The Huffington Post and The Boston Globe Highlight Misrepresentation of Science by Anti-Smoking Groups.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

I got this from Michael Siegel's site. Even tho he's with the Anti-smokers, he 's exposing them.


This is what I thought all along. Eventually Tobacco Control's lies have no recourse but to blow up in their face.

Last couple of weeks, it was the magazine The Skeptic, New Scientist, and highlights of the article from New Scientist in the Wall Street Journal.

Momentum is building,

(The links for these are on Siegel's site.)

Don't you remember when everyone was upset over vehicle emissions? Then suddenly smokers were the problem. I think it may have been the greatest trick the automobile industry ever played.

quote:

Originally posted by infinitethoughts:
The Huffington Post and The Boston Globe Highlight Misrepresentation of Science by Anti-Smoking Groups.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

This is what I thought all along. Eventually Tobacco Control's lies have no recourse but to blow up in their face.

Thanks for this post! I was very surprised to see that the Boston Globe ran such a story, being that they are one of the major rabid anti smoking news outlets. Perhaps the Globe and it's owner the NY Times, are starting to wake up and smell the coffee! I truly hope so.

Thanks again.

quote:

Originally posted by varla_pussycat:


Thanks for this post! I was very surprised to see that the Boston Globe ran such a story, being that they are one of the major rabid anti smoking news outlets. Perhaps the Globe and it's owner the NY Times, are starting to wake up and smell the coffee! I truly hope so.

Thanks again.

You bet!
Personally I definitely see the signs. You're gonna see Stanton Glantz and ASH and others, crash and burn. They're gonna lose all credibility.


The public follows trends, and they will follow this trend.

The next step will be to have the public follow the trend that tobacco is good for you.

I wonder if the decline in newspaper sales has some companies rethinking their editorial biases?

BINGO. Think it's too late for them, though. And I don't really care when one folds.

I read up on the slapfight. At the risk of being an Eeyore, I'm not ready to start dancing in the streets just yet.

It looks like a tempest in a teapot to me. I'm not sure what's up with Michael Siegel. Possession? A case of conscience? Maybe he has lost it. At one point he says:

quote:

"...It is not the case that the majority of what anti-smoking groups are communicating is flawed. In fact, most of their communications are accurate...."

Uh, what? He might as well have stayed in his cozy little tobacco control academic circle-jerk and continued to collect his hush money, because anyone who is paying the slightest bit of attention already knows Glantz and his ilk can't open their mouths without lying.

I don't understand why Siegel suddenly has his panties in a bunch over this one little piece of propaganda, because the fact is (bear with me here) ASH's assertion is true, as far as it goes:

quote:

"...30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure increases the fatal heart attack risk of nonsmokers to the same level as active smokers...."

I don't doubt that a bit, because the fatal heart attack risk for nonsmokers is the same as for smokers to begin with. It's one of the oldest copywriting tricks in the books, on par with "No other pain relief medication has been proven more effective." It's designed to imply one thing while saying something completely different: a true, if unspectacular, statement.

Maybe it's because Siegal is actually a physician, who works with scientific fact and must be somewhat familiar with sound science, even though physicians aren't scientists themselves. That puts him head and shoulders above most tobacco control "academics," who wouldn't know good science if it bit them on the ass. They're propagandists and con men, copywriters with six- and seven-figure salaries, and the academic circle they've made up is about as respectable as a circle of phrenologists or astrologers.

Didn't Siegel know what he was getting involved with?

I don't think this flap will come to much (although I certainly hope I'm wrong). In any event, it's sort of satisfying to see the jackals nipping at each others' heels.

quote:

In any event, it's sort of satisfying to see the jackals nipping at each others' heels.

wonder which of those "jackals" are going to come out on top of the heap..we all know how rabid jackals are and at this point it a game of HE Said/she said..and the old game of cut throte " play on words"

Jemeyes: "...wonder which of those 'jackals' are going to come out on top of the heap...."

My guess, tragically enough, would be the jackals with the money of Big Pharma and Big 501(c)(3) behind them. As I observed down in Winston's Evil series, evil hates evil. Evil hates everything.

They'll tear off Siegel's head and use his neck as a chamber pot.

quote:

Originally posted by Robert A Cook:
ASH's assertion is true, as far as it goes:

quote:

"...30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure increases the fatal heart attack risk of nonsmokers to the same level as active smokers...."

I don't doubt that a bit, because the fatal heart attack risk for nonsmokers is the same as for smokers to begin with. It's one of the oldest copywriting tricks in the books, on par with "No other pain relief medication has been proven more effective." It's designed to imply one thing while saying something completely different: a true, if unspectacular, statement.

I disagree. I do see your point about the copy write trick. But if you look at the statement closely, there's one word that makes it a fallicous and suspect statement. That word is increases.

By wording it that way, they are saying Smokers have a higher incidence of heart attack, then non-smokers. Which is the second lie. Nicotine increases and builds new vascular pathways. This is why Big Pharma wants tobacco, to corner the market on nicotine.

Siegel's getting press. He'll get more press as time goes on. The press loves controversy.

I see this as the crack, that'll turn into a chasm for Anti's. simply because eventually truth comes out.

There's additional momentum going on exposing the lies, not just with Siegel.

http://www.forces.org/static_page/ori/complaint.php

The following Organizations have filed a complaint with the Surgeon General on his flawed report on passive smoking.
* Netzwerk Rauchen - Forces Germany
* Forces Italiana
* Freedom to Choose
* The Heartland Institute
* Reason Foundation
* Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions.

http://forces.org/News_Portal/news_viewer.php?id=539

With 12 new Signatories added today.
* Grassroot Institute of Hawaii
* C.A.G.E. (Citizens Against Government Encroachment)
* Iro Cyr, Blainville, Qc, Canada
* Mandy Vincent, Cambs, United Kingdom
* Caroline Freeman, Leicester, United Kingdom
* A.J.G, United Kingdom
* A. J. Davis, Bath, United Kingdom
* January Oaten, Taunton, United Kingdom
* Pamela L. Parker, Grove City, Ohio, United States
* Deanna Spencer, Grove City, Ohio, United States
* Keith A. Parker, Grove City, Ohio, United States
* Dayton Ables, Sutton, West Virginia, United States

This message has been edited. Last edited by: infinitethoughts,

infinitethoughts: "I disagree. I do see your point about the copy write trick. But if you look at the statement closely, there's one word that makes it a fallicous and suspect statement. That word is increases."

Oh, I noticed that too, but it's a weasel word. The "increases" claim can be made if the slightest whiff of tobacco smoke causes a few antis' blood pressure to go up. I'm sure Stanton Glantz himself is at increased risk of a fatal heart attack if he merely watches Blade Runner or Pulp Fiction.

Significantly increases would be an outright lie, but as we all know, the anti-tobacco movement does not deal with statistically significant effects. If it did, they'd all be out of their phony-baloney jobs. When it comes to twisting the language, those people are experts.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying they don't step over the line into telling outright, bald-faced lies. They do, especially when backed into a corner during heated debate (which increases their risk as well); however, their press release statements tend to be more carefully worded. I'm just wondering why Siegel became stuck on this claim. If he was completely up to speed and honest, he'd be working to overturn the indoor restrictions that have already been made.

But I too would like nothing more than to see the press get medieval on their asses, their credibility thoroughly blown, their movement in ruins, the ACS, ALA, RJWH, et al. under investigation, and so on.

Like you, Infinitethoughts, I'll cross my fingers and watch.

At the risk of sounding cynical, do all of you fellow smokers think that at this late date the health Nazis are gonna let a few facts get in the way of their pre-conceived notions? Do you think that if it were announced tomorrow that smoking causes no health risk we would get a break from all the sin-taxes that are crushing us? It's all over now and the cat is out of the bag. We are the cash-cow of the American Tax system and there's not a hell of a lot we can do now.

You don't sound cynical to me, Greasywrench.

But of course, if you look up the word "cynical" in the dictionary, you'll find a picture of me:



Well... close enough, anyway.