"Third, by distorting the science so severely, ASH risks undermining the public's appreciation of the hazards of active smoking and undermining years of public health efforts to educate the public about the severe cardiovascular disease harm of cigarettes. " But Dr Siegel,this is something that you choose not to discuss.It is presented as a fait accompli .Are these studies that you rely on good sound studies or the customary studies for propaganda purposes.You see we still await a direction asked of you as to when the LAST CREDIBLE SCIENCE BASED STUDIES WERE PROVIDED BY ANTI TOBACCO.UNTIL THIS IS ANSWERED WHY SHOULD THE PUBLIC TRUST ANY STUDY ?
I am not accusing ASH of intentionally lying.
You should be, because they ARE. Why are you defending these charlatans by not calling them out for what they are doing?
I am afraid that people are going to realize this and realize that the tobacco control movement is misrepresenting the science. While it is one particular group making this claim, I think people will attribute the behavior more generally to the entire movement.
Your precious movement HAS been distorting the science and misleading the public for YEARS. The vast majority of you people make your living by lying so that you can instill fear and hatred into otherwise normally reasonable people.
I seriously wonder how you people can sleep at night, let alone look youselves in the mirror each day, knowing that everything you do is a crock of excrement and you are knowingly and intentionally destroying people's lives.
I am not accusing ASH of intentionally lying.
And why NOT Herr Doktor, you very recently, and very quickly accepted and commented that you understood why smoker's were "lying" (Without ANY proof whatsoever that any in fact DID lie), in fact you "understood" why "smoker's" would lie and in so doing IMPLIED that smokers were in fact lying, yet you don't even have a single lie these smokers supposedly told.
Meanwhile, after YEARS of being SHOWN the LIES of your precious movement of hate mongerer's, you still won't even accuse them when they have been caught with their pants down, their hands IN the cookie jar, and the egg on their faces, and STILL (even AFTER having pointed THIS particular LIE out to them LAST year), you won't call THEM liars, only the smoker's, who have been remarkably accurate in their predictions about just where your "movement" was headed.
Shame on you you freaking hypocrite.
"First, by blatantly distorting and misrepresenting the science, ASH has threatened the credibility and reputation of all of us in tobacco control."
I had to check the date of this posting because I thought I had read this before.....about 500 times.
There is an ethical public health standard of honesty in scientific communication
Really? Is that why YOU love using the word CAUSE even though you claim you don't mean it in the same way that you know the general public does?
What about the ethical honesty about using "serious health hazard" without qualifying that it is ONLY a serious problem to a very small minority of people with serious and severe health issues already?
Really Doc...........you shouldn't point fingers when your own house is still so cluttered and dirty.
Dr. Siegel, as you have noted, the anti-smoker cartel has changed their strategy from harrassing tobacco companies, the supply side, to harrassing the demand side, the smokers. The cartel needed at least the pretense of science to take tobacco companies to court. No science is needed to harrass smokers.
I am pleased to announce today the establishment of a new public advocacy group called the Campaign Against Smoker Harrassment. It's mission is to respond to unscientific claims about tobacco smoke, aimed directly at smokers with unscientific responses.
I encourage all like minded individuals to become a part of this important work. Your non-tax deductable contribution will be put to good use. Just make your check out to, you've got it, CASH.
E=MC^2
Advocate for CASH
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
In this study Hirata et al (2001) Modulation of coronary flow velocity reserve by gender, menstrual cycle and hormone replacement therapy we are given the CFVR of the Men as 3.7+/- 0.6
In the Otsuka study we are given the value Mean (SD) CFVR in nonsmokers was significantly higher than that in active smokers before passive smoking exposure (4.4 [0.91] vs 3.6 [0.88], respectively; P = .02)
In the Hirata study there were 15 men non-smokers as in Otsuka. It would seem thought that the Otsuka SD is high compared to the Hirata.
Also, it would seem the value for 'smokers' in the Otsuka study are similar to the non-smokers in the Hirata study.
The effect in the Otsuka study was large in the non-smokers, yet small in the 'smokers'.
1 Why was the effect small in the 'smokers'?
2 The effect moved the 'smokers' rate from 3.6 to 3.4 which is still well withing the range of the Hirata normal non-smoker range. This seems to suggest that ETS does impact slightly yet not significantly, would that be a fair comment? Indeed since it is still within a normal range why would it lead anyone to conclude there could be any adverse affects?
3 Although Hirata was studying something defferent, shouldn't the baseline measures for the non-smokers be in about the same range?
Both studies were done at the Osaka City University Medical School in 2001 and seem to have choosen similar men for the baseline.
west
----
ES --- you've got a good one there.
The only problem, the anti-smoker cartel has sucked smokers' wallets dry padding their own pockets.
Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com
All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace health hazard.
Especially since federal OSHA regulations trump, or pre-empt, state smoking ban laws which are not based on scientific air quality test results.
Now I have lived in tenn most of my life and I can tell you this. The bans were never about health as has been proven thru air sampling testing over years and years.These bans have come down because anti-smoking NAZIS aka liberal progressives are pushing them as a way to instill socialism on us. The robert woods johnson foundation along with the big pharma companies have bought off state legislatures aroun the country this past 18 months. The world health orginization has forced countries around the world to sign the anti-tobacco treaty and those countries that dont will not get WORLD BANK LOANS to shore up their economies. All this has been comming down since the DEMOCRATS won in 2006...........high gas prices and smoking bbans and a meriad of other restrictive laws and regulations................dont vote for green liberal progressives...........your only outlawing yourself and your fellow citizens. they wont stop at smokers they are out to outlaw people of obesity too as we saw with the missippi law on obesity that was almost a state amendment to the constitution............
Scientific Evidence Shows SHS No Danger
http://www.heartland.org/Article...cfm?
artId=23399
OT
By odd coincidence, a lot of the scary chemicals allegedly in tobacco smoke have just turned up on this ACSH dinner menu.
http://foodsci.rutgers.edu/103/C...nner%
20menu.htm
But they forgot the formaldehyde in the apple pie.
"Formaldehyde can be found in everyone’s garden. Apples, a food people eat everyday, naturally contain rather high levels of formaldehyde".
http://www.formaldehyde-
europe.o....130.0.html#414
"Formaldehyde is a smelly chemical used to kill bacteria, preserve dead bodies"
"Formaldehyde is also a known cause of cancer. It is believed that even the small amounts in second-hand smoke could increase our lifetime risk of cancer"
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org...s/
#Formaldehyde
What next-
Denormalize eating apples?
They shouldn't have based the campaign on nicotine/solanine, that was discounted as a carcinogen by 1936
An estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking in Europe
Konrad Jamrozik, Professor of Evidence-Based Health Care, University of Queensland, well known for his TC studies (and bias), nonetheless comes to the conclusion, that by eliminating smoking in all European hospitality venues, 89 non-smokers could be saved (tables 7 & 8 in chapter 1):
http://dev.ersnet.org/uploads/
Do..._1173100608.pdf
His figures are based on the following assupmtions:
- it is assumed that all employees in the hospitality industry in all countries of the EU were passively exposed to tobacco smoke at work
- The application of this formula depends fundamentally on the presence of a causalrelationship between the exposure and outcome rather than on a relationship that represents a statistical association only. However, as indicated above, independent official reviews in several countries have concluded that passive smoking does cause serious and sometimes fatal disease. Thus, the requirement for a causal relationship is met.
How does that fit in with these relentless claims about how dangerous SHS is?
Doctor Siegel, - "This claim by ASH is not only inaccurate, but it is absurd on its face."
"So ASH has got it completely wrong here."
"ASH has conflated endothelial dysfunction with heart attack risk."
"ASH has factually misrepresented the truth."
(All of that above would have been more than sufficient)
"I am not accusing ASH of intentionally lying."
(Oh heaven forbid such a reality check should ever occur.)
"ASH remains guilty..." (PERIOD)
"ASH's claim is absurd." (PERIOD)
"the tobacco control movement is misrepresenting the science." (PERIOD)
(Again,...more than sufficient statements to win a round of applause)
"I have a brilliant idea for the tobacco industry which I'd like to pass along."
(Please spare us any more of your bright ideas,....look where it has brought us to date.)
"So why quit smoking?"
(My sentiment exactly)
"Luckily, the tobacco companies are a little more honest than ASH is being here" (But only by degrees so samll that the difference could be more accurately described as decimal dust)
"The tobacco companies aren't misrepresenting the science about this." (Gee, I wonder why)
**News Flash**
The mechanical tests used to measure the "tar" in cigarettes may have been manipulated for the past 40 years.
Gee,...I wonder why.
Blah, blah, blah. Once again Dr. Siegel whines about his precious movement.
ASH is exaggerating the deadly and dangerous second-hand smoke, but it's still deadly and dangerous and should be banned everywhere you, and only you, see fit.
Any compromise that would allow indoor smoking is either too lax, discriminatory, or ill-informed.
Any restriction that goes too far, in your opinion, is draconian, discriminatory, and ill-informed.
We get it. You're the only one who's ever right. Get a parrot.
Benpal,
Lifting the smokescreen:
“Passive smoking currently kills 79,000 European Union (EU) citizens a year.
72,000 of these deaths are due to second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure at
home and 7,000 are due to SHS exposure at work.”
I will not be one of these “SHS” deaths because I am a British subject (of the crown) and not a “citizen” of the European Union. I am self selecting myself out of this data set.
It upsets me that this “Professor of Evidence-Based Health care” did not tell us that the (virtual) deaths in the home were not greater than the (virtual) deaths in pubs , sooner, because that way we could of saved more (virtual) lives. Clearly this man is guilty of mass (virtual) murder through omission. We need to calculate the attributable risk he has caused through omission.
We need to put this man on trial for mass (virtual) murder.
In addition we need to put the so-called “British Health and Safety Executive(HSE)” on trial for not doing their job properly. Why is it that it takes an Australian with a "smoking related health anxiety disorder" to pull numbers out of a hat when it is the HSE that is meant to calculate risk in the work place?
west2 wrote: 1 Why was the effect small in the 'smokers'?
West, Glantz and Parmley explains this in their study:Passive smoking and heart disease. Epidemiology, physiology, and biochemistry, Circulation. 1991;83:1-12
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/...abstract/83/1/
1
"Of note, the cardiovascular effects of ETS appear to be different in nonsmokers and smokers. Nonsmokers appear to be more sensitive to ETS than do smokers, perhaps because some of the affected physiological systems are sensitive to low doses of the compounds in ETS, then saturate, and also perhaps because of physiological adaptions smokers undergo as a result of long-term exposure to the toxins in cigarette smoke. "
the "tar" in cigarettes
That would appear to be solanesol LB, the Chinese and India just informed me that Solanesol ( Tobacco Oil ) is a brownish white liquid.
"With solanesol as its primary material, Co-enzyme Q 10 is useful in the treatment of heart diseases, cancers and ulcers"
Also used for air testing even though they do admit that it can't distinguish between solanesol from tobacco smoke and cooked solanesol from nightshade vegetables.
Well this is a relief!!! No need to quit smoking after all! Thank you ASH 
Do spread the word about your wonderful news. I'll find a blog on Big Tobacco's websites and include a link to ASH's pronouncement so they can get started passing the word too.
(The only saving grace here is that if anyone actually lands on that website they will immediately think "did a 10 year old produce this site?" and will blow off any words they read, despite the brazen "NEW" flashing graphics. With all the money I have paid them via smoke taxes you'd think they could hire a webmaster.)
It was Roffo who painted mice with tobacco tar but he was very much criticised for heating it up to very high temperatures.
Tobacco oil is a poly unsaturated fatty acid, so we know what that means if you boil it up repeatedly.
Talking of which look what I just found.
"Wayne Martin likes to tell a story which suggests just how cancer-causing are PUFs. In 1930 in the USA, eighty percent of men smoked cigarettes and the tar content of cigarettes was much higher than it is today. The death rate at that time from lung cancer was very low. In 1955 doctors decided that PUFs were good in terms of heart disease protection. After this lung cancer deaths increased so dramatically. By 1980 although the number of American men who smoked had dropped to only thirty percent, three times as much PUF was being eaten — and there were sixty times as many lung cancer deaths"
http://www.second-
opinions.co.uk...and_cancer.html
Well thats a new one.
Has anyone read the Margaret McTear v
Imperial Tobacco Industries court case.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/
opi...2005CSOH69.html
Rush talked about this article today so millions know about it.
http://www.heartland.org/Article...cfm?
artId=23399
We get it. You're the only one who's ever right. Get a parrot.
OMG -- Cowbell, I'm absolutely ROARING laughing over tha comment.
Those nearly exact words were used this evening during a meeting at the Lodge where I work. The person to whom those words were directed is not only no longer an officer, he is no longer a bartender.
He's also a non-smoker and the only one I served at the bar this evening who did not tip me.
Numbers are powerful. Antismoking groups hammer America constantly with their dubious numeric death tolls. I wonder how many Americans, if any, each year die due to secondhand smoke according to posters on this blog? I would guess less than 100.
Fredrik Eich: “Passive smoking currently kills 79,000 European Union (EU) citizens a year.
72,000 of these deaths are due to second-hand smoke (SHS) exposure at
home and 7,000 are due to SHS exposure at work.”
If you read the study carefully and several times, you will find that it is full of errors (lies?). The above number refers in fact to active smokers, not non-smokers, despite the title. It assumes an RR of 12.2 for lung cancer. Numbers referring to non-smokers can be found in the following tables 7 & 8 (19'00 deaths in Europe from SHS, 89 in the hospitality industry).
I have never seen such a messy study with so many obvious errors. Yet it is cited over an over in EU publications - with the wrong numbers.
Ann W thanks for the info.
If you look at the 'study' (it is really a review) the rrs of the studies reivewed are low and 1/2 the studies go through 0 at the 95% Confidence level. At least one had a range from 0.9 to nearly 14!
Although they try explaining the differences between smokers/non-smokers, it is speculative.
To test their 'theory' maybe they should have done follow ups (real studies) with comparisons of people who have been smoking 0,1,5,10,20 (100!) yrs. Then the true extent of this effect would at least be tested. Has this been done elsewhere?
Be nice to get answers to for my other questions especially
Why are the CFVR baselines so different? Why, if the CFVRs remain in a normal range is this considered abnormal or of concern?
The result of Otsuka has been used to make a claim. Dr Siegel says the claim is not valid. The Hirata study seems to support that view. The Hirata study also seems to support the view that the baseline CFVR found in Otsaka is slightly high though the changes in CFVR detected are within the normal range.
Therefore is it not fair to say that the relationship between ETS, CFVR and Heart Attacks is seriously open to question? (he presupposes that any change in CFVR is natural, a fair assumption if CFVR is a compensating mechanism?
west
----
typo --> (he = this
This presupposes that any change in CFVR is natural, a fair assumption if CFVR is a compensating mechanism?
Also, when I said any change, I meant any change within normal limits.
west
---
Thanks, Gabz.
Did the non-smoker keel over after 31 minutes?
The larger canvas;
http://lieberaldictators.blogspot.com/
YOUR COMMENT DR SIEGEL ? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
...urce=newswidget
Here's an anti article all over the map:
http://www.chippewa.com/
articles...23914339558.txt
Secondhand smoke not filtered like car exhaust
"Investigation Concerning Termination of Smokers And/Or Charging Smokers Higher Healthcare or Disability Premiums"
http://www.cmht.com/
investigatio...ion_smokers.php
E=MC^2
Advocate for CASH
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
Did the non-smoker keel over after 31 minutes?
May God forgive me for this comment, Cowbell --- but ALAS, he did not. However, it is just another bit of proof that smokers are better bar/restaurant customers than non-smokers.
I am still waiting to see answers from Dr. Siegel to the various questions that have been posed here since yesterday. Specifically WHY does he fail to call ASH the obvious liars that they are?
If we take ASH claims as accurate (i said if!) then it immediately follows that 2nd hand smoke for nonsmokers is a greater health risk than active smoking by several orders of magnitude.
It is also true that almost everyone gets occasionally exposed to a whiff of second hand smoke.
Therefore, all the non-smoker need to take up smoking ASAP. It's the only effective way of avoiding this deadly risk.
Gabz,
It depends on how you define the word "lie." By the definition that a lie is simply a false statement, then I believe ASH is lying. But by the definition that a lie is an intentional false statement, I'm not prepared to accuse them of that. The reason is that there is an alternative explanation: it is possible that ASH simply is incompetent in interpreting this science. They may actually think that what they are saying is correct. That would make them completely incompetent in interpreting the science, but not intentional liers.
I'm not sure which is worse. If they are scientifically incompetent, that is pretty bad, because they are holding themselves out to the public to be a valid communicator of health information. If they are actually spewing out false information, then that is a betrayal of the public's trust. I find that to be a very serious problem.
"Secondhand smoke not filtered like car exhaust" Repace must swirl like a tornado when reading this. Doesn't he claim that there is no way to eliminate toxic fumes?
Either way:
Incompetently interpreting or Interpreting incompetently it's still false information.
If you call them a liar, they will have to prove otherwise or 'say they are sorry.'
If you pussy-foot, they'll keep doing it.
Parenting 101
"it is possible that ASH simply is incompetent in interpreting this science"
Dr. Siegel, you are too kind. They have been in the anti business for years and they want to use scientific arguments to coerce smokers into quitting (not only to protect non-smokers). So they should know more about science then the average person. Or they should quit.
It took you (Dr Siegel) until today to find a way to mince words that deliberately to avoid calling ASH liars?
Where was this same defference when you "understood" why smoker's would "lie"? (And I'm still calling you out on this, you stated that smoker's were liars, that you understood why is irrelevant, especially in light of the fact that ASH has been PROVEN, by you no less to be ACTUALLY LYING), where this same sense of "perhaps it's merely a mistake"?
You sir are doing everything within your verbal power to avoid telling the truth without the appearance of lying to us. you are the enemy.
You need to be taught that control over other's is NOT ANYONE's right, and you will learn that lesson very well if you ever dare come to my house and tell me what "risks" I may or may not indilge in.
"indilge" of course = imdulge
lol, see what your shenanagins do to a normal persons sense of rage doc?
INDULGE doublecheck here indulge, ok I seem to have finally gotten the word right.
spellcheck preview first
Ok
Jerry
After a year reading this blog, I'm starting to do it too, may, appears, possibly, in my opinion etc.
People are beginning to look at me strangely.
"It depends on how you define the word "lie." By the definition that a lie is simply a false statement, then I believe ASH is lying. But by the definition that a lie is an intentional false statement, I'm not prepared to accuse them of that."
You really should get your addled brain out of the classroom, doctor, and out into the real world. After all you've written here, you still stand on a wussy statement like that? Or maybe in your world it depends on what the definition of is is?
Item:
"Doctors have called for anti-smoking adverts to be broadcast before all TV programmes where characters smoke. A report by the British Medical Association also said films which feature smoking should be given higher age classifications. The study, called Forever Cool, also calls on the government to make Britain tobacco-free by 2035."
Maybe by 2035 we'll all be living in a fascist universe. For our own good, of course.
.
.
By the definition that a lie is simply a false statement, then I believe ASH is lying. But by the definition that a lie is an intentional false statement, I'm not prepared to accuse them of that. The reason is that there is an alternative explanation: it is possible that ASH simply is incompetent in interpreting this science. They may actually think that what they are saying is correct. That would make them completely incompetent in interpreting the science, but not intentional liers.
Doc, first............this drives me nuts and to see a highly educated TEACHER no less do it is appalling. The word is liars, NOT liers. Geeeze, you'd think being a TEACHER you'd at least be able to spell the short simple words.
Secondly, Your answer to Gabz is weaker than usual. It holds no water at all. Do you know why? Do you really need it spelled out for you?
OK, here goes: it is possible that ASH simply is incompetent in interpreting this science.
First of all, anyone with any sense of decency and a healthy dose of self-esteem, who is going public with information, is usually smart enough to make sure they can actually provide proof of their words; they would be sure they had credible scientists (mechanical engineers posing as cardiologists don't count) in their corner backing them up and crediting them with his understanding; that they can explain simply and logically their findings; that their credibility as a professional does not get tarnished, torn apart and/or destroyed.
An honest, and confident, professional would already know they are not capable of interpreting the science and would not hesitate to seek out the opinion and advice of others who ARE in fact more than capable of interpreting the science and explaining it in terms all can understand.
An honest professional would be able to admit he doesn't understand the science and would be open to real discussion on it. He'd actually welcome real scientific evidence from the other side were he so confident that his own finding actually could stand up to it. That's because truly honest people are NOT afraid to discover they might be wrong. They'd rather admit their error than be called a liar.
An honest professional would not be afraid of dissenting opinions, especially if he/she has real science on their side. (notice us smokers are the only ones ever willing, openly to discuss the science being used - and your side always slinks off)
I can't say that ASH - or any other TC promoter - fits any of the descriptions of "an honest professional", can you? If you can, kindly provide your proof. And I include all the major charity groups like ACS, ALA, AHA, etal in that 'TC promoter' statement.
Second, the fact that you have shown here quite a few times in just the 2-3 years I've been here (hundreds of times probably), should be all the proof you need that ASH doesn't care about the truth. As long as they reach the brainwashed masses the truth has NO place in their releases.
Third, to the common average person on the street, ANY false statement IS a lie, unless it can be proven to be a totally innocent mistake due to ignorance......and even then the lie isn't forgotten totally.
Given the points I just made, I think it is obvious that ASH and its promoters ARE in fact, proven LIARS.
Anyone who blindly follows someone without question is also just as much a liar, simply because they don't question, even if they suspect the leader is mistaken.
Now, how much more proof do you need to see the truth? Do you still stand by that pathetically lame and weak-assed answer you just gave Gabz?
"Smoking ban for whole of South Pacific island country" my link above refers.Dr Siegel you obviously don't read every link or am i over reacting ?
Know thine enemy http://forces.org/News_Portal/ne...wer.php?
id=1249
Dr siegel: "alternative explanation: it is possible that ASH simply is incompetent in interpreting this science. They may actually think that what they are saying is correct. That would make them completely incompetent in interpreting the science, but not intentional liers."
Why is organization's like this assisting gov't in suggesting legislation, making public staements? Why do they have access to pubic money? Why are they (after decades of "advocacy") not competent?
I always thought that public money required some responsibilities. I guess it's okay for taxes to be spent on any organization? Could you imagine how many institutions are not being held accountable; if this is normal?
Is there no wonder many smokers don't mind buying from the trunk of someones car now a days? Especially since this is a prime (heavy hitting, influential, established organization) example of a "anti smoking advocacy" group! Great way to use those "advocacy" dollars from cigarette taxes; NOT!
If any organization is influencing any government into any legislation shouldn't the organization be competent? Shouldn't EVERY word out of their mouths be TRUE? And backed up with PROOF. Or has money now become all the proof government needs.
Has anyone read the Margaret McTear v
Imperial Tobacco Industries court case?
Yes. Well, the bits featuring Sir Richard Doll's evidence anyway. (If ad hominem attacks on anyone who disagreed with him counts as evidence.)
It depends on how you define the word "lie." By the definition that a lie is simply a false statement, then I believe ASH is lying. But by the definition that a lie is an intentional false statement, I'm not prepared to accuse them of that. - Michael Siegel
Never mind ASH. Are you prepared to ever accuse anybody of lying?
May I ask an OT question? That so many of you have "Callous" in your names seems to me it refers to something Dr. Siegel stated in the past. I barely have time to keep up with the new posts, so haven't been able to retrace the last 3 years.
While I'm at it, can you, Dr. Siegel, or someone, point out an article that clearly states your position? I'm getting the general drift, but a position-paper type article would be interesting.
http://www.independent.co.uk/new...and-
862977.html
Dr. Siegel explains the claims made by ASH as being, "it is possible that ASH simply is incompetent in interpreting this science."
Point taken.
But what about these others referred to on the ASH page?
" more than 100 other independent medical and antismoking organizations have so far followed ASH’s lead, and are now warning their members, the public, legislators, regulators, and others about how as little as 30 minutes exposure to tobacco smoke can trigger a fatal heart attack. In most cases these organizations issued their own similarly-worded warnings only after independently reviewing the underlying evidence – often with the assistance of their own expert scientific and medical advisors – and concluding, even though the warnings were very dramatic and may be very difficult for some people to accept, that they are fully warranted, appropriate, and necessary."
Aren't the 100's of others who are promoting this misunderstanding of the facts, on the advice of "expert scientific medical advisors", just as equally incompetent? Do you mean to say that that the "scientific medical advisors are also equally incompetent.
Perhaps we should just rewrite the "None Dare Call It Treason" quote to read, if a lie serves the purpose so well, none dare call it a lie.
CASH, the Campaign Against Smoker Harassment, has just issued it's first unscientific response to this unscientific claim.
"Hey, Banzhaf! Your muttha!"
E=MC^2
Advocate for CASH
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
Let's flashback to one of your posts from 2005, where you wrote about how ANR refused to take an article you had written off of its webpage.
ANR wrote to you:
"we have concluded that the possible 'clarification' that you and I discussed is simply not feasible. There is a strong concensus that we do not want to post ANYTHING on our web page that can be construed as an apology or as backtracking from the position taken in the paper you wrote. More specifically, XXXXXX has convinced me that, given XXXXX's long history of attacking ETS science, it would be a mistake to state anything that would give him credence."
ASH has presumably been informed that the statement currently on their site is incorrect as written, and have refused to modify it. Or in other words, they "do not want to post ANYTHING on our web page that can be construed as an apology or as backtracking from the position taken". Given Dr. Siegel's history of disagreeing with the Tobacco Control party line, "it would be a mistake to state anything that would give him credence."
Or maybe ASH simply is incompetent in interpreting this science, despite having their errors pointed out to them.... Give me a break.
May I ask an OT question? That so many of you have "Callous" in your names seems to me it refers to something Dr. Siegel stated in the past. I barely have time to keep up with the new posts, so haven't been able to retrace the last 3 years.
Awhile ago we were talking about housing, and he Dr. said that many were callous due to our ignoring the "theoretical death" # and standing up for rights of smokers, and others. According to the argument we should make way for a theoretical person who's just moved in beside us, and we should move. People (who smoke) should also make allowances for everyone else, and we should take the theoretical (EG: 220 bartenders) death numbers as being hard numbers (people) and not just theoretical numbers.
Kendra, a look back at the July 5, 2007 post and the over 300 comments that followed it, will give you a good idea.
The good doc called us callous for not thinking WE SHOULD INCONVENIENCE OURSELVES EVERY TIME ONE OF THE 1% OF ASTHMATICS PASSES BY.
When we present him with sound logic, solutions, facts he whips out the extreme case asthmatics, the CF sufferers, etc and calls us callous for thinking that those people should actually take some responsibility by NOT putting themselves into situations they know will aggravate their problems. That's why every single bar, restaurant, club, outdoor patio MUST BE smoke free.....so those people - approx 1% (if that) of the population - don't have to actually make a decision about where to eat other than WHAT they want to eat.
He believes that if I have lived somewhere all my life, and he and his asthmatic child move in next door, that I should be the one to find a new place to live.....not him. That I, the grandfathered, been there all my life tenant, should move to accommodate him and his problems. But I'm callous for thinking he should have made sure there were no smokers in the vicinity of his apartment BEFORE he agreed to move in.
You see the doc believes that ONLY non-smokers should never have to make such choices about work or home. ONLY smokers are capable and intelligent enough to do that apparently.
I think the rumors of the "Callous" designation have been a little exaggerated. I used the term in response to the comments of a commenter who said something to the effect that the loss of 200 lives wasn't very much so we need not worry about it. At least that's the way I took the comment - so I opined that the comment seemed callous to me. But I certainly do not view my readers as being callous, and I have tried, unsuccessfully to remove the Callous label from them.
In response to Lynda F.'s question, I agree that ASH is lying. The question is whether they are making the false statement with the intent to deceive or whether they actually believe what they are saying. I honestly don't know. It seems to me possible that ASH actually believes that they know what they are talking about. They state it with such authority and an attempt at documentation. I think you have to be careful when you infer intent.
More evidence which will bring hell fire down on the messenger, who is only offering sound evidence and reality. The kind of thing many of the rent seeking lobby groups don't want to hear.
http://www.heartland.org/Article...cfm?
artId=23399
"EPA Study Soundly Rejected
In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.
Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data. ... In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. ... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."
The judge added, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before the research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate its conclusion; and aggressively utilized its authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme to influence public opinion."
In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality.
Propaganda Trumps Science
The 1992 EPA report is an example of the use of epidemiology to promote belief in an epidemic instead of to investigate one. It has damaged the credibility of EPA and has tainted the fields of epidemiology and public health.
In addition, influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas.
The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty "scientific" outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money.
Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers.
Dr. Jerome Arnett Jr. (jerry.arnett@gmail.com) is a pulmonologist who lives in Helvetia, West Virginia.
Dr. Siegel said, "I agree that ASH is lying."
OK, point taken again. That's two points.
Are the 100 or more others, referred to on the ASH page, who are repeating this lie incompetent or just living the lie?
Banzhaf is claiming that a very significant number of the anti-smoker cartel are in agreement with his lie and that they are repeating it and adding their own imprimatur to it to increase it's acceptance as a scientific fact.
Either Banzhaf is lieing about the 100 others too or else a lot of your anti-smoker friends are now promoting outright lies. The "integrity" of your entire "movement", if there ever was any integrity in it, is gone
This might be worth an editorial piece in the New York Times by Dr. Michael Siegel.
E=MC^2
Advocate for CASH
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
I've reconsidered in the last hour or so. Perhaps our blog host just has the good sense not to claim in print form that a group of sue-happy lawyers are lying when they have an 'out' - the attempt at documentation. I retract my original statement.
Douglas
Quite so.
I used the term in response to the comments of a commenter who said something to the effect that the loss of 200 lives wasn't very much so we need not worry about it.
Sorry Doc, but in the proper context, 220 dead bartenders out of a population of over 300 million, ISN'T VERY MUCH. On top of which forcing 60 million to the streets for 220 is uncalled for.
You also then called us all callous over the multi-unit housing issue. It was then that I took on the mantle myself, especially when you thought I was cold to expect my new neighbor who has CF to take some responsibility for their own living conditions, when I'd been the tenant there for years.
You called us callous last july because we didn't think your 16,000 asthmatics should be so molly coddled either.
You've basically put us down on more than one occasion to justify YOUR stance because you couldn't (or wouldn't) argue the facts or produce the real science to back up your stance.
Hell, you even called us liars last month, when talking about polls and how many smokers probably lie about being non-smokers in todays climate of hate and discrimination that you started.
By the way Doc, how do you feel about paying a carbon tax for your pellet stove? I saw that's about to happen in the not so distant future.
"I think the rumors of the "Callous" designation have been a little exaggerated. I used the term in response to the comments of a commenter who said something to the effect that the loss of 200 lives wasn't very much so we need not worry about it. At least that's the way I took the comment - so I opined that the comment seemed callous to me. But I certainly do not view my readers as being callous, and I have tried, unsuccessfully to remove the Callous label from them."
Not exactly. That's just how you interpreted it.
I made an offhand remark that 220 was not a particularly high "body count" compared to other anti-smokers' numbers.
You once tried to remove the designation from me to bestow it on Godshall after one of his "child abuse" rants.
Of course, just because Bill is more callous than I, doesn't mean I am not callous.
I still don't care about asthmatics who voluntarily enter, or work in, a privately-owned establishment filled with potential triggers.
That goes for grain elevators, popcorn factories, carpet showrooms, and smoky bars filled with perfumed people.
I strenuously object to policies to protect the weak by weakening everyone else. Unfortunately, that's what "public health" is all about now.
Callous Cowbell, -"I strenuously object to policies to protect the weak by weakening everyone else."
Nicely stated.
It's one of my hobbies you know,....ridding the world of weak and stupid people.
How many people are "employed" in the TC "movement"?......on my dime?
I have my work cut out for me.
Glister, they write: "...Fortunately, biochemical catalysts in our lungs and livers reduce the toxins in smoke to less harmful forms, but cannot completely neutralize the repeated damage, tissue destruction and disease that causes everything from halitosis to hemorrhoids and finally death..."
What a jump - from a pain in the butt to death.
He says: "Yet, there is no reliable, independent scientific evidence to support such a claim" (regarding loss of income due to bans). Didn't know you could "scientifically" provide evidence as to the number of closed barsrestaurants. And the problem is there is no INDEPENDENT, SCIENTIFIC evidence to support his claims either.
(And if our vehicles are running so darn clean, why is it that you can't see the sky in LA?)
Bill - no, I would not say "100." It would be "0."
Smokers can rejoice the scourge of lost virility has moved on to larger pastures.
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Worl...09/
6109261.html
The focus on sexuality, denouncing moral turpitude and the absolutes of a world of believers and non believers, defines the religious zealots of the Public Health cult.
They only need a band of tambourines marching and chanting in the streets to complete the total picture.
Dr. Siegel, Douglas and Rose noted Banzhafs' authoritative tone and "an attempt at documentation."
The lie here is the conclusion drawn from the documentation. All life forms react to stimuli and that is, is for the most part, the main conclusion that can be drawn from all of the "documentation." The studies simply measure and compare the "reaction time" and the reactions themselves to stimuli.
Cardiac arrest has never been observed after 30 minutes of exposure to tobacco smoke in either smokers or non-smokers or lab animals. And Banzhafs' documentation doesn't support his conclusion that it does, or could, or might.
The more important point is that Banzhaf claims that over 100 others in the anti-smoker cartel, and their scientific medical experts, agree with his conclusion and have republished his conclusion under their own name. If this is true then the cartel has no scientific integrity left.
E=MC^2
Advocate for CASH
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
E S;
"The more important point is that Banzhaf claims that over 100 others in the anti-smoker cartel, and their scientific medical experts, agree with his conclusion and have republished his conclusion under their own name."
Funny no one questions or offers; where these 100 religious testimonials are published.
as someone pointed out, the only forgiveable reason not to call these Ashists congenital liars is that they're also congenital lawyers.
Still I'll pick a bone. You say:
even 30 minutes of exposure to small amounts of drifting secondhand tobacco smoke can increase a nonsmokers' risk of endothelial dysfunction to that of a smoker," or "even 30 minutes of exposure to small amounts of drifting secondhand tobacco smoke can decrease nonsmokers' coronary flow velocity reserve to that of a smoker" then the statement would
have been correct.
These statements, too, are meaningless or misleading or both. The nonsmokers in most experiments are not exposed to "small amounts" of drifting smoke. IIRC, in one study it was 30 Gaulois in an unventilated chamber. And McFadden goes on about the inordinate amount of smoke in the Otsuko experiment.
Moving on.... Aside from the fact that (correct me if I'm wrong) Otsuko never compared the cfvr of his nonsmoking subjects to that of any smokers (so the "decrease to that of a smoker" isn't demonstrated) ... aside from the fact that Glantz et al claim that paradoxically smokers don't even react as strongly to their own (firsthand) smoke as nonsmokers react to secondhand (so "that of a smoker" might be better than "that of a non") ... aside from the fact that individuals, whether smokers or not, vary widely in their ranges of endothelial function and cfvr.... we're still left with the misleading part. Viz:
All these reactions occur from a wide variety of normal everyday human experiences, from eating, to stress, to grumpiness etc. And all these reactions are highly transient-- rapidly corrected by homeostasis. Even in smokers.
I believe it was I who long ago pointed out to you that in his heart study, Law confessed that ""We did not use cross sectional studies of platelet aggregation in smokers and non-smokers because...the effects of smoking are short term and may not be apparent in smokers who had not smoked for a few hours before blood was collected."
So these effects even reverse rapidly in active smokers while your statement presumes that (or would surely cause most laymen to presume) that all smokers walk around in a permanently damaged condition and the damage, which never reverses, continues to build.
West--
You asked about overlapping biological ranges between smokers and nonsmokers as found in Otsuko and the newer study. This analysis by Mengersen et al --a goldmine if you can get through it-- shows that to be the telling flaw in most of the biological studies.
http://www.biostat.umn.edu/~twee...uments/hd-
k.pdf
Einstein--
there is apparently no end in sight for chemical intrusion.
US backs statin use for children
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
7496988.stm
Many more obese children, including some as young as eight, should receive cholesterol-lowering drugs, say leading US doctors.
Children in the UK with a rare gene fault can get statins, but the American Academy of Pediatrics is going further.
It wants to see the drugs used in thousands more children with high cholesterol levels, despite little information about long-term safety.
Walt, your link "is" pure gold. Thanks
http://www.biostat.umn.edu/~twee...ee...uments/hd-
k.pdf
page 63 & 64
Third, there is the argument that non-smokers exposed to ETS react differently than do active smokers to MS or ETS. This overcomes the problem that active smokers are also exposed to ETS. Glantz and Parmley11 follow this line. They say that “the qualitative differences between the effects of ETS on smokers and nonsmokers explain the high RRs associated with passive smoking compared with active smoking” because, they claim, in smokers “the xardiovascular system ... adapts to compensate for the deleterious effects of smoking” and “smokers may have achieved the maximum response possible to at least some of the toxins in the smoke, so the small additional exposures associated with passive smoking have little or no effect.”
Leaving aside the odd fact that at low exposure levels of MS this “maximum response” seems to lead to RRs less in general than those from the “small additional exposures” to ETS (even though active smokers must be exposed to ETS on top of MS), this argument seems to imply without doubt a conclusion that ETS in nonsmokers is different from MS in active smokers, and hence that one cannot consider the effect of ETS based on an analogy with MS.
There might be some grounds to argue that ETS causes IHD, based on the analogies with the actions of MS, while the lack of coherence with the MS data goes somewhat against an argument for causality. This seems best resolved if one assumes that ETS is indeed different in its action from MS, as then the major lack of coherence in the epidemiological studies is removed, although one can no longer use analogy with MS to build a causal argument.
Damn, even though the report is written by: Kerrie L. Mengersen, PhD School of Mathematics, Queensland University of Technology,Mervyn J. Merrilees, PhD Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine, The University of Auckland and Richard L. Tweedie, PhD, DSc Department of Statistics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, U.S.A. it has "that" one and only fatal flaw.
Acknowledgements
Some of this research was carried out while preparing an evaluation of the NH&MRC Report (1995), for which funding was provided by the Tobacco Institute of Australia: the opinions herein are however entirely those of the authors and should not be ascribed otherwise. The various meta-analyses, and related figures, were carried out with a pre-release version of MetaGraphs from Belmont Research Inc.
The Tobacco Institute of Australia Limited (TIA) was established in December 1978 and funded by the four tobacco companies then active in Australia to 'promote understanding of the tobacco industry in Australia'
How can anti-smoking activists claim one moment that brief exposure to tobacco smoke is as deadly as active smoking on minute, yet would freak out if tobacco companies claimed that smoking is no worse than occasional exposure to tobacco smoke?
"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them . . . . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."
"In response to Lynda F.'s question, I agree that ASH is lying. The question is whether they are making the false statement with the intent to deceive or whether they actually believe what they are saying."
I thought English was my native tongue. I guess I was wrong and that I've been talking gobbledegook all these years.
If ASH believes what it says, why do you agree that ASH is lying? How does that make any sense?
.
Michael Siegel wrote:
"The question is whether they are making the false statement with the intent to deceive or whether they actually believe what they are saying. I honestly don't know."
I stated previously that I saw Banzhaf (the only board member of ASH as far as I know) on a tv show with Jacob Sullum. Banzhaf mentioned the obesity lawsuits that had been won.
Sullum interjected that the McDonald's french fry/beef fat/Hindu lawsuit had nothing to do with obesity.
Banzhaf made some kind of face at him and kept on talking. He didn't acknowledge that Sullum was correct. Clearly, to me anyway, he was covering up his lie.
But, because you have to know their intent before calling someone a liar, I suggest in the future you use name-calling. Instead of saying, "ASH is lying," you say, "ASH is so incompetent it shouldn't be listened to. Only a moron could get this wrong."
My own version would be:
"ASH is so incompetent it shouldn't be listened to. Only a moron or a liar would say something like this."
I came across a brief paragraph in an article in the Washington comPost that I do believes sums up everything i was going to say in responce to Doc Siegel's non-responsive response to me:
"The problem with calumny is not merely that it motivates hatred or that it is simply dishonest. Even more significant, effective dishonesty -- calumny that succeeds in its goals -- undermines cultural commitments to truth by encouraging cynicism. When lies work, why not lie? Yet when a culture ceases to honor the truth, it loses its ability to preserve law, justice and fairness."
I think this sums up the issue of ASH, and the anti-smoker cartel as a whole rather nicely. The article was about election campaigns and nothing to do with smoking, but that paragraph just jumped out at me in light of this desicussion.
Harry asked: "If ASH believes what it says, why do you agree that ASH is lying? How does that make any sense?"
Harry, there are 2 definitions of lying - one is simply making a false or untruthful statement, the other is intentionally stating something that is false with the intent to deceive.
Under the first definition, ASH is lying, since they are making what is clearly a false statement. Under the 2nd definition, I'm not prepared to say they are lying, because I cannot infer their intent. It is possible that they actually do believe what they are saying.
I understand that this may seem strange, but in the English language, many words have multiple definitions and the accuracy of a statement may depend upon what definition one is using.
Doctor Siegel, - "I understand that this may seem strange, but in the English language, many words have multiple definitions and the accuracy of a statement may depend upon what definition one is using."
Ummmm, so this is your explanation for using words like "Cause", "Extreme", and other such questionable adjectives in your descriptions of the alleged "danger" of SHS?
Depending entirely on what definition you're using of course.
In case no one has told you, their called "weasel words" for good reason.
I'm not prepared to say they are lying, because I cannot infer their intent.
Since we all know, because it is so blatantly obvious, that the "intent" is to eradicate smoking completely using fear to force smokers to quit because they haven't the testicles to call for front door prohibition, I personally have NO problem calling them LIARS.
I gave you one excellent reason yesterday as to why I cannot allow them "ignorance of the science". They are forcing legislation of personal choices and lifestyle habits as well as use of legal products. They should be sure they have irrefutable evidence to back them up. They don't, and you know it.
My father turned 80 last October, he was a heavy smoker all his life, though I think my sister told me he quit about 10 or so years ago. My sister called today to say he died yesterday of double pneumonia. What is the average lifespan for men again? And non-smoking men at that? Somewhere around 76 I believe? So this heavy lifetime smoker died LATER than the average non-smoker is expected to die, therefore you can't use his death in your so-called "smoking kills" numbers, and his death was definitely NOT premature. His father died young from kidney failure, but his mother (also a life-long smoker) died in her late 90's.
And please, no condolences. My father was not the type of person one cries over losing. I hadn't spoken to him in over 20 years.
Einstein--
ah, too bad. My comment to you-- in response to yours about Banzaf (a comment which contained none of the 7 dirty words or even implied them)-- was nonetheless censored. Therefore the "Einstein--" and nothing more, above.
I'll be curious to see if Mr. Bill's next descriptives of smokers-- no matter how clearly whimsical-- are also censored. I mean, in addition to calling us selfish addicted child abusers and pool-pee-ers, supposing he were to say that we didn't have mutthas but were suckled by wolves? Think that'd stand? Think this message will? Stay tuned.
At any rate, I guess it means that Doc read my post so I wonder if he still defends his own rephrasing of ANR's statement as being correct?
:
Lynda~
Sorry for the loss of not having a close relationship with your father.
Life is tough..seems like it's handed you your share...always enjoy reading your posts. Hang in there, and thank you.
Hey they are even teaching their paid youth activists, the propaganda!
"Cipkar and five other members of the Windsor teen action group Knot In My Life are going to Rogers Bayfest 2008 in Sarnia today."......
"Cipkar says it's a little-known fact that outdoor second-hand smoke is just as bad as indoor second-hand smoke. "The reality is outdoor smoking isn't safe whatsoever. There's no safe level of second-hand smoke," she says."
"According to Cipkar, studies have shown that second-hand smoke lingers in the air, and its concentration within a few feet of a smoker outdoors can be as high as when the smoker is in a room."
http://www.canada.com/windsorsta...af-
ab4691fcf908
Employment Opportunities → Knot in My Life Peer Leaders
Please submit your resume including at least one reference from a high school teacher to: Human Resources, Windsor Essex County Health Unit, 1005 Ouellette Avenue,Windsor, Ontario, N9A 4J8 or by email
http://www.wechealthunit.org/car...-leaders-
needed
Thanks Angel, but my life really isn't any worse than anyone else's; and it's better than some. We all have to walk our own paths. He chose his path and he chose to walk it alone....or rather chose to walk it without his children and grandchildren. He left us long before my mother actually told him to get out(and I was an adult by then).
I did wish him a "rest in peace" this evening, as my closure, but that's all I did. Rather sad though that he won't be missed.
I'm just thankful that I learned from him about how I did NOT want to be and enjoy a wonderful and close relationship with my own son.
Lynda,
Reminds me a bit of my brother. He hasn't spoken to me in about eight years. He thinks he's punishing me, but after all the crap he pulled, the peace and quiet is absolutely wonderful.
He's been dead for years, so by the time he does kick off, I don't expect a big reaction. I never understood why sharing DNA with someone means you have to forgive them for the awful things they do, or even like them.
I hear you Cowbell.....no feeling bad on my end at all. Like I said, he chose his path and I chose not to let his path interfere with mine in any way. Makes life so much easier that way.
You've got a great attitude Lynda, your son is a lucky boy.
'You've got two chances at happiness in life ~ the one you're born into and the one you create for yourself.'
Don't forget to take care of yourself too...
Angel, I always take care of myself....that's why I have a good attitude. I'd have been locked up in a straight jacket by now if I didn't......LOL 
"It depends on how you define the word 'lie.' By the definition that a lie is simply a false statement, then I believe ASH is lying."
Doctor, I may be wrong, but I believe you are confusing a lie with lying. If I say someone lied, since when does that mean that he told an untruth unwittingly? I simply don't get it.
.
Anon i rather follow your line of thought.You can lie and you can lie with intent to deceive/defraud etc etc.From now on i suggest that SHS can stand for (1)second hand smoke OR (2) second hand shite BOTH ARE SYNONYMOUS IN TC SPEAK.
Anonymous,
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the verb "lie" means:
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression
Definition #1 requires intent to deceive.
Definition #2 does not require intent to deceive.
Regarding definition 1, you simply and consistently refuse to believe there is any intent despite all evidence to the contrary.
Wait, ...you do that with your definition of "extreme hazard" as well....
Regarding definition 2,....see definition #1.
Creating the false and misleading impression that you simply don't believe that the deception is intentional,.....
Weasel
"Definition #2 does not require intent to deceive."
Dr. Siegel is reading the dictionary like a lawyer would. We all know there are more than two types of lies, ranging from harmless to evil.
A direct lie and and indirect lie both require the intent to deceive, regardless of what the dictionary says. Otherwise, what the heck is the point?
What is required for a lie to be a lie is for the speaker to know his statement is untrue. The out he has (undeservedly) given ASH is that ASH may actually believe their ridiculous claims.
ASH's website is meant for ordinary people to read. Not scientists, lawyers, or philosophers.
As a layperson, when I see "30 minutes of exposure to ETS causes the same reaction as eating a hamburger or stepping out into the cold" reduced to "30 minutes of ETS exposure can kill," I feel I've been lied to. With full intent to deceive.
It's similar to taking a phrase like "a slight increase in cancer risk which may, in part be due to ETS exposure" and translating it into "severe health hazard."
Given the climate of hatred and denormalisation ,how can anyone be content to give the benefit of doubt ?Dr Siegel why do you not go outside and hold an unlit cigarette as if you were a smoker at peak rush hour.See if your fellow human beings treat you with the respect that the likes of Banzafbonzof WANTS and DEMANDS smokers do not receive.Just open your eyes and see the vindictiveness being shown to those who choose to smoke.Do you really believe the need to LIE unless it is to ensure smokers are despised ?
Si --- you idea is BRILLIANT. I don't know why I or any others have thought of it.
Yes, Dr. Siegel, you should try it. You need not light the cigarette, just pull one out and see how you are reacted to by the other you have helped brainwash.
I know many non-smokers who are so sick of the treatment of smokers they have become what they refer to as "political niccers." They don't smoke, but make a point of pulling out a cigarette just to get the reactions. The greatest stories come from those that don't even bother with real cigarettes, but with plastic immitations.
Please, everyone, ESPECIALLY Dr. Siegel, note that I said NON-smokers, not ANTI-smokers. There is a HUGE difference in the 2 groups.
I dare you, Doc, in fact I double dog dare you to perform such an experiment.
Though I'd suggest going a step further (buy a pack of herbals and actually light a few Out In The World) I can even suggest a "smoke-free" experiment.
Spend a full week acting (in all other ways except smoking) as tho you're a smoker. I.E., leave your office at least 4 times a day, in the middle of work, and go out on the street (the requisite number of feet from any window, door, or vent) or to the nearest smoker's rat-hole available on campus-- and just stand there for 10 minutes before you go back to work. When you go to a bar or restaurant, leave your friends at the table at least twice and go out and stand on the street for 10 minutes. If you comnute by train, stand on the street for 10 minutes before entering the station and stand there for another 10 before you catch your final bus, or cab. Pretend you live in an apartment in a town like the ones where smoking is banned in private units. Go out and stand on the street with your morning coffee; stand on the street before you go home at night. Keep your clothes on: you'll have to go out on the street at least 4 more times in the course of your evening. Can't sleep? Go out on the street at 2 AM.
I'm dead serious about this, Doc, and you'll do it if you have any moral courage. This is the part about walking a mile in another man's shoes; a tempering lesson in moral cause and effect. When I was about 4, my father gave me an unforgettable lesson in the Golden Rule when he did to me the same something nasty I'd just done to someone else. Once you know how it feels to be on the other end of your own behavior, it can (or should) make you forever begin to think twice.
Yup,
I think its a very good idea too.
Commenting by HaloScan
