If dialation of the brachial artery is affected by something as normal and routine as eating a meal, is it even appropriate to refer to it as a "dysfunction"?
I feel quite confident that changes in bloodflow in the brachial artery could be measured in individuals who, say, jog a lap around the track, or maybe after taking an asprin, or even possibly while watching an hilarious movie. Are these "dysfunctions"?
Maybe it's just a normal physiological response. Not every measurable change in the human body needs to be pathologized.
And why shouldn't someone go to McDonald's to order a salad? They're really not bad as restaurant salads go. 
Morgan---"Maybe it's just a normal physiological response. Not every measurable change in the human body needs to be pathologized"
Yes, it does Morgan, it goes right along with the pathology of needing to control each and every crevice of out bodies, and every nook and cranny of our lives. The will not be satisfied until we are all made into simmpering invalids in need of their want to save us all. How would we ever do it without them? s/
.
.
'Now we will see the extent to which the movement is able to respond to this scientific crisis and restore its scientific integrity. Failure could mean the end of any semblance of scientific integrity and eventually, to the loss of the movement's scientific reputation'
They have not been interested in scientific (or any) integrity for a long time. Your perception of this crisis will make no difference to any of them. And really why should it, they gotten away with it for a long time.
..
Dr. Siegel wrote:
"What these studies...demonstrate is that there is a plausible mechanism by which chronic exposure to high fat meals and secondhand smoke can lead to the development of atherosclerosis and eventually - to heart disease."
Is it possible that endothelial dysfunction is actually good for the arteries? It sounds like the arteries are exercising, if you ask me.
New T-shirt
There is no safe level of McDonalds healthy foods even though it is FDA approved!
So by all means support FDA regulation of tobacco as long as they ban the use of FDA approved flavorings.
I always knew there was a good reason to avoid salads......
"You just wait", I told anyone who would listen to my ranting and raving, "One of these days, scientists will prove salads are bad for you".
I also predicted that they would one day say that smoking was good for you.....come along chaps, make with the evidence already!
Ah, Doc, it's even "better" than you say. The fact is, exposure to a veggie burger with salad, fruit, yogurt, and orange juice is obviously the road to an early and ugly death.
WARNING: 30 minutes of exposure to fruit and yogurt doubles your risk of heart attack.
WARNING: Sitting next to someone shoveling in a veggie burger doubles your risk of stroke. (If you can smell the zucchini, then you're already half dead.)
I, too, of course, question (as I've often questioned before) how this single experience of eating a normal meal-- and it seems, any meal-- illustrates a "plausible mechanism" for anything. People eat meals. In fact most people eat them about 3 times a day. So are all eaters doomed? Is starving the better course? Or does the body return to "normal" (if there IS such a thing as normal in a system so obviously loaded with "normal" flux) between the tuna sandwich and dinner? And do so, remarkably!, again, again and again, day in, decade out. So why isn't that the plausible mechanism--i.e, homeostatis or No Harm Done.
;
Dr. Siegel,
I have to agree with Morgan Toal.
If the effect is seen with all three meals, regardless of fat content, then we are observing a normal body reaction to eating...and who knows how many other stimuli?
One can label these meals fast food, but the very same meals are prepared at home. Yogurt? Salad? Fruit? Orange Juice? Veggie burgers? One can only get these meals at McDonald's?
Doc,
Good post, However one small correction. I believe it was JustTheFacts who first posted about this study.
Credit where credit due.
GreatScot
Here we go again blaming ingestion, when anyone can plainly see it's the smell that clings to your clothes and your children's stuffed animals causing unacceptable levels of risk.
No one actually eats cigarettes [Bill excepted]the smell of Mc D fries doubles your risk of heart attack and stroke. The smell of chicken McNuggets may create risks which are much higher.
That risk is amplified when exposed to the deadly yellow radiation from those big "M" logos.
Radiation measurements and AM radio static, when driving close to the deadly big "M" confirms the warping and crossing of cosmic ultra yellow KU band energy reversing polarity 4 times in a single letter, and the subsequent unstable fallout energy radiation is simply too much exposure for any body to endure, without experiencing heart palpitations shortness of breath and heightened excitement levels affecting heart rate, which can only be compared to hunger and the anticipation of a fast food fix.
They should be made to; dim the signs, replace the lamps with compact florescent daylight lamps in place of existing cool white varieties [which make meat look more pink, than it actually is] and place them behind curtains, so the children can not see them. We could save 400,000 preventable lunches per hour. Lunches and snacks leading to smoker's arteries and millions of heart burn attacks per day. The risk is correlated to substantial contributions to the obesity epidemic [formerly known as the obesity pandemic]
Not to mention the obvious increases associated with carbonated gases burning away the toastone layer and the unmistakable contribution to global warming by heat lamp. The World Health organization predicts Mac Ds will have served 37.28 trillion customers by the year 2020
All in all, there is only one way to mitigate the deadly risk Ban Mac D. in all public spaces.
It's for the children?
GreatScot, you are indeed a gentleman.
I was weighing whether or not to clear my throat and point that out but you were gracious enough to step up and take that tough (and whiny sounding) decision out of my hands.
Thank you Great Scot.
And Walt presents a wonderful assessment of what this all really means. He expanded perfectly on my original and simply put thought which was stated in these rough words:
MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THE HUMAN BODY JUST WORKS??
Introduce food into the body and it... gasp... REACTS.
To add to that, seems all these studies prove is that we're human and this is how human bodies work biologically. Wow, what a find! (This is where I roll my eyes). I guess what they'd need to do if they follow their usual "something must be done!" mentality is figure out how to redesign the human body. Though I'd suggest they consult with God first.
(point for effect and not on personal beliefs)
JTF,
You are welcome.
I was brought up by my parents to believe that honesty and integrity (in thought and deed)are important virtues and that they are life long principles. If practiced faithfully they lead to trust and respect from others.
You cannot be selective when to embrace them even if the consequences are less than pleasant (not that this was unpleasant in the slightest).
GreatScot
Wait for the new anti group to emerge,anti smoking,anti obesity AND NOW ANTI EATING !
Moment of truth? Hardly. As Sullum ponts out, publc health officials are not responding with, "I guess brief exposure to SHS isn't really all that bad after all." They are responding with, "Healthy fast-food meals aren't really healthy! McDonalds lies! People die!"
It's almost as if they don't care about the evidence and twist it to support whichever conclusion they have already come up with.
Sounds, er, familiar.
What about the McDs workers. Cooking all those veggieburgers may, should, or could cause gasification of those deadly chemicals. The wokers may be getting doses from ingestion and inhalation both. We may now conclude that the workers risk may be 60%. The evidence is conclusive enough to infer a casual relationship of heart disease from working at all fast food joints. Because of the higher prevelance of heart disease as compared to say lung cancer that RR of 1.6 being equall to Docs research with SHS and bartenders. Employment of all fast food workers must be banned. Throw in the beef burgers, chicken and fish being cooked and we have a real epidemic. At the very least they should ban the eating or transportation of these foods in vehicles with children under 18 present.
Si----It's already here:
http://www.canada.com/topics/new...92-
51952332e1b4
.
Nemo31;
"Because of the higher prevalence of heart disease as compared to say lung cancer that RR of 1.6 being equal to Docs research with SHS and bartenders."
In light of the new and previously unknown information perhaps Doc's assessment might be revisited with the query; how many of those bartenders eat fast food?
The adjustments may find the conclusion which found ETS solely responsible for smoking related diseases among non smokers where likely mistaken. When you confound the effects of Mac D and KFC alone; the offsets likely prove ETS to be curative.
How many fast food sources or varied products, and how little scrutiny has been applied in assessing risk.
AHHH! but doc overlooked the counfounding factor. It could just as well be all the screaming little kids raising hell in Mc donalds which cause the dysfunction and 30 % decline in reserve coronary artery flow velocity.
If Helena banned McDonalds would there be another 40% drop in heart attack admissions?
But in defense of all this, no one forces anyone to go into a McDonalds and eat this food which suposedly can elevate heart attack risk, while it is a proven fact that smokers constantly abduct nonsmokers and force them (sometimes kicking and screaming) into establishments where smoking is occurring.
So, really this is no analogy at all, Dave K
Dave,
Not only do the nonsmokers get abducted and forced to breathe in the SHS, they get abducted five times a week for a grand total of 40 hours per week. And this happens every week for 40 freaking years.
I mean, what are the odds?
Since the anti-smoking people and anti-obesity people are usually one in the same, this really doesn't blow a hole in their arguments.
Now Brownell and Bazhaf can claim that a meal at McDonald's does the same damage as secondhand smoke.
Still finding it hilarious that you're worrying about the antis scientific integrity and reputation.
Just one remark, I remember the claim that winds of 300mph would be required to clear smoke out of a room. 300mph!
For those who want this spelt out a little more simply, a category V hurricane (catastrophic) starts at 155mph, and tends not to get much higher than 160mph. There are winds that do reach 300+ mph, but they are only ever seen in tornadoes, and tornadoes that are rated a 5 on the Fujita Scale (aka "the finger of god"). A wind speed of 300mph would do far more than remove the smoke from a room, it'd do for the furniture, occupants, walls and all. There have been reports of F5 tornadoes scouring the asphalt off of parking lots, and the general description of the aftermath is turning a town into "a bombed-out battlefield in the aftermath" to quote the NWS damage surveyors.
THIS is the credibility that you're worried about protecting?
Sunz, form the site. "Even brief exposure to thin models effects.....young woman".
That does it "there is no safe level of exposure to thin models". Ban them ban them all!
GreatScot- Thanks for noting the correction.
JustTheFacts-Thanks for spotting this important article. I have fixed the attribution.
Now if only the anti-smoking groups could also make corrections when their mistakes are pointed out to them.
Scientific Integrity?
Puhleeeeeze Doc. Give it up already.
Your observations that they can't ignore this or that any longer, or that they can't hide the "shoddy science" continues to fall on deaf ears.
Your "colleagues" aren't listening, or you're not telling the right people that can stop the misinformation.
No matter what the cause may be for the "elevated risk" of any possible harm from smoking, eating, drinking, or other voluntary human activity, the spin will always be negative because it creates a need for the medication, therapy, or course of rehabilitation that didn't exist before the revelation was made.
It's business as usual.
LightningBoy-
I fear that you are right.
And by the way, people should know that I am telling the right people that could stop the misinformation. This post, for example, was emailed to the president of the ACS, every regional ACS director, the head of TobaccoScam, the executive director, president of the Board of Directors, and chief website content person at ANR, and the head tobacco person at UICC (which co-authored the strategy guide with ACS).
Harley wrote, (somewhat jokingly?): "Since the anti-smoking people and anti-obesity people are usually one in the same, this really doesn't blow a hole in their arguments. Now Brownell and Banzhaf can claim that a meal at McDonald's does the same damage as secondhand smoke."
As it turns out, Jacob Sullum reported having received a press release from John Banzhaf which stated: "A fast food chain which promoted a meal of a vegetarian burger plus salad, fruit, yogurt, and orange juice as healthier than a typical fast food meal of a hamburger, fries, ketchup, and a carbonated drink, knowing that both presented the same risk of a heart attack, stroke, or other cardiovascular problem, could be guilty of the same deception as cigarette makers who promoted low tar and nicotine cigarettes while studies showed that they were just as dangerous as ordinary brands."
So it appears that he IS suggesting that consumers could sue McDonalds for promoting their healthier options.
A bit off-topic, perhaps. But perhaps not. Here is a link to Will Saletan's piece in today's Slate. It deals with how the anti-smoking movement went off the rails. It's even subtiutled "The International Jihad Against Tobacco."
http://www.slate.com/id/2172230/...72230/nav/tap1/
BTW, Saletan is no smoker. Here's how he kicks off the article:
"I hate smoking. It's a filthy habit. It kills hundreds of millions of people, including bystanders. Just being around it makes me nauseous. Cities, states, and countries all over the world are banning smoking in public, and I couldn't be happier."
But even he is beginning to question this crap. And what's most interesting to me is this:
"Nonsmoking areas in restaurants haven't worked too well. The smoke just drifts from one area to the other. To fix this, European countries are now isolating smokers in sealed rooms with separate ventilation. Lest any waitress encounter a toxic cloud, Holland, Slovenia, and other countries have outlawed eating in the smoking rooms. That's pretty harsh. I thought we were trying to remove smoke from eaters, not food from smokers."
So is even Saletan, uber-smoke-hater, willing to consider a way to let people smoke inside? Hmmmm. SMoking rooms. Imagine.
There is also a bit about the ways in which alcohol is more dangerous than tobacco. And how consistency would require some curbs on the former if there are curbs on the latter.
Worth a look.
OK. Everyone back on topic now. Sorry.
And then there's this response from glantz:
"From: Glantz, Stanton A
Date: Sun Aug 19 2007 - 21:00:22 PDT
The finding of similar changes in endothelial function with a high cholesterol load is not new. It just shows that the high oxidant load has effects similar to SHS (which is probably also acting, at least in part through the oxidant load in the smoke). We pubished the first paper on this over ten years ago, when I was an associate editor of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. (The "intervention there was an eg McMuffin.)
In addition to the acute effects, the associated insult to the vascular endothelium is important for the long-run development of atheroschlerosis.
Mike's comments are further evidence that he just does not understand modern vascular biology."
as to Glantz's comments that Dr. Siegel doesn't understand modern vascular biology well, one needs only compare the oxidant load of mass of SHS inhaled by a bystander to the mass of a McDonalds meal to realize it is really Glantz who does not understand modern vascular biology very well.
In addition Glantz ignores the fact that the McDonalds meal contains all the same components present in SHS, but in much greater quantities.
www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/99n1174/
ts00020.pdf
Not only does Glantz conveniently ignore the more plausible science in attacking Doc, Glantz apparantly does not even acknowlege dosimetry exists.
Dave K
Regarding Banzhaf and company,...
These clowns will routinely suggest that lawsuits should be filed against anything, or anyone they personally find objectionable.
BUT,..
Individual smokers, smokers rights groups, and Equal CHOICE advocates in general are routinely dismissed out of hand when suggesting any type of suit against these TC stormtroopers for disseminating their special brand of misinformation specifically about smoking to anyone within earshot.
The media at large, with it's undeniable influence on popular culture continues to be the silent accomplice in this whole charade.
"Now if only the anti-smoking groups could also make corrections when their mistakes are pointed out to them."
Yeah you don't make mistakes that require correction, doc. Instead, you make logical inconsistencies that require justification that have been repeatedly pointed out to you. So please, you're the last person we want any holier-than-thou statements from.
OT items:
"[Queen Elizabeth] is a confirmed non-smoker but she is also a great libertarian and has no time for political correctness. She has always made cigarettes available to her guests ... She also refused to wear a hard hat when she is out riding and she refuses, too, to wear a seat belt when she travels by car. ... She has agreed to comply [with the smoking ban], but can't bear the Government meddling with every aspect of an individual's life".
So I put forward the Queen as a role model for Dr. Siegel; god knows he needs one!
Noted British author Norman Stone has this to say about England: "The nanny state here is a terrible bore". (He now lives most of the year in Turkey.) "Wonderful place", he says. "As soon as I stepped off the plane, I became a Turkish nationalist! There was a man in a black uniform, smoking heavily underneath a 'no smoking' siign. I thought, 'That's my kind of place'".
And this beauty:
The comedian Vic Reeves: "I don't believe in passive smoking. I think people should buy their own".
"Of course, another possibility is that the movement doesn't actually care about its scientific integrity, but only cares about the emotional impact of its public claims. "
Dr. Siegel, I'm sure you must know perfectly well that this is indeed the case, so why do you keep trotting out "This is your last chance to come clean Black Bart!" blog entries?
In the very *best* scenario, you'll get one minor admission of a "possible mild overstatement" or somesuch, the Antis will expect to be soundly congratulated for their evident responsibility, and then they'll just go back to racking up another thousand war crimes.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
LB - Regarding Banzhaf and company,...
These clowns will routinely suggest that lawsuits should be filed against anything, or anyone they personally find objectionable.
LightningBoy you forgot PROFITABLE
Doc,
you contacted the main perpetrators of the mis-information, did you also contact the media so more people can have their mis-comprehension corrected. In the interest of being properly informed of course?
PS nice to see your mentor (or was it hero?) Glantz doesn't miss an opportunity to dismiss your professional ability. Perhaps you need to do a refresher course on modern vascular biology.
GreatScot
An interesting read,from Breast Cancer Action.
Conflict of Interest:
Sir Richard Doll (1912–2005)
http://www.bcaction.org/Pages/
Se...letter096A.html
GreatScot
Si wrote, "Wait for the new anti group to emerge,anti smoking,anti obesity AND NOW ANTI EATING"
Actually Si, in terms of health, I believe that a highly limited caloric intake (1500 or so a day?) is thought to be one of the surest theoretical "longevity" inducers that exists. It's difficult to study "in the wild" of course since most people with a highly restricted calorie intake tend also to be moving in and out of periods of outright famine and since their intake tends not to have any sort of nutritional balance.
Along those lines, it's possible that even if one accepts the Antis' claims about secondary smoke that bartenders will now suffer earlier deaths due to greater emphasis being put on food service in their nonsmoking establishments and since that food will now theoretically smell so much more enticing to them that they'll eat more.
Too bad the Antis' money machine isn't actually aimed at health and science: it would be interesting to check weight gains in bartenders a year after smoking bans are introduced and then match them with the supposed longevity loss.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
http://pasan.TheTruthIsaLie.com
Oh come on Doc.......you know damned well this is just the warm-up to the food bans. It's the same scare tactic they use for SHS.
The best part is that just last week I read that even a "healthy, vegitarian" meal produces the same exact effects.
Hmmmmmmm.................maybe we should all just die now and get it over it, end all this senseless pain and suffering.
A Havard study recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine--we can therefore be sure that the methodology and peer review were rigorous--found that obesity could be spread from person to person, i.e. secondhand obesity (SHO).
We as a civilized society need to protect our citizens--particularly children whose bodies are more vulnerable--from exposure to SHO.
Does anyone out there have a copy of "Vascular Biology for Dummies?" They're out of it at my local bookstore and I desperately need a copy.
Thanks in advance.
MJM- I don't think the "best" is going to happen based on the response so far. You're probably right - I'm banging my head against a brick wall. Now back to my search for a simple book on vascular biology.
Has Simon Chapman had enough? or does he just fear that TC are hurting their own credibility?
http://www.infozine.com/news/sto...View/sid/24549/
GreatScot
Michael Siegel wrote, "Now back to my search for a simple book on vascular biology."
Hmm... try a mechanical engineering bookstore. Some of the best and brightest in the field seem to gotten their cardiology training at such places...
;>
Michael
True satire always contains an element of truth. The following excerpt is a satirical view of how things could (will) be 30 years from now, thanks to the antics and lies of the health nazis, Dr. Siegel included.
http://www.renewamerica.us/colum...s/graham/
070820
Your health is the government's business
A dispatch from 2037
The following piece is from David Jenkins who writes of American culture and health 28 years after the passage of the National Health Care Act of 2009 and was originally podcast August 15th on the Truth and Hope Report (http://www.truthandhope.2truth.com.)
Free health care. The words brought a lump to my throat when I first heard them. Who knew that an issue as complex as health care could be solved by simply giving the government control of it? Senator Ted Kennedy's words rang in my ears as he fought for the landmark National Health Care Act of 2009, "Our friends on the other side say this is not within the role of Government. Well, I disagree, your health is the government's business."
I didn't know how much that phrase would come to mean to my life and those of my friends. We thought we'd won the lottery. Of course, you know what they say about things that are too good to be true.
Health costs spiraled out of control over the first decade, and taxes went higher and higher. It was then that Senators rose to demand that steps be taken to control costs. They chided the government for spending little on needful preventive medicine. As I looked at my pay stub, and the Federal Tax figure staring up at me, I knew they were right.
A bi-partisan group of Senators, with a reform minded Administration, set out to keep Americans healthy. The first target was tobacco. Cigarettes and Chewing tobacco were banned due to their effect on the health of the American people. I'd never understood why the government allowed folks on SSI and Medicaid to go out and buy their cigarettes, which would end up costing us money. Smokers were now allowed 1 Cigar a month, with a price tag of $100, which would be used to help fund the health system. My buddy, Ronald whined about the government taking away his smokes.
I looked over at him. "Pal, before this all started, what you smoked was your own business, but now I'm the one who'll be paying for your chemo. When you're smoking, you're smoking my money." I didn't hear from Ronald after that.
(SNIP)
The rest of the article can be found at the link I provided (I don't know how to do hotlinks here)
The good Doctor can post blog spots until the cows come home in regard to the lies of the anti-smoker cartel, but the bottom line truth of the matter is that he is equally as guilty in regard to how out of control his movement has become as the other culprits such as Glantz, Sweda, Banzhaf and the rest of the clowns. For 20 years he has not only contributed to the utter disregard of scientific and personal integrity, but turned a blind eye to it until just recently. The brainwashing of the media, thus most of the public is now nearly complete.
I do have to admit to enjoying the conundrum many diehard antis on other boards are facing when they swear EVERYTHING said against tobacco is 110% true and anyone who questions is an addlepated addict or tobacco company shill..........yet go nuts over the global warning scams and fault anyone who claims the skeptics of that scam (which is so similar to SHS it's scary) are the liars destroying scientific integrity and the skeptics are the golden boys.
Yup - ya done good Doc -- and nothing you say is going to reverse the damage you and your colleagues have done, because you have so brainwashed yourselves that you believe your own lies.
From GreatScot's link on Simon Chapman:
"Professor Chapman is a recipient of the World Health Organization's 'World No Tobacco Day' Medal and the international Luther Terry medal for 'Outstanding Individual Leadership in Tobacco Control'."
That's embarrassing enough so I wonder if the food fight war will produce similar awards?
World No Twinkie Day Medal.
Luther Terry medal for Outstanding Individual Leadership in Twinkie Control.
Chapman has an interesting history. Here are some quotes/analysis from him:
"Finally, Richard Doll's famous 50-year study of smoking by British doctors showed that if you quit by middle age, your lifetime risk of dying from a tobacco-caused disease falls to nearly the same level as that of someone who has never smoked."
Now since the Antis define middle age as extending to 69, this would imply that if you are an average smoker (who supposedly starts at around age 16) and smoke for 53 years and quite there's no risk. Of course he could be talking about the START of middle age (35?) which would means that 20 years of smoking was harmless. That would imply that somewhere between 200 and 20,000 years of "passive smoking" was harmless.
Interesting, eh?
He's also known for a 1995 fax expressing concern about a government secondhand smoke report that didn't QUITE say what it SHOULD have said:
--------
‘I am DEEPLY concerned about the implications for the credibility of our whole report arising from the calculations.… If we look at Table 7 in the way any journalist would … a reasonable conclusion will be that the idea that there is ANY lung cancer caused by ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) in Australia will be seen as a huge joke. Journalists … will be hard pressed to write anything other than ‘Official: passive smoking cleared—no lung cancer’ … our estimate of 93 deaths should be 4,247...‘I think we had better get out a thesaurus and find a lot of words to express the words ‘conservative estimate’ in hundreds of different ways…. We are looking down the barrel of a MAJOR public relations problem … I STRONGLY recommend that we convene another face-to-face meeting to discuss what to do about this.’
- As quoted by Andrew McIntyre in the IPA Review, Volume 50, Number 3, 1998
======
On the other hand, he seems to show an almost Siegelesque quality of "moderation" in
http://www.theaustralian.news.co...30-
7583,00.html
where he argues against extreme outdoor bans and concerns about third-hand smoking. Interesting fellow.
Hey, with friends like these.....
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Well folks those of you who may have had the pleasure of smoking a CUBAN CIGAR,which has been banned in the US for 40 years now ?Will soon have your favourite food item probably face the same fate when the NAZI FOOD SQUAD get to work.Now can someone explain why after this length of time cuban cigars are still refused entry ? If the US government still maintains such a juvenile and ridiculous approach ,how on earth can they be trusted to ensure the visions of the lunatic fringe,such as Glantz who demands a Universal non smoking policy and who will manufacture the science to try to achieve it ? An interesting fact i learnt earlier tonight,the US government has been actively involved in overthrowing 50 DEMOCRACIES worldwide to suit their own purposes.Presumably the reason they choose to ignore FICTITIOUS SCIENCE in order to screw the man in the street.Hope it keeps those PURITANS happy and ensures those dollars keep rolling in,just keep the anti smoking crap to yourselves.Just off for a McDonalds before they're banned.
Michael J. McFadden wrote:
"On the other hand, he seems to show an almost Siegelesque quality of 'moderation'..."
I noticed that about him in his BMJ Rapid Response pertaining to the 2003 E/K study.
One day i will remember,the anon above was down to me.
What are the main studies that establish the biological plausibility of the ETS heart disease death toll? Surely not just Otsuka, right?
Exhaust Fumes And Genetic Predisposition Increase Childhood Asthma Risk
Researchers found that children who carried variations in two genes and lived within 75 meters of a major road were up to nine times more likely to develop asthma than children who lived further away...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
rele...70820194635.htm
Maybe this explains why asthma cases are on the rise ...
Maybe this explains why asthma cases are on the rise ...
Especially in places like New York City and other big cities.
Gee, what a surprise..........whoodathunk...
Even better is that the common man/woman on the street could have told them that without spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for another "study".
OT, but not really. interesting read.
http://home.att.net/
~bob.wallace...gandaworks.html
si wrote:
"the US government has been actively involved in overthrowing 50 DEMOCRACIES worldwide to suit their own purposes"
Kicked King George III's ass a couple of times too. Losers. LOL
Banzhaf stated: "A fast food chain which promoted a meal of a vegetarian burger plus salad, fruit, yogurt, and orange juice as healthier...could be guilty of the same deception as cigarette makers who promoted low tar and nicotine cigarettes....
Ah, and where did either one of them GET the idea that fruits and vegetables and low tar and nicotine were, in fact, healthier?
Wasn't it--and isn't it still-- The Government? Very same government that bays at us daily about eating our fruits and veggies--like a dozen servings a day? And the very same government that'll "save countless lives" by...lowering nicotine? (when, in fact, of the two constituents, the tar is the greater villain?)
This opens a lovely worm can. No one, from now on, can say that anything is "healthy" let alone that it's "healthier" than any other thing, since it's likely to prove actionable. Liberation from "recommendations"! Cold turkey from "Public Service." Breathe communal sighs of relief. And get ready to sue the doctor who advises you to cut out the whiskey and hit the gym.
Question: how can veggie burgers get to be "high fat" unless they're lathered with pure lard?
:
Question: how can veggie burgers get to be "high fat" unless they're lathered with pure lard?
Walt, it's the "fast" in fast food that makes it a health hazard. Or is it the "food"? Not sure ...
There is ample evidence that humankind cannot exist without having scapegoats for each and everything.
That may be so James,but i can light a Cuban if i want to (if I save up enough money of course).FTR i was suggesting that the crap science driving this discrimination and denormalisation programme appears to cause no reaction in the US GOVERNMENT AT ALL.Are the paybacks given by the Pharmaceutical companies so large,that the Tobacco companies no longer matter ?
One day i will remember
Walt wrote, "This opens a lovely worm can. No one, from now on, can say that anything is "healthy" let alone that it's "healthier" than any other thing, since it's likely to prove actionable. Liberation from "recommendations"! "
I always thought it was cute, in a perverted sort of way, that after years and years of the Antismokers screaming about all the "secret ingredients" being put into cigarettes that made them more dangerous... Winston came out with a "100% All Natural Pure Tobacco" blend.
Lo and Behold, no sooner did it hit the shelves than the Antis screamed up a NEW storm and Winston had to add a disclaimer saying "All natural ingredients does NOT mean a safer cigarette!"
Of course conversely then, every other company should have been allowed to put "Our additives do NOT mean our cigarettes are any more dangerous!"
What's incredible is the way the Antis can have it both ways, so often (for another e.g., think "bans don't hurt biz" and "we need a level playing field), and get away with it. Positively Orwellian in the doublethink area: the ability to hold two mutually contradictory concepts clearly in the mind at the same time and fully believe in both.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Si wrote:
"That may be so James,but i can light a Cuban if i want to"
That's nothing. We could invade Cuba anytime we wanted to.
I was just having fun. Hope you don't mind.
Btw, in your history books does it say we kicked your ass or KICKED your ass? LOL
James,
You don't have to invade Cuba. If you want a cigar just lift the embargo.
Our history books say that there was so much cheating going on by the American forces we decided to come home and not play any more.
GreatScot
GreatScot you totally crease me .
GreatScot wrote:
"You don't have to invade Cuba. If you want a cigar just lift the embargo."
True, but democracy wouldn't flourish.
"Our history books say that there was so much cheating going on by the American forces we decided to come home and not play any more."
LOL
I guess it is cheating when one side wears bright red uniforms and the other side doesn't:
OUCH! Who just shot me in the butt?
I don't know. I don't see anybody.
LOL
James,
You Colonials broke more than rule no1.
Rules of engagement for opposition forces to His Majesty's Britannic Forces
1 Opposing forces must wear bright uniforms
2 Opposing forces must stand in straight rows.
3 Opposing forces must walk slowly towards the British guns.
4 Opposing forces must stop and await the British re-loading
5 Opposing commanders must be more incompetent than their British counterparts
6 Opposing forces must not discharge their firearms without written authority from the British commander.
So you see James, you lot broke all the rules and we went home in the huff.
GreatScot
Anyway ,we got to keep all the tea.
Anyway ,we got to keep all the tea.
Yeah, now we need a new "tea" to start a new revolution..............maybe we should use pharma products.........yeah, toss all their "cures" into the ocean...........LOL
Well Lynda,i thought it would be a tobacco substitute,it was smoked during the war and i'll throw the gauntlet down to the rantis to ban it.
GreatScot,
After reading your explanation I feel kind of bad about us winning. Do you think the UK would like a rematch?
When our troops get done in Iraq and Afghanistan they could make a quick stop in/over England and...nevermind, we're allies now.
James,
even if you agreed to follow the rules I think the referee would have to step in and declare a mismatch.
Seriously, your founding fathers created what should have been a template for all free people. The constitution was designed to protect everyone from big Government, mob rule and tyranny. It's such a shame to see their principles being tortured.
GreatScot
Hence back to my original point that they are being murdered when it suits.And best of all ,no blood was spilled in this re-enactment of the war of independence.Have a cigar James,Cuban of course.Every Government is tainted with this use of unscientific ,biased and corrupt shite AKA tobacco control.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
