Science Lies?

[rikules]

Anyone read "Hyping Health Risks" by Geoffrey Kabar?

Hyping Health Risks provides a valuable counterpoint to the confusion and paranoia that seems to grow proportionate to the constant barrage of health risk studies. Examining four of the most persistent and controversial issues in public health, Kabat's lucid and well-written book gives the lay reader all the basic concepts and epidemiological tools she needs to understand the available evidence. His presentation allows us to better discriminate between what matters to our health and what matters to the 'hypers'-a wide array of stakeholders, some well-intentioned, some much less so. -- Ernest Drucker, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine

Geoffrey C. Kabat, a respected epidemiologist, provides an insider's account of how a number of ostensible health hazards have been blown out of proportion. While we face a daily barrage of health scares, Kabat cuts through the confusion and provides a lucid and rigorous rationale for rejecting much of the fear culture that permeates our society. -- Shelly Ungar, University of Toronto

With clarity and dispassion, Geoffrey C. Kabat challenges widespread beliefs that secondhand smoke, low levels of radon, and other ostensible environmental nemeses are certain killers. In making his case, Kabat draws extensively on scientific evidence while shunning rhetoric and political posturing. The result is an admirable search for scientific truth amid a sea of conflicting and often uninformed opinions. -- Leonard Cole, Rutgers University

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Hyping-Health-Risks-Environmental-Epidemiology/dp/0231141483/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275208074&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of…[/ame]


What caught my eye when I read the book review in "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine was that the "proof" that second hand smoke kills does not exist, according to the author. Not only do I smoke, but I have watched several businesses in my neighborhood go under as a result of the recent smoking ban here. All this nagging and misery for naught?

Makes me mad enough to hit someone.

I certainly support the right of all people to choose their own poisons.

I believe that when it comes to smoking (tobacco, pot) or sex or any other potentially risky activity the people (including school children) should begiven FACTS and TRUTH and NOT fed EXTREME FEARFILLED lies and misinformation

I, personally , have no problem with a person smoking in my presence, with the exception of in MY HOUSE (it stinks!) or in MY CAR (it REALLY stinks)

I also believe that any person who chooses to indulge in dangerous activities has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to force the rest of us to pay for their health problems that develop due to said activity.

you smoke....
you get cancer...
I don't want to be forced to pay for your treatments


if a person refuses to diet and exercise
and they indulge in fatty foods
so they get fat
and then obese
and develop heart, lung, back, leg, stomach problems...

not my problem
I don't want to have to pay for those problems

 

[rikules]

No shit. Second-hand smoke was all a load.

Who'd a fuckin' thunk it? And do you know 94% of the fartsniffs who were trying to sell this shit were dems?

you are, of course, being a bit harsh

first.....one report that you like doesn't automatically discount all the other reports.

the tobacco industry will show you all kinds of reports that "prove" tobacco to be healthier for you than chcolate

but can we trust them?

no.

is this report the FINAL WORD on the subject?

no.

will other reports emerge indicating that this report is wrong?

probably.

you are merely choosing to believe what you WANT to believe

you know...
the way so many fartsniffing cons do when they want to wage war on pot smokers..

they ignore reality and simply sieze upon misinformation and lies and then declare them to be the truth...

I wish I expected better from you...
but
alas
I don't.

hmmmm.
I wonder...
do farts cause cancer?

are fart sniffers in danger of developing health problems?

if so....you are in trouble!

 

[Madeline]

Anyone read "Hyping Health Risks" by Geoffrey Kabar?

Hyping Health Risks provides a valuable counterpoint to the confusion and paranoia that seems to grow proportionate to the constant barrage of health risk studies. Examining four of the most persistent and controversial issues in public health, Kabat's lucid and well-written book gives the lay reader all the basic concepts and epidemiological tools she needs to understand the available evidence. His presentation allows us to better discriminate between what matters to our health and what matters to the 'hypers'-a wide array of stakeholders, some well-intentioned, some much less so. -- Ernest Drucker, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine

Geoffrey C. Kabat, a respected epidemiologist, provides an insider's account of how a number of ostensible health hazards have been blown out of proportion. While we face a daily barrage of health scares, Kabat cuts through the confusion and provides a lucid and rigorous rationale for rejecting much of the fear culture that permeates our society. -- Shelly Ungar, University of Toronto

With clarity and dispassion, Geoffrey C. Kabat challenges widespread beliefs that secondhand smoke, low levels of radon, and other ostensible environmental nemeses are certain killers. In making his case, Kabat draws extensively on scientific evidence while shunning rhetoric and political posturing. The result is an admirable search for scientific truth amid a sea of conflicting and often uninformed opinions. -- Leonard Cole, Rutgers University

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Hyping-Health-Risks-Environmental-Epidemiology/dp/0231141483/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275208074&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of…[/ame]


What caught my eye when I read the book review in "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine was that the "proof" that second hand smoke kills does not exist, according to the author. Not only do I smoke, but I have watched several businesses in my neighborhood go under as a result of the recent smoking ban here. All this nagging and misery for naught?

Makes me mad enough to hit someone.

I certainly support the right of all people to choose their own poisons.

I believe that when it comes to smoking (tobacco, pot) or sex or any other potentially risky activity the people (including school children) should begiven FACTS and TRUTH and NOT fed EXTREME FEARFILLED lies and misinformation

I, personally , have no problem with a person smoking in my presence, with the exception of in MY HOUSE (it stinks!) or in MY CAR (it REALLY stinks)

I also believe that any person who chooses to indulge in dangerous activities has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to force the rest of us to pay for their health problems that develop due to said activity.

you smoke....
you get cancer...
I don't want to be forced to pay for your treatments


if a person refuses to diet and exercise
and they indulge in fatty foods
so they get fat
and then obese
and develop heart, lung, back, leg, stomach problems...

not my problem
I don't want to have to pay for those problems

rikules, we already indulge in this sort of ranking of people and their behaviors. A smoker will not usually be eligible for a lung transplant in the US. If we take this further and deny him any health care for a "smoking related illness or injury" are we not just saying we despise the smoker to such a degree we don't want him to live?

Why must I pay higher insurance premiums for people whose genes are defective but who refuse to get tested and refrain from reproducing? Why must I help underwrite the cost of care for people who injure themselves by driving recklessly?

The truth is, we all think whatever risks we undertake are acceptable but no one else's are. I disapprove of drunk driving but it has taken me decades to accept that there is choice involved. When I grew up, everyone drank and everyone drove while drunk. Not just "impaired" -- drunk. For a very long time I resisted the message of Mothers Against Drunk Driving because I just could not see the rationale of tagging an intoxicated person for whatever he had done whilst intoxicated. Slowly, I began to see that the choice is at the point BEFORE they are intoxicated, when they have not made suitable arrangements for their transport.

As society alters its POV about certain behaviors are we supposed to deny health care or criminalize each risky behavior we once accepted? There's not much that'll kill a woman like me before my natural death, but sex is one such thing. The incidence of STIs for folks my age is astounding. If I engage in sex without protection and become ill, should I be denied care?

What about my friends who are crazy enough to go cave diving? If they get injured they'll most likely die...but if they do survive, why should I or anyone else help to undewrite the cost of their care?

Don't we agree to these things because as part of the social contract, we accept that Humans will take risks and we are willing to absorb some of the costs those risks create? After all, this is the whole premise of health insurance -- of any insurance. Pooling or sharing risk.

 

[westwall]

There is a difference between a scientific breakthrough that shows an error in thinking in the past and an outright LIE.

What science lies do you know of, standunited?

Anthropogenic(man caused) global warming for one. Eugenics, the Tuskeegee syphilis experiments, a whole host of ethically challenged psychology experiments, etc. etc. etc.

westwall, I am aware of at least some of the psychology experiements you refer to. Their results are what they are. The fact that whetever knowledge they may have to contribute was gained by ethically-replusive means is terrible, but that's not quite the same as saying the results are lies.

I recall an English experiment in which newborns were separated into two groups. One group was cuddled and cooed at, the other received ZERO emotional or physical comfort and merely had clean diapers, formula, etc. Many neglected babies died and more failed to thrive. Why we needed dead babies to tell us humans need love to survive is beyond me, but that does not invalidate the result.

Hi Madeline,

Not only were the experiments ethically challenged but scientific protocols were not followed rendering the results useless. There are sadly too many examples of bad and fraudulent science out there.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Anyone read "Hyping Health Risks" by Geoffrey Kabar?

Hyping Health Risks provides a valuable counterpoint to the confusion and paranoia that seems to grow proportionate to the constant barrage of health risk studies. Examining four of the most persistent and controversial issues in public health, Kabat's lucid and well-written book gives the lay reader all the basic concepts and epidemiological tools she needs to understand the available evidence. His presentation allows us to better discriminate between what matters to our health and what matters to the 'hypers'-a wide array of stakeholders, some well-intentioned, some much less so. -- Ernest Drucker, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine

Geoffrey C. Kabat, a respected epidemiologist, provides an insider's account of how a number of ostensible health hazards have been blown out of proportion. While we face a daily barrage of health scares, Kabat cuts through the confusion and provides a lucid and rigorous rationale for rejecting much of the fear culture that permeates our society. -- Shelly Ungar, University of Toronto

With clarity and dispassion, Geoffrey C. Kabat challenges widespread beliefs that secondhand smoke, low levels of radon, and other ostensible environmental nemeses are certain killers. In making his case, Kabat draws extensively on scientific evidence while shunning rhetoric and political posturing. The result is an admirable search for scientific truth amid a sea of conflicting and often uninformed opinions. -- Leonard Cole, Rutgers University

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Hyping-Health-Risks-Environmental-Epidemiology/dp/0231141483/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275208074&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of…[/ame]


What caught my eye when I read the book review in "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine was that the "proof" that second hand smoke kills does not exist, according to the author. Not only do I smoke, but I have watched several businesses in my neighborhood go under as a result of the recent smoking ban here. All this nagging and misery for naught?

Makes me mad enough to hit someone.

There's no proof that farting kills either but I'd be happier if you didn't do it around me.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Anyone read "Hyping Health Risks" by Geoffrey Kabar?

Hyping Health Risks provides a valuable counterpoint to the confusion and paranoia that seems to grow proportionate to the constant barrage of health risk studies. Examining four of the most persistent and controversial issues in public health, Kabat's lucid and well-written book gives the lay reader all the basic concepts and epidemiological tools she needs to understand the available evidence. His presentation allows us to better discriminate between what matters to our health and what matters to the 'hypers'-a wide array of stakeholders, some well-intentioned, some much less so. -- Ernest Drucker, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine

Geoffrey C. Kabat, a respected epidemiologist, provides an insider's account of how a number of ostensible health hazards have been blown out of proportion. While we face a daily barrage of health scares, Kabat cuts through the confusion and provides a lucid and rigorous rationale for rejecting much of the fear culture that permeates our society. -- Shelly Ungar, University of Toronto

With clarity and dispassion, Geoffrey C. Kabat challenges widespread beliefs that secondhand smoke, low levels of radon, and other ostensible environmental nemeses are certain killers. In making his case, Kabat draws extensively on scientific evidence while shunning rhetoric and political posturing. The result is an admirable search for scientific truth amid a sea of conflicting and often uninformed opinions. -- Leonard Cole, Rutgers University

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Hyping-Health-Risks-Environmental-Epidemiology/dp/0231141483/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275208074&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of…[/ame]


What caught my eye when I read the book review in "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine was that the "proof" that second hand smoke kills does not exist, according to the author. Not only do I smoke, but I have watched several businesses in my neighborhood go under as a result of the recent smoking ban here. All this nagging and misery for naught?

Makes me mad enough to hit someone.

Born in 1957 and having lived through the 60's and 70's I have NO sympathy for smokers being banned. You see in the 60's and 70's there were no NONE smoking areas. Smokers would light up anywhere they pleased.

I happen to dislike cigarette smoke, having had to live through it as a child both parents smoked.

The pendulum as swung live with it till it swings back again.

Its amazing to me that you used to be able to smoke in the halls and rooms of hospitals. I'm 33 and even I can remember a time when I was real young and this was allowed.


Its been more than proven that 1st hand tobacco smoke is a killer. If there isn't definitive proof either way for 2nd hand smoke ... just seems reasonable to err on the side of it being a killer. Its common sense that if you're inhaling something into your lungs that kills you, and I inhale what you exhaled from it, it will kill me, too.

Do we need to prove that 2nd hand cyanide gas is a killer to know that it is?

 

[rdean]

All science is lies.

All scientists are liars.

That's why only 6% of scientists are Republican. Republicans are simply, "too smart" to waste their time on such nonsense. They have Bibles.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You're asking questions, which puts you in a good place to get answers. You asked if the only proof is these meta-analyses (and several others I haven't quoted). Let's first go over what a meta-analysis is exactly. You see when a scientist conducts primary research, they collect and report on data in an unbiased manner. Or as close to unbiased as possible, lest they get rejected from every reputable journal. After a while, we get a bunch of studies all examining the same thing. A meta-analysis looks at all those studies and statistically combines them to come out with a stronger larger answer. In other words, it weeds out those random pockets of coincidence you mentioned by examining studies from all over the country in different settings.

Next, you asked how second hand smoke can damage the lung, and if we know the underlying mechanism. The fact is, we don't need to know HOW something works to realize that it DOES work. Your TV for example is expected to turn on every time you hit power based on your observation, and most people have no clue HOW it works. Doesn't matter. We just know that given a cause, a specific effect will be produced. Every time? Well no, as you pointed out not everyone gets sick from second hand smoke. Not everyone gets sick from "first hand" smoke. Does that mean smoking isn't bad? All of this is about risk. It is technically incorrect to say "smoking will give you lung cancer". Technically, it is "smoking will largely increase one's risk of several cancers including lung, throat, and bladder".

Last you asked about the scientific publication process. Theoretically, articles are not rejected for their content, but rather their methods. Biased or poor studies do not get accepted. Alternately, uninteresting studies don't get accepted by prestigious journals. Again, that's not about whether people like the results, it's about whether the results matter. People don't get published in Nature on studying how fast their toenails grow.

But it's important not to confuse lay person's "statistics" with scientific studies. As you said, pollsters and industry have produced strongly biased polls with no control to coerce the outcomes. So what makes this any different? Well in general, scientific studies are based off factual events, not opinions. Contrast "You enjoy the soft feel of our paper towel brand over the harsh fuzz of the competitors, true or false?" with "How many cigarettes do you smoke per day?" or "How many times have you been hospitalized for respiratory/breathing diseases?". Science generally doesn't care about opinions, just facts and things that can be documented.

 

[rdean]

You're asking questions, which puts you in a good place to get answers. You asked if the only proof is these meta-analyses (and several others I haven't quoted). Let's first go over what a meta-analysis is exactly. You see when a scientist conducts primary research, they collect and report on data in an unbiased manner. Or as close to unbiased as possible, lest they get rejected from every reputable journal. After a while, we get a bunch of studies all examining the same thing. A meta-analysis looks at all those studies and statistically combines them to come out with a stronger larger answer. In other words, it weeds out those random pockets of coincidence you mentioned by examining studies from all over the country in different settings.

Next, you asked how second hand smoke can damage the lung, and if we know the underlying mechanism. The fact is, we don't need to know HOW something works to realize that it DOES work. Your TV for example is expected to turn on every time you hit power based on your observation, and most people have no clue HOW it works. Doesn't matter. We just know that given a cause, a specific effect will be produced. Every time? Well no, as you pointed out not everyone gets sick from second hand smoke. Not everyone gets sick from "first hand" smoke. Does that mean smoking isn't bad? All of this is about risk. It is technically incorrect to say "smoking will give you lung cancer". Technically, it is "smoking will largely increase one's risk of several cancers including lung, throat, and bladder".

Last you asked about the scientific publication process. Theoretically, articles are not rejected for their content, but rather their methods. Biased or poor studies do not get accepted. Alternately, uninteresting studies don't get accepted by prestigious journals. Again, that's not about whether people like the results, it's about whether the results matter. People don't get published in Nature on studying how fast their toenails grow.

But it's important not to confuse lay person's "statistics" with scientific studies. As you said, pollsters and industry have produced strongly biased polls with no control to coerce the outcomes. So what makes this any different? Well in general, scientific studies are based off factual events, not opinions. Contrast "You enjoy the soft feel of our paper towel brand over the harsh fuzz of the competitors, true or false?" with "How many cigarettes do you smoke per day?" or "How many times have you been hospitalized for respiratory/breathing diseases?". Science generally doesn't care about opinions, just facts and things that can be documented.

Are you sure? Because my church pastor says "Science" is a "Religion".

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Your church pastor also tells people to drink the coolaid.

 

[Madeline]

Anyone read "Hyping Health Risks" by Geoffrey Kabar?



Amazon.com: Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of…


What caught my eye when I read the book review in "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine was that the "proof" that second hand smoke kills does not exist, according to the author. Not only do I smoke, but I have watched several businesses in my neighborhood go under as a result of the recent smoking ban here. All this nagging and misery for naught?

Makes me mad enough to hit someone.

Born in 1957 and having lived through the 60's and 70's I have NO sympathy for smokers being banned. You see in the 60's and 70's there were no NONE smoking areas. Smokers would light up anywhere they pleased.

I happen to dislike cigarette smoke, having had to live through it as a child both parents smoked.

The pendulum as swung live with it till it swings back again.

Its amazing to me that you used to be able to smoke in the halls and rooms of hospitals. I'm 33 and even I can remember a time when I was real young and this was allowed.


Its been more than proven that 1st hand tobacco smoke is a killer. If there isn't definitive proof either way for 2nd hand smoke ... just seems reasonable to err on the side of it being a killer. Its common sense that if you're inhaling something into your lungs that kills you, and I inhale what you exhaled from it, it will kill me, too.

Do we need to prove that 2nd hand cyanide gas is a killer to know that it is?

WTF is "second hand cyanide gas"?

 

[Madeline]

All science is lies.

All scientists are liars.

That's why only 6% of scientists are Republican. Republicans are simply, "too smart" to waste their time on such nonsense. They have Bibles.

rdean, why did you think it was helpful to post that factoid AGAIN? How is it even relevant to this convo?

Just stick it in your sig line if you're so fond of it and let's get back to the dialogue; people are saying interesting things, in case you ain't noticed.

 

[Madeline]

You're asking questions, which puts you in a good place to get answers. You asked if the only proof is these meta-analyses (and several others I haven't quoted). Let's first go over what a meta-analysis is exactly. You see when a scientist conducts primary research, they collect and report on data in an unbiased manner. Or as close to unbiased as possible, lest they get rejected from every reputable journal. After a while, we get a bunch of studies all examining the same thing. A meta-analysis looks at all those studies and statistically combines them to come out with a stronger larger answer. In other words, it weeds out those random pockets of coincidence you mentioned by examining studies from all over the country in different settings.

Next, you asked how second hand smoke can damage the lung, and if we know the underlying mechanism. The fact is, we don't need to know HOW something works to realize that it DOES work. Your TV for example is expected to turn on every time you hit power based on your observation, and most people have no clue HOW it works. Doesn't matter. We just know that given a cause, a specific effect will be produced. Every time? Well no, as you pointed out not everyone gets sick from second hand smoke. Not everyone gets sick from "first hand" smoke. Does that mean smoking isn't bad? All of this is about risk. It is technically incorrect to say "smoking will give you lung cancer". Technically, it is "smoking will largely increase one's risk of several cancers including lung, throat, and bladder".

Last you asked about the scientific publication process. Theoretically, articles are not rejected for their content, but rather their methods. Biased or poor studies do not get accepted. Alternately, uninteresting studies don't get accepted by prestigious journals. Again, that's not about whether people like the results, it's about whether the results matter. People don't get published in Nature on studying how fast their toenails grow.

But it's important not to confuse lay person's "statistics" with scientific studies. As you said, pollsters and industry have produced strongly biased polls with no control to coerce the outcomes. So what makes this any different? Well in general, scientific studies are based off factual events, not opinions. Contrast "You enjoy the soft feel of our paper towel brand over the harsh fuzz of the competitors, true or false?" with "How many cigarettes do you smoke per day?" or "How many times have you been hospitalized for respiratory/breathing diseases?". Science generally doesn't care about opinions, just facts and things that can be documented.

Well, I'll skip over the difficulties of designing or carrying out "unbiased" interviews. My own opinion is that this is damned near impossible to achieve...that bias is inherent in every sort of interview and that subjects cannot and will not report accurately anyway.

But take the assertion that "we don't need to know how it works to know that it does work". Well, it is true that no one particular person among us needs to know how tv signals reach the set, etc. But SOMEONE does -- in fact, several hundred thousand do, or else there'd be no tv, no signals, and no tv shows.

It seems very odd to me that you can study a large population over time and draw conclusions such as "this set of diseases were caused by second hand smoke". With confidence? Not the increase in air pollution, the changes in diet and exersize, rising obesity levels, etc., etc., etc.? If science is still not able to tell us how a substance causes a disease then how can they simultaneously be so certain that it does?

We know how benzine exposure causes cancer. We know how lead poisoning causes retardation and even death, etc. Yet we DON'T know how second hand smoke might cause disease? And even though we haven't got that knowledge, science has declared "game over", smoking bans have been adopted, businesses have failed, and all the other bad effects of the anti-smoking movement have been felt? Not to mention the BILLIONS confiscated from tobacco companies by the states....on proof of this caliber?

There's a case from the UK in which owner of detached home A sued owner of detached home B, claiming that the smoking done by owner B inside his home as detrimental to owner A on days when the wind carried the air in his direction...and he won. There are plenty of cases in the US where a judge has granted custody of a child to one parent or another because the other smoked. We have taken a altered preference for certain social graces and courtesies and elevated it to a cause -- and science aided those who had this agenda.

And it isn't just second hand smoke. It now seems that radon in homes was just so much bullshit. All those millions spent to test for radon and abate it when it was found, and now we find it was never a threat?

Or look at the criminal justice system. We tell a jury "the defendant's DNA was found at the crime scene" and they convict virtually every time. What we don't explain is that PCR is a means of amplification of a tiny sample -- and that the process creates a wide margin of error for misidentification. I'm sure you know that the legal test for introducing scientific evidence in court is the "Fry Standard". Lawyers and judges look to the scientific community at large to determine when a new scientific theory has been proved...we don't retest ourselves.

Lay people (non-scientists) cannot readily appreciate the difference between "one in six Billion" and "one in a hundred thousand". I don't think we look behind the curtain very often to see what basis the scientists had for their conclusions, or ask any questions about their reasoning. It's so easy for any scientist to intimidate any lay person, because we all remember struggling through science in high school and just assume we need to leave this sort of thing to the Smart People.

But it seems the Smart People aren't always above bullshitting the rest of us.

 

[rikules]

Anyone read "Hyping Health Risks" by Geoffrey Kabar?



Amazon.com: Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of…


What caught my eye when I read the book review in "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine was that the "proof" that second hand smoke kills does not exist, according to the author. Not only do I smoke, but I have watched several businesses in my neighborhood go under as a result of the recent smoking ban here. All this nagging and misery for naught?

Makes me mad enough to hit someone.

I certainly support the right of all people to choose their own poisons.

I believe that when it comes to smoking (tobacco, pot) or sex or any other potentially risky activity the people (including school children) should begiven FACTS and TRUTH and NOT fed EXTREME FEARFILLED lies and misinformation

I, personally , have no problem with a person smoking in my presence, with the exception of in MY HOUSE (it stinks!) or in MY CAR (it REALLY stinks)

I also believe that any person who chooses to indulge in dangerous activities has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to force the rest of us to pay for their health problems that develop due to said activity.

you smoke....
you get cancer...
I don't want to be forced to pay for your treatments


if a person refuses to diet and exercise
and they indulge in fatty foods
so they get fat
and then obese
and develop heart, lung, back, leg, stomach problems...

not my problem
I don't want to have to pay for those problems

rikules, we already indulge in this sort of ranking of people and their behaviors. A smoker will not usually be eligible for a lung transplant in the US. If we take this further and deny him any health care for a "smoking related illness or injury" are we not just saying we despise the smoker to such a degree we don't want him to live?

Why must I pay higher insurance premiums for people whose genes are defective but who refuse to get tested and refrain from reproducing? Why must I help underwrite the cost of care for people who injure themselves by driving recklessly?

The truth is, we all think whatever risks we undertake are acceptable but no one else's are. I disapprove of drunk driving but it has taken me decades to accept that there is choice involved. When I grew up, everyone drank and everyone drove while drunk. Not just "impaired" -- drunk. For a very long time I resisted the message of Mothers Against Drunk Driving because I just could not see the rationale of tagging an intoxicated person for whatever he had done whilst intoxicated. Slowly, I began to see that the choice is at the point BEFORE they are intoxicated, when they have not made suitable arrangements for their transport.

As society alters its POV about certain behaviors are we supposed to deny health care or criminalize each risky behavior we once accepted? There's not much that'll kill a woman like me before my natural death, but sex is one such thing. The incidence of STIs for folks my age is astounding. If I engage in sex without protection and become ill, should I be denied care?

What about my friends who are crazy enough to go cave diving? If they get injured they'll most likely die...but if they do survive, why should I or anyone else help to undewrite the cost of their care?

Don't we agree to these things because as part of the social contract, we accept that Humans will take risks and we are willing to absorb some of the costs those risks create? After all, this is the whole premise of health insurance -- of any insurance. Pooling or sharing risk.

"rikules, we already indulge in this sort of ranking of people and their behaviors. A smoker will not usually be eligible for a lung transplant in the US. If we take this further and deny him any health care for a "smoking related illness or injury" are we not just saying we despise the smoker to such a degree we don't want him to live?"

I can't speak for all people
but, speaking for myself, I feel this way for ANYONE who indulges in risky behavior;

tobacco
drugs
skiboarding
mountain climbing
shark wrestling
boxing

people can do as they please
but if they suffer injuries from it I do NOT want me (or you) to be forced to pay for their medical bills.

if a smoker (or drug user or mountain climbing) suffers injuries or disease from his/her activity I merely want them to pay for their own medical expenses. I don't want them to die. but I also don't want to pay for their treatments.


"Why must I pay higher insurance premiums for people whose genes are defective but who refuse to get tested and refrain from reproducing? Why must I help underwrite the cost of care for people who injure themselves by driving recklessly?"

certainly not because I demand it.
I oppose all of this.
I'm against MANDATORY insurance of all kinds and I do not think that you or I should have to pay MORE $ because of other peoples risky behaviors.

"As society alters its POV about certain behaviors are we supposed to deny health care or criminalize each risky behavior we once accepted?"

you misinterpret me.
I do NOT WANT TO DENY them medical treatment
nor do I want to criminalize them

I just don't want to have to be FORCED to pay for their behavior

they can smoke
and drink
and climb mountains
and wrestle sharks
all day long for all I care...

just don't make ME pay for the BAD consequences.

"Don't we agree to these things because as part of the social contract, we accept that Humans will take risks and we are willing to absorb some of the costs those risks create? After all, this is the whole premise of health insurance -- of any insurance. Pooling or sharing risk."

I don't agree to this social contract.
again....I oppose ALL mandatory insurance.

I accept that some humans will take risks.
but I believe that any negative consequences resulting from those risks are their own financial problem and NOT mine.

unless...I FREELY CHOOSE to contribute.

exceptions; if you and millions of others FREELY choose to purchase some form of insurance to cover each other in case of injuries sustained from risky behavior then that is your business. I have no problem with YOU or others FREELY choosing to partake of such a social contract. I just don't want to be FORCED to pay.

 

[Madeline]

rikules, very little in life is without risk. Very few diseases or injuries have no causes or contributing factors involving behavior. Your POV that we ought not be forced to insure one another is a question of socialism, etc.

But your POV that even a private health insurance policy should exclude risks like injuries due to careless driving, tobacco use, etc. seems preposterous to me. If we exclude all such illnesses and injuries, what the hell would be left? Are we going to deny care to the babies of moms over 35 who are developmentally disabled because they should have known better than to have children at their age?

Are we going to tell obese people they are not covered for diseases that are caused by or aggravated by excess weight?

I think we rank behaviors because we value or devalue the activity itself. To deny coverage on a injury or disease caused or aggravated by a devalued activity is kinda sorta like saying only wealthy people are allowed to engage in these behaviors, because only they can afford the care they will need if the thing goes wrong. Apart from turning the concept of insurance on its head, this seems to me like a terrible social norm to adopt.

 

[eagleseven]

Does science claim to know HOW second-hand-smoke-kills? What is the disease-making effect? How is it possible so many non-smokers have no ill effects? What is different about those non-smokers who do have them? Are those differences also casual agents?

Nobody is arguing that that the known carcinogens in all forms of tobacco smoke damage the DNA of tissue it contacts.

The argument is over degree. Does occasionally smelling tobacco smoke while walking down the street affect the non-smoker's health in a statistically significant way?

---

Everyone also agrees that exposure to the sun causes genetic damage that dramatically increases the chance of developing skin cancer.

Does this mean we should outlaw sunbathing on the beach?

---

According to the anti-smoking campaigners' meta-analyses, second-hand smoke exposure does cause statistically significant damage.

According to Dr. Kabar's meta-analyses, second-hand smoke exposure causes so little damage as to be statistically insignificant in a non-smokers life. The reason first-hand smoke is so dangerous, he argues, is because the smoker exposes himself to the smoke regularly for decades.

In other words, one alcoholic drink every week or so won't give you stomach cancer. Becoming an alcoholic, however, will.

---

Given our paranoia about every little thing in our food, water, and air, I am willing to bet the stress induced by worrying about environmental toxins does far more damage than any toxins we do encounter.

Life is too short to stress the small stuff...I do enjoy a cigar and a strong drink, once in a very great while. The actuaries can go to hell.

 

[Madeline]

If we really cared about cancer we'd outlaw tanning and have guards on beaches forcing people without sunscreen to leave. Not pass smoking ban laws to prevent people from being occasionally exposed to a distasteful smell. (Distasteful to them; personally I have always liked the smell of tobacco, especially pipe tobacco.)

I don't understand how any scientist can tinker with his data to achieve a desired outcome and still hold his head up among his peers. Doesn't anyone ever get tagged for this, eagleseven?

 

[Old Rocks]

Anyone read "Hyping Health Risks" by Geoffrey Kabar?
Amazon.com: Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of…


What caught my eye when I read the book review in "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine was that the "proof" that second hand smoke kills does not exist, according to the author. Not only do I smoke, but I have watched several businesses in my neighborhood go under as a result of the recent smoking ban here. All this nagging and misery for naught?

Makes me mad enough to hit someone.

Let me make sure I just understand this correctly. You are trusting the word of a single epidemiologist who doesn't have the source or subject of his doctorate disclosed anywhere online and who is trying to make money selling his book over the mountain of unbiased peer-reviewed scientific literature that directly proves him wrong? This is exactly why the average layperson should not have voting privileges for health issues. There is so much research on this topic, we can examine the effects of second hand smoke through meta analysis:

Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analyses.
"CONCLUSIONS: [Environmental tobacco smoke]-exposed women have increased risks of infants with lower birthweight, congenital anomalies"

Cardiovascular effect of bans on smoking in public places: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
"CONCLUSIONS: Smoking bans in public places and workplaces are significantly associated with a reduction in [heart attack] incidence, particularly if enforced over several years."

Meta-analysis of studies of passive smoking and lung cancer: effects of study type and continent.
"CONCLUSIONS: The abundance of evidence, consistency of finding across continent and study type, dose-response relationship and biological plausibility, overwhelmingly support the existence of a causal relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer."

Passive environmental smoking has been definitively linked to increased heart and lung disease in adults, as well as increased risk of asthma and ear infections in children. The topic made you buy his book though, didn't it? $$$

SmarterThanHick, common sense has led me to question the validity of second-hand-smoke-kills claims. Do you recollect the asbestos cases? They still go on...Johns Manville was the chief defendant, but there were others. They are still paying claims filed by workers exposed to asbestos who were not told that eventually, they might die of mesothelioma.

What's curious about the disease is that only smokers get it, because the use of tobacco cigarettes paralyzes the cilia inside the lining of the nose and respiratory system and thus, allows asbestos particles to be introduced. If the cilia of nonsmokers were not paralyzed by exposure to second-hand smoke, it makes me wonder how it could be that all the other claimed bad effects of second hand smoke are true?

But leave aside smoking for the moment. I am curious about the Land Of Science -- it is not a place I know well. The Land Of Statistics is full of lies, of polls designed from the get-go to arrive at a desired result. I wonder if this can also be done in science? And if it can, do such scientific tales get told in the major peer-review journals? Do the editorial boards of such journals ever reject an article that is scientifically sound because the results are not palatable to them?

BTW, there are many such books around. "Voodoo Science" by Robert L. Park is one of the most famous. I was just curious as to what the science geeks thought of this genre of literature. After the debacle of "massaged data" on global warming, it seems pretty clear science ain't quite as scientific as we might like.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Voodoo-Science-Road-Foolishness-Fraud/dp/0195147103/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1275410422&sr=8-1]Amazon.com: Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud (9780195147100): Robert L. Park: Books[/ame]

Madaline, I lost my best freind and first cousin to a cancer almost totally related to asbestos exposure. There were times that we worked, when we were young and ignorant, on valves in dry kiln. The pipes were wrapped in asbestos, and the air looked foggy with the amount of dust in the air.

We didn't work that much in that environment, but Dave drew the short straw. They knew of the connection between asbestos and some illnesses before 1900. By 1918, the British had established the connection beyond doubt. But there were no rules concerning the existing asbestos in the 60'. So some of us that did not then know of the connection got to die.

Second hand smoke? Ask anyone with asthma about that.

 

[eagleseven]

I don't understand how any scientist can tinker with his data to achieve a desired outcome and still hold his head up among his peers. Doesn't anyone ever get tagged for this, eagleseven?

The significance of experimental data when studying living systems is always an issue of dispute in bleeding-edge research, because unlike physics and chemistry, life is alive. How do you make general pronouncements about the state of an unthinkably complex system like the human body? Epidemiologists currently have no choice but to use crude statistical methods that largely ignore the biochemical mechanisms behind their pronouncements.

One of the reasons why we have peer-reviewed journals is so that the leading experts in a given field can hammer out consistent experimental standards for both future research, and for the creation of public policy.

Part of Dr. Kabar's point is that the general public, and the media in particular, fail to understand the intricacies of medical and biological research, and so are prone to blowing minor things out of proportion, while ignoring genuine threats.

Tis the reason, for instance, why certain Americans are paranoid of the polio vaccine, yet believe sexually transmitted infections only affect homosexuals.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Easy there cowgirl. You are drawing wrong conclusions.

Well, I'll skip over the difficulties of designing or carrying out "unbiased" interviews. My own opinion is that this is damned near impossible to achieve...that bias is inherent in every sort of interview and that subjects cannot and will not report accurately anyway.

Recall bias is and always will be an issue in retrospective reporting (looking backwards). But it's hard to forget whether or not you have asthma or cancer. Prospective cohort studies on the other hand remove recall bias entirely. There's a long list of bias types that scientists are aware of and regularly avoid. Similarly, reviewers must reject publications that exhibit avoidable bias.

As for taking into account things like region or air conditions: these things are controlled for.

But take the assertion that "we don't need to know how it works to know that it does work". Well, it is true that no one particular person among us needs to know how tv signals reach the set, etc. But SOMEONE does -- in fact, several hundred thousand do, or else there'd be no tv, no signals, and no tv shows.

First off, we DO know how cigarette smoke harms cells. It has been extensively studied. My point was, despite that, we don't NEED to know HOW something works to see that it DOES work. If you can't wrap your head around the TV example, use death. We don't know exactly how dying works, or why we can't reverse the process. Yet it happens. Does the not-knowing somehow mean death never occurs? Of course not! Nonetheless we can still draw fairly accurate conclusions as to what kills people.

There's a case from the UK in which owner of detached home A sued owner of detached home B, claiming that the smoking done by owner B inside his home as detrimental to owner A on days when the wind carried the air in his direction...and he won. There are plenty of cases in the US where a judge has granted custody of a child to one parent or another because the other smoked. We have taken a altered preference for certain social graces and courtesies and elevated it to a cause -- and science aided those who had this agenda.

You seem to return to court cases a lot. Don't. There's a saying that law seeks justice, science seeks truth. Note that the two are not the same. A "jury of your peers" is not the same as a scrutinized peer review. In court, each side can pull on one "expert witness". It doesn't matter if 99.9% of the experts in the field believe one thing, and one expert witness testifies in opposition. As far as the jury sees, it's just two experts with differing views.

So to answer another of your questions: contrast that to the scientific community, whereby unsupported "witnesses" can and do get rejected. But what about the people who just fabricate or edit their data? Take the Korean "hero" who announced to the world that he had discovered a way to create a human embryonic stem cell. It was later found that he made it all up, pictures and everything. But how was it discovered? Well, part of publishing includes stating the exact methods used to come to conclusions, so any other scientist can reproduce the findings. No reproducibility means no legitimacy, and this failsafe built into the system was used to out him as a fraud.

So please, stop bringing up the criminal justice system. There is no comparison.

It's so easy for any scientist to intimidate any lay person, because we all remember struggling through science in high school and just assume we need to leave this sort of thing to the Smart People.

And I think this is what the entire issue comes down to for you. You perceive scientists as producing some big showy act and taking advantage of the fact that science is perceived as difficult by most people, while they themselves don't know it any better but are just fooling everyone. That's not the case. YOU don't understand science. That's fine, but don't assume no one else does either. You don't understand medicine, but I bet you still go to a doctor when you're really sick. I also think you take the stance you do because you ARE a smoker and want to justify your poor harmful actions.

By the way, we can't really make things that have been legalized illegal. Just doesn't work. Instead, the government just over-taxes those things. Every time you buy a pack of cigarettes, the majority of the cost, goes to the government. More money goes to the government on every single pack than the farmer, manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer combined.