NICOTINE IS NOT NECESSARILY WHAT KEEPS PEOPLE SMOKING, SO WHY KEEP THE NICOTINE ADDICTION MYTH ALIVE?

 

Pr. Robert Molimard has been saying it for decades. Now Dr. Michael Siegel finally acknowledges it. Nicotine is not necessarily the sole reason or even the reason people smoke.

Excerpts from: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/11/obsession-with-nicotine-as-sole.html

''The tobacco control movement's obsession with nicotine as the sole factor in smoking addiction has contributed to its missing a golden opportunity to save lives: the development of electronic cigarettes. ''

''The tobacco control movement's pre-occupation with smoking cessation drugs that target nicotine receptors is not a coincidence. The movement is heavily funded by Big Pharma and has followed the money, rather than the best interests of the nation's smokers in finding ways to help them.''

And here is precisely what Pr. Molimard has been saying for as long as he studied tobacco:

''Since no formal evidence of dependence to pure nicotine has yet to be produced, the conclusion that nicotine alone is addictive is not a syllogism, but rather, pure sophistry.''

''And yet, against all scientific rigor, this fallacy was implanted through repetition, hammered in as an unassailable truth, all with the support of health authorities and politicians.''

 

'' Because having arbitrarily decided that nicotine alone explains tobacco dependence and having it engrained in the minds of doctors, the authorities and the public, any research on the other possible factors of this dependency is now excluded in advance and a vast new market is made available for commercial exploitation by the pharmaceutical industry. ''

http://cagecanada.blogspot.ca/2010/12/beliefs-manipulation-and-lies-in.html

YOU CAN RUN BUT YOU CANNOT HIDE

As much as they would like everyone to believe that ‘’the debate is over’’ and the only entity fighting against tobacco control activity is the tobacco industry itself, many members of the public, a swarm, as blogger Frank Davis described them in one of his recent blogposts, smokers and nons alike are regularly exposing the shenanigans and the shoddy science behind anti-smoking and demand answers from the professional anti-smokers who very seldom make themselves available to the public. If the journalists won’t challenge even their more absurd studies and contentions, somebody has to do it. Ordinary citizens have taken the task into their own hands.

One of the few exceptions to their rule of deafening silence was a facebook group they created to plead their case and gain sympathy on a FOI request from Philip Morris pertaining to the underlying data Stirling University anti-tobacco researchers have collected for a study on young people and smoking. A study that could lead to policy for mandatory plain packaging in the UK. The story has even reached the Canadian media. You can hear it here: Freedom of Information on Kids and Smoking


Because the opportunities to get to question these tobacco control activists and researchers are rare, a few ordinary citizens joined the facebook group that members of the Globalink community created, casted their vote on the poll available to all that asked whether or not one agreed with the university’s stand of refusing to produce the data to Philip Morris regardless of the FOI Act regulations, and engaged in a civil discussion with anti-smoker activists willing to participate in the debate such as Simon Chapman well known Australian tobacco control activist and Rory Morrison from ASH Scotland, both members of Globalink. Not only  were they asked pointy questions, these ordinary citizens (including the writer of this blogpost) clearly and firmly expressed to them that they no longer had trust in the integrity of anti-smoker activists and studies and gave numerous examples of shoddy anti-tobacco science to prove their point.


Not only were the questions not answered, and no attempts to defend the shoddy/fraudulent science behind already published studies were offered, when the heat became too unbearable for this tobacco control community to take, they made the facebook group vanish with no trace of any of the discussions to be found anywhere.


Why? The answer is more than obvious. They had no answers or defense in the face of such public humiliation from ordinary citizens. They ran scared and hid behind private groups such as a newly created Globalink facebook goup that invites tobacco control activists to join upon invitation and/or approval.


‘’ Today, Simon Chapman and I are pleased to announce the launch of a new Facebook closed discussion group, information and strategy exchange site, the Global Tobacco Control Network.
By a “closed” Facebook group, we mean that all members need to be approved and all material posted to the group will not be visible to non‐members nor searchable by outsiders. ‘’


Such lack of transparency and willingness to debate when they are against informed opponents instead of complacent lazy journalists and politicians, is plenty proof that Philip Morris has legitimate reasons to doubt the integrity of the Stirling University researchers’ data, and therefore their FOI request should be respected and obeyed without any further delays. Moreover, it should be made mandatory that the underlying data of any and every publicly funded study that affects public policy, be open and available to everyone to examine. It has become more than obvious that the public cannot rely on neither politicians nor overworked and/or lazy journalists to examine the integrity of the anti-tobacco science before policy that affects numerous societies is enacted.


Let the tobacco control activists be warned: They can continue to try to hide behind anonymous posters planted in different newspaper and other forums, we have learnt to recognize their style and they will be constantly tracked down and asked the same types of questions and explanations as they were asked during this brief encounter between identified anti-tobacco and pro-truth activists. And this until they are forced to resign or become accountable, honest and human.


Some background to our story :


Globalink is a network for international tobacco control activists making use of the internet to communicate ideas and strategies against the use of tobacco. It is part of the Global Control Movement lead by the American Cancer Society and the UICC. Although Globalink don't declare in their webiste that Big Pharma is funding them, here's what we can read in bold on page 34 of the Strategy Planning for Tobacco Control Movement Building at http://www.paho.org/English/AD/SDE/RA/Guide2_MovementBuilding.pdf


Links to Drug Companies That Have Funded Tobacco Control Action


GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)


Pharmacia Corporation (now owned by Pfizer)


In a June/11 blog posting, Dr. Michael Siegel exposed how the groupthink mentality runs rampant in the globalink network. A few excerpts from his blogpost :


‘’It (Globalink) is a mechanism for preventing critical discussion of research, science, and policy issues in tobacco control. It serves to stifle thoughtful discussion of ideas, suppresses dissenting opinions, and plays out as a forum for malicious individual attacks against researchers, advocates, or citizens who dare to go against the mainstream opinions within the tobacco control movement.’’


Another former Globalink member – Dr. Kamal Chaouachi – had this to say:


‘’I was banished (from Globalink) several times and eventually expelled once and for all. Over the years, I have also been amazed by the extent of endorsed intolerance. For instance, there have been, believe it or not, “debates” on whether it is ethical or not to give a last cigarette to a person confined to bed and doomed to death… Then, one discovers the pharmaceutical industry connections (Pfizer in particular)(WCTOH, 2009 ; Mesbah 2009) and how Globalink’s policy has been drawn with “a velvet glove” pulled on an iron fist named Simon Chapman, ex Editor in Chief of the world famous antismoking Tobacco Control Journal’’.

LE CHAMPIX NE SERA PLUS REMBOURSÉ EN FRANCE !

Nous apprenons par Canoë.ca que les instances de santé françaises ont  ‘’mis leurs culottes’’ et ont annoncé qu’ils ne rembourseront plus le médicament pour le sevrage du tabagisme, le Champix.  Nous aurons préféré de lire qu’ils interdisaient sa vente totalement en raison de tous ses effets secondaires y compris le suicide, mais c’est quand même un pas dans la bonne direction qui, nous espérons, découragera les fumeurs d’y avoir recours.  Rappelons à nos lecteurs que le Dr. Michael Siegel, anti-tabagiste notoire, a déjà demandé à ce que ce médicament soit retiré du marché.   

Le mécontentement des anti-tabagistes  ne nous surprend aucunement étant donné que plusieurs entre eux entretiennent des relations incestueuses avec l’industrie pharmaceutique.  Il y en a même une anti-tabagiste britannique qui a déjà exprimé qu’il importait peu que ce médicament soit dangereux car 50% des fumeurs vont mourir des méfaits de leur tabagisme de toutes façons !  (“We are talking about a fairly unhealthy section of the population anyway . . . one in two will die because of smoking.)

Bravo à la France !  Il reste à espérer que le Canada suive.  

Célébrons la journée internationale sans tabac en motivant ceux qui désirent d’arrêter, de le faire sans médication.  Des millions l’ont fait à travers le monde avant que l’industrie pharmaceutique les prenne en otage en leur inculquant la notion qu’ils sont trop dépendants pour y arriver sans la pharmacothérapie.  

Le Champix ne sera plus remboursé, les tabacologues fâchés

Lire aussi :  Champix®, le jeu en vaut-il la chandelle ?

ABOUT SHODDY SCIENCE BY PRESS RELEASE

On our French comment of October 2nd we questioned the findings of a recent Canadian study that was published online ahead of print. It was a collaborative effort of researchers from McGill University, Université de Montréal, the University of British Columbia, Concordia University, the Institut national de santé publique du Québec (INSPQ) and the Direction de santé publique de Montréal, and several Canadian and international mainstream media reported the findings a few days ago.

The researchers were investigating whether never smoking children can get addicted by their parents’ second hand smoke. The study found that 5% of never smoking children may in fact get addicted to nicotine from their parents’ smoking. As we have learnt to expect when it comes to tobacco, the journalists reporting the study don't seem to have examined the methodology with a critical mind before reporting such loaded findings and if they did, they chose to ignore the flaws.

What caught our attention was that the media were reporting that the findings of the study were based on answers to a questionnaire given by a sample of 1488 10 – 12 year old never smoking children. We commented in our French article that in our opinion the methodology was quite unscientific since many biases could have crept in, including the unreliability of young children diagnosing their own symptoms and their personal dislike of the smell of cigarette smoke that may have influenced the way they replied. The conclusion being transparent as to its intent, specifically to support legislation forbidding smoking in motor vehicles with children, what we would have liked to examine as we stated, was if the questions asked could have possibly been leading to a predetermined conclusion.

Our ink was hardly dry on our own commentary, that Dr. Michael Siegel proceeded to carefully analyze the study. Our suspicions were thus confirmed.

Some excerpts of his commentary linked at the bottom:

‘’To my surprise, the study did not actually measure nicotine dependence among young neversmokers. Instead, what the study used was a nicotine dependence assessment tool that was designed specifically for smokers. The measurement tool that was used was not relevant to measuring nicotine dependence symptoms in nonsmokers. In fact, nearly all the questions assumed that the respondent was a smoker and these questions were therefore irrelevant and not applicable to these nonsmoking respondents. Any nonsmoking youth would have had considerable difficulty answering these questions which clearly did not apply to them.’’
(…)
‘’The conclusions of the study and the worldwide headlines are way overblown. In fact, overblown isn't really right because that suggests that the results are exaggerated. It is not a question of exaggeration. The conclusion is simply wrong. The results do not support - at all - the conclusion that these young children were nicotine dependent.’’
(…)
‘’One could design a set of questions to assess the possibility of nicotine dependence among young nonsmokers, but these questions would not be on the list to try. They are leading questions which are not relevant to nonsmokers and whose use will ensure that nicotine dependence is found among nonsmokers.’’
(…)
‘’In essence, this study was designed in such a way to create the very result it now reports. The study was set up such that it could not fail to find "nicotine dependence" among young nonsmokers. Furthermore, it was set up in such a way that it could not fail to find a correlation between "nicotine dependence" and secondhand smoke exposure.''

We have since written to the researchers of the study to inquire about what Dr. Siegel suggests are inexcusable flaws in their methodology and about their funding. How much did this shoddy piece of ''science'' cost Canadian taxpayers?

The most disturbing part is that even if a retraction is published in some remote section of the newspapers, the public who read the original headlines will remain with the misguided impression that ‘’smokers addict their children through their second hand smoke’’.

New Study Concludes that Secondhand Smoke Exposure May Cause Nicotine Dependence Among Young Neversmokers

SEVERE CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS REVEALED

Ever since we discovered that much of the healthist movement was heavily funded and even directed by pharmaceutical industry interests at the detriment of integrity, justice, honesty and health, we never ceased to expose this conflict of interest to our readers, the media, our elected officials and anyone who cared to listen. Please click on the label ‘’pharmaceutical industry’’ in English or ‘’industrie pharmaceutique’’ in French to read some of the articles we published on this subject. For a complete detailed analysis of pharmaceutical interests in public health, please link to: Clearing the Air and JUNKFOOD SCIENCE

At times we get the feeling that our cries are weak whispers in the vast universe, but at other times we are encouraged to carry on with our mission, one baby step at a time, one person at a time, one politician at a time. Today is one of those encouraging days.

The latest article in Dr. Siegel’s blog has indeed brought hope that the truth will eventually surface and it looks like the day may come sooner than we had imagined.

Dr. Siegel’s article doesn't need much commenting except to say that no one can fool all of the people all of the time and if litigation is the only way left to bring back integrity and save lives, livelihoods and our trust in public health, then let’s bring it on. One small paragraph from his article linked below says it all: ''The scientific integrity of the tobacco control movement has been tarnished by its lucrative financial relationship with Big Pharma. But what's worse, people's lives may actually be at stake in this game.''

Chantix Lawsuits Piling Up; Dangers from Severe Financial Conflicts of Interests of Tobacco Control Researchers and Institutions Revealed

DALTON MCGUINTY'S FABRICATIONS

On February 7, 2008 we sent a letter to the Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty urging him to take a look at the science used to justify car smoking bans. Our letter read as follows:

To the honorable Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty

Smoking in the presence of children is in no way, means or form to be considered parental neglect or abuse unless the child has a condition that second hand smoke can aggravate. Risk does not automatically mean harm, especially when the risk factors are hardly at levels where cause can be inferred and all confounding factors can be dismissed. Epidemiology is too subjective, biased and inaccurate, for any legislation to be based on its weak and inconsistent conclusions. Case in point, the WHO’s biggest and most extensive study (Bofetta et al 1998) surprisingly found that second hand smoke protects children from lung cancer. Should we base legislation on this allegedly serious ‘’scientific’’ study and force all parents to smoke in the presence of children to save them from lung cancer?

One of the reasons provided by the OLA to justify car bans is the following: "Asthma in children is growing at an unsettling rate. We know that tobacco smoke is not only a known trigger for causing asthma episodes, it can actually cause asthma in healthy children.’’Not only is this message not coherent with the very well-documented increase of allergies proportionately to the decrease of smoking for the last 30 years, but the same epidemiology that the OLA uses to justify legislation has found the exact opposite results to those that they claim. The conclusion from a 32-year population-based cohort study, published on December 3, 2007 in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, does not quite correspond with the OLA's message. In fact it concluded that ‘’Personal and parental smoking is associated with a reduced risk of allergic sensitization in people with a family history of atopy.’’

With only a bit of digging, anyone, can find at least one or more studies that report the exact opposite finding for each and every statement various anti-smoking groups have made to justify legislation against smoking in cars with children. The bottom line is, science does not conclusively back up any of their claims.Who then better than the parent, under the advice of the child’s pediatrician, knows best when a situation aggravates their child's condition and when it doesn’t? One could argue that some parents are negligent and could care less about their child’s medical condition and yes, unfortunately such parents do exist -- thankfully in small numbers -- and by all means these children should be protected from this type of parental neglect. However, the fact is that there are laws already in place to protect children from parental neglect and abuse and it is those laws that should be enforced rigorously instead of wasting our already deficient human and financial resources to put ‘’feel good’’ laws in place that would not only be very difficult and expensive to enforce, but that would target all parents when in fact it is the few irresponsible ones that should be targeted.

Let’s not forget that if we’re going to legislate smoking behavior in order to save the children from their parents, we would have to review many risky habits that we allow our children to be subjected to, and legislate them in the same way, since they are all decisions parents make that pose a risk to their children. Such risky habits would include taking the child outside during smog alerts, driving in poor weather or in poor visibility conditions with a child, taking the child outdoors during mosquito season, caring for the child while we are afflicted with a viral or infectious disease, lighting candles, burning incense, lighting a fireplace in the presence of a child, the list is long and endless. The fact that we don't, is clear proof that these anti-smoking lobbying efforts have absolutely nothing to do with children's health. Even the most caring parents take some type of risk while a child is in their custody and under their authority and that is perfectly acceptable. Why should it be any different when it comes to smokers to the point that special legislation is required?

In light of the above, we respectfully ask you to reconsider your decision to implement this very intrusive bundle of legislation.

C.A.G.E.

On April 23, 2008 we received from the premier, what seems to be an automated response that not only did not comment on the studies and arguments we brought forth, but in fact repeated the same rhetoric that has become so typical of the anti-tobacco movement.

What are we to make of this letter? That Premier McGuinty could care less about scientific integrity? That he could care less about parental autonomy? That the only citizens whose voices count are those who agree with the state line of thinking? Or that even the truth is of no importance to him as Dr. Michael Siegel has pointed out in his latest entry in his blog: Ontario Health Ministry Tells Public that Secondhand Smoke Causes Cardiac Arrest Among Children

Following is Mr. McGuinty’s reply followed by excerpts from Dr. Siegel’s comments:

Thanks for your online message regarding smoking in vehicles with child passengers.

As your government, we have a responsibility to protect the health and well-being of all Ontarians, especially our children. Smoking is the number one preventable cause of disease and death in Ontario, costing our health care system and our economy billions of dollars every year.

Our government is very concerned about the health of children who are exposed to second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke levels in cars can be up to 60 times greater than in a smoke-free home. Children exposed to second-hand smoke are at higher risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, asthma, cancer and heart disease. We have listened to Ontarians’ concerns and the recommendations of the Ontario Medical Association. That is why, this spring, we are proposing legislation to ban smoking in cars when children are present.

The move will be the next logical step in our efforts to protect Ontarians from the harmful effects of smoking. It would bring us in line with Nova Scotia, Louisiana, Arkansas and California, jurisdictions that have already enacted similar bans.

Since our government launched its Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy — which includes one of the toughest anti-smoking laws in North America — tobacco use in the province has fallen substantially. In fact, between 2003 and 2006 tobacco consumption in Ontario has fallen by over 30 per cent. Our strategy has helped people quit smoking and has prevented many young people from starting. Now we are working to protect our youngest and most vulnerable citizens from the serious health-related consequences of second-hand smoke.

Thanks again for contacting me.

Dalton McGuinty Premier of Ontario

Excerpt from Dr. Siegel’s comment:

…there is simply no way to justify or explain the statement that secondhand smoke causes cardiac arrest among exposed children. There is no degree of leniency on the terminology that we can allow that would enable us to interpret that statement as being anything other than blatantly inaccurate.

Children's hearts do not stop beating suddenly because of exposure to secondhand smoke. There is no evidence that secondhand smoke exposure causes acute coronary events of any kind among children. This claim seems to be pulled completely out of the blue. It's not like the claim is even an exaggeration of a claim for which there is evidence. In other words, this is not merely an exaggeration, it is a complete fabrication.

Even worse, the Ministry is claiming not merely that secondhand smoke causes cardiac arrest among children, but that medical science clearly shows that this is the case.I do not understand why the Ministry of Health Promotion would fabricate such a claim.

And as he reiterated on the ‘’comments’’ section of that same thread:
….
What strikes me so much about the Ontario health ministry's claim is that it doesn't represent an exaggeration or distortion of published research. Instead, it appears to be an outright fabrication. I really don't understand how they even came up with this claim about sudden cardiac arrest in children. It's not even remotely plausible.

Here's why it doesn't make sense to me: If you were going to purposely fabricate an effect of secondhand smoke to try to support your agenda, why not pick an effect that actually happens? Sudden cardiac arrest is not a phenomenon that occurs in children with the exception of some very severe diseases. So why pick that as your alleged health effect? It makes no sense. Why would the health department even think that people would believe this claim?

Michael Siegel Homepage 04.27.08 - 12:06 pm #

BIGOTRY, INTOLERANCE, HATRED - ASH THEY PEDDLE IT

This piece of news that Dr. Michael Siegel has just brought to light, confirmed that there are no limits to how low ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) can go when it comes to smokers and increasingly and steadily the obese.

Through a press release which we will not dignify by linking it here, John F. Banzhaf III, their Executive Director and Chief Counsel, is suggesting that heart donors attach the explicit condition that only never smokers or long time former smokers should receive the precious organ.

Dr. Siegel opined on the bigotry and hatred aspect of such a recommendation and we fully agree with his comment. We would like to add to his analysis that if such strings were to be attached to the gift of life, only the perfect and virtuous would deserve it. If such transplants were granted to the imperfect anyway, the obese would have to be haunted if they didn’t lose and continue to keep their weight off, the workaholics would have to be barred from working long and stressful hours, the sedentary would have to be coerced into community physical work, the anorexic and bulimic would have to be force fed, the alcoholics would have to be forced to stay dry, the diabetics would have to be scolded for abnormal glucose levels! And this only partly covers organ transplants! Can we simply imagine what conditions would have to be attached to the gift of life through blood transfusions?

Since imperfection is naturally human, ASH should go peddle their absurd and immoral policies to some humanoids or godly creatures at another planet. The sooner the better!

BON VOYAGE!

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY

Dr. Michael Siegel was once again the guest of a FORCES round table interview. This time the discussion evolved around the unfair discrimination of smokers.

Indeed smokers have not only been de-normalized socially, they are increasingly discriminated against for employment and healthcare. Although we believe that private employers should have the right to make their own rules when it comes to ‘’on the job’’ smoking and they should have the privilege to decide who they feel is the ‘’best’’ man or woman for the job, we are unfortunately very much against the developing trend where employers are relying on political correctness and public support to discriminate a group of people that they believe is costing them more money. As we see it, if obese people, alcoholics, the handicapped and other groups of people, had public opinion against them the way smokers do, employers would not hesitate to also refuse employment to these groups of people. What is even more repulsive is that public opinion against smokers is the result of government approved insistent propaganda that encourages hostility towards smokers. This resembles a modern form of eugenics whereby only the flawless and the healthiest are deserving citizens.

Even more scandalous is the trend of the medical community who are now starting to refuse to treat smokers for ailments completely unrelated to smoking. This trend is quite spread in the UK where the health system is public and in a financial crisis. This refusal to operate has even been extended to obese people. Many have opined that it simply has to do with saving money. Much like employers, the public healthcare system relies mostly on a complaisant public who remain silent and untouched by such practices because they were conditioned to believe that smokers and the obese brought it upon themselves.

One important point that all should pay close attention when listening to this interview, is the groupthink mentality of tobacco control. Dr. Siegel believes that change towards more ethical and fair policies will not happen from within because the careers and livelihoods of tobacco control professionals would be destroyed if they dared express dissent. There are less than a handful of very wealthy groups that set the agenda for the whole movement and distribute the funds to all the smaller ones who must obey to the dogmatic tobacco control philosophy or see any future grants denied. After having unsuccessfully attempted for seven years to reason with his tobacco control colleagues, Dr. Siegel decided to take it to the public because he felt that the only way to hold the tobacco control movement accountable, is to reveal the truth publicly.

You will have heard it from someone from within: Spread the truth.


Listen to the interview at: How ‘’They’’ Are Treated

DISSIDENCE OR ORTHODOXY?

Dr Michael Siegel, prominent anti-tobacco activist, was recently the guest of Mr. Gian Turci at a FORCES round table discussion on the present state of tobacco control.

During the 35 minute discussion, Dr Siegel gave his insightful opinion on how his movement shifted from tobacco control to smoker control, how his disagreement with some of the more extreme tactics of a movement he helped create has cost him human and financial damages and how tobacco control is making it impossible for tobacco companies to research for new technologies towards a less harmful cigarette.

Listen to the discussion at: Dissidence or Orthodoxy ?

Read Dr Siegel’s take of the interview: Dissidence or Orthodoxy? My Interview on FORCES International Roundtable

PROSTITUTION

Dr. Michael Siegel is seeing more and more clearly through his movement. In one of the latest posts in his blog, he’s commenting on the partnership between tobacco control and the pharmaceutical industry. ‘’The Rest of the Story’’ comment begins with this paragraph: ‘’ In my view, the acceptance of pharmaceutical industry sponsorship by a conference which aims to objectively discuss science and objectively consider policy strategies to promote smoking cessation amounts to prostitution of the scientific integrity of the global tobacco control movement.’’

C.A.G.E. and others, have been denouncing this conflict of interest incessantly without any politician or media paying any attention, let alone conducting an investigation or inquiry on it. It does not only amount to prostitution of the scientific integrity, Dr. Siegel. The pharmaceutical lobby is shaping policy and our lives not only through the smoking issue but on various other fronts that affect us all.

There will never be too many of us decrying this dangerous conflict of interest, so all citizens should get involved in making politicians aware that we are clearly seeing through Big Pharma tactics and we demand that public health should be totally independent of any powerful lobbies that are in business selling cures for diseases they often invent through social engineering.

Please read Dr. Siegel’s comment: Prostitution of Tobacco Control Science and Policy: World Conference on Tobacco or Health Accepts Big Pharma Sponsorship

SCIENCE BY PRESS RELEASE

Sometime ago Dr. Michael Siegel commented in his blog about a practice that he very accurately labeled: Science by Press Release. You can read his comments here .

We recently stumbled across a dated press release issued by the American Academy of Neurology on May 1, 2007 that you can read here:

Not only is the title misleading, to put it mildly, the study had not even been completed yet at the time of this press release. From the press release itself we can read the following:

“We are still conducting analyses to control for other factors that may be influencing these results, but this finding potentially implicates lifetime exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke as a risk factor for dementia in older adults,” said study author Thaddeus Haight of UC Berkeley.

The following statement can be found at: MedPage Today

The findings did not meet the test of statistical significance, but pointed to second-hand or passive smoking as a possible additive risk factor for dementia.

"It's actually quite plausible that second-hand smoke, given its effects on the cardiovascular system, can affect the risk of dementia indirectly through the clinical cardiovascular disease pathway," he said. "But what's less well known is whether there are actually direct effects that may be neurotoxic effects with respect to people's cerebral functioning, and the neurotoxic effects of second-hand smoke with respect to some neurodegenerative process."

It's also not known whether passive smoking has an effect on dementia through subclinical processes, he said.

We can clearly see, how from a ‘’plausibility’’ – that is already a factor that can bias the findings -- and without yet controlling for any confounding factors, we end up with headlines such as ‘’Secondhand Smoke Increases Risk of Dementia’’ in the various news websites. And these are only the ones we found. How many other reporters picked up on the press release and gave it the same headline? How many of us actually read the fine print and the studies themselves to get to the true story as opposed to only reading headlines?

Incidentally, this was in May 2007 and we haven’t found any other follow-ups to the study. Chances are that even if it was found that their study came up with false preliminary conclusions, we won’t hear a word about it. It best serves their agenda to leave the public with a false impression, than to preserve their own scientific integrity.

From Science Daily Secondhand Smoke Increases Risk Of Dementia
From WQAD Second-Hand Smoke Linked to Dementia
From Mooshee Health News Secondhand Smoke Increases Risk Of Dementia
From the San Diego Union Tribune Smoke gets in your mind
From Rehab today Does Secondhand Smoke Increase Risk of Dementia? (the most honest headline)
From Medicexchange Secondhand smoke increases risk of dementia
From the Alzheimer’s Society of Huron County Secondhand Smoke Increases risk of Dementia

SLANDER AND IGNORE

Dan Romano and Iro Cyr, C.A.G.E. president and vice-president respectively, were the guests of Maryetta Ables, president of FORCES, for a ‘’round table’’ discussion on the topic of slander, libel and defamation.

The discussion evolved around why grass roots organizations such as C.A.G.E., FORCES and even some more reasonable anti-tobacco advocates such as Dr. Michael Siegel, are falsely accused of being tobacco funded, who funds many anti-tobacco and other interest groups and why, and what you as an individual can do to help gain back some of the civil liberties you have lost and are continually losing.

We would like to extend our thanks to FORCES for inviting us to express our point of view on this very important topic and invite everyone to listen to this round table discussion at: Slander and Ignore and their other round table discussions at: http://www.forces.org/Multimedia_Portal/category.php?section=Interviews