Oddball
Unobtanium Member
They won't release the study.....Just the "findings".you are putting up the sermon again, rather than the study.
Nope....Nothing fishy there!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They won't release the study.....Just the "findings".you are putting up the sermon again, rather than the study.
That's because the current philosophy is "just pass, so we can know what it's all about later."They won't release the study.....Just the "findings".you are putting up the sermon again, rather than the study.
Nope....Nothing fishy there!
Ahhh.....The old WHO report that was discovered to be a TOTAL FRAUD....Guess ole Gomer Pyle didn't get the memo.I'm not asking you to believe smoking is harmless, I'm asking you to look at the results of the studies to check whether the findings support the hyperbolic rhetoric. in the case of the WHO study the results at best show inconclusive findings.
do I think children were protected from cancer by being exposed to SHS? no. but if the results were 1.22 CI(1.04-1.36) you would be screaming that it was proof positive.
and the CI for adults overlaps 1.0, meaning that SHS could either help or hurt the chances of getting cancer.
this is feeble evidence to be calling smokers environmental terrorists, let alone the people who just don't want to ostracize smokers.
WHAT? You don't want to ostracize smokers? Smokers have every right to smoke...just take it OUTSIDE. Every human has the right to breath clean, fresh air. Anyone who invades that right should be 'ostracized'
Second-hand smoke kills 600,000 a year: WHO study
Fri Nov 26, 2010
Around one in a hundred deaths worldwide is due to passive smoking, which kills an estimated 600,000 people a year, World Health Organization (WHO) researchers said on Friday.
In the first study to assess the global impact of second-hand smoke, WHO experts found that children are more heavily exposed to second-hand smoke than any other age-group, and around 165,000 of them a year die because of it.
"Two-thirds of these deaths occur in Africa and south Asia," the researchers, led by Annette Pruss-Ustun of the WHO in Geneva, wrote in their study.
Children's exposure to second-hand smoke is most likely to happen at home, and the double blow of infectious diseases and tobacco "seems to be a deadly combination for children in these regions," they said.
Commenting on the findings in the Lancet journal, Heather Wipfli and Jonathan Samet from the University of Southern California said policymakers try to motivate families to stop smoking in the home.
"In some countries, smokefree homes are becoming the norm, but far from universally," they wrote.
The WHO researchers looked at data from 192 countries for their study. To get comprehensive data from all 192, they had to go back to 2004. They used mathematical modeling to estimate deaths and the number of years lost of life in good health.
Worldwide, 40 percent of children, 33 percent of non-smoking men and 35 percent non-smoking women were exposed to second-hand smoke in 2004, they found.
This exposure was estimated to have caused 379,000 deaths from heart disease, 165,000 from lower respiratory infections, 36,900 from asthma and 21,400 from lung cancer.
For the full impact of smoking, these deaths should be added to the estimated 5.1 million deaths a year attributable to active tobacco use, the researchers said.
CHILDREN
While deaths due to passive smoking in children were skewed toward poor and middle-income countries, deaths in adults were spread across countries at all income levels.
In Europe's high-income countries, only 71 child deaths occurred, while 35,388 deaths were in adults. Yet in the countries assessed in Africa, an estimated 43,375 deaths due to passive smoking were in children compared with 9,514 in adults.
more
...And They Call This "Science"!
Just as with Goebbels warming, the Euronannies at the UN had a conclusion they wanted to reach and made the "facts" fit the template.
WHO fudged, contrived and outright lied, dumbshit.....That's a documented fact.Ahhh.....The old WHO report that was discovered to be a TOTAL FRAUD....Guess ole Gomer Pyle didn't get the memo.WHAT? You don't want to ostracize smokers? Smokers have every right to smoke...just take it OUTSIDE. Every human has the right to breath clean, fresh air. Anyone who invades that right should be 'ostracized'
Second-hand smoke kills 600,000 a year: WHO study
Fri Nov 26, 2010
Around one in a hundred deaths worldwide is due to passive smoking, which kills an estimated 600,000 people a year, World Health Organization (WHO) researchers said on Friday.
In the first study to assess the global impact of second-hand smoke, WHO experts found that children are more heavily exposed to second-hand smoke than any other age-group, and around 165,000 of them a year die because of it.
"Two-thirds of these deaths occur in Africa and south Asia," the researchers, led by Annette Pruss-Ustun of the WHO in Geneva, wrote in their study.
Children's exposure to second-hand smoke is most likely to happen at home, and the double blow of infectious diseases and tobacco "seems to be a deadly combination for children in these regions," they said.
Commenting on the findings in the Lancet journal, Heather Wipfli and Jonathan Samet from the University of Southern California said policymakers try to motivate families to stop smoking in the home.
"In some countries, smokefree homes are becoming the norm, but far from universally," they wrote.
The WHO researchers looked at data from 192 countries for their study. To get comprehensive data from all 192, they had to go back to 2004. They used mathematical modeling to estimate deaths and the number of years lost of life in good health.
Worldwide, 40 percent of children, 33 percent of non-smoking men and 35 percent non-smoking women were exposed to second-hand smoke in 2004, they found.
This exposure was estimated to have caused 379,000 deaths from heart disease, 165,000 from lower respiratory infections, 36,900 from asthma and 21,400 from lung cancer.
For the full impact of smoking, these deaths should be added to the estimated 5.1 million deaths a year attributable to active tobacco use, the researchers said.
CHILDREN
While deaths due to passive smoking in children were skewed toward poor and middle-income countries, deaths in adults were spread across countries at all income levels.
In Europe's high-income countries, only 71 child deaths occurred, while 35,388 deaths were in adults. Yet in the countries assessed in Africa, an estimated 43,375 deaths due to passive smoking were in children compared with 9,514 in adults.
more
...And They Call This "Science"!
Just as with Goebbels warming, the Euronannies at the UN had a conclusion they wanted to reach and made the "facts" fit the template.
REALLY Jethro? Goebbels? Shouldn't you be calling yourself out on Godwin's law? Can it get any more narcissistic, sick and evil than FORCE? Better find that Godwin pic, because this sounds like it goes beyond environmental terrorists.
To FORCES belong those who consider what follows unacceptable:
- The principle that public and private health - instead of general and individual liberty of choice, behaviour and enterprise - is the paramount value of society, to which any and all other values must submit.
- The ideological equation of health with liberty.
The Truth About Secondhand Smoke
Excerpted from Consumer Reports electronic services January 1995, reprinted by permission.
Introduction
In the 1950s and 1960s, the tobacco industry mounted a campaign to keep doubt alive about the consequences of smoking. The effort ultimately flopped. But it succeeded in putting off that day when everyone acknowledged the hazard. That delay bought years of robust sales. The industry is at it again, only this time the target is secondhand smoke.
The Evidence?
For years, researchers have accumulated information about the effects of the compounds in secondhand smoke. Cigarette smoke and tars condensed from it induce cancer in laboratory animals.
The smoke causes genetic mutations in bacteria, another common test for carcinogenic potential. And several of its components are known or probable human carcinogens. If scientists had only this animal and laboratory evidence to go on, secondhand smoke would still qualify as a "probable" or "possible" human carcinogen.
Tobacco smoke is among a handful of substances (including asbestos, vinyl chloride and radon) for which abundant human evidence exists.
That evidence comes from epidemiology (the study of disease patterns in human populations), the field responsible for identifying all the known human carcinogens. There are 33 published epidemiological studies of secondhand smoke, 13 of which were conducted in the U.S. Most used standard epidemiological technique. The published studies looked at nonsmoking women who developed lung cancer, to see whether they were more likely to be married to smokers than were women who didn't get the disease.
In all such studies, it is difficult to accurately measure every variable. Most of the smoking occurred decades ago, and the details can't be learned. Some women whose husbands didn't smoke might still have breathed smoke at work or with friends. And some wives of smokers might have been able to avoid their spouses' smoke. But both of those factors would tend to hide any true relationship between exposure and disease.
So, if anything, the studies should underestimate the risk of secondhand smoke. Despite the unknown variables, 26 of the 33 studies indicated a link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Those studies estimated that people breathing secondhand smoke were 8 % to 150 % more likely to get lung cancer sometime later.
Of the remaining seven studies, one found no connection with lung-cancer rates. Six suggested that people exposed to secondhand smoke had lower rates of lung cancer, although no one suggests passive smoking really reduces the risk. Seven of the 26 positive studies included enough subjects, and found a sufficient effect, to attain "statistical significance," meaning there was no more than a 5 % probability that the results in those studies occurred by chance.
In contrast, just one of the negative studies reached statistical significance.
In all such studies, it is difficult to accurately measure every variable. Most of the smoking occurred decades ago, and the details can't be learned. Some women whose husbands didn't smoke might still have breathed smoke at work or with friends. And some wives of smokers might have been able to avoid their spouses' smoke. But both of those factors would tend to hide any true relationship between exposure and disease.
The Truth About Secondhand Smoke
Excerpted from Consumer Reports electronic services January 1995, reprinted by permission.
Introduction
In the 1950s and 1960s, the tobacco industry mounted a campaign to keep doubt alive about the consequences of smoking. The effort ultimately flopped. But it succeeded in putting off that day when everyone acknowledged the hazard. That delay bought years of robust sales. The industry is at it again, only this time the target is secondhand smoke.
The Evidence?
For years, researchers have accumulated information about the effects of the compounds in secondhand smoke. Cigarette smoke and tars condensed from it induce cancer in laboratory animals.
The smoke causes genetic mutations in bacteria, another common test for carcinogenic potential. And several of its components are known or probable human carcinogens. If scientists had only this animal and laboratory evidence to go on, secondhand smoke would still qualify as a "probable" or "possible" human carcinogen.
Tobacco smoke is among a handful of substances (including asbestos, vinyl chloride and radon) for which abundant human evidence exists.
That evidence comes from epidemiology (the study of disease patterns in human populations), the field responsible for identifying all the known human carcinogens. There are 33 published epidemiological studies of secondhand smoke, 13 of which were conducted in the U.S. Most used standard epidemiological technique. The published studies looked at nonsmoking women who developed lung cancer, to see whether they were more likely to be married to smokers than were women who didn't get the disease.
In all such studies, it is difficult to accurately measure every variable. Most of the smoking occurred decades ago, and the details can't be learned. Some women whose husbands didn't smoke might still have breathed smoke at work or with friends. And some wives of smokers might have been able to avoid their spouses' smoke. But both of those factors would tend to hide any true relationship between exposure and disease.
So, if anything, the studies should underestimate the risk of secondhand smoke. Despite the unknown variables, 26 of the 33 studies indicated a link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Those studies estimated that people breathing secondhand smoke were 8 % to 150 % more likely to get lung cancer sometime later.
Of the remaining seven studies, one found no connection with lung-cancer rates. Six suggested that people exposed to secondhand smoke had lower rates of lung cancer, although no one suggests passive smoking really reduces the risk. Seven of the 26 positive studies included enough subjects, and found a sufficient effect, to attain "statistical significance," meaning there was no more than a 5 % probability that the results in those studies occurred by chance.
In contrast, just one of the negative studies reached statistical significance.
Hey Jethro --- Dose LEVELS?? They don't matter in these studies or they were meticulously controlled for? Which was it? You think THAT yields science accurate enough to pronounce causality/rate numbers that overlap 1.0? Or even a 1.2?
In all such studies, it is difficult to accurately measure every variable. Most of the smoking occurred decades ago, and the details can't be learned. Some women whose husbands didn't smoke might still have breathed smoke at work or with friends. And some wives of smokers might have been able to avoid their spouses' smoke. But both of those factors would tend to hide any true relationship between exposure and disease.
Good enough for propaganda.. Not for science. Sorry Pal.. Dose matters in studies of this type...
My interest in this topic started in the early 90s when a local news show blared the headline "Parents are Killing their Children -- details at 11"..
So the media mental midgets repeated the "conclusions" part of the study that children of smokers were 30% more likely to die of lung diseases in their lifetimes.. So I pulled the study and read it.. Guess what???
In order to force a positive 1.3 effect out of the study,
......... the kid had to live in a 2 smoker family CONSTANTLY for 24 years
And children with less exposure than that quickly got reprieves and maybe even PROTECTIVE results from living with smokers. But the propaganda meisters accomplish the drive-by assassination of science and used the useful idiots to broadcast their lie...
I'm sure that THAT STUDY is still quoted to this day by your lying heroes as proof of the dangers to "all children" exposed to "any level" of exposure to SHS. They have no shame or scientific scruples when there are kids to save.. God bless their little hearts.
The tobacco industry didn't author the fraudulent WHO and EPA reports, Gomer.
Who I may or may not be hired by is irrelevant to WHO's and EPA's fraudulence.
You really suck at this, Gomer.
The Truth About Secondhand Smoke
Excerpted from Consumer Reports electronic services January 1995, reprinted by permission.
Introduction
In the 1950s and 1960s, the tobacco industry mounted a campaign to keep doubt alive about the consequences of smoking. The effort ultimately flopped. But it succeeded in putting off that day when everyone acknowledged the hazard. That delay bought years of robust sales. The industry is at it again, only this time the target is secondhand smoke.
The Evidence?
For years, researchers have accumulated information about the effects of the compounds in secondhand smoke. Cigarette smoke and tars condensed from it induce cancer in laboratory animals.
The smoke causes genetic mutations in bacteria, another common test for carcinogenic potential. And several of its components are known or probable human carcinogens. If scientists had only this animal and laboratory evidence to go on, secondhand smoke would still qualify as a "probable" or "possible" human carcinogen.
Tobacco smoke is among a handful of substances (including asbestos, vinyl chloride and radon) for which abundant human evidence exists.
That evidence comes from epidemiology (the study of disease patterns in human populations), the field responsible for identifying all the known human carcinogens. There are 33 published epidemiological studies of secondhand smoke, 13 of which were conducted in the U.S. Most used standard epidemiological technique. The published studies looked at nonsmoking women who developed lung cancer, to see whether they were more likely to be married to smokers than were women who didn't get the disease.
In all such studies, it is difficult to accurately measure every variable. Most of the smoking occurred decades ago, and the details can't be learned. Some women whose husbands didn't smoke might still have breathed smoke at work or with friends. And some wives of smokers might have been able to avoid their spouses' smoke. But both of those factors would tend to hide any true relationship between exposure and disease.
So, if anything, the studies should underestimate the risk of secondhand smoke. Despite the unknown variables, 26 of the 33 studies indicated a link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Those studies estimated that people breathing secondhand smoke were 8 % to 150 % more likely to get lung cancer sometime later.
Of the remaining seven studies, one found no connection with lung-cancer rates. Six suggested that people exposed to secondhand smoke had lower rates of lung cancer, although no one suggests passive smoking really reduces the risk. Seven of the 26 positive studies included enough subjects, and found a sufficient effect, to attain "statistical significance," meaning there was no more than a 5 % probability that the results in those studies occurred by chance.
In contrast, just one of the negative studies reached statistical significance.
Hey Jethro --- Dose LEVELS?? They don't matter in these studies or they were meticulously controlled for? Which was it? You think THAT yields science accurate enough to pronounce causality/rate numbers that overlap 1.0? Or even a 1.2?
In all such studies, it is difficult to accurately measure every variable. Most of the smoking occurred decades ago, and the details can't be learned. Some women whose husbands didn't smoke might still have breathed smoke at work or with friends. And some wives of smokers might have been able to avoid their spouses' smoke. But both of those factors would tend to hide any true relationship between exposure and disease.
Good enough for propaganda.. Not for science. Sorry Pal.. Dose matters in studies of this type...
My interest in this topic started in the early 90s when a local news show blared the headline "Parents are Killing their Children -- details at 11"..
So the media mental midgets repeated the "conclusions" part of the study that children of smokers were 30% more likely to die of lung diseases in their lifetimes.. So I pulled the study and read it.. Guess what???
In order to force a positive 1.3 effect out of the study,
......... the kid had to live in a 2 smoker family CONSTANTLY for 24 years
And children with less exposure than that quickly got reprieves and maybe even PROTECTIVE results from living with smokers. But the propaganda meisters accomplish the drive-by assassination of science and used the useful idiots to broadcast their lie...
I'm sure that THAT STUDY is still quoted to this day by your lying heroes as proof of the dangers to "all children" exposed to "any level" of exposure to SHS. They have no shame or scientific scruples when there are kids to save.. God bless their little hearts.
Link?
Hey Jethro --- Dose LEVELS?? They don't matter in these studies or they were meticulously controlled for? Which was it? You think THAT yields science accurate enough to pronounce causality/rate numbers that overlap 1.0? Or even a 1.2?
Good enough for propaganda.. Not for science. Sorry Pal.. Dose matters in studies of this type...
My interest in this topic started in the early 90s when a local news show blared the headline "Parents are Killing their Children -- details at 11"..
So the media mental midgets repeated the "conclusions" part of the study that children of smokers were 30% more likely to die of lung diseases in their lifetimes.. So I pulled the study and read it.. Guess what???
In order to force a positive 1.3 effect out of the study,
......... the kid had to live in a 2 smoker family CONSTANTLY for 24 years
And children with less exposure than that quickly got reprieves and maybe even PROTECTIVE results from living with smokers. But the propaganda meisters accomplish the drive-by assassination of science and used the useful idiots to broadcast their lie...
I'm sure that THAT STUDY is still quoted to this day by your lying heroes as proof of the dangers to "all children" exposed to "any level" of exposure to SHS. They have no shame or scientific scruples when there are kids to save.. God bless their little hearts.
Link?
The impact of reading the TRUTH about that study has stayed marked in my brain.. It inspires me to even spend time countering shills like you.. But it was too many years ago and before the internet for me to try to dig up..
Instead --- WHY don't you read the tagline in my footer again eh BullWinkle?
And then ANSWER MY DAMN QUESTION about how accurate all your science can be if DOSE and EXPOSURE is completely unknown and uncontrolled.. Use what you have of your OWN brain and explain it to me.
Recriminations and a text brick written by someone else still doesn't refute the fact that WHO and EPA lied out their asses.Who I may or may not be hired by is irrelevant to WHO's and EPA's fraudulence.
You really suck at this, Gomer.
WHO someone is hired by is TOTALLY relevant, especially when the industry doing the hiring spells out in memos entered as evidence in a lawsuit they their intent was not science, or truth, their intention was to launch a PR campaign, and that they were looking for 'sympathetic doctors'.
Tobacco-industry funding of research
The tobacco industry's role in funding scientific research on second-hand smoke has been controversial. A review of published studies found that tobacco-industry affiliation was strongly correlated with findings exonerating second-hand smoke; researchers affiliated with the tobacco industry were 88 times more likely than independent researchers to conclude that second-hand was not harmful. In a specific example which came to light with the release of tobacco-industry documents, Philip Morris executives successfully encouraged an author to revise his industry-funded review article to downplay the role of second-hand smoke in sudden infant death syndrome. The 2006 U.S. Surgeon General's report criticized the tobacco industry's role in the scientific debate:
The industry has funded or carried out research that has been judged to be biased, supported scientists to generate letters to editors that criticized research publications, attempted to undermine the findings of key studies, assisted in establishing a scientific society with a journal, and attempted to sustain controversy even as the scientific community reached consensus.
This strategy was outlined at an international meeting of tobacco companies in 1988, at which Philip Morris proposed to set up a team of scientists, organized by company lawyers, to "carry out work on ETS to keep the controversy alive." All scientific research was subject to oversight and "filtering" by tobacco-industry lawyers:
Philip Morris then expect the group of scientists to operate within the confines of decisions taken by PM scientists to determine the general direction of research, which apparently would then be 'filtered' by lawyers to eliminate areas of sensitivity.
Philip Morris reported that it was putting "...vast amounts of funding into these projects... in attempting to coordinate and pay so many scientists on an international basis to keep the ETS controversy alive."
The Truth About Secondhand Smoke
Excerpted from Consumer Reports electronic services January 1995, reprinted by permission.
Introduction
In the 1950s and 1960s, the tobacco industry mounted a campaign to keep doubt alive about the consequences of smoking. The effort ultimately flopped. But it succeeded in putting off that day when everyone acknowledged the hazard. That delay bought years of robust sales. The industry is at it again, only this time the target is secondhand smoke.
The Evidence?
For years, researchers have accumulated information about the effects of the compounds in secondhand smoke. Cigarette smoke and tars condensed from it induce cancer in laboratory animals.
The smoke causes genetic mutations in bacteria, another common test for carcinogenic potential. And several of its components are known or probable human carcinogens. If scientists had only this animal and laboratory evidence to go on, secondhand smoke would still qualify as a "probable" or "possible" human carcinogen.
Tobacco smoke is among a handful of substances (including asbestos, vinyl chloride and radon) for which abundant human evidence exists.
That evidence comes from epidemiology (the study of disease patterns in human populations), the field responsible for identifying all the known human carcinogens. There are 33 published epidemiological studies of secondhand smoke, 13 of which were conducted in the U.S. Most used standard epidemiological technique. The published studies looked at nonsmoking women who developed lung cancer, to see whether they were more likely to be married to smokers than were women who didn't get the disease.
In all such studies, it is difficult to accurately measure every variable. Most of the smoking occurred decades ago, and the details can't be learned. Some women whose husbands didn't smoke might still have breathed smoke at work or with friends. And some wives of smokers might have been able to avoid their spouses' smoke. But both of those factors would tend to hide any true relationship between exposure and disease.
So, if anything, the studies should underestimate the risk of secondhand smoke. Despite the unknown variables, 26 of the 33 studies indicated a link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Those studies estimated that people breathing secondhand smoke were 8 % to 150 % more likely to get lung cancer sometime later.
Of the remaining seven studies, one found no connection with lung-cancer rates. Six suggested that people exposed to secondhand smoke had lower rates of lung cancer, although no one suggests passive smoking really reduces the risk. Seven of the 26 positive studies included enough subjects, and found a sufficient effect, to attain "statistical significance," meaning there was no more than a 5 % probability that the results in those studies occurred by chance.
In contrast, just one of the negative studies reached statistical significance.
Hey Jethro --- Dose LEVELS?? They don't matter in these studies or they were meticulously controlled for? Which was it? You think THAT yields science accurate enough to pronounce causality/rate numbers that overlap 1.0? Or even a 1.2?
In all such studies, it is difficult to accurately measure every variable. Most of the smoking occurred decades ago, and the details can't be learned. Some women whose husbands didn't smoke might still have breathed smoke at work or with friends. And some wives of smokers might have been able to avoid their spouses' smoke. But both of those factors would tend to hide any true relationship between exposure and disease.
Good enough for propaganda.. Not for science. Sorry Pal.. Dose matters in studies of this type...
My interest in this topic started in the early 90s when a local news show blared the headline "Parents are Killing their Children -- details at 11"..
So the media mental midgets repeated the "conclusions" part of the study that children of smokers were 30% more likely to die of lung diseases in their lifetimes.. So I pulled the study and read it.. Guess what???
In order to force a positive 1.3 effect out of the study,
......... the kid had to live in a 2 smoker family CONSTANTLY for 24 years
And children with less exposure than that quickly got reprieves and maybe even PROTECTIVE results from living with smokers. But the propaganda meisters accomplish the drive-by assassination of science and used the useful idiots to broadcast their lie...
I'm sure that THAT STUDY is still quoted to this day by your lying heroes as proof of the dangers to "all children" exposed to "any level" of exposure to SHS. They have no shame or scientific scruples when there are kids to save.. God bless their little hearts.
No links, just insults...
ANSWER MY DAMN QUESTION about how accurate all your science can be if DOSE and EXPOSURE is completely unknown and uncontrolled
No links, just insults...
ANSWER MY DAMN QUESTION about how accurate all your science can be if DOSE and EXPOSURE is completely unknown and uncontrolled
That seemed like a reasonable question. Got an answer? I would be real interested in hearing how any sort of rational scientific position could be reached with those two critical variables remaining unknown. So what is the answer?