And what pray does peer reviewing achieve ? TC have got it all neatly bundled, THERE WILL BE NO DISSENTING VOICES !The masses will be TOLD,the masses will DO as they are told.Since you are "supposed" to be anathema to the in crowd of TC what good do any of your studies actually do Dr Siegel ? Are you wasting taxpayers money Dr Siegel ?
You wont be surprised to learn, Doc, that the numbers are a work of fiction.
We have some inside information and will publish our rejection of this nonsense as soon as we can.
The modus operandi seems to be:
1. Make up a headline
2. Pulp it out with fiction
3. Pat yourself on the back
4. Dont peer-review
5. Dont publish
6. Never attempt to defend anything other than the headline.
7. Repeat as often as needed.
These people have no shame.
Colin - I'll be interested to see your data. But this is exactly the problem. With science by press release, the conclusions are disseminated before they can be reviewed. I look forward to actually having the opportunity to look at the data myself, so I can make an informed conclusion. Unfortunately, the public is not being given the same opportunity.
While our expert crunches the numbers, I thought you might like to read this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/...d-
Woodbine.html
Healthy skepticism.
You just can't beat it....
Doc, OT but a serious question for you.
Do you actually read the posts and follow the links provided by people, I refer specifically to posts by the likes of Rose and Ellen and Walt and Anonymous more recently Nightlight (sorry if I have omitted anyone)?
or do you dismiss them out of hand as heretical?
Have you already explored their alternative views and believe that they don't merit further investigation?
If so why do you not participate in the discussions and share your findings?
Sorry for the complex question, but I would really like to hear your answer.
GreatScot
Colin's line is probably the most honest one I have read in a very long time. Thanks for posting it Colin.
As for the Rest of the Story, maybe they can't produce the study as their SAMMEC software crashed. No one in tobacco control can come up with these numbers by themselves. They need to punch in a few numbers and see what the computer tells them it COULD be. Whoops, then again, computers are only as smart as the people who plays with them. Type in any old number and accept the answer and as Cathy Bell would say, "My work here is done"!
Sorry Colin, that was suppose to be link, not line. See how easy it is to come up with different words and numbers on a computer? I only hit an e instead of a k and got a whole different word. Their numbers are reached by doing the same.
GreatScot-
I do read the comments and follow the links, and I find the material very interesting to consider. While I do not agree with all of it, it does no damage to always be willing to challenge and re-examine dogma.
This never occured to me before-
Fried green tomatoes
"The nightshade family of foods do indeed have a potential toxin. This is mother nature’s way of protecting themselves from insect damage. The toxin is found in the green part of these vegetables"
"Green Tomatoes have this toxin, glycoalkaloids. These toxins cause them to have a bitter taste to be unappealing for consumption. Although a delicious southern food (fried green Tomatoes), we should not consume green Tomatoes.
http://www.deliciousorganics.com.../
nightshade.htm
Q-I have read that glycoalkaloids are not
>destroyed by cooking. Does this mean that consumers of fried green
>tomatoes are ingesting poison?"
A-"Yes, you are ingesting poison, but not enough to do you any real harm.
Animals have been eating plants for a billion years, and the plants have
been fighting back. As a result of this arms race, your body can cope
with a lot. You've also got an instinctive aversion to bitter tastes
which is how you detect alkaloids in food."
http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/pla...uly/
026084.html
Nicotine/solanine/tomatine.
BTW if you want to ban the consumption of green tomatoes, thats fine by me.
Dr. Siegel: “It is problematic that the study authors will not release the full results because without the full methods and results, it is not possible for others in the field to adequately review the work and assess its validity”.
Doc, I followed the links you provided in your post. The second claims, “400,000 smokers have quit in year since ban”, just as advertised. The first pumps that figure up a little, “Smoking ban prompts 800,000 smokers to kick habit”. The discrepancy has me terribly concerned. I think someone may be lying to me.
Dr. Siegel: “The problem with this approach is that should the results subsequently be found to be invalid upon peer review, it is too late: the information has already been disseminated”.
I believe that may be the objective of the whole exercise, Doc. Should any flaws in the study be detected, people will still be debating which of the two figures quoted is the more accurate, even if the study itself should turn out to be complete and utter rubbish.
It will be interesting to see what Colin and his mates at freedom2choose have found.
"It is problematic that the study authors will not release the full results because without the full methods and results, it is not possible for others in the field to adequately review the work and assess its validity."
What difference does that make? When the authors' claims are challenged, they'll just say as you do: It may be flawed, but not fatally flawed. The rubber-stamp from a journal is just a formality.
You stand behind all your junk studies, just like Repace and Glantz. Your studies say "slightly elevated risk" that "may" be "in part" due to ETS, but your press releases say "severe health risk."
Thanks for adding your voice to help expose this utter dross, Doctor Siegel.
I recently risked becoming enraged and browsed the Cancer Research website for more information about the purported 400,000 people who have given up smoking.
To my surprise, it was actually quite a useful endeavour. The study was presented, with predictable fanfare, at the National Smoking Cessation Conference in Birmingham ( http://www.uknscc.org/2008_UKNSC...NSCC/
intro.html ). You can find a Powerpoint presentation outlining its methods and objectives here: http://www.smokinginengland.info/ (see doc entitled: STS010 30/06/2008 Key performance indicators: Findings from the Smoking Toolkit Study (Powerpoint)). One wonders if Jill Pell's infamously misleading Scottish Heart Attack study was confined to a Powerpoint presentation before conveniently finding its way into the Recycle Bin before the pesky process of peer review.
One thing has already caught my attention on p. 4:
"A series of national household surveys of representative samples of approximately 1700 adults aged 16+ in England with a special focus on the ~500 who have smoked within the past year."
CRUK boldly state:
"This is the first study in the world to examine in detail the impact on smoking rates solely from smokefree legislation without the influence of any other tobacco control measures."
All sounds fine. I can't think of any other tobacco control measures which came into force around the time of the smoking ban. Let me wrack my brains ...
Ah yes, of course. The age limit for buying tobacco was raised from 16 to 18 in October of last year. It is therefore impossible for Prof. West and his CRUK colleagues to isolate the smoking ban as the sole cause of decreasing smoker prevalence and lowered tobacco consumption.
How many 16 & 17 year olds are there in GB? And how many of them will have stopped smoking (or said they'd stopped smoking because it's what they interviewers wanted to hear) given that it is now illegal for them to buy cigs?
Is this the same data set that found that smoking had a negative affect on memory? Whitehall II?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
7481818.stm
Headline
'Good' cholesterol dementia risk
Too little of one type of cholesterol has been linked by research to memory loss and Alzheimer's disease.
UK and French scientists studied 3,673 civil servants, revealing low levels of "good" cholesterol were associated with poor memory.
GreatScot
Once again this goes round the world as the official truth, to encourage other countries to adopt the same methods, as it has been such a "success" in England.
UK smoking ban a huge success
from the Hindustan Times
"Proponents of last year’s controversial ban on smoking in public places are triumphant after news that 400,000 Britons have quit smoking since the ban took effect in England last July 1.
The ban isn’t just helping those who quit. A British Lung Foundation survey of 1,000 people found more than half said they had suffered fewer attacks of breathlessness from exposure to smokers in pubs and restaurants, and more than a third said it had helped keep them out of hospital."
http://www.hindustantimes.com/
St...+a+huge+success
400,000 quit smoking since ban in England
Gulf Times
Interestingly-
"Another study to be published later this week, by the department of health, will show that a total of 234,060 people have stopped smoking with the help of a special service offered by the National Health Service since the ban came in."
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/t...38&
parent_id=20
Numbers That "Sing"
"Tobacco control advocates can develop motivating messages by presenting statistics in ways that convey scientific truths and also move an audience emotionally. This technique has been called "creative epidemiology" or "social math"—mathematics applied for a social purpose"
Tobacco Control Strategy Planning
http://strategyguides.globalink..../
guide01_07.htm
The ban isn’t just helping those who quit. A British Lung Foundation survey of 1,000 people found more than half said they had suffered fewer attacks of breathlessness from exposure to smokers in pubs and restaurants, and more than a third said it had helped keep them out of hospital."
A question...
Were the smokers smoking at the time?
Another one...
Did poeple who smoke have fewer atacks of breathlessness from the same exposure?
Yet Another one...
Did more than two thirds say it had helped get them into hospital?
Oh no not another one...
Were these 1000 people just anyone or were they cherry picked?
We not only have Junk Science, we have Junk Journalism. It will all end in tears.
west
----
While you are busy trying to destroy your founding industry, in the rest of the world things are moving on.
Tobacco as Medicine, Indian Research Institute Wins Patent
"Folk medicine has always found some therapeutic value in tobacco. Now the Central Tobacco Research Institute (CTRI) based in Guntur in the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh has bagged the patent rights for for ‘solansole’ (a medicine extracted from tobacco for use in the manufacture of cancer and cardiac drugs)."
"Already Chinese are breathing down the Indian neck, as it were. Nanjing Huaguan Development Of Biotechnology Co is into the export of solanesol, described in its promotional material as a key medical intermediate in the synthesis of cardiac drugs,anti-ulcer drugs and anti-cancer drugs. Obviously India has to race fast"
http://www.medindia.net/news/Tob...ent-30130-
1.htm
"India is the largest producer and exporter of tobacco in the World. Total tobacco production in India is about 700 million Kilograms annually. Rich and varied Indian geographic and agro-climatic conditions foster consistent availability of wide range of tobaccos for export all through the year. Indian tobacco, by virtue of its qualities, sheer volumes and diversity, is progressing gracefully to occupy its rightful place in the world tobacco market."
http://www.indiantobacco.com
Exports
http://www.indiantobacco.com/
exp...p_perf_0508.htm
Still OT
Regarding cigarette smoking may be the symptom that points to the cause
China Olympic algae clean-up
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...rld/
7485405.stm
Hope the video works
Coastal areas and lakes in China see frequent algae blooms, often caused by the discharge of nitrogen-rich chemical pollutants, sewage and fertilisers in the water
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...fic/
7482791.stm
Satellite data reveals Beijing as air pollution capital of world
"As it gears up to host the 2008 Olympic Games Beijing has been awarded an unwelcome new accolade: the air pollution capital of the world.
Satellite data has revealed that the city is one of the worst environmental victims of China's spectacular economic growth, which has brought with it air pollution levels that are blamed for more than 400,000 premature deaths a year.
According to the European Space Agency, Beijing and its neighbouring north-east Chinese provinces have the planet's worst levels of nitrogen dioxide, which can cause fatal damage to the lungs"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/
2...china.pollution
China's smoking timebomb
"One-third of all young men in China are likely to die from smoking-related diseases, say scientists.
Experts made the prediction after studying thousands of deaths in Hong Kong.
We predict a large increase in deaths attributable to tobacco in China over the next few decades
Sir Richard Peto
They say unless Chinese men are encouraged to give up smoking, millions will die in the coming years.
One third of all the cigarettes produced in the world are now smoked in China.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
1493887.stm
Just like the 50's, the greater the physical stress from pollution, the more people
smoke.
As the air clears, so the number of smokers drops.
The 40,000 of 400,000 who quit will be saved. Unfortunately if 50% of smokers will die of smoking related diseases we cut the number in half leaving 200,000 left to be saved.
What it appears they concluded if only 40,000 will survive what is being stated is 4 of 5 or 80% of smokers who were destined to die of smoking related diseases, will die on schedule. Even after they quit smoking, so why should they quit?
Figure in 220 bartenders we have to deduct from the 40K figure along with all those saved children and who could forget all those pedestrians walking down the street no longer expossed to smokers breath and the numbers get even worse.
Smoking bans and the mythical tales of preventable diseases are not holding water, perhaps allowing smokers a beer and a roof over their head would be a more compassionate way to deal with the doomed and dying.
The saving grace here is found in the other numbers. If the majority were prescribed smoking patches six months from now 99% of those who quit will be smoking again. So perhaps quitting might again hold some promise but only if we encourage the quitters to save others by starting to smoke again.
What a tangled web we weave...
BTW;
The reseach figures were likely held up because they purchased them in Canada. A backlog was created due to the Canada Day holiday, which no doubt created a long lineup of mail order lobbies waiting for their deliveries. The release of the research figures should be available as soon as the backlog of required science is dictated and typed up.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/a...e/index-
eng.php
Rose "numbers that sing" brainwashing by anyone else's standards.It is a Cult,there is no denying it,actively seeking to impose its beliefs on everyone around it.Since science is ready to lend its support by producing studies to "prove" and promote the cause,it brings the whole medical community into disrepute.How many of us here TRUST the medical profession ? Every health crusade following smacks of the same deceit and subversive action.When the bubble bursts,those denormalised by events will be shown to be the elite,the backbone of society .The willing sheeple will have no one to turn to,when time is called on those who have willingly corrupted the medical profession to further their own aims.I will re-phrase my initial question to Dr Siegel,Do TC take any note or shun your studies ?If it is the latter and your studies are relegated to the archives,do you feel that you are making good use of tax payers money Dr Siegel ?
Cigarette taxes are based on the basic principle that people do stupid things with their own money, so if it is no longer their money, we can stop these acts of insanity.
Taking enough money away from people in fact creates much higher levels of poverty which creates a new level of promotional materials, when we point out the fact that so many are starving in Canada and why would you dare waste money on personal indulgences like beer, Cigarettes and soda pop [Used to be mom's favorite argument for eating everything on your plate]As paternalists we can control all that is wrong with the world. And likely control what is done with most of the so called earned money as well.
No one wants to eliminate any of peoples short comings, because if everyone was subservient and perfect, no one would be able to lay claim to superiority, which cuts into potential profit margins and the more obvious sources of free money.
As Tim Clarke says, you can access the toolkit study from the link he gives, including a 35 page description. I was reading it yesterday, but I think I got to it from the conference timetable of talks. There was a talk scheduled concerning this study. After all it was the major headline. I can't seem to find it now. Did anybody download the conference schedule yesterday?
You can find the instructional materials for a do it yourself science kit at health Canada. We no longer have to be cowed down by others who claim to be more educated, by using the toolkit you can create scientific facts to support any argument and protect your every whim,
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/a...tis-qui-
eng.php
"In its most general sense, Social Marketing is a new way of thinking about some very old human endeavours. As long as there have been social systems, there have been attempts to inform, persuade, influence, motivate, to gain acceptance for new adherents to certain sets of ideas, to promote causes and to win over particular groups, to reinforce behaviour or to change it -- whether by favour, argument or force."
For additional credits you can add the masters of science to your repertoire by reading the supplemental information, found at WIKI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
"Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large number of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.
Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist."
OK, maybe I'm getting a little paranoid. Anyhow, here is a link to a UK Dept of health survey released to the public on Tuesday. Note the definition of quitting."A client is counted as having successfully quit smoking at the 4 week follow up if he/she has not smoked at all since two weeks after the quit date".
Si
Whilst doing a search on social math, I have just compiled a small kit.
We can do this too.
Numbers and a subject
Social math for everything
http://www.gii-exchange.org/
blog...everything.html
Doing Social Math
"Something called the National Center on Addiction and substance Abuse put out a study last week noting with alarm that a quarter of all the alcohol sold in America is consumed by teenagers. The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the study was 'wrong' because it 'had not applied the standard statistical techniques in deriving that number.' This makes it sound like the error was arcane and maybe a matter of interpretation, but the Times writer, Tamar Lewin, goes on to explain it quite clearly: forty percent of the survey sample was teenagers, but teenagers are less than 20 percent of the general population. Correcting for this flat-out mistake produces a figure more like 11 percent of alcohol consumption that is by teenagers."
"Kinsley accuses groups who play out these crisis numbers as "sowing serial social panic."
http://
www.frameworksinstitute.o...39framing.shtml
Media Advocacy Work Book
http://www.thcu.ca/infoandresour...book%
20v104.pdf
"Frighten people into quitting smoking, or not starting to smoke by using TV ads."
I must read that last one thoroughly, I am tempted to denormalize jelly beans.
Forgot to mention that the first link has a world clock counting up the projected death and diseases every second, plus global industrial output.
Jonathan Bagley - are you the same Jonathan Bagley who works as a Lecturer in the Maths dept at Manchester Uni?
"We no longer have to be cowed down by others who claim to be more educated, by using the toolkit you can create scientific facts to support any argument and protect your every whim"
Absolutely right Anonymous
OT - Oh no mr. bill.....I'm afraid the World Health Organization doesn't agree with you on your beloved smokeless tobacco:
Puff-free tobacco raises cancer risk 80 percent
Chew, snuff take their toll in oral cancer diagnoses, WHO report says
Reuters
updated 4:05 p.m. MT, Tues., July. 1, 2008
LONDON - Chewing tobacco and snuff are less dangerous than cigarettes but the smokeless products still raise the risk of oral cancer by 80 percent, the World Health Organization's cancer agency said on Tuesday.
The review of 11 studies worldwide showed people who chewed tobacco and used snuff also had a 60 percent higher risk of esophagus and pancreatic cancer.
The researchers sought to quantify the risk of smokeless tobacco after a number of studies differed on just how dangerous the products were, said Paolo Boffetta, an epidemiologist at the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25484359/
Poor bill.
Rose i think they may have missed off one cause of death....statistical overload lol.
Doctor in Mauritius has a rough rule-of-thumb about smoking: smoking 10 cigarettes a day for 20 years, or 20 cigarettes a day for 10 years, causes disease. (Duncan Bannatyne's moronic Tuesday night program on BBC television.) Doing the math, does that mean that a person who smokes 40 cigarettes a day for 5 years also comes down with a tobacco-related disease?
.
The fag end of advocacy research - Spiked
"The real miracle here is that such a scientifically illiterate story would be (a) written, and (b) make it past the editors of (c) even the sensationalist Daily Mail"
http://www.spiked-online.com/ind...e/article/5422/
Harry,
Using the same rule of thumb I should have been very ill, a very long time ago.
I have smoked 20 a day for 35 years. Had a company medical about six weeks ago and he (the company doctor) told me I was in tip-top shape. He failed to find any "smoking related" maladies. (He looked a little disappointed too).
By my reckoning it is okay to smoke 20 a day for 35 years
or
10 a day for 70 years
or
5 a day for 150 years
And STILL suffer no ill effects.
Maybe Mr Nightlight was spot on with his observations?
Here's what Pr. Robert Molimard, French tobaccologist, (whose integrity I admire and respect) had to say about duration vs. no. of cigarettes, when speaking about Big Pharma during his interview that you will find the translation at:
http://cagecanada.homestead.com/
...henanigans.html
Pr Molimard: But they realized that they weren’t selling enough, that it wasn’t catching on. At that point, they began saying that there are some unfortunate people who have respiratory insufficiency, but are unable to go without tobacco. So what you will tell them is: ‘’You will reduce your risk if you chew a gum at the same time’’. That is criminal! It is criminal, because you’re encouraging someone to continue smoking. That’s what the patient understands. ‘’I will reduce my risk, because I inhale a little less.’’ The problem is, that they are forgetting what Professor Doll has taught us with his famous study of the 36,000 British doctors who were followed for 40 years. What did he tell us? He told us: ‘’What is important is the length of time you smoke’’. Catherine Hill interpreted what Doll taught on lung cancer in a relatively simple way: If you multiply by 2 the number of cigarettes that you smoke everyday, you multiply by 2 your risk for cancer. But if you multiply by 2 the time period that you smoke, you multiply by 2 to the power of 4 ½, and 2 to the power of 4 ½, is 23!
What seriously matters, is how long we smoke. And all we can tell a smoker is: ‘’Smoke 4 Davidoffs, 5 packs a day, but stop as soon as possible!!’’ Because it’s the duration that matters, and if you encourage a smoker – because he’ll use a piece of gum, or a patch or an inhalator – that he will lower…there is a study with inhalators, that states that if you lower by 10, by 15% the inhalation, you will lower your risk by 15%, providing that you use the inhaler for LIFE ! But if you prolong…then the 4 ½ power comes in that will stay in effect during all the time you smoke. It’s criminal. I said it. It didn’t please them!
Rose,
You might like this one:
"Some experiments have shown that just one cigarette filter is toxic enough to kill water fleas in eight litres of water. That gives an idea of the potential impact it can have."
http://www.metro.co.uk/home/arti...d=1&
in_a_source
Well I should be dead for sure then. I have smoked 20+ a day for 40 years now; and for 20 of those years I smoked 40+ per day.
And like Colin, my doctor just pronounced me (on my yearly visit) that I was far too healthy to be a smoker. I think she's pissed at me for that! LOL
Gee, don't they just hate it when we destroy their "facts"? hehehehehehe
Fredrik
What interesting news, an unusual death for Daphnia as they are more usually fed to pet goldfish.
Another interesting one is that you can kill greenfly with an extremely dilute solution of washing up liquid sprayed from a supersoaker, it blocks their breathing tubes apparently and they bubble to death.
Salt is a more traditional way of killing slugs, they melt,but I don't approve of this, I prefer beer traps, at least they drown happy.
Thank goodness we aren't insects!
There's a Nico-gummy-patchy commercial running on network stations recently featuring a distressed woman whineing about having a cigarette when she gets up in the morning, another as she leaves for work, a third at a 10:am break, and still "must have" yet another after lunch,.....fortunately the counting stops there as she then goes on to cite her obvious "addiction" to nicotine.
By my count, that's 4 cigarettes in approximately 6 hours. I believe that's supposed to represent quite a serious habit, .......if your a bad actress in a Pharmaceutical commercial.
I have 4 cigarettes before I finish my second cup of coffee in the morning.
My point?.......They're still only pretending to know what they're talking about.
OT, ..but in a similar "Science by Press Release" vein The "EX" commercials.
The first one I saw, I thought was a commercial about drunk driving as the woman attempting to get into and drive her car appeared to clearly have been drinking way too much, ....NOPE!, .....the voiceover message was that if you "don't smoke", you're a bumbling fool that could kill someone if attempting to perform a normal task (like driving) without the usual cigarette in hand.
The message in this series of commercials is that smokers are mentally ill, and or could be dangerous to themselves and others WITHOUT a cigarette.
Think that was the point?...(regardless of the voiceover),...that's the distinct impression being made.
Science by press release, ..on prime time TV.
What happens when the "ambulance chasers" remove the wheels from the ambulance ? http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/2...0806/
conspiracy
"The message in this series of commercials is that smokers are mentally ill, and or could be dangerous to themselves and others WITHOUT a cigarette." So in Holland's coffee shops they've removed the tobacco and you can only smoke pure "stuff".Now SURELY that's a better accident waiting to happen than some old pesky nico withdrawal.What do YOU say Dr Siegel ? We KNOW Bill says it's fine to smoke Marijuana and drive from his previous postings DR Siegel ????
Fredrik be environmentally friendly,SMOKE PLAIN (UNTIPPED) CIGARETTES .If people use the ashtrays you occasionally find on top of waste bins around towns and cities,and fill them with paper,then obviously the preference is for us smokers to set fire to the damned things,I'll go along with it.Well the fine for littering with one fag stub is far less than the fire brigade attending to put the fire out,isn't it ?
Thanks, Lynda F, for pointing out the new study which shows that smokeless tobacco does indeed increase the risk of oral cancer.
Bill - will you still maintain that smokeless tobacco is a safe alternative to smoking?
LighteningBoy, we have that same commercial from ex here in Texas. That lady is the same lady who played in another antitobacco commercial that gets revitalized every so often. In that one, she is the waitress in a diner who had already quit after suffering withdrawal pains without using the patch or something stupid like that. Anyway, looks like she fell off "the wagon" and is back to smoking. Told you cold turkey was the best way to go!
Ha! Antismoking pro-ban Labour MP Kerry McCarthy made a few remarks on her blog about the 'success' of the English ban a couple of days back. Normally she gets no comments at all. She now has about 70 enraged smokers at her throat.
http://kerry-mccarthy.blogspot.c...7/smoke-
it.html
Rose,as our resident specialist in the botanical field,would you happen to know how much magnesium is found in tobacco ?As i understand it exists since if it didn't the tobacco crop would suffer quite seriously.Magnesium is one of the elements that many of us are seriously low in,and we need it for a healthy circulatory system and removal of arterial plaque.Strangely it also figures in causing depression http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/
r...306987706001034
Si, if I am "our resident specialist in the botanical field" we are in deep trouble.
Nevertheless I will take a look.
Michael Siegel wrote:
"Bill - will you still maintain that smokeless tobacco is a safe alternative to smoking?"
Bill has never said it was safe alternative, just far safer. And he's correct.
If you don't think you're still brainwashed, well.......
Actually, James, what Bill said was that the Surgeon General's statement that "smokeless tobacco is not a safe alternative to smoking" is inaccurate or misleading. This implies that he has a problem with stating that smokeless tobacco is not safe. He can't have it both ways. He can't claim to acknowledge that smokeless tobacco is not safe and then argue that it is inaccurate to state that smokeless tobacco is not a safe alternative to smoking. I think he needs to clarify his position, and that's all I'm asking him to do here.
Thanks, Lynda F, for pointing out the new study which shows that smokeless tobacco does indeed increase the risk of oral cancer.
Please don't imply something I wasn't doing Doc. Especially when you know damned well that I think all you anti's and TC people are a bunch of lying control freak shysters.
All I was doing was showing billy boy that his beloved WHO, major big ANTI-FREEDOM PUSHER after his own self, was discrediting him and his claims about smokeless tobacco.
"I think he needs to clarify his position, and that's all I'm asking him to do here."
All Bill needs to do is stop living in denial and read what it says on the tin.
He spends an ample amount of time taunting and insulting anyone who dares to smoke a cigarette, who in his opinion are ridiculous because we don't prefer his choice of products.
What demonstrates his personal rampage as ridiculous is he would prefer smokers switched than quit, as a competitor of market share battles smokers are simply wallets to be plundered, while telling the world he is so concerned for their well being and that of their children, who would be better in an orphanage than living with those lowly smoking parents, he is so concerned about.
Dr. Siegel,
Is wearing a motorcycle helmet a safe alternative or a safer alternative than not wearing one? Either way, motorcycles are not safer than cars.
Bill's spoken (far too) many times on smokeless. I can't recall every one, but he has acknowledged that smokeless carries a risk, just not as high as smoking.
The SG (and CDC) has used weasel wording to keep from admitting that smokeless is safer than smoking.
James,
I believe the intent of the semantic games are to mislead smokers away from considering smokeless tobacco as an alternative to cigarette use.
As with the exaggerated relative risk of 80%. Exaggerated in the sense that this sounds very large, yet is not even double the risk.
To properly assess if smokeless was safer, one needs to compare the absolute risks, (which I have not done) to form a judgement. Relative risks of one disease over itself is not comparable to the relative risks of another disease over itself.
The subject of the WHO story is spun in order to scare smokers away from considering smokeless tobacco. If my suspicions are correct that the absolute risks of smokeless tobacco use is substantially lower then smoking, then the WHO should bare the guilt if that smoker should develope lung cancer because he was deliberately mislead away from trying a "safer" alternative.
I suspect the WHO is just catering to it's pharmaceutical puppet masters, to promote their products.
The duty of public health is to provide people with the straight facts to make an informed decision, not to mislead them into a healthy path.
Instead, all we have is spin, and it's so apparent. You have to read between every line of "information" as it rarely is what it seems.
Unfortunately, because the people invoved with tobacco control, have for many years deliberately mislead the public, I can not depend on being able to get the straight fact from anyone affiliated with tobacco control. I expected this from the tobacco industry, but not from someone claiming to represent public health.
So much for do no harm. But with enough rationalization, surely the ends will justify the means.
LB--
I've been disgustedly amused by those same commercials. The point of the first one-- the woman ashamed to admit she's smoked 4 cigarettes but then, thanks to commericials such as the one she's in, being made to understand that yes! she's An Addict! and needs Help from Her Doctor!-- is a pitch to convince even the lightest of smokers that they, too, are Addicts, that smoking's not their "fault" (they're medically addicted); that they're helpless to quit (they're medically addicted) and therefore need to buy expensive and possibly dangerous drugs.
OTOH, I can't for the life of me figure out what's the purpose of the ones where the woman can't drive, the guy can't drink coffee and the other guy can't put his pants on straight. Except that they come from the pens of nonsmokers who can't, apparently, write cogent commercials.
Si
Had a look at magnesium but didn't notice anything too special.It depends on the uptake from the soil.
Photosynthesis: Mg is the central element of the chlorophyll molecule
High Response Crops
While this is an essential element for all plants, these crops have been found to be especially responsive: alfalfa, blueberry, beet, broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, celery, clover, conifers, corn, cotton, cucumber, eggplant, lettuce, onion, pepper, potatoes, pumpkin, spinach, squash, tobacco, tomato, and watermelon
http://www.spectrumanalytic.com/...f/
Mg_Basics.htm
Geneticist's Tutorial on Nutritioal Needs of Cigar Tobacco
"Magnesium, another important ingredient, is vital in the formation of chlorophyll, the green "blood" of plants. Without sufficient magnesium, tobacco leaves lose their rich, deep emerald color. It also contributes to the generation of oils in tobacco, the oleoresins that contain the nicotine and flavor. A magnesium deficiency leads to dry, brittle, flavorless leaves; a magnesium-balanced plant displays that silky sheen we all recognize and admire. Magnesium is also important in the combustion of tobacco. A black ash indicates incomplete combustion of the carbon in the leaf, and is a sign of insufficient magnesium. We mentioned calcium's role in creating white, solid ash; magnesium can be substituted for calcium with the same desirable result, if other chemicals are in correct balance. Magnesium-deficient plants can cause some cracking and premature dropping of the ash, depending on the balance of other elements in tobacco's diet"
http://www.tabacordillera.com/wh...obacco-
eats.htm
Plenty of other information in there about other soil requirements.
Rapid recovery from major depression using magnesium treatment
http://george-eby-research.com/h...-
depression.pdf
The search also dredged up this article
Growing Tobacco in the Home Garden
From the University of Florida.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/AA260
"Si, if I am "our resident specialist in the botanical field" we are in deep trouble." FAR FROM IT Rose !Many thanks ,it just crossed my mind that our magnesium uptake has been dropping over the years,and i just wondered if we social lepers obtained any benefits through our choice to use tobacco.Your interest certainly lies on the green side of things and i was trying to approach it from the opposite angle,ie increasing magnesium intake.Strange thing was an article on the chemical composition of ash piqued my interest.
Si
Theres still lots of good information on the plant from the Agricultural Colleges and growers, anything useful from the tobacco companies up to around the late 50's, very early 60's,as for anti tobacco, forget it.
I wish I could find a translation of Tabak und Organismus.
Very interesting bit about chlorophyll I thought, that means the plants potted up in John Innes No3 were overdosing on magnesium to go that dark shade of cabbage green.
As the nutrients in the compost run out they are turning back to a more sensible colour.
As far as the fertilizer/well rotted farmyard manure contest goes, there is no appreciable difference in height or size of leaves, though I would say that the leaves from plants in fertilizer are marginally coarser.
No news from the insecticide tests yet, I gave spare plants to non smokers with midge infestations to avoid bias.
Hopefully they will do better than my cossetted specimens which are just coming into flower, they look like bunches of pretty pink mini petunias.
I know that technically they should have been beheaded to increase the leaf size, but this is my flower garden and they are part of my summer display
The point of the first one-- the woman ashamed to admit she's smoked 4 cigarettes but then, thanks to commericials such as the one she's in, being made to understand that yes! she's An Addict! and needs Help from Her Doctor!-- is a pitch to convince even the lightest of smokers that they, too, are Addicts, that smoking's not their "fault" (they're medically addicted); that they're helpless to quit (they're medically addicted) and therefore need to buy expensive and possibly dangerous drugs.
I took it as a step beyond AA, using AA's language and abusing the concept. While AA says you need to go to meetings for the rest of your life.
Naturally there are problems the wrong AA group could become a sort of cult, but while AA demands no daily financial obligations, anti-smoking most certainly does, as I currently see it.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
