tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post5049042687833246965..comments2023-10-17T15:56:22.827+01:00Comments on Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: Who do you believe?Christopher Snowdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-20761378829768788832011-10-15T20:11:04.401+01:002011-10-15T20:11:04.401+01:00Off tangent but I am curious about the implication...Off tangent but I am curious about the implications of this; I wonder if <a href="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100109336/co2-is-good-for-you/" rel="nofollow">this article</a> doesn't give us a glimpse of potential reasons for it.<br /><br />After all <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_effect" rel="nofollow">this</a> is a well established scientific fact.Tomrathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15442487511149915434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-41709239592428139912011-10-15T18:26:08.890+01:002011-10-15T18:26:08.890+01:00The lies have served their purpose (though how a b...The lies have served their purpose (though how a ban in pubs was supposed to reduce children's asthma I am not sure). Now the actual stats will be used to ban smoking in cars and homes with children. Of course since it is impossible to tell which cars and homes will have children in them the bans will be comprehensive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-17144205527315229522011-10-15T18:00:24.764+01:002011-10-15T18:00:24.764+01:00Here are some points for you.
http://www.cdc.gov/m...Here are some points for you.<br />http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5745a3.htm<br />“The updated analysis indicated that, during 2000–2004, cigarette smoking and exposure to tobacco smoke resulted in at least 443,000 premature deaths, approximately 5.1 million YPLL, and $96.8 billion in productivity losses annually in the United States.”<br /><br />Actually only 393,000 smokers’ deaths are used for the YPLL and productivity losses(wages).<br /><br />The 393,000 deaths work out to be at an average age of 73.5, so over 1/2th of the people were retired and had no working income(wages) to lose as a cost to society.<br /><br />About 9.1% of the smoker workers would be un-employed and would have no income to lose as a cost to society.<br /><br />When a smoker worker dies, the job they were doing does not die with them. The employer will hire an un-employed worker to do the job and they will earn the wages the dead smoker is no longer earning.<br /><br />There will be no loss of wages to society as they wages are still being earned.<br /><br />The “$96.8 billion in productivity losses annually” is a crock of crap and mis-direction.<br /><br />Gary K.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-61279280828567102582011-10-15T12:44:37.084+01:002011-10-15T12:44:37.084+01:00Have a look at the HES data for England. J45 and J...Have a look at the HES data for England. J45 and J46, same ISD classification as used by Pell et al, available here.<br /><br />http://www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/servlet/ContentServer?siteID=1937&categoryID=203<br /><br />No noticeable trend either way as a result of the English ban, I'd say. Not for all patients, nor for U14s, not by admissions or episodes. Any attempt to extract any meaning out of this data is an attempt to sweat it far too hard in my view. There's just nothing there. Note that these are unadjusted for population change. That would make a slight difference, but nothing noticeable. As with the CHD figures, how strange that the same policy that changes the world in Scotland - according to Pell and co - should produce in England nothing noticeable. <br /><br />There's a simple rule in stats that if your results look odd compared with the raw data, beware. <br /><br />Sad, though maybe understandable given the nastiness they'd encounter, that almost no one in the stats or epidemiological professions seems inclined to police their own discipline for basic rigour on this issue. This is how science dies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-36159820873603661652011-10-14T23:19:31.935+01:002011-10-14T23:19:31.935+01:00"I find it hard to imagine that a system this..."I find it hard to imagine that a system this corrupt can be a good thing, or that it is worth the vast amounts of money spent on it."<br /><br />Former editor of New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell about the medical journals. Quote from her book:<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/dp/0375760946/Klaus Khttp://dengulenegl.dk/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-19870399412665287022011-10-14T22:13:15.196+01:002011-10-14T22:13:15.196+01:00Another triumph for Peer Review.Another triumph for Peer Review.deariemenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-57644406791203635182011-10-14T20:11:56.522+01:002011-10-14T20:11:56.522+01:00Is there a theme worth developing here I wonder?
...<i>Is there a theme worth developing here I wonder?</i><br /><br />I think it’s called agenda-driven, career-enhancing, industrial-partner-profiting FRAUD that is dictating public policy. And it is FRAUD because it is being peddled under the auspices of science and scholarship. This is not an isolated instance. The theme is that agenda-driven lying is rife and typically does not attract any critique within the PH® establishment: The bulk of them are reading from the same corrupt page. Peer review is hardly useful when the peers are similarly corrupt. Public Health® is seething with this ideological and profit-driven trash and opportunistic, fanatical, obsessed-with-control shysters.<br /><br />To cut a long story short, I think there <b>is</b> a theme there. :)Anon1noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-12865704944120123102011-10-14T19:21:20.469+01:002011-10-14T19:21:20.469+01:00I have yet to hear or see any of these people ques...I have yet to hear or see any of these people questioned over the data when being interviewed. They are allowed to spout forth, say whatever they wish and make any claim they want.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-63741488136984618312011-10-14T18:04:30.978+01:002011-10-14T18:04:30.978+01:00It is worth noting that Pell is a medic by trainin...It is worth noting that Pell is a medic by training and so is the equally mendacious Anna Gilmore. Medics spend years learning how to fix sick people and I for one am deeply grateful for those who practice what they learn. I am less grateful for those who presume expertise in science and other disciplines in order to make a “contribution” to public health. <br /><br />In addition, I cannot help but notice that much of the worst junk science seems to be published in “prestigious medical journals”. <br /><br />Is there a theme worth developing here I wonder? <br /><br />Just a thought.Ivan Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18364023294207490403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-36042296494352872502011-10-14T16:44:15.054+01:002011-10-14T16:44:15.054+01:00Send it to the NEJM - it will put them in a tricky...Send it to the NEJM - it will put them in a tricky situation; and send to Pell. Ask her to comment. She won't of course. Send it to R4 MoreorLess. They will be looking for ideas for their next series and they seem to like giving prohibitionists a kicking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-87838652294148165742011-10-14T15:42:09.398+01:002011-10-14T15:42:09.398+01:00Send the info to the NEJM (very prestigious)Editor...Send the info to the NEJM (very prestigious)Editor and ask them to issue a statement about that paper being incorrect.Dr Evilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00176521760477086914noreply@blogger.com