Since ASH & CTFK recieve millions of dollars from Nicoderm manufacturer Johnson & Johnson's private foundation RWJF......it's no wonder that they're using extortion tactics to peddle their benefactors products:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....ealth-
over.html
Dr. Siegel - I know ASH and Banzhaf are nuts, but this one actually floored me, and I thought I couldn't be shocked anymore. I'm wondering if you think the AMA or any other physicians' group will take them to task, legally or otherwise, for this shocking statement:
"The letter notes a recent study which shows that physicians are killing more than 40,000 American smokers each year. . ."
Um, I'm reading this right? It actually accuses physicians of killing people? This seems to me to go way beyond even antismoking's usual hyperbole and into libel and defamation territory. What do you think?
And, do you suppose any physician's group will actually defend doctors, or are they so terrified of opposing antismoking that they will let themselves be called killers unchallenged?
He has already tried it with his obesity lawsuit idea
Doctors Could Be Next Fat Law Suit Targets
After Six Successes and Over $25 Million Won, Movement is Evolving
http://banzhaf.net/obesitymedmal
http://banzhaf.net/obesitylinks
I suggest you put on sunglasses before looking at that.
The Commonsense Consumption act proposal
"But these lawsuits are not only about money. They also represent attempts by a small group of lawyers and special-interest groups to subvert the legislative process and impose by litigation what they cannot achieve at the ballot box"
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/...10-s20070511-
19
Well worth reading.
"John Banzhaf is a Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School."
Shouldn't that read "Professor of Personal Interest in Public Money"? Not a person America can be proud of.
While we are on a roll
How a hospitality trade paper was persuaded not to fight the ban
ASH Political Bulletin
Letter to The Publican May 2004
Managing Director, Massive Pub Company
extract
"The ultimate provision and safety for us will be a smoking ban. We all need to be forewarned that the next growth area for the legal system will be prosecutions of publicans for not protecting staff from the dangers of ETS.Since April 27 cases have been taken on - this is the start of a tidal wave - in my view."
Page 7 which also carries a workplace smoking hotline number for non smokers to contact solicitors.
Apparently
"Thompsons solicitors and ASH have been very pleased with the response so far"
http://newash.org.uk/files/docum...nts/
ASH_405.pdf
Massive Pub Company calls in the administrators
28th January 2008
http://www.thepublican.com/story...ycode=58420&
c=3
If I inform my doctor that I am an avid roller blade enthusiast, and my doctor doesn't disclose the proper safety equipment I should use to safeguard me from potential harm; then I get hurt - I can sue my doctor?
Sweet/sarc
Victim-status is very profitable.
It's not my fault...
Dr. Siegel: Is pursuing baseless lawsuits and threatening physicians with them really what the tobacco control movement wants to be doing?
If ever there was proof positive that this "movement" is about anything BUT tobacco control this latest asinine movement of Banzhaf and company provides it. You people are not interested in "tobacco" control, but rather PEOPLE cotrol, and since Bnzhaf has finally realized that smokers are an independent-minded lot, he is now going after the doctors,
Banzhaf is a dangerous piece of work and that he is allegedly teaching the next generation of lawyers should scare the pants off anyone with even a room temperature IQ. This man has no business in any court room in this country, unless at the defendents' table........let alone in front of a lecture hall.
Charlatans such as Banzhaf are a major part of the reason health care costs in the US are through the roof and the reputation of lawyers are lower than snakebellies.
Gabz
"Once, ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) was John Banzhaf's only pressure group. Now he has CAP, PUMP, LASH, TUBE and SOUP.
Startled industries and badgered regulatory agencies are suddenly painfully aware that Banzhaf's Bandits are abroad in Washington"
http://www.time.com/time/magazin...iid=chix-
sphere
So we find ourselves in the position where doctors are being threatened with lawsuits by the very monster they created?
Very Frankenstein.
It would be quite fascinating to see their reaction if, rather than caving in to the threat of legal action, the state medical authorities could simply withdraw their labour as I beleive that some already do for serial litigators. Or they could petition to have Banzhaf and all his merry little bigiots declared malicious litigants (meaning that they'd have to get a court's permission (usually declined) before they could sue anyone for anything), which might put the professor of public (self-) interest law in a bit of an interesting position?
No evidence that the rate is 50 percent, you say? And therefore no reason aybody should ever use that figure inpublic communications regarding public health?
Interesting. Is there any evidence that 100 percent of Massachussets bartenders wil stay in their jobs for 40 years? If not, why use that figure in communications regarding public health?
Gabz says it so much nicer than I can. I can't print out the descriptives I have for the TC Cartel. It's just too unladylike........hehehehehe 
Dr. Siegel: Is pursuing baseless lawsuits and threatening physicians with them really what the tobacco control movement wants to be doing?
I'm all for it, I think it's an excellent idea. Spread fear and scare to the medical profession to the point were no MD will prescribe anything more than a placebo, for fear of being sued.
No physiscian should be willing to even say hello to his patient without the presence of his own lawyer.
No physician should start treatment of a patient without having informed the patient about the health hazards of smoking, eating, drinking and sexual relationships.
Go ahead, destroy the physician/patient relationship to the point where the health system will collapse. Maybe at this point the sleeping masses will wake up and unterstand where this comes from.
Rose: "Banzhaf's Bandits" is a very apt descriptor for him and his goon squads.........
Rufus: Malicious Litigants is also another very apt descriptor........
Lynda: I assure you my friend, my comment went through much revision and edits before it became even anywhere near printable. My initial reactions to most comments from the cult of smoker control are NEVER ladylike, not in the least 
That's why we luv ya Gabz......you're a woman after our own hearts......hehehehehe
Josh,
I will try to find the actual paper in which ASH states the conclusion is that physicians are killing their patients. Let me first see what the actual authors say before commenting. It's possible that ASH is simply incorrectly communicating the study. It wouldn't be the first time (...30 minutes...anyone?). I'll report back.
Dr.Siegel,
Is it the fact that Banzhaf wants to threaten the medical community which you are also a part of that makes you nervous about this or do you really think he is going to far, perhaps finally off his rocker? I am pretty sure you still have several friends in medicine who doesn't buy into your movement, but you still wouldn't want to see them in court, nor do you want to have to defend yourself either.
"So we find ourselves in the position where doctors are being threatened with lawsuits by the very monster they created"
Rufus, I suspect their part was more a trusting Igor than Victor Frankenstein
The following was also posted on the thread introducing this thread.
I agree with Banzhaf that doctors should be held accountable if they don't educate addicted smokers about the many health risks of continued smoking, or for failing to advise or and assist smokers to quit smoking.
I also think that doctors should be held accountable if they fail to inform smokers that noncombustible tobacco and nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.
But the US Public Health Service's Clinical Practice Guideline for Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence don't even acknowledge that cold turkey is an effective method of quitting (as more smokers have quit smoking via cold turkey than by all other methods combined).
Also, the guideless don't acknowledge (nor urge doctors to inform smokers) that noncombustible tobacco and nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.
Instead, the guidelines endorse nicotine replacement products (gum, lozenges, skin patches) and various prescription drugs as first line treatments for smoking cessation, which was probably because the guidelines were drafted and approved by a panel that included many recipients of drug company funds.
And of course, the guidelines don't acknowledge any of those financial conflicts of interests (some of which exceed one million dollars).
While I'm no expert on medical malpractice law, it appears to me that a plaintiff smoker's lawsuit could prevail if a defendant doctor (over a period of years or decades) failed to inquire if the patient was a smoker, failed inform the smoker that continued smoking greatly increases the risks of morbidity and mortality, and/or failed to advise the patient to quit smoking (or to try quitting).
"failed inform the smoker that continued smoking greatly increases the risks of morbidity and mortality"
Listen Bill, did it ever cross your mind that people own there own lives and that you don't own theirs. Would I intervene in your life?
Did your doctor inform you that driving a car increases the risks of morbidity and mortality.
Bill,
As it appears there are many parasitic lawyers out there, it would seem you are correct.
a plaintiff smoker's lawsuit could prevail if a defendant doctor (over a period of years or decades) failed to inquire if the patient was a smoker, failed inform the smoker that continued smoking greatly increases the risks of morbidity and mortality, and/or failed to advise the patient to quit smoking (or to try quitting).
That's a big if.
1. One of the first questions in pretty much any new meeting with a doctor is "do you smoke?" Nurses etc also ask this question. I've been there.
2. Suddenly, the warnings on the cigarette packs need nothing?
3. Given your prescriptions for tough love previously demonstrated on this blog, I can't help but feel your suggestion for advice would be something on the aggressive side.
4. Given what ASH claims about smoking, you're basically agreeing that, as things stand, doctors should promote false information.
5. Social isolation is at least as big a morbidity risk as smoking. So perhaps the doctor should ask about that instead/as well, or more in detail? This seems like an icky invasion of privacy, especially lumped with (4) which would encourage smokers(whether by direct statement or not) to isolate themselves, which would be bad for them.
I agree with Bill and thank him for his comment above. I think that the national smoking cessation guidelines are flawed in that they do not consider the value of quitting cold turkey, which is, as Bill says, the most common and successful quitting method. The failure to consider the cold turkey approach is even more problematic given the severe financial conflicts of interest of the guideline panel.
Bill Godshall wrote:
"While I'm no expert on medical malpractice law, it appears to me that a plaintiff smoker's lawsuit could prevail..."
As I believe your buddy Banzhaf says, sue enough times and eventually you'll find a jury that agrees with you.
Having read the link to "medical" History, Doctors, Governments and Big Pharma are long overdue being sued and jailed.
GreatScot
GreatScot,
I agree. What I thought extremely interesting was how the ACS (Doc's and Bill's favorite authority) has consistently lied, and covered up the truth regarding cancer. Not to mention the stealing of monies all these decades for nothing.
What I saw in that, is that all the governments, public health agencies, government agencies and even our own military here, have been deliberately, and maliciously in my opinion, using the population as human experimentation without our consent.
No wonder they are attacking smoking so bad.........they need to cover up what they have been, and are continuing, to do.
Sorry Doc, in your profession, you are a part of them, like it or not. Especially given your crusade against us.
LyndaF
I don't blame the doctors, Being a doctor is a vocation undertaken with the best of motives. However a doctor is only as good as the knowledge he is taught and the medicines he is given.
It would take more than one lifetime for anyone to check the ingredients and genuine effects of the medicines they use.
Imagine the horror of a doctor who prescribed Champix to someone who then commited suicide before the FDA warning was issued.
The pharmaceutical companies and NICE are supposed to do this.
Sorry Rose, I can't agree with you on this one. These doctors have the same opportunity to do their homework as we do; and in fact are obliged to in my opinion.
I've trusted doctor's in the past to know best how to treat me when I'm ill.....they have proven however they don't.
How many doctor's do you know who actually try to actually find the root of your problem, let alone treat it? Not many, most just use the textbook example and prescribe a drug that will mask the symptoms.
It IS the doctor's responsibility to check the studies and findings on these drugs, to do their own due diligence before asking (or rather demanding) that their patients trust them with their lives.
If WE can find this information, how come they can't?
LyndaF
If it never occurs to someone that there is another side to the story, why would they even look?
We knew instinctively that there was something very wrong and were determined to find it.
Perhaps it needs a massive shock sometimes to wake me up.
Rose, they know there's another side, trust me. They know just because of the numbers of different people they see and all the different stories they hear from those people.
If they don't, then I'd question their intelligence and sanity and wonder how the hell they got a license to practice medicine to start with.
Sorry, I cannot cut them any slack on this one. I expect someone who is asking me to trust them with MY life, to stay on top of things, to be aware of ALL the options, to look into what medicine might be the best one for me.
What do we get instead? Pharma pill pushers, pushing the latest and greatest miracle drug.
No slack here from me at all. IF they don't know, it is because they CHOOSE to not know. Like the Doc, refusing to actually look at the real numbers. He likes the numbers that are out there now and refuses to even acknowledge that his movement is based on lies and that TOTAL bans really are not necessary.
HE allows himself that choice. HE also has NO problem removing that same choice from us.
Dr Siegel ,how about answering a question and having a discussion,rather than currying favour with Bill ?
Commenting by HaloScan
