Easing of coercive anti-smoking tactics welcome

For weeks now, the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association have criticized the governor and legislature for cutting funding for smoking-ban enforcement and smoking cessation. Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Veritas Vincit. Pro Libertate”

Since: Jun 08

peoples republic of Madison

#43 Jun 29, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
And you do it very well. You seem precisely nothing.
Your utter line of crap was dealt with when it appeared in this thread, titled "Osteen doesn't make it":
http://www.topix.com/forum/health/smoking/T8U...
If anyone is interested, check it out. I humored this bozo by resurrecting the thread myself, so it is among the top set in the forum. I won't humor him by going through the entire debunking effort again here.
Yes and lard butt still can't get through that pea sized brain that the EPA got caught cheating. So says the federal cour, the congressional research service and science in general. Anti-smoking activist are the only ones embracing Meta-analysis on observational studies, why? because it gives activist too much latitued to cheat.
http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.co...
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#44 Jun 29, 2011
Free_America wrote:
<quoted text>Yes and lard butt still can't get through that pea sized brain that the EPA got caught cheating. So says the federal cour, the congressional research service and science in general. Anti-smoking activist are the only ones embracing Meta-analysis on observational studies, why? because it gives activist too much latitued to cheat.
http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.co...
See above, please.

“Veritas Vincit. Pro Libertate”

Since: Jun 08

peoples republic of Madison

#45 Jun 29, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
See above, please.
Hey Lard-A still await your proof!!!!!
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#46 Jun 29, 2011
The main letter sports a link to this earlier one:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/opinion/reduce...

($800 million/year from tobacco taxes and they can't shake loose a million to help with the quit line?)

and there are some other links to related content from that letter.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#47 Jun 30, 2011
Free_America wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL I made my case, I still await yours. The fact is they cheated and used the questionable methodology of Meta-analysis and when that didn't work they cheated again doubling the margin of error by reducing the CI to 90% but again you antis' love to play fast and loose with the facts.
Look, SHS comes from only one source. Smokers. It is easy to detect, it isn't hard to identify (usually), and there is a VERY simple way to protect people from it.

Are you honestly saying that the risk assessment for a substance like that should use the same confidence interval used for carcinogens like Radon or Dioxin?

“Veritas Vincit. Pro Libertate”

Since: Jun 08

peoples republic of Madison

#48 Jun 30, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, SHS comes from only one source. Smokers. It is easy to detect, it isn't hard to identify (usually), and there is a VERY simple way to protect people from it.
Are you honestly saying that the risk assessment for a substance like that should use the same confidence interval used for carcinogens like Radon or Dioxin?
Of course, 95% is considered the gold standard. Of course the activist at the EPA couldn't prove anything at that level so again they had to cheat. Here is good primer on how to read a study from Children's mercy hospital.
http://www.childrensmercy.org/stats/journal/c...
If you look at the actual studies included in the EPA report and not the Meta don on it. You would find no statistical risk on the vast Majority of them. As a matter of fact the WHO study that they tried to bury. When they got caught the press release read
"Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer - Do Not Let Them Fool You."
But if you look at the actual study the only thing you will find significant is the protective effect on children exposed.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/19/...
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#49 Jun 30, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Look, SHS comes from only one source. Smokers. It is easy to detect, it isn't hard to identify (usually), and there is a VERY simple way to protect people from it.
Are you honestly saying that the risk assessment for a substance like that should use the same confidence interval used for carcinogens like Radon or Dioxin?
Free_America wrote:
<quoted text>Of course, 95% is considered the gold standard. Of course the activist at the EPA couldn't prove anything at that level so again they had to cheat. Here is good primer on how to read a study from Children's mercy hospital.
Okay. Just wanted to be clear. Here's the EPA response to the bilge from the tobacco industry claiming the switch/flaw in the confidence interval:

"Critics of the EPA report have charged that EPA changed the confidence interval in order to come to a predetermined conclusion. However, the conclusion that secondhand smoke is a known human carcinogen simply does not hinge on whether or not a 95% or 90% confidence interval" was used. A confidence interval is used to display variability in relative risk estimates in the epidemiology studies. As discussed above, the Group A designation is based on the total weight of the available evidence. The consistency of results that are seen in the numerous studies examined lead to a certainty of greater than 99.9% that secondhand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers.

"Use of what is called in statistics a one-tailed test of significance," which often corresponds to a 90% confidence interval, is a standard and appropriate statistical procedure in certain circumstances. The one-tailed test" is used when there is prior evidence that if there is an effect from a substance, it is highly likely to be an adverse rather than a protective effect, or vice versa. In the case of secondhand smoke, an extensive database exists for direct smoking indicating that if chemically similar secondhand smoke also has a lung cancer effect, this effect is likely to be similarly adverse. EPA used one-tailed significance tests for lung cancer in both external drafts of the risk assessment document as well as the final report. Ninety percent confidence intervals were also used in other EPA cancer risk assessments, including methylene chloride, coke oven emissions, radon, nickel, and dioxin.

"In the non-cancer respiratory effects portions of the report, two-tailed tests" and 95% confidence intervals were used, since there was less prior evidence from smokers to suggest that secondhand smoke would cause bronchitis, pneumonia, and ear infections in children."

So you see, they DID use EXACTLY the same confidence interval for ETS and lung cancer that they used for RADON and lung cancer.

Where's the beef?
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#50 Jun 30, 2011
Free_America wrote:
But if you look at the actual study the only thing you will find significant is the protective effect on children exposed.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/90/19/...
No single factor makes results significant or insignificant. The failure of your claimed protective effect to show up with any frequency in the body of scientific data would result in its being disregarded as an "outlier"--not to be confused with the homonymic phrase you must hear so often if you talk the way you post.

“Veritas Vincit. Pro Libertate”

Since: Jun 08

peoples republic of Madison

#51 Jun 30, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Okay. Just wanted to be clear. Here's the EPA response to the bilge from the tobacco industry claiming the switch/flaw in the confidence interval:
"Critics of the EPA report have charged that EPA changed the confidence interval in order to come to a predetermined conclusion. However, the conclusion that secondhand smoke is a known human carcinogen simply does not hinge on whether or not a 95% or 90% confidence interval" was used. A confidence interval is used to display variability in relative risk estimates in the epidemiology studies. As discussed above, the Group A designation is based on the total weight of the available evidence. The consistency of results that are seen in the numerous studies examined lead to a certainty of greater than 99.9% that secondhand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers.
"Use of what is called in statistics a one-tailed test of significance," which often corresponds to a 90% confidence interval, is a standard and appropriate statistical procedure in certain circumstances. The one-tailed test" is used when there is prior evidence that if there is an effect from a substance, it is highly likely to be an adverse rather than a protective effect, or vice versa. In the case of secondhand smoke, an extensive database exists for direct smoking indicating that if chemically similar secondhand smoke also has a lung cancer effect, this effect is likely to be similarly adverse. EPA used one-tailed significance tests for lung cancer in both external drafts of the risk assessment document as well as the final report. Ninety percent confidence intervals were also used in other EPA cancer risk assessments, including methylene chloride, coke oven emissions, radon, nickel, and dioxin.
"In the non-cancer respiratory effects portions of the report, two-tailed tests" and 95% confidence intervals were used, since there was less prior evidence from smokers to suggest that secondhand smoke would cause bronchitis, pneumonia, and ear infections in children."
So you see, they DID use EXACTLY the same confidence interval for ETS and lung cancer that they used for RADON and lung cancer.
Where's the beef?
Wrong they did not use meta-analysis on those studies so you are comparing apples to oranges. Samet even admitted that meta-analysis is not widely accepted in observational studies on page 21 of the surgeon generals report. He even admitted that it may not be accurate based on the selection process and bias within the studies which was one of Osteens main arguments. So Osteens decision was valid and admitted to by one of it's authors
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondh...
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#52 Jun 30, 2011
Free_America wrote:
Samet even admitted that meta-analysis is not widely accepted in observational studies on page 21 of the surgeon generals report.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondh...
More disinformation. Acknowledging that there are still backey lackeys making a stink is not saying they are right.

I believe if you are honest enough to include a little more of the quote you will find the statement that meta-analysis was used where and when it is the best (therefore appropriate) tool available.

ARE you capable of being that honest?
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#53 Jun 30, 2011
Free_America wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong they did not use meta-analysis on those studies so you are comparing apples to oranges.
Use or non-use of meta-analysis is an entirely different issue from the use of the 90% confidence interval. This latter has now been dealt with. You claimed that the EPA should have used the same CI for ETS as for Radon, and they did. End of that discussion.
You no longer have any credibility on that score.
Sorry for your loss.
Hugh Jass

Nashville, TN

#54 Jun 30, 2011
Free_America wrote:
So Osteens decision was valid and admitted to by one of it's authors
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondh...
No, Osteen AND the issues with meta-analysis were both introduced with this:

"The central role of meta-analysis in interpreting and applying the evidence related to involuntary smoking and disease has led to focused criticisms of the use of meta-analysis in this context. Several papers that acknowledged support from the tobacco industry
have addressed the epidemiologic findings for lung cancer, including the selection and quality of the studies, the methods for meta-analysis, and doseresponse associations (Fleiss and Gross 1991; Tweedie and Mengersen 1995; Lee 1998, 1999)."

The context here is that the industry needed to attack the research, and the research used meta-analysis, so the industry attacked meta-analysis. To show the scope of the attack, there is a cursory description of the Osteen proceedings, concluding with the fact that the proceedings were found not to have been lawful.

All of which you know very well, because it was covered ad nauseum here:

http://www.topix.com/forum/health/smoking/T8U...

You never tire of spamming us with the same discredited propaganda efforts though, do you?

“Veritas Vincit. Pro Libertate”

Since: Jun 08

peoples republic of Madison

#55 Jul 1, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
Use or non-use of meta-analysis is an entirely different issue from the use of the 90% confidence interval. This latter has now been dealt with. You claimed that the EPA should have used the same CI for ETS as for Radon, and they did. End of that discussion.
You no longer have any credibility on that score.
Sorry for your loss.
#Wrong again, they used meta-analysis on studies that all had a CI of 95%, when they couldn't get the results they wanted they lowered the CI on the meta to 90% thereby compounding errors. It is not the same as starting out with a 90% CI and then using that same CI on the meta. Big difference.

“Veritas Vincit. Pro Libertate”

Since: Jun 08

peoples republic of Madison

#56 Jul 1, 2011
Hugh Jass wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Osteen AND the issues with meta-analysis were both introduced with this:
"The central role of meta-analysis in interpreting and applying the evidence related to involuntary smoking and disease has led to focused criticisms of the use of meta-analysis in this context.<snip>
Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? That is tobacco controls spin on the decision. This is from the actual decision.

"Recognizing problems, EPA attempted to confirm the theory with epidemiologic studies. After choosing a portion of the studies, EPA did not find a statistically significant association. EPA then claimed the bioplausibility theory, renominated the a priori hypothesis, justified a more lenient methodology. With a new methodology, EPA demonstrated from the 88 selected studies a very low relative risk for lung cancer based on ETS exposure. Based on its original theory and the weak evidence of association, EPA concluded the evidence showed a causal relationship between cancer and ETS. The administrative record contains glaring deficiencies.."

Now those 88 studies were the Meta analysis, they did not use all studies which introduces the Publication Bias that I and others refer to. So again you are wrong!

“POOR BRAINWASHED ANTISMOKER”

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#57 Jul 1, 2011
Free_America wrote:
<quoted text>Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? That is tobacco controls spin on the decision. This is from the actual decision.
"Recognizing problems, EPA attempted to confirm the theory with epidemiologic studies. After choosing a portion of the studies, EPA did not find a statistically significant association. EPA then claimed the bioplausibility theory, renominated the a priori hypothesis, justified a more lenient methodology. With a new methodology, EPA demonstrated from the 88 selected studies a very low relative risk for lung cancer based on ETS exposure. Based on its original theory and the weak evidence of association, EPA concluded the evidence showed a causal relationship between cancer and ETS. The administrative record contains glaring deficiencies.."
Now those 88 studies were the Meta analysis, they did not use all studies which introduces the Publication Bias that I and others refer to. So again you are wrong!
you are driving HJ nuts with facts and it shows LOL

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

American Cancer Society Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Walking while you work (Apr '12) Jan 7 PD_Lape 2
Fighting Breast Cancer - What You Can Do (Oct '11) Oct '14 Karing1 7
cbd canabaniods Oct '14 Tim Shankle 1
Did Selena Gomez go to rehab to get over Justin... (Feb '14) Jul '14 Big mike 14
Prostate cancer screening may do more harm than... (Nov '11) May '14 Miamor 2
Navy mulls banning tobacco sales on all bases, ... (Mar '14) Mar '14 ItsAFact 3
Making strides against breast cancer (Mar '14) Mar '14 Voice of Reality 1
More from around the web