Nice satire. Unfortunely, the folks at CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA are oblivious about their own hypocrisies, and don't understand that their actions have made (and will continue making) it more difficult for public health advocates and smokers to reduce cigarette diseases, disabilities and death.
Hopefully, the folks at DHHS and FDA will figure it out now that they're responsible for implementing Marlboro cigarette protection legislation.
Nicely done. Puts things into perspective and shows the bigotry in the public health system.
Here's my imagined headline:
FDA Admits Smoking Death Toll Much Lower Than Originally Thought.
Today, the FDA announced that, in conjunction with their new regulatory power over cigarettes, they had requested and received from the CDC the precise statistics on deaths directly due to smoking. "We were suprised at the information", said Karen Immensely, FDA spokeswoman. "We all thought the toll was 400,000 per year. After thoroughly reveiwing the data, we realized that number was orders of magnitude higher than the actual number of deaths. Once we considered confounders...other possible causes of death...the actual toll is closer to 160,000, with a median age of 72."
Anonymous sources at the FDA have stated privately they believe they should be given regulatory power over alcohol since, according to CDC statistics, that drug kills nearly 100,000, but at half the median age (39) of smoking. "We've been duped", said an anonymous source. "We should have been strongarming Anhauser Busch, not Phillip Morris."
Actually, Freedom, I believe the "actual toll" will drop precipitously w/i a year of the bill's signing. Studies will suddenly show a rapid decline in hospital admissions for heart attacks and cancer that began only weeks after passage of the bill. This will be known as the "FDA Miracle."
:
I couldn't agree more, Freedom First and Walt. When the Govt. takes it over they have their own best interests and reputation to protect. That's in line with my belief that this shift in control from Anti-Smoker to FDA will work to our benefit.
Whoops, guess I missed the difference between Walt's point and Freedom First's. My stated agreement is more in line with FF's line of reasoning.
Though Walt's OTHER point about what OTHER results this will have wrought has merit. Only that it will take longer than a year because it will still take them time to implement change in advertising... and could be held up even longer due to court action.
What more do you need to realise that it was never about health,simply money.
Si
But not originally,from an article I just posted on the previous thread.
50 years ago this week - on December 4 - a dense fog settled over London. It turned out to be one of the world's worst examples of air pollution. But it is only now that we are learning the full details of it.
The current edition of the "New Scientist" magazine has a brilliant article by Fred Pearce on the 1952 killer fog."
"When the Great London Smog eventually lifted, it left behind mortuaries full to overflowing, undertakers who did not have enough coffins, and florists who had run out of flowers. The event was so significant that an international conference is being held this month to examine the fog. The conference is being aided by access to government files - and some real surprises have been located.
The fog was caused by the Government's decision to sell poor quality coal at home, so as to be able to sell the good quality coal overseas. The answer to the problem was to ban the burning of coal in towns - and this occurred a few years later. London is now a much healthier place to visit.
What is now attracting interest are the political implications of the Great London Smog. First, there were no immediate answers to the problem. But it was necessary to reassure - or fool - the general public into believing that the Government was doing something. In a statement that could easily have come from the "Yes Minister" television series, a British Government minister, Harold Macmillan, said: "We cannot do very much, but we can seem to be very busy - and that is half the battle nowadays".
Third, the real shocker has been the Government's policy to underestimate the number of people killed. The official line was that the fog was simply killing off the frail elderly, who were going to die anyway; the Great London Smog simply speeded up the process.
We now know that some medical experts within the Ministry of Health were troubled about this claim. Too many people were dying to whom this explanation would not normally apply: middle aged people and babies.
The Ministry of Health then claimed that there was a 'flu epidemic which had also contributed to the high number of deaths. This was another lie because there is no evidence that there was a 'flu epidemic."
When the imaginary flu epidemic didn't work, they picked up Doll's disputed study.
Walt, the smoking-related deaths by natural causes may miraculously drop, but other causes may spike. Check out (if I can post it correctly):
http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei...-smoking-kills/
It is described as a supposedly-sarcastic on-line game where you can "shoot people who are smoking and look really cool".
The following comment is posted below the game: "Buried beneath the violence of "Smoking Kills", I suppose there's a positive message. It's probably the fact that lighting up a cigarette is so bad for you that a sniper will probably find a reason to put you between his crosshairs."
You just gotta love all these people concerned about our health....
Commenting by HaloScan
