the study is unable to determine whether a decline in smoking by active smokers precipitated by the smoking ban or a decline in secondhand smoke exposure is the mechanism by which the purported effect on heart attacks occurred.
This provokes several questions:
1) Even if everyone quit smoking entirely (instead of just skipping it with their restaurant coffee) would the quitters' alleged risks be nullified that soon? Even if the quitters had "pre-existing conditions"?
2) If perectly healthy people (low blood pressure/cholesterol, nothing blocking their arteries, etc etc--in other words, people with no risk of heart attack) also quit smoking (or being exposed to smoke) would they effect the statistics in any way at all? Wouldn't their liklihood of having an AMI w/i an 18 month window go from 0 to...0?
3) The folks who are most-- and most frequently-- exposed to secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars are the (indentured) workers for whom the bans have been made. But aren't barmen and waitstaff more apt to be young and fit? And haven't you yourself said it takes about 40 years of everyday exposure to have a measurable effect? So how would a change in exposure for a measly year and a half (for some 20- and 30-somethings) change the rate of AMIs?
So exactly what's being said? That middle (and more) aged men with other factors that put them "at risk" were previously being killed by eating out on a Friday night? And now 112 were saved?
Well done, Dr Siegel. After 'losing your way' somewhat in the discussion of the Enstrom & Kabat study, you are back on track as a 'true' sceptic with your analysis of this load of nonsense!
Honestly, this is such a silly piece of research that it barely merits any kind of detailed analysis since its findings are so completely irrational - as both Walt and yourself have pointed out, it just is not plausible. However, if you have a copy of their data, I would love to have a look at it and see what pain and anguish they inflicted on the numbers. Poisson regression indeed - I bet! The only way that 'Poisson' applies here is that this is the French word for fish - and this is fishy indeed! Hey, but let's not let a minor irritant like mathematical integrity get in the way of a piece of agenda-driven propaganda, eh?
It seems to me that some loony in Colorado has just discovered the 'Relative Risk' button on his 'Little Scientist' pocket calculator and wanted to test it out. Actually there seem to have been seven loonies involved with this study according to the abstract.
It takes seven anti-smoking nutters to undertake a silly little study that could have been carried out in an afternoon by any statistics undergraduate - and he'd never need to leave the bar! I wonder how many it would take to change a light-bulb?
"Hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to work we go..."
Pretty much off topic BUT I was so astounded I have to post this.
There is a proposition on our November ballot here in Arizona, for some early childhood program (kindergarten, health care, all for healthy children not special needs), and they are asking people to vote on it......they end the ad with "and these programs will be funded by an 80 cent tax increase on cigarette packs"
Now, I'm all for helping and all, but explain to me how cigarette taxes going to progams like this, are being utilized to help defray the costs of smokers health care? Hmmmmmm?
So they are USING (as in exploiting) children to get the voters to approve yet another tax increase on cigarettes. I am so pissed right now.
The good Doctor has a wicked sense of humor of course laughter is about all this nonsense deserves.
Brian, you queried how many of the anti-smokers it would take to change a lightbulb, based upon their inability to even do a proper study, I'm not sure I would trust any of them to change a lightbulb - they would probably electrocute themselves........
Lynda.......your anger is very understandable. Several years ago a dear friend queried if she were the only one getting a bit tired of "the children?"
Pueblo Study Proves Home Cooking Healthier!
More people eating helathier food at home means a 27% decrease in Heart attacks.
"I used to go to a restaurant and eat all that rich food" said A Convert "but after the smoking ban, I make salads at home, save shed loads of money with the bonus of smoking my favourite cigar at the end of the meal. The winters could be tricky as you have to heat the food. I'll get used to it though".
Confounding confounders. Pity about the restaurant owners business.
When you filter everything through a single lens (e.g ETS), objectivity is lost. How did this 'study' pass a peer review?
west
----
Dr. Seigel How many millions in donations did the American Heart Association (or other funding organization) waste in their donated funds for this study? You wouldn't want 7 people to not be paid for their "work".
I can't believe that it took 7 people to look at these numbers! 
Excellent West, just excellent!!!!!
Eating at home is healthier........for both the waisline and the wallet
Dr. Siegel:
The shoddiness of antismoking science did not start with Pueblo or Helena, but goes back through the EPA's 1992 SHS abuse, the 1964 SG's report, and before.
Talking of studies, here is a (serious) mini study with no conclusions really..
Report here by the BBC Cancer and heart deaths 'falling' ...deaths from cardiovascular disease (CVD) are down by 35.9%. (in England)
With the comment
This steady trend can largely be attributed to fewer people dying from smoking-related cancers.
Form heartstats.uk we find that smoking rates in England have declined by 3-4% in the past 10 years.
This seems quite a large drop in CVD from a small drop in smoking.
I'm confused as to what these numbers mean in relation to some of the figures presented about smoking, any ideas, anyone?
Another comment on Helena/Pueblo, soon there will be the largest 'isolated' population to do a study on, Great Britain & Eire. Once this is in place the figures will be easier to verify, though from the above CVD is declining any way and would undoubtably further confuse the issue.
west
----
This is to cheer Lynda up.
How many antis does it take to change a lightbulb? Well, I've put the data into my Little Scientist pocket calculator, and the answer is 16.
- 7 to undertake the research study into the risks associated with Environmental Light-Bulb Changing (ELBC).
- 7 to peer review the study (although there is a strong chance that an element of differential misclassification will occur - and it is really the same 7 who did the research!)
- 1 to write a weblog about the corruption of science in the fight against ELBC, and how ridiculous the findings are given that most States have now banned all indoor lightbulbs, so why should they need to be changed anyway? (The antis have the answer though, light bulbs need to be changed so that the children can spy on, and report any smoker having a crafty drag in the dark).
- And finally 1 more, being the local janitor, who changes the bulb during his cigarette break.
Do I get the Nobel prize for this?
Oh, hang on minute...
"...who changes the bulb during his cigarette break"
... that means the one who changed the bulb must be a - a - a - SMOKER!!
Oh no! My research must have been funded by the Tobacco Industry. I'll never be able to get another research grant from that nice Mr Johnson ("call me 'Bob'").
"NURSE.....my stoma's exploded again!" (Sorry, this is an 'in' joke between Jill Stevens and myself 
)
Hey, ho.
.
Right now, I would agree that it takes 17 anti-smoking groups to change a lightbulb: 1 to claim that it has been changed, and 16 to go around issuing press releases stating that it has been changed, but without any actual evidence.
and Pueblo West, CO which is right next door, had no smoking ban. and there are a few bars and restaurnats there.
On the CO road map, within 20 miles of Pueblo are: Pinon, South Devines, Vineland, Avondale, North Avondale, Boone, Fowler, Lombard Village, and agian, it looks like there were lots of places people cound go and still be exposed to smoke, presuming some of these had bars and restaurants.
So the old claim, Pueblo is isolated falls flat on it's face, just like in Helena. Dave K
How many antis does it take to change a lightbulb?
The concensus is 17. I'm guessing it will be 25 by the end of the week.
west
....
How many antis does it take to change a lightbulb?
But surely we must think about the poor lightbulb. I mean, what if it doesn't want to be changed? Wouldn't this constitute an invasion of its civil liberties?
Even lightbulbs have rights, don't they (as long as they don't smoke, of course)?
Do you ever wish you hadn't started something?
On a (slightly) more serious note, check out this piece of research:
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE STUDY SHOWS LAUGHTER HELPS BLOOD VESSELS FUNCTION BETTER
Here: http://www.umm.edu/news/releases.../
laughter2.html
Its more of a small observational study and (thankfully) avoids trying to draw any strong conclusions through quasi-mathematical analysis. Nonetheless it is the type of research which should be given much more support, in my view. Especially with findings like this:
"Overall, average blood flow increased 22 percent during laughter, and decreased 35 percent during mental stress."
Wouldn't it be ironic to see all of those miserable, uptight, po-faced, humourless anti-smoking advocates (are you there Mr Godshall?) dying prematurely through misery-induced heart disease, while all of the cheerful people, who choose to laugh at the ludicrous notion that someone else's smoking can kill them, go on to live to a ripe old age?
You know there's something to be said for research 'studies' like the subject of this thread. They are now becoming so silly that we cannot help but laugh at them. So they must be providing a valuable health effect to counter all of the stress caused by the legislative outcome of their stupidity.
Sod the nicotine replacement therapies and smoking bans. just get the health authorities to issue free Monty Python DVDs to everyone and we'll all live forever!
(Well I did say it was only slightly more serious).
.
Brian, too, too funny!!! Thanks for the laugh. Between that BS ad this morning and packing up for my move on Friday..........I'm really in need of a good laugh.
By the way, I may be rather quiet the next few days as I am moving (and I hate packing and unpacking) so, if I'm not here, just know I'm not having fun either (which will probably please the hell out of Bill)..........hehehehehe
Brian wrote:
""Overall, average blood flow increased 22 percent during laughter, and decreased 35 percent during mental stress."
Wouldn't it be ironic to see all of those miserable, uptight, po-faced, humourless anti-smoking advocates (are you there Mr Godshall?) dying prematurely through misery-induced heart disease, while all of the cheerful people, who choose to laugh at the ludicrous notion that someone else's smoking can kill them, go on to live to a ripe old age?"
I visit and recommend this blog for comic relief, as I've never read so many absurd claims posted by folks who truly believe their absurd claims.
Bill says "I visit and recommend this blog for comic relief, as I've never read so many absurd claims posted by folks who truly believe their absurd claims."
Agreed, and you keep posting so many That we can all enjoy the laughter.
Thanks for the humor there Bill.
Bill is in dire need of a lightbulb change,funny Bill i think the same about your Bill Godshall web shrine to the malcontents,who need you to write the mails and letters for them to sign.So you see Bill the only people you truly represent are those few who reside in PA and who sign your missives,nobody else.I presume you do not dive or fly since the effects of pressure on self contained air can be quite dangerous,i'll google to see if hot air makes the situation worse.
Bill Godshall
I've read most of your posts on this blog and I'm damned if I can recall a single instance of humour in anything you have written. I don't think that 'comic' relief is the type of relief that you are seeking.
Now, with respect to your repetitive reference to 'absurd claims', would you care to prove that you are not merely a troll by giving us your appraisal of the top (say) 20 'absurd' claims, with a logical analysis which demonstrates just why they are 'absurd'. You know, just stating something doesn't make it true, except in that narrow space that is your own mind, so let's have your considered analysis, please.
To make sure this is fair, you must not refer to your own claims, which would make the task too easy, as they are always the most absurd of all.
Come on Bill, rise to the challenge for once, and prove that you are able to hold a proper debate.
I expect silence.
.
I visit and recommend this blog for comic relief, as I've never read so many absurd claims posted by folks who truly believe their absurd claims.
That's funny, Bill. We feel exactly the same way about your comments, except when you get nasty then we get an adrenalin rush which makes us want to go out and blow smoke in every anti's face.
"I visit and recommend this blog for comic relief, as I've never read so many absurd claims posted by folks who truly believe their absurd claims."
Wow. Even when the message isn't terribly important, you're on target with repetition, repetition. Which is more interesting than the repetition you accused this blog of a few short months ago, though smokers' minds are to fogged to understand WHY. And you tied in the old Internet standby "No, I was laughing at YOU!" to boot.
So does this mean that when you call smokers addicts, mention smoking is like rape, etc., that these baiting tactics are part of the whole humor kick? Is questioning Dr. Siegel's integrity with specious arguments and saying, in essence, "Shut up, stop respecting those smokers, me and others are getting you what you wanted--turbo-charged hyperdrive Tobacco Control!" part of Bill's Big Internet House-o-Laffs?
P.S. I was smirking while writing this.
widespread use of STATINS.
I believe it was mentioned back when the Pueblo results were first publicized a year or so ago that the authors had consulted at the start with the Helena authors. Even if they had not, they certainly should have been literate enough to have read the Rapid Responses to Helena.
They most assuredly knew that one of the chief criticisms of Helena was the refusal of the authors to publicly analyze the AMI results for nonsmokers while simultaneously trumpeting the "findings" that showed the danger of secondary smoke exposure.
Despite that knowledge, they made a deliberate and conscious decision not to even gather the data that would have allowed for such important analysis in their own study.
Why would they made such a decision? Why would they deliberately decide to cripple the impact of their study on public health efforts to ban smoking?
Could it possibly be that their preliminary examination of the data warned them that such results would be "undesirable" ? Could it perhaps be that the Pueblo authors were warned by the Helena authors that the true scientific data would be unlikely to support the false message that they wanted to present and were being paid to produce?
I honestly cannot think of any other reason. I'm also quite sure that the Pueblo authors will read this blog since Circulation itself provides no immediate public and scientific feedback option for other researchers who examine their work. So I invite them to defend their work here publicly and explain why they refused such a basic addition to their research design.
I would also like to see them defend their highlighted "Conclusion" that "A public ordinance reducing exposure to secondhand smoke was associated with a decrease in AMI hospitalizations in Pueblo, Colo, which supports previous data from a smaller study." West's insightful comment about "Eating at home" would have been fully as accurate as a "Conclusion."
The deliberate designing of research to produce desired results rather than research that would give true results is little short of outright fraud. I am surprised that Circulation agreed to publish this study at all... although it is interesting that it was not published in the BMJ as a followup to their Helena study.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Thanks for the good laugh, Doc! I enjoy the levity.
I can't resist:
- How many antismoking groups does it take to change a lightbulb? 26.
- One to claim it has been changed based on the recalled, self-reporting of the twin lightbulb in two-pack bought at Walmart, who has a lawsuit claiming General Electric did not disclose that it had a limited lifespan when GE manufactured it.
- One to issue press releases stating, "Lightbulbs found to be discarded in recycling bin when service life ends, explosive new study finds."
- One to issue press releases stating, "Lightbulbs found to have longer lifespan when users turn off lights in unused rooms; implications for savings debated in City Council Meeting."
- One to issue press releases stating, "Lightbulbs involuntarily exposed to dangerous levels of use in average homes; useful lifespan decreased thirty percent by spendthrifts, study shows."
- One to issue press releases stating, "Lightbulbs who don't urge users to turn them off risk shorter lifespan, endangering the available reading light of innocent consumers, study finds."
- One to issue press releases stating, "City Council approves excise tax on lightbulbs who don't complain to local utilities board if homeowners don't use lightbulbs 'efficiently.' 'This is a victory for lightbulbs and lightbulb users,' said a Councilman, 'Electrical devices will finally be held accountable for the damage they inflict on citizens. It's our earnest hope that lightbulbs and citizens will quit the 'lighting addiction' once and for all."
- One to issue press releases stating, "Secondhand light a serious health hazard; contributes to macular degeneration, study shows."
- One to issue press releases stating, "More cities across America snuff out 'secondhand light,' tough new rules enacted for bedtime readers. 'Your right to read in your own bedroom stops at your neighbor's curtain,' a Councilman said. 'It's time we woke up to the fact that your neighbor shouldn't have to close his own curtains to get a light-pollution-free night's sleep. Sidestream light is becoming an epidemic, and we're proud to be the first city to take proactive steps to curb this public health threat.'"
- Bill Godshall to write something in praise of the lightbulb crusade.
- 17 public health groups to cheerlead for the cause and send outraged letters to City Councillors who don't demand an immediate ban on frivolous lightbulb use for the children.
not meant to derail, but i couldn't resist. start with #8 and work your way down, then start at the top. more rules, for our own good, of course.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/
met...amphetamine.htm
http://www.fda.gov/cder/news/ met...amphetamine.htm
They started doing this in Phoenix last year. I simply refuse to buy any OTC medication that is not available on the shelves or that I have to sign for like some criminal.
To those who missed it, Christopher Buckley in the New York Times Book Review of Sept. 24 mentioned that Professor William Fry of Stanford University reported that 100 laughs will give your body an aerobic workout equal to that of a 10-minute session on a rowing machine. So Buckley says he's just going to watch "Young Frankenstein" on the DVD player while eating Cheetos and drinking 36 ounces of Coke.
It's my opinion that a single posting of Godshall has the same effect, especially when he's seen gloating lasciviously when the barbarians again triumph.
How many antis does it take to change a lightbulb?
The don't change it! Antis like to keep people in the dark.
One to issue press releases stating, "More cities across America snuff out 'secondhand light,' tough new rules enacted for bedtime readers. 'Your right to read in your own bedroom stops at your neighbor's curtain,' a Councilman said. 'It's time we woke up to the fact that your neighbor shouldn't have to close his own curtains to get a light-pollution-free night's sleep. Sidestream light is becoming an epidemic, and we're proud to be the first city to take proactive steps to curb this public health threat.'"
-Josh
Of course this type of discussion and subsequent ban wouldn't really begin in earnest until the Hunter Shade & Curtain Foundation starts doling out financial grants in a self serving manner.
Trouble is, antismokers only give the light bulb 1.3 turns, and deem that sufficient to prove the light bulb is screwed in sufficintly. When the light bulb does not light, they then screw in many more light bulbs 1.3 turns, and they have to keep doing this because none of the light bulbs really light.
Then they claim they have screwed in many light bulbs 1.3 turns, so that proves screwing in light bulbs 1.3 turns is valid.
Then they claim smoker rights people who beleive light bulbs ahve to be screwed in more than 3 turns to be done right are lying. This is because they ahve so many light bulbs screwed in 1.3 times, that that must be the correct way to do it.
If smokers rights people claim that none of the light bulbs scewed in 1.3 times light up, that is ignored because the issue is not whether the light bulbs actually work, the issue is that screwing in light bulbs 1.3 times is the "right" way to do it.
This makes the light bulb industry happy because they sell more light bulbs that way. So they will not disagree with the antismokers when they screw in light bulbs 1.3 turns.
therefore, there are no expert light-bulb-screw-inners who publically disagree with the antismokers. Dave K
Thanks for all your imagination.
I never knew that a lightbulb could be so dangeous! The hunter shade and curtain co. will soon be saying that any light will be dangerous. It would make sense that the possibility of any danger is proof that you must stop people from themselves.
If you can protect one person, while withoholding other peoples rights thats ok. Mind you its the pleats that matter, not the fact that people just don't want to not see the sun.
Oh I see the light!
Proposed ban on light bulbs
Ban the Bulb says Gardiner
Now back to our regular programming
At Women against cancer - facts It states...
Almost twice as many UK women die from lung cancer when compared to those in other European countries (29.8 vs.16.9 deaths per 100,000).
Why? Especially since the smoking rate is lower in the UK than many EU countries?
This is the third time this week I've seen data that seems a little screwy.
1st CVD declines in England by 35.9% in past 10yrs yet smoking declines only 3-4% and has apparently increased in the UK in 16-25yr old women by 5% in that time see --> BBC
2nd Asthma in high smoking Russia, lower than the UK or USA
3rd Pueblo 'nuff said.
Are there other factors going on here? How can we have confidence in any studies if they do not appear to be linked to reality?
west
----
Q. How many antis does it take to change a lightbulb?
Godshall: What's a lightbulb?
Everybody should be encouraged to quit using artificial light cold turkey. Those who cannot should switch to fluorescent tubes until they have the will power to do so.
H-A-R-R-Y ,i almost spilt my tea laughing.west2 it's precisely what Lynda keeps saying,if it defies logic it must either be spin from Public Health or Government.
I fully expect Bill to be extolling the virtues of the lightless bulb. Or the bulbless light.
Which one blows your hair back Bill?
It of course depends on which special interest group funds his organization first.
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....l-
interest.html
Yes, Enstrom/Kabat have set up a web site (forget which one of you posters put me on to this, but thanks!).
Nothing there of any consequence yet, but it should be interesting when it gets rolling. It's (and bookmark it, please):
www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org
Don't you love it -- scientific integrity!!! (Think Bill Godshall will visit it only with a garlic clove hung round his neck and a big Christian cross stabbing the air before him).
Hope you list it, Dr. Siegel.
Sorry, maybe it's only Dr Enstrom.
Women against lung cancer http://www.walcuk.org.uk. Astroturfed by Roche:
"Supported by an unrestricted educational grant from Roche Products"
So, this 'group' is supported by a drug cartel.
Q. How many antis does it take to change a lightbulb?
Godshall: What's a lightbulb?
Harry
Or Godshall: Only smokers are so depraved that they forceably screw innocent light bulbs against their will.
Well, Glantz is building his "mountain of evidence" list regarding these crappy "studies." I don't recall any discussion over one that was apparently published last month about a town in Italy. Wait until you get a load of that one if you haven't yet! At least it offers all sorts of qualifiers such as "could", "might", and "suggests." That doesn't stop Glantz from touting it as "confirmation" for the others.
Two new studies confirm that heart attacks drop when smokefree laws go in to effect
Two new papers have been published evaluating the effects of smokefree policies on heart attack (acute myocardial infarction) admissions to hospitals when smoke free laws go into effect. These studies confirm our original result from Helena, Montana, using larger data sets by independent groups.
The Italy one is at http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals....stract/
ehl201v1
And this is how they (whistle while they) work (a tip of the hat to Brian's "hi-ho" remark elsewhere).... Quantity over quality.
E-X-C-E-L-L-E-N-T WALT !.
Harry, thanks for bringing the Enstrom web site news forward from the older thread.
One of the many points I wanted to add concerning the funding subject had to do with the charge that the reason Enstrom's and Kabat's study arrived at the results it did was because tobacco companies find and fund "friendly" research/ers. All the while the antis essentially claiming their studies are "pure" and uninfluenced.
Well now, doesn't the following speak volumes about who it is that's practicing advocacy science.
The Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute (established with the settlement money from the Flight Attendant lawsuit) held an Inaugural meeting in 2002 and a Symposium in 2003 (that's when/where they first held their organized bash of the E/K study a day before it was even published) to discuss the "strategies" of their future research against big bad tobacco and ETS.
And wouldn't you know, they sought out, selected, and gathered together the "young" scientists who will conduct this research!
FAMRI's History Page contains thank you letters written by participants (the anti all-stars). There are a handful posted that what were written from each year on that page. Very interesting indeed. Here's just a sample:
Dr. Michael Cummings (2002): I was especially heartened to see the outstanding young scientists that FAMRI has selected to support over the next few years. Continuing success to reduce the damage caused by tobacco use will require a concerted effort to support young scientists who are willing to devote their talents to the public health practice of tobacco control.
Dr. David Sidransky (2002): The dedication of the supported scientists was obvious to their research and to the mission of eradicating tobacco-related disease.
Dr. Allan Brandt (2003): The research that was reviewed at the Second Annual Meeting makes clear that FAMRI's research program will result in important scientific findings that will greatly benefit efforts to reduce the harms incurred from tobacco use,... [note: if you read his whole letter he means "passive smoking"]
And then, sadly, is this from our host:
Dr. Michael Siegel (2003): The sheer volume of work funded by FAMRI was impressive, as were the accomplishments achieved by the grantees within just one year of funding.
The highlight of the conference, for me, was FAMRI’s impromptu press conference to debunk a poorly-conducted study casting doubt on the health effects of secondhand smoke to be released the following day by the British Medical Journal. It was exciting to be surrounded by the country’s experts on the science and epidemiology of secondhand smoke as well as by the country’s leading secondhand smoke advocates, with their
outstanding media advocacy skills, and to be a part of a team that responded quickly and definitively to this potentially harmful article. FAMRI, and the grantees present, played a significant role in preventing the tobacco industry from once again using its paid scientists to cast doubt on the well-recognized causal relationship between secondhand
smoke exposure and disease.
So we learn (or they confirm what we believe) that they line up the scientists that will bring them the "right" results. But noooo, not them, they protest.
Note this excerpt from the press advisory Glantz made sure all the "all-stars" were armed with before the "impromptu" press conference held during the Symposium to denounce the E/K study:
[Lisa Bero's, Ph.D., Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Health Policy at the University of California, San Francisco] earlier research on the Center for Indoor Air Research showed that most of the studies they funded on second hand tobacco smoke were not selected by scientists but rather selected and controlled by its executives and lawyers. In contrast to research funded by non-tobacco sources the research the Center funded almost always concluded that second hand tobacco smoke was not harmful."
[Said Stanton Glantz,]"The fact that it is possible to see negative effects on the heart, blood and blood vessels with just thirty minutes of exposure to second hand tobacco smoke proves that these effects are both real and immediate."
A circus if I ever saw one. Glantz the head clown and instigator of much.
Hey, Just the facts....
Did ya see this flight attendant study?
The largest, of approximately 58,000 USA flight attendants, found they had 37 to 42% as much lung cancer as would be normally be expected. These flight attendants were either retired, or actively working in the airline industry between 1988 and 1995. Their work history goes back well into the 1970s:
"In summary, this study provides strong evidence that while the overall cancer experience of flight attendants does not differ from that of the general population, they do experience higher rates of certain cancers, particularly female breast cancer and malignant melanoma of the skin. This observation is consistent with similar suggestions from the limited literature on this topic to date."
Ref: http://ashsd.afacwa.org/docs/CDP...20to%
20BCRP.pdf
US flight attendants look like a perticularly healthy group of people despite beig exposed to lots of SHS in the closed confines of aircraft
cabins during most of their careers. Dave K
JTF,
Very damning to the Dr. Siegel of 2003. Let's hope it doesn't reflect the Dr. Siegel of 2006.
The end result drives the science.Tobacco funded research can't operate this way SO why is it permissable for the antis ?I still believe there is more integrity shown by researchers who are funded by big Tobacco than those funded by US the smokers.
Good find Dave K.
Dr Siegel,
How do you eplain the flight attendants study in terms of lung cancer and SHS? Surly there should have been an increase if SHS is causal, not a dramatic decrease. Did I read this study incorrectly?
west
....
Talking about ethics (carried over from the other thread about E/K:
The early ACS “media alert,” the listserv messages from Glantz and Shatenstein, and the Miami press conference poisoned the media coverage of our study well before the BMJ press embargo was lifted. These unethical actions helped stimulate the avalanche of RRs that further tainted our paper and helped create an atmosphere in which it was virtually impossible for the paper to be judged on its content and its merits. Furthermore, these actions gave currency to the claims that our study results were influenced by the tobacco industry and were at variance with the results of other comparable studies. Both of these claims are utterly false, but they have not stopped the innuendo about us and our research.
Instead of engaging in a professional dialogue with me regarding my findings on ETS, the ACS has chosen to make it virtually impossible to conduct that type of epidemiologic research that I previously conducted with their cooperation and funding. The ACS decided in February 2004 that scientists who receive financial support from the tobacco industry will be barred from receiving grants from the ACS as of July 1, 2005 and they used our BMJ paper as partial justification for their policy change
http://www.scientificintegrityin...rg/
defense.html
And Enstrom to conclude in his defense of scientific integrity:
I am particularly indebted to the specific individuals who have granted me this academic freedom and who have unfailingly supported me. In addition, I would like to thank Joseph Turner of the American Literary Historical Society for alerting me in 1975 to the dangers associated with making an unwanted discovery. In particular, he taught me how to survive betrayal by supposedly trustworthy individuals and organizations. Finally, I would like to thank Harold Callahan of the San Francisco Police Department, who I met in 1971, when I still lived in the San Francisco Bay Area. He taught me how to most effectively combat corrupt individuals who adhere to no ethical standards.
http://www.scientificintegrityin...rg/
defense.html
Condemning!
Thanks to Harry for the link.
Glans and Shitenstein should be removed and replaced with researchers who are concerned with scientific integrity and do not suffer from a political dogma which they believe empowers them to act as they wish.Public Health is even more rotten than could ever be conceived.I am forming the opinion that i would like to see it all implode,as the option of cleaning up it's act is just going to be insurmountable.
Dave K., I know the Flight Attendant study and its place on the debunked junk heap.
But I'd rather not divert attention/discussion to one more piece of junk that suffers from the same things all the others are guilty of one way or another, and away from the operation of the organization born from it.
We'd just be rehashing the old when there's this other part of it in need of attention too.
I've just read the Enstrom document and I have a couple of observations to make:
Dr Siegel - you must read this, partly because you are given a glowing reference by Prof. Enstrom in there, but primarily because it should make you want to revisit your past life and take that final step across the Rubicon into our world of logic and plain common sense, with which you are only toying at the moment. I would also suggest that you should get in touch with Enstrom and sit down and chew the fat with him over a glass of beer or twelve. You two seem to have more in common than you want to admit to. What are you afraid of? We are good people on this side of the argument - honest!
As for the reported behaviour of the so-called 'experts' in the field of anti-tobacco research (I note its always the same few names that crop up over and over again); what can one say? Appalling, dreadful, outrageous and unprofessional yes. I would also add that, to the people here, myself included, it is unsurprising and clearly vindicates all of the arguments which have been repeatedly presented to you over the period that I have been reading this blog (2 years).
Finally, Michael (if I may be so informal) perhaps you would like to consider whether the term 'racketeers' which you so glibly apply to the tobacco industry shouldn't also apply to the current fanatical anti-smoker movement both in the US and in Europe - and including all of those named in Enstrom's piece. Aren't they racketeers too? I'm damned certain they are.
Some of you must have read the Clyde Haberman piece in the NY Times of Sept. 29th, which is farce in one of its finer hours.
We know that Mayor Bloomberg's new campaign is all about cooking with trans fats, with his object being to prohibit them in bars and restaurants, but the piece goes on to talk of requiring diners to chew their food 12 seconds (known as the Proper Mastication Initiative, or P.M.I.) before swallowing (insufficiently chewed food can lodge in the throat), with waiters paying special attention to how customers cut their food, as a piece of steak, for example, may not be ingested if it is more than half an inch thick or longer than three-quarters of an inch on any side (violators may be ordered to leave the restaurant). Customers, moreover, would be required, before they’re seated, to study the Heimlich maneuver posters that restaurants are supposed to have on their walls.
Also: Restaurantgoers should be limited to two glasses of wine or two pints of beer with dinner, since thresholds for good health must not be exceeded; and some Asian restaurants may be ordered to provide customers with goggles, especially in sushi bars where a diner who gesticulates broadly in conversation may poke somebody’s eye out with his chopsticks. As well, since some people are overweight, dairy restaurants might limit customers to two blintzes per order; Italian restaurants would be encouraged to serve only whole wheat pasta; and bars might be given tax breaks if they expand their stocks of low-calorie beers.
There’s more. Restaurants might be required to serve only decaffeinated coffee after 10 p.m., since caffeine consumed late at night is plainly not healthful (keeps you awake); and anyone over 50 would not be served red meat after 9 p.m., since, according to one official, “It’s for their own good.”
Does all of that have anything to do with the general subject of this blog. Certainly not!!!!!!! Apples and oranges. (Except, perhaps, that about poking your neighbor's eye out with your chopsticks.)
First things first. Through fortuitous accident, I happened to get my hands on an FAA report whose bottom line conclusion is that
FLYING CAUSES CANCER
Or , to quote direcly from the FAA bulletin ("Radiation Exposure of Air Carrier Crew Members," AC # 120-52, March 5, 1990) "Death from cancer is the principal health concern associated with occupational exposure to [galactic[ radiation."
The amount of exposure is directly related to the hours spent in the air, with minimal variations for altitude and route.
Basing its estimates on the flight-time and route from New York to Minneapolis, the FAA concluded that for crew members flying this
particular route, "the expectation is that 6 [per 1000] would eventually die of cancer as a result of occupational exposure to radiation."
But those calculations were based on exposures for this particular trip only ( 11 microsieverts per one-way flight.)
However-- as we know-- all scheduled flights in the world don't end in Minnesota, and crew members flying from New York to Seattle get slightly more than three times as much radiation, yielding 18.6 additional deaths per 1000.
And on international flights (like Tokyo to New York) the exposure rate increases up to nine times as much , yielding 55.8 morel cancer deaths per 1000, whose cause is...flying. Having nothing at all to do tobacco smoke in the air.
Wanna bet that no one adjusted for those (fairly whopping) confounders?
Benpal-- I didn't figure this out myself, but Enstrom's "Joe Turner" is the name of the hero agent in Three Days of the Condor and Harry Callahan (that one, I got) is Dirty Harry.
:
On the subject of trans fats, the Amherst Times writes: "Mayor Michael Bloomberg has frequently been accused of nanny tendencies in pursuing laws to control behavior, like the ban on smoking in public places. That runs contrary to the anything-goes traditions of the city, but with epidemic rates of heart disease, obesity and diabetes, New Yorkers could use more pressure toward healthy behavior."
"Pressure"? And what in hell business is it of government to apply PRESSURE to its citizens in order to produce "healthy behavior"? (Notice they don't say citizens should be EDUCATED to the dangers of trans fats; they use the word "pressure.") It isn't that these people are just moronic Groupthinkers, it's that they fail to recognize the baby fascism in their own natures.
Frankly, it's an America I no longer recognize, and certainly don't want any part of.
P.S.:
http://www.t-g.com/story/1170655.html
Perhaps they could even start to study the effects of excessive stress to find out that it causes more problems than most of the crap they are trying to ram down everybodies face.They may even find out how this crap is adding to the problems of living.LIFE is no longer dictated by the person who is living it,it is being controlled by those people who do not appear to posses one themselves.
Si
See my earlier post above - people are researching into, and proving that stress is a greater risk factor for heart (and other health) problems than (probably) any other, except possibly genetic inheritance.
Now if only we could get them to understand how much stress is caused to people whose liberties are being wantonly and callously removed - without justification - then maybe they might stop suggesting that it is us that are killing other people, and that it is, in reality, them!
I won't hold my breath, though!
I think a lot was taken into the results of the study. For instance (1) Were admissions to that hospital compared to other time frames and (2) was there a population decrease? I can NOT believe the CDC is promoting this! I guess we know who's pocket they are in!
Correction for the above post by History Buff:
The sentence 'I think a lot was taken into the results of the study' should read 'I think a lot was NOT taken into the results of the study'.
Actually the truth might be that the reduction in disease is actually correlating with the increased awareness and usage of vitamins and supplements. They are trying to tie it to smoking bans. If they can keep everyone thinking smoking causes disease then the real cause biochemical imbalance and nutrient deficiency then the medical industrial complex will not go out of business.
Just Google the “end of disease” for major insight.
Commenting by HaloScan
