I have a confession to make the tobacco control activists........
......I would gladly accept tobacco industry funding.
The tobacco control movement, specifically the pro-smoking ban lobbyists have taken $350,000.00 out of my pocket.......by spreading lies about secondhand smoke even as the British Medical Journal proves them wrong:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....st-
results.html
Oh....and I ahve very fond memories of ANR as well...
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....me-to-
stop.html
What I find most telling and in a way heart-rending is your (courageous, by the way) admission that you were convinced to reflexively believe something your own observations and experience had consistently told you was not true.
I happen to believe this is exactly what's happened to the general public regarding the "dangers" of secondhand smoke. They're being worked on to ignore, suppress and un-remember the experiences and observations of a lifetime. Former smokers, grown children of smokers, and people literally "old enough to know better" are singing along with the communal hymn book. The political ramifications are frightening.
I'd urge you, Dr., to get ahold of a book called "Propaganda" by Jacques Ellul (it's on Amazon, cheap) and to note the mechanisms and the sordid political history of what you describe.
:
"ANR must put its political credibility ahead of what you consider to be your scientific credibility."
Michael;
You would have thought the ANR board at the time would have realized, by knowingly posting false and / or misleading information attached to their own name they in process attack their own political position and in general all credibility.
A quiet rewrite could certainly have served them well without loosing any credibility.
It is now entirely fair to state;
Any information originating from the ANR group or any of its associates is highly suspicious and can never be taken entirely as fact.
They have been known to make false and misleading public statements and in at least one instance we know about, made deliberately libelous statements in order to enhance their own political credibility.
How does that benefit their political position?
With the brainwashing effectively silencing any dissent,it leaves scientific research wide open to corrupt agendas.How much research is being rolled out to "prove" tobacco smoke is so toxic,in even minute quantities.It has been given a carte blanche to manufacture the evidence needed to denormalise smokers.Accurate research has become irrelevant UNLESS it proves the anti smoking position.If the WHO are prepared to hide research it has commissioned because it didn't give the desired result,we know that integrity no longer exists.What was so very different that the Tobacco Companies engaged in, in order to face RICO charges that Public Health aren't doing now ? I really see no difference whatsoever,except maybe Public Health are more blatant.
In early april, 2005, after speaking against a proposed ban in St. Louis CO, an antismoking advocate approached me and accused me of being on BT's payroll. I explained I was not, and found out that she too, has been brainwashed by the antitobacco movement over the years. I am thorougly convinced that even if I had furnished her with copies of my income tax returns she would have just accuse me of not paying income tax on the supposed payoff. So here's the deal, she is brainwashed too. and here's more of the deal...the whole ANR has brainwashed itself.
Doc, it's not just you who's been brainwashed, it's all of the antitobacco movement. All of you go around making claims which simply make no sense.
Now, if you go to the ANR's tobaccoscam website, they list all the studies on smoking bans and economic effects. The one I conducted with Mike McFadden is listed there too. http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/e...m/
economic.html They imply without any proof that I am a Big Tobacco stooge by saying I worked for Philip Morris but I actually worked from 7-UP 20 years ago, which was owned by Philip Morris at the time and Dr. Siegel has already said there is no basis for that claim. http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot....claim-
that.html
But here's the point, the ANR has a copy of our economic study on it's website, (without my permission, by the way)http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/fake/
hospitality_results.cfm?1=1&keyword=kuneman
which clearly states McFadden and I used our own time and funds to produce our study. Yet the ANR in it's commentary about our study says the funding source is unknown. It's wholly indisputable, that we clearly disclosed it.
AND then the ANR goes on to say, that we did not control for random variations and underlying trends in the economic cycle. Yet, in our actual study, even as posted on their website, we compare bar and restaurant sales trends vs total retail sales trends, and further supply overall USA bar and rest sales data, and total retail data, and we supply comparative bar and rest sales data and over retail sales data for states without any smoking bans. No matter how you slice it, WE FOUND OUT BANS HURT BUSINESS.
So, we plainly control for underlying trends in the economic cycle 3 ways. Yet the ANR claims we did not.
So is the ANR brainwashed? you bettcha!
They can't even review an economic study which finds bans harm business objectively.
So , the ANR violates Dr.Siegel's and our copyrights, and misquotes DR Siegel, and misquotes our Kuneman / McFadden economic study. Has anyone ever known of a case where Big Tobacco has violated anyone;s copyright, or misquoted any antismoking group?
The bottom line is, all along, Big Tobacco has been much better behaved that the ANR, and most other antitobacco groups.
Dave K
Thankyou for telling it like it is. I believe this is the first step towards an intervention for you Michael. Didn't it feel good to put this in writing for anyone to see? I can feel your and Dave's pain too. I know I get upset just for being misquoted in a typical conversation.
The scary part of all of it is, these are the same steps they are taking to "educate" our children about the dangers of smoking or being near secondhand smoke. Lying is not education, neither are coverups.
You could sue. I mean, if you have stated your positions clearly, they are guilty of copyright violations at the least, and slander at the worst...is there something I'm not aware of that keeps both of you from doing that? I do understand that I know crap about copyright infringement except "If you didn't do the work, it doesn't belong to you".
jalestra,
My understanding of the issue is the Doc did write the offending article as posted on the internet. The problems, as I understand, arose when:-
a)The ANR published the article without permission
b)the named individuals complained.
c) the Doc realised this type of thing was wrong
http://www.reason.com/news/show/...show/
27666.html
GreatScot
Dr Siegel wrote:
Because for many years, I was one of the main trainers of tobacco control advocates in the United States. And this is what I taught, because this was what I was led to believe. I attended many conferences and trainings and this is precisely what I was taught. I accepted it for the truth, and passed it along to others.
Quite a success story.
Two questions
1 How do you know you are now competely 'deprogrammed'?
2 Will you be running sessions to 'deprogram' the ones you helped program?
west
----
Martha Perske wrote some very well-researched and meticulous critiques of secondhand smoke science. - Doc
Doc,
I am in no way attempting to back you into a corner and I will fully understand if you don't want to answer but I would like to ask, does Martha's analysis have merit?
GreatScot
Dr. Siegel,
I know that you have written articles debunking the Surgeon General's claim and the Harvard Study on SHS levels in cars (funded by a rabid anti-tobacco group).
However, I would ask you to take another step in regards California state senator Oropeza's proposed ban on smoking in cars when children are present: SB 7
I ask you to write directly to her and copy this blog.
The idea that our bodies, our children belong to the state is totally at odds with American ideals.
More, it is a core concept of Fascism and NAZI beliefs. But this is where we seem to be going:
Excerpt from an editorial in the Delaware News Journal, May 18, 2003:
"It's time that government, which has an enormous stake in the cost of health care, and insurance companies join forces with the medical professions to establish guidelines for healthful behavior that can be enforced."
Is that what we want - state intrusion into every aspect of our lives and how we raise our children?
I ask you to be more forceful, more active to prevent this massive erosion of American ideals.
Thank you
Just in from work to see the terrible news from the school in Virginia.
Absolutely shocking and brought back many sad memories of our own Dunblane massacre where 16 5 year old children and 1 teacher were killed.
My thoughts, prayers and condolences to all the friends and family of the victims.
GreatScot
Yes, GreatScott---They're saying 32 dead. How god-awful.
In response to some of the comments and questions above:
Kevin - I quite agree with you. In the long run, I believe that ANR harmed its own credibility. You're right. Knowingly posting misleading information, especially after having been instructed by the author to clarify that information, in no way helps their credibility.
west - I am not running de-programming sessions; however, I am publicly speaking out about this and have been posting quite a bit about false accusations that have been made about a number of groups and individuals. These commentaries have received widespread exposure in the tobacco control community, both through the blog readership and through my own list-serve emails publicizing them. Of course, the response on the list-serves was that I was accused of being a tobacco industry front. I was then kicked off the list-serves.
Great Scot - I do believe that Martha Perske's analysis has merit. I still disagree with the ultimate conclusion in that I think despite the limitations of the individual studies, the totality of the evidence supports the conclusion I drew; however, that doesn't mean her arguments are not without merit.
Rod - That government is starting to consider setting health behavior standards is scary. I have stated my opposition to car smoking bans based on the degree of intrusion into privacy and parental autonomy. While I don't expect anti-smoking advocates and groups to agree with me, the fact that they seem unable to even acknowledge my argument (whilst disagreeing) concerns me.
Finally - west - I know that I am fully "deprogrammed" because I am now able to immediately see through the smokescreen of anti-smoking groups' propaganda. That's the very basis of what I think (and hope) makes this blog a unique contribution to the field.
Fascism: not just anti-tobacco:
In Obesity Wars, a New Backlash
"Spurred by a local doctor and an enthusiastic school board, Gillette has banned soda and second helpings on hot meals. This year, it included students' body-mass index -- a number that measures weight adjusted for height -- on report cards, and started recommending students like Brittany for after-school fitness programs. It even offers teachers the chance to earn bonuses based on their fitness."
http://articles.news.aol.com/bus...990001?
cid=1712
GreatScot,
Thankyou for your prayers and may I ask you all to continue praying. I have several friends whose children are attending Virginia Tech and I am now waiting for word from any of them. What is wrong with this world? Even 10 years ago, something like this would have been unthinkable.
Mike wrote:
"Brainwashing is defined as "persuasion by propaganda." Propaganda is defined as "ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause." Thus, brainwashing is a systematic, deliberate attempt to further one's cause by persuading people via spreading ideas and allegations."
This is an excellent description of the daily activities of FORCES. But Mike still refuses to acknowledge that FORCES disseminates propaganda and brainwashes already addicted smokers.
Mike also fails to acknowledge that FORCES 501(c)3 nonprofit application was filed by a Philip Morris lawyer.
Perhaps Mike can provide some evidence to substantiate his assertion that FORCES International "is not a Big Tobacco front group."
Unless Mike has reveiwed the organization's financial records and communications since its inception, he simply wouldn't know.
Indoctrination, brainwashing, disinformation, propoganda, character assassination and transfer of wealth by the state form a earning group to a non earning group. Political credibility over scientific credibilty? Sounds like National Socialism to me. The NAZI doctrine still continues.
The Doc still believes second hand smoke is a danger. He still needs a little more de-programing.
Bill continues with false statements accusing FORCES of everything he can in order to cast aspersions HOWEVER he has still yet to confirm WHO bailed him out after promising (on this site) that his little empire was closing due to lack of funds.Still it is good to see an anti automaton at large and spreading malicious innuendo JUST LIKE THIS ARTICLE CONFIRMS THEY DO.
Bill;
I formed these numbers aftyer reviewinbg your research. Perhaps you would like to explain the descrepamcies. Forces I assure you had nothing to do with my interpretation of the facts.
I am not funded by Big tobacco by Forces, the drug companies or the chew and spit people.
I am just curious how the political spin can posibly explain the numbers you and everyoine else in TC are too terrified to explain.
Canadian numbers distributed in the media 2006 figures
=====================================
[CE] Causal effect by population prevalence = 20%
[MT] mortality total 230,000
[SMT] Smoker Mortality total = 20% x MT = 48,3000
[SN] Number of smokers = 5.5 million
[TP] Total population = 30 Million
[SP] Smoker prevalence = 21% of population over 15 years of age; in total population by calculation SP= SN / TP = 18.3%
[R]Risk of those exposed = SMT/SN = .878%
[RR] relative risk in total population = SMT / TP = .161%
Now examine the figures in 1965
=======================
CE = R/MT = 42%
MT = 115,000
SMT =. 878% x SN = 48,300
SN = 5.5 million
TP = 15 million
SP = SN / TP = 37%
R= SMT/SN = .878%
RR = SMT / TP = .32%
Look and run or stand and demonstrate an ounce of integrity in your position I claim by this proof TC Public health information as a pack of lies.
According to international law a breach of Autonomy rights which in case you are not aware of it, a human rights abuse found in your persistent lobby information to legislators an international crime.
Mike also fails to acknowledge that FORCES 501(c)3 nonprofit application was filed by a Philip Morris lawyer.
Perhaps Mike can provide some evidence to substantiate his assertion that FORCES International "is not a Big Tobacco front group."
Unless Mike has reveiwed the organization's financial records and communications since its inception, he simply wouldn't know.
Bill Godshall | Homepage | 04.16.07 - 5:56 pm | #
Nice try Bill, nice try - but no cigar. I would love to find any major lawfirm that does tax work, such as filing 501(c)3 applications that at some time did not have a tobacco company as a client.
As a former board member of FORCES I think I know far more about the finances of FORCES that you, although just like any 501(c)3 you can find the 990's, which will once again prove you to be a LIAR. I suggest you get your facts straight before you start making unsubstantiated claims, which have been refuted repeatedly. You are a LIAR Godshall --- but that comes as no surprise as you are a member of tobacco control and ALL anti-smokers are known and chronic liars.
Here you go Bill;
I likely by the evidence spent more time researching and reviewing the real numbers in my study than you did in yours.
Add in a long list of citations to lengthy for this venue, and there you go; all ready for publication in under an hour.
Do you mind if I add your paper to my citation list?
Abstract;
The numbers popularly distributed in the media by interested lobby groups in promotion of smoking bans and widely recognized by legislators in consideration of the bans, seemed to be by rough estimation not compliant with timeline observations, This study will by reasonable means compare the distributed numbers originating from popular Government funded anti smoker groups. To test the validity of the numbers.
Canadian numbers distributed in the media 2006 figures
=====================================
[CE] Causal effect by population prevalence = 20%
[MT] mortality total 230,000
[SMT] Smoker Mortality total = 20% x MT = 48,300
[SN] Number of smokers = 5.5 million
[TP] Total population = 30 Million
[SP] Smoker prevalence = 21% of population over 15 years of age; in total population by calculation SP= SN / TP = 18.3%
[R]Risk of those exposed = SMT/SN = .878%
[RR] relative risk in total population = SMT / TP = .161%
Now examine the figures in 1965
=======================
CE = R/MT = 42%
MT = 115,000
SMT =. 878% x SN = 48,300
SN = 5.5 million
TP = 15 million
SP = SN / TP = 37%
R= SMT/SN = .878%
RR = SMT / TP = .32%
Look and run or stand and demonstrate an ounce of integrity in your position I claim by this proof TC Public health information as a pack of lies.
According to international law a breach of Autonomy rights which in case you are not aware of it, a human rights abuse found in your persistent lobby information to legislators an international crime.
Conclusion;
In expressing a view with one half the population in 1965 the risk of smoking was double what it is today it would be entirely a stretch of the imagination to believe smoking caused over 40% of total mortality in 1965 and with the same number of smokers 20% today while maintaining a reality smoking related diseases have more than doubled as well rising with population and not remaining stable along with smoking numbers. One would have to suspect with a stable exposure rate we would have to see a stable effect, which should have been dropping as population rose to in fact double. You would expect to see with double the population only one half of the effect by prevalence. This would more substantially promote the theory smoking is actually harmless, which would certainly raise a few eyebrows. If you add in the daily scourge of new smoking related mortalities discovered within the past 5 years alone the situation becomes much worse from a credibility standpoint.
Numbers widely distributed in the media are grossly exaggerated and need stringent review. The general population is entitled to receive accuracy in health relevant information by international laws of autonomy. The World health organization in proliferation of purely political views, fails in its duty to provide by example integrity in what it dispenses to the public. This reflects entirely on the management and lack of knowledge to the degree it destroys the credibility of the office perhaps for all time. The advertising and daily newsroom announcements in the promotion of smoking bans and use of false information to objectify smokers with unwarranted punishment in viewing the information in support which is anything but accurate or credible nor reflective of current population risks.
I would like to see a retraction of the un-necessary fears being promoted by the TC Delphi cult and all of it’s participating members in public health and participating charities.
Sorry typo under the 1965 calculations
CE= SMT/MT=42%
Bill Godshall said: "Perhaps Mike can provide some evidence to substantiate his assertion that FORCES International "is not a Big Tobacco front group."
Unless Mike has reveiwed the organization's financial records and communications since its inception, he simply wouldn't know."
That's the most illogical, irrational, nonsensical thing I've ever read in these comments. Bill is saying that the only way to know that Bill Godshall has not been on the payroll of the American Nazi Party or Al-Qaeda In Iraq or Scientology or even BAT - for the last 25 years - would be to review all of his financial records and personal communications during that time. And you'd have to do the review yourself, because if anyone else does it and just tells you about it, they could be lying! and so you still wouldn't "know" for sure.
There is a point at which paranoia becomes clinical...
No Dollar Bill 'This is an excellent description of the daily activities of'... you and your corrupt cohorts in TC. I wonder Bill which part do you play in this scene?
(sorry for the repost, I think Godshall missed it)
http://constitutionalistnc.tripo...eftist/
id1.html
~snip~
'The state performer in antismoking propaganda was Adolf Hitler. As one magazine put it: "brother national socialist, do you know that our Führer is against smoking and think that every German is responsible to the whole people for all his deeds and emissions, and does not have the right to damage his body with drugs?"
Diane,
Consider it done. Take care, I wish all of yours are well.
Sunz;
You might like this blog entry in support of your post.
http://healthcare-bandwagons.blo...s.blogspot.com/
Dr. Siegel pointed out that the anti-movement teaches: "Anyone who challenges that link or suggests that it is being exaggerated must therefore be a front for the tobacco industry."
Bill just proved his point.
Dr. Siegel wrote:
"Consequently, the a chief strategy of tobacco control is to smear the opposition by accusing them of being tobacco industry moles.
Bill responds:
"Mike also fails to acknowledge that FORCES 501(c)3 nonprofit application was filed by a Philip Morris lawyer.
Perhaps Mike can provide some evidence to substantiate his assertion that FORCES International "is not a Big Tobacco front group."
Unless Mike has reveiwed the organization's financial records and communications since its inception, he simply wouldn't know."
LMAO
Good point, Julie and James.
Yes, Bill has in fact proven my very point.
Bill,
I think you just illustrated exactly what Dr. Siegel described in his latest entry: "If you take part in secondhand smoke policy training in the tobacco control movement, chances are that you will be taught that all opposition to smoking bans is orchestrated by the tobacco industry, that anyone who challenges the science connecting secondhand smoke exposure and severe health effects is a paid lackey of Big Tobacco, and that any group which disseminates information challenging these health effects is a tobacco industry front group. Consequently, the a chief strategy of tobacco control is to smear the opposition by accusing them of being tobacco industry moles.
Of course ANR was fortunate enough to provide us links to research the 990's submitted by said groups, and it becomes quite obvious, ANRF pays more in payroll taxes then FORCES has for income. Between 2001 and 2004 ANRF claimed $4.8 Million for income. FORCES, a paltry $56,419. That's something like $14K/year.
Maybe you should ask ANRF who they're pimping for since they are the ones who seem to have the money. As ANR said in their guide to Astroturf organizations... Follow the money!
With this much information available and that kind of financial capital to boot, you'd think ANR would be able to find something substantial, if it existed.
Of course the Gestapo like database of dissidents ANRF maintains to support these weak accusations they make leaves them clueless why anyone would label their tactics jackbooted.
I felt quite honored I earned a place in their database when I wrote my local county officials, and had my e-mail show up in their dissident database. It further goes to show how widespread the tentacles of this organization had spread.
The public should fear organizations such as ANRF.
For a trained seal, you perform quite well on command. Dr. Siegel couldn't have asked for a better demonstration of his point.
Kevin,
Have you seen this? Posted of FORCES today:
http://www.data-yard.net/88/ets-...lation_4-
07.pdf
Bill, knock yourself out making accusation about Gori's funding.
We will all just chuckle as you rant on.
Sunz,
Consider that a mackrel for Bill!
Excellent article Dr. Siegel, and quite timely give the letter today in the Edmonton Journal:
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjo...42-
3be344cbebcf
responding to my letter of a few days ago:
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjo...0b-
9e19a8229912
I'd like to thank the Son of Gaia for leaping to my defense on his web blog:
http://surrealitytimes.blogspot....lass-
house.html
and also all those who've sent me supportive emails!
So Dr. Siegel, How kin I get one o' dem Crystal Balls of yours so *I* can start writing about tomorrow's news today?
Michael
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Sunz;
There was a time before it was permitted to show naked breasts on TV, the sex scene in a movie would entail passionate kissing, after which the scene changes and the couple is under the blankets sharing a smoke, leaving it to the imagination as to what had transpired.
Bill in his own special way has just laid out a parody in his own implanted suggestion. I wouldn't know if any Tobacco money subsidized anyone including Bill who has likely increased Tobacco industry profits precipitously.
Bill and his programmed pals have laid out the accusation so many times, it now only has to be implied and imagination takes care of the rest.
It is obvious to those affected what is being implied however not so easy to prove what he was saying.
One has to wonder if the movies today laying it all out are nearly as effective as what we once enjoyed filling in the blanks for ourselves.
I could describe Bill as we speak likely laying back blowing smoke rings, enjoying a smoke, after launching his most recent volley,
Leaving to the imagination what he was doing immediately before his proverbial smoke.
Hey Bill, I forgot to ask who won the Bolleyball game? didn’t break any nails or anything I hope.
Bill Godshall "Send you a plague of locusts" writes
Mike also fails to acknowledge that FORCES 501(c)3 nonprofit application was filed by a Philip Morris lawyer.
Silly Billy, if Forces is a front group for Big Tobacco, where the hell is our paycheck and their donations?
If the impotent emasculated Big Tobacco companies were actually actively funding any attempt to disseminate the truth, do you think you as a witless bozo would stand a snowballs chance in Hell in PA versus me, JTF, Walt, marcus et al?
Be grateful that Philip Morris bends over and does your bidding. They should be paying us. Until they do, I will tell anyone reading this to not smoke their crap and roll their own or buy Native American Cigs from the original cultivators of the crop like I do.
In case they decide to wake up and pay us, I already have some business cards printed up. See, unlike you and your TC friends who won't admit that smoking bans are simply designed to coerce smokers to quit as per the ASSIST study, at least we are honest.
I would be happy to admit that we got a dime of tobacco funding, we would be proud stooges who weren't afraid to admit it. Try the truth for a change. And tell us what you think of our business cards. We could only wish.
How about:
Eric Blair
Big Tobacco Stooge
Kevin
Tobacco Company Lackey
Michael J. McFadden
President
Big Tobacco Mouthpiece
Walt
Vice President
Big Tobacco Spokesman
SHOW US THE MONEY!!!
Eric stop complaining the brown envelope is in the mail,
ANRs bag men got behind because of the holidays we will all be getting and extra 5k in holiday pay in this weeks payout.
Bill is always whining because he isn't getting any,
BTW Eric;
Smoking bans have nothing to do with reducing smokers they have everything to do with brainwashing everyone else.
If you don't smoke you likely don't know anything about it and many just believe anything they are told.
If they wanted to help smokers quit they would have targeted encouragement and moderation promotion gaining support of smokers. They are actually working to increasing the market with the sale of gateway drugs and for the first time in 50 years they managed to reverse the declining trend.
They have always taken credit for smoker reductions in prevalence. Unless they are claiming screwing the public for all these years actually produced children they are full of it. Prevalence reductions were always a result of population increase the number of smokers remained stable.
With all the efforts and all the money wasted promoting hatred and business bankruptcies. TC is a total failure in producing anything more than discontent.
They did however increase Tobacco company profits significantly and they didn't get the traditional Tobacco front money for doing so. That is why they always point fingers they have produced so much profit and didn't even get paid a commision.
Bill (volley bawl) Godshall falls back on his favourite tactic. Proving again he is a "one trick pony" when it comes to debating.
GreatScot
Bill writes:
Mike also fails to acknowledge that FORCES 501(c)3 nonprofit application was filed by a Philip Morris lawyer.
Bill, was he a Philip Morris lawyer or was he a lawyer who at times also worked for Philip Morris? Who else did this lawyer work for? You might be able to dig up some more juicy connections, keep trying.
Perhaps Mike can provide some evidence to substantiate his assertion that FORCES International "is not a Big Tobacco front group.
Bill, you had your chance here:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot....ument-
that.html
and your only response of substance was "But I consider it irrelevant whether or not [...] FORCES, [...] and/or other smokers rights groups and activists are tobacco industry front groups."
We have taken note ...
Dr. Siegel,
Totally off topic....
I have a friend who decided to quit smoking, he was prescribed the new Pfizer/Johnson & Johnson drug Chantix...his experience was less than acceptable...read here:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot....lways-
best.html
My question is this.....in addition to the exaggerations and lies spread by the pro-smoking ban lobby, in your opinion are pharmaceutical companies rushing to capitalize on what they hope will be a smoking cessation epidemic.....without adequate testing of new drugs?
Bill, there's one little problem with you accusing us of being brainwashed: All the facts from back when science had a modicum of integrity support US. Is that brainwashing or simply having the ability to read and comprehend? I'm perfectly willing to admit smoking may be a problem somewhere, as soon as you provide me honest proof it does.
I'm wondering Bill, in the end, wouldn't it have been smarter for you to place a closepin on your nose to avoid the 'assult' of smoke you claim you suffered?
Too simple a solution for such a 'brainy' guy?
Think of all the trouble of all inventing lies, exaggerating, false accusation about people in not anyway involved in BT of nefarious activities.
You Dollar Volley Bill are the villan here, IM(never to be)HO.
marcus,
While I only have anecdotal evidence, it would not surprise me if quitting smoking was a cause for diabetes and heart disease. My father a former 3 pack a day smoker is currently in the hospital with diabetes after having his big toe removed and currently trying to save the rest of his foot. It goes something like this. Quit smoking, put on weight. To solve the oral fixation that cigarettes provided, eat more and become obese. Obesity over time causes type II diabetes. From there you develop heart disease. I saw this in more then one former smoker. I also know more then several former smokers that started smoking again simply because they could not tolerate the weight gain. Using smoking as a mean to lose weight. Of coarse this is not scientific, based only on my observations, but I would be curious whether the obesity epidemic isn’t partially caused by the increase of former smokers. I am also curious what the incidence of diabetes is for never smokers, smokers who never quit, compared to former smokers. The answer just may be, never smoke, but if you do, then quitting can be hazardous to your heath. Anyone know of any research? Note to TC control, this would only apply to smokers and has nothing to do with ETS. But if there is an effect I would not be surprised to soon be another risk factor for ETS.
MSA $$$ spend on smoking shelter. In the People's Republic of Kalifornicate!!!!
http://media.www.californiaaggie...a-
2846103.shtml
"However, the project - ironically paid for with tobacco settlement money as well as public and private funds - should not use part of the public's income to oblige smokers by making their habit more convenient."
They don't like sharing their ill-gotten gain. Funny greedy people just like sharing 
Bill Godshall said: "Perhaps Mike can provide some evidence to substantiate his assertion that FORCES International "is not a Big Tobacco front group."
Hey, Bill, I think there may be an opening for you as district attorney in Raleigh North Carolina! Bill's approach is just like the one used by that district attorney, placing the burden of proof on the Duke Lacrosse team players who were accused of raping that girl.
Interesting analogy. Forces is guilty until they can prove they are innocent. Same with the Lacrosse team players. And the deeper issue is this poison continues to run through our society, where smokers must prove they are innocent of not causing deaths of nonsmokers,... not the other way around.
Dr Siegel says the bulk of the evidence supports the claim shs causes disease, when he said why he disasgres with Martha Perske. Well, the bulk of the evidence, which was NOT supressed also supported the claim those Lacrosse team players did assult that girl. The trouble, is with the Lacrosse team case and with the SHS case, evidence is being suppressed. Remember the Enstorm/Kabat saga? Yes, evidence is being suppressed, and smokers must prove they are innocent, instead of the prosecution ( Dr. Siegel included) proving they are guilty without suppressing any of evidence.
dave K
Marcus,
I don't think the problem is that the pharmaceutical companies haven't studied smoking cessation aids enough, I think the problem is that they are providing a very biased view of the scientific evidence. Actually, the interesting thing is that it is not the pharmaceutical companies that are providing the most biased information; it is actually anti-smoking advocates who are funded by the pharmaceutical companies. The drug companies don't have to do the dirty work - they have the anti-smoking advocates to do it for them!
MJM - Another great example. I'm telling you. Anti-smoking advocates are "programmed" to accuse anyone who opposes anti-tobacco policies of being a Big Tobacco front. No sooner did I write this post then Dr. Mayers made that accusation and Bill accused FORCES of being a tobacco front group right here in the comments! Of course, neither provided (or could provide) documentation to support their accusations.
Doctor,
As benpal points out (above) they have had more than a year to come up with said evidence. They are not scrambling here with just a days notice. They couldn't come up with it in March of 06---yet they show up here AGAIN and cannot play by the rules:
Perhaps Bill will understand if I put in in his terms.
http://westlake.k12.oh.us/
hillia...yball_rules.htm
"BASIC VIOLATIONS
( A ) Stepping on or over the line on a serve.
Making outrageous claims you cannot document.
( B ) Failure to serve the ball over the net successfully."
The ball has been in your court for over a year Billy---and you cannot successfully return it.
http://westlake.k12.oh.us/
hillia...yball_rules.htm
Tell you what Bill I wouldn't want you on my team
Michael;
Would you agree also the TC campaign is deliberately targeting non smokers with a promotion of intolerance?
Many fail to realize most people tend to be hypocondriacs to a degree. When given a possible source of increasing diseases found in ETS, many accept that evidence which in turn lessen the tolerance of many to the smoker.
Many now declare an alergy to cigarette smoke, without ever getting an alergy clinic to test for it.
Before TC set out to make smoking unacceptable we all tend to forget it once was entirely tolerable. It was always normal when a smoking friend came over to offer an ashtray in the homes of non smokers.
Isn't it strange how most will now find it intolerable to have a single cigarette smoked in their homes? Or how they will now tell you how they suffer as the smell lingers for days.
The public in general including smokers have been hypersensitized to even the smell as a result of a deliberate act of mass brainwashing.
Sunz,you've done it again.Right on the nail but in such a humorous way,but you failed to state Bill is a one man team,he can therefore set the rules as he sees fit.Perhaps his alter ego plays as his opponent,otherwise there must be some brainwashing going on methinks.
Kevin,
'Leaving to the imagination what he was doing immediately before his proverbial smoke"
Oh Kevin this is more than I can stand! LOL
Mike wrote:
"Yes, Bill has in fact proven my very point."
If Mike was objective, he would acknowledge that his friends at FORCES have repeatedly misled the public about many issues involving smoking and tobacco smoke pollution.
This fact is obvious to everyone else who has read postings on this blog by FORCES propagandists.
Mark the professional pfizer site says that its an "infrequent" adverse reaction Over 4500 individuals were exposed to CHANTIX, with over 450 treated for at least 24 weeks and approximately 100 for a year. Most study participants were treated for 12 weeks or less.
https://www.pfizerpro.com/
product...e_reactions.jsp
The overall pattern, and the frequency of adverse events during the longer-term trials was very similar to that described in Table 3, though several of the most common events were reported by a greater proportion of patients. Nausea, for instance, was reported in 40% of patients treated with CHANTIX 1 mg BID in a one-year study, compared to 8% of placebo-treated patients.
"Following is a list of treatment-emergent adverse events reported by patients treated with CHANTIX during all clinical trials. The listing does not include those events already listed in the previous tables or elsewhere in labeling, those events for which a drug cause was remote, those events which were so general as to be uninformative, and those events reported only once which did not have a substantial probability of being acutely life-threatening.
BLOOD AND LYMPHATIC SYSTEM DISORDERS.Infrequent: Anemia, Lymphadenopathy. Rare: Leukocytosis, Thrombocytopenia, Splenomegaly.
CARDIAC DISORDERS. Infrequent: Angina pectoris, Arrhythmia, Bradycardia, Ventricular extrasystoles, Myocardial infarction, Palpitations, Tachycardia. Rare: Atrial fibrillation, Cardiac flutter, Coronary artery disease, Cor pulmonale, Acute coronary syndrome.
......
METABOLISM AND NUTRITION DISORDERS.Infrequent: Diabetes mellitus, Hyperlipidemia, Hypokalemia. Rare: Hyperkalemia, Hypoglycemia.
"
Sounds like your friend really hit the "jackpot" on adverse reactions to this stuff. Although as we become aware of the tactics and questions of hiding reactions (Vioxx)I believe that he should spread his experience far and wide. I would tell your friend that he ensures that the medical system does know that he had multiple "infrequent" adverse reactions happen at once.
It seems troubling to me that more then one chronic condition could occur from a single medication.
Si,
"Perhaps his alter ego plays as his opponent..."
You mean Bill is playing....well alone,
as well as being brainwahsed?
Of all the messes to find oneself in
.
Sunz;
Are you saying he might be getting feedback and is brainwashing himself in isolation.
Maybe Bill needs to remove the mirrors and stop reading his own posts.
Of course when so many are parroting each other over and over in TC, the reverb is hard to avoid.
We need may to set up a TC website and subvert the reverb, by implanting some healing messages into the TC noise which is the only thing they are being trained to listen to.
Bill,
Publish your proof; no one is stopping you.
WLC
Kevin,
Perhaps we can include the tin foil hats and the paperclips for their belts (for grounding purposed)!!! But ssshhhh, we will give the hats to them free of charge at first. Then once they discover they need, want, and really enjoy the goodies, we can than charge big bucks, then regulate them, tax the s*it out of them----and finally ban their use entirely (they would still be legal, however!!! 
In response to Bill's comment, I fail to see how what FORCES might say on its web site excuses or justifies making undocumented and/or false accusations against them or any other groups or individuals.
In Sunz' words, the behavior of the anti-smoking groups in question is out of bounds. The fact that the other team may have also hit a ball out of bounds does not make the anti-smoking groups' volley any more appropriate.
WLC;
It is more than obvious to everyone, he has no proof as always he is just blowing smoke.
Trying to shoot the messanger and living in denial protecting nothing but his own ego because he has no answers to what he percieves as lies and propoganda. If he had any legitimate arguments he could express by debating the issues.
He will always avoid the issues he describes as propoganda because he is afraid by evaluating the evidence he may have to concede he has been mistaken on a number of fronts.
Bill - If Mike was objective, he would acknowledge that his friends at FORCES have repeatedly misled the public about many issues involving smoking and tobacco smoke pollution.
This fact is obvious to everyone else who has read postings on this blog by FORCES propagandists.
Bill,
Are you suggesting that FORCES are deliberately misleading the public repeatedly?
As a member of Tobacco Control I am sure you recognise statements that are designed to mislead the public when you see them!!
Please provide examples to allow the "FORCES propagandists" to debate your statement.
I think the Doc is demonstrating more objectivity now than at any other time in the last 21 years.
GreatScot
GreatScot...'I think the Doc is demonstrating more objectivity now than at any other time in the last 21 years'
I agree; it is a breath of fresh air, hey?
Bill states....'If Mike was objective, he would acknowledge...'
Since he is not marching, lock-step with you over a cliff, he's is not objective.
Now THAT is rationalizing! I have had 5 year olds in my care that come up with better ideas.
Bill wrote:
"If Mike was objective, he would acknowledge that his friends at FORCES have repeatedly misled the public about many issues involving smoking and tobacco smoke pollution."
I'd say you're off-topic, Bill.
The title of Dr. Siegel's article is "Brainwashing in the Anti-Smoking Movement: #1 - Smearing the Opposition".
He's describing it. He didn't mean you're supposed to start a smear campaign.
BILL WHERE DOES YOUR FUNDING COME FROM ?You are the carbon copy of the robots in some of the movies,where they start to break down and keep repeating the same thing over and over again.Are you having a brain overload ? You keep sticking to the same diatribe ,present nothing in support and run away again.You remember the cry wolf scenario,you've done so for so long WE ALL KNOW THERE IS NO WOLF,only a poor anti who is becoming transparent.Fancy any funding from Smokeless Tobacco for all of your hard sell attempts ?
"Marcus,
...... it is actually anti-smoking advocates who are funded by the pharmaceutical companies. The drug companies don't have to do the dirty work - they have the anti-smoking advocates to do it for them!" -Dr. Siegel
Thank you for this acknowledgement Michael...I have had Mayo doctors here in MN as well as American Lung Assoc. MN. attempt to claim they receive no such funding......even as I show them the proof of those RWJF / Johnson & Johnson grants.
It means a lot to me to know that you acknowledge this inappropriate funding relationship does exist.
Dan--
The US has gotten fatter in astoundingly direct inverse proportion to its quitting smoking on a year by year basis. Records going from 1983 to 2006 show the smoking % declining as the larding % baloons. These are the numbers for the first and last years of this ongoing chart:
In 1983 30% of Americans smoked, 58% were considered overweight with only 15% being Seriously Overweight (overweight by 20% or more)
In 2006, 22% of Americans smoked, 83% were overweight, with 39% being Serious about it.
Here's the source:
http://sev.prnewswire.com/health...09032006-
1.html
However, this has little to do with Chantrix whose self-declared link to diabetes is direct.
Kevin--
For the record: While many people mislabel smoke as an allergen (or do so indirectly by claiming they're "allergic" to somebody else's smoke), it's simply not possible. "Allergy" is an actual biochemical term. What's experienced as an allergy is the body's reaction to it's own manufacture of immunoglobulin which is only manufactured in response to an animal or vegetable protein. (Cat dander, ragweed, etc. etc.)
Cigarette smoke contains no such proteins, therefore, the body makes no IG. It may be an irritant, but it can't be an allergen. And no one can be "allergic."
Walt;
I completely agree although I was not as well versed in providing the explanation admittedly. I included it in the post to illustrate the hypochondriac description, because in my opinion it would not invoke an allergic reaction despite a strong belief by many; it is definitely a problem they suffer. I will keep your explanation handy for future reference.
I was agressively challenged once for stating I did not believe the smoke alone could produce an allergic reaction although direct contact or inhalation of the tobacco itself may be a possibility, I could not substantiate my opinion and offered an apology for my lack of knowledge. Since that time I have seen others make the same claim and let it lay.
There is a growing trend among the anti smoking crowd, which is fostering the belief it is an allergen. In particular the car ban and apartment ban promotions and in web blog submissions many declare an allergy to cigarette smoke as a reason to support smoking bans. This includes for effect a possibility if it were true, they could die from an allergic reaction. I indicated they had not sought the opinion of an allergy clinic, which is my standard response when confronting those claims. Simply asking usually silences the ones who are honest.
If my post left any doubt you were of course right to point it out, Thanks
BTW do you know of any physiology descriptions, which explain how the smoke invokes asthma attacks?
I had read somewhere this may be a myth as well.
I do know two people with asthma, who smoke and claim it works better than the puffer.
Walt
" In 1983 30% of Americans smoked, 58% were considered overweight with only 15% being Seriously Overweight (overweight by 20% or more)
In 2006, 22% of Americans smoked, 83% were overweight, with 39% being Serious about it."
The numbers as I have demonstrated a number of times in “population prevalence figures” are being used deliberately, to avoid the reality smoking remains stable the drop in prevalence is primarily a factor of population increases. This allows the illusionists to create many urban myths.
As for the obesity figures do a survey yourself and you will quickly find there are a lot more than 15% of the population who normally anyone would not consider overweight. The strange thing here is we get the same numbers in Canada with vastly different diets throughout North America. Look at the Pan Canadian strategy being sold by CSPI nut jobs who are replicating the anti smoking campaign, asking for replicated funding. The are selling cigarette taxes on unhealthy foods meaning primarily red meat, With a bill passed in Canada affording 300% rebates to advertisers who promote “healthy foods” [Whatever that means].
Your taxes paid to promote more paternalistic play.
The terminator, Arnold, in his bodybuilding days, was overweight according to the new measurement standard. You can decide for yourself if that is reasonable.
Kevin, you know of 3 *raises hand*, I've stated many times that smoking HELPS my asthma, and why the doctor says it helps.
Kevin,
I don't know this woman but met her outside once smoking and she said she discovered that smoking eased her extremely serious asthma to the point that she no longer needs all the meds her doctor put her on, and rarely uses the inhaler anymore. Her doctor is not thrilled with the smoking aspect, but given how bad her asthma was BEFORE she started smoking, he's all for it as it is obviously working.
Dave Kuneman says:
"Dr Siegel says the bulk of the evidence supports the claim shs causes disease, when he said why he disasgres with Martha Perske. Well, the bulk of the evidence, which was NOT supressed also supported the claim those Lacrosse team players did assult that girl. The trouble, is with the Lacrosse team case and with the SHS case, evidence is being suppressed. Remember the Enstorm/Kabat saga? Yes, evidence is being suppressed, and smokers must prove they are innocent, instead of the prosecution ( Dr. Siegel included) proving they are guilty without suppressing any of evidence."
But Dave, even without the need to seek out 'suppressed' evidence, Doc Siegel is entirely wrong in his assertion that "the bulk of the evidence supports the claim shs causes disease" - it does no such thing.
A good example is in the article by Gio Batta Gori, at the link provided by Sunz/Forces...
http://www.data-yard.net/88/ets-...lation_4-
07.pdf
...in which he notes that "Of the 75 published studies of ets and lung cancer, some 70 percent did not report statistically significant differences of risk and are moot. Roughly 17 percent claim an increased risk, and 13 percent imply a reduction of risk"
Now I think Gori is being a little generous in his interpretation of 'statistical significance' as I have seen similar reviews of these studies which indicate a smaller proportion of 'significant' outcomes. Nonetheless, if it is assumed that the benchmark for statistical significance is 95% probability, then it would follow that 5% of studies would find significant outcomes (in both directions), purely by chance. That is the nature of using probability-based distribution formulae for assessing your findings.
But this, of course, would be to assume that all of the studies were based on randomized trials, large structured and representative samples and good quality data measurement, which is not the case. Taking into account the poor quality of recall-based studies - or any based on historical estimates of exposure - coupled with the known and undoubtedly strong biases involved (political bias, recall bias, research bias, funding bias, publication bias etc etc) then it must be clear even to non-mathematicians that the level of 'purely by chance' false positive outcomes is going to go way over 5% to something like, say, 17%!
I assure you that this is not just wishful thinking on my part, this is a demonstration of just how poor all 'passive smoking' studies are.
But then apply the acid test. To really be able to claim that ETS 'causes' any disease at all, the determination of 'statistical significance' must be based on more stringent criteria and, as I have said before, in my past life we would have sought at least 99% (p < 0.01) and even 99.9% (p < 0.001) significance levels. Only at this level could anyone really be able to start to claim that the evidence for causation is becoming strong, although it still wouldn't yet be proof.
But how many ETS studies would actually show positive results at the 99%, never mind the 99.9% significance level? Well, I haven't checked them all, but from my own observations it would be a very small number - say under 1%? And all of these would then fall into the category of purely by chance findings.
Oh, and if anyone feels inclined to shout 'meta-analysis' at me, don't bother! I don't accept that meta-studies are anything other than cheating with numbers except in very, very rare and isolated cases. You can't make a strong chain out of weak links - which is what the afficionados of meta-analysis would like to have us believe.
So all-in-all, there is no need to go looking for suppressed evidence. There is, on the balance of methodologically-derived statistical probabilities in existing published studies, no evidence that passive smoking causes any disease. None whatsoever.
Anyone who continues to parrot the mantra that "the bulk of the evidence supports the claim shs causes disease" must be, frankly, er, brainwashed!?
.
If ANR stole your work, why did you not file a lawsuit against them in court? Sounds to me like your claims would hold up in court..what's the story you AREN'T telling the world??
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
