This One Is Beyond Libelous

[Drozd]

Remember that libel is not solely based on untruth. The writer has to know it is untrue, otherwise it's opinion. And the writer has to have "malicious intent" in making the statements. And it cannot be construed by anyone as fiction or opinion, for which anything goes. It's called freedom of speech.

Very, very few libel cases occur anymore. Use the above truths to understand why. First defense: I thought it was true. Second defense: I'm just putting out the warnings, no maliciousness intended.

If you bring a libel charge, you better be able to prove the writer knew the falsehold (how can you get in his mind?) and that he meant his words to cause serious damage.

Libel (written) and slander (spoken) cases are almost historical relics today. Witness the crap spouted daily on talk radio and cable TV. The emergence of the blog is the final hoorah of "anyone goes" untruths masked as free speech under the Second Amendment.

Rant on, brother. Rant on.

Just using those 2 arguments... it's really that easy? Awesome...I'm off to start crafting a John Banzhaf is an ignorant agent of satan website because I think it's true and just want to warn people about him and his evil cult

 

[sherid]

Read Dr. Siegel's blog on this issue and the Comments section for some outrage.
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary

 

[sherid]

Just using those 2 arguments... it's really that easy? Awesome...I'm off to start crafting a John Banzhaf is an ignorant agent of satan website because I think it's true and just want to warn people about him and his evil cult

There is already a Banzhaf watch website. He has been exposed time and time again, but nothing happens.

 

[oldtechno]

Well, here I am, having to be a 'loose cannon' again and basically disagree with most or all.

This guy who is saying these things about us is a lawyer without a job. He's 'beating the bushes' trying to get a group to pay him money so he can go after us.

Where I come from, lawyers do this lots.

 

[oldtechno]

Maybe I didn't explain myself very well there.

I'm saying these people who go around pointing fingers at other groups--are themselves fishing around for a group or individual to finance them.

 

[Treece]

Banzhaf is very well-financed. From what I understand, he collects more than $200,000 a year from ASH alone.

The issue of libel aside, though, surely it's unethical for ASH not to disclose--clearly--that they're funded by pharmaceutical companies, as are the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, and the American Heart Association, all of whom have taken a stand against PVs.

"Conflict of interest," anyone?

 

[Our House]

"Conflict of interest," anyone?

Well, at the very least it's strong motive for that "malicious intent" that TBob was talking about in post #16.

 

[Vocalek]

well, at the very least it's strong motive for that "malicious intent" that tbob was talking about in post #16.

.--- --- .... -. / -... .- -. --.. .... .- ..-. / .. ... / - .-. -.-- .. -. --. / - --- / -.- .. .-.. .-.. / -- . / .- -. -.. / .. / -.. . . .--. .-.. -.-- / .-. . ... . -. - / .. - .-.-.-

 

[Thulium]

The issue of libel aside, though, surely it's unethical for ASH not to disclose--clearly--that they're funded by pharmaceutical companies, as are the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, and the American Heart Association, all of whom have taken a stand against PVs.

I heard Conan O'Brien on the Tonight Show the other day say that politicians should learn from NASCAR and be forced to wear jackets with the logos from all their sponsors.

 

[ECGuy]

I heard Conan O'Brien on the Tonight Show the other day say that politicians should learn from NASCAR and be forced to wear jackets with the logos from all their sponsors.

Now that would be fun!!!

If only we could learn in this country to stop voting for he who pays the most, or is the prettiest, we could solve this problem right away. Vote for politicians who serve the public, not special interests. Unfortunately as much as everyone whines about politicians, in the end we just don't care enough to even bother finding out about the candidates.

I do think though, if you got a bit creative, Johnny B could be held in contempt if he's every sworn in to testify before a legistlative body and spouts this stuff. But he's too smart for that. Better to just post untrue stats in a press release and if the senators buy it, then they buy it.

What is that famous quote of his "there is a judge and a jury somewhere who will buy this and then the floodgates are open." so just keep trucking on till you find one.

The lesson we need to learn is to do the same. Why are we not posting more press releases and following them up with press releases to announce the press release or to mention every time we get mentioned?? It works well for him.

 

[nojoyet]

Does anyone actually have statistics on nicotine alone...everything that I can find is about nicotine in a cigarette...and we know how many other chemicals are there that might be skewing these facts atributed to nicotine alone.

I would love to read something about just nicotine, if such a thing exists.

You could take a look at www.tobaccoharmreduction.org under FAQs, on the left side, click on All About Nicotine. May not be exactly what you want but hopefully will help you some.

 

[oldlady]

This really makes you wonder where our country is headed: anybody can publish any kind of drivel in the form of a press release these days. It sort of reminds me of the Salem witch trials, McCarthyism, and Waco. We are evil because people say we are. It doesn't matter whether their arguments make any sense.

I can remember after we gassed women and children at Waco, people were saying, "Well, this guy said he was Jesus." I remember thinking, "And, how do we know he is not?" Perhaps I am gullible, but I waited three days before forming an opinion...

Also, there is a poll that says 84 percent of Americans supported the bombing of the only pharmaceutical company in the world's poorest country - Sudan (on eve of Bill Clinton's impeachment). The UN condemned us, but within a few days, the entire incident was forgotten here. . .

 

[kristin]

Michael Seigel talks about this in his blog today...
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary
Check out the comments, too. The former Winston man talks about a lawsuit!

Here is the exact post link, if anyone want to read it: The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: Action on Smoking and Health Claims that "Secondhand" Electronic Cigarette Vapor Causes Heart Attacks in Bystanders

 

[Vocalek]

You could take a look at www.tobaccoharmreduction.org under FAQs, on the left side, click on All About Nicotine. May not be exactly what you want but hopefully will help you some.

That is a good start.

Two of the pages on the CASAA site discuss nicotine:
Casaa.org - Harm Reduction
Casaa.org - Harm Reduction

Here is a blurb from the cover flap of Nicotine Safety and Toxicity, (Oxford University Press) edited by Neal L. Benowitz:

"Nicotine has been developed as a medication to assist smoking cessation and is being considered as a drug for the possible long-term maintenance of non-smoking. It is also undergoing evaluation as a possible treatment for several medical disorders, including ulcerative colitis, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, Tourette's syndrome, attention deficit disorder, spacity, and sleep apnea. Understanding its safety and toxicity is essential for drug developers, drug regulators, and clinicians making risk/benefit decisions about long-term nicotine therapy."

I've read the above book cover to cover, and the bottom line is that there is no evidence that nicotine, when separated from its most deadly delivery mechanism, is very harmful. Obviously, without smoke there is no danger of lung disease. There is no evidence of increases in heart attack or stroke among Swedish snus users. I bring up snus because there are no studies of disease risk for inhaled nicotine.

The only type of cancer that has higher incidence among snus users is pancreatic cancer, but this is in comparison to people who never used tobacco in any form.

The main contribution of the new study is its conclusion that Swedish moist snus can be carcinogenic. However, the study also shows that the risks for users are small, and, as far as can be judged, much smaller than the risks associated with smoking.

"If 10,000 non-smoking snus users are monitored for ten years, according to our data, eight or nine of them will develop pancreatic cancer, as opposed to four amongst those who use neither product. But 9,991 won't, so the odds aren't that bad," he says.

Use Of Swedish 'Snus' Is Linked To A Doubled Risk Of Pancreatic Cancer

Another discussion on the topic is here:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/556437


I also have a Blog, that I have shamelessly neglected of late (due to other things that have occupied by writing time): The Truth About Nicotine

 

[Bill Godshall]

Regarding the articles posted by Vocalek above (claiming snus increases risk of pancreatic cancer), that same study found that snus users had lower risks of oral cancer than did never tobacco users (a key finding that wasn't mentioned in the authors' press release, probably because that finding conflicted with previous claims by the same researchers, who adamantly oppose snus).

Also, cigarette smoking has been consistently found to pose significantly higher risks for pancreatic cancer (than smokeless tobacco use), and other studies have not found that snus use is associated with pancreatic cancer.

Bottom line is that the Karolinska Institutet adamantly opposes any use of snus and adamantly opposes tobacco harm reduction. Every time they release a new study, their headlines ignore the major findings of their research (i.e. that snus use poses very few if any health risks), and instead only highlight and grossly exaggerate any negative findings about snus.

 

[Vocalek]

Thanks Bill. Lower risk of oral cancer! Now that is interesting. I'd be willing to bet that eventully we will find that vaporized nicotine also has a lower risk of oral cancer.

I posted the quote that gave the actual rate of pancreatice cancer cases -- 8 or 9 out of 10,000 instead of 4 out of 10,000 to illustrate that "relative risk" is very different from "absolute risk". As one OB-GYN commented about the announcment back around 2003 from the Women's Health Initiative that hormone replacement therapy doubles the risk of stroke: "Two times practically nothing is still practically nothing." 8-o