Albania ranks second in Europe for smoking rate

Old Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's what the 2010 Surgeon General's Report says:
"After adjustment of data for other risk factors, cigarette smokers have higher risk of stroke and higher mortality from cerebrovascular disease than do lifetime nonsmokers, and a dose-response relationship is evident." "In addition, in the 20-year follow-up of a prospective study of mortality that controlled for other cardiovascular risk factors, cigarette smoking increased the risk of death from stroke and mortality rates grew the number of cigarettes smoked increased"
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports...

OF COURSE HE SAYS THAT - HE (The office) is a part of the antismoking movement!!!

These are a set of the GOALS set up at the 1975 World conference on smoking and health

-“Elimination of smoking cigarettes”;
- Create ‘a social environment in which smoking is unacceptable’;
- Ban all smoking in all schools;
- Classify tobacco as addictive and smokers as drug-dependent;
- Preempt 5% of tobacco sales revenues for antismoking ‘education’;
- Raise tobacco prices enough to discourage sales;
- Set up committees of sophisticated politicians and economists in every country to help pursue stated goals.

Here are a few of the STATEMENTS which led to those conclusions

“I imagine that most of us here know full well that our target must be, in the long-term, the elimination of cigarette smoking…… We may not have eliminated cigarette smoking completely by the end of this century, but we ought to have reached a position where a relatively few addicts still use cigarettes, but only in private at most in the company of consenting adults.”

First, I think we must ask ourselves whether our society is one in which the major influences exercised on public opinion are such as would convey the impression that smoking is a dirty, anti-social practice.

A coordinated world-wide campaign against cigarette smoking would dramatize and emphasize this health problem . Therefore, to the extent possible, we recommend that a common theme be adopted internationally . Such a theme should be based on the positive aspects of enjoying freedom from cigarettes ... that it's fashionable to be free from smoking . The Committee suggests that emphasis be given to special needs of women and children.

Need there really be any difficulty about prohibiting smoking in more public places? The nicotine addicts would be petulant for a while, but why should we accord them any right to make the innocent suffer?”

“Every smoker is a promoter of other smokers. The practice ought to be an enclosed one, not to be endured by the non-smoker in ordinary social intercourse; and no one should be allowed to use advertisement or any indirect means to suggest otherwise.

It is suggested that in the United States, major health agencies join forces to create and produce anti-smoking material for mass media

it is recommended that all forms of health (including prepaid health plans), accident, life and fire insurance be granted to non-smokers at rates appropriately adjusted to reflect their reduced risk status

Therefore, it is recommended that as a part of national health policy the use of tobacco should be viewed as behavior that is destructive to self and to others and to implement this aspect of policy by appropriate legislation, regulation, and voluntary action, there should be a deliberate and systematic enlargement and guarantee of non-smoking areas in all public places including places of employment .

That Governments be urged to develop comprehensive programs directed against the smoking of cigarettes and based on the recommendations of this conference and those of the WHO expert Committee on Smoking and its Effects on Health

You See - It was ALL DECIDED IN 1975 - before there was ANY EVIDENCE OF PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH SHS - NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!- and VERY LITTLE evidence on Direct Smoking problems.

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:

<quoted text>
As I have said there are HUNDREDS of co-variates or confounders - USUALLY VERY FEW of which are EVER ACCOUNTED FOR IN MOST STUDIES!
THAT is the biggest PART of the reason why - They have NEVER PROVED that SMOKING CAUSES ANYTHING!

You missed one part of my message to the original Hugh: "The real problem with trying to analyze population data is that it IS complicated. It requires a lot of math and training in epidemiology to try to make sense of it."

Have you ever had a course in biostatistics? Epidemiology? Research design? Have you ever published a scientific paper?

It is the dose that kills even in water. I think a thorough investigation of WHO is in order of their finances and TRUE worth to the world. I find it idiotic that WHO statistics are made up from some countries including the USA where recounts of voting are always in question let alone you should believe medical junk science numbers. The old saying to a criminal why do you rob banks, the reply...."because thats where the money is" rings bells to the cause of FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Huge Jass the lawyer should be able to give you the numbers for the success rates in criminal employment, over that of those in the honest world.

A great question for this board would be was life better before the invent of the WHO or has it turned sour. Could the same be be said of the U.N.?

Need A Light wrote:

A great question for this board would be was life better before the invent of the WHO or has it turned sour.

Let's see... They eradicated smallpox and decreased the incidence of polio by 99% worldwide.

Now tell us what you've done to make the world a better place.

Old Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
Have you ever had a course in biostatistics? Epidemiology? Research design? Have you ever published a scientific paper?

Why don't you start by asking them "Did you graduate from high school?" These are the same people that struggled with grade school science, and now they think they are capable of analyzing scientific research.

Old Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
You missed one part of my message to the original Hugh: "The real problem with trying to analyze population data is that it IS complicated. It requires a lot of math and training in epidemiology to try to make sense of it."

Oh I didn't miss it - didn't REALY think it was worth addressing.
But since you insist:

You're right!- thats what makes it so error prone and sooo easily faked.

For your pleasure - just google "Faked studies" - you will see LOTS of this

Big Pharma researcher admits to faking dozens of research studies

Resveratrol Health Benefits Relied on Faked Data

Faked Research Results on Rise?

US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds

A Medical Madoff: Anesthesiologist Faked Data in 21 Studies

Cancer Research of 10 Years Useless: Fraudulent Studies..........
In a scandal that has reverberated around the world of cancer research, the Office of Research Integrity at the U.S. Department of Health found that a Boston University cancer scientist fabricated his findings. His work was published in two journals in 2009, and he’s been ordered to retract them. But important studies by other scientists like those at the Mayo Clinic, who based their work on his findings, could now make 10 years of their studies worthless, according to commentary in Gaia Health.

-It(2011) was a year that will probably see close to 400 retractions (of Studies), including a number of high-profile ones, once the dust settles.

Here's a study to find actually HOW MANY ARE FAKED:

A pooled weighted average of 1.97%(N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices.
In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12%(N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.

Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

Among research trainees in biomedical sciences at the University of California San Diego, 4.9% said they had modified research results in the past,.... but 81% were “willing to select, omit or fabricate data to win a grant or publish a paper”
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.13...

Now - What I CAN'T UNDERSTAND is - WHY do continue SPEWING the garbage the anti's have you brainwashed with - WHY do you keep DEFENDING???

Here's a "PROFESSIONAL" opinion

The 1992 EPA report is an example of the use of epidemiology to promote belief in an epidemic instead of to investigate one. It has damaged the credibility of EPA and has tainted the fields of epidemiology and public health.

In addition, influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas.

The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty "scientific" outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money.

Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers.

Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers.
Dr. Jerome C. Arnett, Jr., a member of the Editorial Board of the Medical Sentinel, a medical ethicist, and a practicing pulmonologist in Elkins, West Virginia.

Here's another opinion:

“The world must protest the ongoing deceit and the squandering of public monies for rigged and incompetent ETS studies. And people should feel offended by the complicity and sham paternalism of health authorities and of profitable tax exempt charities. Such an officially imposed tyranny has no place in countries that claim and presume to be free, enlightened, and just. We are not children, nor bumbling simpletons who need to be deceived for our own good — a deceit that is doubly grating when the wilfully flawed surgeon general’s report on ETS runs against statutory requirements of “ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by a government agency.”
Dr Gio Batta Gori, Former Deputy Director of the National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Causes and Prevention, Acting Associate Director, Carcinogenesis Program, Director of the Diet, Nutrition and Cancer Program, and Director of the Smoking and Health Program

and another:

“I am sorry, I know that is what you would like to be given, but the point is that these risks are small and difficult to measure directly…. I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers…, but what does one make of them?…These hazards cannot be directly measured.
- Sir Richard Peto, Epidemiologist, Oxford University, speaking at UK House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, which was inquiring about government policy on the management of risk, including the claimed risks of ets.

Peto worked with doll on many of his studies - and of course you already KNOW Doll's opinion

"The effect of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn’t worry me.”

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh I didn't miss it - didn't REALY think it was worth addressing.

Now - What I CAN'T UNDERSTAND is - WHY do continue SPEWING the garbage the anti's have you brainwashed with - WHY do you keep DEFENDING???

You don't get it, and the Old Guy is too polite to say it directly - you don't have the training, and probably aren't smart enough to have an opinion on scientific matters. The best you can do is to cut and paste stuff you found on FORCES. Your only original material is the uppercase ranting, and even that is misspelled.

Quit embarrassing yourself.

Thomas wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't get it, and the Old Guy is too polite to say it directly - you don't have the training, and probably aren't smart enough to have an opinion on scientific matters. The best you can do is to cut and paste stuff you found on FORCES. Your only original material is the uppercase ranting, and even that is misspelled.
Quit embarrassing yourself.

What - Have they made YOU the "designated poster" now??- you're certainly NO DIFFERENT from ALL THE REST - a pompous, arrogant, narcissistic, LOUDMOUTH, with a definite "God Complex" - who believes he has the RIGHT to dictate what EVERYONE should or shouldn't do!

I haven't seen YOU post ANYTHING of value!!- Just the same denigrating RANTS that you have learned from your "COMRADES"

Must be terrible to live SUCH A SHALLOW LIFE!!!- HUH???

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:

<quoted text>
HUH???

OK, let me make it clearer for you. Tell us about your educational background. You don't seem to be able to understand the basics of scientific research. And just because you have difficulty understanding something, doesn't mean that it's meaningless or that it practitioners are corrupt.

And here's a bit of free advice - LOTS OF UPPERCASE PASSAGES make you appear dim and unsophisticated.

Thomas wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, let me make it clearer for you. Tell us about your educational background. You don't seem to be able to understand the basics of scientific research. And just because you have difficulty understanding something, doesn't mean that it's meaningless or that it practitioners are corrupt.
And here's a bit of free advice - LOTS OF UPPERCASE PASSAGES make you appear dim and unsophisticated.

OK, let me make it clearer for YOU - I STILL have seen nothing of VALUE - in ANYTHING that you have posted - NOTHING worth repeating - NOTHING worth remembering!!

ALL YOU HAVE DONE SO FAR IS - "CALL NAMES" and WHINE!- How can a person be THAT SHALLOW - and still DEMAND that others PAY ATTENTION!

It's called NARCISSISM (excessive selfishness)- It's considered a Mental disorder - I'd suggest you seek professional help.

BTW - How do you like my CAPS???????

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:

<quoted text>
OK, let me make it clearer for YOU - I STILL have seen nothing of VALUE - in ANYTHING that you have posted - NOTHING worth repeating - NOTHING worth remembering!!

"A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind."

Thomas wrote:

<quoted text>
"A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind."

Congradulations - an almost PERFECT SELF DESCRIPTION - and here's one that you can look forward to.

"Pride precedes a disaster, and an arrogant attitude precedes a fall."

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:

and another:
“I am sorry, I know that is what you would like to be given, but the point is that these risks are small and difficult to measure directly…. I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers…, but what does one make of them?…These hazards cannot be directly measured.
- Sir Richard Peto, Epidemiologist, Oxford University, speaking at UK House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, which was inquiring about government policy on the management of risk, including the claimed risks of ets.
Peto worked with doll on many of his studies - and of course you already KNOW Doll's opinion
"The effect of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn’t worry me.”

You really quoted Peto out of context. Here is what he really said in the testimony you cut up:"I am sorry, I know that is what you would like to be given, but the point is that these risks are small and difficult to measure directly. What is clear is that cigarette smoke itself is far and away the most important cause of human cancer in the world—that is, cigarette smoke taken in by the smoker—and passive smoking, exposure to other people's smoke, must cause some risk of death from the same diseases. Measuring that risk reliably and directly is difficult. You can do it indirectly by suggesting approximate proportionality of hazard to exposure, but the assumptions become almost untestable. The arguments that have been forward for the various thresholds, that there is some dose below which there is absolutely no risk, have no scientific plausibility. They have come up a lot of times because, as you know, when there is the statement "there is some risk" then there is political pressure to get rid of that risk, so it would be very convenient if one could be told that there was no risk, and so various implausible models involving thresholds got proposed. There is going to be some risk and there is always going to be quite a lot of uncertainty about the magnitude of that risk, I am sorry. What is definite is that cigarette smoke is causing about 100,000 deaths a year in this country, and a few million deaths a year worldwide, that this number of deaths is still increasing in some other countries, although not in this country, and that passive exposure to cigarette smoke in various circumstances must be producing some risk. That is definite, and the threshold arguments are often politically motivated inventions which do not have much scientific plausibility. I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers by direct extrapolation, but what does one make of them? These hazards cannot be directly measured."

Any time I see quotes with elipses in the middle, it usually means someone's words are going to be twisted.

Commonsenseman wrote:

<quoted text>
You really quoted Peto out of context...
Any time I see quotes with elipses in the middle, it usually means someone's words are going to be twisted.

The quote posted WAS NOT "Out of context" - the parts that were posted IS BASICALLY the WHOLE CONTEXT of his remark.

The question he addressed is here:
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Sir Richard, I wanted to start by asking if you could give us your assessment of the health risks associated with passive smoking in the home or at work and in other public places. It would be helpful if you could give us an indication of both absolute and relative magnitudes of the health risks and also the degree of uncertainty attached to the available statistical evidence.

And through the whole statement that he had made - these are the portions that answered the question:

“I am sorry, I know that is what you would like to be given, but the point is that these risks are small and difficult to measure directly…. I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers…, but what does one make of them?…These hazards cannot be directly measured.

Which makes it TOTALLY IN CONTEXT - It was stripped only of the extraneous remarks - Like this:
"and passive smoking, exposure to other people's smoke, must cause some risk of death from the same diseases."

and this one:
"and that passive exposure to cigarette smoke in various circumstances must be producing some risk."

No evidence that it does - just that IT MUST!

But I DID miss this one which should have been included:
"There is going to be some risk and there is always going to be quite a lot of uncertainty about the magnitude of that risk, I am sorry." - This one WOULD have been contextual.

This is the one that is most "twisting":
"that there is some dose below which there is absolutely no risk, have no scientific plausibility."

That one was carefully thought out - and the way stated is absolutely right!- only because EVERYTHING, EVERYDAY has "risks" associated with it!

But he WOULDN"T say - "that there is some dose below which there is no ABSOLUTE risk," - because he KNOWS - THAT would have been a lie - "The DOSE makes the poison"

Basically He made NO quantification of ETS risks, with the clear implication that quantification is impossible.

KNOW ONE is TWISTING ANYTHING!!
(Except the Anti's)

Commonsenseman wrote:

<quoted text>
You really quoted Peto out of context. Here is what he really said in the testimony you cut up...

Are you really surprised? It should be pretty obvious to anyone reading this thread that Hugh Jass Jr doesn't care about anything except his desire to smoke whenever he feels like it. To this end, he will lie, misrepresent, and insult anyone who questions him. Unfortunately for him, he is too simple-minded to do any of these things convincingly. Let's be satisfied that he is now denied the opportunity to inflict his unhealthy habit on others in a public setting.

Old Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
Have you ever had a course in biostatistics? Epidemiology? Research design? Have you ever published a scientific paper?

Old Guy, are you disappointed that Hugh Jass Jr seems to be unwilling to answer your direct questions? It's possible that he doesn't understand those big words.

Thomas wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you really surprised? It should be pretty obvious to anyone reading this thread that Hugh Jass Jr doesn't care about anything except his desire to smoke whenever he feels like it. To this end, he will lie, misrepresent, and insult anyone who questions him. Unfortunately for him, he is too simple-minded to do any of these things convincingly. Let's be satisfied that he is now denied the opportunity to inflict his unhealthy habit on others in a public setting.

TYPICAL Anti reply - Ignore the truth - give NOTHING useful in return - and just call names!

Thomas wrote:

<quoted text>
It's possible that he doesn't understand those big words.

Yea - That MUST be it!!!!!!!!!!

Hugh Jass Jr wrote:

<quoted text>

Huge ass, don't you think is too much of trolling? Ok, you're a negro who dislike us, no worries cuz we like your kind the same. By the way, aneke is a bullshat of a name dude.