Dr. Siegel, you are starting to realize that capitalists in the free market are much more efficient and resourceful than totalitarian Gubmint bureaucrats. God Bless America!
"We previously issued propaganda suggesting that FDA regulation of cigarettes will save millions of lives by reducing cigarette smoking and making the product safer through product standards. However, we now acknowledge our opponents' arguments that in reality, the legislation will create a perceived stamp of approval for cigarettes, undermining public health messages about the hazards of smoking. In addition, we now acknowledge that the product probably won't be safer, and that we need to go to great lengths to make sure that the public does not think that cigarettes actually comply with the FDA standards. Given our propaganda, they may think that compliance with FDA safety standards implies a safer product. But the truth is that our proposed safety standards are not actually 'safety' standards."
The health authorities blame trans fat for causing heart attacks. Great opportunity. The makers of Oreo cookies and KFC plaster the claim that their product contains 0 grams of trans fats. That makes the 1,200 calories, 350 mg of sodium, and 190% of the recommended daily allowance of cholesterol OK. 
"What the bill does, if it passes, is prevent tobacco companies from making a simple statement of the clear, undeniable, universally recognized truth: that cigarettes are regulated by the FDA."
I'm surprised at you! Even I'm catching on now.
The next step is that TC can accuse Big Tobacco of deceiving the public be NOT telling them that cigarettes are regulated by the FDA. Followed by "Please send us money to fight Big Tobacco." That Big Tobacco is PREVENTED from telling the public -- well, for TC that's just a detail.
*grin* You may as well write THAT blog in advance.
GDF
I agree with Eric about how regulation has one major flaw, it suggests that whatever is regulated is healthy or safe and whatever isn't regulated is unhealthy or dangerous.
The Tobacco free kids, the larger charities and Senator Kennedy are all starting to look like the keystone cops stumbling and bumbling along chasing PM AKA Charley Chaplin.
The ramifications of prohibiting a manufacturer from stating publicly their product is regulated are so ridiculous the FDA employees will have to resign and shrink away in embarrassment of what the politicians are sticking to them.
It would be so simple for PM to nullify the clause, however I don't see it in their best interest to do so the exaggerated hypocrisies are to comical to kill, at least not right away.
The proponents of the bill can't prohibit the planet from stating a fact which will exist FDA regulation is a government stamp of approval to distribute a legal product. Without that assurance having some meaning the other regulated products may as well be making their own choices and what will remain of consumer confidence not only in the process but in Government as a whole.
This gets stranger by the moment perhaps pro smoking advocates, if any are left out there now that the debate is over, should stand silent, and let the politics of greed make it's own bed.
TC and its partners are doing exactly as they themselves predicted years ago, self destructing from within. Industry has purchased another naive lobby mouth peace to sell their products. The reputations of all involved will be used up and discarded in process.
The scientific integrity thing? Give the media a decade or so with a couple billion invested and it may get patched right back up, of course with traditional and necessary use of a few of the more vocal scapegoats who mislead the public, sacrificed along the way.
Doc: I believe that this provision violates the tobacco companies' rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution. I think it clearly violates their free speech rights.
What the bill does, if it passes, is prevent tobacco companies from making a simple statement of the clear, undeniable, universally recognized truth: that cigarettes are regulated by the FDA. There is no compelling justification for interfering with the companies' First Amendment rights in this situation. I doubt that this provision would ever hold up if the companies rightfully challenge it.
Question: Could the tobacco companies *want* the opportunity to rightfully challenge legislation pushed by tobacco control? I mean, could they (BT) ultimately get positive spin out of this?
Does anyone know what the WHO's remit is? They appear to have elected themselves as superhero's who's duty ir is to combat all the worlds social problems-or is this just another tactic in their campaign against drink?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotl...ast/
6901303.stm
Excerpt
The third "Milestones of a Global Campaign For Violence Prevention" conference at the Fife college has been organised on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO).
Reminds me of Huxley's "Brave New World."
Senate panel eyes bill to give FDA say on cigs
By Associated Press
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
WASHINGTON - The federal agency charged with keeping food and drugs from harming people may soon be asked to take a consumer product that kills more than 400,000 people a year and make it safer [I'm all for it!].
The product is the cigarette - generally acknowledged as anything but safe. Smoking accounts for nearly one in five deaths in the United States.
That toll can be reduced [really? How?], tobacco foes say, and they point to a bill that is expected to pass a Senate committee tomorrow as the tool to make it happen. - http://news.bostonherald.com/
nat...ticleid=1011704
I am reminded of a time when cigarette maufacturers were accused of hiding the truth (they still are accused of this). The law is going to make it mandatory for cigarette manufacturers to hide the truth, by making it illegal for them to print the truth about FDA regulation of cigarettes on their packages. The law wants to hide the truth. I can only wait for the first litigation thrown against Big Tobacco for hiding the truth that cigarettes are FDA regulated....
Catch Twentytwo.
Actually, these points speak against product regulation, because no product is completely safe. I can only gape at the number of medicines popped over the counter, under the false impression that because they are FDA apporved, that they are safe. Can we have alcohol regulated by the FDA too? Guns?
Regarding GreatScot's link:
They (the WHO and our politicians) don't seem to realize that violence is a psycho-social problem which is closely tied to social values. Violence can not be eliminated by repression nor by applying governmental force (= psychological violence).
Governments depriving individuals of their freedom, their right to their own choices and decisions foster violence by intervening in the private lives of citizens, by imposing restrictions that are not understood. Punishment is not prevention.
In the case of unreasonable smoking bans not only are smokers deprived of their rights to free expression, but government delivers free passes to rabbit anti-smokers to discriminate and verbally or physically attack smokers.
To cite an example: Last week a friend of mine, a 50 year old woman, while getting off the train and pulling a cigarette pack from her handbag, was hit on the arm by a by-passer. There are no smoking bans on open platforms.
Bill to Preclude Tobacco Companies from Stating that the FDA Regulates Cigarettes
Okay, so we will. Starting with the established smokers' rights groups with web sites.
Also, I've been saying this (to follow) for as long as Dr. Siegel has begun seriously commenting on the FDA Bill. He convinced me. It's the death knell for a large fraction of Anti-Smokers. I say....
BRING IT ON!
Benpal - There are no smoking bans on open platforms.
Even if there were, it would not justify assault of any kind.
GreatScot
Maybe the tobacco companies won't beable to say that their product is FDA safe, but I can. I can always write several letters to the editors or several newspapers 2 or 3 times a month and sign different names as the author, just like the antis do. I can talk about it over the fence with neighbors, while drinking tea with friends, anywhere there is a crowd so to hear it. You can all do the same and eventually people will come to realize that the product is safer and there is no longer a need for bans.
Seen you on the news last night Doctor Siegel. Nice soundbite and nice suit you were wearing. Anti-tobacco must pay well.
It goes to prove,political decisions should not be undertaken whilst under the influence of alcohol.If this isn't offered as an excuse it must obviously be something in the air,and it isn't SHS,because there are no reports of mass deaths occurring.
Hmmmmm Senator Kennedy doing the backstroke? I didn't think he could swim.
Society has now lost the majority of its substance,courtesy of Healthism at its worst.Family values are of paramount importance preaches the Government of the UK and then proceeds to interfere with almost every aspect of parental autonomy and freedom of the individual.Things have never been so bad.Active discrimination against smokers,big brother watching every scrap of food an "obese" child eats at school,keeping health records,like a little book of secrets to be used on a whim.I don't really know what your political aspirations are Dr Siegel,yet with the contents of your blog focussing on these issues and a wilful reluctance to avoid others like the plague,i just wonder what your big picture really is.
Note what information is missing
Tobacco Bill Includes Compromise and Criticism
By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: July 17, 2007, New York Times
WASHINGTON, July 16 — As legislative changes go, the switch allowing cloves to be added to cigarettes instead of being banned was a relatively small one in a landmark bill to regulate tobacco products, but the bill’s detractors say it is symbolic of the bill’s unacceptable compromises.
The Senate health committee is scheduled on Wednesday to consider a bill that would for the first time allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate cigarettes. The bill now has 52 sponsors in the Senate, and a top House Republican predicted it would pass there by 2 to 1.
Health advocates are predicting that, after more than a decade of debate, this may be the year tobacco regulation is made law. But many are holding their noses at some of the bill’s provisions, like the shift on cloves.
Full article: http://tinyurl.com/38upwo
Soren hits the nail on the head. For years, we (anti-smoking groups and advocates) have been criticizing the tobacco companies for failing to tell the truth. Now, we are REQUIRING them to hide the truth. If they tell the truth, they are in violation of the law.
Clearly, this provision is unconstitutional. But it really does expose how absurd the anti-smoking groups' reasoning has become.
Doctor---' For years, we (anti-smoking groups and advocates)'
Yet in your article on Heelys, your final comment was:
"It is a crusade that I can no longer be a part of."
But you still call yourself 'we'. Forgive me for being confused. Or is it both.
.
Si;
I received an application to renew license plates on the car yesterday and the long list of new lobbied fines and limitations associated with those plates would make you ill.
Then we get into the information aspect with a freedom of information act supposedly in place, the government has allowed itself the liberty of providing personal information for a long number of excuses to a long list of contracted companies including insurance companies financial institutions and debt collection agencies.
The slap on the face is our much loved toll road sold under the guise, tolls would be collected until it was paid for, after which the tolls would cease. The Province sold the road to a private company and uses your license renewal to blackmail you into paying your toll road bill in service of a private corporation. All this wouldn't be to hard to swallow if it were not for the fact the Province was paid almost nothing for the road and now has an obligation to police it as well. I guess the income from speeding tickets may pay for the road in about 4 thousand years.
Our smoking ban BTW includes commercial vehicles [workplaces], underground parking lots and bridges on the highway. The only allowed outdoor patios are those with no roof overhead. A roof overhang 60 feet above your head will negate a patio as eligible for smoking.
Nowhere in TC has it ever been demonstrated these measures are beneficial to anyone above the post of brain dead self serving fear monger.
Hopefully the electorate will demonstrate they have seen enough of our Norman Bates Lookalike soon and the next self important hero will have enough sense to end even a small level of the embarrassment created, in what was once an institution which worked for the people and now sees them as lowly slaves of the state.
Looking on the brighter side, just think of all the new T-shirt slogans we can print up if this bill passes:
"My smokes are 100% FDA approved!"
"Make the safe choice...smoke FDA-approved cigarettes"
"Smoking! Because the FDA says it's A-OK"
"FDA-approved cigarettes. Safer for me. Safer for those around me"
" The legislation would also prevent tobacco companies from tinkering with cigarette ingredients without F.D.A. approval. That is intended to stop the industry from increasing the addictiveness of cigarettes."
We have to agree if anyone should be involved in human experimentation it should be under the control of the US congress.
What are the health implications of smoking cloves? With so much of our resources spent on rhetoric no one seems to know what makes a cigarette dangerous and what could be done to lessen that danger.
The wisdom of politicians who know what is best for all of us, inspires a lot of confidence in an ability to end cancer and heart diseases with the banging of gavels and the stomping of feet in unison.
Brilliant Judy. And right on the mark.
Sorry Sunz. Old habits die hard. I'm so used to writing "we" that I forgot to cut myself some slack and realize that I'm no longer part of this madness.
I hereby endorse and champion JTF's suggestion.
While I am at it, I also hereby waive my First Amendment rights.
My large, and somewhat pretty lips, are sealed.
Gee as long as there were cigar bar exemptions, we didn't hear much from that crowd. Now when this bill passes the tax on 1 cigar could increase to 10.00 they are in a panic.
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/07/
1...in_a_pani.shtml
.
From benpals link (boston herald)
" New products would need FDA approval before they could be sold, according to the legislation. The bill also would authorize the FDA to set national standards for tobacco products to control how they are made, as well as force the disclosure of their ingredients, including compounds and additives, and in what quantities.
No one among those for or against the Senate bill believes it could result in a safe cigarette. There is consensus that there is no such thing."
How can they reach consensus when this has never been seriously widely looked at. Colin Granger did a post on this recently. Can't find the post right now.
.
One thing I DO applaud though is the use of the word "cockamamie." You don't hear that a lot anymore.
Sunz wrote:
"Hmmmmm Senator Kennedy doing the backstroke? I didn't think he could swim."
Oh no. He can even swim with a sprained neck. It was his car that couldn't swim.
Joe Camel wrote:
"My large, and somewhat pretty lips, are sealed."
I remember when antis described your lips as female genitalia and the cigarette in your mouth as a penis.
Reasononline
Hello, Nurse!
The petty tyranny of Michael Bloomberg
David Weigel | June 26, 2007
Excerpt:
Absolutely no one was surprised when Bloomberg won power and used it to muscle through his smoking ban. In hindsight, as city after city turns the lights out on indoor smoking, it almost does seem trivial—who can blame a guy for wanting to get a one-year jump on Delaware? But it's key to understanding how Bloomberg thinks. Government doesn't exist to keep people safe or to guard their property. Government makes them better people. At the same time he was muscling through the smoking ban Bloomberg launched Operation Silent Night, a plan to cut down on noise pollution by pouncing on noisy people and their noisier cars. As Bloomberg advisor Vincent LaPadula explained at the time, "Examples will be made. We are going to seize cars. That is how people get the message."
That's how Bloomberg faced down every problem that has come up during his mayoralty. If the problem might be solved with more money-revenue shortfalls, wooing the Olympics with a new stadium—Bloomberg goes to the taxpayers. If the problem is with New Yorkers' behavior—their cigarettes, their noise, their snacking on those infernal trans fats—Bloomberg puts down the calculator and grasps for the handcuffs. The running theme is a distrust of voters and a general uneasiness about the way they want to govern themselves.
URL: http://tinyurl.com/2mcmdj
What is blatently missing in all these discussions about the FDA bill is how the FDA can regulate cigarettes.
The FDA is whining about not having the money and manpower to regulate the drugs and foods it is already responsible for (the daily scares on tv should be evidence of how inept they really are), so how come this issue isn't being addressed? HOW is enforcement of this bill being funded? Or need I really ask? Where is the money and manpower suddenly going to come from to regulate cigarettes.
Seems to me the FDA has already announced it wants no part of this.
Senator Kennedy needs to back off...........not everyone has forgotten Chappaquidick (sp?).
Speaking of Kennedy, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he used to smoke also?
Sometimes, my dear James, a cigarette is just a cigarette, and lips are just lips. (Excuse me, Mr Freud, for mangling your exquisite phrase).
And might I remind you, James, that without both items that you list so nicely, the world would end.
Actually, I am quite happy to be involved in that act, every hour and all over the globe, even though I only feature once decoupling has occurred....
Senator Kennedy, who trusts this guy anyway? The typical face of our government. It scares the heck out of me. Somebody hit on it above, the FDA cannot even regulate legal drugs. Who's going to pay for this? Lastly, has anyone heard if PM is backing this new amendment? Their strategy involves rolling out a safer product using filter technology. The technology is there, I believe RJR had a cigarette out in the early 90's, a Winston Select, they said it was equipped with a flavor filter. I have heard that in reality it was a corregated carbon paper that eliminate 90% of the known violaters in tobacco smoke. Again, there is no safe cigarette and never will be. However, what product is 100% safe?
"The makers of Oreo cookies and KFC plaster the claim that their product contains 0 grams of trans fats."--Eric Blair
I HAD to buy some Oreos the other day, after a several year hiatus. I had this extreme urge for some Oreos. Last time I had them, they had trans fats, I forgot about that. I tasted them this time and spit it back out. I looked at my husband in horror and said "we must have gotten a bad batch or something". Then I saw the package "No transfats"...THEY'VE RUINED MY OREOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *cries*
Do you seriously have to ask how this will be funded?
Don't smokers fund everything tobacco related already, no matter how ludicrous the proposition?
No matter how far removed from actual tobacco use such propositions may be?
Let the bill pass, it will only serve to demonstrate how hysterically paranoid TC has become.
I'll post a sign in my restaurant claiming the FDA will now guarantee tobacco safety, just as they do with all other products available to the consumer. That would be no less dishonest than TC has been to date.
OT but had to have ya'll see this one!!! This is where lunatic science has taken us.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm...&
modsrc=reuters
~snip~
'Black women who feel they've been victims of racial discrimination are more likely than their peers to develop breast cancer, a large study suggests.'
So having F E L T she was discriminated against is a probable for breast cancer. Someone help me with this. A F E E L I N G????
.
.
Doc, since you touched on PMs right under the first amendment. May we now touch on lightningboys right under the constitution to be compensated for his business loses due to a smoking ban. After all this ban that you support spurred by the government has now cost LB $$$. Should he now be compensated because in effect it was caused by a regulatory taking. Take LB and all the other businesses that by right should be compensated. This should come into the 10s of billions of dollars. I suppose they can always raise the tobacco taxes to pay them off. Or better yet let TC and the authors of these worthless studies "anti" up. Maybe Healon from Legacy can kick in that millon dollar home.
Lightening Boy, I like your sign, where is your restaurant?
Sunz, looks like all us smokers will eventually be getting breast cancer seeing that it is now us who is discriminated against, regardless of race or religion. What some people won't print all in the name of a dollar!
If you like to hear the worst of the health scares, keep an eye on this BBC site. Every half arsed study gets published here. Every day a new 1. Milk good, milk bad, milk good is a typical month.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
default.stm
From Great Scot's link:
Poor 'do not have a worse diet'
We should all try to avoid unhealthy foods, say the FSA [These guys are paid to say things like this? "Everyone should try to avoid being hit by a car." "Everyone should try to avoid poverty." "Don't worry, just be happy."]
People on low incomes have similar diets to the rest of the population, a government report has said.
The Food Standards Agency found that contrary to popular belief, nutrition, access to food and cooking skills are not much different in poorer families.
However, the agency pointed out that the whole population was not eating as healthily as it should be.
Public health experts said the results were surprising but showed everyone needed to eat a better diet.
URL: http://tinyurl.com/2moep3
A good comment to that article :Poor do not have a worse diet:
Everyone who says you can eat healthy cheaply has never been poor
If money is tight you're not going to buy food that will go off, you will buy frozen food that you know will keep until you eat it. You're not going to waste food trying to cook if you know that if you burn it you've got nothing else to feed your family
If you're poor living hand-to-mouth you're cant afford to buy pots, pans, food processors and all the latest gadgets that enable you to create a quick meal after hard days work
[HardWorkingHobbes], Guildford, United Kingdom
...............
You do not have to have nothing but fresh fruit and vegetables to have a healthy diet.
If that was true, how did we in the US (or any other "industrialized nation") fill our country with millions of healthy people until just recently?
All of a sudden, we are unhealthy because we're not eating "fresh?"
Before the last twenty years we all sickened and died because most of our fruit and vegetables came out of cans, preserves or frozen packages?
People actually believe this stuff?
The BBC aka BULLSHIT BROADCASTING CORPORATION.You should feel sorry for us,we have to pay for this.
Sunz;
If the research you cited is valid it seems denormalization as promoted by TC and Public health, causes a lot more more breast cancer mortalities than ETS.
" Overall, Taylor's team found, women who said they frequently ran up against everyday types of discrimination had a higher risk of developing breast cancer. The same pattern was seen with major discrimination; women who reported on-the-job discrimination, for example, had a 32 percent higher risk of breast cancer than women who reported no such prejudice.
Women who said they'd faced discrimination on the job, in housing and from the police were 48 percent more likely to develop the disease than those who reported no incidents of major discrimination.
More studies, according to Taylor's team, are needed to confirm these findings, and to uncover the reasons for the connection between racism and breast cancer. "
Yes Kevin where do we sign up for our lawsuit? s/
Hi, guys.
Just wanted to say, democratic government does exist to protect the people - against the sort of abuses being imposed on them now by government representing giant industry and finance.
Government of, by and for the people maintains tolerance and fair play, i.e. civilization, where rampant selfishness does not demand the elimination of everything offending 'the right people' (i.e. everything) with no regard for the rights of all.
And the hazards in food are there because of producing industry, to reduce costs and increase profits, so that animals fed literal garbage including their own waste, antibiotics, drugs and production-enhancing hormones pass weight-gain and other actively deleterious chemicals to consumers, etc, etc, etc.
But we're told it's our diet and other CHOICES that cause the problems, to cover the evidence of what factory farming and industry rule does to our health in the interests of increased quarterly profits and shares.
How much nourishment can be supplied by chemicals and garbage, passed on secondhand in a food supply where, in the U.S., toxic waste is termed 'fertilizer' to save industry the cost of maintaining a protected toxic waste site and sewage sludge appears to be a common source of such heavy metals and toxins feeding crops to feed us all?
5000 artificial food additives are OK but 4000 chemicals claimed in scapegoated cigarettes are a whole different story, even though the toxins in cigarettes - including nitrosamines not naturally present in tobacco plants but forming from typically artificial fossil-fuel-produced nitrates and often fossil-fuel exhaust-created nitrosating agents in a two-step process degrading amines (forms of nicotine in this case) into hazards, and heavy metals and other toxins such as cadmium in our smoke and food supply as the results of toxic 'fertilizer' and industry pollution are presented as natural levels produced by the plants involved, rather than contamination being added to year by year to save industry money.
Just like the transference to smoking blame of the health damage caused by such profiteering - and it's industry that wishes to delete the actual (unused) protective powers of democratic governments intended to be the servants of the people they're intended to be formed of, because if the people ever take their countries and governments back, industry will no longer be able to feed people crap and treat people like crap on the excuse that they're sick as a result and should be paying high prices for more damaging chemicals termed pharma drugs.
Sorry for the rant, but now that that's off my chest I no longer need a bra. Darn.
Old folk banned from smoking outside because smoke may drift into nearby homes!
But a local businessman has built his own 90 seater pub and has invited them in. Smoking allowed as he does not charge and entrance by invite only.
http://
www.thisissouthwales.co.u...tentPK=17850311
The absurdity of targeting primary smoking by marginalising and bullying smokers beggars belief.
GreatScot
And here's another article on Bloomberg. I note our Columbus Musician has made a Comment in the Comments section.
http://www.humanevents.com/artic...le.php?
id=21531
As for Joe Camel's vulvalar lips, I must've missed that bit of hilarity but we do note the anti's ,in their Puritan repressiveness, are obsessed with sex and with sex/smoke analogies. Almost makes you wonder if what they really hate is sex and smoking's just the displacement. Glantz likens smoking to masturbation and pissing. Bill Godshall likens smoking to rape and crapping. These folks are not well.
Kevin,
Here is the 'study' (Racial Discrim/Breast Cancer.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cg...stract/166/1/
46
Have fun.
.
Fromm Rod's citation: However, the agency pointed out that the whole population was not eating as healthily as it should be.
Can we be spoon fed by the nannies please?
More studies, according to Taylor's team, are needed to confirm these findings
Right! Need some money for more of this excellent stuff? Increase taxes on tobacco!
The ban on publicizing the regulated status of such products is not novel. Check out FFDCA 301(l), among "prohibited acts". It's so Congress doesn't have to invoke sovereign immunity to keep people from suing FDA. If there's no notice on the label that FDA licensed a product, they figure they're not liable for it.
Can we be spoon fed by the nannies please?
benpal
As long as they'll come cook and clean too, I'll spoon feed myself....
I posted this on another thread that turned out to be a "dead 'un."
I'm shocked, shocked! Restaurant workers use illegal drugs?
1 in 12 Workers Admits Using Drugs
By Associated Press (Chicago Tribune)
Published July 16, 2007
Lead in:
WASHINGTON -- One in 12 full-time workers in the United States acknowledges having used illegal drugs in the past month, the government reports.
Most of those who report using illicit drugs are employed full-time, with the highest rates among restaurant workers, 17.4 percent, and construction workers, 15.1 percent, according to a federal study being released Monday. About 4 percent of teachers and social service workers reported using illegal drugs in the past month, which was among the lowest rates.
Full article URL: http://tinyurl.com/2ldlt4
Note: Restaurant workers evidently include bar tenders.
But Rod, as long as they are not smoking cigarettes..................it's perfectly acceptable as a risk factor. My local news commented that the most prevalent drug use for these people was pot. It's a "safe" smoke yanno. 
Did I forget to send you the memo? *note to self, make sure Rod is on your memo list* LOL
Study: Mega-veggie diet fails to halt breast cancer's return
Carla K. Johnson | the Associated Press
July 18, 2007
CHICAGO - Hopes that a diet low in fat and chock-full of fruits and vegetables could prevent the return of breast cancer were dashed Tuesday by a seven-year experiment involving more than 3,000 women.
The government study found no benefit from a mega-veggies-and-fruit diet in comparison with the U.S. recommended servings of five fruits and vegetables a day -- more than most Americans get.
None of the breast-cancer survivors lost weight on either diet, researchers noted.
That led some experts to suggest that weight loss and exercise should be the next frontier for cancer-prevention research. [Rod note: Aaah, the usual note that even more studies must be funded - need to keep those bucks rolling in. Another hike in the cigarette tax, anyone?]
Another excerpt:
"Earlier research on whether a healthy diet prevents breast cancer has shown mixed results."
URL: http://tinyurl.com/2er77y
Sponsored ad on the same page: Goveg.com
Cancer: Killing Animals Is Killing Us
Lead in:
Since President Richard Nixon declared a "war on cancer" in 1972, that "war" has become a losing battle. Every year, billions of dollars are spent on cancer research, detection, and treatment in the United States, yet cancer remains one of our nation's top killers.
Fortunately, there's something we can do about it. According to the World Health Organization, up to 40 percent of all cancers are preventable, and one-third of all cancer deaths in the U.S. can be attributed to nutritional factors, according the American Cancer Society (ACS).
Vegan diets maximize the foods that help us fight cancer—fiber-packed grains and beans and phytochemical-packed fruits and vegetables—and minimize the foods that cause cancer. Combine these two factors, according to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and the scientific evidence is clear: "Vegetarians are about 40 percent less likely to get cancer than nonvegetarians, regardless of other risks such as smoking, body size, and socioeconomic status."
Excerpt:
Dr. T. Colin Campbell, arguably the foremost epidemiological researcher alive today, argues that animal proteins are the prime carcinogen in meat and dairy products. Says Dr. Campbell, "[H]uman studies also support this carcinogenic effect of animal protein, even at usual levels of consumption. … No chemical carcinogen is nearly so important in causing human cancer as animal protein."
URL: http://tinyurl.com/2qcbrc
Sigh...
Yabbut, pot is a gateway to tobacco smokes.
"No chemical carcinogen is nearly so important in causing human cancer as animal protein."
Nicely put, and I would agree animal protein is extremely important, however there is a long list of chemicals which actually are known to cause cancer in real life beyond calculations and politics.
Doll was looking at asphalt and was convinced to drop it and move on to cigarettes. One has to wonder why, in all the years since no one has taken a second look despite the biological plausibility he was very likely on the right track. Add in the asbestos on our highways from years of use in brakes and you have quite the suspicious mixture yet no one has any reason to be concerned, we already know what caused all the cancers the discussion is over.
Self serve was illegal at gas stations before lead was replaced with extremely dangerous levels of benzene in gasoline.
Now the public shares the risk which would surely be killing a lot more attendants without the self serve stations.
Prior to 1960 diesel use was rare in cars and commercial vehicles. Diesel exhaust set the record for cancer growth in a dish, and now we are being told to fear a steak, with the proof supplied by the world's most renowned epidemiologist?
Perhaps we should learn to fear epi studies much more than their conclusions.
Millions could be saved in process.
Anyone got a rope?
"...according to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine"
IOW, according to PETA.
I want to know.... how in the hell can the FDA control tobacco when fda is closing 7 of its 13 labs??
"cancer remains one of our nation's top killers."
It would have to take an enormous slide to get out of that ranking. How much would it have to change relative to other fatalities? It's unrealistic to think it could slip down to the level of rare diseases, especially when you consider there are so many common cancers that you could completely eliminate any one of them and not have "cancer" in general stop being a "top killer" along with cardiovascular disease and accidents. The only other way would be for a bunch of new, or hitherto rare, diseases like AIDS to come up into the ranks of "top killers".
I wonder sometimes, what future and costs an economist would predict if we suddenly added 10 or 15 years to everybody's longevity?
Pension fund meltdown? Soaring health costs? Big Pharma profits?
Does anybody know of such a study?
GreatScot
What's funny is no one knows what causes cancer for sure, but there's a ton of ways to prevent it! I understand that "according to the numbers these types are less likely to get cancer", but less likely doesn't mean they don't. No one has found the common denominator (no one gets cancer that does this or doesn't do this), yet they can tell you exactly how to NOT get it.
Does this seem a little messed up to anyone else?
Does this seem a little messed up to anyone else?
It seems a LOT messed up to me. IF you don't know what exactly causes something, how can you guarantee NOT getting it? You can't.
The only way to even come close to MAYBE not getting cancer would be to simply eradicate every possible contributing factor. Then again, genes play into this too.............therefore MY idea of Banning Birth seems to be the ONLY solution. The end of mankind....for your health of course.
Yes Lynda,but consensus of opinion dictates what these cancer causing things are,especially when it fits an agenda,you knew that already didn't you ?
Hi, guys.
(Sending this as is, as computer's running tests and overloaded.)
I figure that if we want to work out how an already overburdened FDA will control tobacco when it's shutting down more than half of its labs, we'll have to cover a few fast facts.
One is that 'the tobacco industry' is formed of separate companies, each of which are typically part of a subsidiary of some enormous conglomerate.
The tobacco companies are miniscule compared to the chemical/plastics, etc. companies, and nanosize next to Big Oil or Big Pharma or other aspects of health care.
Such tobacco companies are run by the parent corporation and/or by stockholders.
As we've all noticed, the marketing attack on the tobacco industry included a campaign to discourage stock ownership in anything tobacco-related, driving down the stock prices for cheaper sale.
Who bought them?
Some time ago, in Canada, we'd been getting spin about 'public/private partnership' (meaning public pays, private profits) for 'a responsible, health industry' to operate a monopoly on tobacco production and sales - once the endless, orchestrated governmental lawsuits drove stock prices down enough.
(Wouldn't think governments could enact dirty deeds for commercial industry hostile takeover of competitors in establishing monopoly, would you?)
Do all of the larger tobacco companies still hold control, or is such a large block of shares held by some entity or entities - whether voting or no - that policy in some cases might be set by interests with specific agendas?
Philip Morris tobacco has been detached from Phillip Morris rest-of-the-corporation (possibly for an easy unload without involving the r-o-t-c?) and in fact Philip Morris has been stated in articles as fighting with Philip Morris - possibly the owner fighting with the head of the rest-of-the-corporation.?
Philip Morris and some of the other larger tobacco companies have apparently quit fighting for survival, and gone with anti demands; several forming small bio-pharma companies supplying the fruits of tobacco medicine research each to one each of the biggest pharma companies, although the results are hard to track as individual components/chemicals give no hint of derivation and some may well be, as claimed, synthetic versions of previous tobacco-based treatments for multiple ills.
For a little general background information explaining the Bush Admin disregard for truth and science:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/
index..._revolving_door
It's easy to see why the EPA had to be forced to release information on the incredibly deadly results of diesel - and how EPA wound up creating a 'study' to 'prove' that second-hand smoke was responsible for these whever smoking couldn't be blamed - not to mention why EPA is always fighting with EPA over the sacrifice of public and environmental health and safety to profit lucrative and powerful industry.
As you may have noticed, whenever the main group of Big Pharma are finally tackled over misdeeds, Pfizer is always treated separately.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/
index..._revolving_door
(About the BSE thing - and a demonstration of the concerns of U.S. agencies:
http://organic.com.au/news/2004.05.14/
http://www.harrisnewsservice.com.../
beefday4a.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/
...rticle_5495.cfm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/
...rticle_3750.cfm http://www.zianet.com/boje/
tamar...DCOWVol1No1.htm
Anything but health and safety.)
http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/
...olvingdoor.html
http://www.usatoday.com/money/in...bby-
cover_x.htm
http://www.antidepressantsfacts....-
regulators.htm
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~ellio023/
...sixproblems.pdf
If the FDA gets control of tobacco, Big Pharma gets control of tobacco.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
