Why? Because they can get away with it
Monday, October 22, 2007 
Another thought-provoking article on Michael Siegel's tobacco-related blog, The Rest of the Story. In recent years, Prof Siegel's site has become required reading for anyone with an interest in the smoking debate. According to his blog profile:
I am a physician who specialized in preventive medicine and public health. I am now a professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University School of Public Health. I have 20 years of experience in tobacco control, primarily as a researcher. My areas of research interest include the health effects of secondhand smoke, policy aspects of regulating smoking in public places, effects of cigarette marketing on youth smoking behavior, and the evaluation of tobacco control program and policy interventions.
Tobacco industry stooge? I think not. The title of his most recent post asks, 'Why has the tobacco control movement lost its scientific integrity?'. He addresses this question (which, you will notice, includes a very clear statement) before concluding:
This is the new era of tobacco control ... And it has truly become a free-for-all for anti-smoking organizations.
Imagine this: the anti-smoking groups can actually claim that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure is enough to cause hardening of the arteries. They can actually claim that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure increases your risk of a fatal heart attack to the same level as that of an active smoker. They can actually claim that two hours of secondhand smoke increases your risk of sudden death from a cardiac arrhythmia.
And they can get away with it. That's why I think the anti-smoking groups have lost their scientific integrity. Because they can get away with it.
Full post HERE.
Simon Clark
Further to Michael Siegel's comments (above), I have just received an email thanking me for attending the Towards a Smokefree Society Conference in Edinburgh last month. Most of the presentations are now available on the conference website - click HERE. As you can see, it was a pretty comprehensive programme - if you enjoy being brainwashed. Debate? Don't be silly. In their world, there is no debate.
Reader Comments (5)
Simon - As an organisation, Forest should be asking the question "Why SHOULD these organisations get away with it?" and coming up with counter-measures to repudiate such ludicrous statements. Even as an non-scientist, it is clear that these statements have be made by people from La-La land, where are the bodies falling in the streets, name names!! They bring the scientific community into disrepute. When some research does actually show a strong correlation with some illness and exposure to whatever, are you not suprised that the general public thinks "not another scare story".
I think the fable of Crying Wolf is more than apt for this article.
Siegel is great but let's not forget, his position on smokers is tantamount to saying: "ha, ha, don't be silly, you know smokers don't have three heads they only have two."
On this thread, see my response towards the end with regard to Siegel's comments on the "synergistic" interplay of the chemicals in ETS. It makes me wonder what fantasy Siegel will come up with next to uphold his view that ETS is dangerous.
Please let us have undistorted statistcal evidence that:
1. Smoking causes cancer without genetic distortion.
2. SHS causes any form of illness, particulary cancer.
In the absence of the above, please can we have an admission that the legion of lies supporting the above is, in fact, rubbish.
Bill asks why FOREST have not attempted to combat the lies from ASH etal. Put simply when the organisation focuses it's energies in being seen to be important rather than actually using their funds in a coordinated campaign of rebuttal. There are scientists and research out there that holds the key but it has never been exploited. Too many pro smoking groups want to lead rather than integrate and it it leaves an open goal for ASH etal to continually score. It is not a coincidence that we now have Alcohol and food being attacked in the same way with the same open goal approach by the stakeholders, blindly waiting for more draconian nanny laws.
I am not a scientist but as a child was brought up in a welsh mining valley where 60 woodbines a day was the norm. People did die of coal dust related illnesses but if there were risks from passive smoking there would be few of my generation left- but- I know- I will die a year younger because of it! This sort of science holds more mystery than religion.