PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
Here at USMB we are blessed with a dunce who regularly posts that Republicans are anti-science, or a tiny fraction of scientists.....suggesting that the Leftists are deep thinkers, and the cutting edge of raciocination....
Sure would like to see his analysis of the following story:
" BOSTON APPROVES BAN ON SMOKING IN CITY-RUN PARKS"
Boston approves ban on smoking in city-run parks
Seems to me one could not find a less-Republican big city than Boston......
The 'Second-Hand Smoke Scam'....hysteria masquerading as science.
1. Dr. James Enstrom, disputed the epidemiological studies on secondhand smoke in the British Medical Journal:
The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed . Most epidemiological studies have found that environmental tobacco smoke has a positive but not statistically significant relation to coronary heart disease and lung cancer. Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 | BMJ
2. What happens when scientists disagree with the Left? Science takes second place to Liberal politics.
A longtime professor at UCLA, told that he would not be rehired because his "research is not aligned with the academic mission" of his department, Enstrom, an epidemiologist at UCLA's School of Public Health, has a history of running against the grain. In 2003 he wrote a study, published in the British Medical Journal, in which he found no causal relationship between secondhand smoke and tobacco-related death a conclusion that drew fire both because it was contrary to popular scientific belief and because it was funded by Philip Morris . "The significance of this is a threat to academic freedom and it's also a threat to academic science," Siegel said. "If scientists have to produce work that meets a certain view to keep their jobs, researchers are going to stop publishing negative findings for fear of being fired.". Scientist's Firing After 36 Years Fuels 'PC' Debate at UCLA | Fox News
3. No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory . More than two dozen causes of lung cancer are reported in the professional literature, and over 200 for cardiovascular diseases; their likely intrusions have never been credibly measured and controlled in secondhand smoke studies. It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901158.html
4. Columbia University magazine included this in its Letters section, from Dr. Attila Mady:
The theatrics around the antismoking crusade not only discredit those who resort to fuzzy logic, but also compromise an overall laudable effort to improve public health. There are no prospective case-control studies of smokers. Nor will there ever be, since a properly designed study would require fifty years and millions of participants .Statistics ignore herd immunity and exposure to volatile and particulates since the onset of the industrial age and dont translate into the real world.
Columbia Magazine, Spring 2012, p.4.
And, this, particularly significant for Boston's ridiculous park ban......
5. A real laugher is the outdoor smoking ban various nanny-state governments have instituted.
But no evidence demonstrates that the duration of outdoor exposure in places where people can move freely about is long enough to cause substantial health damage . To make matters worse, in trying to convince people that even transient exposure to secondhand smoke is a potentially deadly hazard, smoking opponents risk losing scientific credibility.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opinion/06siegel.html
Hypothetically, as many individuals on the Right dislike smoking as do individuals on the Left why, then, are those on the Left so much more likely to believe that secondhand smoke can seriously hurt their health, and, possibly, kill them?
And why are Liberal cities, governed by Liberal, so much more likely to ban outdoor smoking .?
When Liberals hear the words studies show, or experts say, they cease to question authority. Hence Lock-Step Liberals
Sure would like to see his analysis of the following story:
" BOSTON APPROVES BAN ON SMOKING IN CITY-RUN PARKS"
Boston approves ban on smoking in city-run parks
Seems to me one could not find a less-Republican big city than Boston......
The 'Second-Hand Smoke Scam'....hysteria masquerading as science.
1. Dr. James Enstrom, disputed the epidemiological studies on secondhand smoke in the British Medical Journal:
The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed . Most epidemiological studies have found that environmental tobacco smoke has a positive but not statistically significant relation to coronary heart disease and lung cancer. Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 | BMJ
2. What happens when scientists disagree with the Left? Science takes second place to Liberal politics.
A longtime professor at UCLA, told that he would not be rehired because his "research is not aligned with the academic mission" of his department, Enstrom, an epidemiologist at UCLA's School of Public Health, has a history of running against the grain. In 2003 he wrote a study, published in the British Medical Journal, in which he found no causal relationship between secondhand smoke and tobacco-related death a conclusion that drew fire both because it was contrary to popular scientific belief and because it was funded by Philip Morris . "The significance of this is a threat to academic freedom and it's also a threat to academic science," Siegel said. "If scientists have to produce work that meets a certain view to keep their jobs, researchers are going to stop publishing negative findings for fear of being fired.". Scientist's Firing After 36 Years Fuels 'PC' Debate at UCLA | Fox News
3. No measure of cumulative lifetime secondhand smoke exposure was ever possible, so the epidemiologic studies estimated risk based not only on an improper marker of exposure, but also on exposure data that are illusory . More than two dozen causes of lung cancer are reported in the professional literature, and over 200 for cardiovascular diseases; their likely intrusions have never been credibly measured and controlled in secondhand smoke studies. It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012901158.html
4. Columbia University magazine included this in its Letters section, from Dr. Attila Mady:
The theatrics around the antismoking crusade not only discredit those who resort to fuzzy logic, but also compromise an overall laudable effort to improve public health. There are no prospective case-control studies of smokers. Nor will there ever be, since a properly designed study would require fifty years and millions of participants .Statistics ignore herd immunity and exposure to volatile and particulates since the onset of the industrial age and dont translate into the real world.
Columbia Magazine, Spring 2012, p.4.
And, this, particularly significant for Boston's ridiculous park ban......
5. A real laugher is the outdoor smoking ban various nanny-state governments have instituted.
But no evidence demonstrates that the duration of outdoor exposure in places where people can move freely about is long enough to cause substantial health damage . To make matters worse, in trying to convince people that even transient exposure to secondhand smoke is a potentially deadly hazard, smoking opponents risk losing scientific credibility.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opinion/06siegel.html
Hypothetically, as many individuals on the Right dislike smoking as do individuals on the Left why, then, are those on the Left so much more likely to believe that secondhand smoke can seriously hurt their health, and, possibly, kill them?
And why are Liberal cities, governed by Liberal, so much more likely to ban outdoor smoking .?
When Liberals hear the words studies show, or experts say, they cease to question authority. Hence Lock-Step Liberals
