340 Young People a Day.
Who needs tobacco control anyway? What's its purpose?
To make the world purer / safer for whining, whinging, helpless snivelling cowards, who must be protected from others or themselves. Reminds me (I see U.S. series on Swiss TV sometimes in English), what's with the phone goodbye that's now so often "Be Safe" ? I'm so sick of the words "safe," "protect," and more (guess I've blocked them). If they weren't all getting either rich or getting their self-righteous, sanctimonious control crusade orgasms, which I guess passes for a life in some horrible way, you'd have to say, "for chrissake, get a life." Or maybe they just need to get a real life.
Doc, you're thinking about this from the perspective of a researcher/MD, that's where you're going wrong.
Think of it in terms of a spin doctor, it doesn't matter if what you're peddling is right or wrong just as long as you can sell it to the public, and then sell your products (pharmaceuticals and a sense of self-righteousness over a body of people that it is encouraged to discriminate against) to that public.
I'm going to post the same quote here as I posted on the previous thread, because it fits here just as nicely 
"The problem with calumny is not merely that it motivates hatred or that it is simply dishonest. Even more significant, effective dishonesty -- calumny that succeeds in its goals -- undermines cultural commitments to truth by encouraging cynicism. When lies work, why not lie? Yet when a culture ceases to honor the truth, it loses its ability to preserve law, justice and fairness."
benpal asked:
"Who needs tobacco control anyway? What's its purpose?"
To make meanlingless persons feel meaningful.
Which for some reason reminds me of a quote from my philosophy class 25 years ago: "Beauty is the beauty that makes things beautiful."
Dr. Siegel wrote:
"It appears that this anti-smoking group, like an increasing number...believes that the cause is so important that the facts really don't matter...It's OK, because this is all for a good cause."
Once again, and for the one millionth collective time, this is not new. From 1993:
"Yes, it's rotten science, but it's in a worthy cause. It will help us to get rid of cigarettes and become a smoke-free society."
When will you start communicating these facts to places that are considering smoking ban, based upon this kind of information? When will you begin communicating with state and national legislators, telling them they've been had? When will you call Dateline and ask them to do a show on the fraud of these studies? When will you act instead of vent your frustrations with these people who have no intention of stopping their deceit?
The crazy world of England’s smoking ban
It’s built on anti-pub prejudice, junk science and petty authoritarianism. So one year on, why do so few people see the ban as a blow to our freedom?
http://www.spiked-online.com/ind...e/article/5419/
and
The BMA: censorious, busybody killjoys
The British Medical Association’s demand for the censorship of ‘smoking imagery’ suggests doctors fancy themselves as the new priests.
http://www.spiked-online.com/ind...e/article/5443/
GreatScot
Gabz - Thanks for that great quote. It really does nicely sum up why I feel this is so important. It goes way beyond an isolated anti-smoking group making a silly claim on a web site. Some of my colleagues don't see that there is something much larger at stake here.
Thanks Douglas - I corrected that mistake, and it took less than 8 1/2 months. Fortunately, I don't have a web master who is vacationing on a remote island.
The propaganda dept. of the anti-smoking groups are hell bent on enslaving the general pulic with lies deciet and fraud. Their studies of late seem more absurd with each passing day. They have reached a political milestone with the progressives gaining power in washignton.After having been kept at bay for the last 14 years by the conservatives. They are wasting no time in cultivating anything they can think of to throw out for public consumption,regardless if it sounds absurd or not. This is their death nell as the more their claims reach the level of absurdity the public perception will alter and make the average person think, maybe all their studies and claims are fraudulent....
As the good doctor has pointed out medical science is the loser in all this as people will no longer trust a group that has prostituted itself in the name of a POLITICAL AGENDA......
Doctor Siegel, you're doing it again;
"almost nine months after..... it is becoming apparent to me"
Geeeeze you really are a slow learner aren't you?
"It appears that this anti-smoking group....."
It "appears",...are you kidding!?
"This also leads me to question..."
Truly,.....slow.
"It seems difficult to believe..."
SEEMS!?,....Are you somehow regressing in awareness?
"but that it may be an intentional effort to deceive"
Seriously,...stop it.
"It is truly becoming clear to me"
And in a few more years, you'll likely still be chanting the same mantra as you simply can't accept the reality of it all.
"Do we really need to stoop down so low, below the level of even the tobacco industry, to make our points to the public?"
Unfortunately, yeah, you do. It's all you know, and without an opponent to keep the fight on a "level playing field" no amount of deception is too much. Especially when your arch nemesis (Big Bad Tobacco) has already given up. You are free to keep kicking them for as long as you like, and by proxy, their customers.
Since you "appear" to be a little slower in comprehending whats going on around you than people that actually smoke; the "customers" would be,....people that smoke.
It "seems" to be....
It "appears" to....
It "may be" a case of....
It's "difficult to believe"....
It's "becoming clear",....
Weasel words.
Make a commitment already.
Yes, Dr. Siegel, it is a good quote.
The irony of it, is that author was not refering to such groups as ASH, et al, but rather to people like you, me, and the majority of us here who are attempting to bring to light what they are doing. IOW words she was accusing the truth seekers of being the ones causing the calumny.
If you look carefully at the bottom of the web page...
http://www.scenesmoking.org/frame.htm
... and right click on the offending notice of "SK340, Smoking Kills About 340 Young People A Day" and select properties you'll that this message is part of the larger gif. It is not text, it is a graphic.
If you look at the bottom of the graphic, center screen, you'll read that this graphic dates all the way back to 2004.
This group is just about smoking being depicted in movies that might be seen by young people. Their target audience is kids and this lie just reinforces the notion in some kids minds that adults are liars.
The addiction counter at the very bottom of the screen says that "9 kids have become addicted from seeing tobacco in movies since I hit this site." It's OK though. I closed the window before the number reached 10.
E=MC^2
Advocate for CASH
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
We Can Safely Conclude that They Do Not Care About the Facts
NO, however we can safely call them LIARS now since you made them aware of the error almost a year ago.
THIS proves it is deliberate with NO care for the truth.
Go on, Doc, say it. THEY ARE LIARS
Dr. Siegel: “Do we really need to stoop down so low, below the level of even the tobacco industry, to make our points to the public?”
The answer is yes; you do.
Doc, I think someone may have forgotten to send you an amended copy of the agenda. The item dealing with protecting the public health has been deleted. The item currently under consideration is how best to further de-humanize smokers.
It’s simply not enough to denounce smokers publicly as suicidal, inconsiderate louts. The public at large must be convinced that smokers are child abusers, baby killers and worse. Otherwise, most non-smokers might be reluctant to condone the humiliation of, and discrimination against, smokers. The deception is deliberate and widespread in the tobacco control movement.
“If the lie works, why not lie?”
The anti-smoker brigade has declared war on smokers. The first casualty of war is truth. The lies, deceit and shoddy science are merely the weapons of choice for the so called “tobacco control movement” which is interested only in controlling smokers, no matter what the cost.
I agree with Sheri above....what is needed is for SOMEONE with clout to step up to the plate and take on these LIES. No one can call anyone a flatout liar on TV, but at least if the doc would get some of the info on this Blog to the public I am sure that 90 percent of them would understand for themselves how they have been duped. At a minimum it would make them say "humm...." which is a start. What really pisses me off is that our local paper splashed in BIG BOLD HEADLINES ALL ABOUT THE SURGEON GENERAL'S REPORT - NO SAFE LEVEL OF EXPOSURE!!!!!!!!!!!! but not a SINGLE WORD about how it was discredited.
The doc can't call them liars because of the potential of being sued. He is using weasel-talk, but I understand why he has to do so. What I want is for someone with the doc's standing to SPEAK UP honestly on Dateline, for example, and demonstrate how the anti's have totally lost it. I could talk until I'm blue in the face but no one would listen to me, I have no medical training and am (worse of worse) a smoker. The doc has that training and is a non-smoker.
A bit of good news though is that my local newspaper is NOT blasting BanBan's work --- it seems as if once MN passed their ban they've stopped papering the front page with the horrors of smoking. To me that says they were told by someone "high up" to stop publishing that junk...I can only hope.
Sorry, meant to say "..not blasting BanBan's work on their papers."
EinsteinSmoked,
Thanks for closing the Scene Smoking window before any more kids got addicted to smoking from watching movies. You have truly saved countless lives.
LightningBoy wrote:
" It "seems" to be....
It "appears" to....
It "may be" a case of....
It's "difficult to believe"....
It's "becoming clear",....
Weasel words.
Make a commitment already. "
Reminds me of a younger Michael Siegel:
The "evidence suggested..."
"[T]here may be..."
"[I]n part attributable to..."
Though his conclusion was much firmer in that situation.
I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge that the Doc is indeed a good sport. We pound him relentlessly (and sometimes simply because, out of all of AT, he makes himself available), and he responds (when he selectively and infrequently does) with notably good grace (okay; with some exceptions). Still, his ordinarily good humor should be acknowleged-- before the next punch.
GreatScot--
Those were great articles from spiked. They made me reflect that the entire world is now a mental hospital. The old joke about the asylum being run by the patients is turned on its head; the hipper joke is that it's run by the doctors. The Dutch ban on mixing tobacco with your legally-smokable weed is prima facie evidence of World Gone Mad. Though I;m thinking along the lines of entire populations being crazed by irrational fears and propaganda
There are times when I'm almost ready to believe that the whole damn thing was merely an experiment in the power and the reach of political propaganda--a warm-up for some other deadlier (?) Real Thing, whatever Thing that could be. Considering the fact that nothing like this-- in the way of intentional organized demonization-- has been pulled off since Goebbels, you have to wonder if it started somebody up there thinking: Can we, in the free west, do the same thing? remodel the mob? manufacture a brand new hatred from scratch? They could have picked anything to experiment with: coffee drinkers, redheads, people with blue eyes, but they landed on smokers. And proved-- just as Goebbels proved-- that they could.
I think I've mentioned this before, but I once read in the Times that in Germany before the war, the social psychologists planned an experiment to test the waters for authoritarianism and how it might go down. They plastered the phone booths in a few-block area with signs, either reading "For Men Only" or "For Women Only" and then watched to see if ordinary people would "obey" these irrational instructions. (All of them, except one French woman, did.)
;
Thanks for closing the Scene Smoking window before any more kids got addicted to smoking from watching movies. You have truly saved countless lives.
Now, that was funny....thanks.
Sheri, Enstrom should bring a lawsuit against Glantz in response to many years of false charges. I would be glad to pledge significant money for a top lawyer.
Folks,
This is OT, but I wanted to draw your attention to a terrific piece of work by Brian Bond.
http://www.freedom2choose.info/n...ews1.php?
id=738
Compare Brian's work, if you will, with the garbage that inspired it.
Chalk and cheese.....
Great job, Brian!
Can somebody explain to me how a presumably notable professor (Robert West) can lend his name to such a shoddy study?
Is there a way to find out how much he was payed?
Wonderful, Brian
Now I understand!
OT
Time to lay down a nice cellar so that you can still serve your guests without making them feel sick over dinner.
Alcohol should carry graphic warning pictures say doctors
"Alcohol bottles and cans should carry graphic pictures of liver disease and mouth cancer to deter binge drinking, doctors have said.
Pubs and bars should also be forced to display posters warning about the health risks of drinking too much, doctors at the British Medical Association said."
"Graphic warning pictures will be introduced on cigarette packets and the same should happen with alcohol to help tackle Britain's binge drinking culture, they said."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...ay-
doctors.html
I suppose you could buy a decanter or at least some large sticky labels.
What they have forgotten is that they will have to look at these pictures during their own formal dinners, unless the waiting staff cover them up with napkins whilst serving.
Just for sheer wickedness...
The British Medical Association accused of drunken antics at its London HQ
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol...716.ece?
pgnum=1
OK, I know that was wrong of me but ..
I go to this website to pick movies with smoking in them. The tobacco companies should put movie listings on their websites too, wicked cool way to find smoking in movies.
Get Smart - PG-13
Get Smart was almost genius as there were sightings of tobacco. CF
Incredible Hulk, The - PG-13
The Incredible Hulk seemed to become less incredible from the first movie to the second, as they had smoking in the second one for no good reason. RB
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - PG-13
Indiana Jones' great adventure did not stray away from tobacco. JK
Unfortunately Cathy Bell's soap box was short circuited, shortly after she threw up her hands and ran away.
http://communities.canada.com/MO...ead/
209155.aspx
I went to the trouble of creating this response, so why waste it?
I know she will read it here.
Cathy likes to use "Joe Camel" as her canvas: while she has no problem with the same corporations, who, through the power of, her own anti smoker groups "marketing strategies" are seen in another rendition as Kraft foods.
Kraft is a kind and compassionate protector of our children. On the CBC, how many times have we heard the term "we would like to thank our proud sponsors Kraft foods in connection with children’s sporting events or the Olympics?
Kraft; AKA Philip Morris, The largest of American marketers of process foods is also the largest of American Tobacco companies.
Communities have had their values turned inside out and upside down since The World Health Organization developed a plan they call HIA health intervention, by partnering with the largest corporations on the planet they decided to place the costs of diseases on those with diseases. All of us will grow old and experience connection with those disease categories before we die. In short your worth is being connected to your ability to produce profit for others and their credibility is measured by their bank balances.
Or how about the Gasoline marketers, chemical companies or drug dealers, who play violins and show wonderful nature scenes with such happy people, while distributing products we already know by physical connection are much more harmful than second hand smoke has ever been, or ever could be?
In your own post and I assume you can't argue with the statement, because you seem to agree enough to have posted it.
"In fact, it is an accepted norm of medical science that lower risk ratios can establish health risks when there is biomedical support linking a substance to an illness and when a number of studies show a risk, both of which are true for second-hand smoke (see Section 3.1 Claim second-hand smoke isn't dangerous)."
"biomedical support" What this term means is you have to have a believable and visible physical link beyond the speculation of calculated studies or personal opinions.
Show me that science; otherwise you rely solely on speculation and insignificant risk which amounts to insignificant proof or no proof, and your theoretic husking will always remain a matter of unfounded irresponsible speculation. Just like someone yelling fire in the theater, because they want a better seat.
The alternative opinion, you do not want to, or can not accept, is in a linear sense poison is in the dose and many poisons with no accumulation will be purged from the body having done no harm.
A non linear proof would require a demonstration which eliminates the epidemiological studies presented so far as proof. Cutting your own lifeline.
People in the largest majority live quite well every day with no damage done by the hundreds of years we have already been exposed to tobacco smoke. This is possible because your body has defenses as much as you and your alarmist rabble will deny it, in search of credibility, the human body is not so sensitive something as trivial as second hand smoke offers them anything beyond excruciatingly little or no risk. The most extreme calculations such as those demonstrated by Dr. Michael Siegal of the most exposed person anyone could imagine or create by calculations demonstrated 220 bartenders among millions exposed who would be the victims of "second hand smoke". They are not real victims, or are they even probable victims, because the exposure rates are well beyond what we could ever see as or in the norm.
Cathy would like to expand by extreme exaggerations that risk would be equal to a risk anyone who spends a night in a smoky bar once in a while or even as a nightly habit or anyone smelling smoke on someone’s clothes would endure. She sells her tales of woes claiming all exposure is deadly. That is something twisted in her own mind. Similarly children who are exposed in a car, are not in fact at demonstrable elevated risk of permanent harm, yet the all knowing alarmists, in a need to promote fear to sell their wares, would cry and play the emotional contortions game, "Oh my god those poor little defenseless children, will all need protection from their own parents" and people are buying it? Emotional blackmail is used in search of support, among those; who don't smoke, simply don't like the smell of smoke and those who quite simply don't know any better.
You can not explain facts, so you ignore them what a wonderful basis for modern sciences, and what is the health risk of that new norm. The baby boomers grew up immersed in cigarette smoke in the stores the hospitals the movie theaters and on airplanes. Today we have an aging population crisis, because the majority of those people refuse to die as the generations before them did, at an average below 65 years.
Today the norms are much higher and giving credit to medical innovation does not bode well with an argument declaring second hand smoke as a health risk, which takes us back to the 1930s and the same type of rhetorical reasoning, when we have the tools and technology today which can and should have settled the matter and decisively.
cont...
The trouble is we keep seeing the "wrong" or "unacceptable answers"; the mice lived much longer, they were smarter more active and overall healthier than their non second hand smoking, comparative groups, repeated until abandoned.
In the WHO study, claimed by the promoters as "epidemiology the way it should be done" valid until the answers emerged they did not want to see. "No risk" of spouses who lived with smokers, "insignificant risk" when you add workplace exposures and for children who lived with smoking parents "a curative finding".
In the Enstrom and Kobot study "no risk".
Both are large population studies which by your own explanation of viability, should be more indicative of proof than the dozen or so studies, you rely on, which on average only looked at a couple hundred people and as low as a couple of dozens, as opposed to tens of thousands in the two mentioned. Show me a significant risk in the more credible larger studies. The fact is you can not.
The real joke is, the Cancer society was so determined to deny the results of E & K they declared their own CPS11 numbers illegitimate, despite the fact it discredited a large number of the studies you claimed demonstrate risk, risk which supposedly, could side step the rules of normal epidemiological evaluations.
Where is the physical evidence Cathy? There is none, because you are wrong and you simply will not accept that reality.
Your frustration is understandable to me, it will only be understandable to you, when you learn to look at yourself in the mirror and recognize denial.
Second hand smoke is a great tool for selling a number of products and makes a great excuse for governments to spend excessive amounts of our taxes.
When you look at the anti smoker promoters words, they don't talk about making avenues available to those who want to quit. They talk in terms of "eliminating tobacco use" and that amounts to fascism, which in case anyone is confused by the term; it means Industrial Socialism or a society ruled by Industry, with money taking precedent over humanity.
The end has been decided and people "will" quit smoking, because governments will make you do it. No choices are allowed in the campaign strategy. Today punishment by restrictions and tomorrow brings absolutes, just as it always is within oppressive societies.
That is the type of governments and fanatical followings we have always fought and died to oppose, what makes them credible or keeps them out of prisons today, [where they belong] is the power of advertising and it's efficiencies which need to be regulated and those responsible, held to account, before this promotion of hatred goes any farther out of control.
Fire in the theatre, making use of an extreme population growth coinciding with aging populations, to create a speculative risk, and incredibly applying it through epidemiological studies, to the current population is dismissed entirely, when the growing number of those lying by omission for profit is taken into consideration.
There are the same number of smokers throughout North America today as there were in 1960, and the real number has not changed significantly in over 50 years; 55-60 million. The exposures to "second hand smoke" have decreased quoting the American Surgeon General "by over 75%" The incredible rise in all smoking related diseases are therefore linked to population growth and not to "second hand smoke".
Taking advantage of the diseased and dying simply to expand the profits of industry and "Charities" represents the very worst in the human condition. The rise to the top by promotion of these inhuman bigots is not because of their own claims to be "the cream of the crop" a positive notion, but a sign as we see many more signs around us; of horrors and expansions of misery to come. Incited by the ignorant, who claim to be something more.
Brian,
nice work.
I noticed this statement from Professor West "and behavioural support in the ‘real world’."
Anybody know what he means?
GreatScot
I look forward to reading a response
Pass:
Register Here!
Tobacco Reporter Magazine Content:
Golden Leaf Awards
TABEXPO
Editor's Memo
Industry Briefs
John Luik
Features
Profiles
Market Reports
Technology
Now Available
Patents
| TABEXPO | Tobacco Industry Guide | China Edition | Tobaccopeople |
EU parliamentary question challenges ETS toll
Jul 8, 2008—A question currently before the European Parliament asks the European Commission to name three or four people who have died from environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) during the past two years.
In the introduction to his written question, Godfrey Bloom, MEP (UK Independence Party, Yorkshire & North Lincolnshire), said that according to the Commission Green Paper, ‘Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke: policy options at EU level’, more than ‘79,000 adults’ died in the EU each year from the effects of ETS.
This claim was the driver behind the proposals by the Commission to bring in a binding directive later this year to enforce smoking bans in workplaces, he said.
‘Given that the impact of such a directive will be considerable, both economically and socially, could the Commission please name three or four people who have died from ETS within the European Union in the last two years?’, he asked.
""and behavioural support in the ‘real world’." "
It should be pretty obvious what it means;
Where were Banzam, Glanz and Repace when the WHO study flopped, or mice were found to be healthier when expossed to ETS.
Were they amused and interested by strange developments as one would expect of a scientist, or were they more easily described as frustrated and angered?
The more than 250 posts at the BMJ did not represent inquiry or discussion in calm scientific tones.
This was first and foremost decisive evidence, the anti smoker movement is driven by entirely biased passions and science will not be allowed to stand in their way.
It all comes down to the obvious now; Science is defined as a measure of market share, and the most effective marketing will guide our wisdom.
‘Given that the impact of such a directive will be considerable, both economically and socially, could the Commission please name three or four people who have died from ETS within the European Union in the last two years?’, he asked.
That is so funny. Are politicians getting smarter? After all if 79,000 died it should be pretty easy to name four.
The man who smokes, thinks like a sage and acts like a Samaritan!!
Edward G. Lytton Bulwer-Lytton, Night and Morning
Rose,
those poor drinkers are in for a rude awakening very soon. The tactics perfected over 30 years in the anti-smoker campaign will be condensed into a short few years for the drinkers.
What a wonderful world.
GreatScot
BTW did you see (on the BBC health site today) a new magic vaccine for preventing Alzheimer's, made from Tomatoes.
GreatScot
Unfortunately I didn't, but in looking for it, I just found this-
Scientists design 'anti-cancer' tomato
"Tomatoes, even in their processed form, are already considered to be beneficial to health." ( niacin and lycopene )
"This is because they contain various antioxidant chemicals which may be able to prevent cell damage in the body."
So that would be tomatine/solanine and lycopene then would it?
"One of these chemicals is called lycopene, the pigment which gives the fruit its traditional red colour."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
2054381.stm
Tomatoes
Tomato is loaded with multiple health benefits. Considered as acidic 150 years ago, science has proved that it is alkaline in the body. The health benefits of tomatoes are as follows:
They are a good blood purifier.
They help in cases of congestion of the liver as well as for dissolving the gallstones.
They are a natural antiseptic.
Nicotinic acid in tomatoes can help to reduce blood cholesterol and thus help prevent heart diseases.
Vitamin K in them helps to prevent hemorrhages.
Their lycopene content, a vital antioxidant helps in the fight against cancerous cell formation
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.c...how/
3033377.cms
Kenya.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ica/
7497614.stm
Excepts
Kenyan smokers are now an endangered group,
The Tobacco Control Act came into effect on Tuesday, making it illegal for smokers to indulge their need for a puff virtually anywhere - including their own homes.
Aside from bars, offices, theatres, streets and places of worship, smoking is also now banned in parks, markets and private cars.
The law sets out hefty penalties for those caught in breach of the rules - prison terms of up to three years and a maximum fine of $46,000 (£23,000).
The government hopes that the punitive new law will encourage smokers to quit the habit
Fair, equitable? Read the brainwashed quotes from Kenyans including smokers.
Of course, and for 220nd time, it's all about the non-smoking workers.
Will any anti-smoker of integrity ever have the courage to just say it as it is?
GreatScot
So it starts again? Roma targeted Italy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ope/
7500605.stm
http://www.everyonegroup.com/
Eve...f_the_Roma.html
http://aidemocracy.typepad.com/i...es-on-
pers.html
Will we ever learn?
GreatScot
Will any anti-smoker of integrity ever have the courage to just say it as it is?
Great Scot, be fair now....they can't as they haven't the testicles OR the spine to tell the truth.
BTW.....if you want to drastically reduce your risk of most cancers, 10 minutes per day of direct sunlight provides you with all the vitamin D - in its purest, unadulterated form - required for cancer risk reduction.
Most strange GreatScot ul 9, 2008—From today, smoking is banned or restricted in public places in Kenya, according to a report by Mike Mwaniki for Nationmedia.com.
Smoking is banned in most workplaces, in public entertainment venues and on public transport, but hotel and bar owners are allowed to designate smoking areas within their premises.
At the same time, parents and guardians are being urged not to smoke in the presence of children.
Under the provisions of the Tobacco Control Act, also, cigarettes must be sold in lots of 10 or more, and they cannot be sold to people under the age of 18. The Act bans, too, the sale of objects that resemble tobacco products and that would appeal to those under the age of 18.
Tobacco advertising and promotions have been banned, and it is an offence to send tobacco products through the mail.
Si: "Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke: policy options at EU level’, more than ‘79,000 adults'"
They refer to this report: http://www.biostat.umn.edu/~twee...uments/hd-
k.pdf
But this report is misleading, because it doesn't clearly distinguish between smokers, non-smokers and ex-smokers. Some of the table headings are clearly wrong.
The figure of 79'449 is meant to represent ALL deaths from SHS, including non-, ex-, and active smokers.
If they can't even write and read statistics, who wants to believe them?
I am going to ask a stupid question because my brain is beginning to melt.
Nicotinic Receptors and Schizophrenia
"All of these various studies provide concordant evidence of a disturbance of low affinity and high affinity nicotinic receptor expression in various areas of the brain in schizophrenic subjects.
A deficiency of a7 receptors is observed in specific areas intimately involved in cognitive processes, suggesting a pathophysiological role of these receptors in schizophrenia."
http://www.medscape.com/viewarti...rticle/
483888_6
and with Alzheimers
and with Parkinson's
Mutated, damaged, deteriorated or simply not enough A7 nicotinic receptors.
Both nicotine AND nicotinic acid are said to help with all of these.
Nicotinic acid deficiency causes a dementia similar to paranoid schizophrenia in pellagra.
Yet we are told that these same receptors are pleasure centres for nicotine and if you block them people lose the urge to smoke.
Wikipedia - Varenicline
A full agonism was displayed on a7-receptors.
http://chantix.legalview.com/wik...ipedia/Chantix/
Now the brain people admit that they don't know what lots of bits of the brain are really for.
Nicotinic acid is supposed to go to a different receptor.
So, as nicotine has only been around in Europe for 400 years and evolution hasn't had time to make something special to cope with it, what did they really do before?
As I really can't face learning brain surgery, perhaps Doctor Siegel might help answer this question?
Off topic, ...but since its all the same propaganda anyway; This from the AP "medical writer" about the CDC report released yesterday:
"There is no safe level of exposure."
"Cigarettes cause lung cancer and other deadly illnesses not only in smokers, but also in nonsmokers who breathe in smoke, studies have shown."
(Studies have shown?,...really?)
"For nonsmoking adults, secondhand smoke increases their lung cancer risk by at least 20 percent and their heart disease risk by at least 25 percent. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at increased risk of asthma attacks, ear problems, acute respiratory infections and sudden infant death syndrome, health officials say."
(I'm guessing that the request of the SIDS foundation director for TC tp stop making this claim is just as irrelevant as smokers requests to be left in peace)
More from the piece:
"Also troubling _ the exposures for children did not decline as dramatically as it did for adults. More than 60 percent of children ages 4 through 11 had recent exposure to cigarette smoke in the 1999-2004 period, the researchers found.
"Obviously, the exposure is at home," said Thomas Glynn, the American Cancer Society's director for cancer science and trends."
Report available somewhere here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/
"Obviously, the exposure is at home,"
The final frontier........just as we've been saying all along. Think we're still delusional Doc? Think your movement is still so bloody honest and fair that it would never break down our doors and steal our liberty in our own homes?
Think again.
The rise to the top by promotion of these inhuman bigots is not because of their own claims to be "the cream of the crop" a positive notion, but a sign as we see many more signs around us; of horrors and expansions of misery to come. Incited by the ignorant, who claim to be something more.
Anonymous | 07.11.08 - 9:25 am |
prime example...
the Cleveland Clinic
first? in heart health
last in LIBERTY
http://blog.cleveland.com/
medica...ort_hospit.html
I've just been noticing that Michael Siegel has gone through the archives and deleted Cathy Bell's posts. Proof: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot....stions-
car.html
Cathy's comments are discussed, but those comments no longer appear there.
Poor old fella, I guess he just couldn't handle someone coming here and holding him accountable for the logical fallacies of his positions on things like car smoking bans. I think this prooves he is not interested in having a true debate and doesn't want dissenting opinions, at least not well-written ones. He's only blogging to promote an agenda.
"It is time for this debate. I look forward to hearing from the other side. I'd love to be able to be talked out of my current position."
@Seriously, what a joke: If you haven't taken part in this blog for a long time, you might be excused for your wrong accusation, but the question is: why would you want to accuse our host of censorship?
What you obviously don't know: Cathy and tobaccoscamalysis are the same persons
Rose--
How's the project going with gathering all your solanine and niacin material in one place? It would be an invaluable resource.
Brian--
Would it be worth it to try to get that published in the msm? Or an academic journal? Or what about The Skeptic? Or Maclean's? Or would the effort define existential futility? Just asking.
:
There are no comments from anyone called tobaccoscamalysis either. Cathy's comments are still discussed but those comments, which I have seen there before, are now gone.
And for what, because he couldn't handle her arguments? Because she made him look bad? What's his next move now, to go back and delete every comment in which Cathy's comments are discussed?
Rose,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
healt...Alzheimers.html
Thanks GreatScot
"For example, activation of the nicotine receptors, as is also true of cannabinoid receptors [36], can prevent the brain cell death that results from exposure to beta amyloid protein [37] as occurs in Alzheimer's disease.
http://www.harmreductionjournal..../content/2/1/
21
From your link
"Tomatoes could be used as a vaccine against Alzheimer's, scientists claim.
It works by attacking the toxic beta-amyloid protein that destroys vital connections between brain cells, causing Alzheimer's"
How interesting!
"Seriously, what a joke", see what I found, and there's more:
The lack of a home smoking ban is not a valid argument against having car smoking bans. We do what we reasonably can, and car smoking bans will improve health conditions for children for the reasons I mentioned.
tobaccoscamalysis | 08.30.07 - 3:36 pm |
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...72200975538480/
Walt
A section has been set up at Forces, and people have been very kindly weeding through my interminable posts to find anything useful.
I am now firmly of the opinion that I talk too much and should think a lot less.
BTW Walt
I did find out that far from putting extra nicotine in cigarettes to make them more addictive,it was nicotinic acid.
In the 40's having been delighted to find that there was nicotinic acid in the smoke they did experiments adding extra nicotinic acid in the cigarettes, which apparently were quite successful, then they got clobbered by the "cigarette theorists"
As the discovery of the importance of nicotinic acid was only discovered in the late 30's this was big news.
Tom Spies
"A related fact—though no one at the time suspected the connection—was that every year the South had 400,000 new cases of pellagra (Italian for rough skin). The victims' feet and hands (sometimes neck and face) burned with red, scaling patches; their tongues and mouths were so inflamed and sensitive that they could hardly eat; they became lethargic and nervous, often to the point where they were sent off to mental hospitals".
"When other researchers showed that nicotinic acid or niacin (one of the B vitamins) was effective against an animal disease resembling pellagra, Dr. Spies seized on the clue, soon proved that simply adding niacin to the diet would go far to cure many cases. (It has since been shown that an amino acid, tryptophane, found in protein foods, is also essential in pellagra prevention.) But Experimenter Spies was convinced that where there was one vitamin deficiency, there were likely to be others. He advocated supplements of several vitamins, was sharply criticized for "shotgun" treatment, has been fully vindicated by later findings"
http://www.time.com/time/
magazin...,867726,00.html
Time 1939
"Men of the Year, outstanding in comprehensive science, were three medical researchers who discovered that nicotinic acid was a cure for human pellagra: Drs. Tom Douglas Spies of Cincinnati General Hospital, Marion Arthur Blankenhorn of the University of Cincinnati, Clark Niel Cooper of Waterloo, Iowa." Time 1939
"Most radio listeners, said Vice President Wallace last week, know B as the "oomph vitamin, that puts the sparkle in your eye, the spring in your step, the zip in your soul!"
"Most of the big flour mills and bakers have recently agreed to put vitamin B1; nicotinic acid and iron back into their flour and bread. But experts last week pointed out that such "enriched bread," although a step forward, was not the ideal solution of the problem."
http://www.time.com/time/magazin...?
internalid=ACA
It seems that everyone was doing it.
Meanwhile
Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis
"Rising food prices have pushed 100m people worldwide below the poverty line, estimates the World Bank, and have sparked riots from Bangladesh to Egypt. Government ministers here have described higher food and fuel prices as "the first real economic crisis of globalisation".
Crops for biofuel
Up to 500,000 hectares (1¼ million acres) of agricultural land reserved for wildlife in Britain should be converted into crops for biofuel production, a House of Lords report urges. Land set aside for threatened species should be used to help the country to meet targets for biofuel use to combat global warming.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...ticle642635.ece
"A serious deficiency of niacin causes a condition called pellagra. Once quite common in all countries, it has become rare outside of areas in which poor nutrition is still the norm.
Affected groups include refugees displaced by war as well as populations affected by such emergency situations as famine. The symptoms of pellagra include dermatitis, dementia, and diarrhea."
http://www.answers.com/topic/nia...acin?
cat=health
I'd hazard a guess that that is why tobacco is mentioned in the Geneva Convention.
I've just been noticing that Michael Siegel has gone through the archives and deleted Cathy Bell's posts. Seriously, what a joke | 07.12.08 - 1:22 am |
Seriously, YOU ARE a joke....Cathy. Who the else would even care, let alone notice since most don't go through the archives that deep, except you? You're the only one who likes the sound of your own voice (sight of your own words).
Can't even have the spine to show yourself, try to hide behind some stupid name and then wonder why no one believes a word you say.
So typical of insecure, control-freak types.
For these reasons, I have serious doubts that Dr. Siegel will be "talked out of his current position" any time soon.
http://www.geocities.com/ corpora...rate_opposition
tobaccoscamalysis | 08.30.07 - 2:05 pm | #
Here's another of your cowardly IDs Cathy...........there are several more under this ID on this same day as a matter of fact.
You really need to do your homework a bit better than that before sticking your foot in your mouth.
Does anyone wish to comment on the recent move to ban the sale of tobacco on a small island and the ban of the sale of tobacco in a remote Buddhist village? Start small, then use these two locations as "proof" that the prohibition of tobacco WILL work in society with no repercussions. It will emerge with the same fire that anti smokers have used for years when they cite California as a success for smoking bans.
Tobacco should be contolled from harm people..
Sheri,
If Bhutan is anything to go by, it will be yet another spectacular failure.
http://www.tobacco.org/articles/...country/bhutan/
Tobacco use was declining year on year, pretty much globally, until the bansturbators started interfering.
I conclude that they all own tobacco stock. Just like every gubmint in the developed world.
There's money in them thar leaves.....
"Tobacco should be contolled from harm people.."
Stop lying to people. Tobacco ca not be controlled, it is inanimate, you want to control people.
"Doc, you're thinking about this from the perspective of a researcher/MD, that's where you're going wrong.
Think of it in terms of a spin doctor, it doesn't matter if what you're peddling is right or wrong just as long as you can sell it to the public, and then sell your products (pharmaceuticals and a sense of self-righteousness over a body of people that it is encouraged to discriminate against) to that public."
If the observation is true and society which has been programmed, to also minimize the validity of traditional churches, to make room for modern day ideologies [specifically public health] Is Michael a cult leader?
Taking a stance which is promoted one which ignores and berates anyone who presents information, which degrades the ideology, takes away all claims to unbiased perspectives.
Throughout the education system he attended he was given only one perspective and was likely berated if he questioned it [smoking bad]. Now having graduated from that system, he is able to by qualification, lay claim anyone who disagrees with what he was taught is not educated enough to make unfounded claims or express the radical heresy [smoking good]
If you can not look at a situation without bias, you can never claim to express a scientific stance, your beliefs are based in ideologies distinct to membership in the ideological following and as such can not be more than a promoter of a religious following. Or more correctly since no supernatural events [afterlife] other than claims to produce immortality [lives saved], are the rewards, an expression of a cult worship following.
Michael therefore can be honestly described as a cult worshiper. No longer a cult leader, since he was excommunicated from the cult of TC and it's ministries.
Will doctors soon be trading in the lab coats and stethoscopes, for grass skirts and rattles, to personify their new age reality?
From Gabz post
"Calumny
Ca*lum"ni*ate, v. i. [imp. & p. p. Calumniated; p. pr. & vb. n. calumniating.] [L. calumniatus, p. p. of calumniari. See Calumny, and cf. Challenge, v. t.] To accuse falsely and maliciously of a crime or offense, or of something disreputable; to slander; to libel.
Hatred unto the truth did always falsely report and calumniate all godly men's doings. --Strype.
Syn. -- To asperse; slander; defame; vilify; traduce; belie; bespatter; blacken; libel. See Asperse.
Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc."
I do wish someone with internet skills would start a registry, so smokers could register and declare they are being maligned and defamed illegally by others. I would guess a million people world wide who agreed, would form a legal tort or class.
A valuable tool. in order that the lawsuits, prosecutions and punishments could begin.
TCs deliberate plan to denormalize could never be separated from their obvious and irrefutable malicious intent;
Verb 1. asperse - charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone; "The journalists have defamed me!" "The article in the paper sullied my reputation"
besmirch, calumniate, defame, slander, smirch, denigrate, sully, smear
accuse, charge - blame for, make a claim of wrongdoing or misbehavior against; "he charged the director with indifference"
assassinate - destroy or damage seriously, as of someone's reputation; "He assassinated his enemy's character"
libel - print slanderous statements against; "The newspaper was accused of libeling him"
badmouth, drag through the mud, malign, traduce - speak unfavorably about; "She badmouths her husband everywhere"
The end of the month will see the coming into force of new anti-tobacco measures forcing merchants to hide cigarettes behind closed cabinets.
Forcing merchants to hide a perfectly legal product goes far beyond a debate over tobacco couched in public health terms. Not only is this latest
action by the anti-tobacco troopers imposing a severe financial strain on small merchants who have to fork out the money to hide their wares, it is
insulting to all citizens. The role of government should be one of educating and persuading the public. Not compelling and coercing. Hiding reality,
obscuring truth is nothing but Orwellian mind control. And the more the state makes something seem illegal, the more tantalizing it will be to the very
young people our anti-tobacco policy is supposedly aimed at. It is doomed to fail. As one merchant put it, are we also going to hide cookies because
of trans-fats? The foundational principle of freedom is the freedom to choose. Even to choose unwisely. That right of individual imperative goes to the
very heart of defining a free society. No state dictate should ever be allowed to compromise that. – Beryl Wajsman, Editor
Be fair Anonymous
This whole campaign is based on the speculations of a prohibitionist from Dresden, who pronounced that the first three fingers of the right hand of man were immune to cancer, to explain why those were the only places that DIDN'T get skin cancer in tar workers.
"There is also the fact that while other types of tars whioh known to be oarcinogenic, like coal tar, will cause cancer of the skin.
The hands of the tar workers develop skin cancer, the drenchings of the fingers, the skin of the fingers, that hold the cigarette, which are sometimes deeply brown stained have never, so far as I know, developed cancer of the skin.
One of the gentlemen, the proponents of the cigarette theory, has tried to explain that phenomenon by saying that the first three fingers of the right hand of man have a natural immunity against oanoer.
Q ~. Who is that?
A ~. Lickint
He, takes a very similar role in Germany in regard to that question, as Dr. Graham and Dr. Wynder have taken here.
Q Do you any other theories advanced in explanation of that, other than this one by DrLickint?
A I don't think anybody would be so bold as to suggest it as a theory.
http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/...d&
start_page=81
They have been trying to prove him right for 70 years.
Okay, but how do you know Cathy and tobaccoanalysis are the same person? There was a lot of talk around that time that Siegel was deleting her posts, so it's not so far-fetched when I see people talking about Cathy but no Cathy.
Okay, but how do you know Cathy and tobaccoanalysis are the same person?
Nice try but no cigar - JOKER. No one ever claimed Cathy and Doc Siegel are the same person. Which is just what you attempted to accuse others of doing.
Either your reading comprehension skills or your typing skills, most likely both, need a great deal of remediation.
Doctor Siegel, do you know anything about this?
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story...ties-smokefree/
WASHINGON, July 10, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX
Nearly Half of All US Residents Show Clinical Evidence of Deadly Secondhand Smoke Exposure.
A new report issued today by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) exemplifies the need for nonsmoking Americans to be better protected against exposure to secondhand smoke. The report finds that 46 percent of Americans show biologic exposure to the deadly toxins found in cigarettes. Even more startling are the millions of children this statistic includes.
All you should need to look at is where it came from Ann;
http://www.comtex.com/index.php?...d&cat2=d1&
id=d1
Need anyone say any more...
Forced to post from a foreign computer I do not have the exact quote or url source at hand. But it was from the CDC itself and it said that "proof of 'exposure' itself does not mean increased risk." (paraphrase)
That was a general statement, not ETS specific.
My point being that this is the deceit they employ to practice around their own acknowledged scientific truth when they cry and want everyone to wring their hands over "46 percent of Americans show biologic exposure to the deadly toxins found in cigarettes." No mention of levels in their press release and I'm sure if it's in their report it's nanograms or less.
Lying by omission agenda driving.
They might as well put out an alarmist press release that says "100 percent of Americans show biologic exposure to the deadly toxins found in .... THE SUN."
Yeah? And? So?
What is more interesting about the report is 54% don't have any trace of the mentioned toxins considering 25% smoke and 58% are ever smokers,
The exposure levels can't be even considered significant any longer,
How many went camping this summer and toasted marshmallows? How many ate toasted tomato sandwiches with burned toast or had french fries with that big mac, which caused their reduction of coronary flow velocity reserves and/or endothermic dysfunction?
Exposures to ETS must be getting into the rare and non existent regions considering all the confounders.
Lung Association;
"Lung disease death rates are currently increasing while other major causes of death are declining."
It looks as though TC has failed to reduce smoking and smoking related diseases, if these deaths are caused by smoking. The natural conclusion would be, smoking prevalence is increasing, or someone is overstating their case.
This, too, seems to be drive-by science.
What were they measuring? They don't say. Was it cotinine? (We know they pitfalls of that. If it was, how much (what quantity) did they find? They don't say. Were they measuring something else? Lung capacity? Consider the environmental, genetic and "lifestyle" confounders. How many people did they sample? By what means? How did the separate smokers from nonsmokers? And ETS-exposed from unexposed nonsmokers? Rural from urban? They don't say. What was the current health status of the exposed v the nonexposed nonsmokers in their sample? They don't say. What else was their sample exposed to? They don't say.
:
Michelle's letter is worth repeating
http://www.winnipegsun.com/Comme...01/
5160741.html
STICK OUR BUTTS UP YOUR ...
Re: Lazy smokers need to stick butts where they belong, Joyanne Pursaga, March 30.
So once again smokers are being blamed for every problem under the sun.
Smokers are now being portrayed as the lowest form of life on earth, dirty, disgusting disease-carrying burdens on society.
Well, guess what: it was the anti-smoking crusaders and the government that forced smokers to the streets. It is the anti-smoking crusaders and government now denying smokers a place to assemble peacefully (a right granted to every Canadian citizen under the Charter of Rights), access to health care that charges smokers more than their fair share and even homes to live in!
So since smokers are no longer a part of society, smokers no longer have a vested interest in the problems of society. Why should smokers care if the city looks dirty and unattractive if smokers are no longer welcome to share in the advantages of such cities?
It was anti-smoking crusaders and the government that caused this problem: let them deal with the consequences!
Michelle
The Ontario government promised if we implemented smoking bans, we would be saving 47,000 lives every year. The ban has been around for a while now and no one in healthscare is bragging about how many lives they saved or even an estimate disclosing how much money we saved so far.
Funny thing is, since the ban the lineups at the hospitals have grown substantially longer, in spite of the millions raised in new taxes in a huge healthscare levy, Substantial revenues from heavily increased smoking taxes and millions more in new healthcare funding from Ottawa.
The only significant change has been seen in the alarming rise in violent crimes and the growing number of people seen sleeping on the streets of Toronto.
Go figure...
Back on topic, I find it timely to come across this tidbit today in a book I'm reading.
Re "mobilizing the masses" it is no matter whether what's advanced is true: "It is faith that moves mountains, not reason. Reason is a tool, but it can never be the motive force of the crowd," said Mussolini in a 1932 interview.
Tobacco Control = Fascism
It can't be denied. Everything to date you've addressed Dr. Siegel is about misinformation that "seems to be" intentional. If it's scientifically/statistically inaccurate what then could the PURPOSE of it possibly be??? A faith-based movement to empower the masses to believe and respond "appropriately" to it, that's what.
Facts and truth are collateral damage "It don't matter" when "building a movement." (quoting Al Sharpton when he responded to charges that the Tawana Brawley assault was a fake).
Disgraceful (to put it mildly) that this is taking place in America.
TC has always been based in self denials. With asbestis right on cue 20 years after exposure we see cancer. With smoking although they try to paint a 20-30 year perspective cause to effect seems to be a lot closer to a 50 year development stage.
Even the 220 bartenders took 50 years to express the maximum risk. They have always avoided the "50 years" down the road reality because they don't want people confused in "caused by smoking" and "caused by aging."
This makes the ETS creation that much less likely, especially in claims of "protecting children". Who by the time they reach old age will never be able to distinguish between the cigarette smoke in the car with mom, from the tens of thousands of encounters with much more deadly exposures we will all experienced in a lifetime.
The cult of Public health will never represent objective science, it seems more targeted at leading us away from science and it's more recent developments.
Moving decisively instead, toward a unified global government, With watered down product and grown systemic protection systems. More reflective of the majority of the planet's population and it's religious beliefs, no matter how primitive that re-invention makes us.
"Scene Smoking Still Claims that Tobacco Kills 124,000 Young People A Year"
After all, they might be right. At least they are backed up by the CDC and ALA:
New CDC Report Demonstrates Urgency for All States and Cities to Become Smokefree.
- Nearly Half of All US Residents Show Clinical Evidence of Deadly Secondhand Smoke Exposure -
- American Lung Association Calls Upon Lawmakers to Pass Comprehensive Legislation Banning Smoking in All Public Venues Across the Country by 2010
A new report issued today by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) exemplifies the need for nonsmoking Americans to be better protected against exposure to secondhand smoke. The report finds that 46 percent of Americans show biologic exposure to the deadly toxins found in cigarettes. Even more startling are the millions of children this statistic includes.
http://snipurl.com/2xxmt
Another example of doublespeak ,"cautiously supports" nothing like hedging your bets is there.Now since obesity is the topic can someone advise if all the hot air Donaldson usually spouts ( mortality from bird flu being a classic) has it all gone to his head or is he just obese himself ? The head shrinkers of Borneo would have a field day if this photo is anything to go by.Do as i say not do as i do http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
...urce=newswidget
"Killers in the UK House of Commons" or "It's Good To Be The King" or is it hypocrisy?
http://dunhillmonster.blogspot.c...n-house-
of.html
"Yesterday Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, promised a raft of new enforcement tactics to tackle the spiralling growth of violent street crime across Britain, while the Metropolitan Police revealed that in May alone its Blunt 2 initiative led to 1,000 arrests and the seizing of more than 700 knives. Last week, a 75-strong task force searched some 5,395 people in just four days, recovering an additional 231 knives.
But while tougher laws will go some way towards stemming the rise of violent street crime, many, the Mizens among them, believe our increasing culture of greed, rudeness and lack of respect is fuelling teenage violence." LACK OF RESPECT,how easy does this statement fit with Public Health's attempts to denormalise smokers,to the point that it verges on incitement to HATE.IF THIS CAN HAPPEN WITHOUT ANY CONDEMNATION FROM OFFICIALDOM TO 1 IN 5 ADULTS WHO CHOOSE TO SMOKE,WHAT HOPE IS THERE DR SIEGEL,PLEASE ANSWER ME.
PS Jimmy Mizen was a 16 yo who was stabbed to death in London on a Saturday afternoon outside a shop.
From the same link
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story...ties-smokefree/
Yet, secondhand smoke exposure still causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700-69,600 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.
Kind of a big spread in the numbers for heart disease don't you think.
So how many estimated deaths does smoking and ETS suppose to be causing each year?
From this article dated Sunday, July 13, 2008 it states:
http://www.ohio.com/news/24876354.html
Nationwide, tobacco claims 800,000 lives a year and affects the health of 8.5 million more people, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
yet if I go to the CDC site it states half that number. Is the other 400,000 suppose to be made up of non smokers?
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/
data_...moking_mort.htm
Cigarette smoking is the single most preventable cause of premature death in the United States. Each year, more than 400,000 Americans die from cigarette smoking.
Si
I'm sure it is merely an unfortunate camera angle that makes him look so much like a Sontaran.
BTW I found this yesterday
Is fatism fair?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...ttism-
fair.html
Reading the comments I suspect we have another denormalization campaign
starting up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...ttism-
fair.html
Which was more scientific then, and in the future what will we be laughing at looking back at today?
http://www.pdcomedy.com/Movies/
R...eferMadness.htm
Or
http://www.thevoiceofreason.com/
...lgiaChannel.htm
Your Sound must be on to get the full effect. Few in TC or public health will hear the real message, no matter how loud they are cranked up.
Remind me to preview before I post ..
Uh Rose
could you please preview before you post?
Thanks ever so much, lol
Thanks Anonymous!
I'll be sure to remember that
SuperCallousSi
"Metropolitan Police revealed that in May alone its Blunt 2 initiative led to 1,000 arrests and the seizing of more than 700 knives. Last week, a 75-strong task force searched some 5,395 people in just four days, recovering an additional 231 knives."
Well, that's one way to fight the war on obesity. Are they are letting you keep your forks and spoons?
E=MC^2
Advocate for CASH
Chutzpah on loan from John Banzhaf
Probably not Einstein,
You could have someone's eye out with a spoon.
"recovering an additional 231 knives." I sometimes carry a knife as well, don't want to die from another one's knife in a dark alley, if I can help it.
So anyone calculate the stats on knifing and shootings? Just to add to the smoking related disease and preventable death categories? So we can raise the taxes and restrictions one more level.
Oh yeah, TC are the "protectors" who are "helping smokers to quit" to go there would be heresy or as they prefer to put it "misguided"
You guys from the UK really need a license to carry - Guns.
Keep you safe from the punks walking around with knives.
From Rose's link;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/...ttism-
fair.html
Sent to the Editor;
I believe the statements made are grossly offensive.
To legitimize bigotry of any form or for any reason, especially in exchange for just money, gives license to all forms of Bigotry.
The disintegration of personal rights, is the genesis of genocide.
I found the posting and the topic lead story as presented in it's current form, to be disgusting and promotional of the very worst amongst us.
Your Editor should be ashamed.
Gilster
They banned handguns in 1997
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlC.../14/
ngun14.html
Si, some perspective from spiked about knife crime in the UK. Hyperbole and fear mongering is always the precursor to another government new initiative and law.
http://www.spiked-online.com/ind...e/article/5196/
GreatScot
What people fail to realize is the hypocrisy of entitling just a minor level of bigotry, you lessen the offense of all bigotry.
Do you really believe railing against someone because they are fat or dare to smoke a cigarette depicts you as superior to those you hate? Serial killers and racists who are physically fit and don't smoke are in the crowd cheering right along side you.
By joining with them, you are entitling other things, you will allow them, by the confidence of your unity.
There is no moral justification for promoting hatred. The band wagon cheering politicians, connected to promoting alarming expansions of "Public Health" hatred and irresponsible fear mongering of late, need to be driven from office as Neanderthals, cowards and liars, who are not fit to lead in a modern civilized society.
WE can do so much better.
http://findarticles.com/p/articl..._n21137182/
pg_9
We succeeded in denormalizing tobacco smoking as cool and desirable. Now we have to denormalize obesity" (quoted in Lern 2006, 15). As such, the obsogenic environment is still only host to a series of micro, and personal, choices. Beyond this, Finegood's call for denormalization of obesity is rather jarring. In light of attribution theory and carnivalesque bodies, one might reasonably argue that obesity is already denormalized. Calling for its denormalization places another layer of stigma on an already overburdened form.
The second hand smoke debate may be controversial and never solved beyond a direct connection to the superiority of poor advertising standards.
There will never be a shred of controversy connected to the fact;
There is no safe level of inspired bigotry or hatred.
Hitler could never have come to power. Slavery would never have happened and anti-Semitic crimes or genocide in other cultures, would not be known, if some among us had not believed themselves superior to others.
The primary reason TC, the Public health cult and all groups like them, will always fail in the end.
Michael's comments and new numbers, published in the Toronto Star. The screw of anti smoker bigotry is taken down another turn.
http://www.thestar.com/living/ar.../article/
456686
Be the first to comment on this article...
LOS ANGELES–Regulations banning smoking in restaurants were designed to protect the health of nonsmokers.
But the laws appear to have an unintended bonus: They deter kids from becoming smokers.
A U.S. study published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine found that teens in towns with complete smoking bans were 40 per cent less likely to become established smokers compared with their peers in areas with weak restrictions.
The study followed 3,834 Massachusetts youths, ages 12 to 17, for up to four years.
In towns where smoking wasn't restricted or was only partially restricted, 9.6 per cent and 9.8 per cent of the youths, respectively, became established smokers over the study period.
But in towns where smoking was banned in restaurants, 7.9 per cent became smokers.
"These regulations are basically sending a message that smoking in public places is no longer socially acceptable," says Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor of social and behavioural sciences at Boston University's School of Public Health.
"I think that decreases the appeal of smoking to adolescents. Kids' perceptions of how many people are smoking is a major factor in whether they decide to smoke."
"These regulations are basically sending a message that smoking in public places is no longer socially acceptable,"
In the larger truth TC has never been socially acceptable.
They knew it all along, that is why they needed and implemented such a large advertising campaign. A campaign flop as ads go, after all the money spent to date most in the public remain unconvinced.
Aside from Michael most TC groups are saying smoking is increasing among the kids. I wonder sometimes who is right, whenever I move away from; why does it matter which liar is correct in this instant.
Scientific credibility dies by the hour, even swifter with each iteration, of the parroted cult verses.
Forget epidemiology, we have real numbers!
Startled by the contradictory epidemiological research published recently in Germany, Prof. Grieshaber[*] compared the results of studies pertaining to Germany with actual mortality data from health insurances.
Extracting the figures from the studies, he arrived at the following numbers for morbidity from LC attributable to SHS for the total population in Germany, per year:
Keil et al. 263
Nowak et al. (2 different studies) 2'400 and 15'600 !!
Note: official national statistics reliably registered a total of 40'000 deaths due to LC, all causes.
Specifically for LC among hospitality workers:
- Nowak et al. 1950 non-smokers (300/100'000 workers)
- Jamrozik 13 non-smokers
Grieshaber compared the LC mortality data from insurance records for the 650'000 hospitality workers represented by his association with 6.5 million insured parties in other professional activities.
Result: 13 (2/100'000) hospitality workers, all causes, smokers and non-smokers.
According to the insurance records, there is no significant difference in LC rates between the 650'000 hospitality workers and the other 6.5 mio. insured parties.
The study is available in German only. Title: "SHS and lung cancer - a question of epidemiology":
http://
praevention.portal.bgn.de...idemiologie.pdf
[*]Prof. Dr. R. Grieshaber is chief of Prevention of the Association for Food Products and the Hospitality Industry (BGN) and professor for Applied Prevention and Health Promotion at the Jena University in Germany
http://praevention.portal.bgn.de...06/_nr-1/
i.html
GreatScot my comment wasn't primarily regarding knife crime per se,i was trying to suggest that if you seek to legitimately alienate smokers,ie around 1 in 5 of the population THEN how on earth can anyone state the problem of knife crime or any crime for that matter stems from a "lack of respect".You have a Government promoting discrimination via it's denormalisation programme BUT also blaming people for lacking respect and seeking to remedy the situation with another sticking plaster.They are promoting a problem and then blindly trying to help solve the problem that they've created.Since TC are actively promoting incitement to hate smokers (Bonzobanzaff etc) society will suffer as we are experiencing after suffering under Blair and Brown .
But in towns where smoking was banned in restaurants, 7.9 per cent became smokers.
"These regulations are basically sending a message that smoking in public places is no longer socially acceptable," says Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor of social and behavioural sciences at Boston University's School of Public Health.
My question is whether the numbers of teen smokers went down or the number of teens who admit to smoking decreased because they live in an area where smoking is banned. My feeling is that it is being driven further underground with each and every ban. Being underground holds a special appeal for the kind of young people who will become smokers. A new population of closet smokers has emerged.
Sheri, you are right, it's right here: "These regulations are basically sending a message that smoking in public places is no longer socially acceptable,"
If it's no longer socially acceptable, you don't admit that you are smoking, but that doesn't mean you are not smoking.
How about denormalizing tobacco control?
I don't know about the socially acceptable question. I see it all the time online, but I do not experience it in real life. Smokers tend to make their own social experience no matter where they are chased. Consider the "smirting" phenomena. Kick them to the dumpster, and eventually, smokers make a party out of it.
"These regulations are basically sending a message that smoking in public places is no longer socially acceptable,"
TC has succeeded in doing for smoking, the same thing Reefer Madness did for pot.
They just never learn.
On the other hand; considering the covert deals between CTFK and PM perhaps there is a deliberate method to their madness...
Does seem the Doc speaks with forked tongue. Here, he claims dismay over "denormalization," In the LA Times he boasts about how well it's working. And then he wonders why others in his movement continue to promote it-- and the crap that keeps it alive (like 30 minutes will put everyone within walking distance to death).
And since my message below appears to have gotten lost at the tail of the last thread and since, in this context of " oh how beneficial is denormalization" , it's even more appropriate; I post it again.
In context, Si had suggested that our host should simply flash an unlit cigarette somewhere "in public" and experience some of the heat it attracts. Which prompted:
Though I'd suggest going a step further (buy a pack of herbals and actually light a few Out In The World) I can even suggest a "smoke-free" experiment.
Spend a full week acting (in all other ways except smoking) as tho you're a smoker. I.E., leave your office at least 4 times a day in the middle of work, and go out on the street (the requisite number of feet from any window, door, or vent) or to the nearest smoker's rat-hole available on campus-- and just stand there for 10 minutes before you go back to work. When you go to a bar or restaurant, leave your friends at the table at least twice and go out and stand on the street for 10 minutes. If you comnute by train, stand on the street for 10 minutes before entering the station and stand there for another 10 before you catch your final bus, or cab. Pretend you live in an apartment in a town like the ones where smoking is banned in private units. Go out and stand on the street with your morning coffee; stand on the street before you go home at night. Keep your clothes on: you'll have to go out on the street at least 4 more times in the course of your evening. Can't sleep? Go out on the street at 2 AM.
I'm dead serious about this, Doc, and you'll do it if you have any moral courage. This is the part about walking a mile in another man's shoes; a tempering lesson in moral cause and effect. When I was about 4, my father gave me an unforgettable lesson in the Golden Rule when he did to me the same something nasty I'd just done to someone else. Once you know how it feels to be on the other end of your own behavior, it can (or should) make you forever begin to think twice.
Walt | 07.13.08
JTF--
Nickel says you're reading "Liberal Fascism." So-- with a lot of interruptions--am I.
:
Si,
I understood your meaning, however I failed to clarify my response, sorry.
By promoting fear as a tool to modify behaviour, there is almost always an unindented consequence.
Will the promoted fear of ETS encourage smokers to quit or encourage the fearful to take matters into their own hands to "protect" themselves and their loved ones? Will instances of fearful non-smokers taking action against smokers encourage smokers to quit or lead them to defending themselves from real or imagined threat?
Will the fear of being stabbed cause the current knife carriers to leave their blade at home or cause the fearful to carry their own?
Promoting fear is irresponsible at best and criminal at worst.
I hope my meaning was a bit clearer this time.
GreatScot
Another important element of promoting hatred, is an observation of who is doing the promotion and whom is it being directed at.
Class or social Bigotry is no doubt a large driving force behind the Anti smoker movement. The barons of Industry joined at the hip with the World Health organization created a power base to re-establish and fortify the power of the rich and the entitled.
http://www.ivanhoe.com/channels/...m?
storyid=19221
"College Grads Have Lower Cancer Death Rates
(Ivanhoe Newswire) Higher education isn’t just good for the mind; it’s also good for your health.
According to a new study done by the American Cancer Society, people with a college degree or more than 16 years of education die less often from the four most common kinds of cancer – lung, colorectal, prostate and breast.
Black and white men at that education level showed a statistically significant decline in death rates from prostate, lung and colorectal cancer. The same drop in mortality from breast, lung and colorectal cancer was true for women. There was an exception for lung cancer. There was no significant lowering of the death rate for that cancer among black women.
For people with less than 12 years of education there was a reduction in breast cancer deaths among white women but an increase in lung cancer mortality. The colon cancer death rate was higher for black men with the same educational level.
It’s been established that people in higher socioeconomic categories have lower cancer mortality rates but this study shows an association with a college education. The authors also discuss how behavioral risk such as smoking, screening use and treatment patterns could be consistent with this new data.
SOURCE: Journal of the National Cancer Institute (online edition), July 8, 2008"
It has become apparent to me that the days of old have returned. From prohibition to the next great depression. The stock market dropped 2100 points in the last 60 days. banks failures are happening with more to follow in the days and weeks ahead.The govmnt is bailing out the financial districts and more and more intrusive,draconainan laws are being conjured up or legislated. All this since november 2006. Thank you for voting in liberal green progressives
the prohibitionist crowd that has brought the world to its knees and I cant even go have a smoke at wafflehouse now.......FTW
When you make even a minor change to a major population group the effects are huge. The effects of such large initiatives as smoke free agendas in a decade will be huge regardless of the proponent's claims. The economic impact arising from the farms lost and the bars and restaurants loss of trade, will have echoes throughout the economy as people's purchasing habits are disrupted. De-normalizing people, will cause a huge increase of depression levels and lost motivation among the dispossessed, Which in turn will cause sedentary lifestyle choices and obesity levels to increase as a double whammy; as symptoms of both quitting and isolation.
In Ontario today they are telling us about finding mosquitoes in Toronto which carry the west Nile virus. A disease which has a huge detrimental mortality and morbidity risk, which affects one in 150 people with a severe neurological condition. There are still over six million smokers in Canada. A risk which is much more dangerous than the most exaggerated second hand smoke risk, yet legislators continue to tell smokers to stay outside and threaten prosecution of anyone providing them shelter in a public space.
They would never backslide on the ban promotions, even if they are increasing the health risks of their victims. Depicting any detrimental effects as their own fault.
All you have to do is quit.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/
healt...centration.html
Smoking is 'good for your memory and concentration'
Smoking can help boost memory and concentration, say scientists. The discovery offers hope of a nicotine pill that mimics these effects to treat Alzheimer's disease.~snip~
So I guess now if you don't have nicotine in your system you are 'retarded'
{please take no offense of the word as written - it's poetic.}
Calling this a new finding is so perverse, it undermines all confidence in the scientific process. Ask anyone who smokes how they problem solve or how they stay warm when working outdoors. Smokers have never inhaled nicotine directly they burn it first which creates one of the most vital elements in human physiology; Nicotinic Acid is a key responsible for a host of bodily functions including the regulation of blood flow heat regulation and neuron flow including the regulation of neuro-pathways. All this so called researcher who says he didn't expect what he found had to do was look in the medical journals and he would have found his discovery preceded his finding it, all the way back to 1930s Germany and thousands of observations since that time.
Smokers don't need encouragement to tell them what they already know, The reason most will resist quitting is the many benefits they loose in the process of being cloned like everyone else. Retarded in the management of their own physiology.
From a country with one of the most hazardous outdoor environments on the planet;
http://www.telegraphindia.com/
10...ory_9539638.jsp
Wanna puff? Go to bedroom
- From Oct, smoking limited to homes, open space & special zones
Get a grip people, focus!!!
Gilster
But are they sure its just "nicotine"?
"L-tyrosine, through its effect on neurotransmitters, may affect several health conditions, including Parkinson’s disease, depression, and other mood disorders. Studies have suggested that tyrosine may help people with depression.1 Preliminary findings indicate a beneficial effect of tyrosine, along with other amino acids, in people affected by dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease.2 Due to its role as a precursor to norepinephrine and epinephrine (two of the body’s main stress-related hormones) tyrosine may also ease the adverse effects of environmental, psychosocial, and physical stress"
Nicotine related glycoalkyloids and Tyrosine seem to run throughout the nightshade vegetables.
Add the carbon monoxide in tiny amounts, an anti inflamatory AND a neurotransmitter.
tR1cKy asked: "How about denormalizing tobacco control?"
Well, I wouldn't go that far, but how about denormalizing dishonesty in tobacco control?
In answer to my own previous question, it does appear that A7 nicotinic receptors have something to do with tyrosine, but its not in the abstract so I can't find out.
"Involvement of a7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in activation of tyrosine hydroxylaze and dopamine"
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1621298
Any brain surgeons out there?
"Well, I wouldn't go that far, but how about denormalizing dishonesty in tobacco control?"
Isn't that like denormalizing smoking in smokers? The urge remains ...
How about accepting the challenge Dr Siegel ?
Denormalizing tobacco control lies where it concerns secondhand smoke would, in effect, denormalize the movement itself. That seems like a good start.
"Well, I wouldn't go that far, but how about denormalizing dishonesty in tobacco control?"
You could start with the campaign slogan;
"There is no safe level of promoted hatred."
"tR1cKy asked: 'How about denormalizing tobacco control?'
"Well, I wouldn't go that far, but how about denormalizing dishonesty in tobacco control?"
What would be left of Tobacco Control, doctor, if you succeeded in denormalizing dishonesty in Tobacco Control? And if you added denormalizing CRAP in Tobacco Control to denormalizing DISHONESTY in Tobacco Control, then what do you think would be left of your precious Tobacco Control movement? Not a hell of a lot, I should think. TC might even be forced to take off its swastika armband.
(Dr. Whelan and her Council of 380 scientists, as a reminder.)
.
The unelected saviour of Tobacco Control Harry,Dr Siegel himself since silence cannot always be deemed as dishonesty.It may not always tell the whole truth but ................to infinity and beyond.
Si,
I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking me whether I think smoking bans are fueling teenage violence?
"Si,
I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking me whether I think smoking bans are fueling teenage violence?"
Well, How do you stand on the issue?
The continual expansion of anti smoking, to personal levels, as we see primarily by ASH with their renditions of legalities, paired with the numerous political followings; restricting smoking in cars, Homes and even in the outdoors where no risk can be demonstrated.
Don't you find the anti smoker element, significantly related and causative of increased violence, being seen daily?
Aunt Sally
Aunt Sally is a traditional throwing game. The term is often used metaphorically to mean something that is a target for criticism. In particular, referring to the fairground origins, an Aunt Sally would be "set up" deliberately to be subsequently "knocked down", usually by the same person who set the person up"
"The game was traditionally played in British pubs and fairgrounds. An Aunt Sally was originally a figurine head of an old woman with a clay pipe in her mouth, or subsequently a ball on a stick. The object was for players to throw sticks at the head in order to break the pipe.
The game bears some resemblance to a coconut shy or skittles, and may have developed from the blood sport of cock throwing, in which a chicken was tied to a post and people took turns throwing coksteles (special weighted sticks) at the bird until it died."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aunt_Sally
So unoriginal these people.
ROFLMSS. Doc, you're not as good as Godshall at the stand up routine, but you do have your moments.
The heck with teen specific violence, how much more documented proof do you need to accept the fact that you and your "movement" have incited violence against smokers? Forget incited, actually encourage it?
Come on, Doc, stop pussyfooting around. You and your movement DO encourage the violence against smokers with your continual denormalization campaign and seeking to take more and more away from us lowlife smokers.
The terrorists in Guantanamo Bay have more rights these days than smokers, and we are not seeking to destroy this country --- you and you kind ARE.
"Spend a full week acting (in all other ways except smoking) as tho you're a smoker. I.E., leave your office at least 4 times a day in the middle of work, and go out on the street (the requisite number of feet from any window, door, or vent) or to the nearest smoker's rat-hole available on campus-- and just stand there for 10 minutes before you go back to work. When you go to a bar or restaurant, leave your friends at the table at least twice and go out and stand on the street for 10 minutes. If you comnute by train, stand on the street for 10 minutes before entering the station and stand there for another 10 before you catch your final bus, or cab. Pretend you live in an apartment in a town like the ones where smoking is banned in private units. Go out and stand on the street with your morning coffee; stand on the street before you go home at night. Keep your clothes on: you'll have to go out on the street at least 4 more times in the course of your evening. Can't sleep? Go out on the street at 2 AM.
I'm dead serious about this, Doc, and you'll do it if you have any moral courage. This is the part about walking a mile in another man's shoes; a tempering lesson in moral cause and effect. When I was about 4, my father gave me an unforgettable lesson in the Golden Rule when he did to me the same something nasty I'd just done to someone else. Once you know how it feels to be on the other end of your own behavior, it can (or should) make you forever begin to think twice.
Walt | 07.13.08" THIS DR SIEGEL.
If the Doctor takes up the challenge it has to be done in the dead of winter. To get the full effect.
Can we also hire a few actors in "anti" character to dog him and give the snide comments, sneers, verbal abuse, fake cough, ridicule, hate filled looks of loathing? No actual violence though, that would be taking the experiment too close to reality.
"Si,
I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking me whether I think smoking bans are fueling teenage violence?
Michael Siegel | Homepage | 07.14.08 - 1:43 pm | # " The hate a smoker campaign that was initially a campaign of denormalisation appears to have rebounded in the UK .Respect is now the buzz word and is deemed part of the problem in the perceived growing culture of gang warfare amongst adolescents.The anti smoker mob sought to actively alienate smokers into society's modern day pariah.Is the new thinking that WE MUST RESPECT EACH OTHER ? If so CAN WE STILL STIGMATIZE SMOKERS ? I'm sure you can interpret my question Dr Siegel without the need to suggest that this anomaly is occurring only in th UK.Perhaps you could gain first hand experience by undertaking the social experiment that i have copied again to you,a few comments above ?
Perfect
No need to smoke, just team up with a smoker at the University, they'd probably be glad of the company, standing in the cold.
Just don't give your name.
Boston U.: Smoking ban to hit Boston U.
(From University Wire)
Boston University administrators are using stricter tactics to enforce the campus smoking policy with a new ban on smoking in all university residences and "smoking prohibited" signs posted outside academic buildings.
The smoking prohibition, which has been phased in over the past three years, currently allows smoking in apartment-style residences only, according to Director of Housing Marc Robillard. Smoking will be banned in all university residences at the start of the 2005-06...
Of course, we wouldn't dream of asking you to do something we wouldn't do ourselves!
I will keep my fingers crossed Dr Siegel that you will return and answer now that i have endeavored to explain it all again.
My fingers are still crossed.
This is an excellent and much needed explanation. The only addition that would make it perfect is a statement as to why lung cancer was so very rare at the beginning of the 1900's and then rose so dramatically as machine-made cigarettes became a mass produced product.
If this can be explained it would make this analysis a crowning achievement.
Dr Siegel,i've now got my legs crossed as well as my fingers.Hopefully this is just an oversight on your part and not the customary parry and start a new thread technique of avoidance .
To clarify the reason for my earlier comment today, FORCES had the kind of article that really deserves wider circulation. They used the above article as their starting point and then linked to it.
The subject of cause and effect is a key issue, and if it is to be fully addressed, as it almost was in their article, titled "The Numbers Game," the historical questions, which clearly raise some interesting variables, can't be swept under the rug.
As far as I know, FORCES has no means for receiving comments - and no one on the pro-tobacco side ever seems willing to make a statement on the issue I raised.
Commenting by HaloScan
