The reason why peer reviewers are not picking up on these things is simply because the so called findings are exactly what they want to see. No science or objectivity needed. It is like when I was in school and was given a book report to do for English class. If I didn't want to read the book, I still did the report. My ending had a completely different theory to what the author actually wrote. I am pretty sure that those in tobacco control had the same study habits that I had, except they carried the same study habits into adulthood. I did it so I could go out to play, they do it for a paycheck and control.
Tomorrow is July 4th. May I wish you all a Happy Independence Day and suggest you light up your favorite smoke in honor or Independence and freedom wherever you are!
Oh yes, a friend of my mothers, a nonsmoker, is in the hospital suffering from a heart attack. New York State has had a smoking ban for over 5 years now. Should I accuse her of being a closet smoker? She is going to be fine though and will be home maybe by the end of today.
Diane,
Thank you, and Happy 4th to you also. And yes, we all will definitely be lighting up and celebrating what idependence we still have while plotting how to take back the liberty lost.
Doctor Siegel, - "It is more about how investigator bias is creeping into tobacco control research these days. And I'm not sure what can be done to stop it."
Would you stop it already.
"creeping in",..Are you serious?
"What can be done to stop it"
Tell you what I'll do Doc, especially since no one will listen to an adled brained smoker like myself,....I'll contribute $50.00 (Fifty US Dollars) toward the purchase price of a full page ad in the major city newspaper of YOUR choice, IF, ...IF,...you will call all of these clowns out for a duel of science. The only catch is that we, (your nicotine dimented regular posters) get to choose the weapon, AND
maintain editorial control.
(We wouldn't want you painting smokers in a bad light, just the "quasi-science" used to to it.
The weapon of choice. ....I choose science, and I don't mean the crap that your comrades pass off as science, but REAL, VERIFIABLE, DEMONSTRABLE, REAPEATABLE FACT.
That's what YOU can do about it, and on OUR collective dime (my apologies to all if I'm out of line in volunteering your support)
But, since you continue to tell us about how you're such an outcast in the "Tobacco Control Movement" at every single opportunity you get to do so, (poor, poor you)........what the hell are you waiting for?
Put your so called integrity where your mouth is, and shout.
And, now we see why the British Medical Journal, Circulation, and Tobacco Control rejected our study, which found no change in AMI's post ban at the stae level. http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/
n...news_detail.asp
an over simplified version can be found here http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/
h...admissions.html
Doc is actually familiar with the BS McFadden and I endured while attempting to get our findings published. In sum, the editors told us that "our study added nothing to what is known about tobacco and health"
Of course, some of that is the attitude that null studies have no value, but on a subject like shs, this elads to false conclusions of literature reviews, and meta-analysis.
So, now we have more evidence about how selective shs science works, not only cutting funding, of those who find null shs effects, as in the case of Enstrom and Kabat in their shs study of 35,000 Californians, http://www.scientificintegrityin...yinstitute.org/
but added to that, publication bias, and then doing a meta-ananlysis of the selective research, and selective publication of selective research, to count as yet another study.
No discussion of this subject would be complete without the mention of Givens who mathamaically proved, due to the distribution of shs study outcomes about the mean, that many null shs studies remain unpublished.
http://projecteuclid.org/Dienst/...d.ss/
1030037958
dave K
The fact that the Helena study, a study so discredited that the editors of the BMJ itself (which published the original) saw no need for any further criticism of its conclusions (In their words, it had already been "roundly criticised," and further work showing the falsity of its conclusions were no longer "of general interest" to the medical community.) is one of the "best" studies in this meta-analysis pretty much says it all.
For more on the Helena study, its discrediting, and the lack of response or responsibility by its three authors (Glantz, Shepard, and Sargent), see the following:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/
e...055.715683.55v1
and
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/
n...news_detail.asp
As Dr. Siegel correctly notes, most of the other "studies" don't even come up to the outrageously low standards set by Helena.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Take a look at this proposal from Simon Chapman in Australia:
Licensing smokers a healthy option
snip
~~Introducing a smoker-licensing scheme could be readily managed by allowing all current adult smokers over the age of 18 to acquire a permit. To be eligible, smokers would need to have their doctor affirm that they are smokers and then apply for a photo ID swipecard.
Any new smokers wanting a licence after the scheme's starting date would be required to take a test, proving they fully understood the many health risks of smoking. ~~
http://www.news.com.au/story/
0,2...5007146,00.html
So, to sum up the Doc's blog entry: to start with we had eight piles of crap. Individually they were crap, so we scooped 'em all up, and, err, we ended up with one big pile of crap.
BUT, we gave it a fancy title, we called it a meta-analysis, in the hope that we could fool the masses.
I believe you Americans have an expression: "Putting lipstick on a pig....".
I just wondered, was Glantz the make-up artist for the film "Babe"?
I'll be sure to read the credits next time it comes on the telly.
Cotti will publish a huge heart attack study that shows Glantz is wrong. According to Cotti, the studies Glantz uses are too small to be worth much.
"the studies Glantz uses are too small to be worth much."
And that's by far not their only flaw ...
LB came close in asking the doctor what he thinks he's reporting on here, but I haven't seen a post that asks him the easiest question yet.
Why Doc, are you talking about this "creeping into" nonsense.
I thought we established just a few short threads ago, that we "smoker's" told you so, and have BEEN telling you so for years now.
You act and write as if this is the FIRST time this has been done by TC, when you know DAMN well better than that, harkens us back to when you seemed willing to debate the "Science", and still have NEVER DONE SO.
You and your precious (said the golem) movement are liars plain and simple.
Until YOU do SOMETHING (Actually do something, not just post your incredible wonderment at the "changing" face of TC) about the LIES you have helped spread, you are no better than they are Herr DOKTOR!
Gilster
"Smoker licensing could first be trialled in an interested remote or small community"
So Mr Chapman now wants us to be licensed like dogs does he?
Is this a practical joke?
From today's article, "The study, funded by the National Cancer Institute, concludes that smoking bans result in an immediate reduction in heart attacks, estimating the drop to be 19%, with a 95% confidence interval of 14% to 24%"
Unless this is typographical error, heart attacks have been measured to decline by 19%, but with a margin of error in the measurement that varies from 14% to 24%. That's not 14%-24% of the 19%. That's 14%-24% of the aggregate samples. 19% falls within the range of the margins of error and no conclusions can be drawn.
The Editors of Preventive Medicine should be spanked and Glantz should be ridiculed. The NCI should demand their money back.
Analyze that!
E=MC^2
In training to become a highly paid Big Tobacco shill.
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
"Unfortunately, a meta-analysis is only as good as the studies that go into it." M B Siegel.
Unfortunately, a meta-analysis may be a lot worse than the studies that go into it due to contamination created by analyst bias.
How is such a reduction in heart attacks possible? In St. Louis, for instance, one never enounters secondhand smoke anymore except in a restaurant or bar. How could such a small amount of smoke exposure yeild such a large effect? Aren't people starting to catch on when they always see Glantz, Repace or Samet on these studies?
Excellent post LB.I keep finding difficulty in Dr Siegel saying he reads all comments and follows each link,BUT always seem to omit answering the bloody questions asked of him .
LightningBoy wrote:
"I'll contribute $50.00 (Fifty US Dollars)..."
I'll give the $50 I was going to give to John Nuttall for his ankle surgery, and throw in another $50. So put me down for $100.
Dr. you wrote: "Professor Glantz certainly understands the importance of a comparison group because in his own study (the Helena study), he used a comparison group of non-Helena residents to make sure that the observed changes in heart attacks that occurred in Helena did not also occur outside Helena."
Please clarify, are you now saying that the Helena study was accurate and truthful?
Colin stated: "So, to sum up the Doc's blog entry: to start with we had eight piles of crap. Individually they were crap, so we scooped 'em all up, and, err, we ended up with one big pile of crap. BUT, we gave it a fancy title, we called it a meta-analysis, in the hope that we could fool the masses."
Colin - Thanks for this humorous but painfully accurate description. It really isn't exaggerated at all. No hyperbole necessary here. I couldn't have said it better myself.
JM asked: "are you now saying that the Helena study was accurate?"
By no means - JM. Absolutely not. I am just pointing out that Professor Glantz knows enough about this kind of research to know that you absolutely have to include a control group. However, the Helena study is flawed and invalid for a number of other reasons, not the least of which is that the sample size is extremely small and there is no way to rule out the possibility that the change in heart attacks was merely a reflection of underlying random variation in the data, along with a secular trend of declining heart attack admissions.
How does Glantz account for the fact that two other studies using American Cancer Society data came to the same conclusion as Enstrom and Kabat? These two studies reassure me that we did the right thing in using the UCLA Study heavily in our 2005 fight against a St. Louis County smoking ban.
http://keepstlouisfree.blogspot....es-back-
up.html
"There is simply no way that the studies without any comparison group should have been included in this meta-analysis. I don't believe that an objective scientific approach would allow one to use such studies. How can one possibly know that the observed changes in heart attacks were simply a reflection of changes that were taking place everywhere, or at least in similar, neighboring areas?"
And did it even occur to you for A PASSING GLIMMER OF AN INSTANT; THE STUDIES WERE PRODUCED TO CREATE THE META ANALYSIS???
Today I arrive at home to find an invitation, from the association of industrial engineers, to attend a seminar to discuss solutions to the Global Warming crisis,
Had I taken the time to control my anger, I would have written a more detailed response. I did however inquire how many of these so called professionals had taken the time to evaluate if a crisis actually existed.
I informed them I would like to be removed from their mailing list and I would not be taking part, unless one of the so called experts, preferably someone who had passed sixth grade science class could explain to me how when ice melts the sea rises considering 7/8ths of it is immersed in water already.
Further how the great lakes would evaporate and all that water of which every drop has been with us since the formation of this planet could simply vanish.
Before falling to hysteria and finding a solution perhaps some of us could consider the source of the fear mongering and utilize good old fashion science, to solve the global warming crisis by comparing notes with the chicken littles and their news releases. In examination of who is funding them, we can all solve the "crisis" by giving testimony in aid of their convictions.
If I can figure out what should be done in defense of my own vocation. Michael should also know exactly what needs to be done. It could begin simply with a strongly worded letter to the editor of the journals printing the made for TV fiction which is soiling his reputation as a scientist.
and send a copy to the CEO's at Cleveland Clinic
I don't know where to start, or even if I can. I know Dr. Siegel did not kick me off of here, but haloscam has been rejecting my comments as an "invalid user" ever since my tirade of the other night.
Diane's reference to Independence Day is very appropriate not just because of its timeliness, but because of the true meaning of July 4th.
The essence of what the 4th of July means is totally lost on the lovers of the concept of the nanny-state, which obviously includes those who consider themselves members of the tobacco (read smoker) control movement. Until she was 4 my daughter thought the fireworks on the 4th were for her birthday, which was yesterday when she turned 10. At the ripe old age of 10 that child has more understanding of what the Declaration of Indepence and the US Consititution actually mean than all of the Banzhafs, Glantss, Repaces and Siegels of the world put together could conceive.
Dr. Siegel may have "started" to actually "get it" but until such time that he ends his crusade against the personal choices of consenting adults, it tells me he has no clue whatsoever as to the true meaning for our celebrations tomorrow. That's a pretty sad thing to say about someone who lives in Boston.
LB hit upon (with a grand slam in my opinion) one of my long time memes here - the weasel words of Dr. Siegel as well as his reliance upon bravo sierra "science" to back up his support of the stripping of liberties and rights of his fellow citizens.
I'm totally thrilled with Dr. Siegel's response to Colin's summary of this entire pile of crap. Now if we could only get the good doctor to realize that EVERYTHING coming from the tobacco (read smoker) control movement is nothing more than a similar pile of crap.
Michael Siegel wrote:
"By no means - JM. Absolutely not. I am just pointing out that Professor Glantz knows enough about this kind of research to know that you absolutely have to include a control group."
And yet he included those without a control group in his meta-analysis?
Dr. Siegel, you wrote, "I am just pointing out that Professor Glantz knows enough about this kind of research to know that you absolutely have to include a control group."
Dr. Siegel, you continue to make the clearly false assumption that folks like Glantz are honest and simply "make mistakes."
The first time that happens, yeah, it might be a mistake.
Even the second, and possibly the third.
But if you go back over your blogs I believe you will find over ONE HUNDRED instances where you've offered excuses of this type to cover up the blatant fraud that is going on in the tobacco control movement in pursuit of its goal of a smoke free world.
How do you call the removal of the vital Helena data graph from the Internet an "oversight"?
How do you call the refusal of the Helena copycat studies to separate out the nonsmokers as separate groups a "mistake" ?
How do you call any of the hundred or more instances of such nonsense excusable in ANY sense?
The charge of "Fraud" is one of the most serious charges that can be levied within scientific circles, and for very good reason since fraud corrupts the basic structure of science.
But I believe that when looked at honestly there can be little doubt that massive and repeated fraud exists throughout the tobacco control movement, all the way up to its highest circles, and is countenanced as the norm even by the watchdogs - the international associations of speicialists and the medical journals.
At some point that fraud should be called for what it is and its perpetrators held fully accountable.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Dr. Siegel, you wrote, "I am just pointing out that Professor Glantz knows enough about this kind of research to know that you absolutely have to include a control group."
Dr. Siegel, you continue to make the clearly false assumption that folks like Glantz are honest and simply "make mistakes."
The first time that happens, yeah, it might be a mistake.
Even the second, and possibly the third.
But if you go back over your blogs I believe you will find over ONE HUNDRED instances where you've offered excuses of this type to cover up the blatant fraud that is going on in the tobacco control movement in pursuit of its goal of a smoke free world.
How do you call the removal of the vital Helena data graph from the Internet an "oversight"?
How do you call the refusal of the Helena copycat studies to separate out the nonsmokers as separate groups a "mistake" ?
How do you call any of the hundred or more instances of such nonsense excusable in ANY sense?
The charge of "Fraud" is one of the most serious charges that can be levied within scientific circles, and for very good reason since fraud corrupts the basic structure of science.
But I believe that when looked at honestly there can be little doubt that massive and repeated fraud exists throughout the tobacco control movement, all the way up to its highest circles, and is countenanced as the norm even by the watchdogs - the international associations of speicialists and the medical journals.
At some point that fraud should be called for what it is and its perpetrators held fully accountable.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Hey, Doc;
if you're serious, write a letter to Preventive Medicine (or whatever the publication was) or, better, an article in which, one by one, you scathe the 8 studies.
In fact, you could cite McFadden and Dave's good study. Or recommend its publication.
And in fact, M & D should submit their study. Or themselves write letters. Or both.
The only way to begin to counter this crap is to do it in the very stall where it's dropped. Blogging to a totally different, and highly limited readership, might make you feel good but accomplishes nothing.
:
Is it even possible if brought up on charges; similar to the investigation of E&K TC members would arise unscathed.
If Glanz in particular were investigated I highly doubt he would ve vindicated. A while back the US government sought to investigate the finances of the American Cancer Society. Legislators and Senators were stopped in their tracks. Can you name any other organization on the planet with so much power?
Research utilizing the CPS11 data set which finds harms are perfectly acceptable in meta analysis and in providing further evaluation, whereas E&K seems to only be used to chastize researchers.
The Cancer Society demonstrates clear bias in never mentioning studies rolling with their political promotions. They attacked E&K alone claiming the data was flawed.
Is That not considered scientific impropriety? selling cause in place of evaluation. By an organization with no clear explanation of why they should be leading a political campaign or dare I say crusade, while claiming to be using donated funds "to find cures". They are not searching for cures they are looking for someone to blame, for their incompetence.
I like LighteningBoys suggestion on the full page ad. Put me down for $100 and then I will double it when I actually see it in print. Just want to get the finances started for the second full page ad.
Happy 4th of July to you all. Smokem if you gottem! Declare Independence today!
England's population is over 50 million and the reduction in heart attacks is claimed to be under 3%. Will this be included in the next meta-analysis?
Doctor,
I find it shocking that you should mock this meta-analysis by your friend and colleage Dr Glantz. He speaks so highly of you. Happy Independence day – don’t forget the 200 years of back tax that you owe us. Well, thirteen states anyway – maybe the other states can chip in to clear the debt …
Only Joking!
Happy Independence Day
Fredrik
It's obvious that Glantz knows about our states heart attack study; although unpublished, it is probably unethical for Glantz to omit mentioning it in his meta-analysis.
Of course, until the full text of his meta-analysis is available, it will be impossible to know for sure if he omitted mention of our study.
And the ACS is ignoring the unexplained increase in lung cancer among neversmoking women.
Fredrik,
I thought it was you who owes us (war reparations)?
If you want to get nasty about it I should remind you first that we kicked your ass....twice. LOL
James,
Well seeing as you lot couldn't even stop the Canadians from burning down the White House in 1812 it would seem
that the British might of had bigger fish to fry - like the French. And yes you did help us out two world wars
but both times you were late! LOL
Quoting Dr. Siegel, "The more I examine these smoking ban and heart attack studies, the more I am realizing that tobacco control science has become a very highly biased field right now. The bias is so apparent in these studies that it is practically dripping off the pages."
Yes, and the same bias exists in the alcohol control area. Advocacy groups, such as the the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY), routinely cite studies that actually contain conflicting evidence. These inconclusive studies are cited as supporting the public health dogma on such issues as alcohol advertising and youth drinking behaviors.
Here is a link to a discussion of examples of this research bias:
REPLY TO SIEGEL ET AL.: ALCOHOL ADVERTISING IN MAGAZINES AND DISPROPORTIONATE EXPOSURE
http://www3.interscience.wiley.c...174659/
abstract
From Jon's link. These don't inspire a lot of confidence in this "science" to me:
suffer from collinearity
fail to present a comprehensive measure of multicollinearity
model
variance inflation factors
within acceptable limits
estimation using redefined variables
empirical results are fragile
the limitations of estimates
shortcomings
Commenting by HaloScan
