Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-21-2014, 01:24 PM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,924
People in the CDC Quit Smoking Ads

This might get derailed, and I personally don't mind thread drift, but that means the mods may move it; however, I think that what I have right now is genuinely a factual question.

It's about those CDC quit smoking ads. They have a guy right now who takes out his teeth, and says he lost them to some kind of disease from smoking, and a women who says her baby was two months premature because she smoked while she was pregnant.

They've had a guy who had his legs amputated, and a couple of people with laryngeal cancer.

Now, I know that all these things have statistically high associations with smoking (actually, I wasn't aware that smoking caused premature birth; I thought it caused small-for-term babies-- babies that were delivered at term, but were sometimes the size of preemies). The CDC website has a bio for Amanda, but offers no real direct line from smoking to prematurity (it seems her daughter does have ongoing health problems, and she herself blames it on smoking). It could well be a post hoc error.

Anyway, what sort of verification is there that the people we are seeing were actually harmed by smoking? I realize that laryngeal cancer is very rare in non-smokers, and so the evidence may be pretty good that a lot of these people wouldn't have had their problems if they hadn't smoked, but the woman with the premature baby really troubles me, because lots of non-smokers have premature babies.

I'm a non-smoker who is very happy when something discourages people from smoking-- short of lying. Lying backfires. You show people lots of lung cancer victims who smoked, and that's pretty fair, because the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is indisputable, and anyone who goes and looks it up is going to have the information confirmed.

However, someone who looks up prematurity and maternal smoking is going to find a lot of variables. I'd hate for someone to check up on that particular story, decide it's BS, and therefore the entire 1-800-QUIT-NOW campaign is bogus, and further, that all anti-smoking info is bogus.

Does anyone know how the ad campaign finds the people it uses, and how it verifies their stories?
  #2  
Old 08-21-2014, 02:28 PM
Qadgop the Mercotan's Avatar
Qadgop the Mercotan Qadgop the Mercotan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Slithering on the hull
Posts: 26,412
Without having researched these particular commercials (I have seen a few), I still feel fairly comfortable saying that these are 'dramatizations of actual patient experiences', done by actors.

Epidemiologically we can be quite certain that there have been a significant number of patients who have had these experiences. We don't need to know specific cases to know that's true.

So why bother proving a case, hiring the patient, getting the proper waivers signed, when one can go the route I've described.

I don't consider this approach bogus; it portrays real and genuine consequences of that particular behavior.
  #3  
Old 08-21-2014, 02:44 PM
GusNSpot's Avatar
GusNSpot GusNSpot is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N/W Arkansas
Posts: 8,469
Well, I really think he is an automatic dishwasher. What a comedown from Sheriff of Eureka
  #4  
Old 08-21-2014, 03:01 PM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qadgop the Mercotan View Post
Without having researched these particular commercials (I have seen a few), I still feel fairly comfortable saying that these are 'dramatizations of actual patient experiences', done by actors.
If you look at the website, you'll see they're not.
  #5  
Old 08-21-2014, 03:26 PM
kunilou's Avatar
kunilou kunilou is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 23,828
The CDC says on their website that smoking can cause premature birth as well as low birthweight and other problems. In fact, it even says it on the page you linked.

Are you doubting that?
  #6  
Old 08-21-2014, 03:52 PM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou View Post
The CDC says on their website that smoking can cause premature birth as well as low birthweight and other problems. In fact, it even says it on the page you linked.

Are you doubting that?
No. I just said it was news to me. New to me. But I wonder how they verified that there was a direct causal link in that particular woman's case. It's not like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, where a child cannot have FAS unless the mother drank while pregnant.

Like I said, I'm a non-smoker who really dislikes being around smoke, so I'm in favor of anything that reduces smoking, or keeps people from starting, but prevarication, I think, is counter-productive; I guess something in my brain sees these commercials and says "cite?"
  #7  
Old 08-21-2014, 04:02 PM
Gatopescado's Avatar
Gatopescado Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 19,814
If its on TV, it has to be true. That goes double for the Internets.
  #8  
Old 08-21-2014, 04:26 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
This might get derailed, and I personally don't mind thread drift, but that means the mods may move it; however, I think that what I have right now is genuinely a factual question.

It's about those CDC quit smoking ads. They have a guy right now who takes out his teeth, and says he lost them to some kind of disease from smoking, and a women who says her baby was two months premature because she smoked while she was pregnant.

They've had a guy who had his legs amputated, and a couple of people with laryngeal cancer.

Now, I know that all these things have statistically high associations with smoking (actually, I wasn't aware that smoking caused premature birth; I thought it caused small-for-term babies-- babies that were delivered at term, but were sometimes the size of preemies). The CDC website has a bio for Amanda, but offers no real direct line from smoking to prematurity (it seems her daughter does have ongoing health problems, and she herself blames it on smoking). It could well be a post hoc error.

Anyway, what sort of verification is there that the people we are seeing were actually harmed by smoking? I realize that laryngeal cancer is very rare in non-smokers, and so the evidence may be pretty good that a lot of these people wouldn't have had their problems if they hadn't smoked, but the woman with the premature baby really troubles me, because lots of non-smokers have premature babies.

I'm a non-smoker who is very happy when something discourages people from smoking-- short of lying. Lying backfires. You show people lots of lung cancer victims who smoked, and that's pretty fair, because the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is indisputable, and anyone who goes and looks it up is going to have the information confirmed.

However, someone who looks up prematurity and maternal smoking is going to find a lot of variables. I'd hate for someone to check up on that particular story, decide it's BS, and therefore the entire 1-800-QUIT-NOW campaign is bogus, and further, that all anti-smoking info is bogus.

Does anyone know how the ad campaign finds the people it uses, and how it verifies their stories?
First off your right about the CDC ads being paid actors. About 8 months ago CDC placed an contract with an ad agency to get people with a list of health issues for the ads. They were paid 2500 bucks each if they were used. The problem they paced on the supposd actors was they had to provide an affidavit from a doctor stating their condition is due to smoking. You might go why would that be! Its simple CDC nor anyone else has conclusive end point proof of any and I MEAN ANY supposed tobacco caused disease including LUNG CANCER!

Your other questions I will answer separately and please don't laugh to hard.

Last edited by John Davidson; 08-21-2014 at 04:28 PM.
  #9  
Old 08-21-2014, 04:28 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
In more rational times, before the anti-tobacco hysteria began in earnest, women who smoked continued to smoke and enjoy other normal pleasures of life without guilt during their pregnancies. Many even smoked during labor to help them relax and take the edge off their pain. If their doctors mentioned smoking at all, it would be to advise them to perhaps cut down if they were heavy smokers, something which most did intuitively because they didn’t “feel” like smoking as much.
But pity the poor Bolton smoker today who becomes pregnant, because she will be told that if she continues to smoke at all (or have any alcohol or caffeine) during her pregnancy, she is putting her developing fetus at high risk of death or disability.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Though there is considerable evidence showing that on average the babies of women who smoke during pregnancy weigh on average a few ounces less than babies of women who do not smoke and that the rate of low birthweight babies is somewhat higher for smokers, there is no credible evidence for the hyperbolic claims that the babies of smokers have a higher mobidity and mortality rate. Quite the contrary, the babies of women who smoke during pregnancy have a better survival rate ounce for ounce, a somewhat lower rate of congenital defects, a lower rate of Down’s syndrome, a lower rate of infant respiratory distress syndrome and a somewhat lower rate of childhood cancer than do the babies of non-smokers.

Dr. Richard L. Naeye, a leading obstetrical researcher who studied more than 58,000 pregnancies, states unequivocally:

“We recently found no significant association between maternal smoking and either stillbirths or neonatal deaths when information about the underlying disorders, obtained from placental examinations, was incorporated into the analyses. Similar analyses found no correlation between maternal smoking and preterm birth. The most frequent initiating causes of preterm birth, stillbirth, and neonatal death are acute chorioamnionitis, disorders that produce chronic low blood flow from the uterus to the placenta, and major congenital malformations. There is no credible evidence that cigarette smoking has a role in the genesis of any of these disorders.”
  #10  
Old 08-21-2014, 04:30 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
The myth of smoking during pregnancy being harmful



Sott.net
Wed, 30 Oct 2013 17:51 CDT

In about 1999 I was asked to analyze the data of pregnant women with respect to smoking for a major health insurance company. They were running a campaign to get pregnant women to stop smoking and they expected to find interesting data to support their case.

I used to teach college courses covering the topic. The text books said that smoking causes underweight premature babies. Because of this babies of smoking mothers are more likely to have birth defects. With alcohol, two drinks a day was considered safe, but with tobacco, there was no safe threshold. I thought this was rather strange. You smoke one cigarette while pregnant and you are more likely to have birth defects? Even for a hard core health fanatic that is difficult to believe.

Here is what was found in the data. Babies of smoking mothers average weight was 3232 grams (7.1 lbs.). Babies of non-smoking mothers averaged 3398 grams (7.5 lbs.). That is about a half pound difference and it is statistically significant. Seven pounds is a good healthy birth weight that does not set off any alarms. Babies are considered underweight if they are less than 2270 grams (5 lbs.). 4.5% of smoking mothers babies were underweight and 3.3% of non-smoking mothers babies were underweight. This difference is not significant. There is no indication here of a health risk from smoking based on weight.

The other risk factor is length of term. Normal gestation is 253 days. 4% of smoking mothers did not go to term and 7.8% of non-smoking mothers did not go to term. Smoking mothers did better than non-smoking mothers but the difference was not significant. There was obviously no risk from reduced term for smoking mothers.

Because the non-smoking mothers had heavier babies one would expect more C-Sections from the non-smoking mothers. There were about 20% more. This is significant at the .05 level but not the .01 level so you could argue the significance either way depending on your bias. The data here is limited because only 5% of pregnant women smoked but the trend for smoking mothers was toward less babies retained in the hospital, less C-Sections, insignificantly fewer pre-term deliveries and an insignificant increase in clinically underweight babies.

This data can be explained by assuming that when pregnant women are stressed, they self medicate to relieve the stress. Non-smoking women tend to eat more causing the baby to be larger and more difficult to deliver. This can also cause other problems. Smoking women tend to light up when under stress. This is less harmful to the baby than over-eating. For this reason smoking mothers tended to have better outcomes for baby and mother. They also cost less for the insurance company.

You might be interested in knowing that this information was not used. I was told that the medical insurance business is highly regulated by the government. The company was not allowed to tell the truth about these results even though it was better for the insurance company and for the patients.

I do not think these results suggest that women should start smoking when they get pregnant. I do think it indicates that it is very poor practice to try to get smoking mothers to stop smoking when they get pregnant.
About me

I have a Ph.D. in experimental psychology and have worked in both research and teaching. I am a health nut and do not endorse smoking or care to be around people smoking. I was shocked by these results. My bias if any is certainly against these results. However I think it is horrible to withhold information form people and intentionally give them bad advice to advance a political agenda.
  #11  
Old 08-21-2014, 04:31 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS"
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.


http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobacco0409


"5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease."

In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
  #12  
Old 08-21-2014, 04:32 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.c...-the-analysis/

(2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
(2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
lung cancer.

[9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
(paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
[9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to
[7.181]).
  #13  
Old 08-21-2014, 04:32 PM
Skara_Brae Skara_Brae is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Southern New England
Posts: 1,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Davidson View Post
In more rational times, before the anti-tobacco hysteria began in earnest, women who smoked continued to smoke and enjoy other normal pleasures of life without guilt during their pregnancies. Many even smoked during labor to help them relax and take the edge off their pain. If their doctors mentioned smoking at all, it would be to advise them to perhaps cut down if they were heavy smokers, something which most did intuitively because they didn’t “feel” like smoking as much.
But pity the poor Bolton smoker today who becomes pregnant, because she will be told that if she continues to smoke at all (or have any alcohol or caffeine) during her pregnancy, she is putting her developing fetus at high risk of death or disability.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Though there is considerable evidence showing that on average the babies of women who smoke during pregnancy weigh on average a few ounces less than babies of women who do not smoke and that the rate of low birthweight babies is somewhat higher for smokers, there is no credible evidence for the hyperbolic claims that the babies of smokers have a higher mobidity and mortality rate. Quite the contrary, the babies of women who smoke during pregnancy have a better survival rate ounce for ounce, a somewhat lower rate of congenital defects, a lower rate of Down’s syndrome, a lower rate of infant respiratory distress syndrome and a somewhat lower rate of childhood cancer than do the babies of non-smokers.

Dr. Richard L. Naeye, a leading obstetrical researcher who studied more than 58,000 pregnancies, states unequivocally:

“We recently found no significant association between maternal smoking and either stillbirths or neonatal deaths when information about the underlying disorders, obtained from placental examinations, was incorporated into the analyses. Similar analyses found no correlation between maternal smoking and preterm birth. The most frequent initiating causes of preterm birth, stillbirth, and neonatal death are acute chorioamnionitis, disorders that produce chronic low blood flow from the uterus to the placenta, and major congenital malformations. There is no credible evidence that cigarette smoking has a role in the genesis of any of these disorders.”
so smoking during pregnancy is actually good for your baby? Maybe I should start, then...
  #14  
Old 08-21-2014, 04:33 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors - of which smoking can be one.

Here's my all-time favorite "scientific" study of the the anti-smoking campaign: "Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths," Robert A. Levy and Rosalind B. Marimont, Journal of Regulation, Vol. 21 (4), 1998.

You can access the article for free on the Cato Institute's wesbite, Cato.org. This article neither defends nor promotes smoking. Rather it condemns the abuse of statistics to misinform and scare the public. Levy, by the way taught Statistics for Lawyers at Georgetown University Law School. There is also a popular law school class called How to Lie With Statistics.

Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts?

''Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome—you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”

Read under the title :
Tobacco Control: The Long War—When the Evidence Has to Be Created

http://www.milbank.org/uploads/docum...ionhealth.html
  #15  
Old 08-21-2014, 04:39 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skara_Brae View Post
so smoking during pregnancy is actually good for your baby? Maybe I should start, then...
That would be an individual choise. But because there has been a concerted effort for well over 100 years to demonize tobacco itself from Prohibitionists The subject is full of Junk science claims by the anti-smoking crowd. You see they've spent Billions of wasted dollars trying to prove smoking causes just one thing in anyone or anything but failed miserably.

From about 1875 onward statistical manipulation has been the tool of social engineers/prohibitionists against tobacco/alcohol/drugs/sugar/obesity/soda pop/junk food you name it.

Todays no different and I can go into about every claim they've made and debunk it or people I know who can and have debunked the claims.

But with smoking and pregnancy we've got all the proof we need that its harmless BABYBOOMERS the longest lived generation ever and born to smoking moms the world over!
  #16  
Old 08-21-2014, 04:41 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
The 1875 claim is backed here when Mark Twain felt forced to write the MORAL STATISTICIAN. First published in 1894

Mark Twain said it right over a hundred years ago:

“The Moral Statistician.”
Originally published in Sketches, Old and New, 1893

"I don’t want any of your statistics; I took your whole batch and lit my pipe with it.

I hate your kind of people. You are always ciphering out how much a man’s health is injured, and how much his intellect is impaired, and how many pitiful dollars and cents he wastes in the course of ninety-two years’ indulgence in the fatal practice of smoking; and in the equally fatal practice of drinking coffee; and in playing billiards occasionally; and in taking a glass of wine at dinner, etc. etc. And you are always figuring out how many women have been burned to death because of the dangerous fashion of wearing expansive hoops, etc. etc. You never see more than one side of the question.

You are blind to the fact that most old men in America smoke and drink coffee, although, according to your theory, they ought to have died young; and that hearty old Englishmen drink wine and survive it, and portly old Dutchmen both drink and smoke freely, and yet grow older and fatter all the time. And you never try to find out how much solid comfort, relaxation, and enjoyment a man derives from smoking in the course of a lifetime (which is worth ten times the money he would save by letting it alone), nor the appalling aggregate of happiness lost in a lifetime by your kind of people from not smoking. Of course you can save money by denying yourself all those little vicious enjoyments for fifty years; but then what can you do with it? What use can you put it to? Money can’t save your infinitesimal soul. All the use that money can be put to is to purchase comfort and enjoyment in this life; therefore, as you are an enemy to comfort and enjoyment where is the use of accumulating cash?

It won’t do for you to say that you can use it to better purpose in furnishing a good table, and in charities, and in supporting tract societies, because you know yourself that you people who have no petty vices are never known to give away a cent, and that you stint yourselves so in the matter of food that you are always feeble and hungry. And you never dare to laugh in the daytime for fear some poor wretch, seeing you in a good humor, will try to borrow a dollar of you; and in church you are always down on your knees, with your ears buried in the cushion, when the contribution-box comes around; and you never give the revenue officers a full statement of your income.

Now you know all these things yourself, don’t you? Very well, then, what is the use of your stringing out your miserable lives to a lean and withered old age? What is the use of your saving money that is so utterly worthless to you? In a word, why don’t you go off somewhere and die, and not be always trying to seduce people into becoming as ornery and unlovable as you are yourselves, by your villainous “moral statistics”?"

Also, Benjamin Franklin said,
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
  #17  
Old 08-21-2014, 04:43 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
Heres the actual Chemical composition of second hand smoke


About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it quickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).
  #18  
Old 08-21-2014, 04:44 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
Then when we look up the reference for scientific data it gets even more Insane against the anti-smoking advocates claims of harm.


Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

nap.edu

This sorta says it all

These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''

OSHA SAFE LEVELS

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.

Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!
  #19  
Old 08-21-2014, 04:45 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
This study pretty well ended the SHS Scare altogether


This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...udy-finds?lite

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!
  #20  
Old 08-21-2014, 04:49 PM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Davidson View Post
Its simple CDC nor anyone else has conclusive end point proof of any and I MEAN ANY supposed tobacco caused disease including LUNG CANCER!
OK; just FTR, I do not doubt that there are links between a number of diseases and smoking. There certainly are statistical links. Practically no one who has not smoked gets primary lung cancer (and the ones who do are miners, worked with asbestos, or lived with a heavy smoker for decades, something like that). Ditto for laryngeal cancer. The stats are overwhelming. The ones for preemies are less convincing. The odds for having a preemie if you smoke increase by about 25%, but that's over your individual risk. Some women who don't smoke have a high individual risk, while others have a low individual risk (quitting while pregnant is still a really good idea, even if you white-knuckle it, and start again after the baby is born). It's my understanding that "small for gestational age" is a risk more highly associated with smoking than with individual variables.

But really, what I'm getting at, is that statistical probability is not the same thing as direct causation in an individual case.

It's like determining HIV transmission. Woman-to-woman transmission is statistically unlikely; man-to-woman is more likely, so back in the early days or trying to trace contacts to determine when people had been infected in order to determine life expectancy, women who were lesbians, but had ever had one heterosexual encounter, were told they had probably gotten it that way. It was usually bad news, because that was often much longer ago than their other contacts. However, if there was a confirmed case of HIV among a woman's female past partners, it became much more likely that this was a case of WtW transmission.

So in order to evaluate a case like the smoker with the premature baby, we don't know what all her variables are, and there are a lot in determining risk for prematurity.
  #21  
Old 08-21-2014, 04:49 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Davidson View Post
That would be an individual choise. But because there has been a concerted effort for well over 100 years to demonize tobacco itself from Prohibitionists The subject is full of Junk science claims by the anti-smoking crowd. You see they've spent Billions of wasted dollars trying to prove smoking causes just one thing in anyone or anything but failed miserably.

From about 1875 onward statistical manipulation has been the tool of social engineers/prohibitionists against tobacco/alcohol/drugs/sugar/obesity/soda pop/junk food you name it.

Todays no different and I can go into about every claim they've made and debunk it or people I know who can and have debunked the claims.

But with smoking and pregnancy we've got all the proof we need that its harmless BABYBOOMERS the longest lived generation ever and born to smoking moms the world over!
I guess I should provide proof of the claim for over 100 years.

Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10).

1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says.

1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do."

1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

BTW it was the THIRD REICH that invented the propaganda term PASSIVE SMOKING!

Sir George Godber gave it new life back in 1975 to attack the smokers anew and they also adopted all of hitlers own anti-smoking laws along with even as is todays case the Children for the propaganda emotional based sentiment it would provide..........Its for the children is a great piece of government propaganda no matter who is using it or for what ends. Yes I can back that up too.
  #22  
Old 08-21-2014, 04:55 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
OK; just FTR, I do not doubt that there are links between a number of diseases and smoking. There certainly are statistical links. Practically no one who has not smoked gets primary lung cancer (and the ones who do are miners, worked with asbestos, or lived with a heavy smoker for decades, something like that). Ditto for laryngeal cancer. The stats are overwhelming. The ones for preemies are less convincing. The odds for having a preemie if you smoke increase by about 25%, but that's over your individual risk. Some women who don't smoke have a high individual risk, while others have a low individual risk (quitting while pregnant is still a really good idea, even if you white-knuckle it, and start again after the baby is born). It's my understanding that "small for gestational age" is a risk more highly associated with smoking than with individual variables.

But really, what I'm getting at, is that statistical probability is not the same thing as direct causation in an individual case.

It's like determining HIV transmission. Woman-to-woman transmission is statistically unlikely; man-to-woman is more likely, so back in the early days or trying to trace contacts to determine when people had been infected in order to determine life expectancy, women who were lesbians, but had ever had one heterosexual encounter, were told they had probably gotten it that way. It was usually bad news, because that was often much longer ago than their other contacts. However, if there was a confirmed case of HIV among a woman's female past partners, it became much more likely that this was a case of WtW transmission.

So in order to evaluate a case like the smoker with the premature baby, we don't know what all her variables are, and there are a lot in determining risk for prematurity.
The first thing to remember is that LIFESTYLE EPIDEMIOLOGY is Perpetual JUNK SCIENCE on its face. They use to include toxicology to prove the statistics as correct but they pretty well dumped that with Jonas Salk and Polio.

Today its used for political agendas providing a constant supply of new junk science to push the next so called public health epidemic. All created out of thin air! Literally!

What they do is LOWER the levels at which a disease entity is identifiable and voila instant EPIDEMIC but only on paper not in reality!



http://easydiagnosis.com/secondopini...sletter17.html

Diabetes:

Old Definition: Blood sugar > 140 mg/dl
People under old definition: 11.7 million
New Definition: Blood sugar > 126 mg/dl
People added under new definition: 1.7 million
Percent increase: 15%

The definition was changed in 1997 by the American Diabetes Association and WHO Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus.

Hypertension:

High blood pressure is reported as two numbers, systolic or peak pressure and diastolic pressure when heart is at rest) in mm Hg.

Old Definition: cutoff Blood Pressure > 160/100
People under old definition: 38.7 million
New Definition: Blood Pressure > 140/90
People added under new definition: 13.5 million
Percent Increase: 35%

The definition was changed in 1997 by U.S. Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure.

Prehypertension, a new category created in 2003: blood pressure from 120/80 to 138/89 includes 45 million additional people! If one includes this category, we have a grand total of 97.2 million total numbers of hypertensives and prehypertensives (whatever that is).

High (Total) Cholesterol:

Old Definition: Cholesterol > 240 mg/dl total cholesterol
People under old definition: 49.5 million
New Definition: Cholesterol > 200 mg/dl total cholesterol
People added under new definition: 42.6 million
Percent increase: 86%

The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study.

Overweight:

Body Mass Index (BMI) is defined as the ratio of weight (in kg) to height (in meters) squared and is an inexact measure of body fat, though it supposedly establishes cutoff points of normal weight, overweight, and obesity.

Old definition: BMI > 28 (men), BMI > 27 (women)
People under old definition: 70.6 million
New definition: BMI > 25
People added under new definition: 30.5 million
Percent Increase: 43%

The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

"The new definitions ultimately label 75 percent of the adult U.S. population as diseased," conclude the two researchers.
  #23  
Old 08-21-2014, 04:56 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science
http://www.manhealthissue.com/2007/0...k-science.html
Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science

Epidemiology Monitor (October 1997)

An estimated 300 attendees a recent meeting of the American College of
Epidemiology voted approximately 2 to 1 to keep doing junk science!

Specifically, the attending epidemiologists voted against a motion
proposed in an Oxford-style debate that “risk factor” epidemiology is
placing the field of epidemiology at risk of losing its credibility.

Risk factor epidemiology focuses on specific cause-and-effect
relationships–like heavy coffee drinking increases heart attack risk. A
different approach to epidemiology might take a broader
perspective–placing heart attack risk in the context of more than just
one risk factor, including social factors.

Risk factor epidemiology is nothing more than a perpetual junk science machine.

But as NIEHS epidemiologist Marilyn Tseng said “It’s hard to be an
epidemiologist and vote that what most of us are doing is actually harmful
to epidemiology.”

But who really cares about what they’re doing to epidemiology. I thought
it was public health that mattered!

we have seen the “SELECTIVE” blindness disease that
Scientist have practiced over the past ten years. Seems the only color they
see is GREEN BACKS, it’s a very infectious disease that has spread through
the Scientific community with the same speed that any infectious disease
would spread. And has affected the T(thinking) Cells as well as sight.

Seems their eyes see only what their paid to see. To be honest, I feel
after the Agent Orange Ranch Hand Study, and the Slutz and Nutz Implant
Study, they have cast a dark shadow over their profession of being anything
other than traveling professional witnesses for corporate hire with a lack
of moral concern to their obligation of science and truth.

The true “Risk Factor” is a question of ; will they ever be able to earn
back the respect of their profession as an Oath to Science, instead of
corporate paid witnesses with selective vision?
Oh, if this seems way harsh, it’s nothing compared to the damage of peoples
lives that selective blindness has caused!
  #24  
Old 08-21-2014, 04:57 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
Lung and Bronchus. Invasive Cancer Incidence Rates and 95% Confidence Intervals by Age and Race and Ethnicity, United States (Table 3.15.1.1M) *†‡

Rates are per 100,000 persons. Rates are per 100,000 persons.

Note the age where LC is found…………..OLD AGE group incidence hits the 500/100,000 at age 75-85

AGE it seems is the deciding factor……….

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/cancer...CancerSite=All Cancer Sites Combined&Year=2010&Site=Lung and Bronchus&SurveyInstanceID=1
  #25  
Old 08-21-2014, 04:59 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby

Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. None of them has any link with reality.



http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite...7#.U6ibAzYo59A



Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts?

''Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome—you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”

Read under the title :
Tobacco Control: The Long War—When the Evidence Has to Be Created

http://www.milbank.org/uploads/docum...ionhealth.html
  #26  
Old 08-21-2014, 05:01 PM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skara_Brae View Post
so smoking during pregnancy is actually good for your baby? Maybe I should start, then...
No. That's probably a post hoc error. It maybe that smokers are more likely to lose pregnancies very early, before they even know they are pregnant, and the more vulnerable the pregnancy, the more likely they are to lose it (the only explanation I can think of for something like more babies with chromosomal or genetic defects like Down Syndrome being born to women who don't smoke-- unless that's a straight-up number, and not a percentage, and so non-smokers have more babies with Down Syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis, and curly hair, because there are more of them, so they have more babies overall).

Mr. Davidson, I asked specifically about the CDC ads. If you want to complain about research you think isn't getting published, maybe you should start another thread.

I guess I have my answer. They are real people; they need a note from a single doctor.
  #27  
Old 08-21-2014, 05:06 PM
Skara_Brae Skara_Brae is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Southern New England
Posts: 1,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
No. That's probably a post hoc error. It maybe that smokers are more likely to lose pregnancies very early, before they even know they are pregnant, and the more vulnerable the pregnancy, the more likely they are to lose it (the only explanation I can think of for something like more babies with chromosomal or genetic defects like Down Syndrome being born to women who don't smoke-- unless that's a straight-up number, and not a percentage, and so non-smokers have more babies with Down Syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis, and curly hair, because there are more of them, so they have more babies overall).

Mr. Davidson, I asked specifically about the CDC ads. If you want to complain about research you think isn't getting published, maybe you should start another thread.

I guess I have my answer. They are real people; they need a note from a single doctor.
Yeah, I wasn't actually being serious. That sounds like a likely explanation to me, too.
  #28  
Old 08-21-2014, 05:08 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
You miss the point,they cant prove smoking causes anything in ANYONE or ANYTHING!

Opinions are simply beliefs not proof,the same as correlation is not proof its merely a supposed educated guess but they leave out other variables in those studies like bacterial and viral infections that have been nearly to the end point to cause cancer.

The only other thing proven to cause cell disruption is HIGH DOSE RADIATION!

Yet lower doses can irradicate cancers.

Today they simply state TOBACCO RELATED. Why use the term related because the statement alone means they have no proof to say causes.

With anti-tobacco you must remember the driving force isn't about health but about control of a habit a few people simply hate. Its the same against the Obese as even there they tried to outlaw and criminalize them as they did smoking:


Mississippi Legislature
2008 Regular Session
House Bill 282
House Calendar | Senate Calendar | Main Menu
Additional Information | All Versions

Current Bill Text: |

Description: Food establishments; prohibit from serving food to any person who is obese.

Background Information:
Disposition: Active
Deadline: General Bill/Constitutional Amendment
Revenue: No
Vote type required: Majority
Effective date: July 1, 2008

History of Actions:
1 01/25 (H) Referred To Public Health and Human Services;Judiciary B

----- Additional Information -----

House Committee: Public Health and Human Services*, Judiciary B

Principal Author: Mayhall
Additional Authors: Read, Shows

Title: AN ACT TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FROM SERVING FOOD TO ANY PERSON WHO IS OBESE, BASED ON CRITERIA PRESCRIBED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO PREPARE WRITTEN MATERIALS THAT DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS OBESE AND TO PROVIDE THOSE MATERIALS TO THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO MONITOR THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
...
  #29  
Old 08-21-2014, 05:16 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any stupider in walks the CDC hiring wanna be actors……….

BE SURE TO CLICK ON THE LINK AND SEE THE AD THEY ARE RUNNING

ASIA Latest News & Events

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Office on Smoking and Health seeking individuals to share their story.

May 2nd, 2014

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Office on Smoking and Health is recruiting additional candidates to be considered for an upcoming national education campaign, Tips From Former Smokers (TIPS). The CDC is asking for real people who have had life-changing, smoking-related health problems will be featured. You can be assured that all applications will be treated with dignity, respect, and sensitivity.

Currently seeking ex-smokers who:
•from all backgrounds, and particularly who are of Asian descent.
•have or have had macular degeneration that was linked to cigarette smoking (age 30-65)
•used cigars with cigarettes or used cigarillos or little cigars with or without cigarettes, thinking cigars, cigarillos and little cigars were healthier than cigarettes and developed a serious health condition while smoking (ages 20-60)
•used e-cigarettes or smokeless tobacco to cut back on some cigarettes would be good for your health; and
•despite cutting back, you were later diagnosed with a serious health condition

Individuals should be comfortable sharing their story publicly and be able to articulate how their smoking-related condition changed their life.

If you are interested, have questions or concerns, please send them to CDC representative, Crystal Bruce at jgx6@cdc.gov & put “Recruitment Questions” in the subject line.

http://www.asiaohio.org/2014/05/02/t...e-their-story/




Heres what the ad says

LOOKING FOR REAL PEOPLE TO APPEAR IN ADS ABOUT THE HEALTH EFFECTS OF SMOKING CIGARETTES

………………………………………..
PAYS 2500.00 PLUS TRAVEL EXPENSES IF SELECTED
……………………………………….

We are looking for ex-smokers of any ethnic background who have been diagnosed with these diseases while smoking!

Colorectal cancer age 30-65
Macular Degerneration age 40-65

We are particularly encouraging english speakers of asian descent to consider applying to be part of the AD Campaign.

An ex-smoker who quit at least 6 months ago

willing to submit to background check

Willing to have your Doctor sign a legal statement verifying that smoking caused or contributed to your health condition

Able to travel for filming

Please respond ASAP but no later than May 30th 2014

Mimi Webb Miller Casting

email CDCTips@gmail.com TOLL FREE 855 332 7277

Last edited by John Davidson; 08-21-2014 at 05:17 PM.
  #30  
Old 08-21-2014, 05:24 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
Mr. Davidson, I asked specifically about the CDC ads. If you want to complain about research you think isn't getting published, maybe you should start another thread.


As far as other research its already published but wont be put on the front page of any media outlet as it destroys the anti-smoking message hands down.

If you cant prove your claims after 100 years and 100s of Billions in phony research you have no leg to stand on. The next time you give to relay for life or the ACS know they make 12 million a year running the quitlines for Big Pharma besides spending millions a year in legal fees out of the same funds they beg for to keep their illegally lobbied for smoking bans on the books to keep up nicotine replacement therapy drugs sales and keep the cash rolling in. yes the ACS,ALA,AHA were all bought off by Big Pharma in 1993 with a 99 million dollar grant to do their anti-tobacco bidding. It started way before that as all 3 of those non-profits were created by Rockefellor at the end of the last prohibitional movements in America.
  #31  
Old 08-21-2014, 05:26 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
Federal Support for Anti-Tobacco Advocacy Raises Legal Questions

Grant money supports efforts to enact anti-smoking laws in possible violation of federal law

http://freebeacon.com/federal-suppor...gal-questions/

Among grant recipients is the Missouri Foundation for Health (MFH), a large nonprofit “dedicated to improving the health of the uninsured and underserved” in the Show-Me State.

MFH received nearly $3 million from 2010 to 2012 for its Social Innovation Missouri program, which was created to administer CNCS funds, and helped built coalitions to enact additional restrictions on tobacco use in the state.

It has been a powerful force in that effort, its allies say.

“The Missouri Foundation for Health was seen as a leader in the tobacco prevention and cessation initiative, education, and working with smoke free coalitions,” wrote the Healthcare Foundation of Greater Kansas City in 2012.

The foundation’s and its allies’ work produced tangible results. Missouri still does not have a state-wide indoor smoking ban, but a number of municipalities have instituted such bans since MFH received its federal grant.

While MFH was also aiming for statewide policy changes, legislative victories in general are major benchmarks of the success of its Social Innovation Missouri (SIM) program.

“Measurable outcomes of SIM include … increased healthy policy changes in targeted communities,” according to MFH’s page on the Social Innovation Fund website.

“The intent [of Social Innovation Missouri] is to increase access and support, and encourage tobacco-free policy implementation and tobacco control by engaging the community and fostering policy change in the target population,” the group wrote.

MFH is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, meaning it can engage in lobbying activities. However, federal law prohibits lobbying organizations from receiving federal funds.

MFH has not reported any lobbying expenditures in the past 10 years, but observers say other laws preclude the type of policy advocacy in which MFH and its subgrantees are engaged.

MFH and all other Social Innovation Fund grantees were required to certify in writing “that no funds received from CNCS have been or will be paid, by or on behalf of the applicant, to any person or agent acting for the applicant, related to activity designed to influence the enactment of legislation, appropriations, administrative action, proposed or pending before the Congress or any State government, State legislature or local legislature or legislative body.”

That language mirrors regulations at CNCS and guidance issued by the White House Office of Management and Budget on the use of federal grants for lobbying or advocacy work.

OMB prohibits the use of such funds for “any attempt to influence the introduction of Federal or State legislation; or the enactment or modification of any pending Federal or State legislation through communication with any member or employee of the Congress or State legislature.”

CNCS general counsel Frank Trinity reminded agency employees in 2007 that they and CNCS grantees “may not attempt to influence legislation…if they are doing so while charging time to a Corporation-supported program…or otherwise performing activities supported by the Corporation.”

Despite these prohibitions, MFH frequently promoted policy advocacy as integral to its Social Innovation Missouri program.

A major goal of the program, according to an MFH solicitation for subgrantees, was “modifying policy language and assisting in navigating bureaucratic hurdles to policy change.”

Subgrantee applicants, the solicitation said, should propose strategies for “advocating for healthy policies so people are encouraged to make healthy choices.”

“Lasting policy changes also have a significant impact on tobacco use and obesity prevention, and are critical components of program,” MFH wrote.

The solicitation was careful to note prohibitions on policy advocacy.

“These funds cannot be used for lobbying activities,” the solicitation noted. Other language in the solicitation suggested there may be some wiggle room on that prohibition: “Rules governing lobbying and advocacy are complex and subject to interpretation.”

The Missouri Foundation for Health did not respond to requests for comment on allegations that it violated those restrictions.

A key guide of MFH’s activities was created by the group Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, which MFH lists as a “collaborating partner.”

ANR’s 501(c)(4) activist arm calls itself “the leading national lobbying organization dedicated to nonsmokers’ rights” and says it “pursues an action-oriented program of policy and legislation.”

MFH worked with its 501(c)(3) division, the Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation, contributing $270,000 to the group from 2010 through 2012, according to annual 990 filings.

As part of its support for Social Innovation Missouri, ANR and MFH collaborating partner Trailnet created a “coalition core competencies checklist” laying out all the elements of a successful anti-tobacco coalition.

The checklist features an entire section devoted to “policy advocacy.” Subsections include “campaign planning and strategy,” “understanding of protocol and timing for approaching elected officials,” “creating a policy implementation plan and supporting the policy implementation process,” and “preparing decision-makers for opposition talking points and strategies—neutralizing the opposition’s impact.”

The checklist also featured a single item on restrictions on federally funded policy advocacy: “Understanding definition of ‘lobbying’ and how it relates to your campaign activities.”

MFH explicitly directed its subgrantees to push for the enactment of state and local laws restricting the sale or public use of tobacco products.

“SIM grantees and partners are expected to participate in local and statewide policy advocacy activities that affect their programming goals,” MFH wrote in its solicitation.

Those activities include “promoting program efforts to local media and policymakers.”

The solicitation mentioned “community smoke-free policies” and tax increases on tobacco sales as worthwhile legislative objectives for subgrantees.

Dan Epstein, executive director of the government watchdog group Cause of Action, said his group investigated similar allegations of federally funded lobbying efforts financed by Obamacare and the 2009 stimulus bill.

COA dug into Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) grants through its stimulus-funded Communities Putting Prevention to Work program.

Ostensibly a “preventative health” project, CPPW “laundered money through so-called stealth lobbying coalitions, formed to skirt prohibitions on lobbying by non-profits, in order to promote local laws banning otherwise legal consumer products such as sodas, e-cigarettes, and fast food,” COA wrote in a report on the program.

“We already uncovered multiple organizations around the country that illegally lobbied with federal taxpayer dollars under the Communities Putting Prevention to Work program,” Epstein wrote in an email.

“We also know that entities in Missouri that received CPPW money have been offered federal funds by MFH efforts, so it is no surprise that the unchecked grant money going to MFH could now be used to violate the law again,” he said.

CDC, the report said, “permitted and even encouraged CPPW grantees to violate federal law and use CPPW funds to lobby state and local governments.”

Revelations about federal funding for anti-tobacco lobbying caught the attention of members of Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general.

CDC literature on the CPPW program “appear[s] to authorize, or even encourage, grantees to use grant funds for impermissible lobbying,” wrote inspector general Daniel Levinson.

Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine) wrote to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to express her concern that “grantees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under the direction of official CDC guidance, appear to have used federal funds in attempts to change state and local policies and laws.”

“In response to CDC guidance, several grantees as recently as 2010 have engaged in strategies that, absent an expressed authorization by Congress, appear to violate federal law regarding influencing state and local governments to adopt laws and policies,” Collins wrote.

It is not clear whether CNCS was aware of or concerned about MFH grant language that seemed to encourage subgrantees to engage in policy advocacy. The agency did not respond to a request for comment.

Missouri political observers say MFH’s work is just the most recent use of federal funds for anti-tobacco lobbying in the state.

“In Missouri, many political subdivisions use tax money directly and indirectly to influence the outcome of legislation,” said Carl Bearden, executive director of United for Missouri, a free market group in the state.

“A large majority of the time they are taking positions contrary to the best interest of taxpayers but not the entity itself.”

Bearden said he was not familiar with MFH’s work, but “the use of Social Innovation Fund dollars to support state and local laws against tobacco would certainly be an egregious use of those funds. A use that should be stopped immediately and those responsible be held accountable for it.”

St. Joseph, Mo., is the latest battleground in the state’s tobacco policy debates, and opponents of a proposed indoor smoking ban say they have seen impact of federally funded lobbying efforts in that city.

“Of special concern is the upcoming smoking ban election in St. Joseph,” said Bill Hannegan, director of Keep St. Louis Free, a group that opposes smoking bans, of a proposed ballot initiative to ban smoking in indoor public establishments.

“The illegal use of federal funds there could sway an otherwise close election,” Hannegan said of the April 8 referendum.

One of the groups fighting for that referendum, Clean Air St. Joe, received funds from Social Innovation Missouri, a CASJ spokeswoman told the St. Joseph News-Press.

CASJ is currently asking supporters to contact members of the St. Joseph city council “to remind them only a comprehensive smoke-free ordinance that includes all bars, restaurants and indoor workplaces will protect the health of all workers.”

CASJ works closely with the Heartland Foundation, which is also a SIM subgrantee.

Previous attempts to expose and correct the use of federal funds for policy advocacy have been unsuccessful, said St. Joseph Telegraph editor Mike Bozarth, a former member of the city council.

“Money and time provide obstacles,” he said of efforts to stem the tide of federal lobbying money.

“I told local anti-ban folks they needed money and lawyers to sue over it,” Bozarth said of previous efforts to institute smoking bans with federal assistance. “I don’t see how these violations are allowed to stand. But again, it takes money for lawyers to challenge them.”

Epstein said he does not expect the Obama administration to address these apparent violations without prodding.

“As the IRS targeting scandal reveals, this administration is clearly more concerned about private money going to nonprofit organizations, which have not violated any laws, than organizations who push administration policies while violating federal law with taxpayer dollars,” Epstein wrote.

“The hypocrisy is blatant and taxpayers should demand accountability for these types of violations.”
  #32  
Old 08-21-2014, 05:30 PM
John Davidson John Davidson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 23
I could go on and on about this and all the junk science and illegal smoking bans being put on the books these days. But its already falling apart as the world blackmarket in tobacco costs governments 100s of billions each year in lost revenues and enforcement costs yet people still smoke and more are smoking everyday. Stigmatization is the fastest way to get people to what the law told em not to do................Howd Alcohol Prohibition work out or he war on drugs......

Its all massive failures and makes criminals out of normal law abiding citizens. If it were legal the profit motive is gone and you do away with the ills of unlawful use and trafficking.

A new day is rising and it shant be long before we see these idiotic laws repealed and freedom restored back to all of us. If you want references to anything Ive said simple ask.
  #33  
Old 08-21-2014, 05:33 PM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 21,942
Moderator Action

This has gotten to be more than a little excessive.

John Davidson, please do not post any further on this topic. If you need a place to vent your opinions, try starting a blog somewhere.

From the SDMB Registration Agreement:

Quote:
The board is not intended to furnish you with a forum for promoting your personal agenda. We reserve the right to ask you to limit postings on a particular topic, or to refrain from posting on such topics altogether.
Since the original topic has gotten completely lost in all of this, I am going to close the thread.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017