correlation does not equal causation
Strange how you only seem to believe this little nugget when it suits your purposes; but ignore it where the real science on smoking and shs is concerned by continually stating "cause" when the reality is just "correlation".
This episode is important because it demonstrates the current mentality in the anti-smoking movement.
This is neither current NOR new for your movement. THIS is how it's always been. It just appears "current" to you because you are suddenly being affected by it. We've been telling you this all along.
Perhaps the disgruntled author would like to share the experiences of Kabat ,and experience the venom of TC WHEN SOMEONE BUCKS THE MANTRA ? Either the science is solid or it isn't,acting like a petulant child and running of to mommy sobbing one's heart out suggests the author is more concerned about ensuring his funding than his credibility.
“critiques have become quite offensive to others in the field of tobacco control”
“has slandered me by impugning my reputation as an honest academic researcher”
“readers are misinformed regarding scientific facts and are led to conclude that my study is critically flawed”
“I assume that deceiving the public is not part of the mission statement for the School of Public Health”
“It is one thing for Dr. Siegal to express his own bias and to be academically sloppy, but he goes beyond that by inserting several innuendos to imply that the study has a hidden bias. He states that we have ‘no objectivity’ and ‘no credibility”
“I have been his victim before and from his postings I have observed that other academics are also dealt the same abuse on a regular basis”
“One can disagree with another researcher without slandering his or her character”
Michael, when I first read your post, I thought it was a comedy routine. But, it’s not.
The poor, poor man believes he has been slandered. Poor, poor man. One can almost feel the tears dripping onto his ‘complaint’. This man is a victim, abused, ‘lied’ about. Horror.
Michael, this should be an insight for you into split-mindedness. While any critique (legitimate or otherwise) is interpreted as ‘slander’ or ‘abuse’ towards them (TC), they fail to comprehend, in the slightest, the actual slander and abuse and lies that they have unrelentingly inflicted on smokers for at least three decades which has had actual devastating consequences. There are parts of their minds that they are utterly oblivious to. These are unstable minds, inflated egos. This man is in need of psychologial healing. Through you, he is noticing the hostility in his own mind - terrified by his own hostility. And, he doesn’t like it, understandably. But, where there is a lack of honesty, the mind quickly musters up a self-absolving ‘explanation’ – you, Michael, are the hostile one. Blame the smokers and Michael. This man alone is of a benevolent disposition, while others are hostile. Notice the response is entirely at an emotional level, devoid of facts supporting his position. And, so, he has just further reinforced his hostility. Wonderful achievement. And, such minds are running public health. God help us all.
“to a religious movement”
Michael, genuine religious systems usually have considerable sophistication of thought and a call to [non-medical] self-examination. PH and TC have been manufactured into organizations for people to enact their feeble thinking and contorted emotions. Part of the contortions is the requirement of unquestioning conformity. This well describes a cult, not a religion. Remember, you were a full member of the cult at one point. You may still be in need of de-programming.
_
The leader in Health®, the medical establishment is the leading cause of preventable death & injury, and psychological & social dysfunction.
Setting the Standards in Derangement and Self-Approbation for a New World, for the Benefit of All [of the Medical Establishment].
Dr. Siegel,
I am sorry that this happened to you and I certainly hope that it didn't get you in any big trouble. You have now joined the ranks of professionals whose carriers have been attacked directly like our very own Dr. David Romano as you know.
In a way you are the pioneers in the reform and if more of you get the same treatment perhaps higher authorities in the universities will begin to see where all this comes from and where it's leading us and stop the lunacy before it's way too late. Or is it just wishful thinking on my part and it's already way too late?
Dr Siegel,
While we are on opposite sides of the fence and I disagree with some of your conclusions, I applaud you on your integrity. That is far more then I can say for Tobacco Control. I even did a blog entry on the subject.
http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpr...obacco-control/
Dr. Siegel, the letter is a perfect example of why the science of TC is so friggin' shoddy. Even in a formal complaint to your mamma, the dean, he cannot argue persuasively with facts. He offers no support for his opinion that you have maligned him. In a freshman English composition class with persuasion as the essay genre, I give him an F-. In fact in my high school English class, I would assign an F. He follows no rules of logic in his letter. If he cannot follow the relatively simple task of following the rules of logic in a simple letter, how could he possibly have followed the principles of science in conducting a scientific study? See Enstrom at his website, and report this and all of the other misuses of science in TC to Obama's team who SAY they are trying to restore honor within the scientific community. You definitely pissed him off, and that is a good thing. His letter showed desperation, and that is a good thing. On another note, what was your Dean's response?
And he misspells your name!
Mike,
This is rather similar to what David Balfour tried to do to me a few months ago, which I believe you wrote about here. There is something disturbing, even beyond what you cite, about people who claim to be academics trying to use university administrators to bully and intimidate other academics. Doing that is such a fundamental failure of what it means to be scholar or professor. "I'm telling teacher that you were mean to me!" is just not acceptable behavior, even if someone is really outlandishly mean.
You showed remarkable restraint (or maybe you were leaving at as exercise for the reader) in not mentioning that this researcher, complaining that you say he is sloppy, is so sloppy that he cannot get your name right or know the difference between slander and libel.
I have to take issue with one concession you make, though: "bias does not mean dishonesty. It also doesn't imply any wrongdoing whatsoever. A researcher can be perfectly honest and perfectly proper and appropriate in his work, yet still be biased in his presentation of findings or conclusions." Bias that is hidden from the reader is dishonesty. If there are two ways to analyze a dataset and a researcher picks the result he likes better and reports it as if it were the only possible analysis, this is dishonest. It is intended to cause readers to believe something that is not true, and it is difficult to formulate a definition of dishonesty that does not include such acts. Similarly, a "literature review" that leaves out the majority of the literature to skew the apparent result is dishonest. If an author says explicitly "there are many studies that show no effect, but I think there is an effect if you look at it just the right way, and here are some examples...", then that is intentionally biased and entirely honest. If the author says (or implies) that the cited studies represent all of what is known, it is biased and dishonest.
I have argued that this "publication bias in situ" is a fundamental threat to epidemiology, and that the field is rife with bias of the dishonest sort, to the point that we have to make ad hoc adjustments to what has been published whenever we try to assess the literature.
--Carl Phillips
In complete agreement with Carl V Phillips I just want to add...
At least your critic didn't call you a "flat urther" or a "holycoast deny'r".
That's progress.
BTW I think that your blog, "The End of the Story", really rocks.
Public Health = House of Cards/Foundation of Sand on the Beach of Lies Where Lawyers get a Tan!
Politicians always stay for free at the House of Cards ... free adult beverages, complimentary meals
"Our data shows a small increase in the number of pets it has treated for asthma since the smoking ban was introduced.
“While it is not possible to determine if this rise is directly linked to passive smoking, as asthma can be caused by many different factors, pets inhaling cigarette smoke could have some bearing on these increased figures.
“In addition, even though the increase we are seeing is small, even one pet that is affected by passive smoke is one pet too many in my opinion.”
Even ONE pet with asthma in a smoker's home is too many; therefore ban smoking in homes. See where your friggin passive smoking lies and deceit are going. Good luck to them. Hell, I still smoke in bars in a smoking ban state. Come to my door, sue me, take my house and its mortgage, but you will NEVER control me.
Hi Doc, I hope this sort of response doesn't make you feel defensive like it does me. Keep it up. It's always good for the soul to know that you are at least getting "some" TC folks pissed off.
BTW, I agree with Carl on observation that "bias does not mean dishonesty".
I think that in the 20 years or so I've been watching this "play out" by the tobacco controllers they were "dishonest". I think by now after all is said and done, we all know on this site that TC has become, and maybe always has "pathological liars" that need to be exposed.
David G.
How do you tell if a person is lying or is guilty of an action or telling a lie? He will be the person pointing fingers and claiming no involvement or he could be the person who thinks that by screaming the loudest will take all suspicion off of himself.
With that in mind, I went to the archives and found the original "Rest of the Story" posting for that day. No where did you mention the name of the person who supposedly did this particular study. I say supposedly, as he could have taken credit for someone else's work. In my opinion, he read it and has been feeling guilty for publishing what he knows to be untrue and to take the pressure off his conscience, he writes a letter to the Dean and accuses you of slander.
This person has a guilt trip to deal with and it is his problem not yours. I hope your Dean sees it that way too. Childish behavior is the norm for tobacco control though, isn't it? Take it with the grain of salt that it was offered with.
Now that is the "Real Story" on the author of the letter.
More good news for public health, as AC Nielsen c-store sales data (for the US) for the four weeks ended June 13 showed a cigarette sales volume decline of 8.9% (compared to last year).
Premium priced cigarette brands saw the biggest volume declines.
It now appears almost certain that single largest annual decline in cigarette consumption (in US history) is occurring in 2009 (primarily due to the $.82/pack cigarette price hike in mid March in anticipation of the $.61/pack federal cigarette tax hike in April).
Michael Seigel....
A movement in which scientific articles are not subject to criticism is one in which science can no longer flourish.
The science is settled. (oops wrong group of 'scientists' er polyticians.)
sheri...
He follows no rules of logic in his letter. If he cannot follow the relatively simple task of following the rules of logic in a simple letter, how could he possibly have followed the principles of science in conducting a scientific study?
It was a post-modernist letter. (desrserving of a relative A*)
RickDP
This well describes a cult, not a religion. Remember, you were a full member of the cult at one point. You may still be in need of de-programming.
De-programming was tried. It works on Thursday afternoon to Friday. Monday to Thursday morning a gradual return occurs. The pattern seems to be breaking down as it's only Tuesday.
-----
Is the shift from a smoking paradigm to what was thought to be a non-smoking paradigm being reversed? (ref Kuhn). Apparently the idea was to lead the world into a new non-smoking era. When paradigms shift. in general. the old ideas are integrated with new ones or the new ones acceptedand the old become history. There are some laggards who fail to accept the new wisdom. This could possibly only happen if the new paradigm has new knowledge and wisdom. Do shifts occur on falsehoods?
A better understanding can come of this, as the venear wears away.
Did this author raise these points on the blog or attempt to defend the study's findings? Did the author give fair warning and write privately about the matter in an effort to resolve the issue?
The key is the position of the Dean. (Authority figure)
----
Bill, today the Doctor is talking about slander. A very serious charge. Why is it that you had to come in with that pathetic study/data?
Boast all you want. You still are not taking into consideration the black market trade that these people have turned to and of course, premium sales are down as the people who still purchase from the c-stores are now buying the lower price smokes.
Get a life or at least have a cup of coffee and wake up, will you?
David G.
While I agree that bias does not imply dishonesty. The attack against Michael after he brought up the possibility implies that the bias is intentional, Instead of defending his position he went on an all out attack against the person questioning the study, that is usually the tactic of someone without a leg to stand on.
We all have bias, I will call anyone who denies this a liar. So bias on its own means nothing. But to deny the possibility of bias is foolishness.
Bill, do you believe that the smoking rate has actually dropped 8.9% or could it be that smokers are getting them elsewhere? Just asking because I know a lot of smokers and not one of them has either quit or cut back. A great number of them did buy a huge supply before the taxes kicked in or found alternative sources for their cigs. What were the figures from this source in the month or so before the tax hit?
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always,[1] a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).
In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defence for invasion of privacy."[2]
False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being."[3] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred.[3]
In making this false accusation against you, Dr. Siegel, the bad doctor is attempting to defame you to your employer. Perhaps you have legal recourse. It is, at least, worth a call to your lawyer.
My turn to be guilty of sloppiness (or being too quick, anyway): I am not quite sure why Dr. Siegel decided to protect the letter writer by not mentioning his name, but one of my colleagues pointed out that the original article was written by Joseph Difranza, Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Massachusetts Worcester Campus, and thus he is probably the one who wrote the letter. Assuming this is true, it gets more interesting....
Difranza's proclivity for making unsubstantiated accusations and bold claims of error without including any actual analysis or facts that support his claim extends beyond his "telling teacher" behavior. We recently had two papers "peer" "reviewed" by Difranza. In both cases he attacked us personally and called for the papers to be rejected without making any substantive criticism of the methods or analysis. In one case he accused us of lying in our competing interests disclosure, without a shred of substantiation.
In both cases, Difranza ranted about conflict of interest, even though he clearly does not understand the concept any better than he understands the concepts of "slander" or academic debate. Both papers were written from the perspective of analyzing the potential for promoting tobacco harm reduction. As such, they obviously were written based on the assumption that someone would want to promote tobacco harm reduction. Not every reader needs to agree with this ethical premise to assess the analysis of what could contribute to such promotion. There is no risk that the worldly bias of the authors in favor of THR is hidden, and there is no reason that this bias would affect the analysis in question, which is about what might happen when an attempt to promote THR takes place. By contrast, Difranza's own strong politics could easily motivate the biases in the reported claims that Dr. Siegel cited, but Difranza makes no attempt to disclose these conflicts of interest (or, apparently, to try to do honest science in spite of his strong conflicts of interest).
If anyone is interested in more about this analysis, we presented a poster about it at the recent Society for Epidemiologic Research meetings, in which we cite Difranza's "reviews" as an example of abuse of the concept of "conflict of interest", and we have an article coming out shortly that includes this also. One of the reviews is available on our website now, the poster will be shortly, the other review will appear there eventually, and we will include a reference or copy of the article after it appears.
There is one vaguely reassuring note about all the fact that these stories are all about the same person: Perhaps the worst of the bad actors among the anti-tobacco extremists are actually rather few. Maybe most of these most reprehensible behaviors actually come from just a few dozen individuals. This does not excuse the majority in "tobacco control" for their failure to condemn this behavior -- they implicitly endorse it by their failure. But perhaps the number who actively violate the norms of scholarship are fewer than it sometimes appears.
--Carl
It now appears almost certain that single largest annual decline in cigarette consumption (in US history) is occurring in 2009 (primarily due to the $.82/pack cigarette price hike in mid March in anticipation of the $.61/pack federal cigarette tax hike in April).
You really are a piece of work Bill. Are you truly this stupid or just choosing to ignore the obvious? So many folks stocked up BEFORE the feds extortion went into effect. In fact, I was unable to get my additional "stock up" of tobacco because my vendor was so busy he couldn't keep up, and since he was unable to ship mine before April 1st, I cancelled it since I wasn't paying the tax. I have found cheaper alternatives and THAT is what most of us are doing.
So enjoy your illusions but as I told you elsewhere yesterday, LEGAL sales figures are not a true picture of the smoking prevalence as us 'rebels' simply go underground.
Aren't you proud of cheering on the making of law-abiding citizens into criminals just so they can still enjoy a legal product?
I'm glad I don't have to worry about having to take on your Karma or the Doc's for you all have some nasty Karma coming your way to make up for the destruction you are wreaking on society now.
Have fun!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=6...feature=related
The good doctors at this Indian hospital are creating new patients to fill their coffers.
Marshall,
Thank you for your very kind blog entry today. In light of our difference of opinion on some important issues, your fairness and respect is a sign of great character.
I wish I could say that I garnered the same respect from colleagues WITHIN tobacco control who disagree with me on various issues, but I have not generally found that to be the case.
For those who asked about the disposition of the complaint, my dean - as always - took a strong stand on the side of academic freedom and protected my right to speak freely about scientific issues. He noted to the author writer that what he was attacking was not slander but scientific criticism and he put the matter to rest.
Several have observed that I did not mention the name of the letter writer in this post, nor did I mention the name of the researcher in the original post. The reason for this is that it is not a personal issue - it's about the science of the paper and the mentality of the tobacco control movement. I have always gone to great pains to avoid attacks on individuals and to make it more about the general issues than personal ones.
I have to say that as a member of the public and an amateur gardener, all this is quite an eye opener.
I thought the way to the scientific truth was through different ideas being properly discussed and proved to everyones satisfaction, rather than all agreeing with each other no matter what is being said.
I don't think I would feel comfortable if no one felt they could pick me up on any mistakes, how could I be satisfied with my research, there could be glaring mistakes that I just hadn't picked up on.
Perhaps its because I worked in a job where one mistake could mean thousands of disappointed customers and the loss of a great deal of money,time and effort.
I was told that I was wrong and definately had that proved more than once.
But I didn't sulk about it.
Doctor Siegel, - "A researcher can be perfectly honest and perfectly proper and appropriate in his work, yet still be biased in his presentation of findings or conclusions."
Ummmmm,.. just because you don't know you're telling, presenting, or repeating a lie, doesn't mean you're not. A lie is a lie whether you know it or not, and Tobacco Control is really, really good at this.
The very foundation of Tobacco Control is the belief that one day the lie, repeated often enough becomes truth.
The same applies to their "studies". Cite a bad or biased study in a dozen other equally bad or biased studies, ..and abracadabra...it must be true.
Individual Tobacco Control proponents have a demonstrated history of parroting the national rhetoric without verifying the basis for, or nature of it's origin. TC say's it is so, and their deciples have no cause to doubt.
Doctor Siegel repeats the same lies ad nauseam, but only because he believes them to be true. It's not necessarily out of any malice toward smokers, unlike the more publicized leaders of the "movement" whom have publicly stated they would prefer all sort of draconian examples be made of smokers.
I sometimes have to wonder though about Doctor Siegels motivation to sacrifice someone elses liberty to achieve his own personal preference of a "smoke free" society.
The de-programming process is obviously a long and labored one.
I see that your cohort Bill,refrained from adding any words of "wisdom" on this piece,merely resorting to his usual tactic of trumpeting crass statistics that prove F'ALL.But i do suppose that it does keep him content. With "colleagues" like this ,i really do wonder Dr Siegel,why you always appear to heap praise on him to such a degree that you have in the past. I apologise in advance but the discussion of bias being legitimate is somewhat farcical,indeed epidemiology is a farce UNLESS YOU NEED something to blind the public with.There are LIES,damned LIES and TOBACCO CONTROL LIES.
I've only partially recovered from reading about the accidental possibilty of banning our staple foods in Australia.
"The option was raised to prevent foods such as the nightshades, known to naturally contain low levels of nicotine, from being banned." http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/
...e_FAR_Final.pdf
Very gracious to grant an exemption I thought.
Mind you on past form don't they wait awhile and then come back for the exemptions?
per Rose, "I thought the way to the scientific truth was through different ideas being properly discussed and proved to everyones satisfaction, rather than all agreeing with each other no matter what is being said."
A agree completely. The word "science" has been hijacked. No individual involved or topic covered in almost all of "tobacco research" is science as it is practiced by real scientists.
Most "studies" begin their life as faith based conclusions. Sham research is then constructed to reinforce the faith. Everyone involved is expected to accept the results without question or at least keep their mouth shut.
Although not as nicely worded as it might be coming from Dr. Siegel I think that this is pretty much what Dr. Siegel has been blogging about here for the last few years.
The irony is that neither Dr. Siegel nor his critic in todays article are scientists. The topic in question isn't about science but about interpreting market data.
I think that they should all hand in their diplomas and get jobs in the Advertising or Public Relations industries.
Tobacco is FDA approved and insuring the healthcare of millions.®
diane inquired:
"Bill, today the Doctor is talking about slander. A very serious charge. Why is it that you had to come in with that pathetic study/data?"
The nation's largest decline in cigarette consumption is far more pertinent to public health than reading about researchers pissing on each other.
Sheri asked:
"Bill, do you believe that the smoking rate has actually dropped 8.9% or could it be that smokers are getting them elsewhere?"
Cigarette sales/consumption at convenience stores declined by 8.9%, not the smoking rate. It is likely that a small percentage (i.e. less than 10%) of the cigarette sales/consumption decline was/is due to smokers who purchased smuggled or otherwise tax scofflawed cigarettes.
Lynda F wrote:
"You really are a piece of work Bill. Are you truly this stupid or just choosing to ignore the obvious? So many folks stocked up BEFORE the feds extortion went into effect."
In fact, according to AC Nielsen c-store sales data, cigarette sales declined by 11.4% (compared to 200
in the four weeks ended April 18 (i.e. the four weeks immediately following the cigarette price hike), and declined by 9.6% (compared to 200 in the four weeks ended May 16.
Perhaps Lynda can explain why she posted ad hominem criticisms about me just because she's upset I pointed out the huge decline in cigarette sales.
And perhaps Mike can explain why this blog contains thousands of slanderous comments.
Bill,
You can lead a rock to water, but a gathering horse grows no stitch in time.
_
The leader in Health®, the medical establishment is the leading cause of preventable death & injury, and psychological & social dysfunction.
Setting the Standards in Derangement and Self-Approbation for a New World, for the Benefit of All [of the Medical Establishment].
Mind you ES
The quality of the "science" when they nearly ban their own lunch for ideological reasons, is definately cause for helpless laughter.
Bill, first prove the decline, then we can determine if it truly is more important than "pissing" on researchers. Just because someone is NOT shopping at a convenience store does not prove decline. Do you buy all your milk at the Seven Eleven or do you shop at the Giant Eagle from time to time?
Now lets get back to the topic at hand.
"Several have observed that I did not mention the name of the letter writer in this post, nor did I mention the name of the researcher in the original post. The reason for this is that it is not a personal issue - it's about the science of the paper and the mentality of the tobacco control movement. I have always gone to great pains to avoid attacks on individuals and to make it more about the general issues than personal ones."
Michael; the Tobacco Control movement is entirely focused in attacking personal character and integrity, to suit the comfort of its own members, at the expense of others who can only stand defenseless against those unprovoked and criminal acts.
The research in question was so obviously produced for no other useful purpose, but to support that bigoted connivance in support of its investor. I thought you of all people would recognize this. Is there an employer or someone in charge I could complain to and have all the members of TC stifled and censured?
I thought not.
I can be precise in describing the offensive acts at hand, as can many others who have witnessed the corruption of process by process.
But of course, since TC creates and alters their own morality tu jour, by ad hoc consensus, they stand above the law, or so they say.
For Tobacco Control proponents, it's not a lie if they personally believe it to be true. How can it be a lie if other TC proponents say they believe it too, and in spite of all evidence to the contrary?
Is it science, religion, or cult?
"And perhaps Mike can explain why this blog contains thousands of slanderous comments.
Bill Godshall | 07.07.09 - 4:01 pm | #" Hell's bells Bill,i NEVER realised that you'd made that many comments.Bansturbation does leave TC advocates with feelings of guilt and a desire to be chastised.
"Is it science, religion, or cult?
LightningBoy |"How many actually give a damn, just GIVE ME MY MONEY for denormalising the lowest caste in society today.The Devil wears Pravda and works for Tobacco Control.
"I was told that I was wrong and definately had that proved more than once.
But I didn't sulk about it.
Rose | 07.07.09 - 3:30 pm " That's where you went wrong Rose,TC NEVER ACCEPT THAT THEY ARE WRONG.Doing so will affect their psychological make up,to such a degree that they will resort to anything to retain their ego.It could lead quite easily to schizophrenia or worse.....
Dr. Siegel: ”The author of a paper which I criticized in a May 28 blog post has written a letter of complaint to the dean of my school, accusing me of slander and seeking that action be taken against me for such slander.”
I guess it's not enough to be anti-smoking, Doc. You have to strictly adhere to the tenets of the Holy Church of the Anti-Smoker or face excommunication. The High Priests of the Church (once known as the Tobacco Control “movement”) can't tolerate dissent; can't have the public believing a charter member of the Church would actually question Church Doctrine.
You may be right in your assertion that bias does not necessarily mean dishonesty nor does it imply any wrongdoing. But as Carl Phillips points out, “Bias that is hidden from the reader is dishonesty.” And, TC is rampant with all forms of this and other forms of dishonesty
But, isn't it strange the demand for censure comes over six weeks after your original critique was published? And, his misspelling of your name and identification of your blog as “The Real Story” suggests he may never have actually visited your site to read the May 26 post.
Sloppy research? Or, maybe someone thinks you've been getting a little too much press lately over your opposition to the FDA legislation.
At any rate, it's refreshing to hear the dean came out in favour of academic freedom.
It could lead quite easily to schizophrenia or worse.....
Si it has already spread to mass psychosis and sociopathic rules of inclusion. Caused by cocktails and finger snacks, aimed at the overly obese egos, by a host who will spare no expense to recruit his stable of whores.
Doctor Siegel, - "A researcher can be perfectly honest and perfectly proper and appropriate in his work, yet still be biased in his presentation of findings or conclusions."
Ummmmm,.. just because you don't know you're telling, presenting, or repeating a lie, doesn't mean you're not. A lie is a lie whether you know it or not,
It is not quit that simple. I wish it was, but the fact is that the results of all of the studies are in that iffy range where two people can look at the same study and come to different conclusions. If you look at all of the actual studies, not the Meta's and you might say with chronic exposure . . . Maybe, The fact is that the activist have used Meta-analysis to turn that maybe into proof positive. The problem with this is too much latitude is given to the person doing it as far as how much weight is given to each study. Meta's are highly susceptible to bias and should be thrown out automatically. Add to the fact that since the tobacco companies threw in the towel in 1998, all research has been done by activist in scientific clothing. I mean come on, Glantz is a classic example. Trying to blame the movies. When I was a teen we use to go to slasher movies or Clint Eastwood movies. I have yet to run around hacking people up with a machete or pulling 44 mags on people and saying make my day. I pick on Glantz because he does not even try to hide his bias. Here he is in his own words,
“…that’s the question that I have applied to my research relating to tobacco: If this comes out the way I think, will it make a difference [toward achieving the goal]. And if the answer is yes, then we do it, and if the answer is I don’t know, then we don’t bother. Okay? And that’s the criteria.”
- Written Transcript Of 3-Day Conference Called “Revolt Against Tobacco,” L.A., 1992
But I would never go so far as to call Dr Siegel a liar. The science is in a Grey area that I contend does not rise to the level of proof to justify a ban. I suggest you read the following article and you will see what I mean.
http://nasw.org/awards/1996/
96Ta...ubesarticle.htm
Dr Siegel presents his side and leaves it open for debate. That is how real science is done so I will defend Michel on this one. Liar is just going too far. When you try to present it off as conclusive that is when it becomes a lie.
Dr. Siegal: In a previous comment column RickDP quoted from a book. I Googled the title and found a review and excerpt from the book at http://www.thirdreich.net/
Though...e_Free_nn4.html
"They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer - How and why "decent men" became Nazis. It is a book that should make people pause and think - not only about the Germans but also about themselves."
The followng (severely truncated) excerpt is in reference to the failure of "decent Germans" to speak out against the persecution of German Jews, but it is also on topic in this conversation, since you are getting bashed all to pieces again. Pause and think - not only about the Germans but also about yourself.
"...What no one seemed to notice, " said a collegue of mine, a philologist,...
"Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don't want to act, or even to talk, alone: you don't want to "go out of your way to make trouble." Why not? - Well, you are not in the habit of doing it...
"You speak privately to your collegues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, "It's not so bad" or "You're seeing things" or "You're an alarmist."
"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can't prove it...it is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a trouble maker. So you wait, and you wait.
"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and the smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked - if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in 1943 had come immediately after the "German Firm" stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in 1933. But of course, this isn't the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? and so on to Step D.
And one day, too late, ... you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose ...
"You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven't done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood ..."
"You remember everything now ... Too late. You are compromised beyond repair."
Dr. Siegal: Did you stand and protest against the injustice of smoking prohibitions in one's own condominium and automobile? Against employer refusal to hire smokers? Against the inanities of Third Hand Smoke, cigarette butts, and outdoor smoking bans? Against the misrepresentations of science by the TC Party (except for those you truly believe in)?
You stood. You are not compromised beyond repair.
Do I think the anti's will ultimately quarantine all us smokers in concentration camps and gas us when the camps get too full?
Nah. They'll just strap us into straitjackets and lobotomize us with Chantix.
Si
I was quite grateful, if someone hadn't proved me wrong and things had continued it would have caused considerable problems, loads of complaints and I would have looked a complete idiot.
( or more so than usual )
On a lighter note I'd forgotten this,
ASH Tobacco Control Year Planner
How to have fun ASH style.
http://old.ash.org.uk/html/actio...on/
planner.html
Shrove Tuesday
"Run a ‘Pancake race’ – smokers versus non-smokers! This provides opportunities to focus on exercise and smoking. The effects of carbon monoxide on muscles. Have CO monitors to test the runners and show how much carbon monoxide they have in their blood streams and how this affects fitness and endurance. Make sure you have fit non-smokers who have practised tossing a pancake while running!"
Good Friday
"No Smoking Hot Cross Buns. Persuade a baker to create ‘No smoking hot cross buns’. In addition to the usual cross on the bun, add the image of smoking cigarette with the same dough with the cross on top of the cigarette. Set up a photocall for the press. You could do this before Good Friday."
Perhaps Lynda can explain why she posted ad hominem criticisms about me just because she's upset I pointed out the huge decline in cigarette sales.
What criticism Bill? I ASKED if you THAT stupid or deliberately ignoring the obvious. Not a criticism of you, a question as to which you were doing. Learn to comprehend a little then you won't be so thin-skinned (now THAT's a criticism).
As we've pointed out here, cigarette in sales in stores ONLY tells that smokers are NOT buying in stores.....it is in NO WAY indicative of a decrease in the numbers of people smoking. We are smarter than that. When the price of your milk goes up too much, you go directly to the source for a better deal.
Sorry to bust your bubble there ol boy but smokers as a rule aren't sheep.
"Ummmmm,.. just because you don't know you're telling, presenting, or repeating a lie, doesn't mean you're not. A lie is a lie whether you know it or not,"
What about in the case where a lie only exists if other people are talking?
That is the mindset we are dealing with here. They can do no wrong, they are the white light you see after you die. Pure, pristine and always innocent, in all they they will do.
They wear white lab coats while pushing drugs and imposing immoral standards, white as indicative of their marriage to perpetual virginity of mind and spirit, irregardless of their actions or the obvious bindings to group think ignorance.
Hell, it beats selling used cars and most people can't afford the training, so membership is almost an exclusive right of passage which denies the riff raff.
Dr. Siegel wrote, "A researcher can be perfectly honest and perfectly proper and appropriate in his work, yet still be biased in his presentation of findings or conclusions."
and Dr. Phillips wrote, "Bias that is hidden from the reader is dishonesty. If there are two ways to analyze a dataset and a researcher picks the result he likes better and reports it as if it were the only possible analysis, this is dishonest. It is intended to cause readers to believe something that is not true, and it is difficult to formulate a definition of dishonesty that does not include such acts."
I fully agree with both statements and feel they apply quite strongly to the recent Klein study that purported to show that "smoking bans do not hurt bar and restaurant employment." In the case of the Klein study of course there was the complicating factor of the grant proposal's promise to produce results that would favor smoking bans.
I would strongly recommend that anyone interested in such matters read Jacob Grier's May 27th column at:
http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/a...hives/
2210.html
as well as the aftercomments to the column.
Dr. Siegel, sorry you got attacked in that way. In terms of slander, I would think that the actions of the letter writer are far more serious than your own: you may have published public criticisms of their work but you did not contact their employer and attempt to jeopardize their job with largely baseless claims.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
"Good Friday
"No Smoking Hot Cross Buns. Persuade a baker to create ‘No smoking hot cross buns’. In addition to the usual cross on the bun, add the image of smoking cigarette with the same dough with the cross on top of the cigarette. Set up a photocall for the press. You could do this before Good Friday."
Rose | 07.07.09 - 5:15 pm " That would be acceptable if i could "stone the christians" with lumps of plug tobacco in retaliation,what say you Rose ?
Michael J. McFadden
Yes I saw that one, it is so flawed that it never should have been published. For one thing it did not take into consideration of the 130+ business that went out of business in the first year and a half including almost every bar in the Mall of America. It did not measure bars separate and we all know that bars are disproportionately hurt by the bans and did not look into the actual bottom line of the bars. But what can you expect. Asking someone who works in tobacco control to do an economic study is the equivalent to going to an auto mechanic to get a vasectomy.
Si
Don't ask me, I'm still trying to erase "Valentines Day" from my mind.
Mike,
I recognize that you avoided (and avoid) naming names for the noblest of reasons, but let me offer some counter arguments:
1. The first is simple and has been offered already: They (Difranza, Balfour, et al.) are the ones who turned what should have been scholarly debates into personal attacks, trying to damage people directly and censor opposition. Thus, any notion that it is dishonorable to reply personally is clearly not justified.
2. But beyond that, if we respond to these individual violations of scholarly conduct and scientific ethics in a war of attrition, fighting only the act and never calling the person for being unethical, we will never make any progress. We can only respond to a tiny fraction of the unethical research reporting, so if the authors escape without criticism, there will never be incentive to not do it. When someone does something particularly unethical, like Difranza and Balfour did, which stands some nontrivial chance of doing major damage, it is particularly imperative that they be personally called out. After all, we do not merely have a mugger pay back his take if he is caught -- we make it personal and create some incentive against further mugging by him or others.
3. To the extent that there are people in TC that would not sanction grossly unethical behavior, it is unfair to them to make this about the tactics of TC. If one person or organization lied or otherwise behaved unethically, they should be condemned for it personally. If you believe (and I believe this is the case) that there is a systematic cultural failure behind the lie, then it is fine to claim that. But excusing the individual in the course of condemning the culture comes very close to the "I was just following orders" defense.
In short, trying to keep things impersonal is noble and at first blush seems like it might be more polite. But on close examination, I would contend, it excuses the guilty (and lets them keep behaving the same way with impunity) while unfairly sweeping in the innocent.
--Carl
jsidney's post reminds me of this;
No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood.
Is there a more disgusting act than a Doctor dispensing tailored morality?
We can all find Justice in the fact they are all chained to the science which created the ETS fraud.
History will remember them all with a knowing smile or perhaps a smirk.
That is what they leave to their own children, in payment for what they are doing to ours.
Di Franza. Well, well.
He incidentally broke the first rule of smearing, at least in Hollywood: "As long as they spell my name right." Eh, Dr. "SiegAL"?
But DiFranza isn't a stranger to serious and apparently documented charges of bias and even fraud. His "study" on Joe Camel, which got the character banned and the public in high dudgeon, was not just the result of a pre-arranged deal in which he promised, in advance of conducting his study, that it would prove the cartoon was enticing kids to smoke (the promise, in writing, was seen in a court of law), but also
that he further manipulated the study to achieve the planned results. Among other things, redefining adults as "children."
Here's an excerpt, link below:
When Dr. Joseph DiFranza's pretesting for his 12/91 JAMA article showed that the ads appealed more to people in their 20s than early teens, he wrote his colleagues, "It would appear that we have just disproved our theory that the ads appeal more to kids than to adults." (emphasis added) To get his final results, DiFranza changed questions that didn't produce the desired answers and included in the results the answers of "kids" who told him they did not smoke. He also counted respondents up to 21 years of age as "kids." DiFranza told a newspaper reporter: "None of these studies was designed to show that these Camel ads increased smoking among kids." DiFranza also found, but did not report, that 94% of the students who thought Joe Camel was "cool" also thought "smoking makes you unpopular;" 95% thought "smoking makes you unattractive." The Camel brand's share of the overall market has remained at about 4% since before the campaign began in late 1987. The kind of growth among youth that Dr. DiFranza claims would have raised the total brand share. • In a paper presented at the 1995 Marketing and Public Policy Conference, Joel S. Dubow, professor at St. Joseph's University and an editorial referee for the Journal of Advertising Research, stated: "The errors of method and conclusion which occur in DiFranza et al are overwhelming. They consist of both errors of scientific method and what appear to be lapses of integrity on the part of the authors. .., And, we ought to ask, also, whether the actions of DiFranza et al constitute an incident of scientific fraud." 0 The FTC dismissed this study early in its investigation of the Joe Camel campaign (see above).
http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/...74250-
4255.html
He apparently managed to slip away from these and other documented charges, even though admitting to a priori bias, as spelled out in this history of the episode below:
http://chronicle.com/data/articl...ir/
16a02601.htm
Beyond that, I agree with what Carl Phillips said about the nature of bias. I'd again have to wonder, though, why one would WANT to sit on boards with these people but DiFranza's complaint merely adds to his discredit. Glad it ended happily.
:
from the letter:
I have been his victim before
this sentence alone says it all and speaks volumes about the author. why does everybody play 'victm' these days!
brandz
(still reading posts daily)
Bias in DiFranza's studies? May the readers of this blog be the judge!
Grants
1. Basic Research Support Grant: "Analysis of smoking materials for radioactivity" 1986: $4,143.
2. University Public Service Award: "Video smoking prevention program." 1987: $6,950.
3. American Cancer Society: "Are cigarette advertisements targeting children?" 1991: $5600.
4. American Cancer Society: "Enforcing tobacco access laws." 1992: $6000.
5. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: "Morbidity and mortality among children due to the use of tobacco by others." 1992: $25,000.
6. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: "Tobacco laws and adolescents." (Subcontract through Mass General Hospital) 1993-1996: $60,000.
7. Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program: "The promotion and sale of tobacco products to minors." 1994: $75,000.
8. Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program: "Evaluation of the enforcement of prohibitions on the sale of tobacco to minors." 1995-1998: $90,000.
9. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: "Monitoring state and federal compliance with the Synar regulations.1997-2000: $100,000.
10. National Cancer Institute: "A prospective study of the onset of nicotine dependence" 1997-2001. $966,406.
11. Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program: "Evaluation of the enforcement of prohibitions on the sale of tobacco to minors." 1997-2000: $95,400.
12. Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program: "A comparison of the accessibility and marketing of cigars, cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco to underage youths in Massachusetts." 1998: $25,498.
13. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: "Strategies employed by youth to obtain tobacco and instruments for measuring tobacco availability." August 1, 1999-December 31, 2000: $78,250.
14. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: "Investigating the scientific and legal basis for regulations requiring the generic packaging of tobacco products." March 1, 2000-February 28, 2001: $99,999.
15. National Institute on Drug Abuse. “The Transition to Nicotine Dependence.” October 2001- September 2006: $1.8 million. 5 RO1 DA14666-01
16. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: The Synar Amendment: Past, Present and Future. July 1, 2001- June 30, 2004: $121,754. #0456644
17. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: “A quantitative meta-analysis of the scientific literature examining the association between exposure to tobacco-friendly media and children’s initiation of tobacco use.” $89,981. 9/01/05-8/31/06.
18. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: “Have improved compliance rates contributed to the reduction in teen tobacco use?” $49,691 1/1/06-12/31/06. 56201
19. McGill University “Development of a new measure of autonomy.” $24,000. 11/1/05-10/31/06.
20. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: “How do perceived availability and knowledge of commercial sources of tobacco contribute to tobacco use?” $35,000 1/1/06-12/31/06.
21. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: “Has the Synar Amendment Contributed to the Reduction in Teen Tobacco Use? $49,691 1/1/2006-12/31/2006.
22. National Cancer Institute 1 RO11CA114556 (Pbert) School Nurse-delivered Smoking Cessation Intervention, 2/1/2006 – 1/31/2010.
23. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals: Effect of nicotine and varenicline on brain activity in conscious rats using fMRI/BOLD. $150,000. November 2006-October 2007.
24. NIDA R01-DA021846-01 (King) Imaging Nicotine-Induced Behavioral Sensitization with fMRI 04/01/2007- 3/31/2012.
25. NIDA 1 R03 DA024217 (DiFranza) Imaging of nicotine sensitization in humans: a translational application of fMRI 2008
26. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals: (King) Effect of varenicline on cognitive function in an animal model of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. $52,000. January-March 2008.
27. University of Montreal: (DiFranza/Okoli) Nonsmokers’ reactions to nicotine. $30,000, May 2008-March 2009.
28. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: (A01412) The Disenfranchisement of Poor and Minority Smokers by the American Psychiatric Association’s Policy on Nicotine Dependence. $77,000. August 2008-July 2009.
29. University of Montreal: (DiFranza) The Development of a New Measure of Nicotine Dependence. $30,000. 2008.
Quite a bagful on Di Franza, eh? Make's the Klein team's grant proposal seem almost tame by comparison.
Of course the post-facto games of attempting to remove data from the historical that seem to have been played by the Helena authors - See "Independently Confirmed?" at
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/
...683.55v1#125618
for the unchallenged details - might merit Glantz, Shepard, and Sargent a nice ranking in the hall of infamy as well.
Something I've always wondered about that crew: Over the years I've seen a number of news stories about one or the other of them giving talks about Helena etc at various colleges (and also, in my perception at least, in various smoking-ban-fight situations) where they are probably getting paid a handsome "honorarium" for their efforts.
How much money do these "honorable researchers" who would be so fast to throw Dr. Siegel into a pit of hellfire at the mere scent of tobacco money make off of their humanitarian efforts? The initial million dollar grant things may just be the very tip of a very green but very dirty iceberg.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
When we see the real numbers gained by promoting a state of fear, in reliance on Public Health predictions, it seems the fear has produced much larger effect than the reductions of smoking by a long shot;
Is this the spirit of Godshall's "good news" mantra?
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/f...ull/181/1-2/
E19
"Increases in the use of cardiovascular medications over time may be explained by changes in demographic characteristics and risk factor profiles of the Canadian population and changes in the economy, as summarized in Table 3. From 1996 to 2006, pharmaceutical-specific inflation in Canada increased by about 11%, which might have contributed to the increased expenditures. 30 The Canadian Institute for Health Information has reported that, although total population growth in Canada is about 1.1% annually, the growth has been gradual and was unlikely to account for increases in overall drug expenditures. 29 Cardiovascular disease is more prevalent with age, and older people are therefore more likely to require cardiovascular medications. During our study period, the proportion of the Canadian population older than 65 years increased by about 9%. 24 Self-reported surveys of risk factors in the Canadian population over time have revealed that prevalence rates of diabetes and hypertension increased dramatically over the decade of our study, whereas rates of obesity increased moderately and smoking rates declined. 31 Escalating rates of hypertension may explain increased use of antihypertensive medications in Canada, but not increased use of other medication classes. Overall, these demographic, population and economic factors potentially explain 136% or two-thirds of the increase in cardiovascular medication expenditures that we observed."
More than 3/4 of the population of Canada have been living under the repressive regime of Public Health demands; of smoking bans, Higher cigarette pricing and even hiding the cigarettes from view. Yet the predictions heralded by Helena and other nonsense "research" doesn't seem to be having the reduction effects many of the braggarts and cult philosophers claimed.
Where are the substantial reductions in heart attack admissions we were promised?
Preventable diseases? Hardly...
In Canada we don't see the advantage of alternate views in news broadcasting. Along with the reality it doesn't matter who you elect it also doesn't matter which channel you watch.
So along with the choreographed news reports and commercials playing on all channels at 6 and 11PM, we get the full force of cult propaganda and fear mongering, the result? 200% increase in coronary drug treatment costs, inflating the costs of so called smoking related diseases substantially.
Treating people who are not sick seems to be making a lot more of them sick and the costs as stated in the report are not sustainable.
So much for that "managed treatment" schema, as corrupt as the drug makers who promoted them, with their licensed and well paid shills and whores, who are the number one cause of preventable mortality and morbidity, bar none.
Evil Tobacco Industry? Say that again without the smirk...
Carl, I appreciate your balanced intervention in these comments and I agree with you that at some point, you have to give the evil a name.
I don't think that Dr. Siegel minds at all, for obvious reasons he just didn't want to be the one.
Good team play, Siegel and Phillips!
"More good news for public health, as AC Nielsen c-store sales data (for the US) for the four weeks ended June 13 showed a cigarette sales volume decline of 8.9% (compared to last year)."
Bill, you are not just a fascist, not just stupid, you are also very naive.
"It is likely that a small percentage (i.e. less than 10%) of the cigarette sales/consumption decline was/is due to smokers who purchased smuggled or otherwise tax scofflawed cigarettes."
You kill me. Where do you live?
OT
More from the Godshall good news branch, promoting public health scares and prepackaged artificial intelligence;
http://www.oaoa.com/articles/dea...nge-
texans.html
David Goerlitz
Hi Doc, I hope this sort of response doesn't make you feel defensive like it does me. Keep it up. It's always good for the soul to know that you are at least getting "some" TC folks pissed off.
I did a blog entry on on you too. I don't know if you caught it you contacted Ryan one of the founders of Ban the Ban Wisconsin. I lost your email address so I have to post it here. But if you are trying to tell the truth then you have to develop a thicker skin. The fact is the first thing out of tobacco control's mouth is that you work for big tobacco. It does not matter that you were only an actor/model you took the money. It appears that you are a man of conscience and that is commendable but the fact is that you have to develop a thicker skin. The group that I am part of accepted several boxes of cigars that were raffled off to help our cause. It does not matter that none of us got paid a dime, the few dollars that we got from those cigars was enough to register our domain name and that was before I Got involved. A friend that I grew up with lost a business that his family had owned in the Twin Cities since prohibition was repealed. The smoking ban killed that business in less than two years. During one of his fishing trips to Wisconsin we found a bar that was closed down because the owner died. I went into partnership with him and we have done well. But most of our patrons and all of our employees are smokers. My partner is a nonsmoker other then a little pot in the early 70's The bottom line is that prior to the ban most businesses went non smoking without government intervention and that gave the anti smokers the incentive to attack the few places that still allowed it. Even if the science was in favor of the antis I would fight it on general principles. The fact is that the science does not back them up and even if it did the free market would. If the free market wanted a smoke free environment that is what they would get. In a free world you would be free to deny your dollars to those that would allow smoking and if that is what the majority wants you either comply or go out of business. That is the free enterprise system. Not polls like this done by TC
http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpr...n-cheats-again/
Hey the free market works and I do not have to lie to point that out. But I digress, you have to develop a thicker skin if you are going to survive in this game. And I can tell you that 99.9% of the rocks will com from tobacco control!
Bill: It is likely that a small percentage (i.e. less than 10%) of the cigarette sales/consumption decline was/is due to smokers who purchased smuggled or otherwise tax scofflawed cigarettes.
Less than 10%? Your stab in the dark is sorely at odds with a study published one year ago that found:
"[A]bout 30% of the decline in cigarette sales since 2000 has been offset by the use of tobacco in other forms."
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Prim...re/Smoking/
9775
And why bother citing the first four week period after the fed tax increase when you've been told repeatedly that smokers stocked up prior to that increase (I personally bought a year's worth). It's dishonest to include the tobacco company rate increases because it came as a surprise to everyone. It was not publicized like the SCHIP tax was so no one was forewarned. The only plans anyone had was to not pay the FED tax increase and ate the manufacturer's hike for the month.
Prior-to-tax stocking inflated the pre-tax sales figures and deflated sales after. Ergo the decrease was an exaggerated picture in time. You cannot claim with a straight face that consumption decreased along that graph line.
As for the four weeks past the first four -- the only period you have any right to debate -- I would contend it represents the smokers who were in the dark about the SCHIP tax until it met them at the cash register and it took them about that long to find alternatives and join the 30% of smokers who turned to alternative sources.
Its like history repeating.
When I was a child there were so many exciting and chilling stories about smugglers around our coasts.
From a period in history where the small pleasures of the common man were taxed beyond reach by an oppressive government.
The smugglers were the heros and always outwitted the revenue men.
But reality is not like that.
What have you done?
"If you wake at midnight, and hear a horse's feet,
Don't go drawing back the blind, or looking in the street.
Them that asks no questions isn't told a lie,
Watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen go by!
Five and twenty ponies,
Trotting through the dark--
Brandy for the Parson,
'Baccy for the Clerk;
Laces for a lady, letters for a spy,
And watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen go by!
http://www.quotesandpoem.com/poe..._Kipling_-_4/
15
Its a leaf, like a potato leaf or a tomato leaf!
My favourite was DrSyn, The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh and his Devil Riders.
"Syn soon became aware that his parishioners were smuggling goods from France to avoid the extravagant customs duties the government charged. Learning from Mipps (who, contrary to Syn's orders, had become a leader of the smugglers) that certain townsfolk had been ambushed and captured during a smuggling run, Syn purchased the great black stallion Gehenna from gypsies and raced to their rescue. A suit of clothing borrowed from a scarecrow made an improvised disguise, and Syn and Mipps were able to rescue the townsfolk from the Dragoons.
After this, Syn decided that he could only protect his people by becoming their leader. He created a more elaborate scarecrow costume, with eerie luminous paint. At night riding Gehenna, the respectable Dr. Christopher Syn became the "Scarecrow", the feared head of the smugglers. Together with Mipps, he organized the smugglers into a well-organized band of "night riders", called "The Devil Riders" with macabre disguises and code-names"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Syn
Which has probably influenced me far more than a cartoon camel ever could.
I will keep quiet now.
Lets vote;
What is more perverse;
1] A "scofflaw" who ignores a law derived in superstitious ignorance and bigotry.
2] someone who encourages the normalcy of psychosis [hypochondria etc. ] on a population scale and panders to that psychosis by the invention of statistical nonsense and fear mongering, which extends a minor Relative to baseline risk, measured in a lifetime exposure, exaggerated to first an immediate risk and further to an incidental causative hazard to be feared at 50 paces.
You TC people are truly twisted. How many die each hour as a result of unrestricted conveyances of artificial intelligence?
Treating the healthy?
TC; A process of "protecting the children" which produces the perspectives of increasing harm as the protection process grows.
If the "science" is funded to achieve a political goal based in its chances of success and is buried when success is not achieved, can you really call this scientific evidence? Most normal people would say no. It appears the largest part of the "Movement" are far from what society would consider normal, but to their mindset that is a positive aspect.
http://dictionary.reference.com/...se/
Somatization
somatization;
In psychiatry, the conversion of anxiety into physical symptoms.
Public Health; the undisputed number one cause of preventable mortality.
Too true Kevin. The latest attempt to denormalise smokers ? http://www.tobaccojournal.com/
Ne...es.49574.0.html
These plebs need to go into the bunker in Berlin http://www.tobaccojournal.com/
Co...pe.49576.0.html
As someone who truly believes in the Law and will not break it, it horrifies me that the people who pushed for it didn't believe.
"While air nicotine metabolised as cotinine provides a marker for measuring exposure to tobacco smoke, the nicotine is not present in such quantities as to present health concerns."
Protect the workers? From what?
"It may be difficult for people to understand why legislation allows them to smoke herbal cigarettes but not tobacco ones.
As the main known difference between the two is the presence of nicotine, this could unfairly give the impression that nicotine is the major health concern – with attendant harmful consequences for the acceptance of appropriate nicotine replacement therapy as part of a planned smoking cessation programme."
I researched this because I enjoy herbal cigarettes just as much, and if nicotine was what they were so worried about,I couldn't see why herbal cigarettes were banned.
Which may well the reason why they are trying to ban e-cigs.
"harmful consequences for the acceptance of appropriate nicotine replacement therapy"
Consultation on the Smokefree Elements of the Health Improvement and Protection Bill ( Trades Union Congress )
"The TUC is concerned that the proposed definition will allow the smoking of herbal cigarettes. This could lead to people mixing tobacco with herbal mixtures to disguise the fact they are smoking tobacco. In addition the smoke from many herbal mixtures is just as likely to trigger asthma attacks.
While the evidence of harm relates only to tobacco at present, this is because no or little research has been done on the effects of herbal mixtures and we are surprised that the D of H is not taking a precautionary approach. We would prefer the definition to cover tobacco and other herbal products.
If it is agreed to cover not only tobacco but also herbal products, we would support an exemption for the theatre, film and TV sectors for performers in cases where this is required for artistic purposes".
http://
www.smokefreeaction.org.u...submission.html
Si;
If the retailers wanted to shut down this nonsense all they would have to do is stand unified and threaten to cease selling cigarettes. The tax hungry politicians would be slapping down this proposal within seconds.
A retailer tries to attract clients by improving the atmosphere, if the zealots want to advertise, especially as shock jocks, let them pay for space like everyone else.
The health department doesn't have a right to steal what ever they want "protections" or not.
You really have to wonder when the "enough is enough" sentiment is going to start flowing?
What is more puzzling is why anyone even remotely connected to Public Health would want to be permanently attached to this bizarre behavior.
Si
2012 End of the Fifth Sun, Mayan Calendars
The Mayans may have been the first to use tobacco as a medicine.
2012 is when the Mayan Calendars finally run out.
How appropriate.
But thats as much as I know.
Rose,
Shutting down another big lie;
"In addition the smoke from many herbal mixtures is just as likely to trigger asthma attacks. "
From Rick's book;
A picture of a waterfall is also known to be a trigger for asthma so why do they keep focusing on ETS?
Psychosis could explain it, or more basically; an advertiser's twisted motive, to increase profits by triggering unnecessary psychotic episodes.
Using Public Health and TC as the useful idiots and town criers attached to their ad campaigns, or should I call them "Public Health advisories"? [same thing]
Michael,
I always thought it would be the tobacco companies which would "throw Dr. Siegel into a pit of hellfire." It's been a shock to find that it's my own colleagues. Instead of a pit of hellfire, can I at least get a pit full of Vienna Fingers and some good beer?
An Open Letter to Tony Blair from Allen Carr 27/11/06
"In spite of repeated formal approaches throughout 2004, 2005, & 2006, your Government, Department of Health, NHS, ASH, and QUIT have all refused to even meet me – let alone show an interest in my method.
It costs the taxpayer more than £400 to treat a smoker at the NHS Stop Smoking Clinics which use nicotine products, according to ASH they achieve a success rate of 20% after 12 months; i.e. a FAILURE rate of 80%. The fee at my clinics is £220 and if smokers don’t quit, it costs nothing.
I have not had the benefit of charitable donations, government funding or the vast wealth of the pharmaceutical industry to fund marketing campaigns. The success and fame of the method has been achieved through personal recommendations. I am now widely recognized as the world’s leading expert on helping smokers to quit for one reason alone:
MY METHOD WORKS
Your government still refuses to provide my method on the NHS. Its refusal even to evaluate the method was made through the “National Institute for Clinical Excellence” (NICE) presumably under the influence of the pharmaceutical industry which sells nicotine via so-called Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) – gums, patches, nasal sprays, inhalators, etc. NRT is a misnomer. Nicotine is not replaced, it is continued and there’s nothing therapeutic about that.
YOU CANNOT CURE NICOTINE ADDICTION BY SUPPLYING NICOTINE!
The difficulty in stopping smoking is not the physical withdrawal. It is the feeling of deprivation smokers suffer because they believe they are making a sacrifice. Pills, patches or potions cannot solve this problem. My method does.
Your government, aided by the medical establishment, the NHS, ASH and QUIT, under the powerful influence of the pharmaceutical industry, is pouring hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money each year into the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies which are, in effect, competing with the tobacco industry to supply the nicotine addicted market and perpetuate nicotine addiction.
THIS IS A NATIONAL SCANDAL
http://allencarr.com/central/art...from-allen-
carr
Doctor
I do believe that you've earned that pit of Vienna Fingers and good beer, at very least for putting up with me.
Thank you.
Walt,over here,they've just started to pull the plug on tobacco websites from listing cigarettes and/or hand rolling tobacco.I mentioned it awhile back that i could purchase pipe tobacco,cigars ,fine cut tobacco but not handrolling tobak or cigarettes online.Using a credit card signifies that you are of the legal age,so there is no rhyme nor reason for this action,other than spite and willful indoctrination. Unfortunately i just cannot see the retailers from telling their card merchant to take a hike,a lack of cajones no less.
Instead of a pit of hellfire, can I at least get a pit full of Vienna Fingers and some good beer?
No Way!!! Are you on drugs? Both are the hit next as the next wave of "protections for your own" gear up.
Welcome to our world. Let's see how you enjoy being told what risks you can or cannot take.
This is your bed, either work hard to kill it or just lay in it and enjoy it. As for me...........I've become a rebel and I refuse to cow tow to your fear mongering.
OK, not enough coffee yet obviously. This should have read:
Both are the hit list as the next wave of "protections for your own good>/b>"
ARRRRGGGHHHHH
Both are the hit list as the next wave of "protections for your own good"
1991
"This B vitamin, a PHARMACEUTICAL ORPHAN without a corporate sponsor, has been described as the most cost-effective treatment for high levels of cholesterol that are not sufficiently reduced by a low-fat diet"
"Niacin's ability to reduce cholesterol levels in the blood has long been recognized, but because it is a vitamin and CANNOT BE PATENTED, no drug company has bothered to test and promote it in the fight against coronary heart disease."
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/0...lth-
706091.html
But they could have patented the delivery device,just like they did with nicotine.
"How much money do these 'honorable researchers' who would be so fast to throw Dr. Siegel into a pit of hellfire at the mere scent of tobacco money make off of their humanitarian efforts? The initial million dollar grant things may just be the very tip of a very green but very dirty iceberg."
Don't forget, MJM, that Dr. Siegel, as late as November of last year, awarded one of those "honorable researchers," Stanton Glantz, the title, "hero of tobacco control," a title that I doubt the doctor has the slightest urge to remove.
Talk about feeding the hand that bites you!
.
This is getting ludicrous
"Drinkaware research shows that we miss out when answering a call of nature
The need for a comfort stop after a pint or two has caused half of people to miss out on key moments, according to new research by alcohol charity Drinkaware.
The study found that 49 per cent of adults said that being 'caught short' had meant postponing a key event in their lives.
"The results of the survey coincide with the launch of a summer awareness campaign for adults.
Called ‘Drink Less, Miss Less' it features celebrities, including England cricketer Jimmy Anderson, encouraging people to regulate their summer drinking.
Chris Sorek, CEO of Drinkaware, said: “Many people are unaware that alcohol makes you pee more that water or soft drinks, but there are other, more serious health implications of drinking to excess or too often.
"The campaign uses a light-hearted approach to encourage adults to keep track of their drinking and to think about its effects – going to the toilet being only one of them.”
http://www.thepublican.com/
story...storycode=64393
Heh Doc, As you know I did some interviews with Chris Snowdon and they ran some of the stuff that I said in Spiked Magazine. Apparently, Nathanaiel Wander sent a response which someone annonymously sent to me. Nathaniel Wander (who I don't think I ever met) works at the Center for Tobacco Contro a the University of California. He states " What a sad and silly article this is, (1).David Goerlitz, a former advertising model, thinks of himself as the J.Robert Oppenheimer of tobacco control. He created a Frankensteins monster that he now regrets. Goerlitz created nothing. The global tobacco control movement was created by thousands of citizen activists and publicly spirited scientists and physicians. Tobacco Control is a mass movement in which Goerlitz should be grateful to have played a small part.
it continues, "(2). The only thing Frankensteinish here is Goelitz's vanity. His qualifications to judge the validity of scientific studies are precisely what? Seriously, Snowdon quotes this fountain of wisdom
reasonably supporting the humaity of smokers saying: Treat people with dignity and respect, and then at the same time referring to the people of tobacco control as "loud-mouthed anti smoking zealots, the wackos, the grap-bag full of nuts". "speaking of hypocrisy, this piece appears to be little more than self-promotion for Christopher Snowdons soon to be released anti-tobacco control book, already being adopted as biblical by a curious group of tobacco harm deniers."
I love how he refers to the "curious group" as "tobacco harm deniers." I am convinced more than ever that I am NOT grateful for having played a "small part" in the creation of tobacco control with its thousands of activist citizens and publicly spirited scientists and physicians.
What I am grateful for is the honesty, and truthfulness being expressed in this forum that helps me almost daily to develop the thick skin necessary to stand up to the "citizen activists" and plethora of "publicly spirited scientists and physicians" in TC, (Nathaniel Wanders phrase, not mine) who for one reason or another can't seem to get it together and at the very least organize the lies, bias's, prdjudices and misinformation being disseminated to the media and the general public.
And, BTW, Matt...thanks,
David G.
Sorry, I meant thanks Marshall, not Matt. ( my bad)
David G.
Rose i'm speechless. The above from yourself and reading this http://nannyknowsbest.blogspot.com/ 2nd item down . And they want to denormalise us for smoking ??????
Si
I'm so glad that my children are both grown up.
"encourage adults to keep track of their drinking and to think about its effects – going to the toilet being only one of them"
The Nannies have reached a new low when they think they have to potty-train adults.
Rose,i can't repeat the words my 13yo daughter used to sum this up,bet you can guess though.
Michael S.
“Instead of a pit of hellfire, can I at least get a pit full of Vienna Fingers and some good beer?”
I think they would have a ‘purification’ diet in mind for you as you contemplate your ‘heresy’ and pit-surrounds, involving carrot sticks (dotted with cucumber) and tomato juice (maybe they already have a beer ‘patch’).
_
The leader in Health®, the medical establishment is the leading cause of preventable death & injury, and psychological & social dysfunction.
Setting the Standards in Derangement and Self-Approbation for a New World, for the Benefit of All [of the Medical Establishment].
Rick
No tomato juice I'm afraid.
Vegetable Nicotine in ng/g g per 1µg nicotine
Cauliflower 16.8 59.5
Eggplant (Aubergine) 100.0 10
Potatoes 7.1 140
Green tomatoes 42.8 23.4
Ripe tomatoes 4.3 233.0
Pureed tomatoes 52.0 19.2
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/cont...tract/329/6/
437
The carrot sticks and cucumber should be fine.
David Goerlitz
Thanks not necessary but appreciated, I have never worked for either tobacco control or big tobacco even though I am frequently accused of the latter, It use to urk me but as time went by it lost all effect, as a matter of fact now I just laugh, ask them if that is the best they've got and point them to Michael's blog entry.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot....ti-
smoking.html
I remain unconvinced on the science on second hand smoke The RR's are about the same as eating meat or fumes from cooking oil, in other words extremely weak. and don't justify draconian laws that strip business owners of the right to use a legal product on their own property or to allow their guest to do the same. I have looked at some of your work and from what little I have seen. it is admirable, there are very few of us fighting the bans that deny the health risks of smoking, we just don't buy into the so called consensus science especially when it is a consensus of activist. As long as you stick with the facts and don't turn it into a crusade and try to turn kids against their parents, I applaud your efforts. I do believe education is the way to go. I personally think you are fighting a losing battle it is not the movies that is going to create the next generation of smokers. It is the fact that it has been made taboo, and the groups of smokers huttled on the street corners that element of cool.
Rose,
Michael may need nicotine patches as well!!
Michael S.
“Instead of a pit of hellfire, can I at least get a pit full of Vienna Fingers and some good beer?”
By the way, the only reading material allowed in the pit is the journal ‘Tobacco Control’, the ‘Pharmaceutical Weekly’ newsletter, and Stan Glantz’s vacation photos (I believe there is even a short video clip of Stan attempting to ‘moon walk’ at the recent ‘smoke cessation’ conference). Could you maintain your sanity, Michael, with this sort of assault?
_
The leader in Health®, the medical establishment is the leading cause of preventable death & injury, and psychological & social dysfunction.
Setting the Standards in Derangement and Self-Approbation for a New World, for the Benefit of All [of the Medical Establishment].
JTF wrote:
"[A]bout 30% of the decline in cigarette sales since 2000 has been offset by the use of tobacco in other forms."
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Prim...m...re/Smoking/
9775
I've long acknowledged that many cigarette smokers in the US and Sweden have switched to or substitute smokeless tobacco products, and I've acknowledged that some cigarette smokers in the US have switched to or substitute RYO and little cigars.
Switching from cigarettes to smokefree tobacco/nicotine products benefits public health since smokefree products are far far less hazardous alternatives than cigarettes.
But switching from cigarettes to RYO or little cigars doesn't benefit public health. The good news is that the new federal excise tax of $1/pack on little cigars and RYO tobacco has sharply reduced sales of little cigars and RYO tobacco.
David, quite a response from Wander! I'm not surprised they'd attack Snowdon's book, and also not surprised that, as usual, the writer either didn't read it or simply couldn't find anything solid to attack in it.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
A self-promoting member of a curious group of tobacco harm deniers....
{Watch for my ads during SuperBowl halftime!}
"But switching from cigarettes to RYO or little cigars doesn't benefit public health " Bill,this is your problem.This SHOULDN'T be about benefit to Public Health,it's about the benefit to the public.You are a public servant if you are involved in Public Health.You've got it arse about tit ,now learn a little PR,YOU'RE A SERVANT,NOT A MASTER.
Bill G. ''Switching from cigarettes to smokefree tobacco/nicotine products benefits public health since smokefree products are far far less hazardous alternatives than cigarettes.''
What does Bill G. think it does to public health when switching from taxed cigarettes to untaxed cigarettes of unknown ingredients like in the case of Ontario and Quebec where 40% of smokers smoke native untaxed brands? Or doesn't Bill G. think that will happen in the US when the prices of a pack of cigarettes will reach $9.00 or $10.00? Someone will be laughing all the way to the bank and it ain't gonna be public health or the government! Oh hold on, this is happening in New York already where prices have almost reached these levels, isn't it?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2...,353017,00.html
What does Bill G. think it does to public health when switching from taxed cigarettes to untaxed cigarettes of unknown ingredients like in the case of Ontario and Quebec where 40% of smokers smoke native untaxed brands?
I love this idea that just because cigarettes aren't carrying an extortionist tax that there must be some unknown dangerous ingredients involved. I'm willing to risk my life that those untaxed cigs have LESS added poisons to them than the government sanctioned (over-taxed) legal cigs. But that's just me.
Or doesn't Bill G. think that will happen in the US when the prices of a pack of cigarettes will reach $9.00 or $10.00? Someone will be laughing all the way to the bank and it ain't gonna be public health or the government! Oh hold on, this is happening in New York already where prices have almost reached these levels, isn't it?
I absolutely love this part the most. While bragging about the decrease in smoking since sales are down, they turn around in the next breath and scream about smokers cheating them out of tax dollars by shopping on the reservation for tax-free cigs, or as in Canada's case, whining about the black market cutting into the government coffers.
These people truly are idiots if they think no one notices the hypocrisy.
LyndaF ''I love this idea that just because cigarettes aren't carrying an extortionist tax that there must be some unknown dangerous ingredients involved.''
Well, in the case of Canada, Health Canada (the equivalent to your FDA), has put stringent rules to the tobacco companies as far as added ingredients are concerend. When you buy a brand cigarette in Canada, it is stamped ''Pure Canadian tobacco. No additives''. Does this mean tobacco that does not come from Canada (most native cigarettes in the Canadian market come from the Akwesasne reserve in N.Y. - contraband cigarettes come from overseas ) contain nastier ingredients? Not necessarily, however we don't know for sure as they are not produced under Health Canada's strict supervision.
The Canadian TC zealots claim that whether Health Canada approved or native cigarettes it's all the same shit, tobacco companies play on the card that native and contraband cigarettes are pure junk and that when analyzed they even found rodent fecies in the tobacco. Who to believe?
"tobacco companies play on the card that native and contraband cigarettes are pure junk and that when analyzed they even found rodent fecies in the tobacco. Who to believe?"
................
My older brother used to work as a quality control chemist for a flour company.
One of his checks was to make certain that rodent fecal matter and dead insect matter did not exceed the FDA allowable limits.
That crap(pun intended) was allowed by the FDA in flour and other dry goods we eat. 
Maybe some kind soul could come to my rescue and tell me the difference between "public health" and "private health." People like the doctor and Godshall continually jabber on about "public health" in a sense that seems to be a perversion of that term as I understand it. If I choose to abuse my body and the abuse is not communicable, how does that fall into the category of "public health"? Swine flu is a public health concern; any health effects from my smoking is not a public health concern, in my opinion. Or is the Great Collective now in command of the language?
.
In the USA
In 1965 about 60.74 million adults smoked cigarettes.
In 1990 about 43.125 million adults smoked cigarettes, in 2007 about 45 million adults smoked cigarettes!!
That is a 29% decrease in smokers from 1965 to 1990 and a 4.16% increase in the number of adult cigarette smokers from 1990 to 2007!!
Since the number of adult smokers decreased,the number of teen smokers,who went on to become adult smokers, must have shown an equal decrease.
With drug companies having their NRT drugs coming online in the early 90's, they must have been horrified at the steady decrease in the potential customer base for those NRT drugs.
Drug companies must be very happy with the work their TC whores have done!!
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/T...0000&
SUBMIT1=Go
In 1965 the population was 191 million,75% were adults = 143.25 million, 42.4% smoked is 143.25 x 42.4% = 60.74 million smokers.
1990 the population was 250 million, 75% were adults = 187.5 million, 23% smoked is 187.5 x 23% = 43.125 million.
2007 population was 300 million, 75% were adults = 225 million, 20% smoked = 45 million cigarette smokers.
It is the fact that it has been made taboo, and the groups of smokers huttled on the street corners that element of cool.
Marshall Keith |
...........
The groups of smokers huddled on the street corners are mostly high school drop-outs and there are a lot of them!
http://www.manhattan-institute.o...tml/
cr_baeo.htm
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The report's main findings are the following:
The national graduation rate for the class of 1998 was 71%. For white students the rate was 78%, while it was 56% for African-American students and 54% for Latino students.
Gary,
______________
I was talking about the displaced smokers pushed outside by the smoking ban. Kids will see them as anti-establishment and in a way they will be heroes to the kids. Much better advertising than movies ever could be.
I was talking about the displaced smokers pushed outside by the smoking ban. Kids will see them as anti-establishment and in a way they will be heroes to the kids. Much better advertising than movies ever could be.
Marshall Keith
.............
Indeed true!
I was just amazed at the fact that about 30% of the 225 million adults in this country, about 67 million, do not have a high school diploma.
TC worries about SHS, society and the govt have failed 67 million adults and their children.
While discussing bias and its sources, we also should pay some attention to its motivations and extent.
In most medical research the motivation for biasing a study comes primarily just from a single source: money. While drug companies et al *do* want to know if their new drug is likely to cause massive numbers of deaths and lawsuits, they'll also obviously prefer to make future grants to scientists who cast their wares in a favorable light... even if that favorable light means altering data sometimes.
Most researchers have at least a few moral qualms that often get in the way of such things. But in the world of antismoking research those moral qualms can be tossed right out the window since the "end" - producing results that will reduce smoking rates and thereby supposedly smoking-related disease/death - justifies the "means" - juggling/slanting/misrepresenting/misinterpreting/
or outright falsifying data.
How big a factor is this? From what I've seen over the years I believe it is a HUGE factor. I would not be surprised if outright fraud is present in antismoking research regarding secondary smoke exposure at a rate of two or three hundred percent above the norm in such areas as drug trials etc.
How big an effect would that be?
If one takes the figures in
http://www.naturalnews.com/
02657...ugs_cancer.html
to be valid, and if one takes the statement of "14 percent of the scientists said they knew someone who had fabricated, falsified or altered data," to be reasonably accurate as a representation of the actual number who HAVE falsified etc ...
then that would imply that perhaps as much as half of the research supporting smoking bans could fall into that category. The figure could arguably be even higher, since the "knowing someone who has falsified data" figure wouldn't include all the ones who've done it and not blabbermouthed about it.
When you apply that sort of perspective to research as near the borderline of producing findings as secondary smoke the validity of the overall findings of that research become TRULY questionable: Remember, only ten to twenty percent of studies examining lung cancer and ETS exposure found a statistically significant relationship.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
10 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
