Hell Freezes Over! -Flash-

[Big RR]

Recorded as a smoking death? I don't know if such records are routinely kept, it may be dependent on where the person died and what the public health officials do. For studies, based on what I have seen they just look at diseases that are recognized (or believed) as being related to smoking, and then correlate that with whether the person smoked or not.

[Joe Guy]

If they (whoever they are) are recording that cigarettes are the cause for all people who have smoked that die from lung cancer the cigarette death statistics it doesn't seem like the number would be very accurate.

[Big RR]

When I hear the statistics it's more like "X% of all people who die from [whatever smoking related disease] are smokers; smokers make up Y% of the population. Because X is bigger than Y, smokers are [multiplier] times more likely to develop that disease".

[Sue U]

Can you do the Google?

Also, for those so inclined, charts and graphs!

[Lord Jim]

As usual when we've taken this merry-go-round ride, zero about the actual methods used to compute death stats on second hand smoke (because the CDC treats that information as state secret; no doubt because it would be seen for the joke that it is.)

But here's something that's actually informative:

http://heartland.org/sites/all/modules/ ... /22832.pdf

The behavior of the CDC (and other supposedly "reputable" organizations) has been absolutely scandalous in the area of computing estimates on second hand smoke deaths. Completely driven by ideology,and a disgrace to actual scientific analysis. They really ought to be ashamed of themselves, but they aren't, because they're motivated entirely by an an "ends justify the means" mentality.

They produce numbers that are less than worthless.

[Sue U]

It's not a secret; they cite all the studies relied on in the end notes. You're free to go look at all the peer reviewed literature yourself. Same with American Lung Assn., Tobacco Control, NIH, etc. etc.

Also, don't you think a guy from Louisville a/k/a Tobaccotown might have a little bias problem? Not saying I know, just saying I'd be careful about sourcing.

[Scooter]

It reads like an AIDS denialist piece.

[Sue U]

It reads like an AIDS denialist piece.

Ah, there's a reason for that. The author, Brad Rodu, DDS, is the first holder of the"Endowed Chair for Tobacco Harm Reduction Research" at the U. Of Lou. Who endows that chair? The US Smokeless Tobacco Company (a Philip Morris subsidiary). You will undoubtedly be shocked to learn that Rodu's "research" has recommended using chewing tobacco and "dip" as smoking cessation tools. Also, he happens to be a consultant for the smokeless tobacco industry. Go figure.

And Regulation magazine? A Cato Institute publication. No agenda there, either.

[rubato]

The CDC publishes all the sources of their data openly. It does require some education and some real interest in the truth to examine it. Most ideologues fail at both those requirements.





yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

The rhetoric is transparently dishonest.

[from the link]

"... Why Defend Smokers?

Everywhere you look, anti-smoking groups are campaigning against smokers. They claim smoking kills one third or even half of all smokers; that secondhand smoke is a major public health problem; that smokers impose enormous costs on the rest of society; and that for all these reasons, taxes on cigarettes should be raised. ... "

This passage (and elsewhere) uses misdirection in a truly evil way. It says they 'are campaigning against smokers' when in fact anti-tobacco activists are campaigning against tobacco use, which kills smokers.

This group is making it easier for smokers to continue to kill themselves and pretending to be on their side. And it is obviously true that smoking does impost a huge cost on society.

"... The public health community's campaign to demonize smokers and all forms of tobacco is based on junk science. ... "

"Demonize smokers" !! Again they are trying to falsely personalize smokers as the victims of anti-tobacco groups and ignoring the fact that it is the tobacco industry who is actually killing them and giving them emphysema. The crudest examination of the data shows how terrible the effects of smoking are. Nearly all lung cancer and emphysema is caused by smoking and second-hand tobacco smoke.

Bullshit for the truly stupid.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

The CDC publishes all the sources of their data openly.

Well then, a smart feller like you should have no trouble finding it and posting a link...

I can hardly wait to see their open admission of the methods used.

In the meantime here's some more "bullshit"; this time from Stanford University:

Study: Second-Hand Smoke And Lung Cancer Not Clearly Linked

ATLANTA (CBS Atlanta) – The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta attribute approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths every year to second-hand smoke.

A new study suggests that CDC researchers may be mistaken, however.

Researchers at Stanford University discovered during a study of over 75,000 women who smoke that there was no reasonable connection between passive exposure to cigarette smoke and the development of lung cancer.

“The fact that passive smoking may not be strongly associated with lung cancer points to a need to find other risk factors for the disease [in nonsmokers],” Ange Wang, a Stanford University medical student, was quoted as saying while presenting the study at the June 2013 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

E Canada Now learned that the study was also recently published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

The presentation of the team’s findings was met with mixed reviews, especially from those who felt that it glossed over the proven health implications of long-term exposure to second-hand smoke.

CDC officials note that around 88 million nonsmokers were exposed to second-hand smoke between 2007 and 2008, and that children between the ages of 3 and 11 were especially at risk of inhaling it.

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2013/12/13/ ... ly-linked/

More on this:

A large-scale study found no clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, undercutting the premise of years of litigation including a Florida case that yielded a $350 million settlement.

The article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute details a study of 76,000 women over more than a decade, which found the usual link between smoking and cancer. Lung cancer was 13 times more common in current smokers, and four times more common in former smokers, than in non-smokers.

The study found no statistically significant relationship between lung cancer and exposure to passive smoke, however. Only among women who had lived with a smoker for 30 years or more was there a relationship that the researchers described as “borderline statistical significance.” Over at the Velvet Glove, Iron Fist blog, however, journalist Christopher Snowden notes “there’s no such thing as borderline statistical significance. It’s either significant or it’s not,” and the reported hazard ratio was not.

The study doesn’t cover the many other ill effects of breathing somebody else’s cigarette smoke, of course, which include asthma and possibly cardio-pulmonary disease. I called Gerard Silvestri of the Medical University of South Carolina and member of the National Cancer Institute’s Screening and Prevention Board, and he said the study merely confirms what many researchers already believed.

“What this study basically showed is what people kind of knew [you mean the scientific community knew this, and they've been lying to us about it anyway?]already: At low passive exposures the risk is not that great,” he said. “While that’s good news, it shouldn’t stop anyone from saying, “I don’t want to be a in a bar or any place else with someone who is smoking.”[It should just stop them from using health concerns as the excuse.]

Now here we come to the unsurprising crux of it:

One researcher in the article said the most important effect of indoor-smoking bans may be on smokers.

“The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm,” said Dr. Jyoti Patel of Northwestern University School of Medicine.

[I found that to be a rare and refreshing admission; the real reason for providing bogus statistics about second hand smoke has nothing to do with actual concern about the second-hand smoke; it's all about an ideologically driven desire to "change societal behavior" in a way that meets their approval.]

Previous cancer studies have had mixed results, the researchers said, although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still calculate secondhand smoke is responsible for 46,000 heart disease deaths and 3,400 deaths from cancer a year. The problem is many studies showing the strongest association between secondhand smoke and cancer were case-control studies that can suffer from “recall bias,” or the tendency of people with a disease that can be blamed on a past exposure t0 be more likely to recall it.

Among the 76,000 study participants, however, only 4,000 reported no exposure to passive smoke, making it difficult to “tease out a difference” showing a connection, as one researcher said.

Still, the study goes a long way toward eliminating the premise of a groundbreaking lawsuit on behalf of 60,000 flight attendants who sought damages for lung cancer from passive smoke that was common back in the days when you could light up in an airliner. Tobacco companies settled that by paying $300 million to establish the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute, to support research into tobacco-related diseases. Lawyers for flight attendants have been battling to have FAMRI shut down and the proceeds paid directly to flight attendants, saying the elimination of smoking on airliners has ended its usefulness to the class.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfishe ... nd-cancer/

[Crackpot]

On a side note CVS had all of their cigarettes on sale last time I was in.

[dgs49]

I think it's priceless that the rubato person focuses on the difference between going after smokers and going after smoking.

And yet, an African country recently passed a law calling for severe criminal punishments for SODOMY, and it was excoriated in the global press as being directed at gay people (not sodomy). The possibility that anyone who is "gay" might not be an active Sodomite is discounted as irrelevant.

[Joe Guy]

This passage (and elsewhere) uses misdirection in a truly evil way. It says they 'are campaigning against smokers' when in fact anti-tobacco activists are campaigning against tobacco use, which kills smokers.

Isn't that the truth!! Just like those evil people who try to get you to not like drunk drivers. They aren't campaigning against the drunks, they're going after alcohol use which kills people!!

Terribly dishonest of them....

[rubato]

I think it's priceless that the rubato person focuses on the difference between going after smokers and going after smoking.

And yet, an African country recently passed a law calling for severe criminal punishments for SODOMY, and it was excoriated in the global press as being directed at gay people (not sodomy). The possibility that anyone who is "gay" might not be an active Sodomite is discounted as irrelevant.

You really do have serious cognitive problems. It was not I but the linked site which conflated the two and did so for the purpose of transparent emotional manipulation.


I don't think its priceless that you are this dense. I think its rather sad. But It helps me to understand where Republican voters come from.



yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

This passage (and elsewhere) uses misdirection in a truly evil way. It says they 'are campaigning against smokers' when in fact anti-tobacco activists are campaigning against tobacco use, which kills smokers.

Isn't that the truth!! Just like those evil people who try to get you to not like drunk drivers. They aren't campaigning against the drunks, they're going after alcohol use which kills people!!

Terribly dishonest of them....

Sucking ass to stupid is so low on the cognitive scale that it mocks itself.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Sucking ass to stupid is so low on the cognitive scale that it mocks itself.

yrs,
rubato

Just had to quote that gem of wisdom....

[Joe Guy]

Sucking ass to stupid is so low on the cognitive scale that it mocks itself.

[Lord Jim]

Sucking ass to stupid is so low on the cognitive scale that it mocks itself.

One of these days, I'm going to do some searches for quotes and put together a little quiz:

Is It Rube, Or Is It Somebody Satirizing Rube?

It won't be an easy quiz to get a high score on, I guarantee you...

That's one of the challenging things about rube; his actual comments so frequently defy parody...

[Jarlaxle]

Does he get less-coherent when he's drunk, or is it more random?