tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post4984412780890324242..comments2023-10-17T15:56:22.827+01:00Comments on Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: Recommended readingChristopher Snowdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-90519158056277066652012-03-25T16:22:23.247+01:002012-03-25T16:22:23.247+01:00Richard White: I feel as you do. Paper is suggesti...Richard White: I feel as you do. Paper is suggesting cancer is inherent vulnerability for anybody. Some things we do can influence risk but risk exists for everybody. So potential influences are best called what they are rather than what they aren't (i.e. they are not really 'cause', but madly, most 'authorities' take them as 'cause' in a very literal sense, leading to utterly false conclusions.) Tony: you're gracious, I think introductory explanation about various computations & use of 'RR' in common catch-all sense rather than strict technical sense was meant to avoid endless technical parsing for general readership, & I also apologize for barking at you about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-77413407075583970992012-03-24T20:46:26.013+00:002012-03-24T20:46:26.013+00:00I also accept that the RR (as opposed to the OR) m...I also accept that the RR (as opposed to the OR) may not be appropriate in the example on page 20.<br /><br />TonyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-85491297815005325712012-03-24T20:42:06.693+00:002012-03-24T20:42:06.693+00:00When I wrote my 23 March 2012 19:30 comment, I sho...When I wrote my 23 March 2012 19:30 comment, I should have stated only that I stand by my RR/OR calculation. What I should also have said, and will say now, is that I completely retract my suggestion that the author was confusing the two. It is clear (p15 and p20), as anon has pointed out, that author did not confuse the two. My apologies.<br /><br />TonyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-41036749336128613982012-03-24T17:40:50.404+00:002012-03-24T17:40:50.404+00:00It seems if anything that, far from swaying 'd...It seems if anything that, far from swaying 'deniers' that they should immediately jump to the popular opinion, the author of the paper goes to quite some length to explain that smoking is NOT a cause of lung cancer, but is rather quite strongly linked to the disease statistically.<br /><br />Given the main purpose of the paper is to seriously look at the manipulation of statistics in science, i've come away from reading it feeling rather more validated in my position as a 'denier', and judging from comments here and over at Frank's blog, it appears i'm not the only one.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10014403700729444743noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-18329211818595036952012-03-24T01:02:51.549+00:002012-03-24T01:02:51.549+00:00The essay suggests that smoking is an influence on...The essay suggests that smoking is an influence on lung cancer but makes a point that this is not properly considered as 'cause'. This is a main point of essay as a whole but in particular see pages from about 45 to 48.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-83775847477769396702012-03-24T00:27:01.759+00:002012-03-24T00:27:01.759+00:00Tony: in case you want to continue being a pain in...Tony: in case you want to continue being a pain in the a** or ar** (depending on where you come from) please note from page 15 (which you should have come to before you reached page 20): 'In common usage, both within and without the health professions, “relative risk” is used as<br />a catch-all term, referring to results derived by risk, odds, hazard, or rate ratio<br />computation. It is in this common sense that we have and will use the “relative risk” term<br />in this essay. Where relative risks are herein computed we shall use the most common and<br />versatile calculation, which is, specifically, the odds ratio.'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-7916029221658752312012-03-23T23:38:25.323+00:002012-03-23T23:38:25.323+00:00Tony: The technical RR is not applicable to pg 20 ...Tony: The technical RR is not applicable to pg 20 (which is described on that page specifically as odds ratio with "relative risk" in quotations since it's explained -- a few pages previously -- that "relative risk" is being used in common catch-all sense -- this is common -- to avoid complexity of explaining for hundreds of such results shown in paper that there are several specific types of computations generally suggesting concept of "relative risk" and that for general readership it would be punctilious to parse over and over about odds ratio, risk, ratio, hazard ratio, etc., for each individual result). Specifically the page 20 computation is an odds ratio -- as is stated on that page -- and furthermore, risk ratio or technical relative risk is not a valid computation in the circumstance. Technical relative risk or risk ratio computation is not valid for case/control studies. It is only appropriate for cohort studies. The example is case/control.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-5334741415440608252012-03-23T19:30:21.110+00:002012-03-23T19:30:21.110+00:00Just to follow up my earlier comment. I have now r...Just to follow up my earlier comment. I have now read the whole document albeit rather quickly and agree that it is very good and worthy of a much slower and more intensive read.<br /><br />Whilst I stand by my earlier nitpicking remark about ORs and RRs (21 March 2012 19:54 ), I'd like to clarify that it doesn't affect any of the discussion and so doesn't matter. <br /><br />As to the 'denier' bit, I think that in the current climate, I'll take that as a compliment. And I don't see anything in this book that alters my views.<br /><br />TonyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-45079393153121367682012-03-22T15:16:00.505+00:002012-03-22T15:16:00.505+00:00Cross-examination of Professor Jeffrey Idle:
Couns...Cross-examination of Professor Jeffrey Idle:<br />Counsel then referred to the passage headed "The effects of smoking: principal findings" and the subheading "Lung cancer" on p.31, under which it was stated:<br />"Cigarette smoking is causally related to lung cancer in men; the magnitude of the effect of cigarette smoking far outweighs all other factors."<br />The following exchange then took place:<br />"Q So that is the conclusion they reach. Do you see that?<br />A I do.<br />QAnd have they not gone about it in an entirely appropriate way; getting a body of eminent men, reviewing all the scientific literature up to that time and reaching a conclusion on it?<br />A There are two statements which we have read in the last fifteen minutes which contradict each other. One says that epidemiology can never lead to cause, and then they go on to say that reaching a cause relied on epidemiology. That is where my problem lies. The statement above says 'In conjunction with other experimental data' or 'with other data' and that is what I agree with. So they have gone about it the right way - to answer your question - but the interpretation of their findings I cannot agree with."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-65767811369970112352012-03-22T14:33:47.174+00:002012-03-22T14:33:47.174+00:00Chris, tell me please, do you also refer to climat...Chris, tell me please, do you also refer to climate sceptics as "deniers"?Frank Davishttp://cfrankdavis.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-35690591723355715002012-03-22T13:05:49.244+00:002012-03-22T13:05:49.244+00:00"An alternate explanation which has been sugg..."An alternate explanation which has been suggested by American researchers for the rise<br />and fall of adenocarcinoma is that it may be a reaction to air pollution. This is implausible<br />in that air pollution levels have been reduced, between about the ‘seventies to the present,<br />in slow gradation. Air pollution did not suddenly fall off, at any point, as the<br />adenocarcinoma rates are now doing."<br /><br />I will take issue with the author on this. <br /><br />There is this form of air pollution <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9bmj3iKO9nE/TFNkV18z6kI/AAAAAAAAAEE/JCtxuGY8jts/s1600/Worldwide+average+doses+from+radionuclides+produced+in+atmospheric+testing.png" rel="nofollow">here</a><br /><br />Not only was there a clear reduction from about the seventies, (the American researchers) but in addition this reduction was followed by a sudden drop (the Author).<br />It satisfies both.Fredrik Eichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09985306468872702882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-85252097761840579552012-03-22T02:51:28.264+00:002012-03-22T02:51:28.264+00:00I have read the whole thing through today. It is h...I have read the whole thing through today. It is hard to discover what precisely 'is going on'. Perhaps one should not speak until one has read it again!!! But....<br /><br />Ignoring the eugenicist part, what is the author telling us? It must be, surely, that the epidemiological evidence for <i>all</i> smoking related harm is not all it is cracked up to be. The simple illustration of this was the McTear v Imperial Tobacco Limited case (2005), where ASH ET AL were unable to produce evidence of 'general causation' [that smoking 'causes' lung cancer]. My impression from reading the Judge's extremely long and complex Opinion is that ASH ET AL knew very well that, if they produced the statistical evidence for smoking harm, it would not stand up to objective scrutiny, and so they decided not to produce it. <br /><br />Be that as it may. <br /><br />However, there is something odd about the way in which the anti-smoking statistics are constructed. <br /><br />Let us say that a 'smoking study' starts with 2000 participants. Those participants break down into various age groups - say, 20 -34,35 -49, 50 - 64, 65 +. That means that there are 500 per age group. But then each subgroup has to be broken down into non-smokers, ex-smokers and current smokers, which breaks the number down to about 133 per group. But then you have to break those figures down into 'numbers of cigarettes per day, which may be <10, 10 - 20, >20, which means that each group is now numbered in the region of 45 persons. You could break the groups down even further, by whether or not smokers inhale....etc. In the end, you finish up with single figure groups, from which it is not possible to derive generalities. In other words, no two people react in precisely the same way.<br /><br />What we learned from the McTear case was that, DEFINITELY, there is no physical evidence at all which could definitely, categorically, show that smoking 'causes' lung cancer, even with the lower standard of proof which is 'balance of probabilities'.<br /><br />If that is the actual truth of the matter, what chance has SHS? <br /><br />But my important point relates to the dilution of evidence by sub-division. In other words, the vast majority of studies, if they are small, are too small, and the ones which are large are too complex.<br /><br />According to the paper, ASH ET AL have a clear field. No one can oppose, especially if politicians bury their heads in the sand and chant, "NHS COSTS - TAX INCOME". <br /><br />What is historically clear is that these ploys always fail. Always. <br /><br />There are prices to be paid. that is the difference between the internet and the MSM. Bloggers will not allow the persecutors to get away scot-free. They have hurt us too much. That is important.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-11500545126404010902012-03-21T23:17:34.162+00:002012-03-21T23:17:34.162+00:00Mag: the foam-at-the-mouthers are "mothers&qu...Mag: the foam-at-the-mouthers are "mothers" of one sort. I won't say exactly what.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-57579610360502050602012-03-21T22:22:52.286+00:002012-03-21T22:22:52.286+00:00Apologies :)
Foam-at-the mothers (what!) should r...Apologies :)<br /><br />Foam-at-the mothers (what!) should read foam-at-the-mouthers.Magnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-2839785960713998492012-03-21T22:18:14.077+00:002012-03-21T22:18:14.077+00:00For those not aware, the 15th World [Eugenics] Con...For those not aware, the 15th World [Eugenics] Conference on Tobacco Or Health is currently underway in Singapore.<br />http://wctoh2012.org/<br /><br />Since the 1970s, these World Conferences have developed the anti-smoking/tobacco themes that would be inflicted on societies around the world in the three or four years to the next Conference. These World Conferences are where the extreme foam-at-the mothers congregate and where their foam-saturated chins are quite the norm. The fanatics can indulge in fine dining, fine sight-seeing, have a good ol’ time, and plot how to get the neurosis/bigotry bandwagon further out of control. Wonderful!<br /><br />Here’s the bmj’s "coverage" of the insanity.<br />http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2012/03/20/weve-come-a-long-way-bullies/Magnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-77623992915920972652012-03-21T21:02:58.133+00:002012-03-21T21:02:58.133+00:00People have compared sweet nurse Jane to Cruella D...People have compared sweet nurse Jane to Cruella DeVille in '101 Dalmations'. That's apt, but as I recall Cruella smoked, which probably counts somewhat in her favor, as I suppose does her desire to kill canines rather than humans!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-14032193896400877842012-03-21T20:58:45.348+00:002012-03-21T20:58:45.348+00:00Technically, the true relative risk or rate ratio ...Technically, the true relative risk or rate ratio computation would not be appropriate for the page 20 example since it refers to a (fictional) case/control study while specific or literal RR is only appropriate for cohort studies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-85089394428301074032012-03-21T20:47:58.340+00:002012-03-21T20:47:58.340+00:00This is a really interesting link to an article th...This is a really interesting link to an article that is very informative, even the part about eugenics. You would have to be very unaware not to have observed similarities between public health extremists and eugenicists but the link to epidemiology is enlightening for me. The tone is a bit strident at times but the information content is great. It is good to be reminded of the nastiness that is Jane DeVille-Almond. I note that she has moved with the times and now chairs the British Obesity Society. No doubt she believes that fatties as well as smokers should reform or die.Ivan Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18364023294207490403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-4779833840515591832012-03-21T20:45:47.148+00:002012-03-21T20:45:47.148+00:00The author explains in text that he computes odds ...The author explains in text that he computes odds ratios and uses the term "relative risk" as it has been commonly used as catch-all term for computations including odds ratio, hazard ratio, risk ratio, while also explaining that in literal or technical sense "relative risk" is exact synonym for "risk ratio."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-23585938738918919812012-03-21T19:54:08.003+00:002012-03-21T19:54:08.003+00:00That PDF looks very good although I haven't re...That PDF looks very good although I haven't read it all yet.<br /><br />Just to nitpick a little though, I think that on page 20 the author confuses 'relative risk (RR)' and 'odds ratio (OR)'. In his example on that page, I calculate the OR = 6 and the RR = 2.<br /><br />See http://www.medcalc.org/calc/odds_ratio.php<br /><br />TonyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-22028449173148053232012-03-21T19:52:36.295+00:002012-03-21T19:52:36.295+00:00Good points, Mag. Eugenics changed its name but no...Good points, Mag. Eugenics changed its name but not its nature. The Bloombergs & Koops & the rest are like Hugh Cumming or Harry Laughlin or Paul Popenoe & the rest of the eugenics gang in its USA heyday. Eugenics was about more than race. It was about nothing so much as about social division and (dictated) hate. That lives on. It's gotta be stopped once & for all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-64390033799183701342012-03-21T19:41:04.342+00:002012-03-21T19:41:04.342+00:00Dick Puddlecoat has the latest on Bloomberg and th...Dick Puddlecoat has the latest on Bloomberg and the NYC council in attempting to control the diet of…… the homeless.<br /><br />Bloomberg’s NYC is rivaling California in eugenics behavioral control – and that’s saying something. Consider another recent propaganda-piece targeting “light” smokers. Even those who smoke less than 10 cigarettes per day must quit. There is no tolerance; all smokers must quit.<br /><br />There are quite a number of serious misrepresentations in the blathering concerning risks associated with light smoking and it extols the “virtues” of NRT. But the point that should really get people’s attention is this:<br /><i>“Join an exercise group to substitute smoking with a healthy activity. Search<br />BeFitNYC on NYC.gov for a list of physical activity opportunities throughout the<br />city and ways you can Make NYC Your Gym.”</i><br />http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2011/pr033-11.shtml<br /><br />There you go. Make NYC your gym. The only thing missing is that the public be required, through force of penalty or peer pressure, to come out onto the streets at lunchtime for an hour of calisthenics……. as their duty to the state. This could be the “next step”.<br /><br />Bloomberg is also the pompous, little, supremacist twerp that openly advocated sneering at people who smoke for peer-pressure effect.<br /><br />In Bloomberg’s NYC, apart from the serious targeting of alcohol, we are seeing the typical eugenics repertoire along the behavioral dimension – anti-tobacco, dietary prescriptions/proscriptions, and physical exercise.Magnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-46778450153152540622012-03-21T15:37:18.176+00:002012-03-21T15:37:18.176+00:002
One of the rare criticisms of such smoking bans,...2<br />One of the rare criticisms of such smoking bans, where even elderly patients are forced to travel considerable distances - and in all weather - to have a cigarette, came from a just-retired physician. <br />http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0114/1224310242616.html <br /><br />Contrast the above with this sanctimonious, bigoted piece from Australia: <br />http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/sick-but-theyd-die-for-a-smoke/story-e6freoof-1226288323788?from=public_rss <br /> <br />There is no outrage from practicing physicians; have they lost their sensibilities altogether? Outdoor smoking shelters are now being removed with glee and even fanfare. The circumstance is appalling. It only gets worse. <br />http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17357406 <br />http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Shelter-removed-hospital-site-goes-smoke-free/story-15514927-detail/story.html <br /> <br />Consider also: <br /><i>"Hospitals should not judge patients. They should treat patients," Tapper said….</i><br />http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/hospital-smoking-bans-endanger-patients-study-132980933.htmlMagnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-20549086788433019602012-03-21T15:35:19.267+00:002012-03-21T15:35:19.267+00:001
A post from Siegel’s blog:
Miki: “Patient X is ...1<br />A post from Siegel’s blog:<br /><br /><i>Miki: “Patient X is admitted and treated for a kidney stone……” </i><br /> <br />Michael, what is wrong with you people? Patient X is admitted and treated for a kidney stone. Why does it not stop there? Why is there the need for a rant about getting the patient to quit smoking? Why can there not just be a smoking-cessation pamphlet on the bedside table that patients can pursue if they are interested? It is you medical twits that have created the “disease” of smoking that requires “treatment”. It is you guys that have created this perverse situation of ideological and financial vested interests in the “treatment” of smoking. <br /> <br />Fortunately, even in Fiore’s corrupted fantasy world, someone who smokes still has a quasi “opportunity”, however down the list of possibilities, to refuse “treatment”. But how much of an opportunity is this when the facility they find themselves in is rabidly antismoking? How does this ideological bent distort medical care for patients refusing “treatment”? Contrary to the belief of at least some physicians that they are “god”, physicians are human. They are prone to human foibles; medical practitioners are probably most prone to a “god complex”. They are prone to bigotry and racism as was clearly demonstrated in only recent history. Why is this fundamental, critical issue NEVER discussed? <br /> <br />And the medicos rave about “doctor/patient relationship” and “what’s in the best interests of their patients”. But the facts do not bear this out. The stance of the medical establishment is near-dictatorial with the intent of coercing people – even visitors to the facility and employees – into nonsmoking conformity, one way or the other. <br /> <br />Consider the circumstance of removing smoking shelters on hospital grounds and banning smoking for the entire grounds. Does this seem to respect the wishes of their smoking patients? Or visitors and employees? It demonstrates an utter contempt for anything other than their monomaniacal, ideological view and the financial interests that support the twisted view.Magnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-16486500317496264212012-03-21T15:27:56.383+00:002012-03-21T15:27:56.383+00:002
Yet with all this history, as we have seen over ...2<br />Yet with all this history, as we have seen over the last half century, particularly pertaining to antismoking, the WHO and the medical establishment generally, and contrary to the WHO’s very own definition of health, have deteriorated back into a biological reductionist view of health and ventures into social engineering.<br /><br />Over the last half century, health has been reduced to the behavioral dimension of eugenics – anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol, prescribed diet, and physical exercise. The WHO adopted antismoking as a societal ideal many decades ago (Godber Blueprint) and now most nations are signed-up to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. With this ideological stance comes social engineering, i.e., coercion to conformity.<br /><br />We have seen smoking bans on hospital grounds where patients have to venture considerable distances in night-attire and in all manner of weather to have a cigarette. This becomes a psychological and social health issue. Indoor smoking bans with no prospect of accommodation have alienated particularly the elderly. This is a psychological and social health issue. Denormalization, a repugnant, vulgar concept very much identified with eugenics, has again come to the fore. Smokers have been incessantly slandered, ridiculed, and terrorized by official, government programs of denormalization. This is a psychological and social health issue. Many nonsmokers have been manipulated into irrational fear and bigotry to advance the ideological cause. This is an issue of psychological and social health. Smokers are being bullied out of normal social life on a purely ideological basis. This is an issue of psychological and social health. With this propaganda barrage, medical care professionals are demonstrating a cruel, bigoted streak – again - that can compromise the medical treatment of those who smoke. This is an issue of psychological, social, and physical health. Not only are psychological and social health issues important in their own right, but these can also have detrimental ramifications for physical health. Health has again been reduced to quantification, dollar cost-benefit analyses, another eugenics trait.<br /><br />Everywhere we turn health has again been reduced to only a biological phenomenon (e.g., behavioral) and with the [eugenics] intent of social engineering. “Get healthy”, “he’s looking after himself”, “I work out” all pertain to physicalism. In the obsession with physicalism, psychological, social, moral, and ideo-political aspects of health have been brutalized and discarded - again.Magnoreply@blogger.com