Science - Revision history

Kellynium: /* Dissenting views */

2012-07-09T04:30:30Z

Dissenting views

Cvp: /* The long list of methodological errors in the junk science of passive smoke (ETS) */

2012-07-05T14:25:25Z

The long list of methodological errors in the junk science of passive smoke (ETS)

Petunia: /* Dissenting views */ capitalisation

2012-07-02T17:24:07Z

Dissenting views: capitalisation

Petunia: add section

2012-07-02T17:17:17Z

add section

Petunia: /* Noteworthy */ punctuation

2012-06-30T14:22:17Z

Noteworthy: punctuation

Petunia: /* The long list of methodological errors in the junk science of passive smoke (ETS) */ punctuation

2012-06-30T14:20:15Z

The long list of methodological errors in the junk science of passive smoke (ETS): punctuation

Petunia: /* Noteworthy */ punctuation

2012-06-27T17:50:23Z

Noteworthy: punctuation

Kellynium: /* Competing interests */

2012-06-27T15:47:39Z

Competing interests

Kellynium: Corrected link to 'Advocates'

2012-06-27T15:30:33Z

Corrected link to 'Advocates'

Kellynium: /* Noteworthy */

2012-06-27T00:22:36Z

Noteworthy

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 ===Dissenting views===
-Tobacco Control Industry scientists are not allowed to have dissenting views.  When Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University dared to argue with his mentors over a correction he felt was needed for scientific accuracy, he was told bluntly that the political credibility of the antismoking organization was more important.
+Tobacco Control Industry scientists are not allowed to have dissenting views.  When, for instance, Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University has dared to argue with his mentors over corrections he felt were needed for scientific accuracy, he has been told bluntly that the ''political'' credibility of the Tobacco Control movement is supremely more important than is truthfulness.
 ===Policy-led research===

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:25, 5 July 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	==The long list of methodological errors in the junk science of passive smoke (ETS)==	+	==The long list of methodological errors in the junk science of passive smoke ([[ETS and related terminology\|ETS]])==

	#The claims of exposure are not authentic. Exposure is often not even measured. Many studies actually measure nothing, but rely on the vague and grossly imprecise recall of queried subjects who attempt to evoke in a few minutes their individual lifetime memories of passive smoking exposure.		#The claims of exposure are not authentic. Exposure is often not even measured. Many studies actually measure nothing, but rely on the vague and grossly imprecise recall of queried subjects who attempt to evoke in a few minutes their individual lifetime memories of passive smoking exposure.

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 ===Dissenting views===
-Tobacco Control industry scientists are not allowed to have dissenting views.  When Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University dared to argue with his mentors over a correction he felt was needed for scientific accuracy, he was told bluntly that the political credibility of the antismoking organization was more important.
+Tobacco Control Industry scientists are not allowed to have dissenting views.  When Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University dared to argue with his mentors over a correction he felt was needed for scientific accuracy, he was told bluntly that the political credibility of the antismoking organization was more important.
 ===Policy-led research===

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 More on [http://www.forces.org/evidence/long-list.htm Forces International].
-===Science by Press Release===
+===Science by press release===
 A trick which the Tobacco Control Industry often uses is to spread a press release before a study has been peer-reviewed and published in their (often biased) medical journals. This has quite some advantages for a researcher: when the always uncritical journalists report on the study they only have the press release to report on, following the preconceived conclusions in the press release. Tobacco control scientists know that when the studies are finally published journalists never go back to read the real study and compare it to the claims made in the press release they'd written about months in the past. So if the design of the study or the conclusions in the real study are different from the press release, there will never be a rectification.  A wonderful example of this can be seen in the study of post-ban heart attacks in Helena, Montana in 2003.  [http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20030401/smoking-ban-saves-lives-in-montana-town The original press event] headlined a 60% drop in heart attacks.  In [http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7446/977 the published study a year later] this was mysteriously reduced, with no explanation, to 40%.  However the 60% figure is still all too often [http://www.warwickshire.nhs.uk/LivingWell/SmokeFreeWarwickshire/SecondhandSmoke.aspx being repeated almost a decade later] by such official bodies as Britain's National Health Service as a justification for further smoking bans.
@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 Studies seldom declare the author's competing interest. That's why on this site we have published the [[Advocates|long list of Tobacco Control advocates]] including scientists who have received sponsorship from Big Pharma.
-===Dissenting Views===
+===Dissenting views===
 Tobacco Control industry scientists are not allowed to have dissenting views.  When Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University dared to argue with his mentors over a correction he felt was needed for scientific accuracy, he was told bluntly that the political credibility of the antismoking organization was more important.
 ===Noteworthy===

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 :[http://www.olivernorvell.com/ThePlainTruthAboutTobacco.pdf Click here] for an essay providing insight, particularly regarding lung cancer, on the plain evidence, and the fatally false perspective of Tobacco Control, on the issue of tobacco and health.
 *'''James Repace, Junk Scientist Extraordinaire'''
-:James Repace, an anti-smoker who calls himself a "health physicist" (he has an M.S. in physics) and also a "secondhand smoke consultant", is a great darling of the Tobacco Control Industry and has performed some of its most comical anti-scientific pratfalls. He is well known for his vituperative reactions to the ridicule he engenders (from the public generally but which he likes to blame on evilly inspired [http://www.icyte.com/saved/www.smokefreedc.org/538500 "industry moles"]). Some examples of his scientific slapstick at these links: [http://forces.org/News_Portal/news_viewer.php?id=508 Bouncing Body Counts] – [http://greenbelt.patch.com/articles/witness-testimony-ends-in-secondhand-smoke-trial Courtroom Cut-up] – [http://www.icyte.com/system/snapshots/fs1/1/0/3/0/1030956e1de6562ea578d3acf38bddeaa1258ce9/index.html Off with Their Tongues].
+:James Repace, an anti-smoker who calls himself a "health physicist" (he has an MS in physics) and also a "secondhand smoke consultant", is a great darling of the Tobacco Control Industry and has performed some of its most comical anti-scientific pratfalls. He is well known for his vituperative reactions to the ridicule he engenders (from the public generally but which he likes to blame on evilly inspired [http://www.icyte.com/saved/www.smokefreedc.org/538500 "industry moles"]). Some examples of his scientific slapstick at these links: [http://forces.org/News_Portal/news_viewer.php?id=508 Bouncing Body Counts] – [http://greenbelt.patch.com/articles/witness-testimony-ends-in-secondhand-smoke-trial Courtroom Cut-up] – [http://www.icyte.com/system/snapshots/fs1/1/0/3/0/1030956e1de6562ea578d3acf38bddeaa1258ce9/index.html Off with Their Tongues].
 *'''Smoking Ban "Miracles"'''
 :In the US and elsewhere, anti-smoker agencies have adopted the trick of releasing "studies" (propaganda based on small samples) purporting that smoking bans reduce hospitalizations for heart attacks or other conditions. The grandfather study of this type was "The Great Helena Heart Miracle" study referred to above, but it's been followed by "The Bowling Green Miracle," "The Scottish Miracle," and well over a dozen others, etc., etc., ad nauseum. In 2010 researchers for the Rand Corporation performed a comprehensive study of the question, reporting that "smoking bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases. ...large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a smoking ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature." [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.20548/abstract Click here] for study abstract.
 :The Rand study was actually presaged in 2005 by a study done by Missouri researcher David W. Kuneman, and ''Dissecting Antismokers' Brains'' author, Michael J. McFadden.  Covering a similar population sample of subjects and heart attacks [http://www.scribd.com/doc/9679507/bmjmanuscript the Kuneman/McFadden study] was offered as a corrective to the ''British Medical Journal'' – where, after some unusual handling and delay, it was rejected because the editors "did not think it added enough, for general readers, to what is already known about smoking and health." [http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsid.990/news_detail.asp Click here] for the full story in the "Facts and Fears" feature of the American Council on Science and Health.

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 #The claims of exposure are not authentic. Exposure is often not even measured. Many studies actually measure nothing, but rely on the vague and grossly imprecise recall of queried subjects who attempt to evoke in a few minutes their individual lifetime memories of passive smoking exposure.
 #Errors in individual exposure recollection, most likely large, are unknown, and are unknowable.  Digitized numerical claims of exposure are, therefore, incongruous and impermissible.  Their numerical representation gives an impression of reliability and precision that is demonstrably false and misleading.
-#Recall bias has been demonstrated to be larger in sick subjects -- they are more likely to amplify their recall of passive smoking exposure as a justification for their disease, whether it be lung cancer or cardiovascular disease.
+#Recall bias has been demonstrated to be larger in sick subjects – they are more likely to amplify their recall of passive smoking exposure as a justification for their disease, whether it be lung cancer or cardiovascular disease.
 #Misclassification bias has been demonstrated to be larger in subjects with lung cancer or cardiovascular disease because they are more likely than healthy subjects to classify themselves as nonsmokers in order to avoid being blamed for their condition.
 #A mismatch error of cases and controls is inevitable because the groups compared are not homogeneous and differ in many characteristics other than recall of passive smoking exposure.

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 ===Competing interests===
-Studies seldom declare the author's competing interest. That's why on this site we have published the [[Advocates|long list of scientists]] having received sponsorship from Big Pharma.
+Studies seldom declare the author's competing interest. That's why on this site we have published the [[Advocates|long list of Tobacco Control advocates]] including scientists who have received sponsorship from Big Pharma.
 ===Dissenting Views===

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:22, 27 June 2012
Line 45:		Line 45:
	:In the US and elsewhere, anti-smoker agencies have adopted the trick of releasing "studies" (propaganda based on small samples) purporting that smoking bans reduce hospitalizations for heart attacks or other conditions. The grandfather study of this type was "The Great Helena Heart Miracle" study referred to above, but it's been followed by "The Bowling Green Miracle," "The Scottish Miracle," and well over a dozen others, etc., etc., ad nauseum. In 2010 researchers for the Rand Corporation performed a comprehensive study of the question, reporting that "smoking bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases. ...large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a smoking ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature." [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.20548/abstract Click here] for study abstract.		:In the US and elsewhere, anti-smoker agencies have adopted the trick of releasing "studies" (propaganda based on small samples) purporting that smoking bans reduce hospitalizations for heart attacks or other conditions. The grandfather study of this type was "The Great Helena Heart Miracle" study referred to above, but it's been followed by "The Bowling Green Miracle," "The Scottish Miracle," and well over a dozen others, etc., etc., ad nauseum. In 2010 researchers for the Rand Corporation performed a comprehensive study of the question, reporting that "smoking bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases. ...large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a smoking ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature." [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.20548/abstract Click here] for study abstract.

−	:The Rand study was actually presaged in 2005 in a study done by Missouri researcher David W. Kuneman, and ''Dissecting Antismokers' Brains'' author, Michael J. McFadden. Covering a similar population sample of subjects and heart attacks [http://www.scribd.com/doc/9679507/bmjmanuscript the Kuneman/McFadden study] was offered as a corrective to the ''British Medical Journal'' -- where, after some unusual handling and delay, it was rejected because the editors "did not think it added enough, for general readers, to what is already known about smoking and health." [http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsid.990/news_detail.asp Click here] for the full story in the "Facts and Fears" feature of the American Council on Science and Health.	+	:The Rand study was actually presaged in 2005 by a study done by Missouri researcher David W. Kuneman, and ''Dissecting Antismokers' Brains'' author, Michael J. McFadden. Covering a similar population sample of subjects and heart attacks [http://www.scribd.com/doc/9679507/bmjmanuscript the Kuneman/McFadden study] was offered as a corrective to the ''British Medical Journal'' -- where, after some unusual handling and delay, it was rejected because the editors "did not think it added enough, for general readers, to what is already known about smoking and health." [http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsid.990/news_detail.asp Click here] for the full story in the "Facts and Fears" feature of the American Council on Science and Health.