|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
 Posted - 01/17/2009 : 14:15:38 [Permalink]
|
| it means that your "the dose is the poison" mantra is just plain wrong in the cases under discussion. |
Then I guess you'll have to rewrite the most fundamental rule of toxicology. Good luck with that.
| If rates are going down worldwide, then how is that that they also go up? |
Statistical variation means some will go up, in some areas, from time to time.
More details about the Scottish fraud are here: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/12/data-released-by-scottish-national.html
| So, the researchers may think they are doing honest work while all the time knowing that they aren't. Interesting. You do know that their reputations, and therefore their livelihoods are on the line if they are caught helping to perpetrate a fraud don't you? |
Not when it comes to SHS. Consider the results of the outright fraud in the Helena case. The penalty? Kudos and awards.
| Now, there are literally hundreds of studies from many nations that find a significant correlation between passive smoking and higher incidences of illness in passive smokers. |
All with laughably tiny RRs.
| Many of those studies are in part or wholly government funded. Why would so many governments, including our own, want to perpetrate a fraud that would cause them a loss in revenue from tobacco product sales, and force them to implement and enforce laws that also costs money, without any gain such as reduced health care costs? That includes those countries that have single payer healthcare systems and aren't nearly as tight assed about smoking as this country seems to be. |
Governments are schizophrenic on this issue. On one hand they want to see reduced smoking for general health reasons, on the other they rely on smokers paying draconian taxes to fund their programs. Looking for logic and reason in government policies is generally fruitless.
| And even here, it would suggest that “the anti-smoker crowd” has more clout than the tobacco industry and all of its lobbying money has, again resulting in lower revenues in general. |
They do, now. What congress weasel wants to be seen as capitulating to Big Tobacco's demands? (Unless, of course, they can make it look like a good thing, like the Master Tobacco Settlement that helped out BT, by limiting their liability and preventing competition.)
| By the way, the idea that only PC research is safe to publish, and that all other research is ignored by the scientific community, coupled with PC media support, is the claim made by every pseudo-scientific crackpot group out there. |
In this area, PC research is the only research that gets funded, so there's little to ignore from the other side. And the mostly left media has bought into the anti-smokers bullshit, so it's not surprising they give them so much free, uncritical press.
There's no conspiracy involved, any more than there is a conspiracy to keep the mass media lefty. It's simply that the people involved mostly lean that way, with predictable results.
Take, for instance, a cohort study run by Enstrom and Kabat.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
It followed the data for non-smoking spouses for |
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2009 : 15:37:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
Then I guess you'll have to rewrite the most fundamental rule of toxicology. Good luck with that. |
If the "ill effects" that you refuse to define were all toxilogical effects, then "the dose is the poison" would be absolutely correct. But they're not, so it isn't.| Dave, if you don't think 60-120 smokes versus 73K-146K smokes is a meaningful comparison there's not much point in continuing this conversation with you. |
I very carefully explained why I don't think it's meaningful, and you don't have a rational rebuttal, so you fall back on "there's not much point in continuing this conversation with you."| but for every ten smokers who die of lung cancer, one non-smoker dies from it. |
Yep. But that doesn't mean it was caused by SHS. |
Wow! You really have no clue as to what my point is if that's the only response you could muster.| Again, if you're going to try to rewrite the basic rules of toxicology... |
As if it were entirely about toxicology.| ...now by pretending it's a magical mantra... |
For you, it is a magical mantra that allows you to prejudicially dismiss opposing arguments without actually addressing them.
Look, even if smokers inhale a "dose" 1,200 times as large as non-smokers, is it fair to expose non-smokers to even that small a risk when they gain no benefit whatsoever? This is the public health policy question.Well, good luck to you and your mantra, too. Maybe if you repeat it enough, it'll come true. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2009 : 15:49:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
<snipped>
|
| So if the results at the 95% CI aren't statistically significant, it's OK to juggle the CI until they are? That sounds more than a little dishonest. How common is it? |
It only sounds dishonest if you completely ignore the arbitrariness of choosing a cut-off point of 95%. You know, as I explained in the part of the comment you snipped. I have no idea how often it happens in percentages, just that it happens regularly.
Usually you don't really look at significance or insignificance when looking at results, because you know that it can be very dependent on numbers, especially if the effects are small. What you do is look at the width of the confidence interval. If the confidence interval goes from 0.99 to 1.41, the chance of something being there is not that much higher or lower than if it goes from 1.01 to 1.39. Usually that is reported as a borderline case.
| Stop the namecalling, okay. |
Anti-smoker advocates have a long history of incredible dishonesty. It's not name calling, it's a factual description. |
As soon as you start actually showing that instead of showing a misunderstanding of concepts, I'll start taking you seriously on that. Before that, it's not necessary to do, nor is it helpful. Just stop it.
| No idea what foundation that is. You will of course be able to substantiate the accusation you are making here? |
I don't expect you to take my word for it, but here's an article of mine to get you started: http://www.davehitt.com/2007/wooden.html |
So they're a political organization doing the exact opposite of the tobacco industry. Why should I care about them?
No, I understand that completely. You can't prove that a specific person's illness is the direct result of exposure, you can only approximate if a risk is increased from that exposure. In the case of direct smoking and lung cancer the RR is enormous, somewhere between 6.0 and 8.0 last I checked, but you're right, you can't say absolutely that a three pack a day smoker's lung cancer came from smoking. But the probability is pretty damn high.
Likewise, blaming a non-smokers lung cancer on SHS has such a ridiculously low probability that it's a foolish assumption. |
You still don't seem to understand the concept. You still talk about the cigarettes or smoke as a direct cause in a deterministic way, instead of looking at it as one factor that increases or decreases your risk.
And you are mixing up the size of the effect versus the probability that this link is a risk factor. You cannot determine whether a link is plausible or implausible determined on the size of the effect.
| Ah, the American Cancer society is now suddenly suspect? |
Not suddenly. They've been at the forefront of this nonsense for a very long time.
| On what data do you base your implication that the ACS was only interested in studie |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 01/17/2009 15:50:48 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2009 : 21:59:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
...there's not much point in continuing this conversation with you. |
By the way, this seems to be a pattern. You've brought as much evidence into this discussion as you did for the CRA and the New Deal (not much at all), and when called on it you either vanish or say something like "it's time to move on," insinuating that the problem is somehow on my end of the discussion. But it's not my fault that you can't or won't support your ideas with evidence. And obviously, I'm not the only one here noting your deficiency in this regard.
You've got your own blog, you certainly don't need to be wasting our bandwidth here with your wild conjectures and your arguments from ignorant incredulity, do you? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 15:21:03 [Permalink]
|
| Look, even if smokers inhale a "dose" 1,200 times as large as non-smokers, is it fair to expose non-smokers to even that small a risk when they gain no benefit whatsoever? This is the public health policy question. |
No one is forced to be in a smoky environment any more. The benefit of being a bartender or waitress in a smoking bar, as opposed to being unemployed or seeing your tips drop by 80% when the smoke free laws go in, is, for most people in that profession, much higher than the miniscule, barely measurable (and most likely non-existent) risk from SHS. This is a private property issue even more than a health issue. Smoking bans have destroyed thousands of businesses and eliminated thousands of jobs. All in the name of keeping the nicotine nannies happy.
In response to your request for evidence of the anti's dishonesty, here are several different stories:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/badforbiz/category/other/lies/
You can also consider that they've given awards to the perpetrators of the Helena fraud, that they regularly lie about smoking bans being good for business (those links are from my blog which has excerpts from about 400 articles about business that have been devastated and often destroyed by bans) and of course, we have this recent lovely little Third Hand Smoke fiasco. You regularly hear "experts" make the claim that working in a smoky environment is the same as smoking a half a pack a day, or a pack a day, or two packs a day. The numbers are inconsistent because they're pulling them out of their ass. And I have never seen a reporter question that proclamation, not once. These are not occasional missteps, this is a widespread pattern of dishonest behavior.
For an even longer, much more detailed list, I refer you to a blog by Michael Siegal. He is a tobacco control advocate – he believes SHS is dangerous and is in favor of smoking bans – but he's so disgusted by the pervasive dishonesty of his fellow miscreants he points it out whenever he can. He's never at a loss for material. They don't like him so much any more.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
| then I agree with the ACS assessement of Enstrom and Kabat. Basically, their criticism is that both the exposure assessment and the selection of cases is selective, inaccurate and incomplete. |
Think about it for a minute. Consider that Enstrom and Kabat did account for more widespread smoking in the early years of the study, and then consider that a non-smoker living with a smoker would get a much larger dose of SHS, regardless of other exposure, than they would in a non-smoking home. Also consider that the ACS was dissing their own data which was used to calculate the numbers.
That is one of the few excuses that appear to have a rational basis. Most nanny organizations simply insisted the study was useless because it was "tobacco funded."
| when called on it you either vanish or say something like "it's time to move on," insinuating that the problem is somehow on my end of the discussion. |
Dave, you proved you were incapable of understanding (or accepting, I'm not sure which) the role the CRA played in the current economic meltdown. It was the first step, which set it all in motion. It would not have happened if the CRA hadn't existed. It would not have happened if Clinton didn't put the program (which the banks had adapted to by then) on steroids. After going over and over and over that with you, it was time to move on. I used to argue evolution with fundies, and usually gave up after a while (usually when a particular thread stopped being amusing). They can't understand, they refuse to understand, so it's just a waste my time and theirs. I don't bother with them any more, because it's no longer amusing.
And I'm getting to that point with this conversation. The instance that dose doesn't matter, and the instance that such minuscule exposure to both the vapors and particulates (which was used to calculate the exposure in the real field tests) of SHS could cause such a huge increase in risk is simply ridiculous.
Hey, maybe SHS is like reverse homeopathy! Instead of microscopic, barely measurable doses curing you, it kills you. Magically. Yeah, that's the ticket. |
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 16:17:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
No one is forced to be in a smoky environment any more. |
The irony of that statement in light of the fact that you felt slighted when it was suggested that you move if you don't approve of the U.S. government is quite tasty.| The benefit of being a bartender or waitress in a smoking bar, as opposed to being unemployed or seeing your tips drop by 80% when the smoke free laws go in, is, for most people in that profession, much higher than the miniscule, barely measurable (and most likely non-existent) risk from SHS. This is a private property issue even more than a health issue. Smoking bans have destroyed thousands of businesses and eliminated thousands of jobs. All in the name of keeping the nicotine nannies happy. |
Yeah, try telling that to the bar owners in Montgomery County, MD, who (within the last year) had to admit that the anti-smoking ordinances enacted there seem to have led to an increase in business, over and above what would have been expected had the laws not been passed. Where is your evidence of all this job and business loss? Do you have a list of businesses that have closed due to anti-SHS laws?
I'll agree that any law that led to the closing of a "cigar bar" or something similar was over-the-top ridiculous. But I'm talking about the average restaurant or bar that's not dedicated to smoking itself as a business model.| Dave, you proved you were incapable of understanding (or accepting, I'm not sure which) the role the CRA played in the current economic meltdown. It was the first step, which set it all in motion. It would not have happened if the CRA hadn't existed. It would not have happened if Clinton didn't put the program (which the banks had adapted to by then) on steroids. After going over and over and over that with you, it was time to move on. |
But you didn't go "over and over and over that" with me, you just repeated evidence-free assertions (like you did just now, again). Your magical mantras for the economic crash. You can't blame your failures on me. (Well, you can try, but it's nothing more than a rhetorical trick that's rather transparently dishonest.)| I used to argue evolution with fundies, and usually gave up after a while (usually when a particular thread stopped being amusing). They can't understand, they refuse to understand, so it's just a waste my time and theirs. I don't bother with them any more, because it's no longer amusing. |
Yes, and that's the point I'm now making about you.| And I'm getting to that point with this conversation. |
Too late, I compared you to a creationist first. Nyah, nyah, nyah.| The instance that dose doesn't matter... |
I'm sure you meant "insistence," but either way, you are arguing against something I never said.| ...and the instance that such minuscule exposure to both the vapors and particulates (which was used to calculate the exposure in the real field tests) of SHS could cause such a huge increase in risk is simply ridiculous. |
(Again, "insistence?" No matter.) That is ridiculous, which is why I never said such a thing.| Hey, maybe SHS is like reverse homeopathy! Instead of microscopic, barely measurable doses curing you, it kills you. Magically. Yeah, that's the ticket. |
And now here you're ridiculing instead of arguing. Because you've got nothing. You've had a knee-jerk reaction to people who disagree with you, and so instead of trying to understand the points of contention, and then bringing sound argument to answer them, you bring strawmen and abuse. You, Hittman, are the Ben Stein of the anti-anti-smoking crowd. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 16:34:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
...and the instance that such minuscule exposure to both the vapors and particulates (which was used to calculate the exposure in the real field tests) of SHS could cause such a huge increase in risk is simply ridiculous. |
Wait a minute, wait a minute!
"Huge increase in risk?" I thought it was so small that the relative risk was actually insignificant and should be ignored? 1.2 RR is a "huge" increase, now?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 16:36:38 [Permalink]
|
Reading Hittman's latest post, I think that I have discovered the main problem with him. He can't read. Whenever someone makes a claim, it comes back completely distorted. Heck, he even fails to properly read the articles he himself enlists as support for his assertions (re publication bias), for example. Morton's demon in play perhaps?
edited to add: This might also explain why his understandings of statistics, epidemiology, toxicology, risk relations, exposure assessment and ethics are invariably flawed. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 01/18/2009 16:42:12 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 16:40:56 [Permalink]
|
| Actually; 1.2 RR is pretty big, it means that people are 20% more likely to develop the condition, nothing to sneeze at. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 16:43:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
Actually; 1.2 RR is pretty big, it means that people are 20% more likely to develop the condition, nothing to sneeze at.
|
It is according to Hittman. If you're not 10 times more likely to drop dead at the spot, it's not worth his time. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 16:50:20 [Permalink]
|
| In response to Dave's observation above-- and I admit that this is totally anecdotal-- but I REALLY enjoy going out where I live and NOT having to deal with smoke. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 16:51:34 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, if 170,000 people are diagnosed with lung cancer every year, then some 15,400 will be non-smokers, and a 1.2 RR means that SHS might be responsible for 2,600 of them. Annually. In the U.S.
For that, we're shutting down "thousands of businesses?" [/mock stunned reaction]
Hittman's got the same technique that any good lobbyist has: the same number is either tiny or huge, depending on whether you want to instill shock or incredulity in your audience. Unfortunately, Hittman is making a huge mistake in not knowing his audience here, and so expects us to buy his baloney. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/18/2009 : 17:05:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
In response to Dave's observation above-- and I admit that this is totally anecdotal-- but I REALLY enjoy going out where I live and NOT having to deal with smoke. |
As a smoker, I enjoy not seeing lipstick-covered butts and chewing gum in an ashtray that got missed when my table was last bussed.
But really, the best part of smoking bans is that I've met people who I never would have otherwise met. I mean, I work in a building that's large enough that when I've made friends out in the smoking "lounge" who have later quit smoking, I go from seeing them every day to seeing them perhaps once or twice a year.
Or, take a restaurant situation: if I could smoke at my table, I'd only socialize with the people I went to dinner with. Stepping outside to light up, however, and I'll chat with other customers or maybe the owner - people I'd never have an excuse to talk to if I spent the whole night at the table.
Dulles airport has glassed-in rooms for smoking, near the gates, thanks to the smoking bans. If it weren't for them, I never would have met a fascinating guy who (when I met him) was travelling to LA to shoot a second episode of Junkyard Wars. (Shame that I don't recall his name, anymore.)
Smoking bans are - for smokers - a sort of social blender, in which people who would never otherwise interact begin with "at least the weather is nice" and go from there. I'm all for 'em. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 05:21:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
In response to Dave's observation above-- and I admit that this is totally anecdotal-- but I REALLY enjoy going out where I live and NOT having to deal with smoke. |
As a smoker, I enjoy not seeing lipstick-covered butts and chewing gum in an ashtray that got missed when my table was last bussed.
But really, the best part of smoking bans is that I've met people who I never would have otherwise met. I mean, I work in a building that's large enough that when I've made friends out in the smoking "lounge" who have later quit smoking, I go from seeing them every day to seeing them perhaps once or twice a year.
Or, take a restaurant situation: if I could smoke at my table, I'd only socialize with the people I went to dinner with. Stepping outside to light up, however, and I'll chat with other customers or maybe the owner - people I'd never have an excuse to talk to if I spent the whole night at the table.
Dulles airport has glassed-in rooms for smoking, near the gates, thanks to the smoking bans. If it weren't for them, I never would have met a fascinating guy who (when I met him) was travelling to LA to shoot a second episode of Junkyard Wars. (Shame that I don't recall his name, anymore.)
Smoking bans are - for smokers - a sort of social blender, in which people who would never otherwise interact begin with "at least the weather is nice" and go from there. I'm all for 'em.
|
In Ireland it gave rise to a new term: "Smirting". Since going outside for a smoke during a party is an excellent time for flirting. Smoking + Flirting: Smirting  |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 06:59:00 [Permalink]
|
I was actually going to bring that up, too. When hanging out with a group of people, the smokers will periodically go out and have their quick smoke, and the non-smokers stay inside. This changes the dynamics of the group-- if only for a few minutes-- and allows you to have conversations with people you otherwise weren't engaged in conversation with.
And this brings up another point-- I've never had a smoking friend say that we can't go out because there's no smoking. Even when I lived in Baltimore and my usual hangout was no smoking, but there was no city-wide ban, no one said "I won't go there" to me. We went out, and if they wanted a smoke, the stepped outside. And, as far as I know (I was just in Baltimore a few months ago), it's still in business... |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Third-hand smoke
