"Scientific integrity of the movement."
Doctor Siegel,
The "movement" has never had integrity. You have been had, you have been naive.
BTC's "movement" has come out of the nether orifice and its press releases are fit only for toilet tissue.
How can anyone except a naif or a liar give any credence to this stream of muck fit only for a cesspool? And...it's been going on for over a decade!
Helloooo out there! Is there anyone left with half a brain in their head?
Sorry, I get little bitter when the truth is self-evident.
The press is paid for by ads.
It is never "the news".
Media is a cartoon circus.
I stay away from it as much as possible.
Those who succumb to the power of suggestion can develop many ills by just watching the pharma commericals on prime time.
I remember a time when lawyers and funeral directors did not have commericals on the telly.
Patent medicines were the only drugs pushed.
Now it is just ridiculous. All I can say is at least the people who lived in the old Soviet bloc knew their news agencies were government propaganda agencies.
Here in the US, people believe what they hear on TV as gospel. This ought not to be, but what can you do?
Our culture is a bunch of lazy layabouts who care more about entertainment fit for the ADDs, rather than something that has some depth.
Recently I read of classical music being used at subway stations to prevent loitering. All that says to me is that classical music is assumed to be hated by the masses.
Every damn thing you hear on pop radio is a bunch of computer generated crap.
There are studies going on concerning the way music is mastered now for airplay....how loudness is pushed to the red and the effects of this kind of sonic overload.
I think it is all related. Lemming mentality across the board.
FWIW, I have played in a number of genres including metal, so I am not an old fart who hates rock and roll. Even hard rock/metal music used to have DYNAMICS. Now everything has to be mastered to be right below the "red". Paul McCartney's new CD even shows some of this trend. I find the mixes on some of the tunes on that one unlistenable. Sure isn't the old Sgt. Pepper kind of music with dynamics. Just an in your face sonic assualt.
Same with the movies and their sensory overload of special effects.
Like I said, I think all of this is related and an ill in our society that needs to be remedied....and quick.
I will go as far to say as I think it is indoctrination concerning the media regarding providing few true facts and the sensual overloads of both the visual and aural aspects of the media.
The Scottish "study" looked at 9 hospitals. There are more than 9 in Glasgow alone.
article from the times.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle2426743.ece
excerpt
Sir Richard Peto, of Oxford University, an expert in the epidemiology of smoking, said many things could affect admissions for heart attacks, including the weather. Fewer people suffer heart attacks when the weather is mild. “I’d be surprised if this drop were due solely to the smoking ban,” he said. “I would like to see cigarette sales figures, to see if there has been any fall.”
Anti-smoker Peto shows some restraint.
GreatScot
Another reasonable article from the Times about the Scottish heart attacks
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle2426507.ece
Dr. Siegel, you've pointed out the problem quite clearly. This methodology is quite deliberate and the intent is nothing less than public fraud.
Fraud does not lie only in falsifying data: misrepresentation of the meaning of data in an attempt to force public policy in a direction that the truth would never support is outright, blatant, and disgraceful fraud.
There's nothing more to be said about it.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network (PASAN)
web page: http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
Like Gio Gori said in his Washington Post Op-Ed, Tobacco Control has made a "Faustian bargain". The press has gone along with this bargain mostly because journalists are plain gullible on ETS issues. Yet this spring when the American Cancer Society started to put forward its misleading claim that "eight hours in a bar that allows smoking equals smoking 16 cigarettes" in order to push the Illinois smoking ban, I sent contrary Oak Ridge National Laboratory studies to the St. Louis Post Dispatch. One fair minded Post reporter read the ORNL studies and wrote an article which fairly examined both sides of the controversy. Though Tobacco Control is beyond redemption and cannot be returned to "scientific integrity", I believe the press can more and more begin to deal with ETS issues accurately if we lobby them persistently.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...2901158_pf.html
http://www.ornl.gov/info/press_r...r=mr20000203-
00
http://www.ehponline.org/members...nkins-
full.html
It is at least a marginal improvement on how things used to be. We're now here:
1) Collect Data
2) Analyse Data
3) Report Results
4) Get Peer Review
5) Publish Method
Which you must admit is some progress from the older style of their method:
1) Report Results
2) Collect Data
3) Analyse Data
4) Cherry-Pick Data
5) Double Margin of Error
6) Double your findings to get to the result you first thought of.
Not that anyone would dream of doing that (cough, cough, EPA, cough).
Thank, Dr. Siegel, for bringing this up!
As you correctly note, the purpose of these publications to achieve maximum public impact. Once the message is out, nobody, at least not the media, will be interested in putting the results into context.
Haven't we got a marvelous example: "Who cares about WMD in Iraq, the important thing is to have a foot in the door. Mission accomplished".
Official figures show a steady decline in CHD and AMI admissions and mortality of approx. 3% average over the last decade in Scotland (total!).
http://www.isdscotland.org/isd/i...e=Content.show&
How easy can it be to look through all hospital statistics to find just what you are looking for? Sweet cherries ....
From the CBS News article cited: "This is a tiny, little community in the middle of nowhere," Sargent said. "This study needs to be replicated in New York City."
I'd bet somebody has already replicated it (wouldn't that have been a feeding frenzy?) ... and put the study right into the shredder after having seen the results.
If there is such a thing as global warming,here's a culprit straight away.Media bullshit leaves a bad smell and produces a lot of hot air.Much like the politicians do who have a vested interest in the Pharma nico replacement programme.
benpal. all CBS would have to do is give McFadden & Kuneman a call. Then again M&K don't spend billons in advertising.
With the smoking ban aboutto come back on the table in PA RWJF has started running its SHS commercials. $$$$$$$$
Benpal quoted Sargent, ""This is a tiny, little community in the middle of nowhere.... This study needs to be replicated in New York City."
and said, "I'd bet somebody has already replicated it ... and put the study right into the shredder after having seen the results."
Benpal, I believe that either Sargent or Shepard also said that they planned to get the data from the following year for Helena as well and publish it in support of their original study.
Oddly enough, THAT never happened either.... oddly enough. So should we believe that Glantz, Shepard, and Sargent simply got bored and never went back to check those results out and vindicate themselves against their critics.... or should we believe that they DID check them out, found that they contradicted the results projected by their original study, and then deliberately and fraudulently buried them?
Whatever the system of scientific research checks and balances is that is supposed to protect us against fraud clearly seems to be defective. The area of antismoking research is likely to be FAR more rife with fraud than the pharmaceutical field where so many instances have been found already, simply because in the antismoking world the lure of money is compounded by the glitter of the "greater good" justifying the dirty means toward a pristine end goal.
A nice fat purse, and no guilty conscience necessary.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance, Inc.
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers' Action Network (PASAN)
web page: http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
Doc said; "Second, I have to say that I believe it is inappropriate, and perhaps unethical, to use this approach of science by press release."
Ummm excuse me Doc, but at what point are you finally going to "get it"
"PERHAPS unethical"?
Are you kidding?
"MAYBE" it's unethical?
Please make an effort to stop being such a flip-flopping jellyfish.
Stop worrying what your "colleagues" think of your position on this issue, because the one thing they are most definitely not worried about, is you.
It's time for you to take a definitive stance on this issue already and call a press conference to offer a solid rebuke of this kind of nonsense to the entire nation.
Or would that be, perhaps unethical?
Well seems the antismoking movement has gone from talking simple garbage to spouting anything that comes out of their mouths. The movement never had any integrity and this Scottish study simply confirms this phenomenon.
Michael McFadden: or should we believe that they DID check them out, found that they contradicted the results
I'll take the bet. It would have been a dream come true for them to be able to blast all the critiques and critics in the BMJ, lets say "2000 days after" 
Another example of science by press release is the one alleging genetic damage among casino workers caused by secondhand smoke.
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/
c...inoworkers.html
First, the actual study, of only about 50 workers, did not control for ex firsthand smoking status, or years of employment in casinos.
Second, this small study of only about 50 casino workers reported no genetic damage at all among female casino workers, only males, and among the males, only one kind of genetic damage amongst the 2 kinds tested for.
In the press release, the authors said that a much larger study was in the works which would offer more compelling proof that shs was causing genetic damage in casino workers.
All this was about 2 years ago.
All this was timed to get support for a smoking ban in NV, but I have been monitoring the literature through the Nat Library of Medicine's online database, and the larger study has yet to be published.
I suspect the larger study was rejected, but of course that would never draw the media's attention, or become part of any public debate.
Dave K
Dave K wrote:
"In the press release, the authors said that a much larger study was in the works which would offer more compelling proof that shs was causing genetic damage in casino workers."
Did they really say that? Wasn't it a little premature to already know the results?
Folks,
I will be on the radio (Its an Edinburgh station called Talk 107 if you want to tune in) later this afternoon making a statement about the Scottish Heart Miracle.
I'll let you know how it goes.
Long, but almost required reading (and checking out the links provided):
Junkfood Science
September 10, 2007
Mythbusters: Are the odds stacked against us?
Lead in:
Is it even possible to effectively counter popular false beliefs and help people understand accurate information? Or, had Joseph Goebbels, in the 1920s, correctly pegged people as easily manipulated by media disinformation campaigns and we're doomed to repeat history? The underlying processes of human reasoning and fallacies of logic are known in the scientific literature, but if we don't understand them, they could remain the secrets of those using them against us.
........
Excerpts:
"It’s gobs easier to plant a scare, than to convince people of the science countering it. Those who understand this natural brain process take advantage of it to manipulate public opinion. They know that whoever makes the first scary claim gains the upper hand. And for the media, fear sells. Saturating the media with a scare and giving it more attention creates the added perception that it’s a real threat. Balanced information barely gets a word in edgewise, nor is it likely to be believed. As one commenter noted, if a publication shows something is risky, then it agrees with people’s concerns, “but if you publish showing no risk, you are funded by the Sinister Conspiracy!”
and
Have you heard about the classic “2-4-6” experiment done by Peter Wason back in 1960, which illustrated confirmation bias? In this study, the subjects had to discover a rule known only to the experimentor seen in the sequence 2-4-6. Subjects could test triplets until they felt certain they knew the experimenter’s rule. Only 21% guessed the rule right off, but Wason found that those who guessed wrong repeatedly worked to look for evidence that confirmed their hypotheses, rather than falsify them. The subjects in this study had little emotional involvement in the numbers, but subsequent studies have found that the more emotionally charged an hypothesis, the stronger our confirmation biases and the more resistant to changing our minds we become.
As Wason wrote, all that the subjects had to do was find an instance that didn’t conform to their rule to decisively eliminate it, while on the contrary, “instances exemplifying such a rule can never be exhausted.” Inductive inferences can only be checked against the evidence, he said, and his experiment “demonstrated the dangers of induction by simple enumeration as a means of discovering truth.” Tallys aren’t evidence.
URL: http://tinyurl.com/2eoeog
Oops!
You need the time if you are going to tune in via the internet:
Either 4:30 pm or 5:00 pm GMT (just after the news headlines).
Doc,
Are you really for SCHIP??? It appears to be a front for back door socialized medicine. They are going to get the dollars saying it's for the kids. Ha Ha!! Some more massaging of the facts by our government and leadership.
http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB...=googlenews_wsj
http://www.newsday.com/news/
opin...0,4655342.story
Excellent Colin, and we can listen live:
http://www.talk107.co.uk/
Gilster posted this over at the Smokers club this morning, and it is just TOO FUNNY…..or it would be if it weren’t so pathetic…..not to share. I mean, really, NO attempt whatsoever to disguise the playbook they stole the idea from……….LOL Thanks for this Gilster.
OH, yes, it’s off-topic too, sort of, but Bill will just have grow up and deal with it.
There is a comment section at the end, but you have to log in (register) to comment.
Health warnings for bikes
By Steve Farrell
Politics & the law
11 September 2007 11:07
Consideration should be given to cigarette-style health warnings for motorcycles, campaign groups have said.
The warnings would contain messages such as: ‘Motorcyclists make up less than 1% of road traffic but suffer around 18% of deaths and serious injuries.’
Paige Mitchell, coordinator of the Slower Speeds Initiative, said warnings should be combined with new regulations limiting the power, weight and speed of motorcycles.
She said: “If health warnings were used to support regulation and make the basis of regulation more intelligible to the consumer, then clearly that would be a good thing.”
Roger Geffen, campaigns and policy manager for CTC, the national cyclists’ organisation, said: “Anything that helps raise awareness - that prompts people think about the risks not only that they’re taking for themselves but imposing on other people - has got to be worth exploring.”
Roger Geffen said stickers on bikes quoting motorcycle casualty figures and warning us to be careful would make a “more helpful message” than stickers telling us to wear crash helmets, which have in the past been placed on bikes by manufacturers.
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MC...rningsforbikes/
Lynda, I thought the same when I bumped into the article - there's nowhere to hide...
Colin is on now - Radio station link above - listen LIVE
Due on after the news ( in about 3 minutes)...the station just called and apologised for running late...
Do these people simply believe that the world is comprised of near morons and a warning label is required for everything we use, consume or otherwise interact with?
Clearly, that seems to be the case.
The continued dumbing down of America.
Find the lowest possible denominator, and that's the new high benchmark to be met. A case of "No Child", ...or in many cases recently, ..No idiot left behind.
Want an epidemic?, lower the threshold stats.
Want higher test scores?, lower the standards, or simplify the questions.
Want more diversity?, change or broaden the qualifications for inclusion.
Want a panic, issue a press release before the event has even transpired.
This is how and why we are in the situation we are in, the "experts" keep changing the rules, standards, and goals. I don't recall asking for their help or protection.
In the press release, the authors said that a much larger study was in the works which would offer more compelling proof that shs was causing genetic damage in casino workers.
All this was about 2 years ago.
When sports fans are optimistic after the first win of the season, there is always joking about undefeated seasons. But they understand it is joking, even if it is a big win.
The antismoking folks seem NOT to be joking about the same sort of absurd extrapolation.
Colin, Great Interview.
You got everything in, including the Doc's article here on shoddy science.
Excellent, and now I know how you speak and will read your posts with your accent 
It appears that the largest avoidable cause of death is staying away from hospitals. I have seen mumbers ranging from 200,000 to 800,000 a year.
http://www.lef.org/magazine/
mag2...rt_death_01.htm
Maybe we should be thinking about taxing health care workers or Big Medical and Big Pharma to pay for these avoidable causes of death.
Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation
TIMUR KURAN
University of Southern California - Department of Economics; University of Southern California Law School
CASS R. SUNSTEIN
University of Chicago - Law School
-------------------------------------------------
Stanford Law Review, April 1999
Abstract:
An availability cascade is a self-reinforcing process of collective belief formation by which an expressed perception triggers a chain reaction that gives the perception increasing plausibility through its rising availability in public discourse. The driving mechanism involves a combination of informational and reputational motives: individuals endorse the perception partly by learning from the apparent beliefs of others and partly by distorting their public responses in the interest of maintaining social acceptance. Availability entrepreneurs--activists who manipulate the content of public discourse--strive to trigger availability cascades likely to advance their agendas. Their availability campaigns may yield social benefits, but sometimes they bring harm, which suggests a need for safeguards. Focusing on the role of mass pressures in the regulation of risks associated with production, consumption, and the environment, we analyze availability cascades and suggest reforms to alleviate their potential hazards. Our proposals include new governmental structures designed to give policy makers better insulation against mass demands for new regulations and an easily accessible scientific database to reduce people's dependence on popular perceptions.
URL: http://tinyurl.com/2p2tgk
"Cascades?" Reminds me of that certain something that always runs downhill.
rrgabe23 - It appears that the largest avoidable cause of death is staying away from hospitals. I have seen mumbers ranging from 200,000 to 800,000 a year.
......
rrgabe23,
If patients declared they were fully informed and aware of the dangers and still decided to be admitted, the doctor would have to conclude the would-be admittees were not sufficiently informed!
Thanks Gilster!
I was a little nervous....
Sorry I missed it Colin, I'm at work and was away from my desk at that time on a conference call.
Can you tell us a bit more about it, or shall I go elsewhere to read about it?
Now I don't understand all this genetic stuff. I don't understand how stopping smoking can change genes back.
Effect of active smoking on the human bronchial epithelium transcriptome
Background
Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer-related deaths. Tobacco smoke exposure is the strongest aetiological factor associated with lung cancer. In this study, using serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE), we comprehensively examined the effect of active smoking by comparing the transcriptomes of clinical specimens obtained from current, former and never smokers, and identified genes showing both reversible and irreversible expression changes upon smoking cessation.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/147.../8/297/
abstract
Here's how the media covered it.
Smoking permanently damages some genes
http://www.canada.com/saskatoons...ee-
9c3e343bd771
Lynda,
One of the guys at F2C recorded it. I will post a link, or send to you privately as soon as I get it.
Lynda,
I see that they did not consider SHS. They appear to link the damage with the dose.
I accidentally posted the following on another thread, as it was intended for this one.
An even more outrageous example of scientific fraud via press release was done by the American Association for Cancer Research last month when it issued a press release entitled "Smokeless tobacco more effective than cigarettes for delivering dangerous carcinogens into the body" http://www.aacr.org/home/about-u...t-
u...news.aspx? d=808
that intentionally misrepresented the findings of a study by Stephen Hecht
"Similar Exposure to a Tobacco-Specific Carcinogen in Smokeless Tobacco Users and Cigarette Smokers"
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi...i...tract/16/8/
1567 and that contained intentionally misleading quotes by Hecht.
The day the AACR issued the press release, I contacted the AACR staffer who wrote the press release and told him that his press release (which was written in collaboration with Hecht) would generate totally inaccurate news headlines, and I pointed out that AACR and Hecht had committed scientific fraud by inaccurately implying that cigarettes pose fewer cancer risks than do smokeless tobacco products.
Just as I predicted, the next day FoxNews ran a story entitled "Study: Smokeless Tobacco More Carcinogenic than Cigarettes"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/ 0,2...,292838,00.html
And a week later the NY Times published a similar article entitled
"Hazards: Smokeless Tobacco on Par With Cigarettes"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/2......EYPEs3CDwnA/
6Zg
The NY Times article prompted Jacob Sullum to write an excellent article
entitled "Does the Times Understand the Difference Between Safer and Safe?"
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/...how/ 122131.html
For objective information about the comparable health risks of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products, please read "Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers"
http://www.harmreductionjournal....al....7-7517-3-
37.pdf
and/or "Systematic review of the health effects of modified smokeless tobacco products"
http://nzhta.chmeds.ac.nz/ public...ions.htm#review
Just to keep things on the right thread. Lynda's response to Bill's post on the other thread.
I don't why you are so surprised Bill. This is just the same tactic that is used with cigarettes.
I love how defensive and outraged you get about smokeless tobacco being claimed as dangerous.....BUT don't apply the same indignation over the outright fraud and lies YOU spread about cigarettes.
Hypocrite.
Lynda F | 09.11.07 - 2:07 pm | #
BTW I heard on another blog that the Scottish heart attack study covered the 10 months before and after the ban. If that's true the before period would include the worst winter months, January and February while the after would miss them.
Guess I will just have to wait until the study is peer reviewed and published.
GreatScot
Guess so Scot and Bill I guess you wont be jumping then in joy. The antis only know how to do one thing- to grab headlines.
Who will hold them to account?
The media - No, they published the press release. The headline. Then onto the next story. Mind you they did say it was a study, yet it appears to be only a paper (or perhaps preliminary results) presented at a partisan conference.
When 'the study' comes out will the press publish it as a) A new study (tactics again) or b) a Critical appraisal?
The Peer review process - No, they will review the submitted paper, which we do not know if it will or is the same as the one presented at the conference.
We do not even know (correct me if I am wrong) to which journals it has already been submitted.
The Public - No, they have been fed the headline.
The people that should hold these people to the standard expected are other scientists, yet they seem powerless to do so. This brings the whole thing into disrepute.
As least Dr Siegel has made a start and well done to Colin from F2C (Freedom To Choose) for managing to get on air about this.
Still, the damage is done. Are the people who allowed this acting unethically? Not so much in presenting the paper but allowing it to be used to garner headlines in the way it has? If so is there a professional body that might intervene.
west
----
Colin, please post the link to your interview here.
And I wanted to mention your brilliant yet chilling article, "I, Robot", on F2C. Everyone should read it.
http://www.freedom2choose.info/n...ewer.php?
id=335
.
Thanks tnsmoker. You are far too kind!
Just got the link. Its a bit of a chunky file (8Mb) and the whole thing lasts around 23 minutes, but (as a bonus) you get some Scottish news too.
http://www.toe-the-oche.co.uk/
pl...ioBroadcast.mp3
The lady caller, later on in the show is our own Belinda from F2C.
Doc,
Please don't listen to it.
That way you will never know I borrowed your title.....
(Science by Press Release, that is. Not Dr.)
By way of thanking you I asked all 750 members of Freedom to Choose to come visit yalls blog.
"Who will hold them to account?" - asks West.
Westy I trust we all will do so. At least we will have the weaponry.
Just wait a while (a few months) and all of the information will be in the public domain - Admissions, Discharges, Deaths, A&E (ER) visits etc etc for AMI (heart attacks), IHD, IHD, CVD (Strokes), all major sites of cancer, COPD - all this is data routinely collected from all 400+ hospitals in Scotland - not just nine.
Furthermore there will be detailed tabulations and analyses published on the Scottish NHS web-site.
The truth will emerge on this one, they will not be able to hide it. Forget the crappy little 'study' behind this press release, we are talking national statistics here and they cannot be suppressed!
And before anyone suggests that it is too late to put Genie back in the bottle - I don't accept that. The press over here love a politically-inspired lie, especially when (and I assume 'when' rather than 'if') the truth is totally uncontestable.
Keep the faith and watch this space!
.
Colin, it's 18 MB (loading it down right now)
18Mb! Sorry mate......
Congratulations, Colin!
I listened live, Colin. Thank you and Bravo!
Thanks for the link, Colin.
Thanks for the link Colin. I'll listen to it when I get home this evening. I have a 5 pm bus to catch and don't have time right now.
i'm always glad when the other side of an issue can be heard on the radio. congrats, colin!
OT, but it reminds me of the 'we only want the front of the plane' mentality. nutty people!
LOS ANGELES - A city councilwoman is proposing a moratorium on fast-food restaurants in south Los Angeles, which has more such eateries than any other part of the county.
The ordinance proposed by Councilwoman Jan Perry would stop new fast-food restaurants from opening in the area for up to two years while the city establishes a long-term plan to deal with the restaurants that have been linked to health problems.
"The people don't want them, but when they don't have any other options, they may gravitate to what's there," Perry said in Monday's Los Angeles Times.
The ordinance is a response to suspicions that obesity and related illnesses — including high blood pressure, diabetes and heart disease — are connected to the high-fat foods that dominate fast-food restaurant menus.
An analysis by the Times found that south Los Angeles has the county's highest concentration of fast-food restaurants.
The area also has higher rates of obesity than the rest of the county, according to a county Department of Public Health study that found 30 percent of adults in south Los Angeles are obese, compared with 20.9 percent in the county overall. For children, the obesity rate was 29 percent in south Los Angeles, compared with 23.3 percent in the county.
Some public health experts cheered the proposal.
"While limiting fast-food restaurants isn't a solution in itself, it's an important piece of the puzzle," said Mark Vallianatos, director of the Center for Food and Justice at Occidental College.
But some in the restaurant industry criticized the moratorium proposal, which would only permit full-service, sit-down restaurants to open, as misguided.
Dennis Lombardi, foodservice strategies chief at restaurant consulting firm WD Partners, said the restriction was "like saying we're not going to allow anybody to sell Chevrolets anymore because we want people to buy nothing but Mercedes-Benzes."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20726137/
Something of note we can have a little fun with at the expense of those who have been engaged in criminal activity for too long.
If a TC conspirator talks about punitive activities such as bans or tax increases they talk about smoking described as a "habit" yet when targeting people with promotion of disgust and hatred aimed at those who smoke, the word becomes "addiction".
Lets look at how often this plays out in medical research papers and press releases. Health scare professionals continue to mistake one descriptor for another, with an absolutely different meaning.
This would demonstrate an avoidance of someone who knows full well they are doing something wrong, and are attempting to form the language to hide from what they know is unethical conduct, in proposing society punishes a medical condition or dependency.
Either that or they don't believe their own language and seem to indicate smoking is only a habit.
I would like to see what drives the language; if many of us started to ask when the language presented is confusing if the speaker believes smoking is addictive or if the word habit was just a mistake?
If they agree smoking is addictive they would then have to explain; how they justify the punishment of someone they believe suffers from a medical condition in response to that addiction?
Make them eat their words or eat crow.
Kevin - Something of note we can have a little fun with at the expense of those who have been engaged in criminal activity for too long.
.........
Kevin,
It's becoming more and more evident that Big Tobacco Control may have a large number of people engaged in criminal activity: fraud.
The only good thing about it is that it's documented...all kinds of data and witnesses to be examined.
BTC did it to Big Tobacco - turnabout is fair play.
OT (but related to a previous topic).
I wrote my senator regarding the SCHIP bill and here is his response.
Thank you for contacting me regarding possible federal tax increases on the purchase of cigarettes and cigars. It is good to hear from you, and I greatly apologize for the delay in my response.
The recently proposed tax increases for cigarettes and cigars are related to a bill that would expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which I will discuss in more detail.
To begin, however, I wish to state that I am fundamentally opposed to new taxes of any sort. I voted against the enormously costly and flawed expansion of SCHIP, which was simultaneously a vote against the tax increases for cigarettes and cigars. The federal government does not need more taxpayer money. Instead, the government needs to eliminate waste, improve efficiency and streamline programs that are duplicative and costly. Washington, D.C., is full of endless government departments, agencies, programs and bureaucrats that serve no essential purpose, yet consume billions of dollars from taxpayers every year.
Furthermore, I believe the government should not dictate behavior of the public through taxes or other means. As a practicing physician, I understand the serious ramifications of tobacco use. However, I believe citizens are responsible for their own choices and must face the consequences of their chosen lifestyles. The government of the United States is in place to maintain law and order, and do those things which citizens cannot do on their own. It is not the government's responsibility to save people from themselves, or tell them how to live their lives.
As you know, SCHIP gives federal money to states to provide health insurance for children in families with incomes slightly higher than Medicaid eligibility levels. The program was designed to help those who truly need it: low-income, uninsured children whose families made 200 percent above the federal poverty level or less. However, the recent Senate bill to expand the program strayed far from its original intent, and did so to the detriment of our nation's health care system. The Senate bill will essentially crowd out privately purchased health insurance with government-run programs by expanding SCHIP eligibility from 200 percent of the federal poverty level to 300 percent of the federal poverty level. This will cost American taxpayers $60 billion over the next five years. Furthermore, the Senate bill is "paid for" with a budget gimmick to mask the true cost of legislation and expand big government spending policies.
Instead of tinkering around the edges, what America really deserves is total reform of the health care system. I recently co-authored the Every American Insured Act (S. 1886). Under this bill, all Americans - regardless of age, income or employer - can receive affordable health care coverage and would have the right to choose what is best for them. If you wish to discuss my position on health care in greater detail, please feel free to write me again or contact my office at (202) 224-5754.
Again, thank you for contacting me on this issue. Best wishes!
Sincerely, A
Tom Coburn
United States Senator
A view on the Scottish heart attack study. What is interesting is a little background history on the study's author,Prof Pell.
http://www.thepublican.com/story...ycode=56901&
c=2
Excerpt.
Let's briefly examine Ms Pell's credentials. She is the leading light of a government funded organisation called 'STOPIT' (STudy Of Public place Intervention on Tobacco exposure), a proactive anti-tobacco outfit instrumental in pushing through the smoking ban. The name of this 'quango' says it all really.
GreatScot
"If patients declared they were fully informed and aware of the dangers and still decided to be admitted, the doctor would have to conclude the would-be admittees were not sufficiently informed!" Touché, Rod; beautiful touch.
Dr. Siegel, when are you going to get your integrity back (if you ever had any) and stop playing honky-tonk piano in a whorehouse?
These Ohio business owners are obviously among the 44 percent of Americans who remain sceptical of ETS life risks:
http://www.smokechoke.com/
From Julie's senator:
"As a practicing physician, I understand the serious ramifications of tobacco use. However...It is not the government's responsibility to save people from themselves, or tell them how to live their lives."
No, that's Bill Godshall's job. LOL
Another physician breaking tobaccoscamarama's heart. How much more can it take?
history- Pill increases cancer risk
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english...000/
1887665.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
2913465.stm
Today - Pill reduces cancer risk
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/healt...lth/
6987889.stm
Quotes from James Jeans (Scientist 1877-1946)
"The plain fact is that there are no conclusions."
“Science should leave off making pronouncements: the river of knowledge has too often turned back on itself.”
Tis a pity that modern scientist are less ethical.
From GreatScot's post the use of the term Quango is not well known in the public. Perhaps it should be, many would then understand the workings of these groups dispensing health relevant information and driving community descisions.
These are not traditional scientists or indicative of the medical community at large, nor does the information provided in bulk need a basis in science or fact. Propaganda drives decisions which have no alternative according to the plan being purchased irregardless of public opinions or ethical respect of those being targeted.
They are in fact mercenaries, paid to provide services in support of government demands. Services which would be illegal acts if enacted directly within the public sector so they authorize the use of public funds to hire others to do their dirty work at arms length.
The lack of respect in traditional values and a lack of fear in the open promotion of hatred and human rights abuse continues because as servants of the government these groups believe themselves above the law.
It may only take a loud public denial of that immunity, to have the investigations and indictments begin.
From WIKI
The term originated as a humorous shortening of Quasi-NGO, that is, an ostensibly non-governmental organisation which performs governmental functions, often with government funding or other support.[1] There are many such organisations. In Australia and other countries, the Red Cross provides blood bank services, with government support and backing of various kinds. Examples in the United Kingdom include bodies engaged in self-regulation of various sectors, such as the Press Council and the Law Society. An essential feature of a Quango, in the original definition, was that it should not be formally part of the public sector.
However, the appeal of the term was such that it was extended to a wide range of governmental organisations, such as executive agencies (from 198
providing health, education and other services. Particularly in the United Kingdom during the 1980s, this extension took place in a polemical context, being associated with claims that the proliferation of such authorities was undesirable and should be reversed. In the course of this process, attempts were made to derive the acryonym from longer terms which did not carry the presumption that the organisation in question was non-governmental. The most popular was Quasi-Autonomous National Government Organisation, which, however, carries with it the false presumption that state and local governments cannot make use of Quangos. Similarly, the insertion of the word "autonomous" does not work in a descriptive sense: the main complaint about these organisations is that they have too much autonomy, rather than, as with the original term, that their apparent autonomy conceals a close relationship with government.
Since most of such bodies are in fact part of the government in terms of funding, appointment and function, the acronym does not work as a description - these are generally not non-governmental organisations with less autonomy than others. As a result, it has largely been abandoned in UK official usage. The less controversial term non-departmental public body (NDPB) is now used to describe many of the organisations with devolved governmental roles, in an attempt to avoid the pejorative associations of the term Quango.
The UK government's definition of a non-departmental public body or quango in 1997 was:
"A body which has a role in the processes of national government, but is not a government department or part of one, and which accordingly operates to a greater or lesser extent at arm's length from Ministers."
Now we need an opinion;
Does any of this in any way represent arms length?
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pub...ia/
index_e.html
"Dann Michols, Assistant Deputy Minister, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada, welcomed participants and emphasized that while many areas of expertise were represented at the Round-table, everyone was committed to reducing the toll that tobacco takes on the lives of citizens in our countries. He noted that the recent survey of tobacco use (CTUMs) had brought encouraging news: smoking rates in Canada were continuing to drop and were now at 22% nationally. Provincially, there were some truly amazing results - for example, in Quebec from 1981 to 2001, prevalence had dropped from 43.7% to 24.1%.
While we were well placed to reach our target of reducing prevalence to 20% by 2011 we could not afford to be complacent. Prevalence rates remained unacceptably high with some groups such as youth and First Nations and we know we must work hard to make gains in these high risk, difficult to reach groups.
We know that the most effective tobacco control programs are comprehensive, integrated, with mass media as a key component. We have implemented Year One of the Federal Tobacco Control Strategy, which will provide the sustained level of funding to do this. We are looking to generate attitudinal and behavioural change in connection with protection, prevention, cessation and harm reduction initiatives.
Mr. Michols asked participants for their input to help inform future mass media plans that would work in the Canadian reality and emphasized that, first, he and his colleagues wanted to listen and learn. They had invited a diverse range of experts who would share their knowledge in a way it was hoped would be informative and provocative. Then, the following afternoon, there would be discussions in a round-table format and input sought on three questions:
* Where does industry denormalization fit with Health Canada's mass media strategies?
* Should we segment the population for optimum impact -- and if yes, how should we do it?
* And finally, with whom should we partner and how should we work with our partners?
The outcome of the work would be posted on the Health Canada web site so that it can be accessed by people who were not able to be present. And participants' input would be incorporated into a paper Health Canada would be presenting in the Mass Media Forum at the Third National Conference on Tobacco Control in December in Ottawa.
Participants' feedback would inform our mass media strategy for several years to come and continued collaboration was fundamental if smoking prevalence is to continue to decline. It would take an effort on many fronts: provinces were implementing comprehensive strategies, municipalities were continuing to implement smoke-free bylaws, non-governmental organizations continuing to work on all fronts to advance knowledge and action. Partnerships, sharing information and best practices both within Canada and beyond, would be key and the Round-table was an example of this. "
Another perspective which does not match with public belief is found when considering who actually lobbied whom?
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pub...ia/
index_e.html
" * There are a variety of possible partners -- NGOs, smaller provinces, provincial, territorial and municipal governments, Aboriginal governments, the pharmaceutical industry, cultural groups and communities, youth education/media literacy groups.
* Provincial and territorial responsibilities must be respected in partnering approaches.
* A framework and overall strategy is needed -- this could drive partner selection.
* There must be integration of effort and activities and sharing of information.
* Health Canada's involvement with partners could be direct, at arm's length or some other arrangement. Accountability for public funds must be properly maintained.
"
And here, who is leading and who is following???
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/a...oc/
index_e.html
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/a...de/
index_e.html
When looking at this press release from a different point of view. I can conclude that non-smokers admissions rates are down 17% but all non-smokers admissions for heart attacks are 100% since the smoking ban went into place.
The headline: ADMISSIONS FOR NON-SMOKERS HEART ATTACKS STILL AT 100% SINCE SMOKING BAN. All in how you spin it!
Bill Hannegan - Re: Smoke Choke
"This is an unofficial list created by people like you to help you make healthy and informed choices."
This site seems a bit confused about the definition of "choice." "Choice" means there is an option(s). "Banned" leaves no options, no choices. Choice is freedom - Bans are tyranny.
Re; Smoke Choke
"This is an unofficial list created by people like you to help you make healthy and informed choices."
First, this is not about making choices other than how often you may wish to file a complaint against any business that appears on that list.
It's about the self righteous little toad that has decided that this is a "public service" of some kind, and that they are doing this "for our own good" THANKS, BUT NO THANKS.
SECOND;
This pathetic site wouldn't be necessary if people were actually allowed to make any personal choices for themselves at all.
There was, and continues to be a much easier method for allowing people to "make healthy and informed choices."
It' called a SIGN on the front door of every hospitality business that quite simply reads "SMOKING PERMITTED" or "NO SMOKING"
This was the "minimum standard of protection" that was already in place throughout the state of Ohio before the ACS et al, "the borg" decided that the population was not smart enough to make such a distinction without the force of law.
If you can't read or otherwise don't understand such simple verbiage, you probably shouldn't be out in public unescorted by a rational thinking adult in the first place.
If you CAN read but are somehow offended that smoking would be permitted in spite of the off-chance that you may one day wish to grace my establishment with your pristine presence, then you are an enemy of the state. You are in favor of the recision of MY property rights for nothing more than your own personal comfort, and clearly in favor of socialism whether you can admit it to yourself or not.
You are part of the problem facing America today.
If you insist that a smoke free environment is your right, you are CLEARLY an uninformed idiot, and most definitely should not be allowed to roam the streets without supervision. A smoke free environment is a PERSONAL PREFERENCE, and I can assure you, it's not mine.
DON'T SMOKE?, DON'T COME IN.
How terribly difficult is that?
BTW, and FYI, my restaurant is NOT on that list, though there are several extablishments in my town that are.
One complaint caught my eye, if there's no effect on businesses when a smoking ban is in effect, how come bars that allow smoking are losing other bars business?
I know this question is asked, but I gotta ask again. Any anti that hasn't asked themselves why a level playing field is needed if smoking bans don't hurt businesses is an idiot.
Any anti that hasn't asked themselves why a level playing field is needed if smoking bans don't hurt businesses is an idiot.
In Illinois "level playing field" got switched from economic to What Was Really Important, ie health.
A clever bamboozle actually. As health is more important than money. And it subtly reenforces the perception that ETS is harmful while shifting the focus from any such debate.
The Condition of our Social Environment.
Am I your enemy? I happen to be a smoker. My purpose in life is to promote harmony and happiness among all living beings. I spend a lot of hours of my life alone.The people who fund smoking bans are trying to supersede Natural Law and create problems for themselves and others. To read the ban damage section of the Smokers Club website that links me here is to read a lot of preventable tragedy. Friendships that could have been formed if not for these created obstacles in this area. I have no problem with offering products as an alternative to tobacco to people who want them. I have a problem with using force to get them into peoples hands. No matter what the intentions are the use of force is not justified and creates all kinds of problems in the society. Natural Law has been with us since the beginning of the Universe and will always be. If you trace this movement back through history it starts with a tour of Germany under Hitler and the Third Reich. This movement is clearly going in that direction. Natural Law will end this movement the way that it ended the movement of Hitler and the Reich if your colleagues dont change how they approach things.
Hi, guys.
I haven't been well the past couple of months and I'm still not too lively but now that I've made it back to the computer, that won't any longer keep me from putting my two cents in.
(All I have left, with the high taxes on smokes.)
I came across something strongly pertinent to this discussion and the issues involved; I'd suggest reading through this, regardless of your political beliefs - 'industry-friendly' conservative governments with repressive and undemocratic public policies are now common to democratic countries, typically working in secrecy on 'public policy' matters designed of, by and for industry at public cost, and it's (sadly) the U.S. administration enabling this on a global basis through financial and other pressure and bullying tactics of a type we now see in many areas of our lives.
As many of us know, the anti issue has little to do with health-related smoking issues but much to do with myriad other agendas, including that of establishing precedent in law which is antithetical to the intent and principles of democracy.
Once it's accepted that freedom of choice belongs only to those in power - and that such power over others in a land of equals is acceptable - a state of effective slavery exists.
Yet democracy, once accepted, cannot be rescinded by any group or persons, but exists in perpetuity, entailed for those as yet to come.
I'd strongly suggest that everyone - American or not - read the following address.
This was in May, 2006 - and makes one realize how badly both the basic and particular problems have snowballed since that time.
http://usliberals.about.com/od/l...files/a/
xyz.htm
extracts - 'Vigilant adherence to the rule of law strengthens our democracy and strengthens America. It ensures that those who govern us operate within our constitutional structure, which means that our democratic institutions play their indispensable role in shaping policy and determining the direction of our nation. It means that the people of this nation ultimately determine its course and not executive officials operating in secret without constraint.'
'There is a final reason to worry that we may be experiencing something more than just another cycle of overreach and regret. This Administration has come to power in the thrall of a legal theory that aims to convince us that this excessive concentration of presidential authority is exactly what our Constitution intended.
'This legal theory, which its proponents call the theory of the unitary executive...threatens to expand the president's powers until the contours of the constitution that the Framers actually gave us become obliterated beyond all recognition....'
'This effort to rework America's carefully balanced constitutional design into a lopsided structure dominated by an all powerful Executive Branch with a subservient Congress and judiciary...is based on a misguided and self-defeating effort to establish dominance in the world.
The common denominator seems to be based on an instinct to intimidate and control.
'This same pattern has characterized the effort to silence dissenting views within the Executive Branch, to censor information that may be inconsistent with its stated ideological goals, and to demand conformity from all Executive Branch employees.'
'...Whenever power is unchecked and unaccountable it almost inevitably leads to mistakes and abuses. In the absence of rigorous accountability, incompetence flourishes.
'Dishonesty is encouraged and rewarded
'...if the pattern of practice begun by this Administration is not challenged, it may well become a permanent part of the American system. Many conservatives have pointed out that granting unchecked power to this President means that the next President will have unchecked power as well....
'...The same instinct to expand its power and to establish dominance characterizes the relationship between this Administration and the courts and the Congress....
'The President's judicial appointments are clearly designed to ensure that the courts will not serve as an effective check on executive power....
'But the most serious damage has been done to the legislative branch. The sharp decline of congressional power and autonomy in recent years has been almost as shocking as the efforts by the Executive Branch to attain a massive expansion of its power....
'The Congress we have today is unrecognizable compared to the one in which my father served. There are many distinguished Senators and Congressmen serving today. I am honored that some of them are here in this hall. But the legislative branch of government under its current leadership now operates as if it is entirely subservient to the Executive Branch.
'Moreover, too many Members of the House and Senate now feel compelled to spend a majority of their time not in thoughtful debate of the issues, but raising money to purchase 30 second TV commercials....
'In the United States Senate, which used to pride itself on being the "greatest deliberative body in the world," meaningful debate is now a rarity. Even on the eve of the fateful vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, Senator Robert Byrd famously asked: "Why is this chamber empty?"
'In the House of Representatives, the number who face a genuinely competitive election contest every two years is typically less than a dozen out of 435....
'The Executive Branch, time and again, has co-opted Congress' role, and often Congress has been a willing accomplice in the surrender of its own power....
'Though I sympathize with the awkward position in which these men and women were placed, I cannot disagree with the Liberty Coalition when it says that Democrats as well as Republicans in the Congress must share the blame for not taking action to protest and seek to prevent what they consider a grossly unconstitutional program.
'Moreover, in the Congress as a whole-both House and Senate-the enhanced role of money in the re-election process, coupled with the sharply diminished role for reasoned deliberation and debate, has produced an atmosphere conducive to pervasive institutionalized corruption.The Abramoff scandal is but the tip of a giant iceberg that threatens the integrity of the entire legislative branch of government....
'I call upon Democratic and Republican members of Congress today to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you're supposed to be.
'We the people are...still the key to the survival of America's democracy. We...must examine our own role as citizens in allowing and not preventing the shocking decay and degradation of our democracy....
'And it is "We the people" who must now find once again the ability we once had to play an integral role in saving our Constitution....
'The Administration vigorously asserts its power to maintain the secrecy of its operations. After all, the other branches can't check an abuse of power if they don't know it is happening.'
'The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights....
'It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.
'We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital...that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by ...the President's apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law....'
'It is particularly important that the freedom of the Internet be protected against either the encroachment of government or the efforts at control by large media conglomerates. The future of our democracy depends on it.
'I mentioned that along with cause for concern, there is reason for hope. As I stand here today, I am filled with optimism that America is on the eve of a golden age in which the vitality of our democracy will be re-established and will flourish more vibrantly than ever....
'As Dr. King once said, "Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movements and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us." '
Everywhere we see semantic games and claims of 'altered meanings' somehow negating history, reality and science by those with an interest in confusion and control.
We must adhere to principles and reason, engage in our own research without accepting the illogical claims flooding the media and what was once the scientific community.
The only legitimate government within a democratic country can be one of, by and for the people.
And the only one who can live your life, or ultimately make your own personal decisions, is yourself.
Commenting by HaloScan
