tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post811108810157088369..comments2023-10-17T15:56:22.827+01:00Comments on Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: OverkillChristopher Snowdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-74733923991316490662010-11-29T13:26:49.062+00:002010-11-29T13:26:49.062+00:00I've just had a look at the Badscience forum. ...I've just had a look at the Badscience forum. It has very little to do with science - either good or bad. It's not worth contributing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-34187387808018538892010-11-28T22:41:52.853+00:002010-11-28T22:41:52.853+00:00They assume 50%+ children are exposed to second ha...They assume 50%+ children are exposed to second hand smoke. Considering that smokers are less than one third of the population and even many smoking parents do avoid smoking at home because of the children, that's pretty implausible number.<br /><br />BTW: They cite the Pell study :-/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-34935297960001770382010-11-28T16:20:36.174+00:002010-11-28T16:20:36.174+00:00600,000 SHS exposure deaths out of 60 million deat...600,000 SHS exposure deaths out of 60 million deaths is 1/100.<br /><br />In the USA there are a 'claimed' about 50,000 SHS deaths out of 2.4 million deaths, that is 1/48.<br /><br />It would seem that the undeveloped countries have quite a ways to go in order to catch-up!!Gary Knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-25513613617052052082010-11-28T04:16:18.281+00:002010-11-28T04:16:18.281+00:00WHO & anti-smoking lobby "estimate":...<a href="http://tinyurl.com/2cwlhsj" rel="nofollow">WHO & anti-smoking lobby "estimate": 600,000 passive smoking deaths annually in the world"</a>Klaus Khttp://dengulenegl.dk/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-77877677653736682032010-11-27T17:28:29.784+00:002010-11-27T17:28:29.784+00:00Chris,
Will write on this over the next few days ...Chris,<br /><br />Will write on this over the next few days sometime...it is so insane that one tends to ignore it (which of course doesn't help).<br /><br />PaulPaulhttp://smokles.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-31883724141069587522010-11-27T17:25:19.839+00:002010-11-27T17:25:19.839+00:00Anyone fancy going head to head with the loons at ...Anyone fancy going head to head with the loons at Bad Science?<br />This crap has just been posted up there and as I've got to go to work I don't have time for the full half hour argument.<br /><br />http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=19319Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-86233279546767883372010-11-27T17:03:49.871+00:002010-11-27T17:03:49.871+00:00600,000 deaths from SHS exposure.
Let's put t...600,000 deaths from SHS exposure.<br /><br />Let's put that number into a little perspective.<br /><br />60 times that number will die from starvation and starvation related diseases.<br /><br />10 times that number of children will die from starvation and starvation related diseases.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation<br /> <br /> <br />Hunger mortality statistics<br />On the average, 1 person dies every second as a result, either directly or indirectly, of hunger - 4000 every hour - 100 000 each day - 36 million each year - 58 % of all deaths (2001-2004 estimates)<br /> <br />On the average, 1 child dies every 5 seconds as a result, either directly or indirectly, of hunger - 700 every hour - 16 000 each day - 6 million each year - 60% of all child deaths (2002-2008 estimates).[Gary Knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-11472873856200346602010-11-27T10:12:39.020+00:002010-11-27T10:12:39.020+00:00Magnetic
Millions spent on doctor 'gagging or...Magnetic<br /><br />Millions spent on doctor 'gagging orders' by NHS, investigation finds<br /><br />http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/millions-spent-on-doctor-gagging-orders-by-nhs-investigation-finds-2041209.html<br /><br />I don't think you will get much help from them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-72370462704375327002010-11-27T10:01:06.061+00:002010-11-27T10:01:06.061+00:00Antismokers suffer from a mental disorder.
Called....Antismokers suffer from a mental disorder.<br />Called.<br />Notthinkingoutsidetheirownbox-osis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-88983179371070682362010-11-27T05:05:02.597+00:002010-11-27T05:05:02.597+00:00(cont'd)
Consider another example:
Iatrogenes...(cont'd)<br /><br />Consider another example:<br />Iatrogenesis (e.g., medical errors, adverse drug reactions) is a very severe problem in medical treatment. In these cases, causation can be demonstrated in individual cases. For example, within half an hour of administering a particular drug, the patient goes into catastrophic failure resulting in death or permanent injury. The very short temporal lag between antecedent and consequent events is critical in inferring causation. Given that many in the medical establishment are not very forthcoming about such events (to protect careers and the hospital), estimates are made of the population-level prevalence of these events. So there is a coherent basis to claiming underlying causation for these events at the individual level and the extrapolation is from the individual to the population level.<br /><br />In the case of smoking and SHS, the situation is the exact opposite. Causation cannot be demonstrated at the individual level because it involves lifelong exposure which is also open to a plethora of other exposures and events. So, the epidemiologists use population-level statistics, e.g., RR, to discern whether there are any differences between smokers/nonsmokers for specific disease. They then convince themselves that particular RR differences (even though there is poor absolute predictive strength) “indicate” underlying causation. The “causal argument”, therefore, proceeds improperly from population-level differences to the individual level.<br /><br />Of the two circumstances, it is iatrogenesis that should be taken very seriously. Yet, the medical establishment, in self-interest and for ideological reasons, takes the smoking circumstance seriously. There are literally tens and tens of thousands of highly questionable antismoking studies. Yet there are only a handful of studies scrutinizing iatrogenesis.Magneticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-21147742692320752702010-11-27T05:04:04.571+00:002010-11-27T05:04:04.571+00:00The idea that 1 in 100 people die from passive smo...<i>The idea that 1 in 100 people die from passive smoking is so insane I can hardly believe that anyone could believe it.</i><br /><br />You’re right, Chris. The problem is the use of the relative-risk statistic to argue causation. Population-level statistics, such as RR and as used in lifestyle epidemiology, have very poor application at the individual level. The predictive strength (in absolute terms) of SHS for any specific malady/mortality is usually barely above zero% accuracy. To then refer to SHS as a/the cause is ludicrous. Yet most of lifestyle epidemiology runs on this insanity. What we are constantly fed is the <b>assumption</b> of causation based on RR differences (with poor absolute predictive strength) acting in <b>substitution</b> for a demonstration/explanation of causation.<br /><br />Once there is an acceptance of causation (e.g., causation by consensus), all sorts of statistical games can be played, claiming that SHS “causes” X, Y, and Z in particular numbers. Yet the actual requirements of causal explanation have never been met. High predictive strength reflects the pinpointing goal of scientific enquiry. This does not exist in lifestyle epidemiology: It is self-serving, institutional incompetence. Concerning the research in question, studies could be trawled for all day long with all manner of “tolls” extrapolated. Yet in none of those “studies” has causation been demonstrated. Rather, “causation” has been agreed (assumed) upon by committees of similarly-incompetent, ideologically-driven, and often greedy fools.Magneticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-57961991871800466452010-11-27T04:43:47.163+00:002010-11-27T04:43:47.163+00:00Conclusion: Secondhand smoke will kill 6 million p...<i>Conclusion: Secondhand smoke will kill 6 million people over the next ten years. Where's my cheque?</i><br /><br />Chris, you could have gone for the century-long “death toll”: Over the next century SHS will kill 60 million <b>nonsmokers</b>. :)<br /><br />“Social marketing” or “choice architecture”, for example, are crypto-terms for propaganda. Mike Daub (in the Godber Blueprint) refers to “creative epidemiology”. The Globalink website provides numerous propaganda tools for TC advocates. The goal is to use the most inflammatory terms possible for their outrage/revulsion-potential in particularly nonsmokers.<br /><br /><i>“Tobacco control advocates draw on many skills and disciplines to make their messages effective, including political communications, public relations, social marketing, and public health education. Recently, advocates have also looked to new fields of academic research for tools to create better messages, including media effects research and cognitive linguistics.”</i><br /><br /><i>“Cigarettes kill many more people in the United States every year than would be killed by the crash of two fully loaded Boeing 747's each day of the entire year!”</i><br /><br />This is a slogan even used by the resident troll.<br /><br />http://strategyguides.globalink.org/guide01_07.htm<br /><br /><br />-------<br /><br /><i> The intoxication with numbers is another characteristic of the modern crusaders against smoking. (Skrabanek)</i><br /><br />“The intoxication with numbers” is a key characteristic of eugenics. Biological reductionism coupled with economic reductionism/rationalism reduces life to quantification. It appeals to the shallow-minded. Many of the population-level statistics currently used were developed by eugenicists. Antismoking is also an obsession of eugenics.Magneticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-28835881637284660852010-11-27T01:32:26.385+00:002010-11-27T01:32:26.385+00:00Paul,
Please do write something. Increasingly, t...Paul, <br /><br />Please do write something. Increasingly, these days, I find the stupidity too big to acknowledge let alone confront. The idea that 1 in 100 people die from passive smoking is so insane I can hardly believe that anyone could believe it. It would mean, for example, that if you read a newspaper that produces 3 obituaries a day, you will read - on average - about one passive smoking death a month.<br /><br />And yet the maths is right (isn't it?). It's the logical conclusion of the relative risks produced in all these low-quality studies. In that sense, by bringing relative risks into absolute death counts, it makes us face the obvious unreality those relative risks created in the first place.Christopher Snowdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-18437049313481557922010-11-26T23:35:23.193+00:002010-11-26T23:35:23.193+00:00They include SIDS/COT deaths and anyone that claim...They include SIDS/COT deaths and anyone that claims that SHS/smoking 'causes' childhood deaths,like from SIDS, is a cruel,vicious moron................... By definition SIDS/COT death is a death for which there is NO known cause......even by forensic examination like an autopsy!!!!..............anti-smokers that make such a claim about SIDS deaths are using tragedy to advance their agendas and they are rotten,inhuman scum!!!!<br /><br />Peopole that feel comfortable lying about terrible tragedies are capable of lying about anything.Gary Knoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-49331638229924307882010-11-26T23:03:40.583+00:002010-11-26T23:03:40.583+00:00Was going to blog about this as well but happy to ...Was going to blog about this as well but happy to see your most capable hands on it. My sense is that if they said any larger number most of the usual crowd would just accept it but if they had any smaller numbers there would be an outcry and a demand for a detailed proof.Paul Bergenhttp://smokles.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-43022202302782109562010-11-26T21:18:56.421+00:002010-11-26T21:18:56.421+00:00"The spirit of Newton and Darwin lives on, do...<i>"The spirit of Newton and Darwin lives on, does it not?"</i><br /><br />I just spat half of my gin back in the glass. Thanks for that. ;)Dick Puddlecotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481866882188932892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-33099103352675223152010-11-26T20:24:22.743+00:002010-11-26T20:24:22.743+00:00What amateur stuff!
Don't they know anything a...What amateur stuff!<br />Don't they know anything about astronomy?<br />There are estimated to be over 200 billion stars in our galaxy alone and 200 odd galaxies just in the observable universe. According to my modelling, about 1 in ten have planets that could at some point support life, including evil plants such as tobacco. So each planet may become inhabited with 6 billion intelligent life forms and have similar exposure to us on Earth. I make that 600,000 X 20 billion X 200 billion = 2,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 deaths every year from passive smoking. <br /><br />Don't these people care?<br /><br />TonyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com