Why do people deny science?

[Oddball]

You are a yellow bellied coward. You squealed that I attacked your source. Well, your source SAYS:

This list should put an end to the diatribe on passive smoke since it conclusively demonstrates, step by step and in extremely simple language accessible, to all the incredible misrepresentation of evidence used to transform a non-danger into an "epidemic" and into a collective hysteria phenomenon.

Do you stand by YOUR source, or should we disregard your source?

Disprove the source, hysterical dickweed.

I already did Jethro. Your 'scientific' source is founded on BELIEFS and doctrinaire.

WHO WE ARE

FORCES International is an organisation in support of human rights and - in particular, but not limited to - the defence of those who expect from life the freedom to smoke, eat, drink and, in general, to enjoy personal lifestyle choices without restrictions and state interference.

Philosophy and message

The message of FORCES is based on the values of liberty for every individual in his personal choices. In this, FORCES is aligned with those who fight the antismoking movement, which is essentially false and oppressive.

To FORCES belong those who consider what follows unacceptable:

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.


What your 'scientific ' source is saying in plain English.

My right to smoke is more important than human life. If some kid dies because of my right to smoke anywhere I want, too ******* bad.

That doesn't refute a word of the data that they've collected, which debunks the lies of WHO and EPA.

You really, really, REALLY suck at this, Gomer.

 

[Bfgrn]

Tobacco Explained

The truth about the tobacco industry
…in its own words


Summary

Thousands of internal tobacco industry documents released through litigation and whistleblowers reveal the most astonishing systematic corporate deceit of all time. What
follows is a survey of the documents, 1,200 relevant and revealing quotes grouped under common themes.

Chapter 1 Smoking and health Publicly the industry denied and continues to deny that it is clear that smoking causes lung cancer - yet it has understood the carcinogenic nature of its product since the 1950s. It is now clear that the industry’s stance on smoking and health is determined by lawyers and public relations concerns.

Chapter 2 Nicotine and addiction Until recently the industry has denied its product is addictive. Most recently it has used a definition of addictiveness so broad that it encompasses shopping and the Internet. Internally, it has known since the 1960s that the crucial selling point of its product is the chemical dependence of its customers. Without nicotine addiction there would be no tobacco industry. Nicotine addiction destroys the industry’s PR and legal stance that smoking is a matter of choice.

Chapter 3 Marketing to children The companies deny that they target the young. The documents reveal the obvious - that the market of young smokers is of central importance to the industry. Many documents reveal the companies’ pre-occupation with teenagers and younger children - and the lengths they have gone to in order to influence smoking behaviour in this age group.

Chapter 4 Advertising The industry maintains that advertising is used only to fight for brand share and that it does not increase total consumption - academic research shows otherwise. The documents show that advertising is crucial in nurturing the motivation to smoke by creating or projecting the positive values, such as independence, machismo, glamour or intelligence, erroneously associated with the product.

Chapter 5 Cigarette design The documents show that the companies initially hoped to make safer cigarettes, but then abandoned the enterprise when it recognised that this would expose their existing products as ‘unsafe’. The industry has deliberately promoted ‘low-tar’ cigarettes knowing that they would offer false reassurance without health benefits. It has manipulated nicotine and introduced additives to change the delivery of nicotine. It recognises the cigarette as a drug delivery device.

Chapter 6 Second-hand smoke The industry is challenged by second-hand smoke in two ways. First, measures to protect non-smokers will reduce the opportunities to smoke and contribute to its social unacceptability. Second, the ‘freedom to smoke’ arguments are confounded if non-smokers are harmed. The industry has refused to accept the now overwhelming consensus regarding the harm caused by second-hand smoke - instead it has denied and obfuscated, and sought to influence debate by buying up scientists on a spectacular scale.

Chapter 7 “Emerging markets” Faced with reducing levels of smoking in the West and an insatiable need for money, the companies have moved aggressively into developing countries and Eastern Europe. The documents reveal an arrogance and fanaticism that has imperialist echoes.

http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf

 

[Oddball]

Busting on the tobacco industry, yet again, does not disprove the lies of the WHO and EPA.

I'm sure you can find an ESL course at your local community college.

 

[Bfgrn]

Disprove the source, hysterical dickweed.

I already did Jethro. Your 'scientific' source is founded on BELIEFS and doctrinaire.

WHO WE ARE

FORCES International is an organisation in support of human rights and - in particular, but not limited to - the defence of those who expect from life the freedom to smoke, eat, drink and, in general, to enjoy personal lifestyle choices without restrictions and state interference.

Philosophy and message

The message of FORCES is based on the values of liberty for every individual in his personal choices. In this, FORCES is aligned with those who fight the antismoking movement, which is essentially false and oppressive.

To FORCES belong those who consider what follows unacceptable:

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.


What your 'scientific ' source is saying in plain English.

My right to smoke is more important than human life. If some kid dies because of my right to smoke anywhere I want, too ******* bad.

That doesn't refute a word of the data that they've collected, which debunks the lies of WHO and EPA.

You really, really, REALLY suck at this, Gomer.

It proves you 'scientific' source is based on a political agenda, not truth or science. They TELL you they are heavily BIAS. THAT is not science Jethro, it's DOGMA.

The page you linked me to doesn't mention either study

 

[Oddball]

None of that refutes what they've documented via mainstream sources.

The one reverse engineering the data to achieve a political result here is you, Gomer Pyle.

 

[flacaltenn]

So, is it your belief that passive smoke is a non-danger?

I'm glad you asked.. I go on the SCIENCE that I've read.. For instance,, I remember a study from one of the National Labs that ACTUALLY measured workplace SHSmoke to be equivalent to six cigarettes a YEAR. Not the 0.3 cigs per DAY that the EPA pulled out of it's ass. I don't believe, as public health hazards go, that THAT rises to a catastrophe by any measure.. Just doesn't fly when it takes 40 someodd unfiltered Camels a day for 20+ years to trigger a disease.

The RIDICULOUS proclamations like "ANY AMOUNT OF EXPOSURE to SHS is harmful" (which you repeated above) and the real winner --- "SHSmoke is MORE dangerous to bystanders than it is to smokers" are really not funny. THey pervert science. And I HATE perverted science and reason.

So what I believe is that science was perverted to promote over-hyped hysteria in order to lock-down the manuevering room for those who choose to smoke.. I CERTAINLY would abhor the thought of prosecuting parents for smoking in the presence of their children, or denying the ability of airports to provide filtered ventilated accomodations.

THe real alarm bells went off for me when I actually read that study years ago (the one with the 2 smoker family with the kid living there for 24 years). It was the clearest perversion of science that I had ever witnessed and it struck me deeply as a scientist and engineer. And I discovered that although the game was to claim SHS as a carcinogen and toxic YET -- none of the studies did any rigorous titration studies on DOSE or EXPOSURE. There is no other toxin or carcinogen treated in this distorted manner.

Horse shit? Not quite. But its' clearly a DENIAL OF SCIENCE in order to forward a public policy agenda... With a moderate dose of just pure wicked dickering with the facts.

Does your beloved CATO Institute mention all the malfeasance of the tobacco industry? Do they mention all the documents gathered through litigation? The tobacco industry knew way back in the 1950's they were marketing and selling death. But they grossly manipulated or withheld information and data. They used obfuscation and hired pseudo-scientists to deceive the public. Or is that just capitalists being 'creative' entrepreneurs?

You're really really not absorbing any of this science stuff are Ya?? I tell you about the phoney science that's been bought and mangled by your smoking zealots and all you can do is tell me about the tobacco companies. Guess what? you're in the SCIENCE forum.

Not my fault if the American Lung Assoc uses the media as useful idiots. Not my fault if the tobacco companies decided to defend themselves. They have that right.

Most of all -- in science, we don't dodge and weave between discussing different topics like health aspects of smoking versus health aspects of being in the proximity (occasionally) of a smoker. Details matter. The data is different. The conclusions are different. One does not influence the other.

I can see by reading ahead, that you're off on impeaching sources with your OddBall skirmish. GENERALLY -- we don't do that either in Science. Facts and theories rise and fall LARGELY on content. If it's ridiculous, it's easy to refute. Just like the hysteria about SHS.

The only author bias we bring to the table is if someone is a convicted cheat, can't balance their checkbook, or is chronically wrong. And in those cases, we'll generally take the time to reply anyway. Just like we do on USMB..

 

[Bfgrn]

I'm glad you asked.. I go on the SCIENCE that I've read.. For instance,, I remember a study from one of the National Labs that ACTUALLY measured workplace SHSmoke to be equivalent to six cigarettes a YEAR. Not the 0.3 cigs per DAY that the EPA pulled out of it's ass. I don't believe, as public health hazards go, that THAT rises to a catastrophe by any measure.. Just doesn't fly when it takes 40 someodd unfiltered Camels a day for 20+ years to trigger a disease.

The RIDICULOUS proclamations like "ANY AMOUNT OF EXPOSURE to SHS is harmful" (which you repeated above) and the real winner --- "SHSmoke is MORE dangerous to bystanders than it is to smokers" are really not funny. THey pervert science. And I HATE perverted science and reason.

So what I believe is that science was perverted to promote over-hyped hysteria in order to lock-down the manuevering room for those who choose to smoke.. I CERTAINLY would abhor the thought of prosecuting parents for smoking in the presence of their children, or denying the ability of airports to provide filtered ventilated accomodations.

THe real alarm bells went off for me when I actually read that study years ago (the one with the 2 smoker family with the kid living there for 24 years). It was the clearest perversion of science that I had ever witnessed and it struck me deeply as a scientist and engineer. And I discovered that although the game was to claim SHS as a carcinogen and toxic YET -- none of the studies did any rigorous titration studies on DOSE or EXPOSURE. There is no other toxin or carcinogen treated in this distorted manner.

Horse shit? Not quite. But its' clearly a DENIAL OF SCIENCE in order to forward a public policy agenda... With a moderate dose of just pure wicked dickering with the facts.

Does your beloved CATO Institute mention all the malfeasance of the tobacco industry? Do they mention all the documents gathered through litigation? The tobacco industry knew way back in the 1950's they were marketing and selling death. But they grossly manipulated or withheld information and data. They used obfuscation and hired pseudo-scientists to deceive the public. Or is that just capitalists being 'creative' entrepreneurs?

You're really really not absorbing any of this science stuff are Ya?? I tell you about the phoney science that's been bought and mangled by your smoking zealots and all you can do is tell me about the tobacco companies. Guess what? you're in the SCIENCE forum.

Not my fault if the American Lung Assoc uses the media as useful idiots. Not my fault if the tobacco companies decided to defend themselves. They have that right.

Most of all -- in science, we don't dodge and weave between discussing different topics like health aspects of smoking versus health aspects of being in the proximity (occasionally) of a smoker. Details matter. The data is different. The conclusions are different. One does not influence the other.

I can see by reading ahead, that you're off on impeaching sources with your OddBall skirmish. GENERALLY -- we don't do that either in Science. Facts and theories rise and fall LARGELY on content. If it's ridiculous, it's easy to refute. Just like the hysteria about SHS.

The only author bias we bring to the table is if someone is a convicted cheat, can't balance their checkbook, or is chronically wrong. And in those cases, we'll generally take the time to reply anyway. Just like we do on USMB..

Interesting. You claim to be looking only at 'science'. But there is so much science out there that proves second hand smoke is dangerous that the only way to avoid it is for you to dodge, weave and cherry pick the BIAS of your source. There is a mountain of evidence from documents and memos seized through lawsuits that proves the tobacco industry willfully and deliberately fudged and edited the 'science', would not submit studies and papers for peer review and outright lied to the public about the death they sell.

Your answer? The tobacco industry has a right to commit murder and lie about it. Really? I mean for you right wingers making a lot of money=morality and is all someone needs to do to be worshiped by the right.

I really don't believe you people on the right have any morals, ethics or what could be called Christian beliefs.

Albert Camus said, "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners" You folks willfully DEFEND the executioners.

 

[IanC]

Does your beloved CATO Institute mention all the malfeasance of the tobacco industry? Do they mention all the documents gathered through litigation? The tobacco industry knew way back in the 1950's they were marketing and selling death. But they grossly manipulated or withheld information and data. They used obfuscation and hired pseudo-scientists to deceive the public. Or is that just capitalists being 'creative' entrepreneurs?

You're really really not absorbing any of this science stuff are Ya?? I tell you about the phoney science that's been bought and mangled by your smoking zealots and all you can do is tell me about the tobacco companies. Guess what? you're in the SCIENCE forum.

Not my fault if the American Lung Assoc uses the media as useful idiots. Not my fault if the tobacco companies decided to defend themselves. They have that right.

Most of all -- in science, we don't dodge and weave between discussing different topics like health aspects of smoking versus health aspects of being in the proximity (occasionally) of a smoker. Details matter. The data is different. The conclusions are different. One does not influence the other.

I can see by reading ahead, that you're off on impeaching sources with your OddBall skirmish. GENERALLY -- we don't do that either in Science. Facts and theories rise and fall LARGELY on content. If it's ridiculous, it's easy to refute. Just like the hysteria about SHS.

The only author bias we bring to the table is if someone is a convicted cheat, can't balance their checkbook, or is chronically wrong. And in those cases, we'll generally take the time to reply anyway. Just like we do on USMB..

Interesting. You claim to be looking only at 'science'. But there is so much science out there that proves second hand smoke is dangerous that the only way to avoid it is for you to dodge, weave and cherry pick the BIAS of your source. There is a mountain of evidence from documents and memos seized through lawsuits that proves the tobacco industry willfully and deliberately fudged and edited the 'science', would not submit studies and papers for peer review and outright lied to the public about the death they sell.

Your answer? The tobacco industry has a right to commit murder and lie about it. Really? I mean for you right wingers making a lot of money=morality and is all someone needs to do to be worshiped by the right.

I really don't believe you people on the right have any morals, ethics or what could be called Christian beliefs.

Albert Camus said, "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners" You folks willfully DEFEND the executioners.

you are confusing your moral, ethical and religious beliefs with science. science doesnt work by belief, it works on principles that determine physical truth. in the case of SHS the evidence is ambiguous and it cannot be proven either way. when those in charge falsely claim scientific proof it damages the respectability of science.

 

[Bfgrn]

You're really really not absorbing any of this science stuff are Ya?? I tell you about the phoney science that's been bought and mangled by your smoking zealots and all you can do is tell me about the tobacco companies. Guess what? you're in the SCIENCE forum.

Not my fault if the American Lung Assoc uses the media as useful idiots. Not my fault if the tobacco companies decided to defend themselves. They have that right.

Most of all -- in science, we don't dodge and weave between discussing different topics like health aspects of smoking versus health aspects of being in the proximity (occasionally) of a smoker. Details matter. The data is different. The conclusions are different. One does not influence the other.

I can see by reading ahead, that you're off on impeaching sources with your OddBall skirmish. GENERALLY -- we don't do that either in Science. Facts and theories rise and fall LARGELY on content. If it's ridiculous, it's easy to refute. Just like the hysteria about SHS.

The only author bias we bring to the table is if someone is a convicted cheat, can't balance their checkbook, or is chronically wrong. And in those cases, we'll generally take the time to reply anyway. Just like we do on USMB..

Interesting. You claim to be looking only at 'science'. But there is so much science out there that proves second hand smoke is dangerous that the only way to avoid it is for you to dodge, weave and cherry pick the BIAS of your source. There is a mountain of evidence from documents and memos seized through lawsuits that proves the tobacco industry willfully and deliberately fudged and edited the 'science', would not submit studies and papers for peer review and outright lied to the public about the death they sell.

Your answer? The tobacco industry has a right to commit murder and lie about it. Really? I mean for you right wingers making a lot of money=morality and is all someone needs to do to be worshiped by the right.

I really don't believe you people on the right have any morals, ethics or what could be called Christian beliefs.

Albert Camus said, "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners" You folks willfully DEFEND the executioners.

you are confusing your moral, ethical and religious beliefs with science. science doesnt work by belief, it works on principles that determine physical truth. in the case of SHS the evidence is ambiguous and it cannot be proven either way. when those in charge falsely claim scientific proof it damages the respectability of science.

You're confused. Actually the 'real science', which is the medical evidence on the devastating harm to the human body's life functions for smoking and passive smoking is overwhelming. The statistical evidence of probability is inherently less reliable.

 

[Oddball]

Interesting. You claim to be looking only at 'science'. But there is so much science out there that proves second hand smoke is dangerous that the only way to avoid it is for you to dodge, weave and cherry pick the BIAS of your source. There is a mountain of evidence from documents and memos seized through lawsuits that proves the tobacco industry willfully and deliberately fudged and edited the 'science', would not submit studies and papers for peer review and outright lied to the public about the death they sell.

Your answer? The tobacco industry has a right to commit murder and lie about it. Really? I mean for you right wingers making a lot of money=morality and is all someone needs to do to be worshiped by the right.

I really don't believe you people on the right have any morals, ethics or what could be called Christian beliefs.

Albert Camus said, "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners" You folks willfully DEFEND the executioners.

Back to attacking the tobacco companies, when it's WHO and EPA that used worthless methodology and plain old lied out their asses, in "proving" so-called second-hand smoke is dangerous.

Other than being strongly habit forming, fact remains that smoking doesn't cause jack shit.

 

[flacaltenn]

Sorry -- I quoted the wrong post. But my response is solely to Bfgrns comments below..

Busy day today..

Interesting. You claim to be looking only at 'science'. But there is so much science out there that proves second hand smoke is dangerous that the only way to avoid it is for you to dodge, weave and cherry pick the BIAS of your source. There is a mountain of evidence from documents and memos seized through lawsuits that proves the tobacco industry willfully and deliberately fudged and edited the 'science', would not submit studies and papers for peer review and outright lied to the public about the death they sell.

Your answer? The tobacco industry has a right to commit murder and lie about it. Really? I mean for you right wingers making a lot of money=morality and is all someone needs to do to be worshiped by the right.

I really don't believe you people on the right have any morals, ethics or what could be called Christian beliefs.

Albert Camus said, "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners" You folks willfully DEFEND the executioners.

you are confusing your moral, ethical and religious beliefs with science. science doesnt work by belief, it works on principles that determine physical truth. in the case of SHS the evidence is ambiguous and it cannot be proven either way. when those in charge falsely claim scientific proof it damages the respectability of science.

You're confused. Actually the 'real science', which is the medical evidence on the devastating harm to the human body's life functions for smoking and passive smoking is overwhelming. The statistical evidence of probability is inherently less reliable.

Let's not confuse SMOKING with the SHSmoke issue.. On the latter, the evidence is extremely weak and does not justify most of the public policy hysteria based on junk science. YES -- junk science. Like when you create a MetaStudy from evidence TOO WEAK to make your case and cherry pick studies and change the confidence levels. Despiite your assertion that it is "overwhelming" I presented clear evidence that it is "marginal" at best and IGNORES basic scientific standards of evidence like dose and exposure studies..

I don't HAVE to cherry-pick SHS smoke studies to say that are weak. THe EPA however has to cherry-pick and fudge to make the case hysterical enough for media and public consumption --- EXACTLY BECAUSE THE RAW EVIDENCE IS WEAK.. Got THAT Bullwinkle??


And your disdain for the tobacco companies is selective from my objective point of view. Wasn't too long ago that PHYSICIANS were prescribing Cigarettes for asthmatics. We ALL screwed up.. And that why we need to isolate science from zealous campaigns backed by govt power.. ...

?Divine Stramonium?: The Rise and Fall of Smoking for Asthma

In addition, surveys and clinical studies conducted during the 1940s and 1950s continued occasionally to emphasize the therapeutic value of cigarettes containing either stramonium or one of its active ingredients, atropine: “Atropine administered locally in cigarette smoke or wet aerosols”, wrote H Herxheimer in 1959, “increases the vital capacity and gives a feeling of relief in cases of mild or moderate chronic asthma and emphysema.”65

In spite of authoritative endorsements from clinicians and scientists, however, it is evident that even before Proust died in 1922 the popularity of smoking for asthma was already under threat. Opposition to the smoking cure appeared from a variety of directions. In the first instance, it is evident that declining support for smoking was prompted partly by new, allergic understandings of asthma that prioritized inflammation rather than nervous bronchoconstriction.

Unfortunately -- failure and error ARE PART of the scientific process. Better restrain those Camu executioners until we round up ALL the guilty eh?

 

[Bfgrn]

Interesting. You claim to be looking only at 'science'. But there is so much science out there that proves second hand smoke is dangerous that the only way to avoid it is for you to dodge, weave and cherry pick the BIAS of your source. There is a mountain of evidence from documents and memos seized through lawsuits that proves the tobacco industry willfully and deliberately fudged and edited the 'science', would not submit studies and papers for peer review and outright lied to the public about the death they sell.

Your answer? The tobacco industry has a right to commit murder and lie about it. Really? I mean for you right wingers making a lot of money=morality and is all someone needs to do to be worshiped by the right.

I really don't believe you people on the right have any morals, ethics or what could be called Christian beliefs.

Albert Camus said, "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners" You folks willfully DEFEND the executioners.

Back to attacking the tobacco companies, when it's WHO and EPA that used worthless methodology and plain old lied out their asses, in "proving" so-called second-hand smoke is dangerous.

Other than being strongly habit forming, fact remains that smoking doesn't cause jack shit.

Thank you for finally professing your ignorance. But to be honest with you, I never thought it was THAT massive. Even for you.

You have given me a 'keeper'

Oddball: "smoking doesn't cause jack shit.

 

[KevinWestern]

From global warming to fluoride: Why do people deny science? - Salon.com

Ah yes, those crazy people who claim Fluoride is harmful. People have been saying this for years and years and the claim was recently validated by a Harvard Study featured here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/fluoride_b_2479833.html

I suppose that's why people remain ever questioning of the science of the day (because it's not always correct or what it seems at first).



.

 

[Bfgrn]

Sorry -- I quoted the wrong post. But my response is solely to Bfgrns comments below..

Busy day today..

you are confusing your moral, ethical and religious beliefs with science. science doesnt work by belief, it works on principles that determine physical truth. in the case of SHS the evidence is ambiguous and it cannot be proven either way. when those in charge falsely claim scientific proof it damages the respectability of science.

You're confused. Actually the 'real science', which is the medical evidence on the devastating harm to the human body's life functions for smoking and passive smoking is overwhelming. The statistical evidence of probability is inherently less reliable.

Let's not confuse SMOKING with the SHSmoke issue.. On the latter, the evidence is extremely weak and does not justify most of the public policy hysteria based on junk science. YES -- junk science. Like when you create a MetaStudy from evidence TOO WEAK to make your case and cherry pick studies and change the confidence levels. Despiite your assertion that it is "overwhelming" I presented clear evidence that it is "marginal" at best and IGNORES basic scientific standards of evidence like dose and exposure studies..

I don't HAVE to cherry-pick SHS smoke studies to say that are weak. THe EPA however has to cherry-pick and fudge to make the case hysterical enough for media and public consumption --- EXACTLY BECAUSE THE RAW EVIDENCE IS WEAK.. Got THAT Bullwinkle??


And your disdain for the tobacco companies is selective from my objective point of view. Wasn't too long ago that PHYSICIANS were prescribing Cigarettes for asthmatics. We ALL screwed up.. And that why we need to isolate science from zealous campaigns backed by govt power.. ...

?Divine Stramonium?: The Rise and Fall of Smoking for Asthma

In addition, surveys and clinical studies conducted during the 1940s and 1950s continued occasionally to emphasize the therapeutic value of cigarettes containing either stramonium or one of its active ingredients, atropine: “Atropine administered locally in cigarette smoke or wet aerosols”, wrote H Herxheimer in 1959, “increases the vital capacity and gives a feeling of relief in cases of mild or moderate chronic asthma and emphysema.”65

In spite of authoritative endorsements from clinicians and scientists, however, it is evident that even before Proust died in 1922 the popularity of smoking for asthma was already under threat. Opposition to the smoking cure appeared from a variety of directions. In the first instance, it is evident that declining support for smoking was prompted partly by new, allergic understandings of asthma that prioritized inflammation rather than nervous bronchoconstriction.

Unfortunately -- failure and error ARE PART of the scientific process. Better restrain those Camu executioners until we round up ALL the guilty eh?

Are you really interested in the truth? Because if you really are, you can easily find out you are wrong, totally wrong. There is a HUGE problem with your argument. REALLY HUGE. Many of the of the tobacco industry's underhanded strategies and tactics have been exposed, thanks to landmark legal cases. Conclusive internal studies proving shs is deadly, internal documents, memos and strategies all authored by tobacco companies.


Deadly Deception: The Tobacco Industry's Secondhand Smoke Cover Up

Tobacco Companies Have Long Been Aware of Secondhand Smoke Hazards

Tobacco companies knew much more about the health hazards of secondhand smoke, and knew it longer ago, than most people realize.

Recognizing the need to do more biological research on its own products, but also understanding the need to distance itself from this research for legal reasons, in 1971 Philip Morris purchased a biological lab in Germany called Institut Fur Biologische Forschung ("INBIFO"), or Institute for Biological Research. PM then created a complex routing system to ensure that work done at INBIFO could not be linked back to Philip Morris. INBIFO routed its study results through a PM research and development facility in Switzerland called Fabriques de Tabac Reunies, and documents created at INBIFO were often in French or German language.

Between 1981 and 1989, Philip Morris (PM) conducted at least 115 different inhalation studies on secondhand smoke at INBIFO in which they compared the toxicity of mainstream smoke (the smoke the smoker himself inhales) to that of secondhand smoke. PM discovered that secondhand smoke is 2-6 times more toxic and carcinogenic per gram than mainstream smoke. The company never published the results of these in-house studies or alerted public health authorities to their findings. Rather, they kept this information strictly to themselves -- even most Philip Morris employees were unaware of these studies.

Strategies to Deceive the Public

But Philip Morris did much worse than hide this crucial information from the public. Spurred by a 1993 EPA Risk Assessment that declared secondhand smoke a known human carcinogen, and recognizing the danger the secondhand smoke issue held for the cigarette industry, Philip Morris masterminded a massive global effort to confuse and deceive the public about the health hazards of secondhand smoke and to delay laws restricting smoking in indoor public places.

A 1993 internal Philip Morris (PM) strategy paper titled "ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) World Conference" shows PM organizing a wide range of strategies to shape public views on secondhand smoke and fight smoking restrictions worldwide. PM pursued tactics to "shift concern over ETS to slippery slope argumentation and/or tolerance"; liken secondhand smoke to perceived risks from other items of public concern, such as cellular phones and chlorinated water; "shift concern over ETS in the workplace from the health issue to one of annoyance;" "shift the concern over ETS in restaurants from bans to accommodation where bans are imminent;" "develop an 'ETS Task Force,' with global PM representation to develop strategies to combat smoking restrictions;" "... package comprehensive improvements in ventilation to forestall tobacco specific bans and ... shift the debate from ETS to IAQ [indoor air quality]." Another strategy was the "development of a global coalition against "junk science" to complement a similar coalition PM was already forming in the United States.

At the same time, PM implemented Project Brass, a secret action plan conceived by the Leo Burnett Company, to create a "controversy" over secondhand smoke where there really was none. Project Brass strove to "forestall further public smoking restrictions/bans," "create a decided change in public opinion," and "develop an atmosphere more conducive to smokers" in the general public.

Project Brass was just the tip of the iceberg. The tobacco industry implemented many projects over the decades to shape public perception about secondhand smoke and to delay laws regulating it. Many of these projects are listed under TobaccoWiki's "Projects and Operations" page: Project Mayfly, the INFOTAB ETS Project, PM and British American Tobacco's Latin American ETS Consultants Program, PM's ETS (Environmental tobacco smoke) Media Strategy, Philip Morris' Science Action Plan, and PM's ICD-9 Project to impede the creation of a medical billing code that would indicate illnesses that are attributable to secondhand tobacco smoke exposure.

These are just some of the projects we've learned of by combing through industry documents. Any one of these projects taken individually would be stunning in scope and ambition in its own right, but all of them taken together -- and the as-yet undiscovered efforts -- probably constitute the single most coordinated, widespread, expensive, under-the-radar PR campaign ever waged.

These extensive, expensive and hidden deceptions significantly undermined public understanding of the hazards of secondhand smoke and killed thousands and thousands of non-smokers and smokers alike.

 

[Oddball]

Yet another text brick that tries to deflect from the lies of WHO and EPA.

*yawn*

 

[flacaltenn]

BFGrn:

You're a complete DUPE for repeating this supercilious factoid..

PM discovered that secondhand smoke is 2-6 times more toxic and carcinogenic per gram than mainstream smoke.

Forget what you think you know.. Use your brain.. If the statement above is true, smokers could avoid the major carcinogenic effect of tobacco by just inhaling the Mainstream Smoke and not taking the SHS into their lungs.. Am I CORRECT? Of course I am.. The media converts this to SHSmoke is MORE DAMAGING to bystanders than smoking.. Isn't that the implication you get from this? It's wrong..

The statement that SHS is more damaging to bystanders than mainstream smoke is to smokers is just ludicrous on its face. Doesn't even pass the logic test.

Where the hell is the smoker in the room? Are they avoiding the intake of SHSmoke so that they are protected from this component? This is WITCHCRAFT and Black Magic. Not a scientific conclusion..

My bet is --- it's been MANGLED on purpose from some data factoid taken out of context from a study.
Like for instance....

PM KNOWS (and most idiots) that if you're smoking a FILTERED cigarette, the mainstream smoke contains less tar and components than the stream coming directly off the tip.. But the implication that somehow bystanders suffer MORE than the smoker from this is patently false. And it is passed to public to IMPLY just that..

You've never responded to any of the evidence or science involve. You just maintain a tight focus on the evil tobacco companies. You don't seem to care how weak the SHS evidence is. Perhaps you could comment on the following..

1) What type of anger and resentment do you harbor for the Medical community? Who through the 50s and 60s were STILL advocating smoking for asthmatics? Why do you suspect that the tobacco companies would be more savvy to health implications than the medical researchers? Are you mad at them as well?

2) What about the absence of rigor in hand-waving away the scientific inclusion of dose and exposure in SHS studies? Do you understand how NONE of those statistical prognostication can be matched to real life risk factors without them? Do you know of any other toxin or carcinergen where the studies have ignored dose and exposure?? Please tell me.

3) I told you that I don't have to cherry pick the SHS study data to make the statement that they are weak results. The EPA did that for me. Because the data didn't show a danger concommiitant with the classification they wanted to give --- THEY had to cherry-pick and mangle the study results. Weak data doesn't need cherry-picking to show it's weak. Therefore I wouldn't need to that. Why do you suppose the EPA VIOLATED BASIC SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE to write that paper??

If you want to have a conversation --- we can start there. If you just want to bellow and grandstand and be non-responsive to the major theme of thread --- we're done and you're irrelevent.

Enough about the tobacco companies... That's a legal issue so that states and lawyers can pad their wallets. There's been a LOT of wallet padding going on and very little in the way of relief from the monies gained. All pissed away on "general fund" expenditures. Even tho -- the money was taken in the name of paying for smoker illnesses and child education and the environment and God and Country.

 

[Bfgrn]

BFGrn:

You're a complete DUPE for repeating this supercilious factoid..

PM discovered that secondhand smoke is 2-6 times more toxic and carcinogenic per gram than mainstream smoke.

Forget what you think you know.. Use your brain.. If the statement above is true, smokers could avoid the major carcinogenic effect of tobacco by just inhaling the Mainstream Smoke and not taking the SHS into their lungs.. Am I CORRECT? Of course I am.. The media converts this to SHSmoke is MORE DAMAGING to bystanders than smoking.. Isn't that the implication you get from this? It's wrong..

The statement that SHS is more damaging to bystanders than mainstream smoke is to smokers is just ludicrous on its face. Doesn't even pass the logic test.

Where the hell is the smoker in the room? Are they avoiding the intake of SHSmoke so that they are protected from this component? This is WITCHCRAFT and Black Magic. Not a scientific conclusion..

My bet is --- it's been MANGLED on purpose from some data factoid taken out of context from a study.
Like for instance....

PM KNOWS (and most idiots) that if you're smoking a FILTERED cigarette, the mainstream smoke contains less tar and components than the stream coming directly off the tip.. But the implication that somehow bystanders suffer MORE than the smoker from this is patently false. And it is passed to public to IMPLY just that..

You've never responded to any of the evidence or science involve. You just maintain a tight focus on the evil tobacco companies. You don't seem to care how weak the SHS evidence is. Perhaps you could comment on the following..

1) What type of anger and resentment do you harbor for the Medical community? Who through the 50s and 60s were STILL advocating smoking for asthmatics? Why do you suspect that the tobacco companies would be more savvy to health implications than the medical researchers? Are you mad at them as well?

2) What about the absence of rigor in hand-waving away the scientific inclusion of dose and exposure in SHS studies? Do you understand how NONE of those statistical prognostication can be matched to real life risk factors without them? Do you know of any other toxin or carcinergen where the studies have ignored dose and exposure?? Please tell me.

3) I told you that I don't have to cherry pick the SHS study data to make the statement that they are weak results. The EPA did that for me. Because the data didn't show a danger concommiitant with the classification they wanted to give --- THEY had to cherry-pick and mangle the study results. Weak data doesn't need cherry-picking to show it's weak. Therefore I wouldn't need to that. Why do you suppose the EPA VIOLATED BASIC SCIENTIFIC PRACTICE to write that paper??

If you want to have a conversation --- we can start there. If you just want to bellow and grandstand and be non-responsive to the major theme of thread --- we're done and you're irrelevent.

Enough about the tobacco companies... That's a legal issue so that states and lawyers can pad their wallets. There's been a LOT of wallet padding going on and very little in the way of relief from the monies gained. All pissed away on "general fund" expenditures. Even tho -- the money was taken in the name of paying for smoker illnesses and child education and the environment and God and Country.

I am a complete DUPE, and I should forget what I think I know.. Use my brain.

OK...you are right, I now see the light!, How ******* stupid can I be!

Why would any reasonable person believe that secondhand smoke could be harmful? I mean, we do know it is deadly to smokers, but according to some studies forwarded here it actually is helpful to the kid sitting next to the smoker! WOW, cigarette smoke is HELPFUL to bystanders! And everyone knows if they ever bought a car from a smoker, that all that tar, nicotine, carcinogens and poisons know they are only allowed to go directly to the windows. They are not allowed to touch kids.

 

[Bfgrn]

Tobacco Smoke and the Heart

When most people think "cigarette smoke," they immediately think "lung cancer," but far less public attention has been paid to how secondhand smoke effects heart function. In a memo dated 1980 that I first discovered in 1999, a Philip Morris scientist points out that nicotine lowers the heart's threshold to ventricular fibrillation -- an inefficient heart pumping pattern -- which increases people's susceptibility to heart attacks.

A 1991 report sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that secondhand smoke kills approximately 53,000 Americans year, mostly from heart disease. A public health study published in 2001 showed that exposure to secondhand smoke for even short periods of time, as little as 30 minutes, causes changes in platelets and cardiac epithelium. Lung cancer takes many years to develop, but heart function is impacted more rapidly upon exposure to secondhand smoke.

----

Many of the of the tobacco industry's underhanded strategies and tactics have been exposed, thanks to landmark legal cases and the hard work of public health advocates. But we are still uncovering the shocking lengths to which the industry has gone to protect itself from public health measures like smoking bans. Now we can thank the city of Pueblo, Colorado, for an opportunity to look a little bit deeper into how the industry managed the deadly deceptions around secondhand smoke.

A new study, now the ninth of its type and the most comprehensive one yet, has shown a major reduction in hospital admissions for heart attacks after a smoke-free law was put into effect.

On July 1, 2003, the relatively isolated city of Pueblo, Colorado enacted an ordinance that prohibited smoking in workplaces and indoor public areas, including bars and restaurants. For the study, researchers reviewed hospital admissions for heart attacks among area residents for one year prior to, and three years after the ban, and compared the data to two other nearby areas that didn't have bans (the part of Pueblo County outside city limits, and El Paso County, which includes Colorado Springs). Researchers found that during the three years after the ban, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped 41 percent inside the city of Pueblo, but found no significant change in admissions for heart attacks in the other two control areas.

Eight studies done prior to this one in other locales used similar techniques and yielded similar results, but covered shorter periods of time -- usually about one year after the smoking ban went into effect. The results of this longer, more comprehensive study support the view that not only does secondhand smoke have a significant short-term impact on heart function, but that lives, and money, are probably being saved by new laws proliferating around the world in recent years that minimize public exposure to secondhand smoke.

 

[Bfgrn]

WHY talk about tobacco companies?

Philip Morris, is the world's largest tobacco company. In the U.S. it controls about half of the tobacco market.

Conviction in U.S. Racketeering Lawsuit

On September 22, 1999, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a racketeering lawsuit against Philip Morris (now a division of Altria) and other major cigarette manufacturers. Almost 7 years later, on August 17, 2006 U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler found that the Government had proven its case and that the tobacco company defendants had violated the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Specifically, Judge Kessler found that PM and other tobacco companies had:

• conspired to minimize, distort and confuse the public about the health hazards of smoking;

• concealed and suppressed research data showing nicotine is addictive;

• denied that they can and do control the levels of nicotine in cigarettes to keep smokers addicted;

• marketed "light" and "low tar" brands to mislead people about their relative harmfulness compared to "full flavored" cigarettes;

• purposely marketed to young people under 21 to recruit "replacement smokers" and preserve the industry's financial future;

• publicly denied, while internally acknowledging, that secondhand tobacco smoke is harmful to nonsmokers, and

• destroyed documents relevant to litigation

 

[bripat9643]

Does your beloved CATO Institute mention all the malfeasance of the tobacco industry? Do they mention all the documents gathered through litigation? The tobacco industry knew way back in the 1950's they were marketing and selling death. But they grossly manipulated or withheld information and data. They used obfuscation and hired pseudo-scientists to deceive the public. Or is that just capitalists being 'creative' entrepreneurs?

You're really really not absorbing any of this science stuff are Ya?? I tell you about the phoney science that's been bought and mangled by your smoking zealots and all you can do is tell me about the tobacco companies. Guess what? you're in the SCIENCE forum.

Not my fault if the American Lung Assoc uses the media as useful idiots. Not my fault if the tobacco companies decided to defend themselves. They have that right.

Most of all -- in science, we don't dodge and weave between discussing different topics like health aspects of smoking versus health aspects of being in the proximity (occasionally) of a smoker. Details matter. The data is different. The conclusions are different. One does not influence the other.

I can see by reading ahead, that you're off on impeaching sources with your OddBall skirmish. GENERALLY -- we don't do that either in Science. Facts and theories rise and fall LARGELY on content. If it's ridiculous, it's easy to refute. Just like the hysteria about SHS.

The only author bias we bring to the table is if someone is a convicted cheat, can't balance their checkbook, or is chronically wrong. And in those cases, we'll generally take the time to reply anyway. Just like we do on USMB..

Interesting. You claim to be looking only at 'science'. But there is so much science out there that proves second hand smoke is dangerous that the only way to avoid it is for you to dodge, weave and cherry pick the BIAS of your source. There is a mountain of evidence from documents and memos seized through lawsuits that proves the tobacco industry willfully and deliberately fudged and edited the 'science', would not submit studies and papers for peer review and outright lied to the public about the death they sell.

Your answer? The tobacco industry has a right to commit murder and lie about it. Really? I mean for you right wingers making a lot of money=morality and is all someone needs to do to be worshiped by the right.

I really don't believe you people on the right have any morals, ethics or what could be called Christian beliefs.

Albert Camus said, "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners" You folks willfully DEFEND the executioners.

There is no evidence that 2nd hand smoke has caused a single cancer. The rest of your claims are equally idiotic.