tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post2548771217508226791..comments2023-10-17T15:56:22.827+01:00Comments on Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: Pub trade still ignoring the elephant in the roomChristopher Snowdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comBlogger110125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-1910656815384890362010-07-25T12:40:10.705+01:002010-07-25T12:40:10.705+01:00And you take care too, Junican.
RT.And you take care too, Junican.<br /><br />RT.Rollo Tommasinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-11648185058569232332010-07-24T21:30:53.938+01:002010-07-24T21:30:53.938+01:00Rollo.
I too was thinking that enough is enough.
...Rollo.<br /><br />I too was thinking that enough is enough.<br />Let us hope that none of us ever get brained by a falling meteorite!<br /><br />Good luck.Junicannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-8775515425424561802010-07-24T05:13:32.095+01:002010-07-24T05:13:32.095+01:00“So, just so you know, i am unlikely to contribute...<i>“So, just so you know, i am unlikely to contribute any further to this thread.”</i><br /><br />Hallelujah! Hallelujah! H_A__L_L_E___L_U_____J_A_H !!The mass debater moves on…… <b>The__mass__debater__moves__on</b> ! Such words…..delightful words…….words with uplifting promise……O, they are a salve to the soul. :) Let us savour, gently swirl in the mind, this glorious moment and give thanks – many thanks - that we are spared any further inanity….any further bludgeoning of sensibility. (Did I say <i>Hallelujah</i> ?) <b>HALLELUJAH</b>!<br /><br />P.S. Just to be clear, Rollo. You are arrogant enough to believe that my second-to-last post was a compliment. It wasn’t! You are a typical shallow, materialist “thinker”, having no psychological insight. At this time, you are a self-terrified, hateful man - a sickly, foolish mind very much in its element during sickly, foolish times. If I may borrow from a most useful text: There are none so blind as those that <b>will not</b> see – as those that will not-to-see (Hint, Rollo. That’s not a compliment either, but a call to correction).Anon1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-53150475627986882452010-07-23T23:56:17.715+01:002010-07-23T23:56:17.715+01:00This thread has now been running a week. I have d...This thread has now been running a week. I have done as much as I can to respond to points made. But now I am increasingly finding I am either repeating myself or being thrown far, far from the original purpose of this thread.<br /><br />So, just so you know, i am unlikely to contribute any further to this thread.Rollo Tommasinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-50545959845334098482010-07-23T23:54:41.463+01:002010-07-23T23:54:41.463+01:00Anon1 is just casting his net wide for anything to...Anon1 is just casting his net wide for anything to blame the health lobby for, whether or not the issue has anything to do with this debate. Most of his references don't even apply to the UK!<br /><br />As for his eugenics nonsense, I have seen several people refer to "the Godber blueprint", but they have never been able to reproduce everything that Sir George Godber actually said at that 1975 conference. Even that rampant-antismoking website simply shows excerpts. hardly a sound basis on which to argue that an ideology was forged from this event.Rollo Tommasinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-29630780614405058162010-07-23T23:48:27.343+01:002010-07-23T23:48:27.343+01:00Fredrik: As I stated in my previous post but one, ...Fredrik: As I stated in my previous post but one, “if it looks at all likely that something could kill other people unnecessarily, I want my government to take reasonable steps to minimise risk.”<br /><br />As far as traffic is concerned, banning private car ownership is not “reasonable” – the public would not tolerate such a proposition. But governments have taken many “reasonable” steps to reduce the number of RTA fatalities – e.g. driving tests, speed limits, criminal sanctions against dangerous driving, redesigning roads and junctions, requiring that cars are built in accordance with certain safety standards.<br /><br />Likewise with smoking, no government has banned the act of smoking – and I certainly wouldn’t advocate such a draconian step. What governments have now done is take reasonable steps to reduce the risk of passive smoking, by restricting smoking in enclosed public places.<br /><br />I say the evidence on passive smoking is “pretty much” beyond reasonable doubt because it has never actually been tested officially to that standard. But, while some of it can be challenged, it is convincing overall. I make no apologies for pointing accusing fingers at individuals who choose to ignore or downplay the likelihood that passive smoking harms the health of other people.<br /><br />Anyway, leaving arguments aside – hope you and Mrs Eich have had a good start to your weekend.Rollo Tommasinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-43982718307370928892010-07-23T23:47:53.528+01:002010-07-23T23:47:53.528+01:00Junican: In response to your points….
1. You say ...Junican: In response to your points….<br /><br />1. You say “Most of the points that you stated as contributory causes for the closure of pubs after the smoking ban was introduced existed prior to July 2007.” Some did; but even they got much worse soon after the English laws started. Besides, if you are ruling out factors that started before 1 July 2007, then you have to exclude the effect of the smoking laws which were in force in 3 of the UK nations before then.<br /><br />2. I actually agree with you that property values do not closely reflect pub profits, and that profits are more key to the survival of pubs. But it was Chris Snowdon who introduced the issue of share prices to this debate, so you really ought to take the issue up with them. As far as share prices are concerned, the value of pubco shares got a massive lift from REITS laws around 2005 which made pubs much more attractive investment opportunities. It created a share price bubble which had to pop, which it did in late July 2007. As far as I can tell, the institutions were already familiar with the investment potential of landowning companies, as a result of which the value of their shares neither grew as much pre-2007 nor fell as much post-2007.<br /><br />3. This is where your argument is particularly weak. Your reading of the Boffetta (WHO) study is completely wrong. It actually concluded: <br /><br />“The risk from ever exposure to spousal ETS was consistent with the combined available evidence from European studies, but it was lower than some previous estimates—a result that could be explained<br />by the large number of subjects whose exposure to ETS ended several years earlier.”<br /><br />Yes, by referring to the Boffetta study alone, you ARE cherry-picking. By contrast, the major meta-analyses (e.g. the 2004 IARC monograph and the 2006 US Surgeon General’s report) take account of all relevant and robust studies available when their studies were taking place – including the Boffetta study itself. And actually, the Boffetta study was technically a meta-analysis itself, as it combined the results of several distinct studies from across Europe. So you’re getting yourself tied up in knots on this issue.<br /><br />4. I think we have to agree to disagree on this one. Not even Chris Snowdon has taken me to task for basing my comments on the understanding that his post is about the smoking laws being the elephant in the room. Thank you for acknowledging Chris Snowdon’s comment about the ‘smoking ban shaped elephant in the room’.<br /><br />5. I really hope we do not see the decimation of the pub sector. In the horrible event that it did, we should surely look to all the factors – long-term and short-term – that led to it. Not just the straw that broke the camel’s back.Rollo Tommasinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-71380023716851266002010-07-23T20:20:44.199+01:002010-07-23T20:20:44.199+01:00Instead, you focus solely on the rights of smokers...<i>Instead, you focus solely on the rights of smokers. Never mind that smokers are still free to light up whenever they want, just as long as they do so somewhere where they are not risking harm to other people.</i><br /><br />Rollo, you must be living in a Tobacco Control hole. Have you no idea what is going on around the world? Do you understand what a bigoted frenzy – a bandwagon effect – is?<br />Here’s just a sampling. See if your strained cognitive system can take in some new information.<br />Banned from fostering:<br />http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/Smokers-face-adoption-and-fostering.6075156.jp<br />Bans in apartment buildings: (Note particularly the comment - Smoking is allowed while walking down the street, but the smoker must keep moving).<br />http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20100718/articles/100719611&tc=yahoo<br /><br />http://westsidespirit.com/?p=3303<br />http://www.thespec.com/News/CanadaWorld/article/656171<br />http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_11704822<br /><br />Employment bans:<br />http://www.elpasotimes.com/health/ci_15502206<br />http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583291,00.html<br />http://www.ajc.com/news/where-theres-smoke-theres-566156.html<br />http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/07/19/iran.tobacco.jobs/<br />http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/not-hiring-smokers-is-discriminatory-say-groups-560365.html?cxtype=rss_local-news<br /><br /><br />Other:<br />http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2009/06/24/newsstory13349183t0.asp<br />http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=4332<br />http://www.lovelifechristian.com/article/Calif.%20moves%20to%20ban%20smoking%20at%20all%20state%20parks/?k=j83s12y12h94s27k02<br />http://www.tobacco.org/articles/category/outdoors/<br />http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/health-organisations-push-to-ban-smoking-outdoors/story-e6frf7kx-1225856592635<br />http://www.ocregister.com/news/smoking-238203-city-parks.html<br />http://www.charlotteobserver.com/local/story/1013210.html<br />http://tobaccoreporter.com/home.php?id=498&art=2573<br />http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2010/07/new_allegiance_health_policy_s.html<br /><br />Rollo, do you understand what anti-smoking means? It means ANTI smoking. Do you not understand that numerous organizations in the Public Health network, including the US Office of the Surgeon General, have been committed to a SmokeFree World for decades? And this is a continuation of the eugenics of early-1900s USA and Nazi Germany. The intent is to denormalize, stigmatize, and ostracize those that continue to smoke. The eugenicists could not care less that they promote bigotry and social division. They could not care less that there is a cost to business. Their only concern is their deranged ideology. (See Godber Blueprint www.rampant-antismoking.com )Anon1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-32907556421493642372010-07-23T18:22:41.907+01:002010-07-23T18:22:41.907+01:00"But I am stunned that you would be prepared ...<i>"But I am stunned that you would be prepared to accept another scenario where there was strong but not overwhelming evidence that some activity or behaviour was putting the lives of other people at risk." </i> Rollo.<br />Yes I do every time I get in my car in stead of using public transport which I suspect you do too.<br />Every year ~3,000 people get killed by drivers who are too selfish to just hop on a bus. Provable in a court of law beyond reasonable doubt that there is a causal link<br />between driving and deaths of other road users.<br /><br /><strong>Driving Kills</strong><br /><br /><strong>Driving harms others around you.</strong><br /><br /><strong> We can help you quit driving and hop on a Bus</strong><br /><br />The evidence is over whelming and much more convincing than "<strong>pretty much</strong> beyond reasonable doubt". <br /><br />Do you think the lady I mentioned earlier was told that her cryptogenic lung cancer was "pretty much" caused by her working environment?<br /><br />There is something very <strong>tawdry</strong> about that.<br /><br />"Pretty much" is not good enough when I am accused of being complicit in mass murder.<br /><br />Not nearly good enough Rollo.<br /><br />As you like to tell others "Must try harder".<br /><br /><br />As it's warm and dry - I'm off to the pub to meet the current Mrs Eich.Fredrik Eichnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-72339263256644030822010-07-23T17:53:52.371+01:002010-07-23T17:53:52.371+01:00Rollo.
I am coming back to your reply to mine – I...Rollo.<br /><br />I am coming back to your reply to mine – I did not have time last night.<br /><br />Here are the faults in your arguments:<br /><br />1. Most of the points that you stated as contributory causes for the closure of pubs after the smoking ban was introduced existed prior to July 2007.<br />2. As regards share values:<br />The property companies that I have named:<br /> Loss of value between end 06 & mid 08<br /><br /><br />Big Yellow a little more than half<br />Brit Land less than two thirds<br />Capital Shop one quarter<br /><br />The Pubcos:<br /><br />Punch Taverns nearly four fifths<br />M & B nearly four fifths<br />These figures are rather rough, of course, but are sufficient for our purposes. It is reasonable to ask the question, “What accounts for the greater loss of value in pubco shares if it is not loss of profits? Further, I think that I should say that property values are really not very relevant. Property values do not close pubs. What closes pubs is lack of customers. <br /><br />3. The WHO study showed that no causal link could be established between second hand smoke and the various life threatening diseases stated therein - unless the quotations that I have read are fabrications. Have big tobacco fabricated a fraudulent WHO report? Also, quoting that report was not cherry picking. It was a very big and ‘official’ report. What is effectively cherry picking is to create a meta analysis of a large number of small reports and then to claim that it is anything other than a small study which is an average of all the other small studies. Also, the phrase ‘there is no such thing as a safe level of exposure to second hand tobacco smoke’ is attributed to the Surgeon General of the USA at the time, Richard Carmona in 2006. Now……. in the UK 500,000 people die each year, 3000 of which deaths could putatively be ‘saved’ (like what Patricia Hewitt said). Since the vast majority of those people who died will almost certainly have been smokers of have been exposed to tobacco smoke at some point in their lives, why not claim also that the other 497,000 lives could also have been ‘saved’? Why not? I mean, the Surgeon General of the USA said that there is NO (none, zero, zilch) safe level of exposure. So the Surgeon General was talking crap as are all the other politicians et al.<br />4. I concede that Snowdon used the phrase ‘smoking ban shaped elephant in the room’ – I did not observe that specific sentence in his blog; but that does not detract from the reality that his article was, in its substance, about collusion between the pubcos and government. The pubcos have been fiddling while their pub estates have been burning.<br />5. I think that you missed the point about the possibility of a pubco going bust. I did actually mention in that paragraph the decimation of pubs. The point that I was making was that it would be interesting to see what would be the outcome of the sudden closure of thousands of pubs all at the same time.<br /><br />As for the rest, may I refer you to my latest previous post above.Junicannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-63710157562627854522010-07-23T16:41:12.095+01:002010-07-23T16:41:12.095+01:00Fredrik: You are still trying to place undue weigh...Fredrik: You are still trying to place undue weight on the McTear verdict, despite the fact that it was never the purpose of that court case to assess all available evidence to determine whether smoking is harmful or not. <br /><br />You are trying to attach a lower status to epidemiological evidence than animal experiments, based on nothing more than a quote in the course of Lord Nimmo Smith’s judgement. A quote which doesn’t actually reflect his thinking. His reasoning for saying “The absence of support from the results of experiments on animals is not critical, but it is significant” was simply the obvious point that it meant that Mrs McTear’s scientific case was based fully on epidemiological evidence. He wasn’t stating her case was necessarily any less strong for that.<br /><br />As I said before, the McTear judgment does not consider available evidence holistically. However, the US Surgeon General’s report of 2006 and the IARC monograph of 2004 are holistic – and indeed both discuss results from animal experiments as well as epidemiological studies. Both conclude that passive smoking is harmful.<br /><br />You have now cited the Ioannidis article numerous times. But you have not yet shown what relevance it has to the science on passive smoking. Ioannidis does not criticise SHS studies. You are simply trying to taint them by association.<br /><br />You say “I want our government to prove that there is real and significant risk beyond reasonable doubt”. As I said before, when it comes to long-term lung cancer and heart disease risks, the evidence about passive smoking is pretty much beyond reasonable doubt anyway. But I am stunned that you would be prepared to accept another scenario where there was strong but not overwhelming evidence that some activity or behaviour was putting the lives of other people at risk. The likely prospect of willingly accepting a position where lives were likely being lost until that extra, lily-gilding piece of evidence became available doesn’t trouble you? Because that would be a good description of tawdry behaviour in my book.<br /><br />Instead, you focus solely on the rights of smokers. Never mind that smokers are still free to light up whenever they want, just as long as they do so somewhere where they are not risking harm to other people. Who knows? Perhaps there is another solution which provides necessary protection for bar staff and punters, while allowing some scope for smoking in a way which the pub industry accepts (in particular, by ensuring a level playing field). But nobody has yet found that alternative.Rollo Tommasinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-6437953200881863442010-07-23T14:13:21.945+01:002010-07-23T14:13:21.945+01:00what part of my last post don't you understand...<i>what part of my last post don't you understand?</i><br /><br />Pretty much all of it.<br /><br /><i>He must decide on his interpretation of the evidence given to him</i><br /><br />Yes, evidence given by some of the finest harm theorists the world has to offer. He actually<br />pointed out that there is so much evidence that he could not possibly look at all of it, which is probably<br />why he relied on people such as Sir Richard Doll and others.<br /><br /><i>It was to decide on 5 different questions.</i><br />Including the existance of a causal link between smoking and lung cancer.<br />ITL said they were not aware of a causal link between smoking and lung cancer and after hearing the evidence of Doll<br />and others, the judge ruled in favour of ITL.<br /><br /><i>Lord Nimmo Smith did not "look holistically at the available evidence [of passive smoking studies]".</i><br /><br />Thats right, he looked at a broad range of evidence on smoking not just epi studies and meta analysis.<br /><br /><br /><i>Put it this way Fredrik. Not even the tobacco companies or FOREST claim this court case shows that smoking and passive smoking are harmless. </i><br /><br />Rollo, this is not childrens' News TV. The "merchants of death" need to preserve the first line of defence - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volenti_non_fit_injuria" rel="nofollow">volenti non fit injuria</a><br />Hence ITL etc "does not deny" that smoking causes lung cancer.<br /><br /><i>Since when was a scientific conclusion flawed by being based on epidemiological evidence? Besides, there have been animal experiments on smoking and passive smoking, as the IARC monograph shows.</i><br /><br />See the Mc Tear quote from my last post.<br /><br /><i>I want my government to take reasonable steps to minimise risk.</i><br /><br />I want our government to prove that there is real and significant risk beyond <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/" rel="nofollow">resonable doubt</a> before it bows to the demands of anti smoking groups<br />and abolishes every non-smokefree pub and restaurant in the country. If that ever happens then we can talk about smoking rooms and air quality standards.<br /><br /><i><a href="http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32526" rel="nofollow">Having a view about a cause of your illness is not “tawdry”</a></i><br />I did not say that it was. It's just that I belive there could have been plenty of professional people that could have pointed out<br />that it is <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/vol317/issue7170/images/large/liub3901.f3r.jpeg" rel="nofollow">extremely unlikely</a> that her job caused her illness but for some reason neglected or forgot to tell her while she was campaigning for smoke-free laws. That would be a lot worse <br />than “tawdry” and if true a reminder as to the lengths people are prepared to go to set aside 0% of inside public space for smoking. Pro-choice people are not asking for<br />100% of public space to smoke in, just some space.<br /><br />Anyway, Rollo, on Saturday night I shall be smoking in a pub in England all night long. This tiny Victorian pub was a nice earner pre smoking ban but the landlord took up a full time job<br />to pay for his pub after the smoking ban. He finally, thank goodness, has given up and is having his last night and has invited everyone to drink the place dry and smoke like chimneys. We shall see if we can all give him a nice little send off. Another part of the history of my life gone for no good reason.Fredrik Eichnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-19483617419007289462010-07-23T12:18:06.881+01:002010-07-23T12:18:06.881+01:00Junican
You are quite right, the ethic is quite d...Junican<br /><br />You are quite right, the ethic is quite different from that preached by Rollo and his ilk. Talking him is akin to trying to persuade Ian Paisley to revere the pope. He is not capable of a different mindset, although like you I admire his intellectual agility.<br /><br />There is something akin to a religious divide here. In terms of religion I am neutral, but in this argument I am not. When one side deprives the other of any social recreational space outside their own homes, and then claims a monopoly on common sense, consideration, care about children and the general population and an exclusive understanding of the issues in question and the rules of the debate, you have to realise that things are one-sided. <br /><br />When it is claimed that 'the debate is over', things are certainly one-sided. The debate will never be over: people will never try to stop dominating their fellow beings in the belief that they know best.Belindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16284836559314332001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-24435413123883862452010-07-23T05:48:21.051+01:002010-07-23T05:48:21.051+01:00Rollo.
You are very, very clever. I wish that I w...Rollo.<br /><br />You are very, very clever. I wish that I was as clever as you. I really do. The ability it argue as resolutely as you have with so many people has to be admired. But you have made a specific serious error in you response to my statement and that is:<br /><br />“If your claims about smokers deserting pubs because of the smoking laws were correct, these off-licenses should have thrived from new business that these smokers created”<br /><br />Erm….no. There is no such assumption to be made. But that is not my point. As regards ‘smokers deserting pubs’, there is no need for statistical analysis. Since the smoking ban was introduced into England, pubs have closed in vast numbers all over the country. To deny that these closures have not occurred as a result of the smoking ban is to deny the evidence of one’s own eyes. Within two miles of my own home, several pubs which have been in existence for decades, if not centuries, are now boarded up hulks. These pubs have become boarded up hulks during the last three years. That is fact – fact – fact. It may be that the smoking ban was the last straw, but is it not the last straw that breaks the camel’s back? No one can be sure that these pubs may not have closed anyway, but the FACT is that they became boarded up hulks AFTER the ban was enacted. Not only that, but IT IS A MATTER OF FACT that people who used to go regularly to my local pubs do not now do so. Even non-smokers have stopped going. I do not go as much as I used to because pubs have become boring places. Boring PUBLIC PRIVATE PROPERTY GOVERNMENT REGULATED PLACES. They are no longer welcoming places in which to enjoy one’s leisure time. Boring, boring, boring. <br /><br />More than anything, however, those of us who do not accept this ban do so because we do not accept the ETHICS of ASH, CRUK et al. Nor do we accept yours. We refuse to go and spend our money at our local pubs in order to provide places for the zealots to go on the odd occasion to have a snack and a half of bitter or a glass of wine. We go there to enjoy the company of like minded individuals. The ETHIC is our friendly acquaintance and our freedom from interference from statistical mumbo jumbo and crazy professors. Do you understand? We do not want people like you messing about with our personal lives! ASH, CRUK et al with their bogus surveys, lies and lobbying, are irrelevant. In this respect, each man is an island. Please do not give me shit about ‘protecting children’ – these children are OUR children and not YOUR statistics.Junicannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-66642807964950482752010-07-23T05:47:46.722+01:002010-07-23T05:47:46.722+01:00Rollo.
You are very, very clever. I wish that I w...Rollo.<br /><br />You are very, very clever. I wish that I was as clever as you. I really do. The ability it argue as resolutely as you have with so many people has to be admired. But you have made a specific serious error in you response to my statement and that is:<br /><br />“If your claims about smokers deserting pubs because of the smoking laws were correct, these off-licenses should have thrived from new business that these smokers created”<br /><br />Erm….no. There is no such assumption to be made. But that is not my point. As regards ‘smokers deserting pubs’, there is no need for statistical analysis. Since the smoking ban was introduced into England, pubs have closed in vast numbers all over the country. To deny that these closures have not occurred as a result of the smoking ban is to deny the evidence of one’s own eyes. Within two miles of my own home, several pubs which have been in existence for decades, if not centuries, are now boarded up hulks. These pubs have become boarded up hulks during the last three years. That is fact – fact – fact. It may be that the smoking ban was the last straw, but is it not the last straw that breaks the camel’s back? No one can be sure that these pubs may not have closed anyway, but the FACT is that they became boarded up hulks AFTER the ban was enacted. Not only that, but IT IS A MATTER OF FACT that people who used to go regularly to my local pubs do not now do so. Even non-smokers have stopped going. I do not go as much as I used to because pubs have become boring places. Boring PUBLIC PRIVATE PROPERTY GOVERNMENT REGULATED PLACES. They are no longer welcoming places in which to enjoy one’s leisure time. Boring, boring, boring. <br /><br />More than anything, however, those of us who do not accept this ban do so because we do not accept the ETHICS of ASH, CRUK et al. Nor do we accept yours. We refuse to go and spend our money at our local pubs in order to provide places for the zealots to go on the odd occasion to have a snack and a half of bitter or a glass of wine. We go there to enjoy the company of like minded individuals. The ETHIC is our friendly acquaintance and our freedom from interference from statistical mumbo jumbo and crazy professors. Do you understand? We do not want people like you messing about with our personal lives! ASH, CRUK et al with their bogus surveys, lies and lobbying, are irrelevant. In this respect, each man is an island. Please do not give me shit about ‘protecting children’ – these children are OUR children and not YOUR statistics.Junicannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-82034206133758450972010-07-22T21:11:37.306+01:002010-07-22T21:11:37.306+01:00Fredrik: your point 1: what part of my last post d...Fredrik: your point 1: what part of my last post don't you understand? The Nimmo Smith judgement is totally irrelevant to this debate. First, the judge was not allowed to make his own investigations. In fact he's generally not even allowed to probe witnesses for more info. He must decide on his interpretation of the evidence given to him - very different from the evidence available. He actually stated in his judgement that he was unable to consider much “primary literature” as he called it (i.e. specific research studies) because it wasn’t presented to him. So, going back to your original point, Lord Nimmo Smith did not "look holistically at the available evidence [of passive smoking studies]".<br /><br />Furthermore, the task for the judge was not simply to consider if smoking is harmful. It was to decide on 5 different questions.<br /><br />Put it this way Fredrik. Not even the tobacco companies or FOREST claim this court case shows that smoking and passive smoking are harmless. Even if you don't believe me, doesn't their silence on this show how off the mark your argument is?<br /><br />Your point 2: Since when was a scientific conclusion flawed by being based on epidemiological evidence? Besides, there have been animal experiments on smoking and passive smoking, as the IARC monograph shows.<br /><br />Your point 3: if I were on trial, I would expect high standards of evidence. I'd also expect a burden of proof based on being innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.<br /><br />But this debate isn't about a criminal trial. It's about understanding how likely it is that passive smoking kills. It still needs high standards of evidence. But if it looks at all likely that something could kill other people unnecessarily, I want my government to take reasonable steps to minimise risk. That's definitely true with passive smoking, where the evidence is pretty much beyond reasonable doubt anyway (at least for lung cancer and heart disease long term).<br /><br />Your point 4: Having a view about a cause of your illness is not “tawdry”. Having a view on this subject (whatever side of the fence you’re on) is not tawdry. What is tawdry is when people are would rather invent ridiculous burdens of proof in a desperate effort to claim their actions are harmless than take reasonable steps to protect the health of people when there's even the possibility they are harming them.Rollo Tommasinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-38376311949239483432010-07-22T21:09:00.418+01:002010-07-22T21:09:00.418+01:00DaveA: In your previous post you claimed “It is a ...DaveA: In your previous post you claimed “It is a medical impossibility for a non smoker to contract lung cancer from passive smoking.” I proved your claim was wrong. <br /><br />So what do you do now? Why, you just pretend you never said that in the first place. You just make a new claim “it appears while smokers have a G to T transversion, in non smokers it is a G to A transversion”. And guess what? This claim is just as wrong. The whole range of transversions, including G to A and G to T, apply to smokers AND non-smokers. It’s just that the proportions differ between the two groups (and it is due to MUCH more than the air quality in Silesia).<br /><br />There is nothing in any of the articles which show that passive smoking does not cause lung cancer. You have absolutely no basis for your claims.<br /><br />I suggest you read Chapter 7 of the IARC monograph, which sets out the evidence about passive smoking and lung cancer, including the studies into p53 transversions. It concludes (p.1271):<br />“Overall, the evidence from the meta-analyses is clear; adult nonsmokers exposed to<br />secondhand smoke have a higher risk for lung cancer.”<br /><br />It also states (p.1383): <br /><br />“The evidence from studies of nonsmokers exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke,<br />supported by other data from experimental systems, is compatible with the current<br />concept of tobacco-related carcinogenesis. According to this concept, tobacco smoke<br />carcinogens, regardless of the type of smoke in which they occur, are associated with<br />genetic effects that disrupt crucial biological processes of normal cellular growth and<br />differentiation in smokers as well as in nonsmokers.”<br /><br />http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/mono83-7B.pdf<br />http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol83/mono83-7D.pdfRollo Tommasinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-29526647522243560642010-07-22T12:19:12.364+01:002010-07-22T12:19:12.364+01:00Rollo,
1. It was not just Mrs McTear trying to co...Rollo,<br /><br />1. It was not just Mrs McTear trying to convince the judge it was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Doll" rel="nofollow">Sir Richard Doll</a> and others with fifty years of experimental data to back them up.<br /><br />2. Both radon and diesel(car exhaust) have been shown to have oncogenic effects in murine models at occupational levels of exposure. It is not true with whole tobacco smoke at any level of exposure - from the Mc Tear trial:<br /><br /><i>"So the animal experiments were of particular importance. The absence of support from the results of experiments on animals <strong>is not critical, but it is significant</strong>, because proof of the causal connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer therefore <strong>depends solely on the conclusions to be drawn from the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/" rel="nofollow">epidemiological studies</a></strong>"</i> (my link and emphasis)<br /><br />3. If I were on trial for a crime of attempted suicide or accused of bieng complicit in mass murder by others I would demand scientific proof and so would you. You may not think it a serious matter but <strong>I do </strong> and I will never forget or forgive it.<br /><br />4. You say "tawdry", ask your self this question: <br /><br /> What group of people convinced this lady that she got her lung cancer from work?<br /><br /> <a href="http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32526" rel="nofollow">"Why am I dying from lung cancer caused by second-hand smoke?"</a><br /> <br /> Do you think they neglected to tell her about HPV (25% of all non-small cell) ,radon daughters,diesel,medical radiation for example and most important of all there is a probability of one that people in the hospitality will die on lung cancer in any case?<br /> You want tawdry, I can give you tawdry in bucket loads.<br /> <br /><br />When this scientifically and morally unjustified smoking ban is repealed (or in the mean time amended), I shall not be "utterly inconsiderate"<br />because I will eat in non-smokefree restaurants and I shall drink in non-smokefree pubs. If neccessary we will build<br />our own new pubs and our own new restaurants - that way no one can claim that their environment is being infringed upon ever again. And if non-smokers<br />,like your good self, want to turn up - they will be welcome. I am sure there are millions of brave non-smokers out there willing to risk certain death<br />to enjoy our collective company - inside.Fredrik Eichnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-15404637461169361622010-07-22T11:32:55.240+01:002010-07-22T11:32:55.240+01:00OT, thanks to Blogger not threading
Fredrik, than...OT, thanks to Blogger not threading<br /><br />Fredrik, thank you for the link to McTear Vs ITL. It has been most illuminating, especially para 6.63 to 6.85 regarding the evidence of a Professor Friend, of which the following in para 6.73 is typical:<br /><br />"No evidence was however given by him or by any other witness about this study, so it was not part of the evidence in this case. Once again, this evidence from Professor Friend was no more than his ipse dixit. "<br /><br />Moral: You can hoodwink MPs, terrify the public and troll the intertubes as long as you like, but trying it on with a judge is another matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-61280826368482844582010-07-22T09:35:02.591+01:002010-07-22T09:35:02.591+01:00Rollo you are the gift that keeps on giving are yo...Rollo you are the gift that keeps on giving are you not?<br /><br />One of the reasons I am posting here is that I now have over 1,000 URLs and keeping them all tagged and accessible is getting harder. So all I have to do is come back to Velvet Glove.<br /><br />On the subject of more giving I followed up some of your links and it appears while smokers have a G to T transversion, in non smokers it is a G to A transversion. More proof that lung cancer is not the result of breathing in SHS.<br /><br />"We come to the conclusion that the p53 mutation spectra are different between smokers and non smokers."<br /><br />They also speculate that the any G to T transversion in non smokers is not from smoking anyway. Look for the reference to Silesian coal miners.<br /><br />The WHO/IARC set out to prove that active smoking caused lung cancer, science that I can agree with. Inadvertantly they also proved passive smoking does not cause lung cancer.<br /><br />"http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/22/3/367DaveAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07249090980650806030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-33591154771843625862010-07-22T08:18:27.560+01:002010-07-22T08:18:27.560+01:00You win again, Rollo. Could it be otherwise? The m...You win again, Rollo. Could it be otherwise? The mass debater notches up another victory. You’re just too clever – for me anyway. Your intellect, in its delicate negotiating of issues that would leave the ordinary man baffled, is breathtaking – a sight to behold. Thankful I should be to witness a marvel of humanity skillfully providing guidance to a lost world. Others might view you as a conceited, arrogant, haughty, incompetent, shallow, belligerent mentality. But not I! No, sir. I can at least muster enough sensibility to recognize brilliance when I see it. Therefore, O radiant one, many thanks to you.<br /><br />Happy mass debating!Anon1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-45272587387277922182010-07-22T07:35:44.334+01:002010-07-22T07:35:44.334+01:00Thank you Anon1.
You've proven my argument pe...Thank you Anon1.<br /><br />You've proven my argument perfectly.Rollo Tommasinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-804444343497796772010-07-22T04:27:33.389+01:002010-07-22T04:27:33.389+01:00Rollo,
I rest my case.
Your mule awaits......Rollo,<br /><br />I rest my case.<br /><br /><i>Your mule awaits......</i>Anon1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-46114004697542050972010-07-22T02:07:28.909+01:002010-07-22T02:07:28.909+01:00Good grief Anon1. Not only have you leapt wildly o...Good grief Anon1. Not only have you leapt wildly off-topic. Your post betrays how you have fallen hook, line and sinker for the pro-smoking conspiracy nonsense.<br /><br />You point to my statements about where the pro-smoking lobby has lied about the science behind passive smoke. Yet can you defend their lies? No.<br /><br />You talk about the lies of “anti-smokers”. Yet can you point to anything I have said on this thread which are lies? No.<br /><br />Instead, you spout out some vague “eugenics” nonsense. The obligatory Nazi reference is of course in there, even though passive smoking was first identified in the 1920s, before the Nazis came to government. I trust that, if you really oppose anything promoted by the Nazi government, you’ve never owned a VW and you never use motorways for your journeys.Rollo Tommasinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-1462413881389857532010-07-22T00:17:05.801+01:002010-07-22T00:17:05.801+01:00Per Rollo: Your account of the science is bogus – ...Per Rollo: <i>Your account of the science is bogus – you’ve been <b>lied to by the pro-smoking brigade</b>. First, your claim that the WHO study “showed no detectible harm” is wrong. Second the claim that the WHO tried to suppress publication was <b>a lie concocted by Big Tobacco</b>.<br />That is an impossibly high threshold which <b>pro-smokers deliberately set to pretend</b> that passive smoking is harmless.<br />But I have to say your comments betray the fact that you have been <b>indoctrinated by the pro-smokers’</b> attempts to sabotage professional statistical principles.</i><br /><br />Rollo,<br />Are you peddling “conspiracy” theories? According to the antismoking dullards, anything that does not agree with antismoking is a tobacco industry “conspiracy”. Yet, you have stated in the past that any indication of widespread corruption in TC is baseless “conspiracy theories”. According to you, there can be no conspiracy to deceive or defraud in TC: It is apparently purity incarnate. So, conspiracy theories are fine as long as they can only be directed at BT and “pro-smokers”?<br /><br />Rollo, what about Chris’ latest thread – “The Dark Market Redux”? Is this, too, all concocted, another BT “conspiracy” attempting to taint “pure” TC? And this is only the latest in a litany of TC contortion.<br /><br />Rollo, your claims fly in the face of 400 years of antismoking history. Antismoking is typically exterminatory and is founded on a plethora of inflammatory lies, i.e., antismokers are delusional, bigoted, pathological liars. The intent is to promote outrage, a constant play on emotions – fear and hatred, in non-smokers to advance the deranged agenda. The antismokers typically promote themselves as “the heroes”, the “good”, battling the “evil” tobacco empire. The three antismoking crusades of the last century (early-1900s USA, Nazi Germany, and currently) are particularly problematic because they have been underlain by eugenics – a most sickly, dangerous framework. The current crusade is utterly catastrophic because, unlike earlier crusades where the deranged framework of thought was confined to one or a few nations, this time it is a global phenomenon.<br /><br />Rollo, at the moment you have <b>no grasp whatsoever</b> of the sordid history of antismoking. You spend your time just parroting the standard eugenics propaganda. Concerning the latest crusade, there are now a number of books/blogs that highlight the constant manipulations of information, the incessant self-serving lies, to advance the deranged agenda. “Passive smoking”, for example, was an idea introduced, unsubstantiated, by the Nazis on ideological grounds. The current crusaders resurrected the idea from the outset, with no justification, because without it the antismoking crusade was stalling. “Passive smoking” is indispensable to the current crusade: Without it, the TC house of cards comes tumbling down. The antismoking fools are now attempting to concoct “thirdhand smoke danger”. Do yourself (and others) a favor by expanding your framework of thought.<br /><br />Rollo, how do you think a Nazi Germany crops up and runs its destructive course? Does it just pop up out of thin air?Anon1noreply@blogger.com