Mark Hoofnagle has a PhD in physiology from the University of Virginia and is currently a 3rd year medical student. His interest in denialism concerns the use of denialist tactics to confuse public understanding of scientific knowledge.
I thought the denial of the link between smoking and cancer had gone out of style. The link between smoking and cancer is so thoroughly established that I thought no one could continue to defend cigarettes with a straight face.
Well, all Orac has to do is write a piece about the evidence for a health risk from second-hand smoke and soon enough the denialists come crawling out of the woodwork. The reason is pretty simple, smoking bans are unpopular with a certain group of people, and what do you do when science suggests something that people don't want to believe? Well, you whip out the tactics of course.
Orac then follows the trail of BS back to one of the more incredible crank sites I've ever seen. It's called forces.org, and it meets every single possible criteria of both crankery and denialism. It's pretty incredible. They have conspiracy theories about drug companies being behind smoking bans to promote their nicotine replacements and anti-addiction drugs. They have quote-mines galore (every scientific paper they cite is misquoted, it's incredible). They have these unbelievable crank fake experts. They clearly aren't convinced by any amount of scientific evidence or expertise. And their logical fallacies are great! Not only do they conflate all sorts of different cancers, it seems that if something besides smoking can cause any type of cancer, then it must cause all cancers - including those cigarettes have been falsely implicated in. All of this is permeated by one of the more hilarious persecution complexes about their rights being violated because they can't persist in a behavior that is a nuisance and health-hazard to other people.
The point of the site seems mostly to be opposition of the extension of smoking bans, and their reasoning is somewhat intriguing, at the same time it's hilariously self-defeating. According to the mission statement of their West Virginia division, they have no chance to oppose smoking bans because there is no legitimate right to be a nuisance and hurt others' health in public. Therefore they have to make sure to deny the science until they die of old age (or cancer). It's almost like a public admission of using denialist tactics.
For ten long years, most of the activists in the United States have been fighting the smoking bans on "Rights Issues", whether they are Property Rights, Constitutional Rights, Personal Rights, Smokers Rights - even Personal Freedoms.They have yet to have a win that has not immediately been lost at the anti tobacco extremists' whim and will.
The "smokers rights" arguments have yet to stop the any of the anti smokers, anywhere, with a permanent win. They get occasional concessions such as instead of a total ban, the antis will allow smoking in bars for a year or so, but the antis always come back and do the 'total ban'.
...
But one would think after ten years of a losing argument they might re evaluate the argument. I put the links there so you would know you are not alone in wanting to stop this - but there is an unsuccessful way to do it also.Let's look a little closer at the "Property Rights" issue.
That is certainly an important consideration and under proper circumstances property rights, as well as all other "rights" should be taken very seriously.
Were ETS to actually present the extraordinary health risks that anti-tobacco activists claim, however, bingo halls and state run casinos would have no more "right" to permit it in their establishments than they have a right to serve tainted food or contaminated drinking water
When it comes to addressing well-documented and certain health risks that are credibly proven by legitimate science public health departments are properly granted very strong powers of inspection and enforcement..
Should there be a breakout of typhoid any where in West Virginia the Health Departments would quite properly demand that the business owner repair an open cess-pool behind their establishment. Were the dinking water in a bar shown to include dangerous bacteria well above established limits that bar would be required to fix the problem or close their doors.
Any bar or tavern owner who refused to do so because they had "rights" would properly be cited and then closed down if they persisted in refusing to address that threat to public health.
So, they acknowledge they don't have a legal leg to stand on if cigarettes cause cancer and second-hand smoke is a legitimate environmental toxin. What is there left to do? Well, deny the science of course!
Orac does a perfectly good job justifying the science behind second-hand smoke, and we don't even need to go into the proof that smoking causes cancer. But one only has to visit their EVIDENCE ARCHIVE to see these are some fantastically prolific cranks. They have literally hundreds of articles attacking the basis of cigarettes causing anything bad from cancer to emphysema! They even suggest that it's radiation from medical tests that is causing cancer, not the cigarette smoke. One could spend their life debunking this nonsense. Luckily, since we know the tactics of denialists, we don't need to waste our time carefully researching every single one of their claims. It only takes about one or two examinations of their sourcing as Orac does and you see, they're just quote-mining the literature, holding on to outdated studies, and generally pulling the same denialist garbage as any other crank out there. They also have the classic crank characteristic of latching on to any theory that is critical of the established science, no matter how horribly inconsistent it makes their position.
So visit, check it out, shudder, and come back. It's a trip.
Comments
I don't have a problem with the science of second hand smoke: I don't have the ability to evaluate the science, but the consensus seems to be that it's moderately harmful, and given that smoking in general is clearly harmful, it's plausible on its face that even a smaller dose would be harmful.
However, I don't think that it's correct that property owners are losing the rights argument, and I gloating over that is not particularly becoming. The references to contaminated food and so forth are a false analogies. Smokingand is a risk done in return for pleasure and it is now a known risk, including if you choose to be around smokers. So I don't see why offerring smoking establishments is any better or worse than offering anything risky if everyone knows what they are getting into (including the workers). All sorts of professions have different levels of health risk, and people are free to choose amongst them. Of course, many anti-smoking advocates just aren't content with people freely choosing things if they make what they have decided are the objectively wrong choices (of course, they are far far from being coherent or consistent in this). I think that's wrong, ok?
Posted by: plunge | July 17, 2007 3:11 PM
"So, they acknowledge they don't have a legal leg to stand on if cigarettes cause cancer and second-hand smoke is a legitimate environmental toxin. What is there left to do?"
I guess establish that alcohol causes liver damage and contributes to traffic deaths of those who didn't even choose to go into the bar. We could call it... ummm...Prohibition.
Posted by: GDF | July 17, 2007 4:45 PM
How about Stanton Glance and his Helena heart study? If it comes out the way you want it's valid. What about diesel fumes in the inner city? I wonder if the effect of this had any influence in these so-called studies?
Posted by: rrgabe23 | July 17, 2007 5:31 PM
Bad argument, because alcohol doesn't cause liver damage in people who do not consume it. SHS from tobacco does cause health problems in people who are not smoking the tobaccco.
Posted by: Orac | July 17, 2007 5:43 PM
While you are so busy laughing at forces.org, please explain something.
If SHS is a health risk that is of such a magnitude that bans are imposed on perfectly legal behavior on private property to protect workers - then how can other workers be required to work in toll booths and mines and plating factories or welding stations?
oh yes - that is right. OSHA protect workers through legislation that establishes standards and requires the employer to meet those standards by any means it chooses (ie isolate the worker, isolate the source of the risk or provide ventilaton.
But in comparison to fumes from vehicle exhaust, mine gases, tanks of pure chromium and nickel and welding fumes, the smoke from burning less than a gram of dried leaves is so toxic that there is no "safe" level of exposure, ventilation is not an option, isolation is not an option -the only option is for public health to step in and ban indoor smoking on private property.
Are you absolutely 100 % sure that its forces that has a little difficulty with logic?
Posted by: Michelle Gervais | July 17, 2007 5:57 PM
The folks over at Forces.org have said for the longest time that private business owners should choose whether to allow smoking in their establishments.
That is, until Marriott decided go smoke free. You know Marriott, right? It's a private business.
Well, Forces promptly put up on its website an image of KKK members next to a link to a story about Marriott's private business decision (to go smoke free).
Instead of praising Marriott for making a private business decision about smoking, Forces instead chose to contradict itself.
Finally, what Forces didn't say was that if a smoker doesn't like Marriott's (private business) decision (about smoking on its property), he doesn't have to stay there. He has a choice.
Posted by: Forces' Hypocracy | July 17, 2007 6:09 PM
Unbelievable.
Like people who argue for both sides of the issue you lose objectivity and go off on a SHS rant.
Yup, its risky for some people to smoke.
They could be the one out of five it will kill.
But in your rant you sound like the denier you despise.
Maybe you should stay away from issues you are too emotionally involved in.
Posted by: rj | July 17, 2007 6:10 PM
"I guess establish that alcohol causes liver damage and contributes to traffic deaths of those who didn't even choose to go into the bar. We could call it... ummm...Prohibition"
"Bad argument, because alcohol doesn't cause liver damage in people who do not consume it. SHS from tobacco does cause health problems in people who are not smoking the tobaccco."
Orac -- slow down -- you have to read the WHOLE sentence -- the part AFTER the "and".
Posted by: GDF | July 17, 2007 6:28 PM
This is an interesting blog by the way. Although it would be good to remember that on controversial subjects the "denialism" sword cuts two ways.
Posted by: GDF | July 17, 2007 7:13 PM
One more thing, I'd like to leave with. And I don't think this is a "tactic". It's simply reasoning. IF you wanted to prohibit a product, say alcohol, would it be enough anymore to prove a primary harmful effect? (Seems not given your answer about alcohol) Your real chance is in demonstrating a secondary effect. Get the non-users on your side by convincing them that the product is harmful to non-users.
IF you were in a position to manipulate the science. You'd have it made.
I think you misunderstand the position of forces.org. What they are saying is that they are battling the "science" of SHS because they find it suspect. They trust science that was produced by pharmceutical funding NO MORE than that produced by tobacco companies. They may believe that the pharmaceutical industry has had the motive, means and the opportunity to scam the American public. Would this be the first time?
Perhaps rather than "denialists", they are "whistle-blowers".
Posted by: GDF | July 17, 2007 7:49 PM
One should remember that it was their argument I cited, not mine. I thought it was funny that they would argue that if SHS had health effects that public health regulation would be mandatory, and then all their proof that SHS does nothing was just denialist garbage. I don't think they win on rights or on the science behind the health.
As far as the sword cutting both ways, that's not what this blog is about. Denialism is not just an epithet, it's a specific set of tactics used to deny science. All of these tactics are present at the forces site.
Posted by: MarkH | July 17, 2007 7:52 PM
They're not whistle blowers, their tactics are fundamentally deceptive. Quote-mining isn't some clever takedown of science, it's lying, it's deceit. Conspiracy theories about pharmaceutical companies, nicotine replacement product manufactureres and doctors etc., is just more silliness. The science is solid, and doesn't come from big pharma. It comes from the CDC, the EPA, the NIH, and public health agencies from around the world.
Posted by: MarkH | July 17, 2007 7:56 PM
Ohhh.. I really have to get to that pizza. Good grief Mark. Now you are simply misinformed. The science comes from the funders. (I know -- that's what I do). And who are the biggest funders?
But I am happy enough to let people belive what they want to believe. I was just trying to clarify things.
But let me ask you. Is Richard Smith a denialist or a whistle-blower.
Sometimes it's hard to tell - huh?
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138
Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies
Richard Smith
Competing Interests: RS was an editor for the BMJ for 25 years. For the last 13 of those years, he was the editor and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group, responsible for the profits of not only the BMJ but of the whole group, which published some 25 other journals. He stepped down in July 2004. He is now a member of the board of the Public Library of Science, a position for which he is not paid.
"Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry", wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, in March 2004 [1]. In the same year, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming "primarily a marketing machine" and co-opting "every institution that might stand in its way" [2]. Medical journals were conspicuously absent from her list of co-opted institutions, but she and Horton are not the only editors who have become increasingly queasy about the power and influence of the industry. Jerry Kassirer, another former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues that the industry has deflected the moral compasses of many physicians [3], and the editors of PLoS Medicine have declared that they will not become "part of the cycle of dependency...between journals and the pharmaceutical industry" [4]. Something is clearly up."
Posted by: GDF | July 17, 2007 8:19 PM
Interesting column Mark. I'd like to see you try to criticize some of my own work on the subject. For starters, how abour my Critique of the Welsh Goverment proposal for a smoking ban? Or some of the lies at my companion site www.TheTruthIsALie.com ? How about visiting the American Council on Science and Health and reading about the "passive fraud" committed by medical journals when they refuse to publish studies that might contradict their holy grail? (See: http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.990/news_detail.asp )
You might also enjoy today's Press Release from the SmokersClubInc.com site at:
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/pr071707.html
Looking forward to hearing what you have to say. Feel free to comment on any of my other writings at the website below as well.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Posted by: Michael J. McFadden | July 17, 2007 8:27 PM
But drink driving is already illegal, so what's your point?
Posted by: Ian B Gibson | July 17, 2007 8:37 PM
Dear Mr. Mark H. (afraid to post your last name?) I fear it is you my friend who gets 4 stars for partaking in the propaganda machine. It is you who has been sucked up into the cyclone of lies represented by the anti tobacco zealots. The joke will be on you in the end.
Posted by: b rogers | July 17, 2007 8:40 PM
GDF makes an excellent point. If smoking bans were truly based on public health concerns those for them would also favor greater restrictions on alchohol, at the very least the requirement alchohol can only be consumed in the home.
Posted by: Carter | July 17, 2007 10:22 PM
Hello Mark. I tried posting this about two hours ago, but perhaps it got swallowed by cyberspace:
======
Interesting column Mark. I'd like to see you try to criticize some of my own work on the subject. For starters, how abour my Critique of the Welsh Goverment proposal for a smoking ban? Or some of the lies at my companion site www.TheTruthIsALie.com ? How about visiting the American Council on Science and Health and reading about the "passive fraud" committed by medical journals when they refuse to publish studies that might contradict their holy grail? (See: http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.990/news_detail.asp )
You might also enjoy today's Press Release from the SmokersClubInc.com site at:
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/pr071707.html
Looking forward to hearing what you have to say. Feel free to comment on any of my other writings at the website below as well.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Posted by: Michael J. McFadden | July 17, 2007 10:26 PM
b rogers doesn't read too well, does he? Obviously he didn't bother to look at Mark's profile near the top of the blog.
Posted by: Orac | July 17, 2007 11:33 PM
Oh, you guys aren't cranks. No, that would be crazy.
I actually follow the PLoS coverage attacking DTCA and the influence of drug companies on the medical literature, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the work on cigarette smoking, and is essentially a cherry-pick of the literature. The authors do not assert that all or even a majority of the medical literature is faulty or bought. What they suggest is that the journal's dependence on advertising revenue from drug companies, as well as the creation of journals which exist as dumping grounds for crummy pharmaceutical science, leads to a contamination of the literature by low quality and biased research in pharmaceutical science.
This has nothing to do with epidemiologic evidence of smoking which is overwhelming. Further, don't quote to me from the ACSH, they're full of shit too, and I wouldn't trust them if they told me the sky is blue. I haven't had time to cover them yet, but they're regular contributors to the TCS daily and aren't a trustworthy source of information. It's amazing that I'm being accused of being on the side of some industry, like I'm shilling for Chantix or something, and then the biggest industry apologists ever are cited against me. The irony.
Posted by: MarkH | July 18, 2007 12:27 AM
Now I undertand the idea of this "denialist" blog. Those who don't agree with your views are "cranks".
Richard Smith was saying nothing of the sort. It's almost laughable what you just said, given the very next paragraph (quoted below), after paragraph one that I quoted (above post). (and I provided the link so that you could read it ALL for yourself). And you got *dependence on advertising* and *existence of crummy journals* out of this?
"The Problem: Less to Do with Advertising, More to Do with Sponsored Trials
The most conspicuous example of medical journals' dependence on the pharmaceutical industry is the substantial income from advertising, but this is, I suggest, the least corrupting form of dependence. The advertisements may often be misleading [5,6] and the profits worth millions, but the advertisements are there for all to see and criticise. Doctors may not be as uninfluenced by the advertisements as they would like to believe, but in every sphere, the public is used to discounting the claims of advertisers.
The much bigger problem lies with the original studies, particularly the clinical trials, published by journals. Far from discounting these, readers see randomised controlled trials as one of the highest forms of evidence. A large trial published in a major journal has the journal's stamp of approval (unlike the advertising), will be distributed around the world, and may well receive global media coverage, particularly if promoted simultaneously by press releases from both the journal and the expensive public-relations firm hired by the pharmaceutical company that sponsored the trial."
Smith goes on to say...
"By 2003 it was possible to do a systematic review of 30 studies comparing the outcomes of studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry with those of studies funded from other sources [8]. Some 16 of the studies looked at clinical trials or meta-analyses, and 13 had outcomes favourable to the sponsoring companies. Overall, studies funded by a company were four times more likely to have results favourable to the company than studies funded from other sources. In the case of the five studies that looked at economic evaluations, the results were favourable to the sponsoring company in every case.
The evidence is strong that companies are getting the results they want, and this is especially worrisome because between two-thirds and three-quarters of the trials published in the major journals—Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine—are funded by the industry [9]. For the BMJ, it's only one-third—partly, perhaps, because the journal has less influence than the others in North America, which is responsible for half of all the revenue of drug companies, and partly because the journal publishes more cluster-randomised trials (which are usually not drug trials) [9]."
***************
Smith is focusing in this article "particularly" on clinical trials, as he notes, but would it be plausible that pharmaceutical companies influence their sponsored drug trials but have clean hands with the SHS epi research they fund?
Posted by: GDF | July 18, 2007 1:08 AM
Mark H, this is my first visit to your site and I have to say the title of the piece 'Cranks' is very apt. I think it is you who is the crank. I simply ask you to produce one piece of epidemiological research that reaches the necessary level of 3+ to indicate a causative association. Unless of course you dispute the accepted scientific communities perceived wisdom on the subject. If you do you are in good company because Professor Britton the head of ASH (UK), in an email exchange with me stated that epidemiology cannot prove or disprove the dangers of ETS. Strange really given ASH's continual reference to the meta analysis, which I am sure you are referring to as the 'overwhelming' evidence. He went on to quote 'plausable biological mechanism' etc as the 'proof'. When I pointed out that no PBM had ever been established for ETS, given the high levels of exposure for humans would make it unethical and at no time, using dangerously high levels of ETS, had research on rodents induced cancers associated with smoking. The truth is even the WHO's multi centre research by Boffatta etal in 1998 failed to prove ETS as anything more than an irritant. For anyone to say otherwise is indeed in DENIAL.
Posted by: Robert Feal-Martinez | July 18, 2007 1:11 AM
GDF,
It appears you are correct. I will re-read that paper as I did not remember the conclusions correctly.
I do not believe that changes the fact that epidemiologic studies performed using NIH grant money have anything to do with skewed pharmaceutical studies.
And yes I will continue to consider those who deny the science tying cigarette smoke to cancer to be cranks and denialists.
Posted by: MarkH | July 18, 2007 1:21 AM
As far as the ACSH I think that needs clarification too.
The ACSH is actually quite an established group. Started almost 30 years ago now, it was in response to quite a lot of fearmongering in the popular press, and had a skeptical bent to evaluating health fears.
The ACSH has held the position continuously that tobacco is a cause of cancer, and to its credit was an early advocate for increased education on the dangers of tobacco smoke and the link between smoking and cancer.
However, I think in an attempt to attack fearmongering and over time, it has become untrustworthy. I've discussed the ACSH with some other skeptic bloggers and they feel about the same. They're right on some issues and downright batty on a lot of others, taking industry positions almost by default. Not to say that industry is always wrong, but they do take positions that I think my brother would whip out his deck of cards on. Lots of "no problem" analysis. I do not trust them as a source of unbiased information, and citing them is a major red flag.
Now, seeing them publish some serious crap in TCS, I've thought about going after them on some issues. I find it very ironic that those who complain of my siding with some industry conspiracy to attack tobacco would cite the ACSH, which, if anything, tows the industry line by default. Sometime in the future, maybe with another particularly ridiculous TCS post, I'll take them on.
Posted by: MarkH | July 18, 2007 1:31 AM
Mark - I haven't said a word about primary smoking. My concerns are about smoking bans based on pseudo-science (which, as noted, have nothing to do with primary smoking), and about what I see as the destruction of the integrity of public health by political and corporate interest.
Your point about NIH funded studies may have some validity. Someone else can comment on that. (Most studies I've ever seen were funded by pharmaceuticals or health organizations that receive large amounts of funding from pharmaceutical companies.) But even, for example, NIH funded researchers have to publish. (You sure don't get more funds by NOT publishing). Mr. McFadden's 2nd link is illustrative of the publication *climate* in this area. That is, the publication bias that exists now. That is NOT how science should work. Nor should people who raise valid questions about how it IS working (or NOT working) be dismissed as cranks.
Dr. Richard Carmona testified the other day about caving to political influences with regard to his statements to the American public. I have to wonder how it is that he believes that public health researchers, who produced the work that he reviewed, do not cave to similar influences (in areas of politically charged "health" topics) with the same regard for their own careers.
Many scientists, like myself, are recognizing this problem (well exemplified by the SHS debate). To call me a science denier, because I question the "science" of SHS is silly. I am a science defender.
Posted by: GDF | July 18, 2007 2:50 AM
GDF excellent and well thought out post. It is indeed tragic for the integrity of Science and Scientists, when any 'criticism' of the Politically Motivated purge of smokers, by hypocritical Governments and vested interest groups such as Big Pharma' is allowed to undermine any serious attempt to address what many in the Scientific community see as the destruction of it's credibility. One only has to follow the money to know that Johnson and Johnson the largest provider of smoking cessation products, through the Roberts Wood Johnson Foundation gives tens of millions to loosely describe anti smoking groups, who fund junk science. Does anyone in their right mind actually believe, Helena or Pueblo. Rocket science it ain't to know both are fiction, sadly they are quoted by the 'experts' as fact. More denial.
Posted by: Robert Feal-Martinez | July 18, 2007 3:22 AM
Funny you should mention that. It's been speculated among the medical profession that one major reason that Dr. Carmona wasn't reappointed when his term as Surgeon General expired had to do with the hard line he took on SHS in the Surgeon General's report on the topic last year. If anything, the political pressure these days, at least at the federal level, is on the side trying to downplay the risks of SHS.
Posted by: Orac | July 18, 2007 7:47 AM
Wow, this myth has gone from 2+ to 3+. Well done!
Posted by: Boris | July 18, 2007 8:35 AM
GDF says:
forces.org says:
Hmmm....I'll go with denialist crank conspiracy theorists FTW.
Posted by: Boris | July 18, 2007 8:44 AM
But, again, driving whilst under the influence of alcohol is already illegal, for public safety reasons. This invalidates GDF's point.
Posted by: Ian B Gibson | July 18, 2007 9:32 AM
I am not a scientist. "Science" has lost all credibility with me, as an ordinary person. For the simple reason that so much of it has turned out to be wrong.
Every single day I'm bombarded by one study or another telling me eat fish! No don't eat fish! Coffee gives you cancer! Or does it? All "science" is anymore (to me) is the business of the most trendy health scare or profit craze. Just about everything we're told to be afraid of turns out to be nonsense.
Remember carbs? Or oat bran? What is it now? Whole grains? Every other commercial on TV is for prescription medications.
I'm not even sure what you mean by "denialism." Science isn't about "truth." Looking closer at any article tells me things like probability of increased risk.
With the small increased risk from SHS I read in your other post, it seems a simple sign on the door of a bar will adequately inform anyone walking in about it. Workers knowledgably assume far greater risks than this.
The hysteria about it is very telling to me, that your precious "science" is being manipulated for political ends. For the love of G-d, please stop trying to "protect" me.
Posted by: Cowbell | July 18, 2007 10:18 AM
Do I get my point back if I counter that there seems to be a "safe" level of blood alcohol -- although no (zip, zero, none) safe level of SHS? Does this claim sound like science, or rhetoric? We're not talking mustard gas here folks. (Not that I know much about mustard gas -- but, you get my point, I hope).
I was also suggesting that the "safest" solution for drunk driving is "Prohibition." If one had an interest in "prohibition" one could make that case. Even exaggerate the effect.
Orac - That could well be. Govt. surely has interest in tobacco taxes. It's despicable either way. A shame if science comes down to opposing politico/financial interests. My point was however, that he bows to his "paycheck" just as do the funded researchers he reviews. I suggest it's naive (of him) to think that one side is clean and the other dirty.
It's been an interesting conversation. Sorry to hurry with these responses. I have to skip out of the conversation however, due to time constraints. But I hope we all keep questioning and learning.
Posted by: GDF | July 18, 2007 10:26 AM
So you're an idiot. Congratulations. What do you want, a cookie?
Besides, you seem perfectly happy to make use of that which science has provided you. Computers, for instance. I suspect we'd all be better off if you were consistent in your distrust of science and got rid of all that nasty technology, just in case.
Posted by: MartinM | July 18, 2007 10:45 AM
The amount of science that has been wrong is infintesimally small compared to how much science has gotten right. Look around you for God's sake.
Your main complaint seems to be with TV, not science.
Posted by: Boris | July 18, 2007 11:23 AM
I forgot, we have some newbies here.
Information about what denialism is or how we describe cranks can be found in the links at the top of the page for "about denialism", and the "crank howto".
It's not an epithet, rather it's the use of specific tactics to deny a body of science or fact. It's the use of arguments like the ones the being used here. All science is false, it's a conspiracy of pharmaceutical companies, citation of some fake expert and dismissal of expert opinion from people who actually study the problem, moving goalposts and logical fallacies is a brief rundown of denialist tactics.
Posted by: MarkH | July 18, 2007 11:27 AM
I wonder if Mark feels the same indignation toward Stanton Glantz and his "Miracle of Helena" hoax. Before being exposed as a fraud, this study helped push thru the Chicago smoking ban and hence the Illinois ban "to level the playing field." Is Mark also indignant when the American Cancer Society assures the Illinois press that working eight hours in a bar that allows smoking has the same health effects as smoking 16 cigarettes. Yet when challenged, the ACS can produce no study to support such an absurd claim. This is the sort of "science" citizens trying to protect the freedoms and property rights of bar owners and their patrons in Illinois have been up against. This is the science Cowbell has learned not to trust.
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.990/news_detail.asp
Posted by: Bill Hannegan | July 18, 2007 11:47 AM
Oh goody, the "science was wrong before" canard.
Posted by: Orac | July 18, 2007 12:12 PM
I'm supposed to be impressed by the McFadden's and Kuneman's whining that they couldn't get their "study" supposedly "refuting" the Helena study published in a peer review journal? Let them post their data if they think they're being "repressed" or "silenced" and let the scientific community judge. Or let them stop whining until their results are fully published.
Whatever the flaws of the Helena study, they have been well hashed out in the scientific literature, and the study was never represented in the scientific literature as anything other than a preliminary study that had provocative findings suggestive of an effect but needed a lot of confirmation. The authors of the study were quite honest about the limitations of their study. In a section entitled "Weaknesses of the Study," they even pointed out themselves the discussion section of their article that the study was small, that it used historical controls, and that biomarkers for SHS exposure were not measured. There was no deception or "scam" involved. Indeed, the authors were quite cautious in their assessment of the results, as any objective reading of the paper, particularly the discussion section, will show.
What Bill seems upset about is not how the authors represented their results, but rather how the press represented them, and that is a different issue entirely. He needs to learn how not to tar the investigators with that.
Posted by: Orac | July 18, 2007 12:29 PM
Cannard
Science is a series of provisional truths, backed by evidence, that are amended when better evidence is available
The McFadden/Kune study shows that the Helena/Pueblo etc miracles are suspect. Yet the studies on Helena get wide publicity and the M/K study struggles to get published.
Accordingly the canon on SHS and Heart attacks continues to contain errors that form the basis of public policy.
The study was commented on favourably by Dr Michael Siegel and I am confident, given his stance, he would not have done this if the study was flawed.
To the point, if the canon is erroneous, then correction is order, yet that seems difficult in the current environemnt. This can not be good for science. Yet you call those that challenge the current orhtodoxy crank or denier?
It would also seem you have gone off on a tangent, talking about Forces.org. Were the questions in the previous thread related to this site or are you trying to lump them together to avoid the questions?
Even if Epidemilogy showed a high relative risk, even you are aware it can not establish causation. Your previous article simple gave food for thought and further investigation may/may not be warranted. Yet you seem to have made up your mind, pity.
west
----
Posted by: west2 | July 18, 2007 12:37 PM
Did the possibility ever occur to you that the reason the McFadden study can't get published is because it has fatal flaws? Of course, I have no way of knowing if that's the case until I actually see it, but McFadden apologists simply leap to the conclusion that the reason he's having a hard time getting his study published is ideology. They completely ignore the equally likely possibility that he can't get it published because its design or analysis just isn't up to snuff.
I have no way of knowing yet which is the case, but I do find it interesting that people like west won't even entertain the possibility that the study just isn't any good. After all, they haven't read it either and have no more way of knowing whether it's any good than I do.
Posted by: Orac | July 18, 2007 12:52 PM
Did the possibility ever occur to you that the reason the McFadden study can't get published is because it has fatal flaws?
Of course.
McFadden apologists
I have no reason to apologise for Mr McFadden, he can do that for himself if need be.
but I do find it interesting that people like west won't even entertain the possibility that the study just isn't any good
How did you come to this conclusion? I have read the Nov 2005 prelimary study and Dr Siegel's notes. It offers a view on large populations rather than the smaller populations used in the Helena/Pueblo studies, which adds to the debate. If you could refer me to another study on large populations and SHS that has been published, then I would be glad to view that and make a comparison.
I have no way of knowing yet which is the case
Wouldn't it be easier to take a look at the study rather than mind read my motivations? At least then you would have a view on it's validity. If the study does not deserve to be published on the grounds that it is has fatal flaws then fair enough, yet at this point in time, as you say, you have 'no way of knowing' .
be well
west
----
Posted by: Anonymous | July 18, 2007 2:30 PM
Ian: Despite murder already being illegal, we still have laws regulating firearms.
Restricting alchohol consumption to private homes is no more inconveniencing than restricitng smoking to private homes, and doing so would have benefits greater than SHS bans.
Posted by: Carter | July 18, 2007 3:14 PM
These folks comparing second hand smoke to alcohol are confusing me. Perhaps I'm just not as sloppy a drunk as you folks, but when I drink, the alcohol only goes in me. I rarely spill a drop. When you smoke, your smoke also goes in me. The day that I wander past you in a bar, sloshing my drink all over your precious silk shirt (and down your gullet), then you can compare the two.
I'd be perfectly happy to have you smoking at the table beside me if you kept your head and cigarette inside a tightly sealed ziploc bag. Though I imagine that might present other problems for you...
Posted by: factician | July 18, 2007 3:49 PM
Personally, I am philosophically opposed to blanket smoking bans. That's the libertarian in me, I guess. I do support banning it in places like hospitals, schools, government buildings, offices, stores, etc, but I feel that restaurants and bars ought to be able to allow smoking, as long as adequate ventilation is provided. I would expect the majority of such establishments to provide nonsmoking sections, as has already happened simply due to market pressure and a growing awareness of the risks. I do not feel that government strong-arming is necessary.
I dislike smoking intensely, in part because I am allergic to it, but also because of the significant health risks. I do not think it needs to be banned outside of private residences, and generally consider government movements to regulate smoking to be political grandstanding -- it's something that is fairly easy to enact, earns brownie points for the politician, and makes them look proactive on public health. I'd rather they spent their energy on more serious issues, like how to deal with the problems the lower middle class has in coping with health problems.
So I'm opposed to smoking bans.
But I'm also opposed to denialism. The science is pretty clear; secondhand smoke is harmful, just as firsthand smoke is harmful. It is therefore courteous for establishments to offer a nonsmoking area, and to provide a means of removing the harmful smoke from the smoking area.
Posted by: Calli Arcale | July 18, 2007 4:14 PM
This article will probably be touted as "good science" by the commuinistic anti-smoking movement. Let's have a lesson in American history, shall we? In the 1970's, the US Supreme Court ruled that a private business is private (not public) property. So, smoking bans are invalid, sais the Supreme Court. This means only one thing - the anti-smoking movement is in contemopt of a court order. Further, in 1989, the US Surgeon General stated that there is very little, if any, dangers in secondary smoke. He specifically mentioned that while there really are 4,000 chemicols in cigarette smoke, only 2% of that smoke contains any of them. The other 98% is composed of water vapor and air. In other words, and I quote, "It is the dose that makes the poison." Also, if a person was a 2 pack a day smoker, smoked occasionally, had only one cigarette their entire lives, or just knew someone who smoked, and they die, it's written down as a "smoking-related death." Hmm...interesting.
Posted by: Luke Smithers | July 18, 2007 4:20 PM
Calli,
I'm mostly with you. I also am against a blanket smoking ban. In addition to the fact that it wouldn't work (ala Prohibition), I tend to think if someone wants to breathe that stuff, that's their call. I think sniffing glue should be legal for adults, though I also wouldn't tend to indulge.
I disagree with you on restaurants and bars, however. Making a non-smoking section in a restaurant is about as effective as having a non-pissing section in a swimming pool. Unless you're outside, there's just insufficient air to properly dilute the smoke. That said, I strongly support the rights of smokers to smoke in areas where they are not spewing it on the rest of us. Smokers clubs. Tobacco shops. Their own homes. But public areas? No way.
Posted by: factician | July 18, 2007 4:24 PM
Orac wrote, "McFadden apologists simply leap to the conclusion that the reason he's having a hard time getting his study published is ideology. They completely ignore the equally likely possibility that he can't get it published because its design or analysis just isn't up to snuff."
However Orac, as is clearly pointed out in the article, the PRIMARY reason, stated as such, by the BMJ for its decision had nothing to do with "fatal flaws" or design or analysis: just that it didn't "add enough to what is already known" for "general readers" to be worth publishing... a clearly bogus rationale since its results were diametrically opposed to what is supposedly "already known".
You request a publication of the study to prove its value and design. I would love to oblige, but any publication beyond the preliminary version that can be posted at:
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/hospitaladmissions.html
would preclude future publication in ANY peer-reviewed medical journal... which is exactly what would make the antismoking lobby the happiest.
As far as soundness of data goes, one of the main differences between our study and those from antismoking researchers is that our data is all publicly accessible and verifiable. Orac, I'd like to see you ask for the hospital records that would allow you to verify the Helena data... you won't get them.
I find it interesting that you repeat one of the assertions of the BMJ editor when you say the flaws of the Helena study "have been well hashed out in the scientific literature,"
Orac, the only place they have been "hashed out in the scientific literature" is within the Rapid Response section of the BMJ at:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38055.715683.55v1
and if you visit there you'll find that a good bit of that hashing out was done by me, and was never met with a response or defense by the Helena authors DESPITE the ethical and scientific importance of defending their work in that forum.
Orac, the Helena study doesn't stand alone you realize. I could grab any of a half dozen other "flagship studies" that the antisomking lobby has used to push smoking bans and the results would all be similar: designs deliberately skewed to give desired results and presentations to the media that distort even those results.
Smoking bans are bad laws based upon lies. Kudos to the citizens of Britain for having the courage to stand up to them!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Posted by: Michael J. McFadden | July 18, 2007 5:13 PM
Looks like Forces.org has noticed me at least. ;-)
Enjoy!
Posted by: Orac | July 18, 2007 5:51 PM
Orac, there are a number of points raised by several different people largely addressed to me. I hope you won't mind my answering them together in one post here.
Factician wrote, "but when I drink, the alcohol only goes in me." Factician, that's actually clearly and scientifically wrong. Alcohol, a recognized unique Class A Carcinogen, is a highly volatile liquid. Secondary smoke contains seven such Class A Carinogens, total amount per cigarette emitted being .5 milligram (one-half of one-thousandth of a gram).
A standard martini, over the course of an hour puts one full gram of its carcinogen into the air for your fellow diners to breathe. That's an amount equal to 2,000 cigarettes even though you don't see it or even smell it much. See:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7495/812#105082
for a fuller explication of this.
Factician also wrote, "Making a non-smoking section in a restaurant is about as effective as having a non-pissing section in a swimming pool." Actually, that's also not true. A swimming pool gets its water changed about once a year. The air in any decently ventilated smoking-allowed restaurant is changed roughly 50,000 times per year. That's a difference of five million percent! So not the same at all. One of the antismoking lobby's favorite propaganda tricks here is to say that ASHRAE has determined that ventilation is ineffective. If one actually examines ASHRAE's guidelines however one finds that ventilation is determined to be ineffective ONLY in that it cannot guarantee a 100% non-contact with smoke within a smoking room! ASHRAE goes on to state that a separate room with a proper exhaust fan works quite well in keeping smoke from nonsmokers in a non-smoking area.
As for the slurs against ACSH, I'd ask Mark et al to explain just what influence they feel "the industry" has over that organization, in what form that influence is wielded, and by specifically what industries? Are you implying that ACSH is funded by Philip Morris? If not, then what are you implying or stating?
I would finally like to ask Factician, Mark, Orac and others with a similar position: Do you believe it should be illegal for a smoker to open a smoking bar, hiring only smoking staff, to serve only smokers, their friends, and happy nonsmokers? Before complaining about "discrimination", I'd suggest you visit Scott's Miracle Gro or Weyco or even the UN's WHO to see how well their decisions to discriminate against smokers have gone.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Posted by: Michael J. McFadden | July 18, 2007 5:56 PM
Mark & Chris,
A number of years ago I probably would have agreed with your assessment that people who thought there was a conspiracy were cranks. Not now. The parallels of anti-obesity campaigns with those of anti-tobacco are glaring. Perhaps the motive of RJWF in funding both groups is not profit. Perhaps they are just a bunch of people who pay to have others believe as they do. The problem for the world is that tactics have been created that produce results regardless if they are right or wrong. Smokers cost us more in health care, fat people cost us more in heath care ... doesn't matter if its true. Your "denialism" tactics are cute but harmless. The tactics of public health could dominate our future.
Posted by: rj | July 18, 2007 5:56 PM
It is my impression that the reason people don't favor greater restrictions on alcohol is not the lack of a valid public health concern, but rather that prior experience with attempting to restrict alcohol use was so disastrous that people are reluctant to try it again. So far, this doesn't seem to be the case for tobacco, perhaps because there has been no attempt to ban it altogether. And of course, there are key differences. Requiring people to consume alcohol only in the home runs into the problem that alcohol is not merely a hazard to others while it is being consumed, but for quite a while afterwards, so the problem is not where people consume it, but what they do afterwards. This also means that relatively benign restrictions such as have been so effective with tobacco (i.e. requiring people to go outside to smoke) wouldn't do much good for alcohol
Posted by: trrll | July 18, 2007 5:58 PM
I do not think it needs to be banned outside of private residences, and generally consider government movements to regulate smoking to be political grandstanding -- it's something that is fairly easy to enact, earns brownie points for the politician, and makes them look proactive on public health. I'd rather they spent their energy on more serious issues, like how to deal with the problems the lower middle class has in coping with health problems.
Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of premature death in the United States. The government estimates that smoking causes 24 times as many premature deaths as inadequate health insurance.
Posted by: Jason | July 18, 2007 6:02 PM
Orac wrote, "McFadden apologists simply leap to the conclusion that the reason he's having a hard time getting his study published is ideology. They completely ignore the equally likely possibility that he can't get it published because its design or analysis just isn't up to snuff."
However Orac, as is clearly pointed out in the article, the PRIMARY reason, stated as such, by the BMJ for its decision had nothing to do with "fatal flaws" or design or analysis: just that it didn't "add enough to what is already known" for "general readers" to be worth publishing... a clearly bogus rationale since its results were diametrically opposed to what is supposedly "already known".
You request a publication of the study to prove its value and design. I would love to oblige, but any publication beyond the preliminary version that can be posted at:
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/hospitaladmissions.html
would preclude future publication in ANY peer-reviewed medical journal... which is exactly what would make the antismoking lobby the happiest.
As far as soundness of data goes, one of the main differences between our study and those from antismoking researchers is that our data is all publicly accessible and verifiable. Orac, I'd like to see you ask for the hospital records that would allow you to verify the Helena data... you won't get them.
I find it interesting that you repeat one of the assertions of the BMJ editor when you say the flaws of the Helena study "have been well hashed out in the scientific literature,"
Orac, the only place they have been "hashed out in the scientific literature" is within the Rapid Response section of the BMJ at:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38055.715683.55v1
and if you visit there you'll find that a good bit of that hashing out was done by me, and was never met with a response or defense by the Helena authors DESPITE the ethical and scientific importance of defending their work in that forum.
Orac, the Helena study doesn't stand alone you realize. I could grab any of a half dozen other "flagship studies" that the antisomking lobby has used to push smoking bans and the results would all be similar: designs deliberately skewed to give desired results and presentations to the media that distort even those results.
Smoking bans are bad laws based upon lies. Kudos to the citizens of Britain for having the courage to stand up to them!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Posted by: Michael J. McFadden | July 18, 2007 6:55 PM
Orac, there are a number of points raised by several different people largely addressed to me. I hope you won't mind my answering them together in one post here.
Factician wrote, "but when I drink, the alcohol only goes in me." Factician, that's actually clearly and scientifically wrong. Alcohol, a recognized unique Class A Carcinogen, is a highly volatile liquid. Secondary smoke contains seven such Class A Carinogens, total amount per cigarette emitted being .5 milligram (one-half of one-thousandth of a gram).
A standard martini, over the course of an hour puts one full gram of its carcinogen into the air for your fellow diners to breathe. That's an amount equal to 2,000 cigarettes even though you don't see it or even smell it much. See:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7495/812#105082
for a fuller explication of this.
Factician also wrote, "Making a non-smoking section in a restaurant is about as effective as having a non-pissing section in a swimming pool." Actually, that's also not true. A swimming pool gets its water changed about once a year. The air in any decently ventilated smoking-allowed restaurant is changed roughly 50,000 times per year. That's a difference of five million percent! So not the same at all. One of the antismoking lobby's favorite propaganda tricks here is to say that ASHRAE has determined that ventilation is ineffective. If one actually examines ASHRAE's guidelines however one finds that ventilation is determined to be ineffective ONLY in that it cannot guarantee a 100% non-contact with smoke within a smoking room! ASHRAE goes on to state that a separate room with a proper exhaust fan works quite well in keeping smoke from nonsmokers in a non-smoking area.
As for the slurs against ACSH, I'd ask Mark et al to explain just what influence they feel "the industry" has over that organization, in what form that influence is wielded, and by specifically what industries? Are you implying that ACSH is funded by Philip Morris? If not, then what are you implying or stating?
I would finally like to ask Factician, Mark, Orac and others with a similar position: Do you believe it should be illegal for a smoker to open a smoking bar, hiring only smoking staff, to serve only smokers, their friends, and happy nonsmokers? Before complaining about "discrimination", I'd suggest you visit Scott's Miracle Gro or Weyco or even the UN's WHO to see how well their decisions to discriminate against smokers have gone.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Posted by: Michael J. McFadden | July 18, 2007 6:56 PM
"Were the dinking water in a bar shown to include dangerous bacteria well above established"
Where do bars keep their dinking water? Does it come from urinals or is that where it winds up after being poured into the other end of people as ethanol?
These guys are a perfect denialist complement to Big Fat Blog. Every "oppressed" group with enough people in it eventually organizes into a buzzing hive of crankery with momentum all its own; lies that are rightfully exposed in the world of legitimate medical science can easily be recast as truth within communities consisting solely of other liars with the same cranky agenda.
Posted by: kemibe | July 18, 2007 11:19 PM
I think that Orac, like so many knee-jerkers, has made up his mind without serious critical thinking. There is nothing at Forces.org suggestive of his overblown terms like 'denialist' or 'crankery'. Everything is well-researched and both rationally and eloquently articulated. It actually makes sense, and is backed-up, which is something that the ETS concept most definitely is not. Why is Orac so annoyed simply because he doesn't get the sublime enjoyment of smoking that he deprives himself of? It helps you chill out you know
Posted by: Adeimantus | July 19, 2007 7:37 AM
"Nothing at Forces.org suggestive of his overblown terms like 'denialist' or 'crankery'"?
ROTFLMAO!
That's the funniest thing I've read all week. Really. It's so amazingly disconnected from reality that it's hard to do anything other than laugh at it. Thanks for brightening my morning.
Posted by: Orac | July 19, 2007 8:07 AM
Perhaps Orac is willing to take forces.org on their challenge (its currently at the top of their page,) to directly email them for a discussion or debate? I mean truly since you are laughing so hard you must not feel threatened whatsoever. I'm not trying to lower anyone here to a level of "denialism," nor make out any person involved a victim or purveyor of "crankery," but certainly if Orac is willing to speak out here on this site, they appreciate forces.org's offer and would love to tell all those who read the site how SHS is effecting them and the non-emotional and solid scientific proof behind this?
Posted by: KC | July 19, 2007 8:13 AM
Let's not forget that if you read the preliminary version of the kuneman/ McFadden study on my page, you will notice one other important difference between our study, and those of the small cities which were published:
Our study looks at multiple bans. If you go to hcup, you will see we used data from every state with a ban which is in the hcup database. We are also the only study which uses 2 different controls, one is the USA, as a whole; the other is all of the states which hcup provides data for, which did not allow local bans. Ergo, we are not reporting research selectively.
Since our results differ significantly with those of the small cities, it is logical to conclude that it is those studies which utilized selective research to form their conlcusions. Dave K
Posted by: dave K | July 19, 2007 9:10 AM
'That's the funniest thing I've read all week. Really. It's so amazingly disconnected from reality