According to the Office of Research Integrity’s annual report, which can be viewed at: http://www.ori.hhs.gov/
documents...report_2004.pdf, during 2004, the ORI received the highest number of allegations (267) since the tracking of allegations began in 1989. This was a 50% increase over allegations submitted during 2003. Although the percentage of closed cases that produced PHS misconduct for 2004 (35%) was slightly lower than the historical average of 37%, 75% of the 30 cases pending in the ORI at the end of 2004 with institutional determinations involved research misconduct findings.
According to the ORI’ December 2005 newsletter, http://www.ori.hhs.gov/
publicati...Newsletter2.pdf, two recent studies characterized the kind of fraud being discovered. One by Brian Martinson found among the top ten misbehaviors
*Failing to present data contradicting one’s own previous research.
*Overlooking other’s use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data.
*Falsifying or "cooking" data.
And a study by Al-Marzonki which listed the most common misbehaviors that have an adverse impact and are likely to occur:
* over interpretation of findings
*selective reporting
*negative or detrimental data not published
*inappropriate sub-group analysis
*selective reporting of positive results or omission of adverse results
*failure to report results or long delay
Here we go again.
Awesome information you have there Dave!!!
"One could argue that since these studies were published in journals, ANR is justified in touting these shoddy claims."
I think your positions have a lot of merit if they are interpreted in the narrow confines of the definitons you present. However, the tobacco control movement is far more complex than your postings imply. You seem to have certain naivete regarding the purpose and role of groups like ANR, ASH, etc.
Tobacco allies frequently tout Enstrom and Kabat as evidence that SHS is not harmful. I haven't seen a post on your blog condemning this.
ANR is out to pass anti-smoking laws.
Critiques of these studies are generally done by those with expertise in medicine and in medical research.
If ANR's goal is to lobby for anti-smoking laws, why would you expect them to get into the business of evaluating medical studies?
I, for one, always tend to take statistic-based studies with a grain of salt.
Here's an (albeit) poor analogy: I drop buckets of ice into a small pond inhabited by frogs, and in 1 hour, all the frogs are dead. Conclusion: Drops in water temperature killed the frogs. Not so fast. What if, on the other side of the pond someone dumped buckets of toxic waste into the water just as I was administering the ice? It seems to me (granted, I'm just a lay person, who can hardly make heads or tails of these "studies") that a decrease in the number of heart attacks could be related to number of factors, and those must ALL be ruled out before one can make a conclusion as to what caused the decline. And even then, there could be unseen or unconsidered factors that may have contributed to the decline.
However, the drops in revenue for the bars/restaurants demonstrated in this study are more trustworthy. Provided the bar/restaurant did not make any changes to the estasblishment; same staff, menu, price list, decor, etc., except to alienate a percentage of it's patrons by enforcing a non-smoking ban, you can't conclude that anything BUT the non-smoking ban was the cause of the decrease in sales! There is only ONE person dropping buckets into that pond..
At least that's how this lay person sees it.
Pablo wrote: Tobacco allies frequently tout Enstrom and Kabat as evidence that SHS is not harmful. I haven't seen a post on your blog condemning this.
Tobacco allies? You mean anyone not afraid of the truth or speaking it couldn't possibly be an honest average person? Or anyone NOT in agreement with you and Bill et al must in fact belong to the enemy?
IF the study is factual and truthful WHY would he condemn it? The truth does hurt sometimes, doesn't it? Especially when it doesn't back up what you are attempting to shove down everyone's throat.
Lynda, the study has a number of flaws. SHS was so ubiquitous in the 70's and 80's I am not sure the reasults mean anything at all.
The issue though, is when the study is used as evidence that SHS is not a health hazard. Even the study itself does not say that SHS is harmless.
There may be some truth to the fact that more data are needed in the heart attack studies.
But least ANR's claims are in keeping with their findings.
The same cannot be said for what's often done with Enstrom and Kabat.
"SHS was so ubiquitous in the 70's and 80's I am not sure the reasults mean anything at all."
But they are used to justify laws, aren't they?
"There may be some truth to the fact that more data are needed in the heart attack studies." The data is there, Pablo, before your very eyes, what else do you need to compare two figures? Magnifying glasses or a university degree?
Pablo,
hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands of people actually survived the early part of the 20th century being constantly exposed to SHS smoke with fewer illnesses and diseases. Why is this so bloody difficult for you all to comprehend?
Then there is the simple and quite obvious fact that SHS is NOT THE ONLY CAUSE OF ANYTHING, therefore how the hell can you single it out? The very air we breathe carries the same carcinogens from auto exhaust, how can you separate the real cause then?
It really isn't rocket science and I fail to understand why you all insist on pretending that it is.
There has to be another reason why more kids under the age of 15 suffer from asthma and other respiratory problems than did back in the 50s and 60s when smoking was everywhere and the only escape was IF no one in your family smoked. Even the good Doc here can't explain that one and yet you all still try to blame it all on SHS.
Pablo, the only one showing any naivete in regard to such groups as ANR, ASH, etc., is you.
While I have actively and openly disagreed with Dr. Siegel's position in regard to government imposed smoker bans, I have never had any reason to question his integrity.......the same can not be said for those associated with the other groups. Neither honesty or integrity are words that can be used in the same sentence when describing the vast majority of the anti-smoker cartel.
Lynda, It may never have ocurred to you that maybe you have become a little prejudicial. I don't believe I've commented on SHS and asthma.
Relax a little.
Pablo wrote:
"Lynda, the study has a number of flaws. SHS was so ubiquitous in the 70's and 80's I am not sure the reasults mean anything at all."
A housewife stays home. She goes to the grocery story once or twice a week. It either allowed smoking or not. If it did her exposure was 1 hour a week of very weak exposure.
Going out to dinner was not a daily event back then. But for those housewives who did go out from time to time, wherever it may have been, CPS1 asked them about exposure other than home.
Gabz - Whether you are correct or not, you've missed the point of my post: If ANR's goal is to lobby for anti-smoking laws, it seems naive to expect lobbyists to try and evaluate medical studies.
Pablo,it seems to me that you are having a serious problem in understanding the basic facts of epidemioligy with your flawed praises for ANR.Perhaps if you re-read Dr Siegel's previous comments you may become a little more enlightened.Being a rabid often causes myopic tendencies to occur,surely you prefer to argue the science and logic and not merely adopt the rhetoric ? I am completely at a loss to understand how Dr Siegel could possibly expand the parameters of his comments in order to satisfy you.Perhaps if you explained what you are complaining about we may possibly be able to comprehend why you are turning circles and speaking gibberish.
This just in.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarti...warticle/
545839
Pablo: "You seem to have certain naivete regarding the purpose and role of groups like ANR, ASH, etc."
ASH stands for Action on Smoking by the Hemorrhoidal? I contend these groups misrepresent themselves when they purport to represent the interest of public health.
Pushing such studies puts them in the same league as those they despise so much... The tobacco industry. No longer should the press give such groups a free pass, and question everything they put forth.
Pablo, if you think it is naive to expect lobbyists to try and evaluate medical studies you know nothing about lobbying. I happen to know a little bit about lobbying, Pablo. After leaving radio I went to work for a lobbyist and then became one myself, and worked in the field for 20 years.
Walt H., I couldn't agree with you more. I received an unbelieveable amount of scrutiny when I was working with the bars fighting the ban in Delaware, but none of the paid professional antis were ever questioned. I had to provide backup for everything I said, but their press releases were never subject to any such questioning.
The validity of the heart attack studies is debatable. To be in the same league as those you think we 'antis' "despise so much" they'd have to be responsible in the deaths of 400,00 people a year.
Same league as Big Tobacco? ASH and ANR aren't even on the same planet.
"...What is striking to me is the deterioration of the quality of the science coming out of the anti-smoking movement ...." -Dr. Siegel
Are you kidding me? After the American Cancer Society test results:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....st-
results.html
Science is the last thing the pro-smoking ban movement should attempt to use......science is definitely NOT on the activists' "health hazard" side of the issue.
Carl,
If you are known to exaggerate or use questionable data, is 400,000 just another such example? This is what happens when one loses credibilty.
since i cannot access the medscape link, this just in too...
http://www.acsh.org/news/
newsID....news_detail.asp
Pablo does make an interesting point, and perhaps I am expecting too much in suggesting that ANR should be making statements that are based on solid scientific grounds. But there are several reasons why I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
First, to avoid being complete hypocrites. We spend so much of our time criticizing the tobacco companies for putting out junk science; it is quite hypocritical for us to put out our own junk science, even if we view our primary role as lobbying for policies rather than putting out good science.
Second, to retain credibility. If we disseminate junk science, regardless of whether it has been published or not, we are going to lose credibility with the public and eventually, with policy makers.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, ANR makes itself out to be an organization that reviews the science and reports it to the public. If you examine their website, you'll see entire sections on Scientific Research. If you are going to represent yourself as being a valid reviewer of scientific evidence, then I think you have accepted the responsibility of actually reviewing that evidence in a credible fashion and being able to take responsibility for backing it up
If ANR wants to just be a lobbying group, then fine. But then it shouldn't be making itself out to be reviewing and reporting scientific information to the public.
Guy, since I have my browser set to NOT accept cookies, would you mind please copying and pasting whatever that is? Or at least the really relevant parts? Thank you.
"...But least ANR's claims are in keeping with their findings...." -Pablo
When you accept that their funding comes from pharmaceutical nicotine interests like RWJF......then yes their claims are consistant.
Consistant with being pharmaceutical nicotine schills whose only goal is to eliminate tobacco nicotine products in lieu of pharmaceutical nicotine products.
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/g...=57556&
iaid=143
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....-into-
this.html
But science and facts are not any part of their agenda:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....st-
results.html
Lifetime cumulative exposure to secondhand smoke not associated with increased MI risk
from Heartwire — a professional news service of WebMD
Michael O'Riordan
October 10, 2006 (Coventry, UK) – Secondhand-smoke exposure over the course of a lifetime is not significantly associated with an increased risk of MI, according to the surprising results of a new study [1]. Investigators point out, however, that exposure to secondhand smoke among nonsmokers has declined significantly in recent years, with less exposure in the workplace and public places as well as at home, and this declining exposure is likely the reason that secondhand smoke may not be as important a risk factor as previously believed.
"Exposure to secondhand smoke is declining, and this is a positive development," lead investigator Dr Saverio Stranges (Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK) told heartwire. If an individual quits smoking, depending on the duration of active smoking time, their coronary heart disease risk declines, and this risk reversal is likely the same reason for the lack of association with secondhand smoke and risk of myocardial infarction, he said. "In terms of coronary heart disease, this study can be viewed positively in light of the smoking bans that have occurred in the US, as these people have not been as exposed to secondhand smoke in recent years and consequently their cumulative lifetime risk is null."
The results of the study are published in the October 9, 2006 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Risk reversal due to public smoking bans?
Speaking with heartwire, Stranges said that during the past two decades several published studies have reported on the relationship between coronary heart disease and exposure to secondhand smoke. In addition to these studies, as well as the biological plausibility, reviews from meta-analyses indicate that exposure to secondhand smoke is associated with a 25% to 30% increased risk of coronary heart disease among never-smokers. Stranges expressed dissatisfaction, however, with previous research, as difficulties in assessing exposure have been difficult, with researchers relying on proxy measures of exposure, such as spousal smoking status or cotinine levels, a nicotine metabolite with a relatively short half-life.
In this most recent study, Stranges and colleagues sought to assess exposure to secondhand smoke from different sources over a lifetime, allowing the group to test the association between lifetime cumulative exposure to secondhand smoke and risk of MI among nonsmokers. Using data from a population-based, case-control study of residents aged 35 to 70 years in New York State, 1541 never-smokers, of whom 284 were discharged alive after MI and 1257 who served as controls, were included in the analysis. Collecting data between 1995 and 2001, study subjects were asked to report their exposure to secondhand smoke at home, at work, and in public settings from childhood to their present age to form a cumulative lifetime exposure measure.
After adjustment for covariates, secondhand smoke exposure was not significantly associated with the risk of myocardial infarction, although there was a trend toward an increased risk (odds ratio 1.19; 95% CI 0.78-1.82). Data also revealed evidence of declining trends in the prevalence of secondhand-smoke exposure for both men and women and from all three settings, with declining exposure strongest at work and at home.
"The findings may be surprising if we expect exposure to secondhand smoke to be related to coronary disease, especially in light of previous studies showing strong associations between exposure and coronary risk," said Stranges. He pointed out, however, that some studies have shown exposure to secondhand smoke to be associated with a 40% increased risk of coronary heart disease, a number he considers too high. "Aside from ideological positions on this issue, we need to be careful in both directions. Clearly, I don't think the association is as large as that. We found a point estimate of 1.19, something that is quite consistent with what we expected, and this increased risk was even higher in men, although not significant."
The most plausible explanation for the nonsignificant findings, said Stranges, is likely due to declining exposure to secondhand smoke in the US, a trend that is attributed to declining smoking rates as well as bans on smoking at work and in certain public places. "If we have fewer people who are active smokers, we have less chance to be exposed to active smoking. . . . Most people have not been exposed to secondhand smoke in the past decade, which is consistent with national data, and if there less exposure, it makes sense that we would not find an association between secondhand smoking and the risk of coronary heart disease."
Future studies assessing the effects of secondhand-smoke exposure and coronary disease risk should be conducted in countries such as Greece or even the UK, where tobacco use is still high and exposure to secondhand smoke is greater than in the US, said Stranges. In addition, future epidemiologic studies investigating the link between secondhand-smoke exposure and cardiovascular disease should focus more attention on the recent past, most likely within the last five to 10 years, he added.
Short-term effects of smoking bans in Italy
In January 2005, Italy followed the lead of several European countries, including Ireland, Malta, Norway, and Sweden, and banned smoking in all indoor public places, such as cafés, bars, restaurants, and discos. Italian researchers, led by Dr Francesco Barone-Adesi (University of Turin, Italy), used the smoking ban to study the hospital discharge records of a region in Northern Italy to determine whether the national law reduced hospital admissions for acute MI [2].
After analyzing rates of hospital admission for MI before and after the ban, investigators found that among persons younger than 60 years of age, the number of hospital admissions decreased significantly in the short term. Between February and June 2004, a period before the public ban was introduced, there were 922 individuals hospitalized with acute MI. In the same months the following year, when the ban was implemented, there were 832 patients hospitalized, a significant 11% reduction. There was no effect observed among those 60 years of age and older.
Investigators point out that there was no decrease in acute MI event rates prior to the ban. "Moreover, rates of acute myocardial infarction, if anything, increased between 2001 and 2004, suggesting that the reduction that we observed is not attributable to long-term trends," write Barone-Adesi and colleagues. "Indeed, as there was evidence that acute myocardial infarction was increasing over time, it is possible that our estimate of an 11% decrease after the introduction of the ban underestimates the real effect of the ban."
These data mirror results from Helena, MT, where investigators, led by Dr Richard Sargent (St Peter's Hospital, Helena, MT), reported that a comprehensive smoke-free ordinance was associated with a substantial and rapid reduction in hospital admissions for acute MI.
1. Stranges S, Bonner MR, Fucci F, et al. Lifetime cumulative exposure to secondhand smoke and risk of myocardial infarction in never smokers. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166:1961-1967.
2. Barone-Adesi F, Vizzini L, Merletti F, and Richiardi L. Short-term effects of Italian smoking regulation on rates of hospital admission for acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2006; 2006; 27:2468-2472.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarti...warticle/
545839
Pablo--
I'm a PR firm acting as the lobbying arm for the pharmaceutical industry's trade organization. Therefore it's unrealistic or even unfair to expect me NOT to selectively promote (to the media, the public, the legislators) a series of flawed studies proving that Canadian discount drugs are bad. Or that Hemlock (TM) is safe. I should not be expected to even know that the stuff's flawed. After all, I'm not a scientist.
Geo--
Tho the 400,000 number is a highly questionable stat game, I'm sure that a lot more than 400,000 people have lost their jobs, their businesses, their ability to function as first-class citizens, their connection to family members and friends, and their sense of connection to society at large because of the actions of groups like ANR.
:
regarding Dr. strange's study, I disageree they found less risk from SHS exposure due less overall exposure in today's world.
They studied a group still exposed to lots of smoke, just like in the 1970s and 1980s. The control group was the one with less exposure.
One should expect all this to magnify the results of recent studies compared to older studies done when exposure was lots more common. Todays research would be dividing the prevalence of heart disease in a highly exposed group by the prevalence in a less generally exposed control group causing a larger quotient. dave k
the new "rulers" of the world.
HypoCrats, MedoCrats and GrantoCrats.
Pablo:Tobacco allies frequently tout Enstrom and Kabat as evidence that SHS is not harmful. I haven't seen a post on your blog condemning this.
Apparently this is another case of selective reading, or you're just not reading the comments.
Dr Siegel addressed what he thought were the issues with the E&K study just a week or so ago...and that was not the first or only time.
Funny, they were the same objections you had re the ever-present exposure to SHS.
When multiple people in TC have the same objections, it makes me wonder why we didn't get the memo....yes, I have a suspicious mind.
I also have to wonder why those objections aren't raised when looking at studies from the same time that "support" the TC communitys beliefs
ANR is out to pass anti-smoking laws.
Critiques of these studies are generally done by those with expertise in medicine and in medical research.
If ANR's goal is to lobby for anti-smoking laws, why would you expect them to get into the business of evaluating medical studies?
Are you suggesting that the ANR has no medical professionals as members?
Or are you suggesting that those members are incompetent?
One would expect a group that claims to be as large as the ANR would have at least one or two on board.
One would also expect a group that passes itself off as a "public health" organization would make available some method of evaluating the "evidence" they're using as justification.
Especially when the ANR provides smokefree air policy advocacy technical assistance/trainings to health advocates and coalitions throughout the United States.
If that is, indeed, the case, they would have an ethical duty to ensure the information being given is accurate, wouldn't you think?
Unless, of course, the reality is that they could care less whether the information is accurate.
I note that there is a Frieda Glantz on staff there...perhaps her more famous family member could help out with finding an unbiased study vetter.
Or one of the two PHD's on the board might know someone.
Carl: The validity of the heart attack studies is debatable. To be in the same league as those you think we 'antis' "despise so much" they'd have to be responsible in the deaths of 400,00 people a year.
Same league as Big Tobacco? ASH and ANR aren't even on the same planet.
Carl, aside from trotting out the tired old "400,000" estimate...which is something many of us find questionable and offensive, please point to where Dr. Siegel claimed ASH and ANR were "in the same league" as Big Tobacco.
Here is what I assume is the relevant section, just to make it easier for you:
What is striking to me is the deterioration of the quality of the science coming out of the anti-smoking movement (and I'm not singling out ANR here; it's just one example). Our science has become no better than that commissioned by the tobacco industry. And our standard for judging the quality of science has become whether or not it supports our agenda.
Also, please point to where he made reference to the "400,000 deaths", or (failing that) please explain your justification for referencing it if he didn't.
Or are you suggesting the ends justify the means in that it should be allowed to misrepresent/misquote/misinterpret the facts so long as you feel the results are laudable?
Mike wrote:
"I think we should hold ourselves to a higher standard."
I agree. Unfortunately, most posters on this blog routinely misrepresent scientific evidence about smoking and tobacco smoke pollution.
That's also why most public health advocates who had previously read and posted on this blog stopped doing so long ago.
Bill-
You misinterpreted what I was saying.
I was saying that we (meaning anti-smoking groups and practitioners) should hold ourselves to a higher standard, not that posters on this blog should hold themselves to a higher standard.
As far as public health advocates reading this blog, I think I probably have a better idea than you who reads it, but suffice it to say that I think public health groups would be wise to keep up on it, because they ought to want to know the information about themselves that the tobacco companies (all of which are avid blog readers) are garnering every day.
Bill says " Unfortunately, most posters on this blog routinely misrepresent scientific evidence about smoking and tobacco smoke pollution.
So tell me Bill, do you still maintain that a single cigarette puts out more hydrocarbons than a late model Volvo?
Dr Siegel said:
"You misinterpreted what I was saying.
I was saying that we (meaning anti-smoking groups and practitioners) should hold ourselves to a higher standard, not that posters on this blog should hold themselves to a higher standard."
Well as far as I can see, most posters on this blog, including myself, not only hold ourselves to the highest standard, but are trying hard to hold you guys (Dr Siegel and Mr Godshall) to the highest standards too. We have to, since we have access neither to funding, nor to media oulets, that your people have. That is precisely why we post here.
I'm sorry Bill, but if you can't take that premise, then go off and join the others (Jill Stevens, 'Mr Tautology' Erik et al) who have left this blog simply because they know that they cannot meet such standards with their postings.
They know that they have lost the argument. I think you are in the same position as them, as I believe you are smart enough to understand the difference between rational discourse and blatant propaganda.
.
Dr Siegel wrote: "Bill-
You misinterpreted what I was saying.".
I think the good Dr forgot one little word that should have been inserted into that statement, it should have read:
"Bill-
You purposefully misinterpreted what I was saying."
Then it would have been correct, we have seen Bill, many times misinterpret what was said in a vain attempt to make others believe his views, to skew the statements made, to try to cover his backside vis-a-vie a statement he himself has made, or just through plain cussedness.
If you haven't seen the link on another thread all, please go through and read all about Bill's former three pack a day habit, which he now refers to as an addiction, nothing more fun than a born again is there?
Once again, I frankly do not know why we are still discussing this matter today,
I am not a doctor but I am a good mathematician and there is where the real fault is.. math! Epidemiology is a branch of statistics, which is a branch of math...Bill have you forgotten the math you learned in high school or in college? If so you are talking about thin air, if not please provide us with a clear scientific foundation to your claims once and forever.
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
