Doc, maybe you can explain the strategy of big tobacco. I don't get it.
I would love to be called a "Big Tobacco Stooge". Give me a $2,000,000/year salary, company car and stock options and I'll walk around handing out cards that say:
Eric Blair
Vice President
RJR Tobacco Stooge
Since they won't for some strange reason, they are stuck on stupid.
Smokers aren't as dumb as the Gubmint central planners, tobacco companies and anti-tobacco think.
Big tobacco has left their customers bent over the sink with their pants down.
We've long since left them and rolled our own or bought native American tobacco from the original cultivators of the crop.
If there is indeed a God, than leftist, progressive politicians, major tobacco companies, and city and state governments will become very, very, very poor and the Native Americans that have been ass raped by these people for 400 years will get rich.
I believe in Karma.
Not one iota of a drop of sympathy will you anymore get from me Dr. Siegel. You helped create the monster that has now turned against you.
Welcome to our world.
You know most of the anti-smoker "science" is totally bogus, yet you attempt to give your "colleagues" a pass even as you give them a slight slap on the wrist.
You have been repeatedly been given evidence of the lies of SHS and asked direct questions in reference to those lies, yet you remain silent. Why? Is it because you are afraid more of your "colleagues" will label a tobacco industry shill when you FINALLY answer honestly that what we present to you is right and you and your colleagues are wrong?
None of us are tobacco industry shills, we're just everyday people that are tired of being discriminated against and scapegoated by the highly paid shills of the anti-smoker industry.
Start answering our questions, Dr. Siegel, and maybe more of us will find some more sympathy for your "plight." I can't and won't speak for anyone else, but until such time as you start really answering those questions we continueally pose to you, you get no sympathy from me.
If that means I'm callous, I guess I'll have to change my posting name.
.
Better to be called a "big tobacco stooge" then to be called an oral rapist, child abuser, denied outlets for social contact, denied health care, denied jobs and being told openly about how you "stink".
No?
Michelle
Speaking of people who believe everything they here without any evidence whatsoever:
Last night I was watching Nancy Grace's show on CNN. She's a former prosecuting attorney for those who don't know her. They discuss crimes.
They were discussing an 18 month old child whose father was forcing her to smoke marijuana. A doctor told Grace that there was probably no harm done to the child. Grace got upset with his answer. Here's why:
" GRACE: You know, Dr. Posey, I`ve got a problem with what you`re saying because before I brought the twins home from the hospital, they told me that I couldn`t even let them come in contact with people that smell like smoke because the smell of smoke has definitely been linked to SIDS. And that`s just a cigarette, much less smoking from a pot pipe. "
Nancy Grace believes, because some twits in a hospital told her, that it doesn't even take a lit cigarette to kill her babies.
I hope her parents don't smoke. She'll never let them see their grandkids.
Study says smoking bans do not hurt bars and restaurants.
http://www.mlive.com/news/
index....ans_dont_h.html
Excerpt
It was prepared for The Campaign for Smokefree Air. The group is trying to get the state Senate to take up a House-passed bill banning smoking in all work places, including bars and restaurants.
What about it Doc, do we believe it or do we note with skepticism who commissioned it and confine it to the bin?
Bar closures in England for the last 3 years.
2005/6 circa 100 bars closed
2006/7 circa 200 bars closed
2007/8 circa 1400 bars closed and counting
Actual numbers on request.
can you remember what national event happened 2007? oh thats right the smoking ban.
GreatScot
Great Scot wrote:
===
Bar closures in England for the last 3 years.
2005/6 circa 100 bars closed
2006/7 circa 200 bars closed
2007/8 circa 1400 bars closed and counting
===
Now Scot, you should know that this has been explained by ASH et al over in the UK. The problem is that for some unknown and totally unrelated reason people have just suddenly decided not to go to pubs and to do their drinking at home and at friends' houses.
Nothing at all to do with the smoking ban.
Really.
Believe them.
They're the experts after all.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub....ub.com/
130.html
Surprising isn't it Doctor?
I remember being quite shocked when on expressing my opinion, I was met with unwarranted abuse and accused of being in league with the tobacco companies.
I now know that it was a silencing technique used by the activists, and that being in the pay of tobacco is their default position to a valid point.
Thats what prompted me to study them and then search for clues to the strategy, they do like their watchwords don't they.
If you do a search on denormalisation , which as far as I know isn't a real word, just watch that screen light up.
Don't take it personally.
Individual dissenters are tiny cogs in the scheme of things, and having been crushed, the juggernaut rolls on.
Michael J. McFadden
You forgot "poor management" thats most important.
Its never specified how the landlord suddenly managed to lose his grip on a thriving pub after July 1st.
It must be poor management look at all these studies that ASH did to show how business would improve.
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Publisher: Report by Yorkshire Ash Funding source indicated: Yorkshire Ash
Nature of relationship with tobacco industry: Funding source other than tobacco industry
Description: Proprietor estimates of effect on sales
Findings: Almost 2/3 (65 per cent) of respondents thought trade had increased as a result of the no-smoking policy, 29 per cent thought trade had increased 'a lot'. Only 5 per cent thought trade had decreased "a little", none thought it had decreased by 'a lot'. Eighteen out of 28 pubs (64 per cent) thought trade had increased as a result of providing smoke-free areas. None thought it had decreased.
http://www.hazards.org/smoking/
s...smokescreen.htm
Mind you thats only for a non smoking area, not a whole pub.
The principle of this sort of thinking is, that if a few people enjoy an ice cream, the rest of the population will enjoy being drowned in it.
Doctor,
Don’t play innocent with your ‘misplaced’ dirty tobacco money. We all know how easy it is to set up online offshore bank accounts these days. Although with these types of accounts do have the peril of a paper trail, it is easy to falsify an idenitity. And haw can a well heeled gentleman like your self afford a wood pellet burning stove? What are you a Doctor or something? You will be caught one day but MJM will not. His dirty money is secured in under ground bunkers peppered across Alaska. A well sourced mole informs me that his money is deposited there by an elite force of snow squirrels genetically engineered by Big Tobacco for this sole purpose.
Lazy Fredrik
I am currently reading pharmacology, the amount of puzzling over how anyone could possibly be addicted to "nicotine" makes me smile.
It seems WHO changed the definition in 74 and now anything that anybody does repeatedly and has any affect on the brain,like eating chocolate,singing, constantly arguing with a partner, or enjoying a favourite TV show is classed as addiction.Even the animal studies still won't go right.
A point made is that when smokers smoke its nearly always "with" something, like always putting gravy on your potatoes.
Oh, another vitamin/nutrient/ish in tobacco,Solanesol Co-enzymeQ10 useful for boosting the effectiveness in pharmaceuticals apparently.Called ubiquinone when oxidized. Also sold as a natural medicine and rumour has it that they want it banned from public sale.
http://www.novoagri.com/
prod_sol..._solanesol.html
Could someone please post that list of 4,000 toxins?
If you want a thing doing, its best done yourself.
Dr.Siegel, as a medical doctor would you please comment on the following statement and answer if it is true that they can tell that second hand smoke was the cause.
"There are four stages of cancer, and they are able to stage you as they take the gland out and examine it. I was in the third stage B, which means it moved from the left to the right. They way they can tell is that they actually take a piece off the tumour and put it under the microscope. This way, they can actually tell, by the way the cells look in the tumour itself, whether it came from a fibreglass or a building material of some sort. But mine was just as if they'd taken that tumour from a smoker. Those were the types of cells that were in the tumour. This is why they called it a smoker's tumour."
Another thing that struck me.
When niacin was discovered in tobacco research, the first thing that the Americans did was to put it in the flour to make people well, the first thing the German pharmaceuticals did was to invent smoking cessation products Nicotilon and Analeptol.
Dr. Siegel reported, "Once again, I have been publicly accused by a fellow anti-smoking advocate colleague of being a paid lackey for Big Tobacco."
A few posts ago I mentioned something that was never commented on.
http://www.boston.com/news/local...ss_researchers/
"In a statement issued Friday evening, the provost of BU's medical campus, Dr. Karen Antman, said the school had received $3.99 million from Philip Morris during the past decade and devoted it to the study of tobacco-related diseases."
"Dr. Siegel's employer has taken a lot of money from Phillip Morris. By the Doctors' logic anything Boston U Med researched or published in the last decade has been tainted by tobacco money. If any of it was published without "full disclosure" of this funding it should be retracted and the Administration and Faculty and Researchers should all apologize."
Additionally, if any of this Phillip Morris money ended up in your paycheck, maybe just a few pennies of "Second Hand Money", it could pose a "severe risk" to your integrity.
The risks of exposure to "Second Hand Money" are well known and have been published, for many years, in all of the peer reviewed journals.
E=MC^2
Breeze Detector & Amateur Epidemiologist (ala A. Judson Wells, Jr.)
Very good EinsteinSmoked.
Ummmmm Doc, seems you have some serious explaining to do now. I mean you did blast the other researcher for not disclosing that the org funding her got money from the tobacco industry.
Using your argument there, I'd say you need to re-think your denials of receiving tobacco funds.
What's good for the goose is also good for the gander.
Fredrik wrote, "A well sourced mole informs me that his (MJM's) money is deposited there by an elite force of snow squirrels genetically engineered by Big Tobacco for this sole purpose."
Dammit! John Belushi was supposed to blow that damn mole up for me!!! Hmph... can't get ANYONE to do a job right nowadays!
===
Rose, as of two years ago, California's EPA was only able to identify about 430 of those "4,000 deadly chemicals". See:
ftp://ftp.arb.ca.gov/carbis/reg...006/app3exe.pdf
And the "69 carcinogens" only count if you're worried about hamsters and goldfish. I think there are 7 currently identified as "known human carcinogens" and nonsmokers would normally be exposed to picogram quantities of most of those 7.
How big is a picogram? A grain of ordinary table salt weighs roughly 100 million picograms.
===
Einstein: re PM research money... I believe they usually DO reveal any direct funding from Big Tobacco, but virtually ALL the antismoking researchers/lobbyists live off Big Tobacco money laundered through the MSA and they NEVER declare this fact.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub....ub.com/
130.html
It is indeed ironic that Mike complains of somebody falsely accusing him (on another blog) of working for the tobacco industry, while he allows (and encourages by allowing) many of the same false accusations (against me) to remain on this blog.
So much for consistency.
From the BBC laugh a day health site.
Headline
'Bad habits' link to Alzheimer's
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
7351986.stm
Excerpts
Heavy drinkers and smokers develop Alzheimer's disease six to seven years earlier than those who do not smoke or drink, US researchers claim.
A second US study found people with high cholesterol in their early 40s are one and a half times more likely to develop Alzheimer's.
Heavy drinking, defined as more than two drinks a day was found to lead to an almost five-year earlier onset of Alzheimer's.
And those who smoked more than 20 cigarettes a day developed the disease two years sooner.
People with a specific gene - APOE variant 4 - developed Alzheimer's disease three years earlier than those without the gene variant.
All three risk factors together were associated with onset of the disease 8.5 years earlier than those with none of the risk factors.
GreatScot
Mike wrote:
"Interestingly, while I was thrown off the Globalink list-serve for expressing some dissenting opinions, the advocates who made defamatory comments about me on that site were not disciplined in any way."
As I recall, Mike previously claimed (in a posting on this blog) that he voluntarily chose to quit Globalink after administrators asked him to tone down the rhetoric in his postings.
Bill G. wrote of Dr. Siegel, "he allows (and encourages by allowing) many of the same false accusations (against me) to remain on this blog."
Bill, I believe you have been asked on numerous occasions to make your connection with smokeless tobacco products clear without response. I may be wrong on this.
The primary concerns expressed have been:
1) Have you or SmokeFree PA ever received any money from smokeless tobacco interests?
2) Have you or SmokeFree PA ever received money or expenses from smokeless tobacco interests or from groups funded by MSA-laundered Big Tobacco money for court or hearing-type testimony?
3)Have you received any such money or goods or considerations for any of your activities?
4)Using the Glantz/Bero standard of guilt by association, have you ever participated in conferences supported by interests that were either avowedly devoted to promoting smoking bans or which have received support from MSA-laundered Big Tobacco money?
If you can honestly answer no, clearly, to all three of the above, then I believe Dr. Siegel would go to bat for you in the face of any unwarranted allegations. If your answers are qualified, then that should be admitted and dealt with openly.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub....ub.com/
130.html
Can we chalk another up to the Tobacco Control Industry?
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/
pa...in_page_id=1770
Sky Sports executive slashed wrists after taking controversial stop-smoking drug.
GreatScot
Chief Medical Officer for Scotland, ramps up the guilt for woman drinking during pregnancy.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/
...n_pregnancy.php
Violence on streets linked to drinking in pregnancy
Violent behaviour in young men is closely linked to drinking in pregnancy by their mothers, according to Scotland's chief medical officer.
GreatScot
Compassion at it's TC worst
http://www.chesterchronicle.co.u...59067-20778970/
Uproar at smoking ban for Bowmere Hospital
MENTALLY-ILL patients “detained” at a Chester hospital will have fewer rights than prisoners when they are banned from smoking in July.
However, unlike staff and patients of the nearby Countess of Chester Hospital, sectioned mentally ill patients cannot walk to the perimeter of the site to light up.
I wonder how many Doctors and Nurses will suffer because of this? Not to mention the ill.
Do you fancy the job Bill? Of course the staff can always find work elsewhere if they don't like their employers smoking policy, right?
GreatScot
It is indeed ironic that Mike complains of somebody falsely accusing him (on another blog) of working for the tobacco industry, while he allows (and encourages by allowing) many of the same false accusations (against me) to remain on this blog.
1. "a few dozen deluded addicts" making a general "you're wrong" statement is not the same as alleging specific ethical breaches, or having a modus operandi--accusing someone of being a tobacco shill has been documented before.
2. encouragement != allowing.
Dr Siegel does not like Nazi comparisons, but he lets them stand if they are attempts at historical comparisons and not name calling. I think he let yours stand, the one you used the other week.
Using your logic, we are to assume you encourage smoking because you are not for outright prohibition.
Speaking of this thing called logic, many of the so-called accusations at you are about how using your own logic/assumptions on yourself comes back to bite you. Of course you want them deleted, Bill!
As for "leaving voluntarily..."
Try here. There's a mention months later our host is glad he's no longer a part of the listservs, but without proof you got nothin', chum.
Michael,
It would be great if you could provide proof of your allegations that Global Link has in anyway sent out information that you are a paid tobacco stooge.
If you can not, then perhaps you should retract your statement and apologize for using one individuals remarks to blame an entire community.
Just saying, it seems a little hypocritical given the topic of this post.
John
McFadden wrote:
"Bill, I believe you have been asked on numerous occasions to make your connection with smokeless tobacco products clear without response. I may be wrong on this."
On at least a half dozen (and probably on more than a dozen) occassions (in response to false accusations on this blog), I have stated on this blog that neither I nor Smokefree Pennsylvania have ever received any funding from any tobacco or drug company.
Further, neither I nor Smokefree Pennsylvania have ever received any MSA funds, even though I led the campaign in PA urging the legislature to appropriate MSA funds for tobacco prevention, cessation and education programs.
Also, neither I nor Smokefree Pennsylvania has ever received any RWJF funding, even though I was one of several advocates who (from 1990 - 1994) successfully encouraged RWJF to fund programs to reduce smoking.
It is indeed ironic that Mike complains of somebody accusing him (on another blog) of working for the tobacco industry, while he allows (and encourages by allowing) many of the same false accusatins (against me) to remain on this blog.
Bill, I laughed so hard when I first read that! Do you not have a clue as to why he allows it? Of course you don't, you have never had a clue about anything. So, let me help some. He allows it so to take the pressure off of himself. If we hit you about some asine lie, we aren't hitting him with his asine stories!
Speaking of stories, here is one that you all might like. Earlier, I clicked onto Bill's website to see what new info he has found while scanning newspapers. Yesterday, he posted that in Jamaica taxes went up on cigarettes and they now cost $400 a carton. He was so thrilled, I am sure he wet his pants. Today he posts that some readers has notified him that the exchange rate is.014 cents per US dollar, which makes packs $5.46 or something like that.
Now I don't care what any of you think, but I thought that was damn funny!
Bill, do you know the difference between a question and an accusation?
An interesting read for those with a bit of time. The uncorrected evidence of the select committee meeting prior to the total ban in England. The attendees alone tell you the agenda, but I was entertained by the squirming of Sir Liam Donaldson, starts at question number 432.
Deborah Arnott (ASH) also admits that poll results depends on the way questions are asked.
GreatScot
Interesting how they've managed to link three pet projects to Alzheimers now, Great Scot.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/ 7351986.stm
oops forgot the link
http://www.publications.parliame...iii/
uc48502.htm
Is there a Chewfree Pennsylvania?
Bill, thank you for your response: if you had stated things that clearly in the past I either had not seen it or I had forgetten it.
Can you clarify the two final points though: have you ever received any coverage from such interests for expenses (hotel/travel/food etc) when testifying/participating in a court or political hearing, and have you ever participated in (I'm not certain in Lisa Bero counts "attendance" as participation, but if you have attended perhaps you'd be safest in mentioning that) or presented a talk/study at a conference fully or partially funded by MSA/Drug money?
I believe your answer to that will fully cover all reasonable questions and match those posed to those "on the other side of the aisle".
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub....ub.com/
130.html
Gilster asked: "Is there a Chewfree Pennsylvania?"
Only when there's no smokers left.
From GreatScot's link to the UK Parliament: "Deborah Arnott ... a campaigning health charity set up by the Royal College of Physicians to campaign for evidence-based tobacco control policies."
What a gem: "evidence-based policies". What's evident about policies?
And more from GreatScot's link:
"Q435 Mr Amess: I accept all of that, but you are our Chief Medical Officer and you are still dealing in generalisations. We are trying to gather evidence. Can you refer the Committee to at least one particular study? Can you tell us when it was carried out, who carried it out and how it was carried out? You are speaking about the generality of the situation. We have got lots of evidence on that. As our Chief Medical Officer assisting the Government, as best you are able to, can you direct us precisely to one study?
Professor Sir Liam Donaldson: I think that would be misleading so to do because one study on its own is seldom proof.
[...]
Q438 Mr Amess: I am asking you precisely to refer me to some scientific evidence, who the professors were who carried it out and when they carried it out. Surely you must be able to give us one example. Are you not able to?
Professor Sir Liam Donaldson: It is not that I am not able to. I think to choose one study in isolation ---
Q439 Mr Amess: Give us half a dozen.
[...]
Q440 Mr Amess: I am a bit disappointed that you have decided that you cannot be precise."
We don't need a chew free anything, we need Spitfree. Make them swallow it and not spread their nasty germs. I wouldn't want to MAKE anyone quit chewing, that's prohibition. They will just have to swallow that stuff...
MENTALLY-ILL patients “detained” at a Chester hospital will have fewer rights than prisoners when they are banned from smoking in July. - GreatScot
TC and our Ontario government should be so proud!!!
http://www.ppao.gov.on.ca/pos-sfo1.html
Submission Regarding Smoke-Free Ontario Act - December 2005
The Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office (PPAO) is an arm's length rights protection program of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
We are also aware of many other issues in hospitals across Ontario, including: some patients being routinely strip-searched by health practitioners looking for cigarettes and lighters as they have been deemed "contraband"; patients not being allowed to smoke out-of-doors on hospital grounds, as permitted at most health care facilities in Ontario; the sale of cigarettes by staff to patients; patients leaving hospital to access cigarettes, at times with tragic results; cancellation of privileges and visits due to being denied access to smoking; and patients being placed in restraint or seclusion following denial of or access to smoking.
From a rights perspective, the use of strip searches to enforce policy is troubling and may not meet the legal standard that any search be conducted only if there are "reasonable and probable grounds" for such a search. We know that such a policy, in a hospital, has the potential to damage the therapeutic relationship between patients and their caregivers.
Ah, the inestimable, nay infathomable Liam Donaldson!
He has such a great grasp of public health statistics, as demonstrated here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/43.../uk/
4346624.stm
'If a new strain did hit the UK before a vaccine was created, Sir Liam said an extra 50,000 would probably die - and a death toll of 750,000 was "not impossible".'
Well, Liam, only another, er, 50,000 to go then!
Good on (Conservative MP) David Amess for giving this fraud a hard time. Pity that other committee members chose to be so ridiculously sycophantic, though.
He could not name a single study to demonstrate the supposed 'hazard' of ETS, yet was able to give a detailed response to the Enstrom & Kabat study that was straight out of the Glantz songbook...
"Firstly, the study was carried out by the researchers who were partly sponsored by the tobacco industry, so there was a clear conflict of interest there. Secondly, it was using data from the American Cancer Society. The American Cancer Society subsequently disowned the study and criticised it on the fact that the methods used were unreliable and misleading. Quite honestly, I do not think that study stands up to any scientific scrutiny whatsoever, leaving aside the conflict of interest in the funding which to me is tantamount or comparable to a research study on organised crime being funded by the Mafia."
Mafia funding? Now there's an interesting new angle!
Yes a true giant among his peers, and an epidemiological genius, our Liam.
(You might think I am being a little sarcastic here 
)
.
In case anyone didn't folow my link above, Liam Donaldson was predicting that 50,000 to 750,000 UK citizens are likely to die from bird flu.
?????
http://www.thestar.com/SpecialSe.../article/
275323
At roughly the same time that Canada's obesity crisis was evolving, this country was developing a successful strategy to combat another public health menace. And the battle against smoking – which saw rates decline since the 1970s to less than 30 per cent of the adult population from a high of about 70 per cent – may offer guidance for any war on diabetes.
"Smoking was the public health success story," said Dr. Stewart Harris, a University of Western Ontario diabetes expert. "It was a public health approach and there's lots of great lessons to be learned that can be directly applied to trying to tackle the obesity issue."The battle against smoking began after the 1964 U.S. surgeon general's report definitively linked tobacco smoke to lung cancer.
It was a clarion call about a dire public danger, according to Diane Finegood, director of nutrition, metabolism and diabetes at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in Vancouver.
What followed, after a decade-long attempt by the tobacco industry to refute that medical research, was a series of government and private sector initiatives that transformed smoking from a pervasive and glamorous habit to one now regarded as leprous.
There were ad bans, huge increases in tobacco taxes, workplace and public space prohibitions, strict sales regulations and labelling rules that have given us graphic photos of lung cancers or rotting teeth on every cigarette package.
"With tobacco, it was when the ... environment changed from one where it was desirable to smoke, you were cool, you fit in to one where you were in a sense a pariah if you smoked," said Finegood, a kinesiology professor at Simon Fraser University.
Though it had been deeply rooted in our culture since World War I, smoking was one lone, if highly addictive, habit.
Diabetes and obesity are far tougher nuts, involving values, lifestyle, even housing. Experts say the task would be societal in nature and reach from Parliament Hill to corporate boardrooms and right into the living rooms of Canadians.
Dr. Siegel, now seems like a great time to clear up the question of what kind of relationship or lack of relationship you have with the industry.
Will you put the joking aside and go on the record about about your relationship with the industry.
If you are not in contact with them and you recieve no compensation from them at all why not go on the record and say so?
Ann W.-
I'm not aware of any way to determine the cause of a lung cancer by looking at the tumor cells under a microscope.
Dr. Siegel and Ann W.
You and your grant junkie "scientists" have no interest in figuring anything out.
You rely on the post hoc argument of:
Tom got lung cancer....Tom worked in a bar where people smoked...second hand smoke causes lung cancer.
Asbestos, air pollution, superfund site??????????????
By the same token from this "scientific" analysis:
Tom got lung cancer...Tom ate carrots..carrots cause lung cancer.
None of these studies including your own doc, meet the 2.0 RR threshhold to stand up in a court of law.
I'm not aware of any way to determine the cause of a lung cancer by looking at the tumor cells under a microscope.
Michael Siegel
Thank you for your honest reply. The quote I posted where the words of Heather Crowe as she spoke to the Ontario Government pleading them to bring in the Ontario Smoke Free Act, which btw is now being amended to include smoking in cars with children and from smoking within 10 feet of a place. Most interesting is there is not yet a definition of "place". Door, building, property line????
Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada
http://www.smoke-free.ca/heather...ercrowe/
FAQ.htm
Q.Even though Heather never smoked, she said she had a ‘smoker’s tumour.’ What did she mean by that?
A.Heather was diagnosed in the summer of 2002 with stage 3B non small cell lung cancer – adenocarcinoma – in the upper lobe of her left lung. Adenocarcinoma is the most common form of lung cancer in smokers, but all forms of lung cancer are caused by tobacco smoke.
Because lung cancer is so frequent among smokers and so infrequent among non-smokers, all forms of lung cancer are popularly referred to as “smokers’ tumours.” And that is what Heather calls her tumour – a smoker’s tumour. Tragically, in Heather’s case, it is a second-hand smoker’s tumour.
The source of funding is not important in the name of science, but rather the war of propaganda.
Obviously tobacco control believes funding source taints findings, but only if it is from the nicotine industry, and it contradicts their agenda. It is curious why they hide/whitewash/ignore and downplay the other nicotine industry which has funded a vast number of the studies in the "mountain" of evidence against second hand smoke. Why do they never question studies funded by the nicotine patch industry?
If taking money from a nicotine source disqualifies a researcher and his work, then it should apply to ALL nicotine suppliers, as this does not negate any conflict of interest.
It's also curious how activists will trash their own data sources, if they believe it support the oppositions argument. Either the data source is reliable to do cohort studies or it isn't. The CPS-II data source was the origin for the Steedland study which asserted their were 35,000 - 40,000 attributable deaths due to SHS. The very people promoting these figures now try and claim any analysis on this dataset is futile, and isn't accurate enough to derive a risk factor from. If the dataset isn't accurate enough to determine a risk factor, then how can they not ignore the fact their own propaganda was based on this dataset. Funny, I never heard anyone in tobacco control complaining about the accuracy of the CPS data when Kawachi used this data source. Seems this data source is only unreliable if the outcome of research doesn't match the agenda of tobacco control.
No this is a propaganda war, and science is just a casualty. When the key researchers participate as activists, and founders of groups such as ANR their own devotion to an ideology makes this a far more significant conflict of interest.
Another q for Mr Bill might be to ask who does pay him to testify, including expenses, and who, in general, financially supports his and his group's overall activities?
The 7 "Sick Sisters" (ALA, AHA et al) are themselves endowed by Big Pharma and Gov't AT bureaus. Even local DOH's are similarly funded with money earmarked to advance their agendas.
So--Mr. Bill--as long as you're saying who doesn't back you (and I do accept your word) how about saying who does?
New subj.
The Alzheimer's link to smoking is pretty funny-- considering the amount of hard empirical, biological, experimental evidence that shows smoking delays or prevents the disease entirely. That, in general, smokers have half the overall rate of it than the general nonsmoking population.
Seems to me the mathematical magic here is in pulling subsets from a small sample of the still-small number of people who get the disease. Note they don't say that smoking's causal but merely that some smokers (on mathematical average) who were slated to get it, got it "2 years sooner." Sooner than...what? than whom? No way to tell if they got it "2 years sooner" than they, personally, would've got it otherwise. These are all people who, for still thoroughly unknown reasons, were on the track to get it and already had it.
How, in fact, do they do know-- based on the canon of biological studies-- that the individual smokers who did get Alzheimers didn't get it 2 years LATER than they personally would have got it had they been non-smokers.
IOW. Rubbish.
The question remains.
Now that international experts have implemented the full on "disease management" profile and admit they have been on the wrong track for generations. The efficiencies of reducing personal behaviors leading to health consequences can be forced into extinction.
When will Hitler's body be moved into Arlington as an apology to his family and growing fan base?
Well heres a catalogue of calamity this morning.
For months I have been watching America over the internet and a pattern emerges.
Bans are called for, owners object, the goon squad moves in on the threads, the ban is passed,losses start mounting within the month,bankrupcies mount.
The riots in prisons and mental homes are to be expected, they are starting to develop the first symptoms of pellagra, just as the instutionalized did in Dr Goldbergers time.It won't get much worse, I am sure that the nutrition in these places is much better these days, but with the sudden decrease in niacin they are going to go slightly nuts,if they are mentally ill, then even more so.
The cover up was so good in 1942 that scientists are still fiddling about with nicotine and wondering why it doesn't work.Nicotine patches might work to a small extent as the body absorbs the nicotine and then processes it into nicotinic acid within the body, like eating a tomato.
Anyone with damaged or mutated nicotinic receptors is going to become unstable and not knowing this, the doctors will pump them full of drugs.
The only way out of this is for someone to break cover and tell the truth.
Oh, and non smoking beer drinkers, theres 2mg of nicotinic acid in each pint and the "passive drinking" campaign just started here.
They always said that cigarettes and beer go together.
"Beer is chock full of the B vitamins (as anyone who has taken brewer's yeast as a B supplement already knows), with impressive amounts of B3 (niacin), B5 (pantothenic acid), B6 (pyridoxin), and B9 (folate), with smaller amounts of B1 (thiamine), B2 (riboflavin), B12 inotisol and choline."
http://www.allaboutbeer.com/feat...eer&
health.html
Good heavens
3mg of nicotinic acid in a cup of coffee!
No wonder a cup of coffee and a cigarette work so well.
http://www.anyvitamins.com/vitam...niacin-
info.htm
So vital is this vitamin that people will keep eating until they get enough, I'd guess.
So thats all 3
Smoking
Drinking
Obesity.
For a non medical or scientific person I think that deserves a small gold star.
Ok, Bill,
How do you feed your family? what IS the source of income that supports you?
Let's ask positive questions here... do you have a "day job"... not related to tobacco control which provides you with the cash to meet your living expenses. Where does the money come from which you report as income on your yearly IRS 1040?
I'm retired, I support my wife and self 2 ays; 1. mostly from stock dividends 2. small pension amounts, one from Seven Up which was owned by Philip Morris when I worked there and one from Welch Foods where I also worked. 3. tax free municipal bonds.
So, Bill, that's where my incoem comes from where does your income come from?
Dave K
Food for thought Doctor Siegel; Homicide by Tobacco Smoke
You good buddy Banzhaff just can't resist;
http://tinyurl.com/6gr3cx
Instead of all the contortionist manipulation of the facts, regardless of whether or not any at all believes in the potential danger; why don't you guys just get on with it and call for prohibition. The sheep are on your side, the brainwashing is nearly complete. The public is ready to surrender any free will they may have once had, so what's the hold up?
Lets go already, there is millions to be made and you're holding up economic progress and recovery.
Dave K,
Bill didn't exactly say in his reply he doesn't receive any funding. He said, neither he nor Smokefree Pennsylvania "have ever received any funding from any tobacco or drug company....any MSA funds...any RWJF funding."
Before you ask his source of income, which is kind of personal, his answer wasn't a complete denial of any funding source. But I believe he's said before he doesn't get any funding.
I think he lives off his wife's income. Either that or from the money he saved from quitting smoking.
Doctor
When you were cotinine testing bartenders, did you allow for niacin in any beer they drank over the evening?
As I don't drink, if I sit with a fruit juice smoking while my non smoking companion drinks beer, at .8 gm for each cigarette and 2gm for a pint of beer, I would have to smoke 2 and half cigarettes to his pint of beer to stay level.
Not likely.
So at the end of the evening as cotinine tests would register nicotinic acid in both of us,mine would be considerably lower than his.
Could you explain ?
This video concern the Royale on Mayor Slay's website shows that the free market is solving the smoking ban issue in St. Louis.
http://keepstlouisfree.blogspot.com/
Oops forgot the link
http://beer.about.com/od/
beernut...nutrition_2.htm
Interests
Amateur vegetable gardener with experience of nightshade plants( including tomatoes)
Hobby brewer.
Wow, a smoker's a murderer for existing..yet the murder weapon, supposedly useful for NOTHING ELSE, would still be legal....idiot much?
A gun, while being a weapon also protects, a knife may also serve a secondary purpose...but supposedly smoking does nothing useful at all but Banzhaf still isn't pushing for prohibition and wants to encourage HOMICIDE charges.
Jim,
I just think it's quicker to ask Bill where he gets funding from, than ask him specifically what groups he does not recieve funding from. Of course, Bill doesn't have to answer if he thinks it's too personal.
on the other hand, maybe we just haven't chosen the right group to ask Bill about yet. I would think, since he brought it up and i quote:
" It is indeed ironic that Mike complains of somebody falsely accusing him (on another blog) of working for the tobacco industry, while he allows (and encourages by allowing) many of the same false accusations (against me) to remain on this blog.
So much for consistency.
Bill Godshall | 04.17.08 - 11:52 am | # "
Bill is saying some of us accuse him of recieving funding, and this is an opportunity to clear that mystery up.
It's possible Bill pays for all his expenses re antismoking lobby out of his own pocket, including gas and wear and tear on his Prius, hotel rooms, meals, etc. but it is apparant he had to spend some money to accomplish all this, and in the absence of answering our questions, i suppose it is logical for us to wonder.
If Bill chooses to tell us it is all from his wife, then fine..mystery cleared up, if he freely chooses not to answer, can we be blamed for continuing to wonder?
Dave K
Michael J. McFadden
Thank you very much for the link, I'm having fun already.
From here: http://tinyurl.com/2sv9hz
"Today, I am announcing the recipient of the first Tobacco Control Advocate of the Year Award...
...Bill Godshall, Executive Director of Smokefree Pennsylvania."
......
For his dedication and his accomplishments, and in recognition of his receipt of the Rest of the Story's Tobacco Control Advocate of the Year award, Bill will be awarded a prize of $368.50, one dollar for each of the billion dollars that would have enabled a bailout of the tobacco industry had Bill not been active in the tobacco control movement.
First, I was wondering; Did you pay up?
Second, Did Bill buy a secret stash of several cartons with the windfall he so richly deserved?
Who was the big winner in 2006?,...I couldn't find it,...or is there simply no one left worthy of awarding such a grand prize to?
For the record, I nominate ALL Free-thinking Adult smokers to be your next recipient of this prestigious honor. After-all, it seems the victims of this masquerade have done far more to keep it honest than anyone within the "movement" has done to further the "science of control".
Doc, you have not answered my question from the first post. The impotent big tobacco companies aren't fighting these lies.
The only explanation I can think of is that they are trusting the intelligence of the sheeple to figure it out on their own and rebel.
These are the same sheeple who have been conditioned to believe that despite the fact that a burning ball in the sky known as the sun, which is 100 times larger than Earth, is irrelevant and that our planet's temperature can be controlled by how much toilet paper they use.
Dave,
That's partly what I was getting at. Bill mentioned who he has not received money from. He didn't flat out say he doesn't or hasn't gotten some from other sources.
Bill's often a snake when it comes to straight answers. You have to be real deliberate in your questions. Too delberate though and you won't get an answer at all. LOL
Bill Hannegan
Can you help me, did the cotinine in the air of a once smoky bar drop to 0 after the ban?
I am still marvelling at the fact that I, as a fruit juice drinker would be sent outside to breathe .8 mg of nicotinic acid for 5 minutes, whilst my beer drinking companion consumes 2mg of nicotinic acid and exhales both that and ethanol constantly.
Even stranger, in an office, the smoker has to go outside, walk down the block to consume .8 mg of nicotinic acid, while their coffee drinking colleague sits in the warm and consumes 3mg.
Have I got this wrong?
Oh my goodness, if the beer drinker decides to buy a bag of salted peanuts to go with his pint, theres another 12.9mg per 100gm in those.
Of course if the traditional log fire is burning merrily in the hearth,we have all the rest of the terrifying ingredients in a small burning leaf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peanut
http://ehs.sph.berkeley.edu/
krsm...0Woodsmoke2.pdf
Oh dear, my non smoking friend may decide to have a packet of potato chips instead, but there is less nicotine/solanine in potatoes so thats only.16
Tell me again, why do we have to stand outside?
I am now off to drink a benzene smoothie.
"Benzene is one of many volatile organic compounds found virtually everywhere in our environment. It is found in the air we breathe and in most of the foods that we eat, such as bananas.."
http://www.ameribev.org/industry.../qas/
index.aspx
"a burning ball in the sky known as the sun, which is 100 times larger than Earth, is irrelevant and that our planet's temperature can be controlled by how much toilet paper they use to wipe their ass.."
Dr. Blair,
That's the funniest thing I've read all that. And so is your home page. Thanks for that.
After considering the matter, the only genuine nicotine in a pub is the nicotine/tomatine slowly evaporating from the sliced tomato in the cheese sandwich or on the side of a ploughman's lunch.
As ventilation is only acceptable if every trace of nicotine has been removed, unfortunately we must ban fresh tomatoes from every enclosed public place in the land.
EB 2084- Your Homepage is very informative.
Jim,,
well, Bill will just ignore our questions, and in a few weeks or a month when all this comes up again, he'll just say that he has already answered (now 7 or perhaps 13) times.
I guess evading questions is just how people in tobacco control operate.
Dave K
Jim and Dave K,
While I don't feel that I need to tell anyone how our income is earned and believe me, it is earned honestly, I would prefer that Bill, and all the other members of tobacco control had to explain to a judge how it is they earn their money. As far as I am concerned, their income comes from theft, theft of a smoker and their taxes!
Doc, with your ties to Big T perhaps you could get them to sponsor a conference. Then you could invite us all with Big T flipping the bill for all of our expenses. We could all meet each other face to face and all officially become stooges of Big T. There are many venues that smoking is still allowed here in Western PA. Everyone would be in close proximity to Bill G. Maybe even invite him out for a night of smoking and drinking inside.
OT for Rose,
Rose, would it be possible for you to send me privately the link(s) for all the information you found on Niacin? I'd appreciate, thanks. You can email me at: MsLynNYC@gmail.com
Lynda F
Will do.
Rose
I would appreciate the same info on niacin at michellegervais@sympatico.ca
Michelle
While waiting for Bill to clear up the final edges on his declaration, we've drifted a bit from the core of Dr. Siegel's post.
The idea that the Glantzians would accuse him of Big Tobacco funding shows the psychopathy at work among so many of their followers. Dr. Siegel had a long, established, successful, and probably fairly lucrative career behind him in Tobacco Control. He could have easily sat back and looked forward to another 20 years of easy money rolling in for him and a growing cadre of grant-dependent grad students, along with added wall decorations of awards for being adulated at conferences of sycophants...
And there are folks out there who could think he gave up THAT for some kind of "secret money" from Big Tobacco?
Are these folks nuts, or just plain stupid?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub....ub.com/
130.html
Now here's a reality check!
This is too true to be very funny.
The next time you hear a politician use the
word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending
YOUR tax money.
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of its releases.
A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were
Living in the Stone Age.
D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and
20 minutes, at the rate our government is spending it.
While this thought is still fresh in our brain, let's take a look at New Orleans. It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.
Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu , is presently asking the Congress for $250 BILLION to rebuild New Orleans . Interesting number, what does it mean?
A. Well, if you are one of 484,674 residents of New Orleans (every man, woman, child), you each get $516,528.
B. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes in New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.
C. Or, if you are a family of four, your family gets $2,066,012.
Washington , D.C ., Ottawa, Canada.... HELLO!!! .. Are all your calculators broken??
Tax his land,
Tax his wage,
Tax his bed in which he lays.
Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes is the rule.
Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.
Tax his ties,
Tax his shirts,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.
Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he tries to think.
Tax his booze,
Tax his beers,
If he cries,
Tax his tears.
Tax his bills,
Tax his gas,
Tax his notes,
Tax his cash.
Tax him good and let him know
That after taxes, he has no dough.
If he hollers, Tax him more,
Tax him until he's good and sore.
Tax his coffin, Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in which he lays.
Put these words upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me to my doom!'
And when he's gone, We won't relax,
We'll still be after the inheritance TAX!!
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
No taxes existed 100 years ago,
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world,
and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What happened? Can you spell 'politicians!'
And I still have to 'press
1' for English.
I hope this goes around THE
USA and Canada at least 100 times
What the hell happened?????
Michael J. McFadden
Scared witless, at a guess.
However, it seems that being accused of being a Tobacco stooge is a mark of personal honour and integrity these days.
False accusations seem to be a line of first defence, which is hardly indicative of a watertight argument.
A new addition to Chemistry's Periodic Table
Research has led to the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.
These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected, because it impedes every action with which it comes into contact.
A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete. Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2-6 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.
In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes. This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass. When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons!
Dave K, THAT was brilliant, thanks!
Now for today's OT and the continuing saga of "All The Nannies" I bring you:
NOW TOTAL PROHIBITION AND LOOK WHO IS BEHIND IT
The war on passive drinking
Posted by Bruno Waterfield on 17 Apr 2008 at 21:27
Tags: Crime, EU, public health, Alcohol
European Union and United Nations officials are plotting to make drinking as socially unacceptable as smoking.
Your drink could endanger others, claim UN and EU officials
Hectoring campaigns over “passive smoking” are credited for Europe’s almost total smoking ban. Now alcohol is in the sights of the public health miserablists and they have invented the concept of "passive drinking" as their killer argument.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/
for...ingguilt.htmITS
We also have an inside look at Banzhaf's distorted view of freedom of choice:
2008-04-18 18:19:50 - A wife has been indicted for killing her husband by causing him to contract fatal lung cancer after subjecting him to tobacco smoke for thirty years, and the District Attorney is pursuing the case at the urging of the couple's adult son.
That is the plot of a controversial new film titled 'The Pack' which is raising intriguing, emotional, and complicated questions about choice, individual responsibility, and the scope of criminal law.
biz.yahoo.com/iw/080416/0387416.html
It also drives home just how strong the evidence now is that tens of thousand of nonsmokers - including several thousand children - are killed each year as a result of someone else's smoking.
As the evidence that secondhand tobacco smoke kills tens of thousands of Americans each year multiplies, the potential for civil - and possibly even criminal - liability for subjecting other people to it grows, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), America's first antismoking organization.
http://www.pr-inside.com/wife-in...ith-
r545859.htm
OH, and Happy Sunday to everyone... 
Makes me kind of wonder..........
http://thepack-movie.com/
The Pack is a feature length screenplay that is slated to start production in July 2005. The film is being entirely shot on location in New York and is being produced by Electric Movies LLC and with the support of many organizations that believe in the project.
Interested investors or contributors may contact Alyssa Rallo Bennett at arbennett@hotmail.com.
Contribution should be mailed to Electric Movies LLC, 48 West 21st Street, 8th floor, New York, NY 10010. Checks can be written to: Film Video Arts and earmarked "The Pack/Electric Movies" in the memo. Contributions are tax-deductible to the fullest intent of the law.
In The Pack, an ambitious District Attorney prosecutes a wife on three counts of murder after her forty-seven year old husband dies of lung cancer from breathing her secondhand smoke for thirty years.
Unlike other courtroom dramas, The Pack brings to the forefront the complexities and anguish surrounding an important social issue on secondhand smoke and different than The Insider, The Pack is not about the tobacco industry per se, even though it exposes many truths about the tobacco industry, but rather, it is about the responsibility of the smoker and the life-and-death issues facing everyday people and those they love.
Happy Sunday
The link didn't work
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/
for...inkingguilt.htm
*sound of hollow laughter
I should have put money on that one
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/f...l/329/7480/
1424
nasty, nasty. the jury compares blowing smoke in someone's face the same as "drunk driving"......
You can view a the trailer of "the Pack" here, "Second Hand Smoke on Trial 4" (last video on the page)
http://www.leechvideo.com/tag/tabacco/
What I really don't understand is why "He" got lung cancer so young (47) and "she" the smoker for 30 years, is fine??????
One could almost think that this was some anti smokers' group form of propaganda, oh I meant to say, tax shelter investment.
Riot on the Times
"It’s like being a giant toddler"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle3779909.ece
The closing of the trailer reads:
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING
Smoking may kill The Person You Love
more can be viewed at http://www.thepack.info/
or at youtube
http://www.youtube.com/user/alys.../
alyssarbennett
Looks like this is for the festival crowd not general release.
While on youtube I came across Penn and Teller and they have retracted their stand on second hand smoke.
Penn and Teller correct a claim from their TV show Bullshit. Penn explains there is evidence that second hand smoke does cause cancer. This is from a Q and A session at the Amazing Meeting (January 2005). Southpark did an episode which incorrectly asserts there is no tie as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n...h?
v=nrub3dt7R5U
okay, found the connection, the press release says she is charge with three counts of murder????
http://www.thepack.info/links.html
LINKS on the left hand of the page leads to this:
Press release:
• A new film where addiction, love and murder are burning issues (word format)is the story of an ambitious district attorney who prosecutes a wife and a mother (Lucie Arnaz) on three counts of murder after her husband (Scott Bryce) dies of lung cancer from breathing her second-hand smoke for thirty years.
so maybe this might be the twist in the plot and the other two murders????
http://www.biomedcentral.com/con...1-2431-5-
20.pdf
• Qualitatively and quantitatively similar effects of active and passive maternal tobacco smoke exposure on in utero mutagenesis at the HPRT locus
• New Jersey Group Against Smoking Pollution
• Smokefree.net
• Secondhand smoke
I’m an ignorant moron and I know it (how’s that for full disclosure, Godshall?). So that’s why I’m now down on one knee, pleading with someone among my fellow posters to enlighten me as to what in the hell is going on in the study, “Effects of Restaurant and Bar Smoking Regulations on Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke Among Massachusetts Adults,” published in the November 2004 edition of the American Journal of Public Health (Albers, Siegel, et al.).
Let’s start with ‘Conclusions’ (I’m reading here from the abstract). “Strong local clean indoor air regulations were associated with lower levels of reported exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in restaurants and bars.”
Help me, please! If I’m reading that correctly (and remember that I’m quite cognizant of the fact that I’m a moron), it says that if you restrict or prohibit smoking in bars and restaurants, then – voila! – staff and patrons in those establishments will be exposed to less ETS than formerly. Is that what it says? Frankly, where I hesitate and what’s got this moron buffaloed is the ‘associated with’ bit. Since the authors of the report number three PhDs and two MDs among them (including our own Dr. Siegel), I have to believe that ‘associated with’ has some arcane scientific meaning that is so far beyond my poor mental capacities that I shouldn’t even hold an opinion as to the meaning of the sentence; otherwise, I’d have to believe that we’re deep in Lulu land. (And obviously, were I a bartender, I could never be truly educated as to the dangers of secondhand smoke.)
“Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure has been shown to cause respiratory illnesses, including lung cancer, childhood asthma, and lower respiratory tract infections, as well as having developmental and cardiovascular effects.” References include: Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders – US EPA 1992. Nothing unusual here: references in this ‘scientific’ paper include the EPA study that Judge Osteen had so much fun with.
“Exposure to ETS is unevenly distributed across the US working population. Food service workers – waiters, waitresses, cooks, bartenders, and counter help – are the least likely group to be covered by smoke-free policies.” Nothing unusual here either: references include “Involuntary smoking in the restaurant workplace: a review of employee exposure and health effects. JAMA, 1993,” the study that Martha Perske (and Walt) had so much fun with.
But there’s more: “In our study, we sought to (1) examine the association of local clean indoor air regulations with adult exposure to ETS in Massachusetts restaurants and bars and (2) specify the relation between the strength of local regulations and exposure in these establishments.” In other words, we’re not only going to examine an ‘association,’ we’re going to be really scientific and quantify the damn thing.
Data were derived from a telephone survey. Sample questions: “In the past 12 months, when you were eating in a restaurant in [town], how often did you see someone smoking?” “In the past 12 months, when you were out at a bar or club in [town], how often did you see someone smoking?”
Since I’m a moron, all of this gives me a big laugh. If I were brilliant -- or just smart – I’d obviously find no humor in it at all. Therefore (and the conclusion is unavoidable), IDIOCY HAS IT’S REWARDS.
Brian (and it’s always a pleasure to see you posting here), you’d perhaps find much to admire in this report, especially all those OR’s and CI’s that elevate a series of "in the past 12 months" telephone interviews into a scientific study worthy of being peer reviewed (as it was). Supporters of the work (and I don’t know exactly what ‘supporters’ means – that is, whether moral or financial – were the National Cancer Institute, State and Community Tobacco Control Interventions Research Grant Program, and the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute.
Now the Flight Attendant web site is interesting because it’s mission statement is this: “FAMRI’s mission is to sponsor scientific and medical research for the early detection, prevention, treatment and cure of diseases and medical conditions caused from exposure to tobacco smoke and to ensure that health care providers ask the right questions of their patients about second hand tobacco smoke exposure. FAMRI does not support investigators who are currently receiving funds from the tobacco industry. Animal use in research is restricted to mice and rats.” (I love that last: no need to worry about any relative of the family pooch.)
In other words, case closed on secondhand smoke. And under ‘Links to second hand smoke resources,” we find a link to ASH, as well as to Smokefreerevolution, that seeks “a total ban on smoking everywhere except in private homes!” (Yes, that’s their exclamation mark.)
Now if I were a cynic, I’d say that the true purpose for Albers, Siegel et al. was propaganda (or perhaps even loot). But of course I’m not one of those damn cynics, so I have to go along with purity of motive. That might not get me into heaven, but it wouldn’t hoit.
.
Good points Harry. The "Travers/Repace Traveling Snake Oil Emporium Show" where they wander around and "discover" that there's less smoke where no one is smoking and charge $50,000 for that remarkable discovery has been repeated in probably dozens of cities around the world at this point. "Associated with" etc. is all just a manner of speech to cover up the fact that all that money is being spent to "discover" what any third grader could have told them for 50 cents and ball of bubble gum.
Also... a bit off topic... I'd like to discuss staying a bit more on topic. :> There's always lots of interesting news and discussions to be had about our issue, but Dr. Siegel does a pretty good job of hitting the high points of what's up in the news each week and it makes it easier to follow and probably adds some overall validity to the content of the discussion here if we try to stick as much as possible to the topics leading off each blog segment.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub....ub.com/
130.html
I'd like to discuss staying a bit more on topic. - Michael J. McFadden
lol - okay Michael, but if we discuss staying on topic would we not be actually off topic?
OK, back to the topic.
Harry reported about Dr. Siegel's study.
"Supporters of the work (and I don’t know exactly what ‘supporters’ means – that is, whether moral or financial – were the National Cancer Institute, State and Community Tobacco Control Interventions Research Grant Program, and the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute."
Wouldn't this make him an "Anti-tobacco" stooge?
And if the State and Community Tobacco Control IRGC received MSA money, which might be secondhand tobacco money for the Doctor, wouldn't that make him a secondhand stooge of big tobacco?
If the Doctor hired a helper for the study, would the helper be a secondhand stooge of "Anti-Tobacco" and a thirdhand stooge of big tobacco?
Moe, Larry and Curly all at the same time.
This Stooge thing needs to be further researched and developed.
E=MC^2
Breeze Detector & Amateur Epidemiologist (ala A. Judson Wells, Jr.)
Ok, MJM shoot me, but this is also OT. Sorry, but since this topic is already 4 days old, and there doesn't seem to be much more to say about it that hasn't been said hundreds of times over the past couple of weeks anyway, I just can't help myself.
We interrupt this programming to bring you a "public service announcement" ROFLMAO
My roommate has been looking for info on Niacin that Rose was finding since I told her about it. She was coming up blank, hence my asking Rose for her files. Anyway, turns out she wanted them for information for a blog posting. So Rose, and anyone else of course, if you'd like to see how some of your research got put to use go here: http://justmytruth.wordpress.com...niacin-origins/
Also, my point about the earlier link I posted, wasn't so much about the film itself but the commentary there exclusively quoting Banzhaf and ASH. Rose, I copied it to a word doc and will send that to you privately.
OK, back to your regularly scheduled programming now. LOL 
Callous Lynda wrote, " Ok, MJM shoot me, but this is also OT. "
LOL! I wasn't trying to quash all off-topic comments, just noting that it helps to minimize them and that sometimes we all (including me) sometimes get carried away in side discussions that dilute the real criticisms/discussion of the central topic of the individual thread.
MJM
Lynda F
Thank you,and please thank your friend.
All in glorious technicolour too!
never on topic but what the heck, one to many glasses of wine this evening.- lol
Also, my point about the earlier link I posted, wasn't so much about the film - Callous Lynda F
You may not be but I am rather concerned about what the finally statement is in this movie and even more so when someone like Banzhaf and ASH are putting it on their agenda.
Ann W.,
I am concerned about the message the movie sends, and that message is seriously backed up by banzhaf etal. Remember this fool TEACHES law.
Based on the info there, that couple married when the husband was 17. I mean IF he was 47 when he died and was subject to 30 years of SHS.........well the math says it all. Then the question is how old was she? AND where are they from that they can marry at such a young age without parental consent?
Since the wife was also exposed to the same SHS for those 30 years on top of actually smoking, how is it she didn't get sick?
So many questions, so little time....hehehehe
OT (ducks)
Doctor
Having covered up the death rates from the Great Smog of London with the smoking theory and a fake flu epidemic, they have now resurrected the Great Smog to prove that woodsmoke kills.
http://www.taiga.net/yourYukon/c...kon/
col065.html
These might be helpful.
http://www.newscientist.com/arti...her-
cities.html
Toxicologic and Epidemiologic Clues from the Characterization of the 1952 London Smog Fine Particulate Matter in Archival Autopsy Lung Tissues
http://www.ehponline.org/members.../6114/
6114.html
Antis love that Penn & Teller clip. They think P&T are retracting their second-hand smoke segment, but they say nothing of the kind.
When the anti in the audience mentions the "reams" of information sent over, and the "enormous" amount of evidence, Penn offers a heavily qualified response.
I don't know why, because they said on their show was absolutely correct. The WHO study they referred to shows that their result was "not statistically significant" yet the conclusion stated that ETS causes cancer.
The rest of the segment poked fun at the extremism of the antis, and stated their objection to governmental interference in the issue, which they "stand behind 100%."
I haven't seen Season 3 of "Bullshit", so I don't know if they ever made the "notation" they mentioned.
None of that stops the antis from ranting about it, though. Still, it's not as bad as the dumbass who writes the Skeptic's Dictionary.
http://www.skepdic.com/news/
news...wsletter61.html
He fell for the antis' rants hook, line and sinker, dividing the issue between "science" and "the tobacco industry".
You can tell by his references. 4000/40+, Milloy is an industry shill, Glantz, Repace, and (of course) Dr. Siegel.
Callous Lynda F, I could be reaching here but don`t most people date before they get married? It did say he was exposed for 30years, not married for that time.
Ann W, you are correct. I took the "after her husband (Scott Bryce) dies of lung cancer from breathing her second-hand smoke for thirty years." as they were living together for 30 years. When dating, most teenagers are not together more than a couple of hours a day during; whereas living together they are together at least half the day. Unless of course we are going by the "no safe level" measuring stick and then even 5 minutes a day would kill him. Still doesn't explain how she survived even more exposure than he did though.
From Harry's post:
“Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure has been shown to cause respiratory illnesses, including lung cancer, childhood asthma...”
""Nothing unusual here: references in this ‘scientific’ paper include the EPA study that Judge Osteen had so much fun with.""
Not to mention the that author (or he was co-author) of the chapter on asthma retracted his statement on SHS being a cause of asthma.
Okay, I admit I didn't plumb the info on the lawsuit movie too deeply, but here's your red flag: they solicit backing from the general public and say it's tax deductible.
No legitimate commercial feature solicits public money and backing a movie is not tax deductible any more than , say, backing Golden Glimmer in the 7th at Saratoga is tax-deductible. This would have to be something produced by ASH ostensibly for other than commercial purposes. If it ever gets made, don't look for this thing at your local Bijou.
And Lucie Arnaz? LOL. Both of her well-known parents smoked. But she must have turned Aunt for some crackpot reason, especially since, if they're asking for the public's 10s and 20s, she's not getting paid or not getting more than she would from a paper route. Unless, of course, she's looking for some kind of backup for suing her parents on a posthumous basis.
:
Or she's desperate for an acting role, and doesn't care what it is. I don't think the offers are stacked too deep on Lucie's desk.
Perhaps the right-to-smoke proponents (who are obsessed with the funding sources of smokefree advocates) can explain the reported $2.5 million that MyChoice.ca has received from the Canadian Tobacco Merchants Association (see following article).
http://www.canada.com/montrealga...249f7809ce2&
p=2
The correct link (per my preveious note) is.
http://www.canada.com/montrealga...249f7809ce2&
p=1
Bill wrote, " Perhaps the right-to-smoke proponents (who are obsessed with the funding sources of smokefree advocates) can explain the reported $2.5 million that MyChoice.ca has received from the Canadian Tobacco Merchants Association"
Er... easy Bill. MyChoice was set up, quite openly and honestly, with money from the Canadian tobacco industry. Do you think if a group of Canadian smokers applied to ASH for a few million dollars to set up a group to defend themselves they would have gotten funding? Sheeesh!
And Bill, while I appreciate the answer you DID give about your funding, why haven't you followed up with the simple completion of it? MYChoice is open about their funding. Show that you're as good as they are by finishing the answer you did, and I appreciate the part that you did, begin answering above.
To repeat the part that needs attention:
====
Can you clarify the two final points though: have you ever received any coverage from such interests (or any interests that might be taken to be Big Pharma or antismoking related) for expenses (hotel/travel/food etc) when testifying/participating in a court or political hearing or conference, and have you ever participated in (I'm not certain in Lisa Bero counts "attendance" as participation, but if you have attended perhaps you'd be safest in mentioning that) or presented a talk/study at a conference fully or partially funded by MSA/Drug/AntismokingGroup money?
=====
I believe that if you answer that question you will have satisfied your critics.
Show that you're as honest as Big-Tobacco-funded groups Bill.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub....ub.com/
130.html
Bill, your posting as your androgenous feminine alter ego Ann was pretty funny. I give you credit.
The "woman" is a retard and she's hilarious.
Funny stuff.
Bill, your posting as your androgenous feminine alter ego Ann was pretty funny. I give you credit.- Eric Blair
Eric would you please explain what this is about.
Eric--
tsk-tsk. Read more carefully. Ann has occasionally quoted an aunt/nut but it's quite clear she's quoting and that those are far from her own sentiments. Context is everything; so's history. Read all her posts and then-- perhaps-- quietly apologize.
:
Walt, Ann:
OK. I am sorry.
What the hell do I know? I'm just a jackass with a modem.
Thank you Eric
Monograph - Niacin
Proper name(s), common names(s) Niacin; Nicotinic acid; Niacinamide; Nicotinamide
Use(s) or Purpose(s): Statement(s) to the effect of:
General: A factor in the maintenance of good health (IOM 2006; IOM 199
.
Specific:
Helps the body to metabolize carbohydrates, fats and proteins (IOM 2006; Shils et al. 2006; Groff and Gropper 2000; IOM 199.
Helps normal growth and development (IOM 2006; Shils et al. 2006; Groff and Gropper 2000; IOM 199.
Life stage group Nicotinic acid and/or niacinamide (mg/day) Minimum1( Maximum2) Children 1-3 y 0.6 10 4-8 y 0.6 (15) Adolescents 9-13 y 0.6 (20) 14-18 y 1.0 (30) Adults3 ≥ 19 y 1.0 (500)
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/
p...o_niacin_e.html
Cancer
Studies of cultured cells (in vitro) provide evidence that NAD content influences the cellular response to DNA damage, an important risk factor in cancer development. Cellular NAD is consumed in the synthesis of ADP-ribose polymers, which play a role in DNA repair, and cyclic ADP-ribose may also mediate cell-signaling pathways important in cancer prevention (11). Additionally, cellular depletion of NAD has been found to decrease levels of the tumor suppressor protein, p53, in human breast, skin, and lung cells (10). Neither the cellular NAD content nor the dietary intake of NAD precursors (niacin and tryptophan) necessary for optimizing protective responses following DNA damage has been determined, but both are likely to be higher than that required for the prevention of pellagra. Niacin deficiency was found to decrease bone marrow NAD and poly-ADP-ribose levels and increase the risk of chemically induced leukemia (12). Moreover, one study reported that niacin supplementation decreased the risk of ultraviolet light-induced skin cancers in mice (13). However, little is known regarding cellular NAD levels and the prevention of DNA damage or cancer in humans. One study in two healthy individuals involved elevating NAD levels in blood lymphocytes by supplementation with 100 mg/day nicotinic acid/day for eight weeks. Compared to non-supplemented individuals, the supplemented individuals had reduced DNA strand breaks in lymphocytes exposed to free radicals in a test tube assay (14). More recently, nicotinic acid supplementation of up to 100 mg/day in 21 healthy smokers failed to provide any evidence of a decrease in cigarette smoke-induced genetic damage in blood lymphocytes compared to placebo (15).
Generally, relationships between dietary factors and cancer are established first in epidemiological studies and followed up by basic cancer research at the cellular level. In the case of niacin, research on biochemical and cellular aspects of DNA repair has stimulated an interest in the relationship between niacin intake and cancer risk in human populations (16). Recently, a large case-control study found increased consumption of niacin, along with antioxidant nutrients, to be associated with decreased incidence of oral (mouth), pharyngeal (throat), and esophageal cancers in northern Italy and Switzerland (17, 1. An increase in niacin intake of 6.2 mg was associated with about a 40% decrease in cases of cancers of the mouth and throat, while a 5.2 mg increase in niacin intake was associated with a similar decrease in cases of esophageal cancer.
Insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM)
Insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in children, often called type I diabetes, is known to result from the autoimmune destruction of insulin-secreting beta-cells in the pancreas. Prior to the onset of symptomatic diabetes, specific antibodies, including islet cell antibodies (ICA), can be detected in the blood of high-risk individuals.
An analysis of ten published trials (five placebo-controlled) found evidence of improved beta-cell function after one year of treatment with nicotinamide, but the analysis failed to find any clinical evidence of improved glycemic (blood glucose) control (19). Recently, high doses of nicotinamide were found to decrease insulin sensitivity in high-risk relatives of IDDM patients (20), which might explain the finding of improved beta-cell function without concomitant improvement in glycemic control. Several pilot studies for the prevention of IDDM in ICA-positive relatives of patients with IDDM yielded conflicting results, whereas a large randomized trial in school children that was not placebo-controlled found a significantly lower incidence of IDDM in the nicotinamide-treated group. A large multi-center randomized controlled trial of nicotinamide in ICA-positive siblings of IDDM patients between three and 12 years of age recently failed to find a difference in the incidence of IDDM after three years (19). Another large multicenter trial of nicotinamide in high-risk relatives of IDDM patients is presently in progress (21). Unlike nicotinamide, nicotinic acid has not been found effective in the prevention of IDDM.
Four out of five major cardiovascular outcome trials found nicotinic acid in combination with other therapies to be of statistically significant benefit in men and women (24).
It has been hypothesized that infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus that causes acquired immmunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), increases the risk of niacin deficiency. ......By stimulating the enzyme, indoleamine 2,3 dioxygenase (IDO), IF-g increases the breakdown of tryptophan, a niacin precursor, thus supporting the idea that HIV infection increases the risk of niacin deficiency (30). In a very small, uncontrolled study, treatment of four HIV positive individuals with 1,000 to 1,500 mg/day of nicotinamide for two months resulted in 40% increases in plasma tryptophan levels (31). An observational study of 281 HIV-positive men found that higher levels of niacin intake were associated with decreased progression rate to AIDS and improved survival (32).
Food sources
Good sources of niacin include yeast, meat, poultry, red fishes (e.g., tuna, salmon), cereals (especially fortified cereals), legumes, and seeds. Milk, green leafy vegetables, coffee, and tea also provide some niacin (3).
Chicken (light meat) 3 ounces* (cooked without skin) 7.3 mg
Turkey (light meat) 3 ounces (cooked without skin) 5.8 mg
Beef (lean) 3 ounces (cooked) 3.1 mg
Salmon (chinook) 3 ounces (cooked) 8.5mg
Tuna (light, packed in water) 3 ounces 11.3mg
Bread (whole wheat) 1 slice 1.3mg
Cereal (unfortified) 1 cup 5-7mg
Cereal (fortified) 1 cup 20-27mg
Pasta (enriched) 1 cup (cooked) 2.3mg
Peanuts 1 ounce (dry roasted) 3.8mg
Lentils 1 cup (cooked) 2.1mg
Lima beans 1 cup (cooked) 1.8mg
Coffee (brewed) 1 cup 0.5mg
*A 3-ounce serving of meat is about the size of a deck of cards.
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infoc...itamins/niacin/
Did you know that…..?
Tryptophan, one of the amino acids that makes up protein, can be converted to niacin in the body. Tryptophan is found in all types of meats, and in milk, so these foods can be considered sources of niacin!
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffile.../FY/
FY21200.pdf
looped_caATyahoo.ca
l. duguay
Thank you very much indeed!
Commenting by HaloScan
