Monday, March 23, 2009
Hype is as Hype does;
This is interesting in a total population study ordered by the surgeon general in 1964 the numbers are quite interesting. Prior to the politicizing of cancer, long before most TC advocates of today were out of diapers yet.
Go to page 8 and look at the chart;
What was found first; was that former smokers had twice the mortality risks compared to current smokers.
The more startling result saw smokers of less than 11 cigarettes a day, were at decreased risk compared to both non smokers and the general population risk.
Similar findings were seen in the Whitehall studies exposing beyond lifestyle choices including smoking and obesity 60% of total increased mortality risk was seen as a result of stress. So how do you describe a smoker or an obese person? How many of them have you killed “prematurely” today?
By the numbers 160,000 Lung cancers annually of the 2.4 million total mortalities, is less than 1% so even if smoking caused them all, you eliminate less than 1% of the total mortalities. In 1960 with the same number of smokers we see today [USA 60 million] there were only 1/6th the number of Lung Cancers we see today [26,000] among 1/3 the population [100 million]. As we should understand, smoking is only a related disease factor, there are many and many reasons all people will die. Any death believed by one cause, would now be realized by another cause of death and at the end of the day, we would still have 2.4 million total mortalities every year so the predicted reduction is a wash.
The same could be observed of every other “smoker related” disease because death is inevitable. John Banzash of ASH and dozens of others involved in the rent seeking fraud and hate promotion, which is the Tobacco Control movement today, as a lawyer, he claims that we will save tens of billions in healthcare expenses, by eliminating smoking. This should be seen immediately as a huge lie and misrepresentation of the facts at hand, if any measure of common sense were applied, however the product brand advertising seems to have eliminated all trace of reason, replaced by confidence in self anointed "experts" which is being grossly abused.
All of the so called “smoking related” diseases will still exist after smoking is eliminated. Smokers only actually represent 20% of the population and a maximum of 20% of the annual mortalities, as expected and representative of any group. The Public Health nuts tell us only “half of smokers die of smoking related diseases” when you look at the list, of diseases discussed; that makes them pretty much normal and dying of those diseases in the same proportions as everyone else. It should be obvious the only way to save a healthcare dime would be to eliminate all the smokers by immediate mass executions, thus avoiding the unavoidable costs they will eventually produce, whether they smoke or not.
So if the savings of healthcare dollars is the Holy Grail, executions are the only way to achieve the goal. How much will we be loosing in future tax dollars after the smokers are executed?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that, without smokers [with the theft of cigarette taxes aside] income taxes and productivity lost would quickly be seen to dwarf the savings achieved.
So Tobacco Control and the Public Health cartel in general, represent; much to do about nothing and the Emperor has no clothes, in spite of what you may have been told.
BTW it should be broadly realized the real cost of healthcare is out of the consumers control, therefore cost is not tied to personal lifestyle choices, rather cost is predicted as a direct factor of longevity. Longer life creates the larger cost. There is no larger factor of deficit health outcomes than personal economy which suggests the lobby promotions [reflective of those who pay them]have been on the wrong track all along, causing more death and destruction than was ever necessary.
If you seek reduction in healthcare expenses, that can only be found in dealing with the gross profiteering of the vendors. Forcing them to tie profit to production costs with a more realistic mark-up than the traditional 2000-10,000% we allow them now. One wonders how much the economy and our standard of living would improve if all products listed the production costs on the label? A smoking patch had almost no development cost, and the cost of production in real dollars is around a nickel. Let the facts speak for a change and we will find more efficient and immediate means of achieving the goal of cost reductions, only by eliminating the current "experts" from the discussion.
We could by the solution of executing them, see huge and sustainable cost reductions, but that is an argument for another day, after the hype is exposed.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Evaluating “no safe level”
“No safe level” is not sufficient; this term provides no information, we have a right to know more.
They say; second hand smoke exhibits a health risk
I would argue the following;
"It should never be as simplistic as declaring "no safe level exists" to which every opponent with half an ounce of common sense will counter "there is no unsafe level" either. Predictably Health Departments and Globalist politicians, who front for the lobby groups they hire, use this term all the time. They attempt to hoodwink us with framework or sustainable development, never clearly explaining what they are constructing, making their point with a lack of evidence, or understanding, which parallels cult belief, much more than their claims to legitimate science.
Epidemiology after all measures what people recall which is heavily influenced by what they believe so in fact what is measured is not risk but belief. They admit to ignorance themselves, in using the “no safe level” terminology. The large Whitehall studies both confirmed stress is the largest risk factor with obesity, smoking and all other major factors combined you can only account for a 40% offset, compared to a 60% factor presented by increased chronic stress. Stress such as that provided in the so called “public health” messages. A tremendously larger danger is invented by these bandwagon and profit bearing messages, than ever existed in the smell of a little cigarette smoke. In simplistic terms if you can not afford to live the high life demonstrated in beer commercials, you will die much sooner than those who can. The stress you apply to achieving that life while the cards are stacked significantly against you will kill you 3 times as often as smoking [Whitehall]. And at worst case 30,000 times as often, as the faint risk your demise would be caused by second hand smoke. Follow along and I will prove it.
The epidemiological research they use to package the fears implies you can define a risk and simply assume all the other risk factors, which make this risk believable, are in place and universal in total population. Meaning everyone is fat and lazy everyone has high blood pressure and afflicted by the list of thousands of other factors, which allow the risk to be a risk at all, a condition which describes everyone at all times. They then apportion offsets or confounders, and declare their identified risk is what remains to elevate our fears.
Otherwise if they studied only those at risk, of actually dying from ETS exposures; their risk factor would be so small even if you legitimately applied it to the population at risk or as they do the population as a whole, you couldn't find a single body, by calculation or prognosis. In the real world they haven’t found one yet.
By embellishing the dangers of "no safe ETS" you increase the general population’s health risk, among both the smokers, being forced to quit, but with a much larger potential for disaster, by a larger degree of stress invented among the general public, as the targets of these ads, people who don't smoke. People who might be exposed at one time or another, who are being forced to live with un-necessary fears and elevated levels of stress, not supported by the science. By this fear we have divided communities and declared some people are more important than others, by healthiest caste designations. Smokers cost “x” fat people cost “y” alcoholics cost “z”, pretty much any personal choice or activity when observed as excess, can rate your cost and net worth to governments, allowing advertisements with your own tax money to invigorate the levels of societal rage against you. Once they told us they sought the “cures” today it is all about laying the blame, to mask failure.
We need to do the work and find out if this ETS stuff is safe or not.
The lobbies should be told to do the work first, and demonstrate a reason to fear, in place of resting on ignorance, providing irresponsible promotions, inciting rage and hatred, as the only foundation for all of their arguments. You could then point out "no safe" nonsense, [which is an unknown in scientific perspectives], creates an accumulation of 4000 or 400,000 pages of ignorance delivered to decision makers by the so called “charity groups” as the political arguments they will be presenting in their defense of anti autonomy principles which delineate our most basic rights. [Increasing stress once again]
Whitehall;
From WIKI;
No safe?
“The right to health relevant information derives from the principles of autonomy and self direction and has been recognized in international declarations. Providing accurate health information is part of the basis for obtaining "informed consent" and is a recognized component of business ethics, safety communications, and case and product liability law.”
Related data for consideration;
Socialized theory and advocacy; A lack of information [fear of the unknown] resides as the best case for any healthism proposal, to adjust either social order or individual behaviors.
Mitigation of risk for smokers to a level no risk, is apparent after cessation; leading to the truth, the risk is mitigated over time and time dependent. Epidemiology is limited in its scope to provide useful evidence for policy making, because it can only produce a measure which demonstrates an instant in time. This denotes a rule being ignored by the lobbies, which demands a test of time line before a theory can be considered significant or relevant. By the massive reductions of both second hand smoke and smoking prevalence, but not the true number of smokers which has remained stable over the past fifty years. Observing the six fold increase of virtually every so called smoking related disease, we have to view all presentations by this process of estimations, with extreme caution.
The maximum risk in worse case scenarios; for maximum levels at a maximum continuous duration of second hand smoke, demonstrates a non significant health risk which remains controversial if a risk is evident at all [1.19] . By regressive modeling of all the selected research which indicated increased risk; the chart indicates a level 1000 times below the level of risk for active smoking of 25 cigarettes a day. For an exposure to second hand smoke at worst case the risk resides below 10% of even that risk well below 10,000 times that of active smoking, which is well below the 5% level accepted for tolerance or error in the calculations hence “no safe” and “no unsafe” level of risk. By the knowledge demonstrated in the research that time mitigates all risk of smoking, we can say with confidence any exposure risk to second hand smoke, would be sufficiently mitigated long before the next exposure occurs, therefore to the general public there is no demonstrable level of increased risk and “no safe level” remains non informative.
From the same study the risk of worst case at 1.16, bias is increased by elimination of ETS exposure bias, for the comparative group, without an identical elimination which should be warranted for the study group; creating a false impression, the maximum “risk” resides by accumulation of all statistical evidence in the 1.24 range. Even by accepting these formulations, the risk of casual exposures is reduced by 10% at minimum, seen to be at 1.024 or one half the allowance for error with a 95% confidence interval [1.05] and as we can see less than 10,000 times below the lifetime risks of active smoking. If as Doll predicted and no one has disputed; the risks of smoking can be successfully mitigated ten years after cessation to a level equal to that seen in the general population. The risk by a factor 10,000 times lower should be mitigated in a time frame 10,000 times as efficiently. By calculation 1000 times a year or .365 days [roughly 8 hours] which coincides with the mitigation of all suspected toxins found in the smoke and measures of blood quantities over time, regardless of bio marker utilized to gauge the levels of toxins by exposures among non smokers.
By comparison the “clean air” demanded by lobbies who seek smoker free spaces by advertisements claiming elimination of cigarette smoke would produce clean air. The inescapable risk of that clean air is much more deadly than any semblance of increased risk, which exists in ETS exposure which could be measured by credible scientific methods. The advocacy for smoker free fear promotions, works as a placebo treatment for an imagined disease, this increases the real risk, of all other pollution risks which are minimized seriously by lobby and political promotions, taking our focus away from what really does us harm.
The Oil companies and their conflicted statisticians don’t like the numbers, but there they are, and by rough calculation if you apply the risk to those actually at risk for direct comparison, the six cities studies might well have proved, primary smoking is far from the largest cause of lung cancers, heart and cardiovascular disease. While we are so absolutely focused on second hand and soon third hand smoke?
“In their recent article, Laden and colleagues have added 8 more years of follow-up to the Harvard Six Cities study of air pollution and mortality (1). They suggested that total mortality, as well as mortality for cardiovascular disease and lung cancer, were associated with ambient fine particulate air pollution (PM2.5), and that the results were consistent with other cohort studies.”
“The overall effect estimate of 1.16 for the total follow-up is based on a linear model. The model is incorrect and overestimates risk since the relationship is not linear, as observed when the data are plotted”
Sounds like tobacco industry execs are not the only execs; living in denial while selling us poison.
“Conflict of Interest Statement: J.F.G. is retired from full-time employment with ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc. M.J.N. is currently employed full time by ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc.”
They say; second hand smoke exhibits a health risk
I would argue the following;
"It should never be as simplistic as declaring "no safe level exists" to which every opponent with half an ounce of common sense will counter "there is no unsafe level" either. Predictably Health Departments and Globalist politicians, who front for the lobby groups they hire, use this term all the time. They attempt to hoodwink us with framework or sustainable development, never clearly explaining what they are constructing, making their point with a lack of evidence, or understanding, which parallels cult belief, much more than their claims to legitimate science.
Epidemiology after all measures what people recall which is heavily influenced by what they believe so in fact what is measured is not risk but belief. They admit to ignorance themselves, in using the “no safe level” terminology. The large Whitehall studies both confirmed stress is the largest risk factor with obesity, smoking and all other major factors combined you can only account for a 40% offset, compared to a 60% factor presented by increased chronic stress. Stress such as that provided in the so called “public health” messages. A tremendously larger danger is invented by these bandwagon and profit bearing messages, than ever existed in the smell of a little cigarette smoke. In simplistic terms if you can not afford to live the high life demonstrated in beer commercials, you will die much sooner than those who can. The stress you apply to achieving that life while the cards are stacked significantly against you will kill you 3 times as often as smoking [Whitehall]. And at worst case 30,000 times as often, as the faint risk your demise would be caused by second hand smoke. Follow along and I will prove it.
The epidemiological research they use to package the fears implies you can define a risk and simply assume all the other risk factors, which make this risk believable, are in place and universal in total population. Meaning everyone is fat and lazy everyone has high blood pressure and afflicted by the list of thousands of other factors, which allow the risk to be a risk at all, a condition which describes everyone at all times. They then apportion offsets or confounders, and declare their identified risk is what remains to elevate our fears.
Otherwise if they studied only those at risk, of actually dying from ETS exposures; their risk factor would be so small even if you legitimately applied it to the population at risk or as they do the population as a whole, you couldn't find a single body, by calculation or prognosis. In the real world they haven’t found one yet.
By embellishing the dangers of "no safe ETS" you increase the general population’s health risk, among both the smokers, being forced to quit, but with a much larger potential for disaster, by a larger degree of stress invented among the general public, as the targets of these ads, people who don't smoke. People who might be exposed at one time or another, who are being forced to live with un-necessary fears and elevated levels of stress, not supported by the science. By this fear we have divided communities and declared some people are more important than others, by healthiest caste designations. Smokers cost “x” fat people cost “y” alcoholics cost “z”, pretty much any personal choice or activity when observed as excess, can rate your cost and net worth to governments, allowing advertisements with your own tax money to invigorate the levels of societal rage against you. Once they told us they sought the “cures” today it is all about laying the blame, to mask failure.
We need to do the work and find out if this ETS stuff is safe or not.
The lobbies should be told to do the work first, and demonstrate a reason to fear, in place of resting on ignorance, providing irresponsible promotions, inciting rage and hatred, as the only foundation for all of their arguments. You could then point out "no safe" nonsense, [which is an unknown in scientific perspectives], creates an accumulation of 4000 or 400,000 pages of ignorance delivered to decision makers by the so called “charity groups” as the political arguments they will be presenting in their defense of anti autonomy principles which delineate our most basic rights. [Increasing stress once again]
Whitehall;
From WIKI;
No safe?
“The right to health relevant information derives from the principles of autonomy and self direction and has been recognized in international declarations. Providing accurate health information is part of the basis for obtaining "informed consent" and is a recognized component of business ethics, safety communications, and case and product liability law.”
Related data for consideration;
Socialized theory and advocacy; A lack of information [fear of the unknown] resides as the best case for any healthism proposal, to adjust either social order or individual behaviors.
Mitigation of risk for smokers to a level no risk, is apparent after cessation; leading to the truth, the risk is mitigated over time and time dependent. Epidemiology is limited in its scope to provide useful evidence for policy making, because it can only produce a measure which demonstrates an instant in time. This denotes a rule being ignored by the lobbies, which demands a test of time line before a theory can be considered significant or relevant. By the massive reductions of both second hand smoke and smoking prevalence, but not the true number of smokers which has remained stable over the past fifty years. Observing the six fold increase of virtually every so called smoking related disease, we have to view all presentations by this process of estimations, with extreme caution.
The maximum risk in worse case scenarios; for maximum levels at a maximum continuous duration of second hand smoke, demonstrates a non significant health risk which remains controversial if a risk is evident at all [1.19] . By regressive modeling of all the selected research which indicated increased risk; the chart indicates a level 1000 times below the level of risk for active smoking of 25 cigarettes a day. For an exposure to second hand smoke at worst case the risk resides below 10% of even that risk well below 10,000 times that of active smoking, which is well below the 5% level accepted for tolerance or error in the calculations hence “no safe” and “no unsafe” level of risk. By the knowledge demonstrated in the research that time mitigates all risk of smoking, we can say with confidence any exposure risk to second hand smoke, would be sufficiently mitigated long before the next exposure occurs, therefore to the general public there is no demonstrable level of increased risk and “no safe level” remains non informative.
From the same study the risk of worst case at 1.16, bias is increased by elimination of ETS exposure bias, for the comparative group, without an identical elimination which should be warranted for the study group; creating a false impression, the maximum “risk” resides by accumulation of all statistical evidence in the 1.24 range. Even by accepting these formulations, the risk of casual exposures is reduced by 10% at minimum, seen to be at 1.024 or one half the allowance for error with a 95% confidence interval [1.05] and as we can see less than 10,000 times below the lifetime risks of active smoking. If as Doll predicted and no one has disputed; the risks of smoking can be successfully mitigated ten years after cessation to a level equal to that seen in the general population. The risk by a factor 10,000 times lower should be mitigated in a time frame 10,000 times as efficiently. By calculation 1000 times a year or .365 days [roughly 8 hours] which coincides with the mitigation of all suspected toxins found in the smoke and measures of blood quantities over time, regardless of bio marker utilized to gauge the levels of toxins by exposures among non smokers.
By comparison the “clean air” demanded by lobbies who seek smoker free spaces by advertisements claiming elimination of cigarette smoke would produce clean air. The inescapable risk of that clean air is much more deadly than any semblance of increased risk, which exists in ETS exposure which could be measured by credible scientific methods. The advocacy for smoker free fear promotions, works as a placebo treatment for an imagined disease, this increases the real risk, of all other pollution risks which are minimized seriously by lobby and political promotions, taking our focus away from what really does us harm.
The Oil companies and their conflicted statisticians don’t like the numbers, but there they are, and by rough calculation if you apply the risk to those actually at risk for direct comparison, the six cities studies might well have proved, primary smoking is far from the largest cause of lung cancers, heart and cardiovascular disease. While we are so absolutely focused on second hand and soon third hand smoke?
“In their recent article, Laden and colleagues have added 8 more years of follow-up to the Harvard Six Cities study of air pollution and mortality (1). They suggested that total mortality, as well as mortality for cardiovascular disease and lung cancer, were associated with ambient fine particulate air pollution (PM2.5), and that the results were consistent with other cohort studies.”
“The overall effect estimate of 1.16 for the total follow-up is based on a linear model. The model is incorrect and overestimates risk since the relationship is not linear, as observed when the data are plotted”
Sounds like tobacco industry execs are not the only execs; living in denial while selling us poison.
“Conflict of Interest Statement: J.F.G. is retired from full-time employment with ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc. M.J.N. is currently employed full time by ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc.”
Monday, March 02, 2009
Fear of the truth is a top down venture
Hello Johan;
In response to an article; comparing those who challenge the conclusion that secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer with those who deny the Holocaust.
I understand the Editors obvious insult taken, by the length of my initial response. Perhaps if I condensed it to include the most relevant points, he might well understand more precisely, what was being said. Understanding this is an effort of repeating myself, I believe the message might become more clear the second and now the third time around.
First and foremost; the article is offensive and promotes hatred targeting individuals. In a crass attempt at ad hominid logic, in the very worst of insensitive design. Supported by ideology and fundamental extremism, in regard to normal and casual exposures to second hand smoke [which are not known to be harmful] much more than credible ""science""", which is reported to be the context of your publication. Secondly there is an undisclosed conflict which should be obvious to anyone reading this discussion of DENIALS no less.
I would like to report a failure to disclose personal conflicts of interest, on behalf of the authors. Provocative details which would not be apparent or obvious to the reader. Details which would add support to the authors credibility in a failure to disclose; who these people are and what they devote so much of their time and efforts to support. In my opinion; not entirely without compensation [both financially and in direct support of their other Medical Journal publication proposals], one would also have to assume. Disclosures which are relevant and require notation.
Evidence?
Diethelm as a Career?
http://www.tobacco.org/resources/rendezvous/diethelm.html
"During the 1980s and early 1990s, I gradually developed a sense of anti-smoking advocacy, mainly for two reasons: first, because it caused me pain to see obvious signs that friends and people around me were ruining their health by smoking; second, because I grew more aware of the discomfort and health risks of secondhand smoking.
As an anti-smoking advocate, I follow two tracks.
One track is in my capacity of WHO staff member.
I volunteered a few years ago to develop a computerized system aimed at producing and retrieving country profiles and regional profiles of tobacco consumption.
Since then my interest in helping WHO in its fight against smoking has continued.
I was delighted when Dr Brundtland declared tobacco one of her top priorities, created the Tobacco Free Initiative, and asked Derek Yach to lead it.
In my capacity of Team Leader, Networking and Telecommunications, my role is to provide IT support to the project. "
McKee By his own hand?
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057
"Competing interests: As editor of the European Journal of Public Health, MM published another paper by authors funded by the Center for Indoor Air Research. This publication was the centre of a long-running dispute between the journal and the authors concerning undeclared conflicts of interest. It led to his involvement as a witness in a lengthy legal dispute that has recently been resolved (referred to in response). He has received funding from several national and international agencies for work on tobacco control. "
Hypocracy?
http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2004/tobaccopmorris.html
"Professor McKee concludes: "we believe that it is essential that those involved in reviewing evidence on smoking and health should be aware of what appears to be the selective nature of what is eventually published by some scientists with links to the industry, and the evidence that sometimes mechanisms appear to have been used to disguise these links. Any research in this field must involve full disclosure of competing interests and any involvement of the tobacco industry in the instigation, design, analysis or interpretation of findings. Specifically, Philip Morris should be required to explain why it took the steps documented here to maintain what appears to have been considerable secrecy about its role in research on the effects of sidestream (passive) smoke and consequently its knowledge of its effects, effects that appear at odds with its public statements."
Lancet Editor Richard Horton comments: "Given the continuing debate about the way governments should respond to calls for a ban on smoking in public places, we have published this work early online to inform that discussion as a matter of urgency. Pascal Diethelm and his colleagues reveal attempts by one company-Philip Morris-to conceal their links to a research centre in Germany studying the health effects of smoking. The research conducted in that facility appears to have been selectively reported in order to favourably shape public impressions about the safety of passive smoking.""
From my submission;
The anti smoking movement is largely indebted, in trust and in league with conflicted Industrial interests who are profiting tremendously just as the brokers of that partnership predicted they would. The Lobby never denied it and proudly congratulate their Industrial partners openly in UN forums and at the many anti smoking conferences internationally. Industry partners represent an obligation to produce profit; not as a duty to communities, but as a duty only to their own stakeholders. Although not as well examined as the Tobacco industry, fully of the same educational standards operating procedures and community values, as any other industry executives in current communities. The problem with this continual oration of “the evil tobacco industry” described often in context as a single person on trial for decades is that society has evolved, and the current executives, would not dare to travel, where their predecessors felt comfortable in a much less restrictive world.
Chasing pseudo-dragons is a great talking point, however in real world evaluation, some of the stuck in the sixties mentalities, simply have to grow up and move on, to more current problems and perspectives. Connecting “debaters” or “dissenters” instinctively? First as advocates of “the evil industry”, and now as something as repulsive or detracted as a “Holocaust denier” is self serving, without the necessary credibility of truth or evidence. If this is a scientific discussion and not, one of theology in a dark age’s reign of superstition; this declaration is not helpful and has no place in scientific evaluation. It has become common knowledge the use of certain buzz words in Internet connected documents, will increase the readership, because they attach the article to unrelated searches. Does credible science, in an age of expanded access to our knowledge base, truly wish to define its own integrity or credibility so casually?
This publication demands apology and retraction, for those who take insult by the casual ignorance expressed by self service, in an outrageous connectivity, we see a failure to respect the emotional tragedy, by the memory of those who perished, or what is still experienced by those who survived them.
Best Regards;
Johan Mackenbach wrote:
Is this the same person whose letter we have rejected earlier? Let's be
careful. I think this letter is too long, and difficult to follow, so I am
not inclined to publish it, but please check first.
Johan
Original submission
Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee in their article herald the absolutes of scientific reason, as a measure of the biggest dog in the yard. The renaissance foundation of modern science; while standing on the slippery slope of the next dark age. The halt of all further investigations as they describe it; because if the largest group can form consensus; even if that consensus excludes all recognition of selected voices, the discussion is over? This should form the basis for protecting what has been achieved or determined, in place of science, for all time? Real science is normally found outside of a group think atmosphere, as a result of effort, and not an ideology in opposition to that legitimizing work, the preordained or scientific antithesis. We have achieved a level where we can declare we know everything and we can prove it, with advertising campaigns? Does the strength of a Lobby partnership now presume to undermine the reproducibility measure of science, as secondary to theological evaluations, which only allow group think results?
The Lexis on which they rest their case, by revisiting the flat earth theologies immediately suggest a huge obstacle in the foundation of integrity or freedom to investigate without restrictions or disdain. This article is entirely consistent with the reasoning; if a being is capable of speech, intelligence and logic can automatically be assumed. The parrots, who call for nationalization of the science as a cultural reality, have yet to pass further investigation.
Science in its traditional sense is not determined as a beachhead, to be held in dictatorship as a nationalist or fascio ideology. If it is, we have to ask who rules this nation and where are this nation's boarders? Beyond the prophesies of would be; UN partnered despots dealing out “Public Health Protections”. While protecting us only from ourselves; while exaggerating the levels of fear and apprehension to solidify only their own prominence.
If second hand smoke and or environmental tobacco smoke carries a larger degree of risk than we once believed, where is the offset? Are we to believe religiously as Thun has attested; Enstrom and Kabat are in error, because they fail to realize the large exposures of the non smoking public. Inexplicably this exposure in its minor or casual level, would not be an offset by universal exposure, but would have to increase only the health risk among non smokers?
This alternate form of logic can be found in the belief that all, so called “clean air” is and was always absolutely harmless. Air which comprises the vast bulk of ETS with no recognition ETS might ever be diluted in air. Reinforced now by claims of “no safe level”. The “clean” air in high demand, by their presentations which affirm its actual existence; is now thought to be harmless and of no concern by any evaluation or comparison. Or at least until the next Thunesque statement arises, to use the “clean” air similarly.
We have to now concede this promotes the idea; because smokers themselves are far more exposed; that primary smoking is not as dangerous as we once believed? Those determinations of risk were initially made on the basis of comparing non smokers to smokers directly, without any risk of ETS considered. If in fact we now have two significant risk factors to be examined separately, a new perspective must be followed to its logical conclusion without the preposterous rating of detractors by ad hominid evolution in place of legitimizing science to examine the new proposals. I for one do not deny the Holocaust happened and the entire scientific community had the largest hand in creating the atmosphere, which made it possible; when Science, Industry and Politics became as one. (Fascio)
Let’s take a look down that road shall we and follow this new logic? If smoking is now believed less toxic, how toxic are the constituents of the smoke; which present themselves in Pico grams and Nano grams, far below levels of the same toxins found in ambient air. How do we now differentiate the effects of one compared to another? The Tobacco Industry is already avoiding civil actions, by the failure to produce proof of which brand of cigarette caused an injury, and further what air toxins as confounders could logically result in similar damages. With the new reduced risk of smoking, compared to increased risks of ETS their case is solidified. As the risk ETS is elevated, so to will there be an elevated prominence, by such observations as the six cities study, to a degree that no one could possibly link smoking to any diseases outcome directly. Is this the intent of protagonists and politicians who declare themselves as scientists, to in effect protect the tobacco industry’s historical claims that cigarettes are not that dangerous?
Look to simple pie chart logic and understand how the public is measuring credibility;
In 1970 close to 50% of the population smoked and 60% were ever smokers. During the span between 1960 and 2005 population tripled. Cancers increased six fold and heart disease climbed along side population numbers. While the actual number of smokers remained almost consistent.
How does anyone ever hope to assign the following information as proof of smoking causation? I see no evidence proving smoking caused anything beyond systemic hysteria?
Legitimate evaluation, seems to indicate for lung cancers smoking is curative rather than causative.
In the American populace .7% of a 320 million population is 2.24 million. Now we see by a subset of that population “smoking causes 450,000 smoking related mortalities every year”. Surprisingly by evaluation to determine the effect we multiply .7% by the 20% of current smokers or 64 million and we find 448,000 almost but not quite the identical number we expect to see in total population. So is this “smoking related mortality” or “smoker related mortality” in search of a sound bite?
We go on to the always popular 80% of current lung cancer patients are ever smokers or “smoking causes 80% of lung cancers”.
We have to understand cancer does not happen overnight and the cancers we see today by the most significant group affected are those who smoked for many years and indicative of the population who started many years ago. 160,000 lung cancer deaths annually in a 320 million populace or .0005 today however the observations are skewed, because the effects today are results of lifestyles yesterday.
100 million population
60 % ever smokers 40% never smokers.
Divide a pie into 10 pieces each representing 10 million people
Smokers get 8 pieces [80%] and non smokers get 2 pieces [20%].
Take away 2 from the non smokers to represent cancers from other causes take away 3 from the smokers to reflect their 50% larger population.
What do you have left?
5 pieces and by comparison we concluded 50% will be affected by smoking and among non smokers 50% will be affected by not smoking, as represented in the two pieces they were allotted in addition to the number you took away from the smokers believed to be not caused by smoking.
As a risk you have a balance, and no conclusive evidence of increased risk despite how it originally seemed.
No one has ever resolved the largest problem with Doll’s research, so many years ago which connected smoking with cancer. When it was revealed a larger risk existed among those who claimed they did not inhale, than the smokers who claimed they did. Observation reveals at the time, smoking was fashionable and many who described themselves as smokers to gain popularity, could not smoke in the traditional sense, without choking. So they did not inhale. Proof can be seen in many of the post 1960s movies were the actors can be seen in the majority, doing a not very good imitation of smoking. When they never did really inhale smoke, how could it cause the diseases we commonly refer to as smoking related? So were the diseases really all simply “smoking related”? In retrospective studies, what was the actual smoking prevalence, long determined to cause so much harm and how much harm was assigned to the wrong side of the balance sheet? Doll never defended his failure to fully disclose this reality, in the numerous news conferences to follow, however he did fix the problem. By removing the question in further studies, to determine who actually inhaled and who did not. Politics is a matter of promotion and opinion, but is this really science or remotely scientific?
The epidemiology processes itself, by well known structural weaknesses, will always develop many contrasting figures and conclusions, as a sheer reality of randomization, confounding balances and chance. If there is a complete void of those findings, it encourages a perspective of impropriety that the process is being interfered with. Credibility and randomization is lost. By the fact people chose to start or stop smoking, or not to start at all, suggest we never truly had randomization in the post study separation, based in smoking status, this defeated the claim and the legitimacy of randomized control evaluation. Further those who have a specific disease compared to groups who are not so afflicted are also defined correctly as a non randomized trial.
Declared consensus while attacking any alternate result, opinion or even discussion as discourse, now preposterously viewed as a cultural norm in science? Tossing aside a reality by social marketing and irresponsible oration, their absolutely conflicted HIA group, created the poll counting culture deliberately, as described in the HIA process of stakeholder partnerships. Social Marketing as it was employed, by divisive policies not targeting smoking or the Tobacco industry, but the smokers themselves. To have the audacity to declare no conflicts in this social experiment is nothing short of a contemptible act.
The anti smoking movement is largely indebted, in trust and in league with conflicted Industrial interests who are profiting tremendously just as the brokers of that partnership predicted they would. They never denied it and proudly congratulate their Industrial partners openly in UN forums and at the many anti smoking conferences internationally. Industry partners represent an obligation to produce profit; not as a duty to communities, but as a duty only to their own stakeholders. Although not as well examined as the Tobacco industry, fully of the same educational standards operating procedures and community values, as any other industry executives in current communities. The problem with this continual oration of “the evil tobacco industry” described often in context as a single person on trial for decades is that society has evolved, and the current executives, would not dare to travel, where their predecessors felt comfortable in a much less restrictive world.
Chasing pseudo-dragons is a great talking point, however in real world evaluation, some of the stuck in the sixties mentalities, simply have to grow up and move on, to more current problems and perspectives. Connecting “debaters” or “dissenters” instinctively? First as advocates of “the evil industry”, and now as something as repulsive or detracted as a “Holocaust denier” is self serving, without the necessary credibility of truth or evidence. If this is a scientific discussion and not, one of theology in a dark age’s reign of superstition; this declaration is not helpful and has no place in scientific evaluation. It has become common knowledge the use of certain buzz words in internet connected documents, will increase the readership, because they attach the article to unrelated searches. Does credible science, in an age of expanded access to our knowledge base, truly wish to define its own integrity or credibility so casually?
This publication demands apology and retraction, for those who take insult by the casual ignorance expressed by self service in an outrageous connectivity, we see a failure to respect the emotional tragedy, by the memory of those who perished, or what is still experienced by those who survived them.
In response to an article; comparing those who challenge the conclusion that secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer with those who deny the Holocaust.
I understand the Editors obvious insult taken, by the length of my initial response. Perhaps if I condensed it to include the most relevant points, he might well understand more precisely, what was being said. Understanding this is an effort of repeating myself, I believe the message might become more clear the second and now the third time around.
First and foremost; the article is offensive and promotes hatred targeting individuals. In a crass attempt at ad hominid logic, in the very worst of insensitive design. Supported by ideology and fundamental extremism, in regard to normal and casual exposures to second hand smoke [which are not known to be harmful] much more than credible ""science""", which is reported to be the context of your publication. Secondly there is an undisclosed conflict which should be obvious to anyone reading this discussion of DENIALS no less.
I would like to report a failure to disclose personal conflicts of interest, on behalf of the authors. Provocative details which would not be apparent or obvious to the reader. Details which would add support to the authors credibility in a failure to disclose; who these people are and what they devote so much of their time and efforts to support. In my opinion; not entirely without compensation [both financially and in direct support of their other Medical Journal publication proposals], one would also have to assume. Disclosures which are relevant and require notation.
Evidence?
Diethelm as a Career?
http://www.tobacco.org/resources/rendezvous/diethelm.html
"During the 1980s and early 1990s, I gradually developed a sense of anti-smoking advocacy, mainly for two reasons: first, because it caused me pain to see obvious signs that friends and people around me were ruining their health by smoking; second, because I grew more aware of the discomfort and health risks of secondhand smoking.
As an anti-smoking advocate, I follow two tracks.
One track is in my capacity of WHO staff member.
I volunteered a few years ago to develop a computerized system aimed at producing and retrieving country profiles and regional profiles of tobacco consumption.
Since then my interest in helping WHO in its fight against smoking has continued.
I was delighted when Dr Brundtland declared tobacco one of her top priorities, created the Tobacco Free Initiative, and asked Derek Yach to lead it.
In my capacity of Team Leader, Networking and Telecommunications, my role is to provide IT support to the project. "
McKee By his own hand?
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057
"Competing interests: As editor of the European Journal of Public Health, MM published another paper by authors funded by the Center for Indoor Air Research. This publication was the centre of a long-running dispute between the journal and the authors concerning undeclared conflicts of interest. It led to his involvement as a witness in a lengthy legal dispute that has recently been resolved (referred to in response). He has received funding from several national and international agencies for work on tobacco control. "
Hypocracy?
http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/news/2004/tobaccopmorris.html
"Professor McKee concludes: "we believe that it is essential that those involved in reviewing evidence on smoking and health should be aware of what appears to be the selective nature of what is eventually published by some scientists with links to the industry, and the evidence that sometimes mechanisms appear to have been used to disguise these links. Any research in this field must involve full disclosure of competing interests and any involvement of the tobacco industry in the instigation, design, analysis or interpretation of findings. Specifically, Philip Morris should be required to explain why it took the steps documented here to maintain what appears to have been considerable secrecy about its role in research on the effects of sidestream (passive) smoke and consequently its knowledge of its effects, effects that appear at odds with its public statements."
Lancet Editor Richard Horton comments: "Given the continuing debate about the way governments should respond to calls for a ban on smoking in public places, we have published this work early online to inform that discussion as a matter of urgency. Pascal Diethelm and his colleagues reveal attempts by one company-Philip Morris-to conceal their links to a research centre in Germany studying the health effects of smoking. The research conducted in that facility appears to have been selectively reported in order to favourably shape public impressions about the safety of passive smoking.""
From my submission;
The anti smoking movement is largely indebted, in trust and in league with conflicted Industrial interests who are profiting tremendously just as the brokers of that partnership predicted they would. The Lobby never denied it and proudly congratulate their Industrial partners openly in UN forums and at the many anti smoking conferences internationally. Industry partners represent an obligation to produce profit; not as a duty to communities, but as a duty only to their own stakeholders. Although not as well examined as the Tobacco industry, fully of the same educational standards operating procedures and community values, as any other industry executives in current communities. The problem with this continual oration of “the evil tobacco industry” described often in context as a single person on trial for decades is that society has evolved, and the current executives, would not dare to travel, where their predecessors felt comfortable in a much less restrictive world.
Chasing pseudo-dragons is a great talking point, however in real world evaluation, some of the stuck in the sixties mentalities, simply have to grow up and move on, to more current problems and perspectives. Connecting “debaters” or “dissenters” instinctively? First as advocates of “the evil industry”, and now as something as repulsive or detracted as a “Holocaust denier” is self serving, without the necessary credibility of truth or evidence. If this is a scientific discussion and not, one of theology in a dark age’s reign of superstition; this declaration is not helpful and has no place in scientific evaluation. It has become common knowledge the use of certain buzz words in Internet connected documents, will increase the readership, because they attach the article to unrelated searches. Does credible science, in an age of expanded access to our knowledge base, truly wish to define its own integrity or credibility so casually?
This publication demands apology and retraction, for those who take insult by the casual ignorance expressed by self service, in an outrageous connectivity, we see a failure to respect the emotional tragedy, by the memory of those who perished, or what is still experienced by those who survived them.
Best Regards;
Johan Mackenbach wrote:
Is this the same person whose letter we have rejected earlier? Let's be
careful. I think this letter is too long, and difficult to follow, so I am
not inclined to publish it, but please check first.
Johan
Original submission
Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee in their article herald the absolutes of scientific reason, as a measure of the biggest dog in the yard. The renaissance foundation of modern science; while standing on the slippery slope of the next dark age. The halt of all further investigations as they describe it; because if the largest group can form consensus; even if that consensus excludes all recognition of selected voices, the discussion is over? This should form the basis for protecting what has been achieved or determined, in place of science, for all time? Real science is normally found outside of a group think atmosphere, as a result of effort, and not an ideology in opposition to that legitimizing work, the preordained or scientific antithesis. We have achieved a level where we can declare we know everything and we can prove it, with advertising campaigns? Does the strength of a Lobby partnership now presume to undermine the reproducibility measure of science, as secondary to theological evaluations, which only allow group think results?
The Lexis on which they rest their case, by revisiting the flat earth theologies immediately suggest a huge obstacle in the foundation of integrity or freedom to investigate without restrictions or disdain. This article is entirely consistent with the reasoning; if a being is capable of speech, intelligence and logic can automatically be assumed. The parrots, who call for nationalization of the science as a cultural reality, have yet to pass further investigation.
Science in its traditional sense is not determined as a beachhead, to be held in dictatorship as a nationalist or fascio ideology. If it is, we have to ask who rules this nation and where are this nation's boarders? Beyond the prophesies of would be; UN partnered despots dealing out “Public Health Protections”. While protecting us only from ourselves; while exaggerating the levels of fear and apprehension to solidify only their own prominence.
If second hand smoke and or environmental tobacco smoke carries a larger degree of risk than we once believed, where is the offset? Are we to believe religiously as Thun has attested; Enstrom and Kabat are in error, because they fail to realize the large exposures of the non smoking public. Inexplicably this exposure in its minor or casual level, would not be an offset by universal exposure, but would have to increase only the health risk among non smokers?
This alternate form of logic can be found in the belief that all, so called “clean air” is and was always absolutely harmless. Air which comprises the vast bulk of ETS with no recognition ETS might ever be diluted in air. Reinforced now by claims of “no safe level”. The “clean” air in high demand, by their presentations which affirm its actual existence; is now thought to be harmless and of no concern by any evaluation or comparison. Or at least until the next Thunesque statement arises, to use the “clean” air similarly.
We have to now concede this promotes the idea; because smokers themselves are far more exposed; that primary smoking is not as dangerous as we once believed? Those determinations of risk were initially made on the basis of comparing non smokers to smokers directly, without any risk of ETS considered. If in fact we now have two significant risk factors to be examined separately, a new perspective must be followed to its logical conclusion without the preposterous rating of detractors by ad hominid evolution in place of legitimizing science to examine the new proposals. I for one do not deny the Holocaust happened and the entire scientific community had the largest hand in creating the atmosphere, which made it possible; when Science, Industry and Politics became as one. (Fascio)
Let’s take a look down that road shall we and follow this new logic? If smoking is now believed less toxic, how toxic are the constituents of the smoke; which present themselves in Pico grams and Nano grams, far below levels of the same toxins found in ambient air. How do we now differentiate the effects of one compared to another? The Tobacco Industry is already avoiding civil actions, by the failure to produce proof of which brand of cigarette caused an injury, and further what air toxins as confounders could logically result in similar damages. With the new reduced risk of smoking, compared to increased risks of ETS their case is solidified. As the risk ETS is elevated, so to will there be an elevated prominence, by such observations as the six cities study, to a degree that no one could possibly link smoking to any diseases outcome directly. Is this the intent of protagonists and politicians who declare themselves as scientists, to in effect protect the tobacco industry’s historical claims that cigarettes are not that dangerous?
Look to simple pie chart logic and understand how the public is measuring credibility;
In 1970 close to 50% of the population smoked and 60% were ever smokers. During the span between 1960 and 2005 population tripled. Cancers increased six fold and heart disease climbed along side population numbers. While the actual number of smokers remained almost consistent.
How does anyone ever hope to assign the following information as proof of smoking causation? I see no evidence proving smoking caused anything beyond systemic hysteria?
Legitimate evaluation, seems to indicate for lung cancers smoking is curative rather than causative.
In the American populace .7% of a 320 million population is 2.24 million. Now we see by a subset of that population “smoking causes 450,000 smoking related mortalities every year”. Surprisingly by evaluation to determine the effect we multiply .7% by the 20% of current smokers or 64 million and we find 448,000 almost but not quite the identical number we expect to see in total population. So is this “smoking related mortality” or “smoker related mortality” in search of a sound bite?
We go on to the always popular 80% of current lung cancer patients are ever smokers or “smoking causes 80% of lung cancers”.
We have to understand cancer does not happen overnight and the cancers we see today by the most significant group affected are those who smoked for many years and indicative of the population who started many years ago. 160,000 lung cancer deaths annually in a 320 million populace or .0005 today however the observations are skewed, because the effects today are results of lifestyles yesterday.
100 million population
60 % ever smokers 40% never smokers.
Divide a pie into 10 pieces each representing 10 million people
Smokers get 8 pieces [80%] and non smokers get 2 pieces [20%].
Take away 2 from the non smokers to represent cancers from other causes take away 3 from the smokers to reflect their 50% larger population.
What do you have left?
5 pieces and by comparison we concluded 50% will be affected by smoking and among non smokers 50% will be affected by not smoking, as represented in the two pieces they were allotted in addition to the number you took away from the smokers believed to be not caused by smoking.
As a risk you have a balance, and no conclusive evidence of increased risk despite how it originally seemed.
No one has ever resolved the largest problem with Doll’s research, so many years ago which connected smoking with cancer. When it was revealed a larger risk existed among those who claimed they did not inhale, than the smokers who claimed they did. Observation reveals at the time, smoking was fashionable and many who described themselves as smokers to gain popularity, could not smoke in the traditional sense, without choking. So they did not inhale. Proof can be seen in many of the post 1960s movies were the actors can be seen in the majority, doing a not very good imitation of smoking. When they never did really inhale smoke, how could it cause the diseases we commonly refer to as smoking related? So were the diseases really all simply “smoking related”? In retrospective studies, what was the actual smoking prevalence, long determined to cause so much harm and how much harm was assigned to the wrong side of the balance sheet? Doll never defended his failure to fully disclose this reality, in the numerous news conferences to follow, however he did fix the problem. By removing the question in further studies, to determine who actually inhaled and who did not. Politics is a matter of promotion and opinion, but is this really science or remotely scientific?
The epidemiology processes itself, by well known structural weaknesses, will always develop many contrasting figures and conclusions, as a sheer reality of randomization, confounding balances and chance. If there is a complete void of those findings, it encourages a perspective of impropriety that the process is being interfered with. Credibility and randomization is lost. By the fact people chose to start or stop smoking, or not to start at all, suggest we never truly had randomization in the post study separation, based in smoking status, this defeated the claim and the legitimacy of randomized control evaluation. Further those who have a specific disease compared to groups who are not so afflicted are also defined correctly as a non randomized trial.
Declared consensus while attacking any alternate result, opinion or even discussion as discourse, now preposterously viewed as a cultural norm in science? Tossing aside a reality by social marketing and irresponsible oration, their absolutely conflicted HIA group, created the poll counting culture deliberately, as described in the HIA process of stakeholder partnerships. Social Marketing as it was employed, by divisive policies not targeting smoking or the Tobacco industry, but the smokers themselves. To have the audacity to declare no conflicts in this social experiment is nothing short of a contemptible act.
The anti smoking movement is largely indebted, in trust and in league with conflicted Industrial interests who are profiting tremendously just as the brokers of that partnership predicted they would. They never denied it and proudly congratulate their Industrial partners openly in UN forums and at the many anti smoking conferences internationally. Industry partners represent an obligation to produce profit; not as a duty to communities, but as a duty only to their own stakeholders. Although not as well examined as the Tobacco industry, fully of the same educational standards operating procedures and community values, as any other industry executives in current communities. The problem with this continual oration of “the evil tobacco industry” described often in context as a single person on trial for decades is that society has evolved, and the current executives, would not dare to travel, where their predecessors felt comfortable in a much less restrictive world.
Chasing pseudo-dragons is a great talking point, however in real world evaluation, some of the stuck in the sixties mentalities, simply have to grow up and move on, to more current problems and perspectives. Connecting “debaters” or “dissenters” instinctively? First as advocates of “the evil industry”, and now as something as repulsive or detracted as a “Holocaust denier” is self serving, without the necessary credibility of truth or evidence. If this is a scientific discussion and not, one of theology in a dark age’s reign of superstition; this declaration is not helpful and has no place in scientific evaluation. It has become common knowledge the use of certain buzz words in internet connected documents, will increase the readership, because they attach the article to unrelated searches. Does credible science, in an age of expanded access to our knowledge base, truly wish to define its own integrity or credibility so casually?
This publication demands apology and retraction, for those who take insult by the casual ignorance expressed by self service in an outrageous connectivity, we see a failure to respect the emotional tragedy, by the memory of those who perished, or what is still experienced by those who survived them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)