.S., and 22 ug/m3 in smokefree workplaces.
Note that the Air Quality Index http://www.ccairquality.org/
caut...utionPM25C.html classifies PM 2.5 levels above 65 ug/m3 as UNHEALTHY, above 150 ug/m3 as VERY UNHEALTHY, and above 250 ug/m3 as HAZARDOUS.
To protect public health, the US EPA has set a limit of 15 ug/m3 as the average annual level of PM 2.5 outdoors. Yesterday, the EPA lowered the limit for average daily level of PM 2.5 from 65 ug/m3 to 35 ug/m3.
To find outdoor PM 2.5 levels throughout the U.S. today, go to http://www.airnowdata.org/pmfine...ine/
latest.html
In sum, smokefree workplace laws and policies are the only way to reduce indoor air pollution to levels that now exist outdoors.
Tobaccofreeair - A group of avowed smoke haters which place portable airquality meters in direct line of sidestream smoke, monitor establishments with little on no airflow. After examining several of their charts, it's rather obvious the protocols they employ are inconsistant with extablished protocols used in their comparisons. The very sharp peaks in their graphs indicate an extreme proximity to the source. This is like claiming a company is in violation of EPA regulations because you stuck your portable probe in the direct line of the smoke plume coming from an industrial complex.
Also being compared are daily or annual averages against spot peaks. For most venues compared are open 1/3 to 1/2 of the day. Averaged over a twentyfour hour day would reduce their numbers to something close to 1/3 to 1/2.
Anonymous wrote:
"Tobaccofreeair - A group of avowed smoke haters which place portable airquality meters in direct line of sidestream smoke, monitor establishments with little on no airflow."
The study was coordinated by Rosswell Park Cancer Center, the air monitors are not placed in direct lines of smoke (otherwise pollution levels would be far greater), and typical restaurants, bars and other workplaces are tested.
Some folks (especially many who post on this blog) will say anything to misrepresent the truth.
Bill Godshall wrote:
"The study was coordinated by Rosswell Park Cancer Center...Some folks (especially many who post on this blog) will say anything to misrepresent the truth."
You mean like Dr. Andrew Hyland of the Roswell Park Cancer Institute?
October 30, 2002
AMHERST, NY - Workers in bars, restaurants and other worksites not covered by smoke-free laws are exposed to unacceptably high levels of toxins found in secondhand smoke, according to a new study, released today by the American Cancer Society and funded by the Erie/Niagara Tobacco Free Coalition.
"We know that people who work in bars and restaurants, where smoking is allowed, are more likely to get lung cancer," said Dr. Andrew Hyland of Roswell Park Cancer Institute, who coordinated the study. "But now we have real evidence about how high the average amounts of secondhand smoke exposures can be for some workers in Erie and Niagara counties."
The highest exposure levels were recorded in bingo halls, which averaged 940 nanograms of nicotine per eight-hour shift.
"This study demonstrates what many have suggested," summarized Dr. Hyland. "The only way to ensure that workers will not be forced to breathe in dangerous secondhand smoke is to eliminate smoking at their work site."
Care to explain to us Bill how finding nicotine at the level found at the smokiest venue (it'd take almost 5 years to get one cigarette's worth) and making it sound worrisome is not misrepresenting the truth?
Bill: "Some folks (especially many who post on this blog) will say anything to misrepresent the truth."
You mean like when YOU were comparing us to rapists and murderers and child abusers? When you call us delusional? Then I can agree. But if you think you are not including yourself here, and are trying to say you are so innocent, then we have a problem.
James wrote:
"Care to explain to us Bill how finding nicotine at the level found at the smokiest venue (it'd take almost 5 years to get one cigarette's worth) and making it sound worrisome is not misrepresenting the truth?"
While PM 2.5 levels are more accurate measurements of tobacco smoke pollution, nicotine levels in tobacco smoke pollution are fairly reliable indicators of PM 2.5 levels in tobacco smoke pollution.
Lynda wrote:
"YOU were comparing us to rapists and murderers and child abusers"
That statement is incorrect. I simply pointed out that forcing tobacco smoke into another person's lungs is respiratory rape (just as forcing a penis into someone elses vagina is genital rape), that putting the same chemicals (in tobacco smoke pollution) into someone else's food, drink or via injection could result in attempted murder charges, and that forcing tobacco smoke into a child's lungs is a form of child abuse.
Bill are you sick ? The last time you quoted all of this should have told you that you had exceeded the bounds of common decency,yet here you are again.Do you get turned on or something ?Your diatribe regarding your air quality figures is a re-hash of a re-hash.THERE IS NOTHING NEW.Why have you got to keep bringing up things that have been discussed,YET YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT.CONSTANTLY QUOTING ERRONEOUS FIGURES WILL NOT SUDDENLY MAKE THEM ACCURATE.It's what you want yet again and again,it is tedious and monotonous.Tomorrow is going to be your set piece on smokeless tobacco OR will it be your marijuana speech.You must use a brought forward system to be able to do these things as accurately as you do.BORING.Dr Siegel i believe if you look back you will find several entries made by Marcus where he links funding provided by RWJF to the anti smoker fraternity,highlighting current battles (smoking bans) being conducted.If you are by any chance suggesting that forking out billions to the antis ,whilst merrily producing nicotine replacement items,isn't necessarily connected in any dubious way......?You may recollect Marcus commenting on the fact that RWJF suddenly removing part of their website whilst Marcus had been actively commenting upon their funding being given to xyz ?Coincidence ?
Bill, if
"While PM 2.5 levels are more accurate measurements of tobacco smoke pollution, nicotine levels in tobacco smoke pollution are fairly reliable indicators of PM 2.5 levels in tobacco smoke pollution"
is true;
and if what Hyland et al. said they found is true;
And if what I wrote is true;
then RSP levels were very low there too.
But that's not what I asked you. I asked if Hyland was misrepresenting the facts. Do you people really believe 1 cigarette every 5 years is a hazard to anybody's health?
exactly Bill, compared us to rapists. And don't go there with the murder crap, when you and your car are doing the same damned thing and at worse levels. Spare me. I'm just NOT naive enough.
I told Jill once, and I'll tell you the same thing, you come and tell me to my face, in front of my son, that I abused him. I dare you.
"The highest exposure levels were recorded in bingo halls, which averaged 940 nanograms of nicotine per eight-hour shift."
And now could we see a survey of lung cancer death rates among non smoking bingo hall workers. I think I know what such a survery would show (hint: considerably less lung cancer than among restaurant workers).
First of all I'd like to address the good Dr.'s comment:
"I guess I don't really see what the dubious intent is that Johnson & Johnson might have in funding research on substance abuse, including alcohol and tobacco. Maybe it would help if you explain specifically what you find dubious about their funding of this research."
Perhaps you have never followed any of my links.....so I may be reporting this to you for the first time......but Johnson & Johnson's wholly owned subsidiary ALZA IS the manufacturer of Nicoderm & Nicoderm CQ.
....and forgive me if I suggest you are too intelligent to claim naivite'
"....gee why would an alternative nicotine product manufacturer -J & J want its competitor the tobacco company's product to be banned?....
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....ng-bans-
in.html
Even the great Godshall wouldn't try to feign ignorance on that one.
Getting back to Godshall though, PM (particulate matter) 2.5, 1.2, 5.5, 0.1 whatever particle size you'd like to analyze all are so meaningless Bill I don't feel the need to respond.
Now if you want to speak actual science you would do what OSHA does, measure for specific known hazards to determine whether the concentrations are indeed hazardous:
Oh look....what a coincidence somebody has done just that:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....st-
results.html
http://
cleanairquality.blogspot....secondhand.html
You can't measure all the dust (PM) in the air and arbitrarily decree that all that dust is hazardous without determining what the scientific makeup of the dust is.....it is not only disingenuous to do so......but ignorant
"....In sum, smokefree workplace laws and policies are the only way to reduce indoor air pollution to levels....." -Godshall
It's easy to make such claims when you remove 80+% of the customers.
Our own MPAAT here in MN. published quite the blooper when in showing how much "cleaner" the air is in St. Paul bars, they also showed how few customers the bars contained after the smoking bans:
If it wasn't so pathetic it would be comical:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....-
minnesota.html
But then smoking bans are good for business right Bill....as long as you are in the pharmaceutical nicotine business that is.....or one of the groups funded by them.
Lynda: YOU were comparing us to rapists and murderers and child abusers>/i>
Bill: That statement is incorrect. I simply pointed out that forcing tobacco smoke into another person's lungs is respiratory rape (just as forcing a penis into someone elses vagina is genital rape), that putting the same chemicals (in tobacco smoke pollution) into someone else's food, drink or via injection could result in attempted murder charges, and that forcing tobacco smoke into a child's lungs is a form of child abuse.
Your statements reconfirms Lynda's as correct. What's incorrect is the hard-wiring in your head.
Let's try that again...
Lynda: YOU were comparing us to rapists and murderers and child abusers
Bill: That statement is incorrect. I simply pointed out that forcing tobacco smoke into another person's lungs is respiratory rape (just as forcing a penis into someone elses vagina is genital rape), that putting the same chemicals (in tobacco smoke pollution) into someone else's food, drink or via injection could result in attempted murder charges, and that forcing tobacco smoke into a child's lungs is a form of child abuse.
Your statements reconfirms Lynda's as correct. What's incorrect is the hard-wiring in your head.
Archie Anderson gave me the great laugh for the day. "UC Berzerkely"?? LOL! Followed by: "...and of course Gadfly researchers like Stan Glantz."
Indeed. So let's take a look at what more the gadfly has had to say in the last couple of days.
Does Tobacco Money Taint Research?
Inside Higher Ed - Sept. 21, 2006
http://www.insidehighered.com/ne...6/09/21/
tobacco
[Excerpts]
“The tobacco companies use academic research to promote misunderstanding and confusion,” said Stanton A. Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California at San Francisco, who has worked with Bustamante on the proposal. “The university is about the seeking and discovery of truth — and the protections of academic freedom are to protect that process,” he said, not the right to get tobacco money. “Academic freedom isn’t about money. It’s about free speech and free thought.”
In materials prepared for regents, Glantz outlined a series of reasons why he and others want a ban. Glantz, who has made a career of studying the history of the tobacco industry, traced the way companies have used research — and the way that research has been used to hurt anti-smoking efforts.
Glantz scoffed at the idea that academic freedom would be endangered by a ban on tobacco funds. “There’s a lot of talk on academic freedom, but this is about money. They are afraid that this could make it harder to get money from other unpopular sources,” he said.
[Here is where he compares/defends Pharma money. Then...]
“The whole slippery slope argument is fallacious. It says that intelligent people aren’t capable of making decisions,” he said.
It's a long and thorough article where Enstrom has his say too. And you can leave your own comment there!
Glantz's talks about "free speech" and "free thought," and has no idea what it even means -- except to dictate who is allowed to have it and who isn't! Glantz's rules! All bow before the king.
Well, I needn't go on when ACSH does. Dr. Gilbert Ross does a dance on Glantz's head:
Bans on Industry Research Grants Are Bad for Science
ACSH - Sept. 22, 2006
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/
n...news_detail.asp
The campaign against TI funding is led by Dr. Stanton Glantz of UCSF, who says the slippery slope argument is specious. He has also stated that those who oppose him are inspired not by academic freedom, as they claim, but by money. "The whole slippery slope argument is fallacious. It says that intelligent people aren't capable of making decisions." But who is really trying to prevent "intelligent people" from "making their own decisions" here?
Anti-tobacco ACSH again demonstrates how much more principled they are than these others. The article begins with the tobacco bash but doesn't let that get in the way of protecting academic freedom. There's lots more to this article but I'll leave it now with this:
Glantz and his allies claim that the Enstrom/Kabat study is flawed and tainted and has been used to help defeat smoking bans in some localities. But are the study's conclusions actually flawed or cooked to help the tobacco companies? Despite gargantuan efforts to smear the study and the authors, no one has yet shown that to be true.
Let me be very clear in stating that it is my opinion that had the Enstrom/Kabat study been funded by another source (non-tobacco industry), I think it would have come up with the same result. I don't think that the research results were altered because of the funding source. Instead, I think it was the opposite. The source that was willing to fund the research was one that didn't mind the fact that there would be differential misclassification bias which could lead to an underestimate of any true effect of secondhand smoke on lung cancer risk.
So unlike the way things have been presented, I do not believe that the study was 'tainted' in any way by receiving tobacco industry funding.
That the tobacco industry is using the research to oppose smoking bans - it seems to me that would have happened anyway, regardless of whether it was research they funded or someone else funded.
Time to nitpick. There is surely a simple fact here that we can pluck out of the miasma of subjective opinions: Is it "differential misclassification," as Dr. Siegel says, or is it "non-differential misclassification," as Brian Bond avers. Or is it two countries separated by a common language? Or am I missing something?
And sorry, Dr. Siegel, but I don't think you replied to Brian's posting.
JTF, marcus, Dave K, benpal, Harry:
You guys are great. Very well researched. You might not be doctors or epidemiologists (you probably didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night) but you've done a tremendous job of compiling the research from honest medical professionals.
Bill Godshall "Send You a Plague of Boils":
Glad to see that you are finally responding to them.
Most importantly, Dr. Siegel:
What is your learned clinical opinion of Enstrom and Kabat's study?
We all know the history. It was initiated by the NCS in the 50s. When the anti tobacco cartel found out that their results didn't support their agenda they cut off funding. Enstrom/Kabat had to get money from that evil Big Tobacco blood money to finish their study.
Seriously Dr. Siegel, because this sticks in our craw: Where did Enstrom/Kabat go wrong vs. your studies?
PS: You are living proof that this SHS nonsense doesn't even pass the "laugh test". My guess is that you did in fact as an undergraduate spend years hanging out at smoky bars in Boston and Fraternity houses at BU at parties before the progressive liberal social engineers in MA passed smoking bans. Yet you don't have AIDs, emphysema, ass cancer, lung cancer, bronchitis or any other horrible malady as a result of your exposure to ETS.
And we're all thankful. You are a good man.
PSS: The Jim McGreevey post above was me.
"That the tobacco industry is using the research to oppose smoking bans - it seems to me that would have happened anyway, regardless of whether it was research they funded or someone else funded. - Dr. Siegel"
I haven't found any evidence that the tobacco industry was boasting about the E/K study. The only ones who talk about it in big letters is tobacco control, not for its scientific value, but in order to smear the scientists and to silence whoever wants to publish data contrary to their dogma. At the same time they issue the warning: "Don't even try to come up with a low RR, or we will shove you into the tobacco camp"
arrgh, the last anon was me.
A very nice conclusion by Gilbert Ross sums up my opinion:
If scientific research is cut off at its roots by funding bans, where will it end? Some have noted that EPA-funded work always seems to bear out EPA policies of labeling various substances "carcinogens" or "toxins," while researchers whose work has shown that such substances are safe for humans never seem to get government support. A similar patterns holds for studies that are supported by well-known "environmental" organizations and foundations. Perhaps the UC system should ban these funders as well, given that they have become nothing short of anti-chemical propaganda mills. Am I serious? Maybe. It seems like the logical conclusion if we start down that slope.- http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/
n...news_detail.asp
Thanks benpal for the tip.
Gilbert Ross in that ACSH article (dated yesterday!) also had this to say about the Enstrom/Kabat study: "The BMJ editor has stood by the paper despite attacks on it as an industry propaganda piece. Not a single error in the paper has been identified by anyone, including the ACS, which possesses the underlying data for the study."
Remember, ACSH is the anti-smoking crusader and epidemiologist Dr. Elizabeth Whelan's organization, and she's the same Dr. Whelan who differs with Dr. Siegel on the long-term health effects of smoking in bars and restaurants -- she called it a real "stretch" to think it would have an effect.
Moreover, the Enstrom/Kabat study was a cohort study, was it not, and isn't that the kind of study, if I remember correctly, that Dr. Siegel favors as the kind we can put more trust in?
President Bush:
Has stated that his office of business management is going to issue a directive that ALL STUDIES PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS will recieve peer review from legitimate scientists that will insure that taxpayers are NOT paying for twististics instead of sound science.
It appears that NIH and NCI grant recipients must have a huge lobby as citizens still pay for "predetermined" studies. Oh where have you gone Doctor Salk, Louis Pasteure ?.
In response to Benpal's question, I don't think that the Enstrom/Kabat study did "go wrong." I simply think that the results are subject to misclassification of exposure bias. But as someone noted above, nearly all ETS studies are subject to some misclassification bias, because there are a large number of spouses of nonsmokers who are nevertheless exposed to secondhand smoke, and who therefore don't represent a truly unexposed control group.
The issue is really the degree of the misclassification problem, and I believe that the older the study, the more subject to this problem it is (because there were far fewer restrictions on smoking in public places and far less public banter about the issue so there were not a lot of people who were never exposed).
I can remember, as a kid, having lots of exposure to secondhand smoke, even though I grew up in a 'nonsmoking' household. I might have been classified as an unexposed nonsmoker in a study, but clearly I had a decent amount of exposure.
Today, I think there are people who are never exposed (especially now that they have been told even a brief exposure may cause a heart attack or cancer).
So I guess I reject the idea of some anti-smoking groups that the Enstrom/Kabat study is somehow unique in having this problem. All the studies have this problem to some degree. The issue is to how great a degree, and how do you take the misclassification into account.
Discussing it intelligently seems like a good way to do so; attacking the individual researcher who conducted and published the study and questioning his character does not!
If you re-read what Lt. Gov. Bustamante said in his letter, I think you'll see that he really WAS suggesting that the research was tainted because it found the 'wrong' results. Maybe that's just my read on it, but I did read it over many times before jumping to that conclusion. Did others read it differently, or is that what he does seem to be saying?
Here's the letter, if you want to re-read it: http://www.ucsf.edu/its/listserv...ntz-l/
0558.html.
Dr. Siegel, what it clearly says is that "the findings of this study conflict [are in opposition] with respected state and national studies" and I would interpret that as "the results are wrong and against our believes".
Are all the other studies really state and national studies (i.e. funded by the government?
The worst however is this statement: "the U.S. Government 'alleged unlawful conspiracy to deceive the American public about the health effects of smoking...' and cited the UCLA study as an example."
This is plain arrogant. Does "alleged" mean "convicted", and by what evidence?
It is just a coincidence that the WHO lifted a 30-year ban on the use of DDT against malaria. This ban has "cost" some 2 to 3 million deaths per year.
The ban was based on fallacious claims and vigorously supported by advocate groups.
Rachel Carson sounded the initial alarm against DDT, but represented the science of DDT erroneously in her 1962 book Silent Spring. Carson wrote "Dr. DeWitt's now classic experiments [on quail and pheasants] have now established the fact that exposure to DDT, even when doing no observable harm to the birds, may seriously affect reproduction. Quail into whose diet DDT was introduced throughout the breeding season survived and even produced normal numbers of fertile eggs. But few of the eggs hatched." DeWitt's 1956 article (in Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry) actually yielded a very different conclusion.
The environmental movement used DDT as a means to increase their power. Charles Wurster, chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, commented, "If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before.. In a sense, much more is at stake than DDT."
Science journals were biased against DDT. Philip Abelson, editor of Science informed Dr. Thomas Jukes that Science would never publish any article on DDT that was not antagonistic.
The WHO even considered malaria as a means to control human reproduction. Even Hitler would have blushed.
In the 1960s, World Health Organization authorities believed there was no alternative to the overpopulation problem but to assure than up to 40 percent of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. As an official of the Agency for International Development stated, "Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing."
William Ruckelshaus, the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency who made the ultimate decision to ban DDT in 1972, was a member of the Environmental Defense Fund. Ruckelshaus solicited donations for EDF on his personal stationery that read "EDF's scientists blew the whistle on DDT by showing it to be a cancer hazard, and three years later, when the dust had cleared, EDF had won."
Environmental activists planned to defame scientists who defended DDT. In an uncontradicted deposition in a federal lawsuit, Victor Yannacone, a founder of the Environmental Defense Fund, testified that he attended a meeting in which Roland Clement of the Audubon Society and officials of the Environmental Defense Fund decided that University of California-Berkeley professor and DDT-supporter Thomas H. Jukes was to be muzzled by attacking his credibility.
http://junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm
Doesn't this sound familiar? Replace the names of the actors and the groups/organizations involved and compare that to Bustamante's (ghost written by Glantz) statement.
Emphasis is mine.
Dr. Siegel: If you re-read what Lt. Gov. Bustamante said in his letter, I think you'll see that he really WAS suggesting that the research was tainted because it found the 'wrong' results. Maybe that's just my read on it, but I did read it over many times before jumping to that conclusion. Did others read it differently, or is that what he does seem to be saying?
This is an exasperating moment. It's what we've been saying for the last week! The antis run around screaming, "Oh no! Doesn't fit the agenda! Quick! Blame, accuse! It was the tobacco company! Yeah, yeah, the infamous devil funded it. Accuse the researchers of being bribed! Yeah, yeah, guilt by association! Start the attack because this research didn't come up with the 'right' result! If it doesn't say what we want it to say then something corrupt must have happened. Yeah, yeah, that's what we'll tell everyone in order to try and not let this get out and poison the minds of the public we worked so hard to mold!"
And you ask US if WE read it that way?? (why do I feel like going screaming into the night)
Any chance you now feel sufficiently up to speed regarding the question i asked earlier and Marcus gratefully re-iterated ?
Harry, as 'nitpicker'-in-chief, let me try and bridge the trans-Atlantic language barrier:
Non-differential misclassification occurs when some cause of random measurement error affects both the study group (the 'cases' having whatever disease is the object of the study) and the 'control' group (those without the disease) in generally the same amounts. This is what Dr Siegel talks about when he refers to the effects of general and widespread ETS exposure in the 1950's/60's - it will have had an equal effect on both cases and controls - in other words it doesn't differentiate between the two.
This type of misclassification will usually bias the resulting RR towards the null - ie underestimate the true size of the risk. This is why the antis are so keen to point it out in studies such as Enstrom & Kabat's in an attempt to discredit results that they don't like. In my view, for what it's worth as I am only a mere humble Mathematician, I doubt that the amount of such misclassification would have been sufficient to explain the difference between the the E & K relative risk ratios and those which were cobbled together by the EPA's fraudulent 1992 meta-analysis.
Differential misclassification is the result of measurement error which is not the same in the two groups (cases and controls) and hence will cause a bias in one of the measures This is often, but not always, the cases measure, and it can cause skewed RR results in either direction.
Most importantly it is differential misclassification which I cited as being the common result of asking the terminally ill and/or bereaved relatives about the victim's exposure to ETS. It is a common, if regrettable practice that the victim always wants to maximise the blame for his/her condition on whatever is suggested to be the cause. In this way the tendency massively to exaggerate the exposure to ETS that was experienced by, eg, one's late father is huge. If you don't believe me just check out the many postings on ETS-debating forums by the angry bereaved sons and daughters and notice the emotional hyperbole which accompanies their outrage. Would one ever expect to get a rational estimate of ETS exposure from such people? I think not.
And of course there is no logical reason for people who don't have terminal lung cancer to exaggerate their past exposure to ETS.
So there you have it. Differential misclassification is so-named because it is different between cases and controls. What Enstrom & Kabat's study is accused of (and which they publicly refute) is non-differential misclassification.
My final word (you hope) on misclassification is this. Always remember that the Relative Risk calculation involves only 4 numbers, namely those with the object disease who were exposed to the subject agent, those with the disease who weren't exposed, those without the disease who were exposed and those without the disease who weren't. (Please forgive me if I am teaching Granny to suck eggs here, But it is important always to remember that 4 numbers are all you need to make a splash in the 'science' of epidemiology). Now, if there is any measurement misclassification - particularly if numbers of cases and/or controls are small - then the effect on the RR ratio can be disproportionately large as it will result in a number (maybe 10% or more of the sample) of members being counted into the wrong group.
This is a common problem with ETS/lung cancer studies, particularly of the case/control type, as lung cancer is such a rare disease that it is hard to assemble a large enough sample which can then be subdivided into the relevant characteristic sub-groups for study purposes. This may partly explain why there is such a wide variety of RR results across the individual studies (I exclude meta-analyses, as I don't accept that this practice of combining studies is mathematically valid except in very rare situations).
This is why I have consistently argued that these epidemiological studies are mostly worthless as they are almost always based on small samples (of cases) and involve the analysis of rubbish data.
Now, Dr Siegel and I clearly won't agree on this, as our views on the evils of second-hand tobacco smoke are poles apart (he judges it to be a 'hazard', I think that's a ludicrous and illogical claim). Furthermore, he stated further back in this thread that:
"I can only offer my own opinion, and the fact that others may disagree doesn't change my opinion. However, it does cause me to carefully re-assess my opinion. But I stick with it because I really think that the control group was not truly an ETS-unexposed group" (My emphasis emboldened)
So there is the closed mind of the anti-tobacco campaigner. And that's fine, we are all free to disagree and maintain our own opinions, we aren't (yet) living in totalitarian states on either side of the water. However, there is just one small problem which makes me so critical of Dr Siegel's stubborn and dogmatic adherence to his beliefs. Put simply, his opinion as a Doctor/Public Health worker/anti-smoker carries infinitely more weight among the so-called liberal 'elite' of today's society then my humble opinion as a mere Mathematician/Ordinary Joe/smoker, to the extent that his opinion can be, and has been used, to influence legislation which places unjustified restrictions on my lifestyle. My opinion, on the other hand is just...
...pissing in the wind.
.
Oh, and by the way.
From my many months of reading this blog, I am of the firm view that Dr Siegel is essentially a nice guy - naive but nice.
I accept that my criticisms may seem at times to be a bit 'ad hominem', but they are never intended to be personal.
Professional, yes. personal, no.
.
Brian, that was magnificent.
Brian, thanks for your clear explanation of misclassification and its effects.
If it was true that almost everybody was exposed to SHS, then how can we be sure that those exposed did NOT say so in their answers? We are just supposing that they were lying, but we don't know for sure.
If I was asked how many cars I have seen during a day, I wouldn't answer 0, although I'm exposed to cars every day.
On the other hand, if the exposure was so small or sporadic that they didn't notice any exposure, I don't think the difference would be measurable anyway by means of epidemiology.
JustTheFacts - thank you. It's late night here, so please keep the screaming down!
benpal - I totally agree!
Brian-
Thanks for the eloquent presentation of differential and non-differential misclassification bias. The only thing I want to point out is that since the type of bias I am referring to is non-differential, and because it would bias the results toward the null hypothesesis of no effect of ETS on lung cancer risk, this type of bias does represent an alternative explanation for why studies that relied upon CPS-I for their study sample have failed to find an effect of ETS on lung cancer risk, but why many more recent studies have found such an effect.
Also, remember that the year we are talking about is 1959!!! I know that you think I am being a little hard-lined in holding to my opinion, but does it seem so hard-lined to believe that in 1959, many people who lived with nonsmokers were nevertheless exposed to secondhand smoke? That's all that I'm arguing. I don't think it seems too unreasonable of an argument. Especially based on my own experience in the 1960s, where it seemed to me that secondhand smoke exposure was nearly ubiquitous. I imagine it must have only been worse in 1959 (before even the Surgeon General's report).
si-
You asked whether I think that RWJF is acting inappropriately in funding research on secondhand smoke. I don't see anything wrong with this. I think that Johnson & Johnson has the right to fund a research foundation devoted to substance abuse, including tobacco, and to fund health-related research, including on secondhand smoke. I guess I don't see what's wrong with this, as long as they are not interfering with the research or altering its results, conduct, or reporting. I do, however, think that you are right in noting that there is the appearance of a potential conflict of interest, and for that reason, the source of the research funding should absolutely be disclosed in any research publications or presentations resulting from this funding.
First of all, why are we working on the assumption that the only misclassification is in the realm of exposure? Other studies have shown (citations on request) that current and former smokers tend to lie like troopers ("What me, smoke? Never, never, never") at a 1980s rate of 5-12% which has likely increased proportionally as time has gone by (and admitting to having smoked is like admitting to having abused tiny children and fuzzy animals.)
In 1986, the NRC reported that basic misclassification could account for more than half of a study's observed uptick in lung cancer risk. ("Environmental Tobacco Smoke," NRC, 1986)
The EPA "adjusted" for such misclassification (in 1992) by assuming only 1.09% were liars but as the Congressional Research Service later pointed out, had they raised it to 2.5%, the "risk" would have dropped to zilch.
Similarly, a reanalysis of the Hirayma Study, which postulated only 10 liars in the lot, reduced the RR from a positive 1.8 to a negative 0.77. (Uberla, "Lung Cancer from passive smoking..." Int Arch Occup Env Health, 1987)
To be continued
Dr. Siegel.........you have got to be kidding?
More on misclassification:
And back to the EPA and those "3000 deaths."
1,060 of those deaths-by-secondhand-smoke occured among the admitted Former Smokers. "Former" meant they claimed they hadn't smoked in at least 5 years. (Tho now we have reports that fully half of all lung cancer is showing up in people who haven't smoked in 20 years.+ )
But leave that for now and examine some tortured stats.
Of the (admitted) Former Smokers who also admitted that their husband or wife smoked, the EPA concluded that 200 men and 210 women had died of lung cancer from breathing their spouses smoke BUT 150 men and 160 women had apparently been totally unaffected by smoke at home because they'd died from exposure elsewhere.
And similarly, out of those whose spouses had never smoked (tho all of these subjects, remember, had smoked themselves-- and an unknown # of cigarettes for an unknown # of years) 60 of the women and 280 men had died from the smoke "elsewhere."
Ponder the inane illogic of those stats.
Further notes on CPS 1 (1959-) and 2 (1982-):
Start with CPS-2: First keep in mind that in 1982, subjects who were 40 had been (so the theory goes) ubiquitously exposed to smoke for at least 35 or maybe all 40 years, and you can reckon the exposure time for other ages accordingly.
Yet Steenland (a scientist in the anti-smoking camp) apparently wasn't detered from analyzing this group (in 1996) attempting to find a link between ETS and heart disease. The Antis like his study and cite it at drops of hats because he found an RR right in line with their dogma,
But examine the thing closely and it starts to get wiggly. For instance, the RR for nonsmoking men who were married to smoking women was 1.33 when their spouses smoked less than one pack a day, but a statistically insignificant 1.09 for the fellows whose horrid wives smoked two packs a day. Corresponding risks for women were 1.15 (for a 1-pack a day husband) and 0.99 for a 2 pack chimney)
Tho their bottom line results were very different from Steenland's, Layard and Levois got identical results when they analyzed
Sheesh. Cut off
When they analyzed both of the CPS studies-- which should show that the raw data was pretty much the same.
CPS-1:
RR 0,97 - nonsmoking men married to smokers RR 1.03 (95% 0,98-1.13) nonsmoking women married to smokers
CPS-2:
men 0.97; women 1.0
3 things emerge:
: Anti doesn't seem to think a study is "tainted" if it offers the "right" results.
: The results of all studies are the product of mens' minds, not a truly Objective Fact (and especially so when RR are so low.)
: IF these studies are tainted, as auntie now claims, then all studies are tainted and so are all the results , since you're not very likely to find lung cancer or heart disease in folks who are too young to've ever been out in smoke. (Campus and office bans didn't start till the mid 90s; bar bans are a "modern" invention of the 'naughts.
:
Dr Siegel ,Marcus showed the close proximity of large funding being given to specific groups engaged in specific fights to achieve smokefree nirvana.This isn't a case of simplistic funding on secondhand smoke is it ?Potential conflict of interest-for buying into an area of potential growth by funding groups to buy smoke bans ?There appears to be no research so you aren't addressing the issue are you .If this were the actions of big tobacco i think your position may be a little different.Did you actually read Marcus's excellent work on "this potential conflict of interest?"
"I think that Johnson & Johnson has the right to fund a research foundation devoted to substance abuse, including tobacco, and to fund health-related research, including on secondhand smoke. I guess I don't see what's wrong with this, as long as they are not interfering with the research or altering its results, conduct, or reporting."
Granted J&J has to right to spend their money however they want. But: they only fund projects with a predetermined outcome. And they inundate the world with their studies to the point that they create the impression that "the overwhelming majority of scientists find...".
When Stanton Glantz published his movie theory or his Helena study, it would probably have been easy to show in another study that his conclusions were tainted. But nobody was found with even an interest in attempting to do so. Nobody put the money on the table.
When 80 or so tobacco control organizations claimed that even a tiny wisp of smoke is deadly (and refering to scientific studies) they could only do so, because there is nobody (+ one person - you) to call them to task. These claims are easily propagated because the sheer number of published RWJF studies has already set the minds of the large public and even scientists. No reason to debate, the debate is over since, or does anybody see any opposition?
This is just another way if SILENCING SCIENCE: Fill the media with fallacious claims to take up the space. Don't leave space for opposition.
I'm really worried.
It seems to me that one of the misclassification problems lies in the classification process. An important part of the classification on dose and duration is already done by the subject questioned, based on recall and awareness.
Taking one question from the IARC - Questionaire, 1998:
Starting with your marriage (or the time you lived in marital status), I would like to know how often you where exposed to his/her tobacco smoke at home, ....
Detailed questions include:
- Period from age ... to age ...
- How many cigarettes smoked per day?
- Every day, 5-6 days, 2-4 days, Rarely, Never
- How many cigarettes did he/she smoke in your presence: Weekdays, Weekends
- For how many hours where you exposed to tobacco smoke on average
The answers are then weighted according to an arbitrary scheme. The quantification of the data is arbitrary and could be a cause for differential misclassification (could be both ways and could have a major impact on the results). And each study might use different parameters, making it impossible to compare results.
This just goes to show how reliable epidemiologic studies are.
arrg ... the post above mine was mine as well.
First off, it is so much better to see debates based on science, then emotion. Its refreshing!
Thanks to all for keeping science in this debate, and having the ability to get emotion out of the discussion on the science of smoking.
Bravo!
Brian, before you go beddy-bye, thanks for the above information. Frankly, I don't think we hear enough from you.
Michael Siegel wrote:
"Also, remember that the year we are talking about is 1959!!!...does it seem so hard-lined to believe that in 1959, many people who lived with nonsmokers were nevertheless exposed to secondhand smoke?"
From the study:
"The smoking status of spouses as of 1959 was related to three self reported measures of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke as of 1999 (table 4)...“In your work or daily life, are (were) you regularly exposed to cigarette smoke from others?”
It seems they asked that question.
"That's all that I'm arguing. I don't think it seems too unreasonable of an argument. Especially based on my own experience in the 1960s, where it seemed to me that secondhand smoke exposure was nearly ubiquitous...
You also wrote in another post:
"I can remember, as a kid, having lots of exposure to secondhand smoke, even though I grew up in a 'nonsmoking' household. I might have been classified as an unexposed nonsmoker in a study, but clearly I had a decent amount of exposure."
You remember your exposure. Why would you be wrongly classified? Why would other people? Even I remember my exposures as a kid, right down to cherry flavored pipe tobacco some guy used to smoke at the high school football games when I was a 13 and younger.
Even if you were correct, you've said yourself brief exposure carries little to no risk (heart disease anyway). This study would show then that living with a smoker carried no additional risk over the ubiquitously exposed not living with a smoker group.
I don't know if anyone has taken up on this, but on re-reading an early posting of Dr. Siegel’s in this string, I noticed that he wrote that Enstrom & Kabat were able to obtain the funding from the tobacco industry because the companies were aware that his data set 'underestimated ETS exposure' among the control group and would probably produce favorable results to the industry. Now hold on a minute! “Set underestimated ETS exposure,” doctor? You mean the tobacco companies were able to see what E & K could not see, that the data set “underestimated ETS exposure”? Or has bias commandeered the thought?
The trouble is that almost everyone who has ever been in a secondhand smoke study was alive in 1959.
So if that problem destroys E/K's study, then it destroys all other studies too.
otherwise, were using a problem all studies have to assinate the ones which find no risk, and saying the problem did not assinate the studies which found a risk.
This becomes still, a bias intrpretation of the entire SHS database.
If the 1959 problem is real, then Dr. seigel's worker studies are no good because both the workers and controls were alive in 1959, and allegedly exposed to so much smoke, we would not expect to find a difference in LC rates, even if SHS cuases LC.
If Dr. siegel's workers studies were able to overcome the 1959 problem, then E/K should ahve been able to overcome it too.
Ya can't have it both ways. dave K
Dr Siegel
"I know that you think I am being a little hard-lined in holding to my opinion, but does it seem so hard-lined to believe that in 1959, many people who lived with nonsmokers were nevertheless exposed to secondhand smoke? That's all that I'm arguing"
I don't think your argument is unreasonable - and note that I did agree that such misclassification would indeed underestimate the real underlying risk - I just feel terribly unconvinced by it. Certainly the researchers (Enstrom & Kabat) have refuted your claim (opinion) so why can't you accept their word and move on? Is it because you dare not? Are you, as at times it seems, so wedded to the dogma of your past life that it would be equivalent to undergoing a wholesale religious conversion? I certainly find your stubborn streak to be immensely frustrating.
And perhaps most frustrating of all is that, whilst you exhort us here to accept the sincerity of your opinions (which I believe most do), you singularly and regularly fail to acknowledge and address the thinking and analysis behind our conflicting opinions. For example, you continue to argue why the E & K study would be subject to misclassification bias, yet you haven't fully acknowledged, nor yet accepted the perfectly logical proposition that all other ETS studies will be subject to misclassification too, through other forms of recall bias. Of course, as we both know, to do so would bring down the whole house of cards.
I don't expect you to undergo a damascene conversion overnight, but I find it hard to believe that with the weight of objective analysis and counter-evidence presented to you in this forum (and yes, I do mean 'evidence' not just the strong personal opinions), you don't now have growing doubts about the validity of most of the past epidemiological research into 'passive' smoking. Certainly your position seems to be becoming increasingly inconsistent.
So yes, I do think you are being 'hard-lined', although I think I prefer the term 'cycloptic' (one-eyed). You certainly are a difficult person to have a rational debate with, and that's what I for one desperately crave, a full, open and unlimited debate on this issue which to you may sincerely be about a (trivial) public health problem, but to me is about the twin evils of the abuse of mathematics and the destruction of civil liberties.
----
Harry, thanks for your kind words. Perhaps this posting helps to explain why I don't write here very often. I'm always reading, though!
A final word to Walt. I am full of admiration for the way you tease out the fallacies from these much-vaunted 'scientific' studies. I only wish I had the time and the patience to follow your lead. I doff my hat to you, sir!
Brian,
I think we'll have to use thumb screws on Dr. Siegel for him to come around (just kidding, doctor!)
Two reasons for my posting here:
1. To tell Brian how much his postings -- and humor -- are appreciated by many -- and perhaps most -- of us; and,
2. So that these late postings don't get LOST because they're on an old thread (this posting should put it on the 10 for a short while, anyway).
Doctor, is there no way for fresh postings on old threads not to get lost, when only 10 postings are listed under "Recent Postings"? I know this problem (and I think it IS a problem) has been brought up before, but still we have it. At least, I think we do. Few people, I believe, scroll down to previous old-old dates (well, maybe not THAT old) when it is thought the old threads are dead. When, surely, lots of new postings on old threads should never be missed? (No, definitely not mine, doctor.)
Especially when you are in your prolific mode Dr Siegel and completing 2 comments per day.
(Being sneaky here, so as to get a fresh posting in the 10.)
Hope nobody's missed Brian's 26th 9:40 PM posting above. (But see what I've done: I've knocked the first-in-time poster off of the 10 list! Happily, it's a comment for a fresh string and will be read.)
Commenting by HaloScan
