Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Seeing all the stuff lately on smoking, I thought I would post this.
1 posted on 09/16/2003 4:39:10 AM PDT by historian1944
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
To: historian1944; SheLion
Bump; ping.
2 posted on 09/16/2003 4:40:26 AM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: *puff_list
Puff.
3 posted on 09/16/2003 4:40:36 AM PDT by Vigilantcitizen (Game on in ten seconds...http://www.fatcityonline.com/Video/fatcityvsdemented.WMV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: historian1944
Original publication:

Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98

4 posted on 09/16/2003 4:45:42 AM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: historian1944
It more harmful to stand on the corner of 5th Avenue in NYC & inhale the bus, truck & car exhaust than second hand smoke.
5 posted on 09/16/2003 4:51:35 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I will defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: historian1944
At this writing there have been over 140 responses on www.bmj.com, and if made into a movie they would be called "The Howling."

These are found after the "cited by other articles" section.

Direct Link: Rapid responses

7 posted on 09/16/2003 4:55:52 AM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: historian1944
BUMP against moronic use of phony health issues to expand the power of government.
8 posted on 09/16/2003 5:00:41 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: historian1944
That's what research professor James Enstrom of UCLA and professor Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook discovered last May. That's when they reported in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that their 39-year study of 35,561 Californians who had never smoked showed no "causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and tobacco-related mortality," adding, however "a small effect" can't be ruled out.
...
At this writing there have been over 140 responses on www.bmj.com, and if made into a movie they would be called "The Howling." Many are mere slurs several grades below even sophomoric.
...
Some demanded the BMJ retract the study because, as one put it, the "tobacco industry will use it." (It didn't). Another made the rather draconian call to ban all use of statistics in science, lest they be put to such wicked purposes as this.

The next study really really needed is to determine the percentage of Americans of all ages whose mental state borders on the criminally insane.
Why should they even be allowed to run loose, let alone vote?

11 posted on 09/16/2003 5:12:43 AM PDT by Publius6961 (californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: historian1944
I like second hand smoke because it is cheaper than the first hand smoke I usually consume. I will not consume second hand food since that is Bill Clinton's favorite dish.
13 posted on 09/16/2003 5:17:28 AM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (Living fast is fine as long as you steer well and have good brakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: historian1944
"Why take seriously a study that contradicts what everyone already knows?"

Megalomania trumps reality.
Temporarily, that is.

Patholgical perception increasingly is becoming reality for all practical purposes. That so many laws have been adopted nationwide speaks to this.
The lunatics, through government, are making slaves of us all.

Try an experiment: walk through a whole day with an unlit cigarette in your mouth. The reaction from the aliens disguised as normal-looking people is a riot!

15 posted on 09/16/2003 5:20:15 AM PDT by Publius6961 (californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: historian1944; Just another Joe; Flurry; CSW
Unable to find significant faults in the UCLA study itself, critics repeatedly harped on what Enstrom and Kabat had clearly stated – that some of the funding was from the tobacco industry. As they explained, this became necessary when the University of California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, which was specifically set up to support this type of research, stopped their funding and no other sources were available.

And the reason the funding was yanked out just 2 years before completion of the study was because the preliminary findings were already showing results the anti-smoker cartel DID NOT want.

As the article states - there has been no questioning of the science and scientific methods of the study so they had to find some reason to cover their behinds and so they attack the funding.

What the media fails to acknowledge when reporting stuff like this is that 95% of the funding of this study came from the American Cancer Society and subsequent anti-smoker organizations. Only 5% came from tobacco interests - and that occurred only AFTER the research was nearly complete and preliminary results already determined.

16 posted on 09/16/2003 5:21:34 AM PDT by Gabz (anti-smokers - personification of everything wrong in this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: historian1944
Before a scientific study can be conducted, "Liberals" insist that the conclusions must be established.
20 posted on 09/16/2003 5:33:20 AM PDT by Savage Beast (The American Heartland--the Spirit of Flight 93)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: historian1944
I wonder if 10 snowmobiles in Yellowstone's 2.5 million acres constitutes a tiny dose or should the employees keep wearing their gas masks?
21 posted on 09/16/2003 5:35:04 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: historian1944
I blame the tobaco industry for this mess. They have/had a lot of money, and when the government first begin their attack, they should have counter attacked. But no, they meekly conceded when their product was banned from advertising on television, and they have been conceding every since.

I don't smoke, never had, never will. But I see this fight as more then the governments desire to save us from ourself.

From the first laws against smoking, we have gained mandatory seat belts, to helmets for children on bikes and men on motorcycles. None of which is the governments business, yet by giving in to these baby steps of taking away decisions that should be ours alone, the government is slowly taking over our lifes.

23 posted on 09/16/2003 5:57:12 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN (I am as mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: historian1944
Sending this to my minister of health.... :-}
25 posted on 09/16/2003 6:19:19 AM PDT by Great Dane (You can smoke just about everywhere in Denmark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: historian1944
bump
26 posted on 09/16/2003 6:21:59 AM PDT by RippleFire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: historian1944
This is bad! It contradicts the wisdom of the all knowing Nammy State that wants to take care of us.
28 posted on 09/16/2003 6:35:15 AM PDT by wjcsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: historian1944
Seeing all the stuff lately on smoking, I thought I would post this.

All the stuff on smoking? LOL

You must have missed 2 to 3 years ago.
There were twice daily battles of, almost, epic proportions.

29 posted on 09/16/2003 6:36:11 AM PDT by Just another Joe (FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: historian1944
Good to see proven what I've known all along: Militant anti-smokers are just control freaks - nothing more, nothing less.
32 posted on 09/16/2003 9:43:48 AM PDT by cmak9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: historian1944
I have seen no mention of the latest second hand smoke threat, the drive by smoking. In many areas of the country this horrendous crime is on the upswing. A perfectly healthy smoke gnatzie (5'4" 275 lb) is standing on a street corner. Suddenly a car stops with the windows down and smokers inside waiting for the light to change. While this is happening the smoke gnatzie is exposed to huge amounts of second hand smoke. The light changes and the criminals drive away. Who can the smoke gnatzie sue for damages? In most cities these crimes are committed by smoke gangs, "The Menthols, The Non-Menthols, The Filters, The Non-Filters, The Regulars, and The Kings. Something must be done and soon. If not for us all, for the children.
34 posted on 09/16/2003 12:50:41 PM PDT by Conspiracy Guy (Living fast is fine as long as you steer well and have good brakes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: historian1944
The big bucks go to those who "discover" that ETS causes everything from pimples to piles. Both governmental and private organizations have directed tens of millions of dollars to groups promoting ETS as a killer

The shakedown and petty laws had to be justified.

41 posted on 09/17/2003 4:25:26 AM PDT by HughSeries
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson