The SG and his report can be seen to be deliberately misleading possibly to the point of criminality, this can be demonstrated if you understand the principles of Case study.
The most recognized definition of case would be as we know in environmental controls. What quantity of exposure would be considered dangerous defined as known safe levels. All elements including air and water are toxic at some level we determine safe levels according to linear measures and historical or exposure levels known in actual incidence to result in adverse health effects.
In epidemiology the calculation begins with a base where no harm exists or an acceptable level we live with, to enable the use of toxic substances in everyday life. Ammonia as an example can cause enormous harm if not used properly. Controls allow it’s use in a variety of ways despite the mortality which still occurs from exposures. The level of acceptable risk or baseline for calculations is one in 10,000 or as a ratio 100 per million at risk. 3000 smoking related cancers although they sound terrible is a calculated risk no actual bodies are involved which in reality is within acceptable limits. 3000 in a 320 million population is below 10 per million or .001 per 10,000. A calculated risk well below acceptable levels, the toxin risk can at the same time be touted as the most toxic substance known to man, eliciting a no safe level exists announcement? How would we rate other toxins in this perspective?
We hear of 30% increased risk in the news daily not knowing a 30% increased population risk would be seen in epidemiology study results as 3000 in 10,000 at risk not the paltry .3 being represented to mean the same thing, in ad agency spin being delivered deceptively as legitimate news.
The lack of credibility in the heart research speaks for itself if exposure results in immediate harm and this harm is irreversible why not fold up the debate and go home? We are all doomed smoking causes all the damage we are almost all exposed already, in a real sense none of us can be harmed any further.
It is well known an advocate or politician will tend to express the extremes as a norm in order to solidify support. How extreme the declaration is entirely relevant to education and respect of ethical principles and of those educated how far they will allow personal ethics to be stretched. Credibility can be destroyed when more convincing evidence is discovered. The more educated can weigh the risks or speak from an ethical perspective in a precautionary principle covering his ass just in case. Currently the public mood is aligned with little caution required which could result in reputation harm. Industry no longer relies on reputation they can simply purchase it in Ad agency spin. The personal financial and prominence gained, allays a lot of fears in reputation losses, with so many so called professionals on board the chances of personal effect are now slim. Unfortunately the more rigidly ethical are not often put in front of TV cameras so we hear little of their views in the public. The more ethical perspectives can be found in books and professional papers we hear little about, the boring crowd. Difficult for the media to sensationalize or for lobby groups to enlist.
Simplistically linearity can be seen as a + b =c or 1+1=2
This can be seen as a plotted graph as multiples of two perspectives or factors
x=number or factor expressing those exposed above a certain level [acceptable risk]
y= mortality outcomes during a time as a horizontal base
The intersection of the two co-ordinates multiple times draws a line which indicates prevalence of growth or decline during a stated time. Epidemiology in case control simply stated; calculates the theoretical numbers by comparing one affected group to a non affected group in an effort to define the outcome positive or negative.
Think of an oscilloscope displaying an AC sine wave the picture on the screen represents a voltage level through a period of time. X is the voltage level at a given instant and Y is the time. The fluctuating voltage is displayed through a complete cycle of time or the given period. What you don’t see is; the picture represents multiple samples added and averaged. The higher the quality of the equipment used the more accurate the displayed image and in turn the confidence of the result. The higher the amount of samples will improve the accuracy of the picture on the screen in respect to what is actually happening.
A screen of a spectrum analyzer may a third dimension which could indicate phase or the time the sample starts as compared to other samples which if a multiple phase shift existed would result in a thickening of the line. Or it could demonstrate power losses in decibel readings across a measured length of wire, a light wave could be analyzed to describe color or contrast which are dependant on more than two factors. the z component.
This would describe in a real life scenario how accuracy is made more focused in the population size being studied If a single x and y co ordinate were the only factors to consider the answers could be simplified. acuracy is increased in the number of samples taken If you do not consider all factors in a proper perspective your conclusions will hold little credibility in comparison to those who follow the process to a more rigid degree. Non linear scale adds additional dimensions the z component represents only a third we could be evaluating hundreds of dimensions which is increasingly much more difficult for most to visualize as each new dimension is added. In linear principles algorithms are defined to flatten the additional dimensions or confounders in order to make a simplistic two dimensional calculation possible, as shown above in x the number of people exposed above a certain level which we know would cause harm. [cause and effect] The EPA is avoiding the z component accuracy problem at the moment in defense of previous statements and shrinking credibility. All the ETS research to date, has to come to terms with new emerging physical research such as the six cities study presented to the EPA this year which was basically ignorred, observational research which proved, the confounding effect of environmental pollution and particulate matter was previously grossly under stated. If you recalculated the effects of the confounding effect on past ETS research, the same research the SG is attempting to use to validify his report [The large body of evidence], The numbers will change significantly in respect to prevalence in community and mortality outcomes. If proper weight were now to be used, the existence of second hand smoke risk could well be eliminated. Thus the “no safe level” statement as a defense in absence of a definitive proof any risk exists at all.
His preference for smaller studies can be seen as proof of this deceptive attitude larger case and control groups would improve the accuracy. Accuracy apparently is not his primary concern.
There is another method to define case in the perspective, we all carry a certain amount of toxins in our bodies and at what point would the accumulation result in harm. Not a definitive; “this toxin will always cause harm”, but how much do we have as an indicator of risk. The 20-30 year reaction to exposure is reliant on accumulated risk within the body. The surgeon general has, as with a lot of TC advocates tended to mix the two case definitions, which obviously confuses the public in not fully understanding the relevance.
The WHO and the EPA are deeply divided on Linear and non linear assessments as an indicator of risk, however both groups and their stakeholders happily mix the results of both types of contradictory research as long as it promotes fear and hate in the public. The methods or their credibility are unimportant as long as both groups continue to sing in harmony in front of the cameras. If a non linear association were valid; case and control studies which define the difference between those affected and not affected would be seen to be much more conclusive obviously the results are anything but conclusive, so the defenders of the status quo fall back to linear studies to defend a weak position. If no safe level exists it comes down to disease tracking to find those exposed who will certainly have effects so definitive other confounders would have little bearing on the subject.
The oil and metal refineries would be elated with a standard so narrow as to eliminate them from suspicion. ETS can not be studied in the absence of confounders and it is common knowledge few would not be exposed, as a non linear case definition, results of the research would create more questions than they could ever answer. This would satisfy polluting industries protections indefinitely in lack of evidence they could do us any harm. Review the discussions of Diesel fuel exhaust, in over 45 years of discussions they always end with more research is required, as they always will in assessing the dangers now existing in the public. Like captains on ships the logic used to be dump the waste, there is so much water it will have little consequence. Factories used to be built on the sides of rivers with the same “the problem will flow elsewhere” mind set. With the volume of air it would be previously unfathomable a single smokestack could raise the levels of the desolate air contaminants above levels which could be detected or cause harm. Now we know those levels are exceeded and are becoming more toxic every day. Smoking is simply a smoke screen to hide larger confounders being given little consideration. As legitimate as the term “smoking related disease” camouflaging other confounders in political rhetoric.
In reviewing the Stakeholder process both at the EPA and the WHO they attempt to produce science to advance objectives, Both groups before the research proceeds [as it is defined] brag how the new body of evidence will be used to advance a cause. The WHO in its HIA health interventions teaches how to define any activity as health related, How to form alliances with like minded groups from around the world to “dominate discussions and eventually dominate decisions”.
Would you consider this a community effort? If the research results were known prior to completion of the studies how credible is the research? Are any of the numbers being parroted more than political estimates with use of scholarly letters of scientific whores? The letters are rented to intentionally sell invented science? Research grants are the rent payments. Those grants are determined largely in public statements which meet advocacy objectives. A real scientific research paper does not include a stated biased objective. Real research is designed to allow the chips to fall where they may. Designed as a follow up to epidemiology theories which should have no evidentiary power beyond the use to track a mono-factorials. Smoking is multi faceted and epidemiology is poorly designed to encompass all the variables due to the human intervention in which the results are highly dependant
The bulk of the SGs report is defined in what he chose to include and a number of larger more definitive reports and evidence he chose to ignore. The EPA would be the first to assign Tobacco smoke a non linear case characteristic in some exposure can be harmless to a certain level without incidence. For example a 5 cigarette a day smoker can be as healthy as a non smoker as seen in a multitude of research including most prominently the Doll 50 year doctors who smoke research. Yet they do not disclose a safe amount of toxins within a body above which harm could occur. More curiously they do not even disclose what toxins they are concerned with, only describing the smoke as a consistent compound, despite the huge variation of contents and quantities possible. At the Phillip Morris site they define if memory serves 400 additives which may or may not be used in formulations. In some countries like Canada no additives are allowed. New mandated fire safe cigarette paper was introduced recently without human testing which adds a new dimension to the mix, are the new additives curative or hazardous” Can we consider use of the product, as human experimentation? Human experimentation devoid of free will choice? Now that TC has successfully defined smokers as a detestable sub class, who will take a human rights complaint seriously? How many years before we know the effects, with such a disorganized array of test methods and principles at play in political consensus defining credible science. Canada has no ability to complete the physical science so they depend on outside sources predominantly the EPA for guidance. They follow a track as arrogant dictators in punishing the victim and blaming the manufacturers for a hazard they first ignored, and now bumble along attempting to apply a professional face on corruption in huge taxation derived of their decipt.
All given credibility by the political puppet representing medicine dressed up in a military uniform? The vision should be considered a perspective in itself, in weighing credibility. The general represents power which reigns as the director of what is acceptable science. Irregardless of observations to the contrary, a purely political promotion. We have all heard only 50% of smokers will die of smoking related diseases. Of the other 50% close to 90% die beyond the age of 70, proof there has to exist, whether in speaking of linear or non linear association, a level of safety, whether immunities or genetics play a large roll or not, this has never been discussed in fact avoided at all costs.
No safe level demonstrates an arrogant attitude. An attitude as a mother speaking to a child who can not explain why she decided to forbid an activity, instead stating “because I say so” as the only explanation required in a superiority belief requiring no more respect be displayed. No safe level demonstrates ignorance of the advocate, in defeat of their own credibility in training or leadership abilities. The expression of non linearity in cause and effect is confused when they define their position using case and control studies which depend on those very linear principles. The DSR not being safe relies on a no safe level proclamation despite the fact even in non linear association some toxic level can be defined as safe while existing in the body. Without a stated level in association with the non linear case, we fall to the idea, since most in the population know what ETS smells like, almost all have been exposed and we will all have adverse reactions regardless of any action. The 50% of smokers who do not die of smoking related disease would therefore be seen as a miracle of divine intervention, for lack of a clear explanation. If we smoke or not or simply smell it, calculations state clearly with a growing body of evidence smoking will kill us all. This eliminates a risk factor as we can not demonstrate any risk increase exists, if you already know how it smells. The fear in the public depends on as they call it a body of evidence that evidence is based in cause and effect research or linearity, they also deny linearity is applicable to smoke research. Opportunistic use to define a position promoting fears and deny its application when it suits their need to develop other fears.
Getting to the bottom of what you are being told is complicated however it depends always on the definition of “case” and “methods” to define case.
There is an excellent explanation of Epidemiology at the BMJ as public access it would do you well to read this report and try to understand the process in so doing understand the numbers being bandied about carelessly by many who don’t understand their significance beyond the ability to scare others into submission.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/collections/epidem/epid.shtml
I would pay special attention to section two in the regard to assessing the SGs report and understand through that, why I would accuse him and others in TC of international rights violations in the use of Coercion to mislead the public in matters of health information.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/collections/epidem/epid.2.shtml#pgfId=1003279
You can read about you rights in that regard here.
No comments:
Post a Comment