Typical double standard of the anti-smoker cartel. The mantra is that any and all funding is good, as long as your results and statements agree with the play book written by the anti-smoker cartel, even if it is pharma or tobacco-------but heaven help the person who goes off the reservation and disagrees with the play book.
You are all a bunch of hypocrites when it comes to the subject of tobacco/smoking.
But I do have to say, Doc, you've given me much fuel to the arguments about what is happening to the scientists who are disagreeing with the latest mantra of the Global Warming cartel, they have obviously learned well from the Smoker Control cartel........
I hope you're all proud of yourselves.
Hurrah for the WSJ for looking at this issue.
The Doctor writes ..."there are serious problems of scientific accuracy, integrity, and ethical conduct going on regarding the communication of information to the public"
Serious problem not mentioned---Telling Outright Lies.
Gabz I agree with you. They ('Glow-Ball'Warming Crowd) are following the exact pattern. See: http://www.newmediajournal.us/st...ch/
02072007.htm
Today's Wall Street Journal article is excellent.
Mike wrote:
"I stand by my earlier warning that we do face a crisis of scientific integrity in the tobacco control movement."
It's not fair to blame the tobacco control movement (whatever that is) for the malfeasance by GSK and its financial recipients.
Instead, Mike should praise public health advocates for exposing these conflicts of interest and failure to disclose funding.
It is wrong to blaming an entire social movement every time several or several dozen folks make a mistake or engage in malfeasance.
Bill states: " entire social movement every time several or several dozen folks make a mistake or engage in malfeasance"
Excuse me, I thought you were a health movement. What an interesting slip of the keyboard.
Bill i sometimes wonder what planet you are actually on,the spin you do your best to put on things.You never did tell us how many non smokers you killed with your SHS from those 60 fags you smoked per day.Big Pharma come to your aid yet in saving your baby or will the GREAT GODSHALL ANNOUNCEMENTS cease and do us all a favor.
I meant to ask you Bill,were you related at all to Lord Haw Haw ? Your modus operandi seems remarkably similar.
Bill wrote:
"It's not fair to blame the tobacco control movement (whatever that is) for the malfeasance by GSK and its financial recipients."
(There's no such thing as the Mafia-Tony Soprano) LOL
Bill's right. The blame should be done individually.......and has by postings from Marcus Aurelius. It works out the same way, Bill.
"Instead, Mike should praise public health advocates for exposing these conflicts of interest and failure to disclose funding."
What, the WJS is considered a public health advocate? If so, just about every poster on this blog is.
I thought I'd help Bill out a bit:
Bill wrote:
"It's not fair to blame the tobacco control movement (whatever that is)..."
Maybe if you were a bigger fish you'd know what it was, Bill:
To our colleagues in the global tobacco control movement:
For nearly a half century we have been struggling with the 20th century's brown plague: tobacco use...This voracious devourer of health and life threatens
hundreds of millions of new victims...
[Blah blah blah]
John R. Seffrin, PhD
CEO, American Cancer Society
President, International Union Against Cancer
Guess you weren't invited to this party either:
The 13th World Conference on Tobacco OR Health
Building capacity for a tobacco-free world
July 12-15, 2006, Washington, DC, USA
Thursday, 13 July 2006: 3:30 PM-5:00 PM Room 202B (Convention Center) Co-opting the Tobacco Control Movement: Philip Morris's "Extreme Makeover"
And I'm guessing you haven't read this:
Health Promotion Practice, Vol. 5, No. 3 suppl, 157S-158S (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/1524839904264624
© 2004 Society for Public Health Education
Supporting and Sustaining the Tobacco Control Movement
Paul Florin
And success breeds copycats:
COMMENTARY
Lessons from Tobacco Control for the
Obesity Control Movement
RICHARD A. DAYNARD
Is anybody else getting as tired of Bill's "I know you are, but what am I" schoolyard bully routine?
I can almost hear the high whiny voice as he screeches his protest that other's must believe only what he say's.
On the good news front, here in North Dakota, the legislature is starting to come to it's sense's(Or to begin to realize how dangerous it may be to their career's to continue to pass legislation against freedom, based on junk science that cannot be sustained, nor hidden from the masses), as they defeated the latest legislative proposal to ban tobacco use in bars, truck stops, etc by a wide margin, 30 - 15.
Care to crow some more about how your "side" (what side? Tobacco Control? There's no such thing, honest folks, may Godshall strike me down if such an "organization" exists), is winning Bill?
I can't help but wonder if WSJ or other newspaper writers get as much out of blogger comments as we get from them. Haven't we/you/marcus/JTF been saying this for months?
Gabz, Sunz, Jerry, James:
Great points.
Dr. Siegel: (just between me, you, the 4 walls and the 120 people who read this) if this were my blog I would take Bill's presence here as either Good News or Bad News. Depends on whether you are a glass half full or half empty kind of guy/gal.
Good news: I'm sure he means well but Bill is not very good at debating you or making any sense to anyone else here.
Bad news: Your colleagues in anti-tobacco must not think you are much of a threat since they don't send the "big guns" here to refute your points.
Bill, after your smoke free PA bill passes next week, what will you do for an encore?
You've kicked hardworking American factory workers from Pittsburg who smoke out of their favorite bar and restaurant.
What's next? Grabbing an ice cream cone from a little girl in the name of your new cause...
fatfreepa?
Instead, Mike should praise public health advocates for exposing these conflicts...
LOL, Mr. Bill. Mike is the ONLY public health advocate exposing these conflicts...
The wsj is what we who speak English call "reporters."
James, good work on the associative aspect.
Gabz wrote: "The mantra is that any and all funding is good, as long as your results and statements agree with the play book written by the anti-smoker cartel, even if it is pharma or tobacco..."
Well, in THIS case they won't even include tobacco funding. Here's what Fiore is reported to have said in that respect. It fits so perfectly (and is such gall) with your input:
Dr. Fiore and other members of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco refuse to accept any funds from the tobacco industry, even unrestricted research grants. Smoking-control activists say there's a big difference between tobacco companies, which they say engaged in scientific deceit for a half-century, and drug makers that are trying to help smokers quit. Reflecting the view of many in the antitobacco camp, Harry Lando, a University of Minnesota nicotine researcher, says, "I view the pharmaceutical industry as our ally."
Eric wrote: "Bad news: Your colleagues in anti-tobacco must not think you are much of a threat since they don't send the "big guns" here to refute your points."
You know, I've always had a feeling that the members of Bill's movement got together and drew straws to see who would represent them here. I'm not being facetious.
Dr. Siegel wrote: "The question is not whether a conflict exists, it is whether that conflict should disqualify a person from participating on, or chairing a panel that is supposed to make recommendations for the nation regarding a smoking cessation treatment strategy."
You mean like Glantz on the Scientific Review Panel of the California Air Resources Board?
It's nice to know that there's no such a thing as Tobacco Control. That means that Dr. Siegel doesn't have to hand in his resignation, can beome a TC teetotaler, and join TCA, as in, "My name is Michael Siegel and I'm a tobaccocontrolaholic."
Then, maybe, he can see his way clear to answering a few of those difficult questions he seems to avoid, such as this one from GreatScot in the last string:
"If you could go back in time what qualifications would you attach to your own research conclusions?
"Perhaps the risk associated with ETS has 1/9th the risk of drinking whole milk, or how about 1/10 that of eating pork meat. How about the elevated risk of ETS is 1/30th of that associated with cooking methods. No? Well what about the elevated risk of ETS is similar to that of drinking 3 cups of coffee a week?
'Please tell, how would you now qualify your findings?"
It wasn't a rhetorical question, doctor.
As opposed to Michael I applaud the fine work of these groups. Satirical humor is sometimes a great way to get things done it is obvious they are only pulling our leg.
I believe it is time more of us joined them in displaying to the public how far this can go.
Enticing an ”I’m sick of this crap and I am not going to take it any more? response from the republic.
I will be encouraging others to write the papers and decry the use of Tobacco in connection with every disease and death which occurs. I will be writing all the dailies and asking for sympathy, I personally got a blister while breaking in my new shoes as a direct result of being exposed to second hand smoke almost 7 years ago now I remember it well, I had to be hospitalized for weeks and the long rehab process was almost unbearable had it not been for our community safety net I don’t know how I could have survived financially. The Health care worker has now fast tracked my disability pension and the funds should begin arriving any day now.
I would like to congratulate the Health care community for making the pensions process provide those funds to all of us as needs grow. Legal aid will now be obliged to provide funding of my multi million dollar lawsuit against Tobacco companies who killed my great grand parents before I had a chance to meet them. The deaths of the majority of them were beyond the age of 90. Had it not been for smoking I am certain they could have lived at minimum 30 years longer. Since we have not seen a world without tobacco how do we know how many extra years would be possible? Health care advocates prove absolutely smoking is shortening our lives perhaps a 200 year old human may just be the result of banning tobacco use.
The fact the actual number of smokers has not changed in 60 years has to change, the ever increasing smoking related diseases are proof this is a growing problem no matter how many non smokers we add to the mix now the population numbers have tripled yet smoking related disease continues to grow science will soon explain how it so closely matches population growth. Until they do the precautionary principle should remain supreme in protecting us all from this proven cause of all known human related diseases and natural disasters.
Someone needs to wake up and really look at these numbers, encouraging political leaders to really lead.
As for Bill...
Who wrote: "It is wrong to blaming an entire social movement every time several or several dozen folks make a mistake or engage in malfeasance."
(I'll skip the "several dozen" which works out to approx. 36 people. But that's hardly any according to Bill when the mouthpieces of the movement can practically be counted on one hand: Glantz, Myers, Repace, Banzhaf, P. Reynolds, and whoever acts as the ACS spokesperson)
Bill, you're right that each individual should be judged individually (though when it comes to hiring/firing smokers you want them all judged as a group instead of by their individual performance. Hmmmm...). But after we're through judging Fiore's acts as an individual in public it's perfectly reasonable to look behind his door and see who is in bed with him. As it turns out your entire movement is incestuous.
But let's move on to something of greater interest that you said:
"It's not fair to blame the tobacco control movement (whatever that is) for the malfeasance by GSK and its financial recipients. Instead, Mike should praise public health advocates for exposing these conflicts of interest and failure to disclose funding."
Strolling down memory lane...
Neither I nor Smokefree Pennsylvania have ever recieved any funding from any tobacco or drug company, and I've posted at least a dozen notes on this blog disclosing that fact (nearly always in response to a slanderous allegation by someone who has never even met me).
Bill Godshall | Homepage | 07.06.06 - 6:38 pm | #
So what's this??
"Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers"
Brad Rodu and William T Godshall
http://www.harmreductionjournal....3/1/
37#IDAOL1ZY
Dr. Rodu is supported by unrestricted grants from the US Smokeless Tobacco Company and Swedish Match AB to the University of Louisville.
And right under that it says:
Mr. Godshall declares that he has no competing interests.
No, he only collaborates on a paper with someone who does and which funded the paper.
I'm waiting for my praise, Bill!
(P.S. All for Bill's argument sake because it matters to HIM because personally nothing should be judged on funding but on the actual research)
JTF from an email I sent out today;
It does seem to be an indefensible position to claim; a drug addiction exists when no recognized drug is involved and a public health protection is required based entirely in a non scientific and unproven weak theory. Which actually has absolutely no proof in over 50 years of observation to even demonstrate a consistent harm with a consistent number of smokers. A harm which amazingly increases as opposed to what anyone would expect, with the growing non smoker population in identical proportions?
In smoking related disease a living conscious intelligence is demonstrated and found in the smoke. An ability of the disease to change it's potency adjusting to the number of non smokers added to a group to maintain dominance as the most deadly disease category almost like the related disease itself is competing for top spot.
The credibility issues run deep.
Bill is just an irresponsible talking head.
He states no group exists just a bunch of community inspired groups who coincidentally all have the same goals and the same speeches? In one post no group exists and now he claims a harm to the non existent group is being done by Michael.
As seen in your post quoting his own words.
From the source;
In New York a propossed legislation to prohibit the use of cell phones and IPods while walking across the street. Claiming 3 people had died as a direct result
Kudos to those tireless health care advocates exagerating safety to the extremes.
NYC: 1 fatal traffic accident per day
NY state: 40 fatal traffic accidents per day
Correction: NY state 4 fatal traffic accidents per day
It seems it'd be just as logical, well, actually more effective, to ban cars. Then there'd be NO traffic accidents and they'd still look just as silly
Jalestra,
If they banned cars, no accidents, no exhaust fumes, no smoking in cars with children.
You have hit on the perfect solution, 3 birds with 1 stone!!
GreatScot
Walt wrote:
"Mike is the ONLY public health advocate exposing these conflicts..."
That is incorrect. In the past decade, dozens of public health advocates have exposed and criticized drug company funding to influence smoking cessation and tobacco policy for the past decade (most notably
John Polito at WhyQuit.com, which not only opposes tobacco use, but nicotine use).
Jerry wrote:
"Is anybody else getting as tired of Bill's "I know you are, but what am I" schoolyard bully routine?"
After repeatedly posting ad hominem attacks against me (including threats of physical violence) on this blog, Jerry is in no position to acccuse anyone of being a school yard bully.
Kevin wrote;
"He states no group exists just a bunch of community inspired groups who coincidentally all have the same goals and the same speeches?"
That is not what I wrote, and that statement is incorrect. What some refer to as the tobacco control movement can include millions of very diverse people, organizations and agencies that have vastly different (and often competing) goals and activities.
The primary goal of drug companies is not to reduce smoking or other tobacco use, but to make their shareholders wealthier.
Very true, GreatScot, however as that interferes with *their* convenience it will never happen. They only care about *risks* that don't interfere with their wants, not proof of massive harm that will interfere with their own lives.
Great Scot/Harry -
My only regret is not having qualified my citation of the Helena study results - I made that citation prior to having really examined the study carefully myself and in retrospect, I would have pointed out the flaws in that study, or not cited it at all.
Thanks Doc,
I accept you have no regrets, I accept you believe your finding of RR's for ETS in the region of 1.25 to be accurate, but with all due respect I was not questioning your research conclusions, just how they were being used.
I appreciate your studies were not researched and published for the masses, however the finding have been tortured and spread around in the media,(by people with vested interest) to generate the greatest emotional response and fear impact possible. In my opinion that is immoral if not down right illegal. Agenda's are being driven on the back of scientists like you.
If you lay aside the emotion of smoking /ETS and your obvious passion for the subject. (It truly is an emotive subject.) The neutral question remains; how would you portray these RR's in context to the general public. I gave a few possible examples on the previous thread, not to be contentious but as a suggestion as how laypeople can put the headline sound bites into perspective.
The end cannot justify the means, responsible people have an obligation to prevent the mass hysteria and hate that is being generated, unless it is truly warranted.
GreatScot
"For nearly a half century we have been struggling with the 20th century's brown plague..."
The 'brown plague' that John R. Seffrin is referring to must be the BS coming out of his mouth claiming that 'smoking causes lung cancer'. Check out the latest US lung cancer estimates for 2007:
http://
www.lungcanceralliance.or...tement11707.pdf
From the link Soren posted:
As the number one cancer killer, lung cancer will kill more than 160,000 Americans this year alone, causing more deaths than breast, prostate, colon, liver, kidney cancers and melanoma combined.
Now, someone whose good with numbers, please help me out here. Using my own limited, and basic, math skills.............it seems to me we are talking about less than 1% of the total population AND less than 1% of the smoking population here.
Now, not to sound cold and heartless, but could someone kindly explain to me what the big deal is? what is the epidemic or crisis here?
What am I missing?
It's hard sometimes asking a question like that when you're not trying to be an ass. Some things there is just no nice way to say it, but the information is needed.
Actually, regardless of a crisis or not, the money being spent on smoking cessation and making places smoke free would be MUCH better spent trying to help lung cancer studies and victims. The only reason I wouldn't suggest using smoker's taxes or the MSA money is that would seem as if the smokers were quietly admitting we/smoking has something to do with it, and while I want to help, I don't think it's beneficial to give anyone that idea at a time when smoker hatred is so bad.
My problem is that I do not believe anything the medical community puts out anymore. I hear of the dangers of second hand smoke, I hear red wine will prolong life, and yesterday I hear 1 out of 150 children have autism. On reading the article on cnn I only had to get to the 3rd paragraph when I quit reading. What I saw was "Advocates said the study provides a sad new understanding of how common autism is, and should fuel efforts to get the government to spend hundreds of millions of additional dollars for autism research and services." My father was a smoker, 3 packs a day and is in his up 70's still alive and kicking. He quit cold turkey after a cough attack, while driving, caused an accident. After quiting, he put on weight, got diabetes, then heart disease, etc. Now the heath nuts are going for the obese, I am one of them. So we need to get all smokers to quit (using nicotine replacement products)so they can add to the obesity epidemic and then sale them that new obesity drug that was just approved for over the counter sale. It also bothers me that my doctors has a ready supply of free samples to give anytime I have some ailment. I have to wonder whether he is being paid by big pharma to push the most expensive drugs or working in my best interest. Why aren't the states suing big pharma the way the sued big tobacco for all the crap they are selling. My question is who isn't in big pharma pockets. Is big pharma getting ready to release some autism drug. Money talks, bullshit walks,
I believe Dan, that you can find doctor's not in pharma pockets, it's called NO FREE LUNCH...
http://www.nofreelunch.org/
However, we also need to realize that doctors don't have infinite time to keep up with everything released about the new drugs that come out. And they have to trust the scientists to some extent to be truthful. Some doctors are no more than ignorant victims themselves...though one would think some of them would remember that...
Welcome to the debate Bill it took you long enough...
Nice to see you express your own words for a change.
The Judges in our courts look at possible conflicts and recluse themselves to over rule their own belief of fairness with the public perception and a need to keep confidence in the courts. If Biases were evident it can not be dismissed by the one person influenced if he had a shred of integrity he would have removed himself from a role as a decision maker. Similarly anyone doing ETS research should limit their actions to the collection of data leaving the conclusions to others. If they believe smoking or ETS causes harm and they detest smoking how can they possibly hold a shred of objectivity in forming theoretic conclusions.
Global warming is a similar deception and if science wanted to eliminate the fear, it could be solved by putting the science ahead of the politics.
Just like the ETS debate.
Fear created to coerce a goal in spite of the poor level of science allowing personal bias to drive conclusions instead of the results.
The stubborn grip with which science holds to theories which compliment each other is a reality which is by no means a recent development. The flaws of global warming theory are likely dependant with transgression to legacy sciences which were proven false by Einstein 100 years ago. Most do not understand the interdependencies of light waves and energy well enough to see the realities of global warming as a reinvention of the theory of ultraviolet catastrophes. The term is very real and was based on a belief of a harmonic balanced black object exposed to ultraviolet light could evoke a multiplication of frequencies which could produce an infinite energy production which would end the universe.
Similar to the black hole theory they used to have a black body theory. Einstein’s theory of relativity E=MC2 was preceded by Planick’s theory E=Hv which established a linkage between charged body oscillation and transmitted energy. The same theory is also connected to wavelengths and our ability to distinguish color This was a fortunate accidental effect of his experiments of power distribution. When an electromagnetic wave is absorbed by an object the object emits photon energy which is relative to the frequency of the wave.
Long and short the Global warming theory rests in making people believe the electromagnetic waves and photon energy [Heat]of the sun could be stored in a gas [ Carbon emissions] more readily than in a solid object the near by Earth which as with the ultraviolet catastrophe was also a misinformed theory which connects directly in respect to the political argument deciding if the earth and our environment are; [thermal equilibrium or non thermal equilibrium] dynamic models I am in the camp of the non because the earth and we are still here despite the outside influences throughout the galaxy which our environment has always corrected for. We should have no reason to believe that level of adjustment will not continue in spite of all the mistakes we make.
Global warming happens accelerating the evaporation process causing rain cleaning the particles from the air and cooling the earth. So where is the problem self correction happens.
As for ETS? by comparison a joke in scientific terms.
If more of us come to terms with the fact; there is enough energy provided to this planet every day in sunlight to eliminate the use of burning of fossil fuels and nuclear reactors. If we had not spent a hundred years fighting over those fossil fuels we wouldn’t have any use for them as sources of fuels.
The reality which comes from that reality is cancers would likely not exist to any significant degree, and ETS would be as it always was just a nuisance factor.
Lynda, the number of newly diagnosed lung cancer cases are up 22 % in a single year. From 174.470 to 213.000. That is something of a jump. *How it could have anything to do with smoking is beyond me.
How many of us realize the sand in Arab States if made into silicone it could produce millions of times more energy than all the oil we all pay a fortune for today.
What is the value of a gallon of sand?
Bill, I have never threatened you with physical violence, in as much as you have stated that smoker's deserve the punishments they recieve from hate mongers like yourself, that is a very hypocritical statement to make, possibly even libelous, careful now.
I have stated on occasion that you would deserve such physical violence for your your statements condonig violent methods against ordinary people for their choices, but that is a far cry from issuing threats of violence against you.
Usual method for ignoring questions and trying to place the blame elsewhere Bill ? Perhaps if you wrote in a normal style of prose people wouldn't misunderstand you,but i think you are perfectly aware of what you are doing.I rather think Jerry,that Dr Siegel would have had something to say if you had proffered violence,of course you have never done so,it's just Bill short on answers and long on whaffle,yet again.So Bill how many people did you kill with your SHS from those 3 packs a day ?
Soren;
You are absolutely right the Lung Cancer increases you demonstrated could not be associated to smoking no matter what side of the fence you are on. Doctors and statisticians have been expecting large declines in cancer rates for the past 20 years, so they could celebrate their great work in reducing smoker prevalence.
The Cancer societies. May be painting themselves into a corner right along side the same so called health care professionals.
It is understandable they would as your article suggests attempt to paint a different picture in the public as their own credibility declines.
As I demonstrated in earlier posts they will continue to blame smoking for every rain storm until they lose all public support and confidence.
The largest flaw in the system and its minions is an inability to admit when they are wrong.
The state level of smokers for over 50 years demonstrates clearly; first of all smoker prevalence declines had little to do with anti smoking campaigns more realistically a product of population growth over stable smoker numbers, and second any increases in any smoking related disease categories above the level when there was the highest smoking prevalence in 1960 are not likely associated with smoking unless you can demonstrate smoking is somehow much more dangerous today than it was 50 years ago.
That of course would be another failure demonstrated of these groups who allowed the increased danger to happen regardless of cause, “ON THEIR WATCH”
Just in case this post from JTF got lost at the end of a thread.
"Well, let me add to the list of sentences that must mean nothing. Have we or has anyone gotten around to this one yet?:
Study: Secondhand Smoke Is Much More Dangerous Than First Thought
ABC News - June 29, 2004
(reposted at http://www.nctobaccofreeschools..../shsstudy.shtm)
"Those heart attacks occur with low levels of exposure and they occur very soon after people get exposed," said Stanton Glantz of the University of California at San Francisco, one of the country's leading researchers on the effects of tobacco.
Glantz said the study should come as a wake-up call to many communities
"In the past I had thought you had to get a lot of secondhand smoke. You had to be hanging out in a bar," he said. "And what this is showing is that just about any exposure you get is causing substantial increase in risk."
In short, Glantz said, just being near someone smoking a few cigarettes a day is almost like being a light smoker yourself. Secondhand tobacco smoke exposure can give you almost the same risk of a heart attack as if you smoked one to nine cigarettes a day.
Bill does this qualify as absurd ?
GreatScot
Someone sent me this today; It appears many are waking up to the health hazards of Lobby groups...
LAS VEGAS, N.M. -- The Las Vegas City Council has decided not to back a
statewide ban on smoking in restaurants, officers and other public places.
The council voted 5-3 Thursday against the resolution.
Councilor Michael Gallegos voted against the resolution but said he would
have supported the move 10 years ago.
However, he said he believes a ban is unnecessary today because only a
handful of restaurants still allow smoking.
Councilor Eugene Romero favors anti-smoking education and prohibiting
smoking in government buildings, since they're owned by everyone.
But he said it's wrong for the government to tell businesses to bar smoking.
He said that's taking away freedom of choice.
Listening To Obama's announcement for candidacy speech made me envious because if I were American I would vote for him. If he has the parts to walk the talk. America could be much larger than a dream.
In a truly Civil American Society smoking bans would not be an option and Kyoto would be shown to be the cash grab joke it really is.
If any of you have the oportunity to review his speech it really is reminiscent of one I heard quite a while back by a guy named Kennedy who had similar feelings speaking for the people and not to the polls Kennedy was cut down before he could fulfill his dreams and IMHO has never seen an equal before this day.
BTW his critics have all voiced his greatest sin, negating his right to rule.
"He is a smoker?"
the number of newly diagnosed lung cancer cases are up 22 % in a single year. From 174.470 to 213.000. That is something of a jump. *How it could have anything to do with smoking is beyond me.
Soren Hojbjerg | Homepage | 02.09.07 - 10:35 pm | #
Ok... now let's disect these numbers. From Statistical abstracts of the US, 1992 edition, Table 199, which provideds data from the Office on Smoking or Health , we have :
in 1965, 39.9% of adults 45-64 years old smoked, and in 1988, 29.4% of adults 45-64 years old smoked.
The average age of diagnosis for lung cancer is 70, and diagnoses are relatively rare under age 65 and fall off rapidly after age 75. So, there is really a pretty sharp peak at age 70, when you plot age vs lung cancer diagnosis as a percentage of the population. *see Davis, JAMA, 1994.
the 45-64 year old smokers in 1965 were the ones diagnosed with lung cancer in average year 1980.
the 45-64 year old smokers in 1988 are the ones diagnosed with lung cancer now, in the report linked in
http://
www.lungcanceralliance.or...tement11707.pdf
the finding is that they are now getting lung cancer at a crude rate of 213,000 lung cancers/ 19 million persons aged 65 to 74 years old. in 2006.
in 1980, we had 109,000 lung cancers ( Stat Abs, 1992, table 114) among 16 million persons aged between 65 and 74.
So, if 39.9% smoking in 1965 among those aged 45-64 years old caused 6800 lung cancers/million persons aged 65-74 in 1980, then we should reasonably expect that 29.4% smoking among 65-74 year olds in 1988 should cause 29.4/39.9 X 6800 = 5050 lung cancers/million persons aged between 65 and 74 now.
From the population tables, we know there are 19 million persons aged 65-74 now, so 5050 X 19 = 95,000 lung cancers now. This is awful; despite smoking at about 2/3rds the rate in 1988, those who were aged 45-64 and smoked in 1988 are getting LC at twice the rate expected based on the earlier data.
Now, these are not highly refined calculations, but unless I made a really huge math error someplace, we are in deep DO DO!.
Soren, this is really beyond me too.
CONTINUATION OF THE WAR ON TOBACCO IS NOT JUSTIFIED UNLESS, SOMEONE CAN EXPLAIN THIS COMPLETE FAILURE OF OUR PUBLIC HEALTH EXPERTS TO PROTECT US FROM LUNG CANCER!!@!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dave K
The plot thickens...
How will we justify the numbers?
Could the health professionals have made a mistake?
Naw not possible!!!
There has to be a reasonable explanation. We know they could not be wrong.
They remind us constantly; they are the professionals, who are we to second guess sound scientific principles and of course a "cannon of proof"?
correction: "65-74 in 1980, then we should reasonably expect that 29.4% smoking among 65-74 year olds in 1988 should"
should read : 65-74 in 1980, then we should reasonably expect that 29.4% smoking among 45-64 year olds in 1988 should
Dave K
Dave K,
the answer is obvious. ETS must cause many more lung cancers than thought. By tripling the population but maintaining 50 -60 million smokers,the number of non-smokers exposed to ETS has tripled. Ergo lung cancers increase with population growth.
GreatScot
I don't know if anyone else has seen this site, but if not it's called Integrity in Science
http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/
You can actually look up some researcher names and find their affiliations that could lead to conflicts of interest. Not all are listed there, but it'd make a good start.
If any of you have the oportunity to review his speech
Anon, which speech is this? I missed it, do you have a link, or can you point me in the right direction? Thanks.
GreatScot - anti tobacc is perfectly consistant in its claims. Passive smoke is as 'dangerous' as smoking. They have lied so much, that finally they are beginning to speak the truth.
Kevin,
The global warming scare is a good analogy to the second-hand smoke scare.
I wonder how many "scientists" will forego inegrity to try to find a "solution" to global warming in order to collect the $25 million bounty offered by that billionaire friend of Al Gore's (can't remember his name). I think with that much money at stake, we will soon have a solution...and, no doubt, epidemiology will be used to find it.
Kevin writes:
Global warming is a similar deception and if science wanted to eliminate the fear, it could be solved by putting the science ahead of the politics.
___________________________________
I'm glad you brought it up. If I did, than Harry would have read me the riot act.
If there is one issue in main stream political discourse that closely mirrors the systematic fraud of the SHS debate, it's Global Warming.
It's 2 degrees outside right now. I want to grab these environmental lunatics by the throat and shake them (relax Bill, this is not a real threat of physical violence, don't take me literally).
It's warming on Mars right now too. All those little green martians driving around in their Hummer H2s. Couldn't possibly be the Sun to blame.
Liberals can't control the Sun. No fun there. But if you shame enough people and fabricate a problem, there is no shortage of grant junkies ready to take taxpayer money to find a "solution".
Call it the "GRANT JUNKY FULL EMPLOYMENT ACT"
Julie,
Its Sir Richard Branson. The Virgin guy.
Eric Blair wrote:
"Liberals can't control the Sun. No fun there."
That's why they went after tanning beds. LOL
They really have started going after tanning beds! I saw a commercial on TV that could have been a anti-smoker commercial. It featured a kid (of course) calling anyone who would use a tanning bed a "loser."
The health zealots have really figured out this social control thing. You can get a group of people who object to a certain activity, gather the junk science, and then begin the ostracization process.
What is really obvious about thwe similarity of the ETS and global warming scams is an identical no other opinions exist mentality. The science is clear and the discussion is over acording to the experts who seem to be claiming the only right ot speak.
Check it out there are a lot of [people chalenging the science and all are painted as industry stooges.
Check out the battle against the hockey team.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri...search/
trc.html
Anonymous wrote:
"They really have started going after tanning beds! I saw a commercial on TV that could have been a anti-smoker commercial..."
I've haven't seen a commercial (yet) but I know they compare tanning to smoking. I think they're using anti-tobacco's playbook:
"In the last two years, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Dermatology have labeled tanning beds as the health-peril equivalent of cigarettes.
“If adults want to make the decision to use tanning beds, fine,” said Dr. James M. Spencer...“But we don’t sell cigarettes to minors, and indoor tanning is similar — we know it will cause cancer. Not maybe. Not might. It’s going to cause cancer. No one under 18 should be allowed to use those things.”
“We wanted to have photos posted in every tanning parlor, showing the different types of skin cancer,” said Dr. Shelley Sekula-Gibbs...
...“Our purpose was to protect children from excessive exposure to ultraviolet rays, not to put anybody out of business,” he said.
In the absence of an outright ban on indoor tanning - which the AAD has long supported - the organization now says it would like every tanning device to carry a Surgeon General's warning.
"We allow people to smoke and allow people to drink, but we don't allow (minors) to go buy alcohol and cigarettes. I think it's a very, very simple thing."
"They have the capability of hiring very smart, very good lobbyists," he says. "They can hire Ph.D scientists to make up ridiculous claims to try to fool the public. But banning minors just seems so obvious to me. It's just like tobacco - we let adults smoke, but we don't let 15-year-olds buy cigarettes."
Robots aren't going to replace humans. Humans are going to replace robots.
James and Anonymous (come on Mr. Gore, we know it's you), you can't make this stuff up. There was a law passed recently in NY requiring teens to get their parents permission before going to a tanning salon.
http://www.skincancer.org/conten...ent/view/36/11/
IF YOU READ NOTHING ELSE, OPEN THIS LINK BELOW AND READ THE 4TH PARAGRAPH IN THE NY Slimes article.
http://www.dhs.ca.gov/director/o...cer&
tanning.pdf
You know, it's vain to talk about climate change, because:
In this country, David Miliband said 'The debate over the science of climate change is well and truly over. The window of opportunity to avoid dangerous climate change is closing more quickly than previously thought.'
Must be a relative of the Surgeon General.
An interesting read.
"The plain fact is that 70 years ago Ronald Fisher gave scientists
a mathematical machine for turning baloney into breakthroughs,
and flukes into funding. It is time to pull the plug.
Robert Matthews.
http://www2.isye.gatech.edu/~bra...bank/
pvalue.pdf
GreatScot
From the times, does anyone have any thoughts or theories why there is such a difference across Europe?
http://images.thetimes.co.uk/
TGD...,,389990,00.jpg
From the times, does anyone have any thoughts or theories why there is such a difference across Europe?
http://images.thetimes.co.uk/ TGD...,,389990,00.jpg
GreatScot;
That would be a linkage to the other great lie of TC they have never defined smoking or what is being smoked. Scientifically that is inexcusable, how do you make claims of cause and association with no defined product. With such a slim association to ETS how do you apply that same risk exists regardless of what is smoked?
Your chart clearly shows variances of effect, if any, may be evident or realistically if all smoking has equal risk that risk can not exceed the lowest levels found on that chart.
No safe level wide brushes all products regardless of actual levels of harm in worst case scenario This allowed the Tobacco companies to join free trade profiteers allowing much cheaper and previously restricted products to flow freely into your local smoke shop with no responsibility for the increased risks that may entail.
Tanning beds?
Who is the competition, may open a few eyes as to the funding sources behind the campaigns and similarities in the promotions.
Tanning lotions are a big seller and who do you believe sells them? It should be noted those lotions are not without risks of their own.
Anti smoker groups are consistent in pointing out Nancy Daigneau at Mychoice.ca is funded by tobacco companies. Reality tells us her aversion to the hate campaign, could not find funding anywhere else. Regardless of the fact she maintains a high level of integrity and separation from those companies, they have absolutely no involvement in her group.
The funding source is their loss to credibility yet anti smokers claim that their connections to direct competitors and promoting their products with public funds is of no consequence.
Every medical institution and political organization on the planet will now swear smokers are killing millions of innocent people around them. Smoking bans are based entirely in this belief.
When are the arrests going to begin and those murder charges going to be prosecuted?
Can police forces now simply add the charge of murder to any minor offense to force compliance with other laws?
Could they just be allowed to shoot smokers on sight and avoid contact with the deadly weapon in their hand?
How far will we allow this to go before we realize the level of fanaticism has already gone far enough?
Anon says ...."The health zealots have really figured out this social control thing. You can get a group of people who object to a certain activity, gather the junk science, and then begin the ostracization process"
Confirmation from the Anti-smoking GODshall himself.
"It is wrong to blaming an entire social movement every time several or several dozen folks make a mistake or engage in malfeasance.
Bill Godshall | Homepage | 02.08.07 - 4:57 pm |"
Social Engineering and Fraud. It has nothing to do with health.
Bill argued that it is not appropriate to blame the tobacco control movement for the malfeasance of several dozen of its groups.
I would tend to agree with him, IF it were the case that other groups in the movement publicly spoke out against that malfeasance.
With respect to the nicotine yields and the FDA regulation issue, Bill is correct - other groups, including Bill's own - have pointed out the deception of the Harvard report and the FDA bill. So perhaps he's right and I shouldn't have attributed blame to the movement as a whole for the actions of a certain number of specific organizations. The problem is that when one of those organizations is the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which has taken it upon itself to represent the whole movement in the Congressional negotiations with Philip Morris on what would be acceptable in FDA legislation, it is difficult for me to say that this is just one errant group and that the movement itself is on the right track.
Also, with regards to other issues, such as the misleading claims being made by the Surgeon General and many, many anti-smoking groups about the acute cardiovascular hazards of secondhand smoke, other anti-smoking groups are NOT speaking out to distance themselves from these unethical tactics. So in effect, by "condoning" these tactics or looking the other way, I do think that the movement as a whole bears some responsibility for the widespread deception of the public that has been going on.
Although I don't know why Bill is so reluctant to acknowledge that many anti-smoking groups are indeed misleading the public with absurd claims about 30 minutes/seconds of secondhand smoke, I absolutely commend him for his willingness to publicly speak out against deceptive tactics like those being used by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids in support of the FDA legislation. Bill has been a national leader within the movement on this issue for many years, and in no way do I want readers of this blog to think that I am in any way putting Bill and our colleagues who have worked (and continue to work) tirelessly on fighting this deception in the category with the Campaign. Quite the opposite - we are acknowledging, highlighting, and fighting this deception.
I guess I'm just a bit frustrated that Bill doesn't seem a little more willing to fight the deception regarding the acute cardiovascular health effects of secondhand smoke on healthy people as he's been very much a leader in fighting the deception regarding the effects of the proposed FDA legislation.
Nevertheless, I acknowledge Bill's point. I just think that there needs to be more willingess on the part of anti-smoking groups to be honest with the public - even if that means pointing out that statements by their fellow anti-smoking groups are inaccurate or misleading. I do think that there are errors of omission (not speaking out) as well as errors of commission (being the actual group to make the misleading statement).
Eric Blair wrote:
"There was a law passed recently in NY requiring teens to get their parents permission before going to a tanning salon."
"[T]he sponsor of the New York bill, Senator Charles J. Fuschillo Jr., a Republican from Long Island."
Might be a liberal Republican, but a Republican nonetheless.
I share Mike's concerns that many in the public health community (who know better) fail to correct or criticize others in the public health community when inaccurate statements are made.
I've sent many correspondences correcting inaccurate or misleading statements by those in the public health community (on a variety of different issues). Some folks heed my comments, some take issue with my comments, and others ignore them.
But compared to the truly massive amount of misinformation about secondhand smoke risks by right-to-smoke advocates and other cigarette industry allies, the inaccurate information from public health advocates is miniscule and insignificant.
Ah, so those who are supposed to be better than a corporation trying to sell their product (assuming said corporation is doing something like that) are held at a lower standard than the corporation? Just because you think an industry lies doesn't make the lies by the public health advocates less/miniscule/insignificant. In fact, ANY like told by the PHA are actually MORE important than a company trying to sell it's product because PHA is SUPPOSED to be doing what's best for the public. They are supposed to be there to HELP the people, and the lies they tell will do more to harm them and us than all the lies told by ANY corporation in the world. I can say one thing, ever since I was a teenager I blew off everything a PHA told me simply because they can't make up their minds. Milk causes cancer, milk doesn't cause cancer, hot dogs cause cancer, hot dogs don't cause cancer. And there are many like me. When they release their cancer related news we blow them off, because in the next year or two they'll find out they are wrong.
Bill I appreciate your comments however I don’t understand who it is you are referring to as
"right-to-smoke advocates and other cigarette industry allies"
Do you believe honestly anyone who is offended by the hate being promoted against them automatically attaches them as Cigarette industry allies?
I have pointed out on a number of occasions how the tobacco industry is totally unscathed by anti smoking advocates. In fact those movements have increased the profits if the Tobacco industry substantially in addition to promoting a new addiction business which competes directly with cigarettes for market share. Are you really so focused you can't see the error in your promotions?
Do you have kids who might chew gum in exciting new flavors? We all know it is much safer than smoking the anti smoking groups give us their word although no one knows for sure.
Your own research demonstrates smokers in real numbers remain constant and admittedly held in check still not decreased, do you have any reason to believe that will change with the promoted expansion of the addictive nicotine market?
Further with no regulations to bind them, now that no safe level is a perceived reality, how much has the risk of smoking increased? Smokers certainly are not protected with no way to decide risk based in package ingredients only the words of those they largely do not trust because of the obvious deceptions of statistical exaggerations because you can afford to create the science does not mean anyone has to believe it. Especially a group so dedicated to the hatred of all smokers and anything which will make their lives more difficult.
You as demonstrated in you post would be the first to object to any opinion which you personally do not endorse. Democracy and freedom are about choice and healthy debate If your only opinion is to promote the degradation of others, how much credibility do you really believe can be achieved?
James, I've learned as you have that arguing Republican vs. Democrat is pointless.
It's really an issue of conservative vs. liberal (which is a misnomer itself) or right wing vs left wing or better yet limited government vs. big government.
Now wait a minute. Bill cannot get away with that omissive stunt!
"I share Mike's concerns that many in the public health community (who know better) fail to correct or criticize others in the public health community when inaccurate statements are made.
I've sent many correspondences correcting inaccurate or misleading statements by those in the public health community (on a variety of different issues). Some folks heed my comments, some take issue with my comments, and others ignore them."
Let's not forget that the last time he said this what he said was that he criticizes "misleading" and "inaccurate" statements that ONLY interfere with advancing his view of the anti-smoker agenda!
Can't let the lurkers think anything different.
But compared to the truly massive amount of misinformation about secondhand smoke risks by right-to-smoke advocates and other cigarette industry allies
Misinformation Bill? Why? We, and our children and families and friends, ARE the living, breathing, walking, healthy PROOF of your lies.
Is that what really bothers you so much that you feel the need to TRY to denegrate us?
And I noticed you changed your words from "tobacco industry" to "cigarette industry". Is that because you promote smokeless tobacco and finally caught on to the hypocrisy of your own words created?
I'm going to enjoy watching you and yours get a taste of your own medicine, Bill.....and trust me....it's coming.
Eric Blair wrote:
"It's really an issue of conservative vs. liberal (which is a misnomer itself) or right wing vs left wing or better yet limited government vs. big government."
Yep.
I believe you've been consistent in labelling them as liberals, not Democrats (or Republicans). My mistake.
JustTheFacts wrote:
"Let's not forget that the last time he said this what he said was that he criticizes "misleading" and "inaccurate" statements that ONLY interfere with advancing his view of the anti-smoker agenda!"
LOL, so true.
Lynda F wrote:
"And I noticed you changed your words from "tobacco industry" to "cigarette industry". Is that because you promote smokeless tobacco and finally caught on to the hypocrisy of your own words created?"
I noticed that too.
Bill, there's no reason you had to specifically point out cigarette companies when referring to SHS. Everybody knows smokeless is smokeless. Did they (smokeless) tell you to do that? LOL
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
