I hate to say it doc, but ever hear of the phrase "closing the barn doors after the horse is gone"? Does it ring any bells?
Those of us on this side of the debate(Oh, wait, that's right, the "debate" is over, right?), have seen these types of abuse of position for years now. Of course, they've been very effective at quelling or noise about it, as all they have had to do is get their little brainwashed trolls to chant "Tobacco Shill", "You must work for Big Tobacco", "You're nothing but a stupid drig addict/child abuser/rapist/murderer/just plain old scum/demon spawn/etc, etc".
This type of "expose" needs national coverage, along with the history of how often this has, and is, occuring, not some poor little column on the website. Main Stream Media, needs to sued until they begin to print this stuff. Legislator's and there "represented" citizens, need to be told this, mostly the people being "represented" by those legislators, lets see 'em get re-elected when the masses see how they have sold them down the river for mere monetary gain, should end at least a few political careers.
Investigations into non profit groups advocating for pharmeceuticals needs to be done, followed by massive prosecutions. Pharmeceuticals need to be investigated for fraudulent lobbying, bypassing laws regarding non profit status, and a host of other evil's, and followed by massive prosecutions.
Then we can start talking about "level playing fields".
Doc, you wrote
"Would we really want researchers with strong financial ties to Big Pharma making national decisions regarding the appropriate treatment for various medical problems?"
How unbiased are these researchers? Not only are they recommending "appropriate treatment" is it not also in their interest to possibly invent and or exaggerate the "medical problems" in the first place?
GreatScot
Great job Jerry. I'm shocked that this comes as such a surprise as it has been going on since the beginning of this war against us. We have been saying this over and over and no one listens. Congress where are you and why isn't there some ethical investigations going on here? Never mind, I know where they all are. They are all running for president. We need some leaders who are real people who aren't afraid to tackle these unethical, dishonest practices.
I read a paper several years ago that Fiore and an assistant wrote. They cited where they got their data and because I was able to access it I looked at that afterwards. I noted some statements made by Fiore were not backed up by the data. I wrote both him and his assistant and asked about it. Neither wrote back.
I followed one of Dr. Siegel's links to Fiore's website and decided to look up that paper. I didn't see it, but I ran across this one.
Alcohol Use, Depression and Health Among Wisconsin Smokers
Series 2, Paper Number 3
http://www.ctri.wisc.edu/
Publica...essionfinal.pdf
This is from that paper:
WTS [Wisconsin Tobacco Survey] respondents were asked to report whether they had
ever been told by a health care practitioner that they had
any of a number of chronic or serious health problems.
Predictably, current smokers reported the highest prevalence of chronic bronchitis, one of a group of illnesses referred to as
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
(COPD)...
In the WTS, former smokers were more
likely than both never and current smokers to report diabetes, heart disease, hypertension and non-lung cancers...
While the paper purposely highlighted those tidbits they didn't bother to mention that the survey also reported that current smokers reported less diabetes than never smokers (5% vs. 6%), less heart disease (4% vs. 5%), less hypertension (10% vs. 14%) and less non-lung cancers (3% vs. 5%).
thanks Dr Mike for this post.
I have sent your link to J Stein of WI State Journal, if he cares to review some of what's really going on in TC.
Since Gov Doyle (was AG at the time of the MSA)-and the beginning of Dr Fiore's climb to his cushy controlling powerful position in TC:
and the added benefit to UW Madison $$$$$$$.
I hold both of these men accountable.
Jerry-you being from WI also- THIS IS OUR FIGHT TOGETHER!
How long ago was it that Marcus Aurelias started commenting upon the many different groups and people who were receiving large sums of money disguised as grants on behalf of Tobacco Control ?6,7,8 months ago ? Surprise,surprise no one took the blind bit of notice,even though this blog was supposedly being read by "emminent ?" senators,is there realy such an animal that exists in the US today ? Sorry,i'm behind with the times,it used to be the Tobacco Companies who could spread the wealth to those who listened to it,now it's the Pharmaceutical Industry .Now let's find out how much "funding" STANTON gLANS gets,shall we ?
These pharma companies play both sides of the street. For instance GlaxoSmith Kline makes far more dough selling PDE IV inhibitors, acetylcholine antagonists and glucocorticoid agonists to treat COPD and asthma. It's not in their best interest to sell these NRT drugs (unless they don't work 
)
What would you rather have, a customer who'll suck wind for about ten years before they can't suck any longer or a client who'll use your product for a month or so? They have shareholders to answer.
Cold turkey seems to work best. But I wonder if most of the people who want to quit by that method have already done so, and all that's left is people who need NRT therapy?
I agree that the chair of these scientific committees ought to have "clean" hands. Fiori ought to be part of the panel since obviously he has worked in the NRT field for a very long time. But you do need some checks and balance in the system which an independent chair could bring. There does seem to be some "psychology" in place now that you can't quit unless you do the NRT bit.
By 2001 I'd developed a belief that Michael Fiore had done more to damage effective U.S. cessation policy than anyone whose work I'd studied. I've tried to keep an open mind but he continues to hide the dark side of cessation pharmacology in all he does. For example, we only have two nicotine patch studies examining success rates for second time patch users, Tonessen 1993 and Gourlay 1995. In Tonessen 100% of second-time patch users relapsed to smoking within 6 months and in Gourlay 99% relapsed.
Imagine being either unwilling or financially unable to share this potentially life and death piece of information with the hundreds of thousands of U.S. smokers who have now tried and failed with the nicotine patch on more than one occasion. As Chairman of both the 1996 and 2000 Guidelines he had a golden opportunity to issue powerful warnings regarding dramatically declining NRT rates with repeat use, growing concerns about getting hooked on the cure, and most important of all, exposing the fact that clinical NRT studies experienced major blinding failures with the very first nicotine gum studies, and all replacement devices since have been plagued by blinding failures.
Everything I've read convinces me that NRT is grounded in junk science and has no business being in the evidence base. I primarily hold a lack of government oversight responsible but when pointing to individuals Fiore tops the list.
http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/adco.../96/
acdrgab.pdf
Look at PDF page 14 at the above link. It's purports to be a speech given by Fiore to the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research "Drug Abuse Advisory Committee" on December 12, 1996. In it he states his credentials and then tells the committee, "I have served as Principal Investigator on the Bupropion Combination study and am speaking today as a consultant to Glaxo Wellcome, but the views expressed are my own." Talk about double-talk. Well which is it? Is he speaking to the FDA as Glaxo Wellcome's consultant or as his own person?
Is Fiore's failure to up front, fully detail and disclose the dollar extent and sources of his financial conflicts in both the June 2000 Guideline and at his website (as noted by Dr. Siegel) any different than the word games he played with the FDA on 12/12/96?
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/r...&iaid=143&
gsa=1
Please study closely the above Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWKF) document. It names Fiore as the August 1998 grant contact to update the U.S. Clinical Practice Guideline. This is 19 months after boasting to the FDA that he's a Zyban consultant. Also of intense interest is the following quote from the document:
"On September 14-15, 1999, panel members met in Madison, WI, where they evaluated their findings and prepared a draft of the new Guideline. Seventy experts provided external reviews for incorporation into the final document. The final version was submitted to RWJF and the USPHS for approval."
Who were the 70 "experts" who provided input, where can "we the people" go to see those comments and what business does the RWJF, the political arm of Johnson & Johnson (whose corporate subsidary was approved by the FDA to market the over-the-counter Nicotrol patch on 7/3/96, nicotine nasal spray on 3/25/96 and the nicotine inhaler on 5/6/97).
Who picked the Guideline panel members of which 11 of 17 had pharmaceutical industry financial ties?
Whose idea was it to update the Guideline? More importantly, whose idea was it to make pharmacology use mandatory for all quitters?
Why would it be the RWJF's responsibility to undertake arranging for an official government Guideline to be updated?
Why would the RWJF have "approval" authority over U.S. national cessation policy?
Who inside the U.S. government had conflict of interest oversight responsibity?
Why were no non-pharmacology cessation counselors
The 2000 U.S. Guideline isn't just "recommendations" but were adopted as official government health policy. They almost immediately caused destruction of nearly all hospital based and community cessation programs that were either cold turkey or non-pharmacology. How? Compare the language of the 1996 Guideline to what Fiore went back and changed.
Recommendation 5 of the 1996 Guideline stated:
"5. Three treatment elements, in particular, are effective, and one or more of these elements should be included in smoking cessation treatment: (1) nicotine replacement therapy (nicotine patches or gum), (2) social support (clinician-provided encouragement and assistance), and (3) skills training/problem solving (techniques on achieving and maintaining abstinence)."
Recommendation 7 of the 2000 Guideline reads in part:
"7. Numerous effective pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation now exist. Except in the presence of contraindications, these should be used with all patients who are attempting to quit smoking."
Suddenly U.S. policy declared that nicotine replacement was required and nicotine cessation outlawed. This year about 80% of smokers attempting to quit will trust their instincts and quit cold turkey but everywhere they turn their government is telling them they're doing it wrong? Why?
I beg you to look closely at the picture on PDF page 4 of the following 2004 financial report by Fiore's organization that was cited by Dr. Siegal.
http://www.ctri.wisc.edu/
Publica...n.Rpt.FINAL.pdf
My government hid important truths from me. It had me running from useless cure to useless to cure while citing efficacy and ignoring effectiveness. I'll accept responsibility for getting hooked but by golly my government had an obligation to tell the truth about quitting. Nicotine is not medicine. It is a super toxin whose use is not therapy. In that almost all successful long-term quitters during 2007 will again quit cold turkey it is outright fraud to suggest that quitting cold turkey is nearly impossible. It's time to start sharing cold turkey quitting insights, not adhering to policy that continues to outlaw their sharing.
John R. Polito
Nicotine Cessation Educator
My father, and uncle have both quit smoking. The method they used was cold turkey. Both have smoked since before they could vote.
My father had a 2 pack a day habit, my uncle only had a 1 pack a day habit.
Both now say they both don't miss it. They still once in awhile grab for their pocket, but NRT wouldn't help with that. Oh maybe the new maricle drug that has 22% rate. pfizer today has a video for the TV networks they talk to former smokers, doctors, have stats, and we can't forget the effects on the body. Their summary:
STORY SUMMARY: Canadians now have a new option to help them quit smoking.
Health Canada has approved CHAMPIX (varenicline tartrate) for smoking cessation treatment in adults in conjunction with smoking cessation counselling. In Canada, approximately 19 per cent of the population 15 years and older smoke(1). Globally, it is estimated that as many as 80 per cent would like to quit, but only five per cent will succeed with no external assistance(2),(3). In clinical trials, people receiving a 12-week course of CHAMPIX nearly quadrupled the likelihood of quitting smoking compared with those taking placebo, and had nearly twice the likelihood of quitting than those patients taking bupropion SR (Zyban*).
http://www.newswire.ca/en/releas....cgi?
okey=54230
I realize they have put footnotes into their summary, but is there any way that we can stop the dogma, and make them tell the truth. Especially since they are using Health canada pages for their reference.
"Globally ,IT IS ESTIMATED that as many as 80% would like to quit" A NOTHER MAGIC FIGURE TAKEN OUT OF THIN AIR ?Geo refers to those left,who may need NRT,PERHAPS SOME OF US DON'T WANT TO QUIT. GET THE MESSAGE ?
I plan on quitting smoking...........................................
...........when I die, and not a moment before.
That usually shuts everyone up.
According to a longevity quiz I took yesterday, admitting that I don't exercise and that I smoke at least 1 pack of cigarettes per day, I shouldn't die before I'm 82 (last years quiz on another site had me dead at 72 - same info except that I now eat less red meat). Hmmmmmmm could there be something there? hehehehehe
Personally......I'm not so sure I want to live to be 82 either.
Patches can be useful if you want to quit.
Try my method:
Carefully place one patch over each eye and then you wont be able to find your cigarettes....
Thank you Diane, I apreciate the support.
Capri - "Jerry-you being from WI also- THIS IS OUR FIGHT TOGETHER!".
Sorry Capri, you got me mixed up with Lames Austin, I believe, Im from North Dakota, but I still believe we are in this fight together
Geo - "Cold turkey seems to work best. But I wonder if most of the people who want to quit by that method have already done so, and all that's left is people who need NRT therapy? ".
What I wonder, is if people are assuming that someone wants to quit, when in fact they don't.
I believe the level of wool pulled over the smokers eye's has been reached. Those of us left are willing to assume the risks associated with our pleasure, and to fight for the truth of what those risks are.
Has anyone ever tried the patch? I wear one when I have to fly and I don't like the feeling that it gives me. Never in my entire life have I ever used any illegal drug, because it was illegal, and I have seen the effects it has on some people, but that patch makes me feel like I am flying higher than the plane I am riding on. Not sure just what is in it but know that it is more than nicotine and I know that I have never smoked one cigarette of any kind that has given me that kind of a rush.
Back to the people who are paid pushers for the pharmacutical agenda though. I was wondering Doctor Siegel if you were ever paid for any of your research or the time you have spent testifying for a smoking ban. If so, where did that money come from? Was it filtered down through several channels and you were actually paid by the pharmacuticals too? I really really would like an answer to that as I don't think you are a person who has so much hatred that you would do it for free.
Ooops, sorry, Meant to type James, not Lames Austin, I do apologize James, just a slip of the typing fingers.
Jerry
Champix -
4x better than placebo
2x better than Zyban
How many times better than...
'cold turkey'?
Colin's patch method ™?
How did the researchers assess the subjects level of 'wanting to give upness'?
west
-----
How did the researchers assess the subjects level of 'wanting to give upness'?-----west
I imagine it was the tried and tested method of using the "we made it upness" technique.
"I don't know if this type of thing goes on with other clinical and public health recommendations, but if it does, the problem needs to be addressed."
Yes it does, this is the Government advisory body for tobacco control to the UK Government called SCOTH with their declared interests:
http://www.advisorybodies.doh.go...oth/
members.htm
This organisation was instrumental in presenting 'evidence' for the smoking ban in England due to come into force in July.
Diane,
I tried the patch a few years ago, basically to shut up my sister. Personally, it did nothing for me. It did NOT kill any craving for a smoke (which just shows its more than nicotine). I even used the gum with it too. Nope, I love smoking, I don't care if I'm addicted to it, I enjoy it. And if that fact bothers anyone (Bill for example), well that's just too damned bad.......KMA and then stay the hell away from me.
Diane -
I have received research grants from the NIH, American Cancer Society, Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
John -
Thanks so much for adding your, as always, very insightful and thoughtful comments. The points you make are fascinating and worthy of careful consideration.
Colin -
I think you've developed the only method by which the nicotine patch will have any substantial success in stopping people from smoking.
Reposted because we need some real answers for a change;
Bill wrote;
"NRT may not be twice as effective as other methods of quitting smoking, but clean nicotine products are far far far less hazardous nicotine alternatives (for addicted smokers) than cigarettes, while smokeless tobacco products are far far less hazardous nicotine alternatives (for addicted smokers) than cigarettes."
Bill; two words ""Prove it"" Your own link provides ample evidence the products do not double anyone's chances of success. Substantial proof
"Doubles your chances" Is a lie because it is clearly not the truth.
Beyond clinical trials now known to be questionable also from your own link; in addition to the current and ongoing human experimentation does not demonstrate how NRT has had anywhere near the 60 year scrutiny smoking has. The proof hasn't happened yet although for the short time NRT has been in use it is known to cause birth defects. Genetic damage which did not take thirty years to develop, An effect seen in never smokers as well, seen in only a matter of months. And you say much safer to use? How so?
How will the use affect my grandchildren if I use it?
You can't say for sure so why are you making things up with nothing to substantiate your sales pitch?
Notice I did not say you were lying although you could not possibly say in either direction NRT is safe to use or by extension safer than smoking with no point of reference short term long term or at all.
I can not take the word of an obviously driven opinion, so I am sorry I will not take your word for the safety of your sponsor's products or would I advise others to trust them either.
Not denial of a hopeless addict in leave of his senses, as you prefer to moralize your actions, just my taking advantage of a right, while it still exists.
My right to decide for my self, regardless of your opinion Autonomy guarantees me that right at least. As for the sources available to provide me with Health relevant information? I loose confidence by the day, any of them can rise above personal bias and provide me with real science, not produced by an ad agency in taking advantage of the situation for financial; gain.
BTW Bill in case selective reading has allowed you to bypass the dangers in what you are supporting, here is a link for you to read.
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/t...mide/
first.html
If you make it to Toronto I can show you the gravesite of a delightful little guy I used to know, who did not live to see his 4th birthday.
The reality of what greed can produce. A recent study in Calgary advised women NRT was also absolutely safe to use while pregnant. If you are so concerned with the health of children why are you not spamming your usual targets, in search of broad scale distribution of the reality these products are not safe while pregnant.
I would say because you are only interested in protecting children if it sells your pitch, otherwise I would not have to be asking, you would have already acted.
If no smoke free nicotine replacement strategies have proven to be effective isn't it time to start questioning the paradigm that smokers are addicted to nicotine?
You know you want to stop smoking. You know because you have been told.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/progr...ory/
6287957.stm
From GS's BBC link....
"We had three main reasons," said Mr Phelan, "but the most important was that as a health establishment we ought to be setting a good example."
Setting a good example? Offering NRT? Not offering facilities to patients to ease their stay?
The Unions were in full agreement. So much for unions being about all workers, only non-smoking workers now I suppose. Perhaps people who smoke at that hospital (indeed all hospitals) should form an alternative union.
Is this a cost saving measure to reduce the number of people who use the facilities?
west
-----
GS - we've already been through that same scenario at my hospital.
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/r...&iaid=143&
gsa=1
http://www.rwjf.org/newsroom/new...?id=10365&
gsa=1
the above is ironic that RWJF funded a paper discussing racketeering......which explains the relationship between Big Pharma and the push for smoking cessation.
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/r...&iaid=143&
gsa=1
http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/r...&iaid=143&
gsa=1
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....-into-
this.html
Full page of U of W grants:
http://www.rwjf.org/search/gsa/
s...ault_collection
Where's Bill Godshall and Carl? They are strangely silent on this string.
Also, time to comment on this story Doc. This is the one where they want to carry out a modern version of the lobotomy on smokers.
See:
"Brain's 'addiction centre' found
The discovery of individuals with brain damage who give up smoking with ease could point the way to a surgical 'cure' for smoking, US scientists say."
at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6298557.stm
Yes, faithfully reported by the BBC - that rancid font of anti smoker propaganda in the UK.
We will make peoples lives so completely intollerable they will eventually quit because they want to.
http://www.eureporter.co.uk/show...php?
newsid=2501
And if they still resist we will resort to brain surgery (see above)..... except in Britain because we don't operate on smokers until they quit?????
GreatScot
OMG - that's the scariest thing I've ever read!
The race card is also rising as a motivation for TC to rally behind the Nazi form of Health care interventions.
These are really scary cancer risk numbers much more decisive and credible than anything coming out of Tobacco control.
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/art...i?
artid=1257593
Census tracts in the highest quartile defined by the fraction of African-American residents were three times more likely to be high risk (> 90th percentile of risk) than those in the lowest quartile (95% confidence interval, 2.0–5.0). Conversely, risk decreased as the proportion of whites increased (p . Census tracts in the lowest quartile of socioeconomic position, as measured by various indicators, were 10–100 times more likely to be high risk than those in the highest quartile. We observed substantial risk disparities for on-road, area, and nonroad sources by socioeconomic measure and on-road and area sources by race. There was considerably less evidence of risk disparities from major source emissions. We found a statistically significant interaction between race and income, suggesting a stronger relationship between race and risk at lower incomes.
Consider the CPS11 study for perspective.
. Lung cancer death rates, adjusted for other factors, were 20 percent higher among women whose husbands ever smoked during the current marriage than among those married to never-smokers (relative risk [RR] = 1.2, 95 percent confidence interval [CI] = 0.8-1.6). For never-smoking men whose wives smoked, the RR was 1.1 (CI = 0.6-1.
. Risk among women was similar or higher when the husband continued to smoke (RR = 1.2, CI = 0.8-1., or smoked 40 or more cigarettes per day (RR = 1.9, CI = 1.0-3.6), but did not increase with years of marriage to a smoker.
Most CIs included the null. Although generally not statistically significant, these results agree with the EPA summary estimate that spousal smoking increases lung cancer risk by about 20 percent in never-smoking women. Even large prospective studies have limited statistical power to measure precisely the risk from ETS.
I used to work for Monsanto in the Pharma group, which was bought out by Pharmacia, which was then aquired by Pfizer.
I got to know a lot of very good, capable hard working pharmaceutical and life science researchers there.
So, now in the news, Pfizer lays off another 10,000; this after laying off about 10,000 2 years ago. Some of these were researchers working on very promising new experimental drugs, which could have potentially saved the lives of 10's of thousands, if successful. The ones I knew the best, were working on what is called "stealth' delivery technology.
To oversimplify, "stealth" technology, directs the drug dose to the part of the body in need of drug therapy. This allows more of the drug to be directed to where it does the most good, and causes the least amount of harmful side reactions.
When the drug is very expensive, this also helps keep the cost down.
Those people are gone now, as is the possiblity the drugs will ever benefit mankind.
So, there's Pfizer money to promote smoking bans, and NRT products, but not enough money to develop promising new products.
And those people I knew, some of whom had given 20 of the best years of their lives to these companies are jobless.
The old "chemical" busines of Monsanto was spun off to keep liability away from pfizer, that new company is called "soluta' Soulta is bankrupt, and the retirees who are now part of Soluta may lose health coverage.
So if Pfizer cares enough about public health to spend money on smoking bans and gives away free NRT products, why don't they care enough about their own employees?
There's something terribly wrong with this whole scenario. Drug companies need to get back into the business of making life-saving products, and get out of the business of being social activists.
Dave K
OH! I almost forgot...
Let's look at Pfizers and J&J's stock performance since year 2000. Their social activism policies have not served their shareholders interests either. Both are flat since 2000.
Although there DOES appear to be a way to sell nicotine and reward shareholders at the same time.
MAKE CIGARETTES!
tobacco stocks, unlike Pfizer and J&J have rewarded shareholders since 2000. Most are up about 2-3 fold.
The excuse that we had a recession in 2002 doesn't explain Pfizer's and J&J's stock performance either. Companies less engaged in social activism, and more engaged in making products the people want, have fared much better. The S&P and DOW Industrials are back up to record trading prices.
So Pfizer's and J&J social activism policies reward noone. They are useless wastes of resources which could be put to positive use.
Worse, as other have pointed out, they are doing nothing to prevent smoking either. Look at our smoking rates since 1990. http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/T...0000&
SUBMIT1=Go
Dave K
Smoking Tobacco elevates mood,depression medication does nothing more than treat the symptoms,there is so much that science does not understand about conditions such as this,BUT it seems happy to go along and find out more about damaging an area of the brain in order to try to stop a habit THEY decide is undesirable.Are we in some sort of horror movie,where we ,the smoker,are treated like mental patients who are to undergo radical treatment and to hell with any long term damage.WTF is going on in Tobacco Control ? This is OBSCENE .Dr Seigel is this not worthy of one of your comments ????
Is our obesity epidemic due to our quitting smoking epidemic?
dave K
No comment Doc on the new FRANKENSTEIN TOBACCO CONTROL MOVEMENT ?
Kevin wrote:
"Bill; two words ""Prove it"" Your own link provides ample evidence the products do not double anyone's chances of success."
I never stated that using NRT doubles a smokers chances of quitting. Rather, I was referring to the claims made by drug company researchers, drug company advertisements and by government and private health agencies.
Regarding my statement that NRT and smokeless tobacco products are far less hazardous than cigarettes, I suggest reading the recent report I coauthored at:
http://www.harmreductionjournal..../content/3/1/
37
which evaluates the different health risks of different nicotine delivery devices, and contains more than one hundred weblinks for referenced studies and health data.
There have been thousands of studies documenting cigarettes' numerous health hazards, and dozens of studies on the health risks of smokeless tobacco and NRT products.
BTW Hundreds of years of research has also concluded that the earth orbits the sun, but there are some folks out there who refuse to believe that too.
Oh stop Bill. Quantity (nor consensus by agenda-driven advocacy scientists) does not make right. Like the anti-tobacco crowd, all that's missing is TIME when it comes to how many studies exist. Give the anti-smokeless tobacco advocates enough time to manufacture the "thousands" of studies. So right now all that you have on your side to support your weak defense is TIME.
The strong substantive defense that you fail to ever offer is QUALITY. You reduce winning and losing to how many more papers are in one hand than the other. 1000 papers that contain the wrong result to a mathematical equation does NOT win over the one paper with the right result.
Lastly, I'm sick of you antis hijacking Galileo. He, like us, was the one condemned for going against the church dogma and challenging what everyone else believed. WE are the Galileo and you are the church trying to silence and punish us. In other words, WE are the ones screaming that the earth DOES revolve around the sun and you are the church head screaming "Blasphemy!"
BTW, Galileo was proven right NOT through crazy statistical "research" but by verifiable science. Shameful that any one would try to compare weak epidemiological findings based on data that can't account for all variables nor prove cause and effect to the verification of orbiting planets.
If it weren't so sad I'd laugh.
Well, Blad, perhaps the easiest thing would be to remove the brains of everybody when they are born. That'll keep people from smoking.
Bill: Regarding my statement that NRT and smokeless tobacco products are far less hazardous than cigarettes, I suggest reading the recent report I coauthored..."
Yes Bill, what about that report you coauthored with Brad Rodu? Or rather, what about the pride you derive from the mere fact that it exists (never mind what it says about smokeless tobacco)? You're so proud that you produced such a thing and use "authorship" as one more way to claim superiority on the subject. So what I aim to get at is your character (some more). When one's character can't stand up to scrutiny then nothing they do or say can be trusted. Let's start by going back to an 10/13/06 post I made:
And who funds Dr. Rodu that you've partnered up with, Bill? Oh yeah, "Our research is partially supported by an unrestricted grant from the U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company to the University of Alberta..." (Dr. Rodu's site Tobaccoharmreduction.org). Except I still maintain that Dr. Rodu is just as honest as Dr. Enstrom. But using your logic Bill (and you must to be credible!) he can't be.
Bill, a hypocrite all the way around!
JustTheFacts | 10.13.06 - 5:10 am | #
And then there's this suspicion of bad behavior (read accusation) directed at Dr. Rodu by Bill on ACSH's site in Feb. '02:
Unfortunately, during the past decade (while spit tobacco companies touted Rodu's research, which they funded),...
...I have no confidence in government-approved and mandated labels on tobacco packages that have been researched, developed, and then proposed by the tobacco companies themselves.
-Bill Godshall
To which Rodu responded:
On February 22 this forum received comments from George Sedlacek and Bill Godshall, both of whom stated that the harm-reduction research conducted by my research group at the University of Alabama at Birmingham was funded by a tobacco company. This is incorrect.
Brad Rodu
The point is not whether or not in this instance it turned out that Bill's suspicion was right or wrong. The point is that he was ready to accuse Rodu of bad behavior if it were true that his work was funded by the tobacco industry (and actually which he assumed to be the case before Rodu denied it).
But all that's water under the bridge, isn't it Bill? Four years ago you were ready to jump on Rodu for doing the work of the tobacco industry. But here you are now all proud and gloating over the work you coauthored with Dr. Rodu that was financed by a tobacco company.
And no, it's not Dr. Rodu's character I find fault with here. The man is consistent and that's what counts, not who funded him. YOU, on the other hand, have no consistency, ergo bad character, ergo untrustworthy in general. Put this in your smokeless pipe and suck on it.
That brings everything perfectly in focus Bill;
According to your opinion; the following is the result of denial. Why didn’t you respond in the active thread? Something to hide?
And it is perfectly acceptable to allow the drug companies selling your beloved competing addictive nicotine products to rewrite science at will
With your complete blessing?
http://www.greenjournal.org/cgi/
...ourcetype=HWCIT
"Our results showed no increased overall prevalence of congenital malformations among smokers. We found a slightly increased relative prevalence ratio for major malformations, but with no dose–response pattern.
The prevalence of certain specific malformations, such as cleft lip and palate malformations of the respiratory and circulatory systems, is probably increased by smoking habits, although this may be counterbalanced by a lower prevalence in other malformation types (urinary system, and eye, ear, face, and neck).11,12,21,22 A low prevalence of malformations does not necessarily indicate a preventive effect of smoking, but it may reflect an increased abortion rate in affected offspring among the smokers.
The increased prevalence of congenital malformation in smokers for cleft lip and others is in accordance with previous studies in both humans11,12,21–23 and animals,24,25 and in vitro studies have shown that nicotine inhibits palate fusion. Other animal experiments24,25 indicate that tobacco smoke leads to a reduction in the numbers of skeletal ossifications.
Our findings indicate that nicotine may be teratogenic when used in nicotine substitutes,
although they are based upon small numbers. If nicotine is teratogenic, why is this not seen for smokers? The reasons could be that inhaled heated nicotine in tobacco smoke is absorbed by a different route (ingested or transdermal). Nicotine used to substitute tobacco smoking may furthermore reach higher peak doses than we find for smokers, and nicotine in substitutes is not heated as in tobacco. Furthermore, chewing nicotine gum may also increase exposure to mercury, for example, from amalgam dental fillings.30
A slight change in the RPR was observed after eliminating minor congenital malformations. The overall RPR dropped from 2.63 to 2.05, indicating that nicotine may be more strongly associated with minor congenital malformations that are difficult to diagnose.”
The numbers are certainly strange significantly increased above lifetime exposure to ETS with a .3 increased risk compared to the following.
Are you now going to attack the messenger? Sounds strangely like the same denial you claim is everyone else’s problem. Or perhaps you refuse to believe that too...
"Only a very small number ( of smoking mothers stated they smoked other types of tobacco than cigarettes, and they were excluded from the analyses. The RPR was close to 1 in both smoking strata, specifically, 1.09 for 10 cigarettes per day or fewer and 1.02 for more than 10 cigarettes per day, with no indication of a dose–response association (Table 5). We had hospital reports of 19 malformations and an RPR of 1.61 (95% CI 1.01–2.5 for nonsmokers who used nicotine substitutes during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy (Table 5). Among these, 14 were musculoskeletal congenital malformations (7 were dislocation of the hip). The RPR for congenital malformations of the musculoskeletal type (excluding dislocation of the hip) in nicotine substitute users was 2.63, (95% CI 1.53–4.52), compared with nonsmokers who did not use nicotine substitutes."
I brought up the brain center study yesterday but didn't have a print link. Today it's page one of the NY Times, which states that this "insula" is also the "platform on which we first anticipate pain and pleasure, not just smoking but eating chocolate and drinking wine, all of it."
And aside from killing pleasure, "damage to the insula is associated with a slight impairment of social function."
So swell. Where are we heading? "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" or "Clockwork Orange."?
Unrelated note:
Best observation I've read in a long time by anyone, anywhere:
If no smoke free nicotine replacement strategies have proven to be effective isn't it time to start questioning the paradigm that smokers are addicted to nicotine?
Margaret-
:
Nice one Bill,switch thread to avoid trying to argue about science daring to suggest that a "bill godshall statement" is erroneous when it refers to traffic pollution having a deliterious effect on ones health.I thought you had an answer for everything.
"BTW, Galileo was proven right NOT through crazy statistical "research" but by verifiable science...."
Galileo would like to provide some science for you Billy Bob, here it is:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....lth-
hazard.html
Walt wrote:
"And aside from killing pleasure, "damage to the insula is associated with a slight impairment of social function."
So swell. Where are we heading? "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" or "Clockwork Orange?"
Seems like a mix between Oceania's "elimination of the orgasm" and lobotomies.
I think with the way medical ethics and politics seem to be heading lately that we are going to be reliving a period of quackery and violation of individual rights on par with sterilization of the retarded and locking up homosexuals in insane asylums.
I understand that you Micheal Siegel is a anti-smoking advocated. On one hand you say certain groups are overstepping their bounds of scientific morality.
But the American Cancer Society and American Lung Ass. tell us that the hundreds of waitresses in bars are 3 times more likely to develope lung cancer than the normal population. This fact is attributed to you Mr. Seigel.
Could you please give the details of this conclusion?
Neil-
The California Occupational Mortality study did find that waitresses are 3 times more likely to die from lung cancer than the rest of the working women population. However, most of that increased risk is due to active smoking on the part of the waitresses themselves. When you control for that active smoking, the excess lung cancer risk drops to about 1.5. Thus, the waitresses are 1.5 times more likely to die from lung cancer, after controlling for active smoking.
Californian study ? Was this an actual study or one of those epidemiological ones designed to manipulate the findings? I say this since looking into all of these statistical studies and examining the relative risk factor the majority are less than 50 % of the value where the correlation starts to SAY that there MAY be a relationship not CAUSE.If numerous attempts to prove what Public Health are so desperate to show,how come they can't do it ? Why not write an article on this study and lets see the guts of it since you are happy to utilise its findings.This is the scam Dr Siegel not FDA regulation .
Thee is nothing good about maintaining obesity and poor habits, and everything to be gained from changing your ways an adopting a good diet. If you eat healthily, weight loss will follow. It simple fact. WBR LeoP
5 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
