Editing Sound Bites
From TobaccoControl Tactics
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Comments on their sound bites == | == Comments on their sound bites == | ||
=== Tobacco is the largest avoidable cause of mortality in the world === | === Tobacco is the largest avoidable cause of mortality in the world === | ||
− | To the excellent analysis [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf Lies, Damned Lies and 400 000 Smoking-related Deaths], explaining the methodological flaws in the computer estimates of ''smoking related morbidity and mortality'', we need to add that the definition of smokers as determined by the CDC (Center For Disease Control, USA) is | + | To the excellent analysis [http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf Lies, Damned Lies and 400 000 Smoking-related Deaths], explaining the methodological flaws in the computer estimates of ''smoking related morbidity and mortality'', we need to add that the definition of smokers as determined by the CDC (Center For Disease Control, USA) is quite broad and calculates the risk factors of anyone who has smoked at least 100 cigarettes in his lifetime and either quit – irrespective of how long ago and how much one smoked – or still smokes either regularly or occasionally – irrespective of how long ago one started and how much and often one smokes – thus ignoring the linear dose response model that if applied properly would produce more realistic and credible conclusions.<ref group="Claim1"> https://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sammec/help/glossary_hp.asp</ref><ref group="Claim1">https://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sammec/methodology.asp</ref> |
The WHO lists the following as the top 10 causes of death: | The WHO lists the following as the top 10 causes of death: | ||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
#Road traffic accidents | #Road traffic accidents | ||
− | Of these causes, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, some lower respiratory infections, COPD, trachea | + | Of these causes, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, some lower respiratory infections, COPD, trachea bronchus and lung cancers are labeled as ''smoking related'' by the ''authorities''. |
− | + | ||
− | + | Since there is no disease proper to smoking because they're all multi-factorial diseases, anyone – current, former or never smoker – can get a ''smoking related disease'' . As it pertains to smokers, despite the best anti-tobacco experts, including Sir Richard Doll, who testified in the Scottish landmark legal case '' MRS MARGARET McTEAR vs. IMPERIAL TOBACCO LIMITED, it could not be proven that had it not been for an individual's cigarette smoking, he would not have contracted lung cancer.'' <ref group="Claim1">http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005CSOH69.html</ref> This applies to any of the diseases labeled as ''smoking related. | |
+ | |||
+ | When one looks at how ''smoking related'' diseases are distributed within the USA population for example, one can draw complete different conclusions from the sound-bite ''Tobacco is the first avoidable cause of mortality in the world''. | ||
+ | Indeed based on real people with real diseases giving real answers as opposed to computer estimates using cherry picked risk factors as their base model, here's how diseases are distributed within the USA population. Please keep in mind the broad definitions of current smokers and former smokers as explained above when looking at these statistics: | ||
+ | |||
+ | {| style="text-align:right" | ||
|- style="background:#D2DFEE; text-align:center" | |- style="background:#D2DFEE; text-align:center" | ||
|'''Smoking related disease'''||Current||Former||Never | |'''Smoking related disease'''||Current||Former||Never | ||
Line 39: | Line 44: | ||
|No chronic disease||19.3%||16.4%||64.3% | |No chronic disease||19.3%||16.4%||64.3% | ||
|} | |} | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | + | In conclusion a more honest statement from the ''authorities'' would be ''Abuse of tobacco is an important avoidable risk factor for fatal diseases in the world.'' Anything else is not only inaccurate and unsubstantiated, but it can certainly qualify as inflammatory propaganda. | |
+ | See <ref group="Claim1">http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5644a2.htm</ref>. | ||
====Notes==== | ====Notes==== | ||
<references group="Claim1"/> | <references group="Claim1"/> | ||
=== There is no safe level of exposure for ETS, secondhand smoke is in the same category of carcinogens as asbestos and benzene. === | === There is no safe level of exposure for ETS, secondhand smoke is in the same category of carcinogens as asbestos and benzene. === | ||
− | The ''no safe level of exposure for ETS'' sound bite originated with Surgeon General Richard Carmona's statement that he made during the press conference of his 2006 report: '''[http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmoke/report-index.html The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General.]''' | + | The ''no safe level of exposure for ETS'' sound bite originated with Surgeon General Richard Carmona's statement that he made during the press conference of his 2006 report: '''[http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/secondhandsmoke/report-index.html The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General.]''' but is not included in the report itself. The closest resemblance to this statement is on page 65, which reads: |
:''The evidence for underlying mechanisms of respiratory injury from exposure to secondhand smoke suggests that a safe level of exposure may not exist, thus implying that any exposure carries some risk. For infants, children, and adults with asthma or with more sensitive respiratory systems, even very brief exposures to secondhand smoke can trigger intense bronchopulmonary responses that could be life threatening in the most susceptible individuals.'' | :''The evidence for underlying mechanisms of respiratory injury from exposure to secondhand smoke suggests that a safe level of exposure may not exist, thus implying that any exposure carries some risk. For infants, children, and adults with asthma or with more sensitive respiratory systems, even very brief exposures to secondhand smoke can trigger intense bronchopulmonary responses that could be life threatening in the most susceptible individuals.'' | ||
− | This is clearly speculative ("suggests ... may") and it only applies to people who are extremely susceptible. Specifically, he seems to be referring to chronic asthmatics but there is no definition of what "very brief exposures" are. Ultimately, | + | This is clearly speculative ("suggests ... may") and it only applies to people who are extremely susceptible. Specifically, he seems to be referring to chronic asthmatics but there is no definition of what "very brief exposures" are. Ultimately, 'no safe level' means that no safe level has been detected with accuracy; it does not mean that exposure at any level is dangerous. Although the more accurate phrase that is used by some tobacco control groups doesn't necessarily spell that out, it tends to be more honest by at least hinting as much: ''there are no known safe levels of second hand smoke'' -- ''''known'''' being the operative word here. Much like potatoes, another nightshade plant that contains potentially harmful glycoalkaloids, it would take great effort to determine such levels. In the case of second hand smoke, the ends justify the means anti-tobacco philosophy will never allow such efforts to be undertaken. Similar to the conclusions about harm from potatoes, it's safe to say that common sense, decades of real life experience and epidemiological studies, dictate that there should be no reason for concern<ref group="Claim2">http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v30je19.htm</ref>. |
:''The Committee considered that, despite the long history of human consumption of plants containing glycoalkaloids, the available epidemiological and experimental data from human and laboratory animal studies did not permit the determination of a safe level of intake. The Committee recognized that the development of empirical data to support such a level would require considerable effort. Nevertheless, it felt that the large body of experience with the consumption of potatoes, frequently on a daily basis, indicated that normal glycoalkaloid levels (20–100 mg/kg) found in properly grown and handled tubers were not of concern.'' | :''The Committee considered that, despite the long history of human consumption of plants containing glycoalkaloids, the available epidemiological and experimental data from human and laboratory animal studies did not permit the determination of a safe level of intake. The Committee recognized that the development of empirical data to support such a level would require considerable effort. Nevertheless, it felt that the large body of experience with the consumption of potatoes, frequently on a daily basis, indicated that normal glycoalkaloid levels (20–100 mg/kg) found in properly grown and handled tubers were not of concern.'' | ||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
=== 70% of smokers want to quit === | === 70% of smokers want to quit === | ||
− | Providing their surveys can even be trusted for their integrity, it is obvious that the anti-tobacco industry is confusing people feeling that they should quit because of social pressure and fear for their health, with people '' wanting'' to quit | + | Providing their surveys can even be trusted for their integrity, it is obvious that the anti-tobacco industry is confusing people feeling that they should quit because of social pressure and fear for their health, with people '' wanting'' to quit. Stop the de-normalization process and the outrageously exaggerated scare tactics , bring back some measure and conduct the same surveys all over and let's see how many smokers really want to quit. And no, as much as they want to blame the addictive properties of tobacco for people not giving up , smoking is as pleasurable to a smoker as eating candy is pleasurable to an obese person. Both feel that they shouldn't be doing it because this is what they have been conditioned to believe, but in no way does this make it less pleasurable. |
After decades of incessant inflammatory propaganda and de-normalization techniques supported and even encouraged by governments ( see [http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/17/1/25 Markers of the denormalisation of smoking and the tobacco industry] ) portraying | After decades of incessant inflammatory propaganda and de-normalization techniques supported and even encouraged by governments ( see [http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/17/1/25 Markers of the denormalisation of smoking and the tobacco industry] ) portraying | ||
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
Is it any wonder many smokers feel they should quit? Many pretend to ''want'' to quit simply to avoid lectures, harassment and even outright bullying from the ''authorities'' and their peers. | Is it any wonder many smokers feel they should quit? Many pretend to ''want'' to quit simply to avoid lectures, harassment and even outright bullying from the ''authorities'' and their peers. | ||
− | Smokers represent at least one quarter of the adult world population. If 70% of those remaining smokers truly '' wanted'' to stop smoking not only most of them would put the necessary effort to accomplish it like millions have done it ''cold turkey'' before them, but it is reasonable to believe that there would be more grassroots political pressure from them for governments to make it as difficult, inconvenient, costly and even illegal to smoke. There isn't, or at least there aren't any loud or publicized organized groups of smokers pushing for such measures. The only pressure governments are getting | + | Smokers represent at least one quarter of the adult world population. If 70% of those remaining smokers truly '' wanted'' to stop smoking not only most of them would put the necessary effort to accomplish it like millions have done it ''cold turkey'' before them, but it is reasonable to believe that there would be more grassroots political pressure from them for governments to make it as difficult, inconvenient, costly and even illegal to smoke. There isn't, or at least there aren't any loud or publicized organized groups of smokers pushing for such measures. The only pressure governments are getting are from the professional anti-smokers, from corporate vested interests – mainly the pharmaceutical industry – and from some ordinary citizens emotional over having lost someone to a disease suspected to have been caused by smoking. |
=== The Environmental Protection Agency has identified secondhand smoke as a Class A carcinogen. === | === The Environmental Protection Agency has identified secondhand smoke as a Class A carcinogen. === | ||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
====Asthma==== | ====Asthma==== | ||
− | If a child already has asthma, and if one of the active triggers for that child's asthma is tobacco smoke, then exposure to situations with a sufficient concentration of smoke can increase the risk of that child having an asthma episode. There are no exact figures on what proportion of children would be likely to experience this sort of thing at normal levels of social, public smoke exposure, even in indoor areas without special ventilation, but it seems | + | If a child already has asthma, and if one of the active triggers for that child's asthma is tobacco smoke, then exposure to situations with a sufficient concentration of smoke can increase the risk of that child having an asthma episode. There are no exact figures on what proportion of children would be likely to experience this sort of thing at normal levels of social, public smoke exposure, even in indoor areas without special ventilation, but it seems like that the proportion is quite small. |
Three important points to note in this area: | Three important points to note in this area: | ||
Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
#Asthma has psychogenic triggers as well as physical triggers. To the best of our knowledge, no study has ever been done on the frequency of such things, but it is almost a certainty that many asthmatic attacks among children exposed to tobacco smoke are not so much a reaction to the smoke itself as they are a product of an emotional reaction that has been "taught" to the child by an overprotective parent. | #Asthma has psychogenic triggers as well as physical triggers. To the best of our knowledge, no study has ever been done on the frequency of such things, but it is almost a certainty that many asthmatic attacks among children exposed to tobacco smoke are not so much a reaction to the smoke itself as they are a product of an emotional reaction that has been "taught" to the child by an overprotective parent. | ||
− | + | A child whose mother goes into "panic attacks" any time a cat walks into a room because of her worries about the child's asthma may very well experience a full blown, quite real, psychogenic asthma attack upon the sight of a sterile, fake "robot cat" walking into a room where he or she is alone – despite the utter absence of any real physical trigger. The same sort of reaction can obviously hold true for the sight of someone smoking as well. Unfortunately it is difficult to study this without stepping over the line in terms of experimental ethics, but "thought modeling," as above, would indicate such reactions would be likely; and these reactions could actually be overwhelmingly important in explaining the seeming increase in asthmatic and similar reactions to tobacco smoke – particularly among children – in the last decade or two. | |
====Pneumonia and bronchial infections==== | ====Pneumonia and bronchial infections==== | ||
Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
Additionally, an obvious confounding factor that seems to be very rarely considered is the respiratory health status of the smoking parents themselves. Antismokers will usually claim, with fairly strong evidence, that smokers experience more respiratory illnesses than nonsmokers. If we accept that as true, then it is logical that smoking parents will pass such illnesses on to their children more often than nonsmoking parents. Without adequately correcting for such a confounder it is literally impossible to say whether any increase in such illnesses among children of smokers has any relation at all to their smoke exposure: while it may seem unlikely to many researchers, it is indeed quite possible that the entirety of any such observed increase is due to such disease transmission rather than to secondhand smoke exposure. | Additionally, an obvious confounding factor that seems to be very rarely considered is the respiratory health status of the smoking parents themselves. Antismokers will usually claim, with fairly strong evidence, that smokers experience more respiratory illnesses than nonsmokers. If we accept that as true, then it is logical that smoking parents will pass such illnesses on to their children more often than nonsmoking parents. Without adequately correcting for such a confounder it is literally impossible to say whether any increase in such illnesses among children of smokers has any relation at all to their smoke exposure: while it may seem unlikely to many researchers, it is indeed quite possible that the entirety of any such observed increase is due to such disease transmission rather than to secondhand smoke exposure. | ||
− | In more detail | + | In more detail, *IF* we accept the reasonable claim that smokers get some degree of extra respiratory infections due to either the extra "challenge" smoking presents to the lungs or to cross-correlation with smokers' health being poorer due to their average lower economic status or being poorer due to cross-correlation with higher alcohol and drug-use rates. |
− | |||
− | *IF we accept the reasonable claim that smokers get some degree of extra respiratory infections due to either the extra "challenge" smoking presents to the lungs or to cross-correlation with smokers' health being poorer due to their average lower economic status or being poorer due to cross-correlation with higher alcohol and drug-use rates | ||
− | *THEN it becomes reasonable to assume that their children will pick up some of those infections purely due to germ transmission and therefore have a somewhat higher rate of respiratory infections themselves -- even if their parents only smoked on the dark side of the moon. | + | *THEN* it becomes reasonable to assume that their children will pick up some of those infections purely due to germ transmission and therefore have a somewhat higher rate of respiratory infections themselves -- even if their parents only smoked on the dark side of the moon. |
====Ear infections==== | ====Ear infections==== | ||
− | + | There appears to be strong evidence of a substantial correlation between parental smoking and ear infections in infants and toddlers. While the confounder of transmitted parental infections is something that should be considered, it does not seem as likely to be as strong a player as it might be in direct respiratory infections. If a child is prone to ear infections it would seem, overall, to make good sense to minimize or eliminate any regular exposure to higher levels of tobacco smoke. NOTE: there is no evidence supporting the concept that brief or very low levels of exposure, levels such as might be experience outdoors or during an occasional hour or so in an ordinary Free Choice restaurant setting or around a smoking friend of the parents, could cause such a problem even in children with histories of such infections. | |
====Sudden Infant Death Syndrome==== | ====Sudden Infant Death Syndrome==== | ||
Line 128: | Line 126: | ||
''Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is defined as the sudden death of an infant less than 1 year of age that cannot be explained after a thorough investigation is conducted, including a complete autopsy, examination of the death scene, and review of the clinical history.'' [http://www.cdc.gov/sids/] | ''Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) is defined as the sudden death of an infant less than 1 year of age that cannot be explained after a thorough investigation is conducted, including a complete autopsy, examination of the death scene, and review of the clinical history.'' [http://www.cdc.gov/sids/] | ||
− | + | Yet the tobacco control industry has no shame to spread the notion that an unknown attribute of diluted tobacco smoke produces an unknown condition through an unknown biological mechanism that causes death. They even go as far as giving exact number of deaths ''caused by smoking'' that were extrapolated from such abstract notions. | |
− | While the medical establishment | + | While the medical establishment tread very carefully when dealing with parents who have lost a child to SIDS in order to protect them from further grief by not elaborating on the suspected ''causes'', the anti-smokers have no problem labeling these parents as ''child killers''. |
Excerpts from a letter that tells the whole story from the SIDS Alliance to ASH US [http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/cohe01.htm] | Excerpts from a letter that tells the whole story from the SIDS Alliance to ASH US [http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/cohe01.htm] | ||
Line 151: | Line 149: | ||
=== Studies indicate that secondhand smoke can cause cancer, emphysema, heart attacks and strokes in adult nonsmokers === | === Studies indicate that secondhand smoke can cause cancer, emphysema, heart attacks and strokes in adult nonsmokers === | ||
− | Smokers who quit before smoking the equivalent of a pack per day for twenty years reduce their risks of cancer, emphysema, heart attacks and strokes to the levels enjoyed by those who never smoked. (This of course doesn't stop the propagandists from including former smokers in their fear mongering statistics of ''deaths caused by smoking'' | + | Smokers who quit before smoking the equivalent of a pack per day for twenty years reduce their risks of cancer, emphysema, heart attacks and strokes to the levels enjoyed by those who never smoked. (This of course doesn't stop the propagandists from including former smokers in their fear mongering statistics of ''deaths caused by smoking'' see ''Tobacco is the largest avoidable cause of mortality in the world'' on this page). |
Suggestions that secondhand smoke causes ailments in nonsmokers is nonsense on its face. The allegations are nothing more than fear-mongering propagated by a health establishment which has become dedicated to abolition of smoking. The “scientific research” utilized by the abolitionists is junk science, primarily statistical blather, produced to serve ideology. | Suggestions that secondhand smoke causes ailments in nonsmokers is nonsense on its face. The allegations are nothing more than fear-mongering propagated by a health establishment which has become dedicated to abolition of smoking. The “scientific research” utilized by the abolitionists is junk science, primarily statistical blather, produced to serve ideology. | ||
Line 272: | Line 270: | ||
*[http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/tm_headline=smokers-urged-to-keep-taking-pills&method=full&objectid=20316976&siteid=50081-name_page.html Smokers urged to keep taking Champix even if it can lead to suicide]: Alisa Rutter, director of Fresh – the campaign for a Smoke Free North East in the UK – said: ''“We are talking about a fairly unhealthy section of the population anyway ... one in two will die because of smoking.'''' | *[http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/tm_headline=smokers-urged-to-keep-taking-pills&method=full&objectid=20316976&siteid=50081-name_page.html Smokers urged to keep taking Champix even if it can lead to suicide]: Alisa Rutter, director of Fresh – the campaign for a Smoke Free North East in the UK – said: ''“We are talking about a fairly unhealthy section of the population anyway ... one in two will die because of smoking.'''' | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |