Anti-THR Lies: Ecig proponents need to learn lessons from other activists

[skoony]

In the Minnesota tobacco lawsuit that the MSA is based on, they settled despite the fact that it looked like they were winning. (Jurors stubbornly clung to the principles that 'smokers knew the risks,' and 'it's a legal product.') And they settled for money than the anti-smokers were demanding. So it's like they didn't want to win. And I believe that they've been secretly controlled by anti-smokers all along, namely in their boards of directors.
The "Power Elite" Controls Both Sides

i remember those days.
believe me not were only smokers mad the general population was in an uproar.
not because of any health considerations but,because every one understood what
it was. one giant money grab for the state and the lawyers on both sides.
the ANTZ lawyers received some where around 300 million of the top.
regards
mike

 

[caramel]

Was FSPTCA part of the deal?

According to PM, the price of a pack of cigarettes is split 8-12 between them and the government. This makes their share in a market such as NY to be around $5 per pack.

This shurely could have lead to some entrepreneur getting the idea to legally import let's say Chinese brands, sell them at $2 + tax, and make a killing by offering packs at let's say $7 instead of $12.

With FSPTCA / FDA in place, this can't happen that easily, can it?

 

[caramel]

In the Minnesota tobacco lawsuit that the MSA is based on, they settled despite the fact that it looked like they were winning. (Jurors stubbornly clung to the principles that 'smokers knew the risks,' and 'it's a legal product.') And they settled for money than the anti-smokers were demanding. So it's like they didn't want to win. And I believe that they've been secretly controlled by anti-smokers all along, namely in their boards of directors.
The "Power Elite" Controls Both Sides

Could it be that it was actually the other way around, i.e. the ANTZ doing the bid of BT? Serving some purpose that escapes us due to lack of information?

They certainly are all paid by BT, don't they?

 

[Kent C]

Here's a direct quote for you by Carl V. Phillips regarding Levy & Marimont:

Sunday Science Lesson: “X people die from smoking” – what does that even mean? | Anti-THR Lies and related topics

Not very convincing - and nearly confirming much of Levy/Marimont. However, Carl underestimates the statistics used by Levy, which was upheld in the subsequent court case and later studies:

"In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.

Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data. ... In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. ... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."

The judge added, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before the research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate its conclusion; and aggressively utilized its authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme to influence public opinion."

In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality."

Carl makes the same mistake as Whelan et al (and Dr. Siegel, who withdrew/apologized for his comments) with " But they then get themselves into trouble with their limited understanding, trying to make a big deal about statistical significance and the point estimate RR being less than 2." ... which Levy (who also taught statistics at Georgetown University at one point in his career) answered at the time with my link above on how RR (relative risks) of less than 2 is not a 'standard' but considered not significant by many in the field:

Anti-THR Lies: Ecig proponents need to learn lessons from other activists

Carl: " Even back in 1998 when this was written, anyone who knew what they were talking about knew better than this." .. that is except for Judge Osteen and the scientists who validated Levy and Marimont's statistics in the court case to show the EPA's 'cherry picking' and use of non-standard statistical confidence level - the only way for them to get above the 1.0 figure needed. As the piece above shows - the EPA had their conclusion ahead of time and merely needed to find a way to make the statistics conform to it - they did that by altering statistical standards. IOW, they lied, just like the same people are lying today about their anti-ecig studies. I'm surprised that Carl would take their side today, although he had been on 'their side' in his past.

 

[CarolT]

Not very convincing - and nearly confirming much of Levy/Marimont. However, Carl underestimates the statistics used by Levy, which was upheld in the subsequent court case and later studies:

"In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.

Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data. ... In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. ... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."

The judge added, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before the research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate its conclusion; and aggressively utilized its authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme to influence public opinion."

In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality."

Carl makes the same mistake as Whelan et al (and Dr. Siegel, who withdrew/apologized for his comments) with " But they then get themselves into trouble with their limited understanding, trying to make a big deal about statistical significance and the point estimate RR being less than 2." ... which Levy (who also taught statistics at Georgetown University at one point in his career) answered at the time with my link above on how RR (relative risks) of less than 2 is not a 'standard' but considered not significant by many in the field:

Anti-THR Lies: Ecig proponents need to learn lessons from other activists

Carl: " Even back in 1998 when this was written, anyone who knew what they were talking about knew better than this." .. that is except for Judge Osteen and the scientists who validated Levy and Marimont's statistics in the court case to show the EPA's 'cherry picking' and use of non-standard statistical confidence level - the only way for them to get above the 1.0 figure needed. As the piece above shows - the EPA had their conclusion ahead of time and merely needed to find a way to make the statistics conform to it - they did that by altering statistical standards. IOW, they lied, just like the same people are lying today about their anti-ecig studies. I'm surprised that Carl would take their side today, although he had been on 'their side' in his past.

"Carl underestimates the statistics used by Levy, which was upheld in the subsequent court case and later studies:" What on earth are you talking about? The Levy & Marimont paper was not at issue in the EPA court case, so that is totally irrelevant. The "non-standard statistical confidence level" referred to meant that the EPA used a 90% confidence level instead of a 95% confidence level, which made the spread narrower so it excluded 1.0. That is not the point of the Levy & Marimont paper, which actually reveals their total confusion. They try to pretend that if the risk ratio is low, that automatically means it's "statistically insignificant." But there is no such thing as "statistically insignificant." A RR is either statistically significant or non-significant, depending on whether the confidence intervals include 1.0 or not, regardless of the size of the RR. They tried to create the impression that it's just a small risk so everybody should just ignore it. By cherry-picking quotes, they pretending that there's a scientific justification for ignoring it, which there is not. And that is a completely lame attempt at "refutation," not to mention as sleazy looking as all get out.

The paper by Levy & Marimont is NOT suitable for educating people about statistics. Anybody who gets their lessons from that paper will simply look like a confused ignoramus who's clutching at straws. If you want to make a point using the Osteen decision, then why don't you cite it directly instead of secondhand from Levy & Marimont's mess?

P.S. And what's the most galling is to see people arguing that the smaller the risk, the more likely it's due to confounding - and then act like that's an argument-settler! No, it's not an argument-settler, it's merely a maybe-not, which is a weak argument. And then they propose supposed confounders, which are all of the "lifestyle" type favored by the anti-smokers, and when the anti-smokers re-analyze the data with those confounders included, it shoots them down. So that pathetic argument should be dead, but no, they just keep repeating it over and over again in the hope that people will believe. That's where the followers of Levy & Marimont are now - a bunch of zombie argument-pushers.

Meanwhile, they're just as happy as the anti-smokers are to totally ignore the role of infection in diseases blamed on smoking.

 

[Kent C]

What on earth are you talking about? The Levy & Marimont paper was not at issue in the EPA court case, so that is totally irrelevant.

The paper addressed not only the 'smoking related deaths' (a myth that Carl says " I might finesse this one a bit and make the myth (which is definitely one of the biggest)...") along with the ETS study.

See:
http://www.forces-nl.org/download/lies.pdf

And Carl, along with Brad Rodu, Snowdon and many of the THR group agree that the EPA has withheld their data on making the 'smoking related death' estimates to where no one attempting to review the data has access to it. Carl: "and the fact that the core data and calculations are kept more secret than Afghanistan War intelligence reports means we should definitely assume they are grossly flawed even beyond what we can see." A few, Levy/Marimont and Rodu iirc, and others (maybe even Carl - although he had said: "I have never made a careful complete study of the basis for claiming that the current number of deaths is X") have attempted to recreate the data to prove the EPA estimates were wildly inaccurate.

If you want to make a point using the Osteen decision, then why don't you cite it directly instead of secondhand from Levy & Marimont's mess?

I quoted Osteen - that's pretty direct ...iirc he (Levy) was the lawyer or amicus curiae in the case. "In 1991 Levy retired from CDA Investment Technologies and entered George Mason University School of Law. He graduated as class valedictorian. After graduation he clerked first for Judge Royce C. Lamberth on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and then for Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit." wiki

For you to describe his writings as 'secondhand' is deplorable. But not unexpected.

 

[Jman8]

A statement like "I disagree. It does negate those statistics and epidemiology deserves to be smeared" is just childish foot stamping. Like it or not, there are formal tests of significance, whose purpose is the determine how solid the results should be considered. They take into account the size of the study, so that a small study with a given RR is less likely to be statistically significant than a large study that has the same RR. That's the main point of statistical significance. It's not about the size of the RR. A study with a RR of 10 could still be non-significant, if it was a small study.

It is not childish foot stamping to point out that a) causal relationship has not been determined, b) the philosophy trying to establish this causal connection is flawed and c) self justifications for significance do not make for objective significance.

It'd be like if Scientology people came up with research study, taking into account set of people (mostly within ranks of scientology throughout a rather long history of its existence) and then claimed high significance in the findings, adding in there some causal determination that Xenu is how the determination is made.

And someone then criticizing the study based on my a, b and c items noted above.

As an example, if 100% of smokers had a particular causal infection and 0% of non-smokers had it, a study that only asked lifestyle questions would blame smoking for 100% of a disease. And if 60% of smokers had it versus 20% of non-smokers, it would still blame smoking, but to a lesser degree. As it happens in real life, smokers are more likely to have been exposed to those causal infections, because the people around them are more likely to carry the infection, and they are more likely to live in crowded conditions that increase the rates of transmission. Also, infection is likely to occur at younger ages among smokers (i.e., virtually all H. pylori infection occurs during early childhood). So the anti-smokers' pretense that smoking impairs immunity doesn't hold up because they weren't even smokers at that age.

There's about 6 things I'm not understanding in this example, and it ain't the philosophy portion of it. "Causal infection" would be near the top of things I question when a) cause hasn't been established/explained and b) seems unnecessary for this example, where "infection" would seemingly work just as well. I get the part of lifestyle questions and blaming smokers. Don't get the assumption that people around smokers are more like to carry the infection, nor more likely to live in crowded conditions. If speaking in hypothetical as just an example, then no need to explain these assumptions to me.

I guess I'm not sure if you are trying to dig epidemiology about of the hole I see it in, or provide explanation for how infections are really the issue with smoking deaths?

It boils down to the difference in the quality of evidence between stating, for example, that "all types of NPC, regardless of histological type or differentiation contain clonal episomal EBV genomes, express specific EBV genes and are a clonal expansion of EBV-infected cells," versus blaming smoking simply because smokers are more likely to get NPC based on lifestyle questionnaires.

But again, not explaining causal relationship. Instead of guilt by association (of behavior) it is (guilt by) association of genes.

I think I get that actual (honest) science, would not blame behavior, even while that could conceivably register on the radar of a particular study.

I think, or hope, we all agree that inferences from any such study that seeks to blame smokers for whatever conditions they may experience, or are observed to have obtained, is not in the domain of actual science, nor would most practitioners even care to express study outcomes in this way.

As a great philosopher once said, "we are living in a material world."

Another great philosopher also once said, "we are spirts, in the material world."

 

[CarolT]

Not very convincing - and nearly confirming much of Levy/Marimont. However, Carl underestimates the statistics used by Levy, which was upheld in the subsequent court case and later studies:

"In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.

Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data. ... In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. ... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."

The judge added, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before the research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate its conclusion; and aggressively utilized its authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme to influence public opinion."

In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality."

Carl makes the same mistake as Whelan et al (and Dr. Siegel, who withdrew/apologized for his comments) with " But they then get themselves into trouble with their limited understanding, trying to make a big deal about statistical significance and the point estimate RR being less than 2." ... which Levy (who also taught statistics at Georgetown University at one point in his career) answered at the time with my link above on how RR (relative risks) of less than 2 is not a 'standard' but considered not significant by many in the field:

Anti-THR Lies: Ecig proponents need to learn lessons from other activists

Carl: " Even back in 1998 when this was written, anyone who knew what they were talking about knew better than this." .. that is except for Judge Osteen and the scientists who validated Levy and Marimont's statistics in the court case to show the EPA's 'cherry picking' and use of non-standard statistical confidence level - the only way for them to get above the 1.0 figure needed. As the piece above shows - the EPA had their conclusion ahead of time and merely needed to find a way to make the statistics conform to it - they did that by altering statistical standards. IOW, they lied, just like the same people are lying today about their anti-ecig studies. I'm surprised that Carl would take their side today, although he had been on 'their side' in his past.

Carl is absolutely right about the "limited understanding" of simpletons who think that "trying to make a big deal about statistical significance and the point estimate RR being less than 2" is an intelligent approach, especially in the long term. In the long term, all they have to do is publish a few more studies, and even if the RRs are the same as in the old ones, the confidence intervals will narrow (to eventually exclude 1.0) simply because there are more cases. So it's just a temporary straw to clutch anyhow.

And you're misinterpreting it all over the place. First of all, Judge Osteen used the EPA's use of 90% confidence intervals rather than the usual 95% to illustrate the EPA's mindset, that "the EPA had their conclusion ahead of time and merely needed to find a way to make the statistics conform to it." This is true, but it pertains to the change of confidence intervals only. But the confidence intervals are not at issue in the SAMMEC, so it's nonsense to conflate the EPA report with the SAMMEC.

And contrary to what you seem to imagine, the Judge's ruling does not invalidate claiming causality simply because a RR is less than two. And no, those cherry-picked, out of context quotations do NOT do that! Taubes 1995 seems to be the original source for some of them.

In it, the full quote from Angell is, "As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of three or more before accepting a paper for publication, particularly if it is biologically implausible or if it's a brand-new finding." That's real cute how they left out the qualifications to misuse the quote. The anti-smokers argue that if firsthand smoke causes lung cancer in smokers, then secondhand smoke might cause it in non-smokers, so that's their claim to biological plausibility. Nor is it "a brand-new finding." Furthermore, those quotes are 20 freakin' years old. It is now routine to publish studies with RRs of less than two. This issue is a matter of convention, not a scientific principle set in stone as you seem to believe.

The bottom line is that Levy & Marimont is a confused piece of rubbish, which promotes ignorance and confusion in OUR side while leaving the anti-smokers utterly unscathed. People believe the anti-smokers have won BECAUSE that Levy & Marimont junk you keep flinging at them is so worthless.

 

[CarolT]

And Carl, along with Brad Rodu, Snowdon and many of the THR group agree that the EPA has withheld their data on making the 'smoking related death' estimates to where no one attempting to review the data has access to it. Carl: "and the fact that the core data and calculations are kept more secret than Afghanistan War intelligence reports means we should definitely assume they are grossly flawed even beyond what we can see." A few, Levy/Marimont and Rodu iirc, and others (maybe even Carl - although he had said: "I have never made a careful complete study of the basis for claiming that the current number of deaths is X") have attempted to recreate the data to prove the EPA estimates were wildly inaccurate.

Read my lips while I speak slowly: The EPA did not make the estimate of smoking related deaths, and has never done so. This is another example of how Levy & Marimont is hopelessly confusing to simple people.

I quoted Osteen - that's pretty direct ...iirc he (Levy) was the lawyer or amicus curiae in the case. "In 1991 Levy retired from CDA Investment Technologies and entered George Mason University School of Law. He graduated as class valedictorian. After graduation he clerked first for Judge Royce C. Lamberth on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and then for Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit." wiki

If you quoted Osteen, then where's the link to the Osteen decision? All you do is keep linking to Levy & Marimont. And what's that, an argument from authority, as in, Levy is an Authority Figure, so I'm supposed to believe whatever he says? Screw that.

For you to describe his writings as 'secondhand' is deplorable. But not unexpected.

I described YOUR QUOTE as secondhand, so quit trying to pull the wool over peoples' eyes.

 

[CarolT]

It is not childish foot stamping to point out that a) causal relationship has not been determined, b) the philosophy trying to establish this causal connection is flawed and c) self justifications for significance do not make for objective significance.

It'd be like if Scientology people came up with research study, taking into account set of people (mostly within ranks of scientology throughout a rather long history of its existence) and then claimed high significance in the findings, adding in there some causal determination that Xenu is how the determination is made.

And someone then criticizing the study based on my a, b and c items noted above.

I am referring to a specific situation, not to something that exists only in your head.

There's about 6 things I'm not understanding in this example, and it ain't the philosophy portion of it. "Causal infection" would be near the top of things I question when a) cause hasn't been established/explained and b) seems unnecessary for this example, where "infection" would seemingly work just as well. I get the part of lifestyle questions and blaming smokers. Don't get the assumption that people around smokers are more like to carry the infection, nor more likely to live in crowded conditions. If speaking in hypothetical as just an example, then no need to explain these assumptions to me.

I guess I'm not sure if you are trying to dig epidemiology about of the hole I see it in, or provide explanation for how infections are really the issue with smoking deaths?

"Causal infection" is a necessary qualification, because people have lots of infections, but not all of them are causal. And causality is more certain when the infection has been present in the lesion since before it developed into cancer/heart disease/whatever, rather than when it is merely shown that people have antibodies to it; and when it has been shown in the laboratory to cause cellular changes that are characteristic of those diseases.

It is well known that poorer people generally live in more crowded conditions. And numerous studies have observed that poorer people are more likely to have been infected, and at younger ages, than richer ones. With important causal infections such as Helicobacter pylori, cytomegalovirus, and Epstein-Barr virus, they were infected during childhood, before they even became smokers. And the infected people go on to transmit the infections to the next generation of future smokers and non-smokers alike. Then the anti-smokers come along with lifestyle questionnaire studies that ignore all those infections, so they falsely blame smoking and passive smoking for them. (And their little ritual of 'adjusting for social class' doesn't eliminate the bogus risks because it doesn't actually distinguish the infected from the uninfected.)

But again, not explaining causal relationship. Instead of guilt by association (of behavior) it is (guilt by) association of genes.

Sure, just like a video of a bank robbery is nothing but guilt by association!!! Get real. The fact is that they can prove the virus is in all the tumor cells, and show in laboratories that the genes it expresses damage the host cell, make it proliferate, etc.

I think I get that actual (honest) science, would not blame behavior, even while that could conceivably register on the radar of a particular study.

I think, or hope, we all agree that inferences from any such study that seeks to blame smokers for whatever conditions they may experience, or are observed to have obtained, is not in the domain of actual science, nor would most practitioners even care to express study outcomes in this way.

The anti-smokers blame chemicals in cigarette smoke, but they can't show that it's directly involved or by what mechanism.

Another great philosopher also once said, "we are spirits, in the material world."

Fixed it for you.

 

[caramel]

And denying that "small relative risks can, and do, represent serious threats to public health" is like denying that taking $1 from 1 million people = $1 million.

Except risk doesn't add up linearly.

If the risk of anyone contracting a non-transmissible disease is 1%, the risk of the whole population having it is not 1000000%.

 

[Kent C]

Read my lips while I speak slowly: The EPA did not make the estimate of smoking related deaths, and has never done so.

Smoking related deaths statistics are a combination of the CDC, Surgeon General and the EPA's assessments of ETS.

Just citing some studies where the EPA does make estimates of smoking related deaths. I read your lips but reading these studies says your lips are lying.

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

"Efforts at estimating the costs of active smoking have generally focused on the overall population
and long-run costs (Manning et al.,1989; Viscusi,1994; Bartlett, et al.,1994; Shultz, et al., 1991). The
Shultz et al. study presents the CDC Smoking Mortality, Morbidity and Economic Costs (SAMMEC)
model which can be used to estimate smoking attributable deaths from chronic conditions as well as
infant mortality.
CDC used this model to report smoking attributable deaths including infant deaths,
estimated burn deaths from injury surveillance data and used EPA estimates for lung cancer deaths related to ETS (CDC, 1993)."


"Studies of ETS Costs


There have been relatively few studies of the economic costs of ETS either in the US or abroad.
Those that have provided some type of cost estimate, whether for one or several components of all ETS related costs, are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Those in Table 1 are based on US data while those in Table 2 are from other countries. The major categories of costs addressed by these studies are listed in the first column; the EPA and Viscusi studies have been highlighted in Table 1 since the EPA study is the most comprehensive US study and the Viscusi study provides revised estimates of the EPA adult mortality costs."

Here's the Osteen decision, btw:

The Osteen Decision

Carol, I'm done. you 'win'. You're way past having a rational discussion without bashing, insulting, and insisting on insinuating your infection into every post, regardless of the subject, regardless of the information provided by others. There's only one way to stop the insanity - by not engaging with you. Jman will go on forever, so have fun.

 

[Jman8]

The bottom line is that Levy & Marimont is a confused piece of rubbish, which promotes ignorance and confusion in OUR side while leaving the anti-smokers utterly unscathed. People believe the anti-smokers have won BECAUSE that Levy & Marimont junk you keep flinging at them is so worthless.

Your infection theory, to date, has also left anti-smokers unscathed, and thus could be considered worthless. How's it feel to read that?

Carl says Levy & Marimont provided some good insights, and he isn't as dismissive as you.

Me, the stats stuff is window dressing to the larger issue of causality. Still hasn't been squarely addressed in this thread and in pretty much every smoking data point I've ever read, it is either not explained or is highly questionable in how that determination was made.

 

[Jman8]

I am referring to a specific situation, not to something that exists only in your head.

Scientology, like epidemiology, exists in lots of people's minds. Both technically only exist in people's minds, being that they are both philosophies.

"Causal infection" is a necessary qualification, because people have lots of infections, but not all of them are causal. And causality is more certain when the infection has been present in the lesion since before it developed into cancer/heart disease/whatever, rather than when it is merely shown that people have antibodies to it; and when it has been shown in the laboratory to cause cellular changes that are characteristic of those diseases.

This doesn't explain causal. But it does help to understand the qualification you noted before, even while that is not explained.

It is well known that poorer people generally live in more crowded conditions. And numerous studies have observed that poorer people are more likely to have been infected, and at younger ages, than richer ones. With important causal infections such as Helicobacter pylori, cytomegalovirus, and Epstein-Barr virus, they were infected during childhood, before they even became smokers. And the infected people go on to transmit the infections to the next generation of future smokers and non-smokers alike. Then the anti-smokers come along with lifestyle questionnaire studies that ignore all those infections, so they falsely blame smoking and passive smoking for them. (And their little ritual of 'adjusting for social class' doesn't eliminate the bogus risks because it doesn't actually distinguish the infected from the uninfected.)

So, the infections theory is applicable to poor people only?

And, you're saying the people that do the science around smoking data points have nailed down causality (which I dispute), have nailed down the stats (which is partially what Kent disputes) and yet completely ignored the role of infections (which is what you dispute).

Sure, just like a video of a bank robbery is nothing but guilt by association!!! Get real. The fact is that they can prove the virus is in all the tumor cells, and show in laboratories that the genes it expresses damage the host cell, make it proliferate, etc.

Thanks for substantiating that it is (guilt by) association with genes.

 

[caramel]

Your infection theory, to date, has also left anti-smokers unscathed, and thus could be considered worthless. How's it feel to read that?

Carl says Levy & Marimont provided some good insights, and he isn't as dismissive as you.

Me, the stats stuff is window dressing to the larger issue of causality. Still hasn't been squarely addressed in this thread and in pretty much every smoking data point I've ever read, it is either not explained or is highly questionable in how that determination was made.

The "anti-smokers" would be left unscathed by any theory. They're paid to keep reciting the same stuff ad nauseam and that's exactly what they're doing (insert Upton Sinclair quote here). And those paying them would only have ears for their stuff, as this is how the game was set up from the beginning.

The stuff you hear can only change if the guys with the purse change their interest/objective. Welcome to "free market".

 

[Jman8]

Carol, I'm done. you 'win'. You're way past having a rational discussion without bashing, insulting, and insisting on insinuating your infection into every post, regardless of the subject, regardless of the information provided by others. There's only one way to stop the insanity - by not engaging with you. Jman will go on forever, so have fun.

I'll go awhile longer for sure, but the bashing and insulting does put me off.

On page 1 of this thread, we were all on same page, but attacking data from different angles. Yet Carol has managed to create division where it need not be. We are to completely deny our understandings as worthless and uphold her theory of infections as the only proper understanding, otherwise we are completely responsible for the lost battle to anti-smokers.

The battle I observe still playing out.

 

[Kent C]

We are to completely deny our understandings as worthless and uphold her theory of infections as the only proper understanding, otherwise we are completely responsible for the lost battle to anti-smokers.

Unequivocal quintessence.

 

[CarolT]

Smoking related deaths statistics are a combination of the CDC, Surgeon General and the EPA's assessments of ETS.

Just citing some studies where the EPA does make estimates of smoking related deaths. I read your lips but reading these studies says your lips are lying.

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

"Efforts at estimating the costs of active smoking have generally focused on the overall population
and long-run costs (Manning et al.,1989; Viscusi,1994; Bartlett, et al.,1994; Shultz, et al., 1991). The
Shultz et al. study presents the CDC Smoking Mortality, Morbidity and Economic Costs (SAMMEC)
model which can be used to estimate smoking attributable deaths from chronic conditions as well as
infant mortality.
CDC used this model to report smoking attributable deaths including infant deaths,
estimated burn deaths from injury surveillance data and used EPA estimates for lung cancer deaths related to ETS (CDC, 1993)."

"Studies of ETS Costs

There have been relatively few studies of the economic costs of ETS either in the US or abroad.
Those that have provided some type of cost estimate, whether for one or several components of all ETS related costs, are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Those in Table 1 are based on US data while those in Table 2 are from other countries. The major categories of costs addressed by these studies are listed in the first column; the EPA and Viscusi studies have been highlighted in Table 1 since the EPA study is the most comprehensive US study and the Viscusi study provides revised estimates of the EPA adult mortality costs."

Here's the Osteen decision, btw:

The Osteen Decision

Carol, I'm done. you 'win'. You're way past having a rational discussion without bashing, insulting, and insisting on insinuating your infection into every post, regardless of the subject, regardless of the information provided by others. There's only one way to stop the insanity - by not engaging with you. Jman will go on forever, so have fun.

You're not telling me anything I don't know. The CDC's smoking related deaths claim comes from the SAMMEC computer program, which uses RRs from the American Cancer Society's CPS studies. The EPA ETS contribution does not come from that source population, it is simply tacked on, and amounts to only about 3000 out of more than 400,000, or less than 1%, of the supposed smoking related deaths. So it makes no sense for you to fixate on blaming the EPA for the "400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths" of the title of Levy & Marimont's paper.

And Levy & Marimont don't refute anything well. It's really nothing but a rant, and an out of date rant to boot. And people like you, who think that I have no right to 'insinuate my [sic] infection into every post,' are the anti-smokers' best assets for keeping smokers down and stupid. There's a good reason the anti-smokers like to pretend that that Levy & Marimont junk is our only case - and that's because it's worthless.

 

[CarolT]

Your infection theory, to date, has also left anti-smokers unscathed, and thus could be considered worthless. How's it feel to read that?

Carl says Levy & Marimont provided some good insights, and he isn't as dismissive as you.

Me, the stats stuff is window dressing to the larger issue of causality. Still hasn't been squarely addressed in this thread and in pretty much every smoking data point I've ever read, it is either not explained or is highly questionable in how that determination was made.

You mean, people like you help the anti-smokers drown me out, then you turn around and sneer that "Your infection theory, to date, has also left anti-smokers unscathed, and thus could be considered worthless. How's it feel to read that?" As if you think the fact that the anti-smokers prefer to address your trash is proof of its worthiness! Nope - it's because your junk is so easy to dispose of that they're so happy to attack it. And as if you have played no role at all in helping the anti-smokers ignore my position. As if you think their failure to address it is a form of refutation! People like you are a perfect example of "What We Need to Get Rid Of to Free Ourselves From Anti-Smoker Oppression."

 

[CarolT]

Scientology, like epidemiology, exists in lots of people's minds. Both technically only exist in people's minds, being that they are both philosophies.

This is relevant to what?????

This doesn't explain causal. But it does help to understand the qualification you noted before, even while that is not explained.

So go to the main pages for Helicobacter pylori, cytomegalovirus, and Epstein-Barr virus, and search the page for the "Mechanisms" heading. You will find plenty. And there are links to pages on other diseases those pathogens are implicated in, with disease-specific mechanisms on those other pages.

So, the infections theory is applicable to poor people only?

How about if you explain how you came to such a ridiculous conclusion? Because it is simply impenetrable to me why you'd say that, except to be an a.......

And, you're saying the people that do the science around smoking data points have nailed down causality (which I dispute), have nailed down the stats (which is partially what Kent disputes) and yet completely ignored the role of infections (which is what you dispute).

Yes, and every Surgeon General report (chapters on cancer and heart disease) is proof of this. And in the cases where they appear to be acknowledging a role for infection, such as HPV and cervical cancer, they fail to acknowledge and discuss the limitations of their studies, such as not knowing at what age women were infected, or whether their male partners were also infected, or the studies did not include all high-risk HPVs.

Thanks for substantiating that it is (guilt by) association with genes.

So are you denying that genes do anything? And how about the studies where they knock out the gene, then compare what happens when they externally apply versus don't apply the gene's product, and show the product the gene makes has such-and-such effect? Is that what you call "guilt by association," too?