Sound Bites - Revision history

Mamoune: /* 70% of smokers want to quit */

2013-11-17T13:28:20Z

70% of smokers want to quit

Mamoune: /* 70% of smokers want to quit */

2013-06-24T10:44:00Z

70% of smokers want to quit

Cantiloper: Several clarifying phrases added to "no safe level" soundbite

2012-09-01T19:40:45Z

Several clarifying phrases added to "no safe level" soundbite

Petunia: /* There is no safe level of exposure for ETS, secondhand smoke is in the same category of carcinogens as asbestos and benzene. */

2012-09-01T17:07:13Z

There is no safe level of exposure for ETS, secondhand smoke is in the same category of carcinogens as asbestos and benzene.

Mamoune: /* Random TC Quotes */

2012-09-01T12:57:30Z

Random TC Quotes

Mamoune: /* Tobacco is the largest avoidable cause of mortality in the world */

2012-08-07T22:22:05Z

Tobacco is the largest avoidable cause of mortality in the world

Mamoune: /* Random TC Quotes */

2012-08-05T00:54:20Z

Random TC Quotes

Mamoune: /* Random TC Quotes */

2012-08-05T00:47:54Z

Random TC Quotes

Mamoune: /* Ear infections */

2012-08-02T01:38:23Z

Ear infections

Mamoune: /* Tobacco is the largest avoidable cause of mortality in the world */

2012-07-22T12:59:50Z

Tobacco is the largest avoidable cause of mortality in the world

@@ 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.
-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.
+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 comes 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. ===

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 === 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.   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.
+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 because they don't enjoy smoking and they only smoke because they are addicted to the product.   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

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 === 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.]'''  but is not included in the report itself. The closest resemblance to this statement is on page 65, which reads:
+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.]'''  Importantly, it should be noted that this statement, with those words, was simply a statement of Carmona's opinion about the meaning of the Report overall: it is a political statement for media and public consumption, not a scientific one stating actual findings or data. The closest resemblance to this statement in the scientific body of the Report itself 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.''
-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>
+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, specifically with regard to length of exposure, 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.''

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 :''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, '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>.
+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.''

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:57, 1 September 2012
Line 274:		Line 274:

	*Philippe Boucher, long time Tobacco Control Industry advocate and reporter, has no problem interfering with independence in journalism suggesting that journalists should be paid to write tobacco control articles: From: [http://blogsofbainbridge.typepad.com/africa/2012/07/supporting-african-journalists-who-report-about-tobacco-control.html Supporting African Journalists Who Report About Tobacco Control?]'' How about giving it a try? The rate? $100 per story (would have to include at least one picture) and a $100 monthly bonus for the best segment. The rythm? one story per month with a precise deadline.''		*Philippe Boucher, long time Tobacco Control Industry advocate and reporter, has no problem interfering with independence in journalism suggesting that journalists should be paid to write tobacco control articles: From: [http://blogsofbainbridge.typepad.com/africa/2012/07/supporting-african-journalists-who-report-about-tobacco-control.html Supporting African Journalists Who Report About Tobacco Control?]'' How about giving it a try? The rate? $100 per story (would have to include at least one picture) and a $100 monthly bonus for the best segment. The rythm? one story per month with a precise deadline.''
		+
		+	*Patricia Daly, chief medical officer for Vancouver Coast Health who has no remorse sending 91-year old people to remote outdoor designated smoking areas, disputes their doctor's opinion that this could be more harmful to their health than smoking. ''Smoking is always going to be more harmful for patients than any potential benefits that the physician believes may result from his smoking. '' she callously insists. [http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/News/local/2012/08/22/20130536.html Seniors fuming over indoor smoking ban ]

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 When one looks at how ''smoking related'' diseases are distributed within the USA population for example (see chart on the right), one can draw complete different conclusions from the sound-bite ''Tobacco is the first avoidable cause of mortality in the world''.
-Indeed according to this chart based on real people with real diseases giving real answers as opposed to computer estimates using cherry picked risk factors as their base model, not one ''smoking related'' disease  is more prevalent in current smokers than former or never smokers.  Not that we are implying that smoking is risk free but interestingly, these figures (and especially as they pertain to lung cancer) tend to indicate that former and never smokers are generally at a greater risk of contracting ''smoking related'' diseases than smokers.  Remember that these figures (and others drafted with the same methodology) did not adjust for how long ago former smokers have quit or how much they smoked, or for how long ago current smokers have started and how much they currently smoke.  They can and do include anyone who started  smoking 6 months ago providing he has smoked at least 100 cigarettes, an 80 year old person that smoked 5 packs of cigarettes at age 16 and never touched a cigarette since and a person that has been smoking two packs a day for the last 40 years. Without adjusting for pack/year history, how can any conclusions be drawn one way or the other?
+Indeed according to this chart based on real people with real diseases giving real answers as opposed to computer estimates using cherry picked risk factors as their base model, not one ''smoking related'' disease  is more prevalent in current smokers than former and never smokers.  Not that we are implying that smoking is risk free but interestingly, these figures (and especially as they pertain to lung cancer) tend to indicate that former and never smokers are generally at a greater risk of contracting ''smoking related'' diseases than smokers.  Remember that these figures (and others drafted with the same methodology) did not adjust for how long ago former smokers have quit or how much they smoked, or for how long ago current smokers have started and how much they currently smoke.  They can and do include anyone who started  smoking 6 months ago providing he has smoked at least 100 cigarettes, an 80 year old person that smoked 5 packs of cigarettes at age 16 and never touched a cigarette since and a person that has been smoking two packs a day for the last 40 years. Without adjusting for pack/year history, how can any conclusions be drawn one way or the other?
 Additionally, not all tobacco is the same.  Manufactured tobacco products, biological, roll your own, home grown, native etc. are substantially different. Various filters including biological green ones, how deep a person inhales, how much of the cigarette is smoked as opposed to burning in the ashtray can also make a difference.

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:54, 5 August 2012
Line 273:		Line 273:
	*[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.''''

−	*Philippe Boucher, long time Tobacco Control Industry advocate and reporter has no problem interfering with independence in journalism suggesting that journalists should be paid to write tobacco control articles: From: [http://blogsofbainbridge.typepad.com/africa/2012/07/supporting-african-journalists-who-report-about-tobacco-control.html Supporting African Journalists Who Report About Tobacco Control?]'' How about giving it a try? The rate? $100 per story (would have to include at least one picture) and a $100 monthly bonus for the best segment. The rythm? one story per month with a precise deadline.''	+	*Philippe Boucher, long time Tobacco Control Industry advocate and reporter, has no problem interfering with independence in journalism suggesting that journalists should be paid to write tobacco control articles: From: [http://blogsofbainbridge.typepad.com/africa/2012/07/supporting-african-journalists-who-report-about-tobacco-control.html Supporting African Journalists Who Report About Tobacco Control?]'' How about giving it a try? The rate? $100 per story (would have to include at least one picture) and a $100 monthly bonus for the best segment. The rythm? one story per month with a precise deadline.''

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:47, 5 August 2012
Line 272:		Line 272:

	*[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.''''
		+
		+	*Philippe Boucher, long time Tobacco Control Industry advocate and reporter has no problem interfering with independence in journalism suggesting that journalists should be paid to write tobacco control articles: From: [http://blogsofbainbridge.typepad.com/africa/2012/07/supporting-african-journalists-who-report-about-tobacco-control.html Supporting African Journalists Who Report About Tobacco Control?]'' How about giving it a try? The rate? $100 per story (would have to include at least one picture) and a $100 monthly bonus for the best segment. The rythm? one story per month with a precise deadline.''

@@ Line 122: / Line 122: @@
 ====Ear infections====
-Ear infections are more common in children under 6 years old.  Because their Eustachian tubes are not fully developed mucus builds up in the middle ear more easily.  If the tubes become blocked due to an infection such as a cold or an allergy, they are no longer able to drain the fluid and this may lead to ear infections.  Stuffy noses can be caused by allergies to irritants.  Second hand smoke is only one of many irritants that can lead to ear infections in children more prone to allergic reactions.  Household cleaners, pollen, environmental pollution, essential oils, pet dander, wood burning fireplaces etc.  can cause the same effect.  Putting the emphasis on second hand smoke while neglecting to mention the underlying mechanism of ear infections as it pertains to all irritants, is just one more Tobacco Control tactic aimed at labeling smoking parents as evil and irresponsible caretakers of their children.
+Ear infections are more common in children under 6 years old.  Because their Eustachian tubes are not fully developed mucus builds up in the middle ear more easily.  If the tubes become blocked due to an infection such as a cold or an allergy, they are no longer able to drain the fluid and this may lead to ear infections.  Stuffy noses can be caused by allergies to irritants.  Second hand smoke is only one of many irritants that can lead to ear infections in children more prone to allergic reactions.  Household cleaners, pollen, environmental pollution, essential oils, pet dander, wood burning fireplaces etc.  can cause the same effect.  Putting the emphasis on second hand smoke while neglecting to mention the underlying mechanism of ear infections as it pertains to all irritants, is just one more Tobacco Control tactic aimed at labeling smoking parents as evil and irresponsible caregivers of their children.
 ====Sudden Infant Death Syndrome====

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 == Comments on their sound bites ==
 === 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 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>
+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 very 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: