Posted on 03/19/2006 8:47:08 AM PST by SheLion
In your opinion, science is all speculation, no fact?
The rest of the story is that the dissemination of fallacious information by anti-smoking groups to the public in support of smoking bans is not only unfortunate because it is going to harm the tobacco control movement by undermining its credibility, reputation, and effectiveness, but because it is unethical and disrespectful of the basic principles of truthfulness and scientific accuracy in health communications, which are in turn founded on the principles of autonomy and self-determination, values which cannot and should not be trodden upon by public health organizations in free societies simply to promote a favored policy.
Please note that although the main link for this is to a Smokers' group, the links provided in the body of the article show that Dr. Siegel (yes, he is an MD) is and has been involved in the tobacco control movement for a good long time.
He is currently persona non-gratis to a certain extent in the movement because he has been exposing the "emperor has no clothes" facts about the tobacco control movement........which really isn't about tobacco ocntrol any longer, but rather about people control, specifically people who use tobacco products.
Here is a direct link to Dr. Siegel's blog...........it has much information.
Dr. Siegel and I disagree on many issues, but I can not help but give major kudos to a man willing to buck the system and stand up for integrity, honesty, truth, and ethical behavior, at major personal/professional expense to himself.
Excellent. Thanks.
Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws
siegel is getting a really bad rap from the rest of the antis - because for once there is an anti actually telling the TRUTH.............and they do not like it.
That totally describes everything that has been done in regard to the tobacco control movement. They claim it is proven scientific fact that SHS kills non-smokers, when in actuality no such thing has ever been proven.
Scientific method as envisaged by one of its early exponents, Sir Isaac Newton, is fundamental to the investigation and acquisition of knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists use observations, hypotheses, and logic to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories that can be reproducibly tested by experiments...
If you engage in saying that you have discovered something that CAN NEVER be shown to be incorrect, then you are doing theology, not science.
If you "discovered" it, you PROVED it's existence.
Thanks for pointing this out. I forgot that not everyone is familiar with Dr. Siegel.
One thought would be that there are better ways of assessment of asthma in pediatrics. Thus more asthma is diagnosed. Another in that vein...would be that "asthma" tends to be a "catch-all" diagnosis.
Another thought...that in many parts of the country we have INCREASED pollens/molds...some secondary to the increase in lakes,reservoirs,ponds in the last 40 years.
Another thought would be that in many areas of the country...the more they have been populated...the more different species of bushes/trees/plants have been introduced to that particular environment.
No thanks necessary. I just truly believe that this man should be given his due, even though he is generally on the opposite side of the issue than we are.
However, when it comes to the dishonesty and unethical behavior of the antis he has totally come around to the things we have all been saying for years.....and he is paying a price for it.
Unlike the Glantz's and Banzhaf's, and Carlson's of the anti-smoker movment.....Siegel can actually be reasonable and will to discuss things. He is actually on our side when it comes to the antis pushing for more and more companies to do what WEYCO and Scott's/MiracleGro have done when it comes to firing and not hiring smokers.
Not all antis are all bad, and I just refuse to paint all with a broad brush in the way they like to paint smokers or smoker-supporters. I will not stoop to that level.
It is obviously not true that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, circulatory diseases, heart diseases, etc. After almost a half century of anti-smoking effort that has successfully reduced the number of smokers from 8 out of 10 to fewer than 4 out of 10, the death rate, adjusted for population growth, from smoking related diseases has increased.
Question: Why has the number of deaths from smoking related diseases not decreased? If smoking causes lung cancer, why do more people die today from lung cancer even though the smoking rate has gone dramatically down? Why has there not been a corresponding decrease in deaths from lung cancer?
Do we owe Joe Camel an apology? Anyone?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.