Tuesday
Apr072009
The politics of secondhand smoke
Tuesday, April 7, 2009 
I have been reading the comments (101 so far) on last Friday's post. I have nothing to add except to refer readers, especially our friend Rollo Tommasi, to the 2005 Forest report Prejudice and Propaganda: The Truth About Passive Smoking.
The 50pp document, which features a lively introduction by Lord Harris of High Cross, our late chairman, is divided into three sections: Questions and Answers about ETS, Epidemiology and ETS, and Examining the Evidence on ETS.
Nothing that has been said or written since prompts me to change my mind that the dangers of secondhand smoke have been greatly exaggerated for reasons that have far more to do with politics than health.
You can download the full report HERE.
Reader Comments (156)
Sally, I do not think it matters if Rollo is real or not. As has been pointed out, the information itself is what matters and various people (many of them probably important) read this blog and other pages, thus they read the information. Also, do not be under the assumption that because we post on here we do not do other things.
Rollo Tommasi wrote: I was fascinated by Idlex’s belief that the first Doll and Peto questionnaire asked questions in exactly the same way as was reported in the 1954 article.
What Doll and Peto questionnaire? Peto didn't start working with Doll until the 1970s. I don't know what you are talking about.
There are two questionnaires that I'm interested in. The first was the 3 page questionnaire used in the London Hospitals study that was published in 1950 by Doll and Hill. The second was the much shorter questionnaire used in the Doll and Hill British Doctors study that was published in 1954.
Now, as far as I can see, Doll and Hill didn't publish the actual questionnaire along with their conclusions. So I don't know exactly what questions the hospital patients and the doctors were asked. I only know what has been written - by Doll among others - elsewhere. The situation is quite different with the Wynder and Graham paper of that year, in which the questionnaire they used is reproduced in the paper. Perhaps Doll and Hill published the questionnaire somewhere, but I haven't seen it.
I believe that you are right that the doctors were asked follow-up questions. But I don't know when they were asked these questions, or what the questions were.
And as for Idlex suggesting that Doll might have been leaned on heavily by peers to change his views – please! If you have evidence that this happened, then show it. Otherwise, scurrilous allegations have no place in a supposedly mature debate.
What's scurrilous about it? My belief (which you don't share) is that, while Sir Richard Doll was convinced that smoking caused lung cancer, he didn't believe that passive smoking posed a threat to third parties. That's my reading of what he said on Desert Islands Discs, and of what he said elsewhere at other times. But he seems to have changed his mind in the last few years of his life. And since I know that some of his antismoking colleagues were rather shocked by what he'd said on Desert Island Discs, I can well imagine that some of them may have taken him to task about it. And this may have explained the apparent change of heart.
Now you seem to believe that Sir Richard Doll was always of the belief that not only active smoking was dangerous, but that passive smoking was dangerous too, and that he never changed his mind. But if you are to persuade me of this, you will need to provide some evidence for it.
When Sir Richard Doll said, "the effects of other people smoking in my presence are so small that it doesn’t worry me", I think it is perfectly reasonable to interpret this to mean that Doll didn't think passive smoking was anything worth worrying about - and not just by him, but by anybody. You suggest that the wider context of the interview would reveal that this was not what he meant at all. But you are unable to produce that context and demonstrate it. And the onus is on you to show this, not me, or Simon Clark.
If, for example, at some murder trial, a recording of the defendant is played in which he is heard to say to the deceased, "I'm going to kill you!", the defence may well claim that the words were taken out of context, and were playful banter. But the onus is surely on the defence to produce the context, and show that the defendant was jesting, if that was indeed the case.
More generally, it seems to me transparently obvious that antismoking researchers are divided on the matter of passive smoking. The 'old guard' - by which I mean Wynder and Doll - seem not to have thought it posed a significant threat. Their successors, or some of them, seem to have thought that it was indeed a significant threat. I can of course understand why someone like yourself would wish to play down this division, and restore a semblance of unity to the antismoking movement.
This division would explain the different justifications offered for a smoking ban. For those who believe that passive smoking is a significant threat, the ban will save the lives of people who would be otherwise exposed. For those who don't believe there is a threat from passive smoking, the ban is seen as 'encouraging' smokers to give up smoking, and so save their own lives.
Of course it matters if Mister Rollo is real or not RichW, are you normally in the habit of conversing with fictitious characters then? Doctor Who states that there is a parallel universe out there and we are all under threat from it, have you written to him to oppose or agree with his views?
As I have already said on here, I am new to this site, but I am not new to life, and I assure you I can tell a fake when I see one. As I have read through the various posters' comments on here, I have also caught a glimpse of their private lives interspersed within their writings, but I have not caught any such glimpse when reading the elongated garblings of Mister Rollo. (or his wife).
It also seems quite normal on here to answer one's critics, as you have done, and as I am now doing, so why, you might well ask, has Mister Rollo not even defended himself or his wife with regard to my comments about them?
Why also would so many 'important people' read this blog? They would if something important was happening on it, but not when it is a constant rehash of the same old 'facts' which anyone can Google up for themselves in a couple of minutes. This is why I am saying that this Rollo character is a completely fictitious rogue, maybe even planted here by the likes of Ash. His sole objective is to create mischief and mayhem. You will never get the better of him, and he will never get the better of you, so why on earth are you bothering?
Sally G wrote: This is my argument, this is why I say he is coercing you all into wasting your time. He knows you could and should, be putting your energies into fighting the real villains, and if you did, you would have a very strong chance of stating your case and winning your battle, but while you are wasting time with 'fiction', you will achieve nothing!
But Rollo is one of the real villains! And I'm sure he would be the first to admit it. It doesn't matter whether Rollo Tommasi is his real name or not. There is without doubt somebody somewhere who is typing his messages.
Neither is he coercing anybody. He is simply disagreeing. It is surely up to the individuals who post on this blog to make up their own minds about who they will and will not reply to. I won't refuse to debate something with someone just because they happen to disagree with me. Indeed it's rather hard to have a discussion if one is in complete agreement with somebody, because then there isn't much to talk about.
And it is, if anything, one of the greatest failings of the antismoking movement that they won't talk to their opponents, but will make every effort to shut them up. This is what our host, Simon Clark, found when he attended a meeting at the EU a year or so ago, and several people present threatened to walk out because he was there. They did not want to listen to a representative of smokers or of the tobacco business. The same happened earlier this year, when antismoking organisations successfully lobbied the EU to revoke permission to hold the TICAP conference in one of the EU buildings. Not only are the views of smokers to be ignored in framing new legislation to further restrict smoking, but smokers cannot even be permitted to discuss smoking among themselves.
As I've already said, most antismokers don't have anything coherent to say, except to repeat what they have been conditioned to believe. It's very rarely that one encounters someone like Rollo Tommasi, and I'm personally interested in what he has to say. He may well, for all I know, be able to make some real contributions to a debate.
Sally G wrote: You will never get the better of him, and he will never get the better of you, so why on earth are you bothering?
But is not the dispute between Rollo Tommasi and the rest of us here a microcosm of the wider dispute that is taking place? Are we to also say in the wider macrocosm that we smokers will never get the better of antismokers, nor will they ever get the better of us, so why bother?
Rollo Tommasi has come here to level several charges against Forest:
It claims Sir Richard Doll said on Desert Island Discs that he wasn’t worried about the effects of passive smoking on his own health - that’s a complete misquotation and misrepresentation of his professional judgement on passive smoking.
We have now managed to establish that it was an accurate quotation, and that what Doll said was:
"the effects of other people smoking in my presence are so small that it doesn’t worry me."
And since Rollo agrees that Doll said this, it seems reasonable to suppose that it was a true representation of what Sir Richard Doll thought at the time, though he may well have thought something else later. However Rollo wishes to place these words in a wider context, but has so far failed to produce that context.
I think you are rather misrepresenting Rollo when you suggest that he has come here simply to argue with us. I think he has instead wanted to argue with Simon Clark, who very seldom comments here.
If I am wasting my time, it is probably in arguing with you, since you seem to have only come here to tell people that they are wasting their time arguing with people - like yourself - who don't reveal their identity.
I agree with you Idlex, that we are all wasting our time, including yourself and including me, in carrying on with this ridiculous so called debate about a parson who doesn't exist or join in, i.e. this Rollo character. This is exactly what I said to start with, Rollo isn't as silly as he first sounds, he is achieving his prime objective, which is making the likes of you and many other others on here, which now includes me, to do nothing constructive, other than argue with each other and occasionally Mr Rollo, about a subject which does not need proving, as so many of you have already unearthed the 'facts' for all to see.
Your argument with me seems to be about the fact that you have the right to argue with anyone who disagrees with you, and you certainly do Idlex, but what I am saying, is how many times can you repeat the same old lines over and over again? What for? If a person cannot understand when the 'facts' are laid out in front of him, then I don't believe he will ever understand.
But I think there is another side to this story, which is that Rollo wants to make you believe that he doesn't understand anything, and that he is ignorant of the 'facts'. That way, you will do exactly what you are doing with him, and that is, engaging him in so called debate, i.e. wasting your time!
As for me not revealing my identity, I have not made up a fictitious name, I have used my real first name and just given the initial of my surname, and I have already told you the reason for that, which is to protect my job and my family.
SallyG
A couple of things (or more...)
SallyG
A couple of thing (or maybe more...)
Rollo is not ignorant of the facts. There is no coercian, provocative commentary perhaps. He often uses the 'ignore' technique, just ignore it :). Tip:- Note what he ignores.
I believe his 'wife' is related to the natural gardener and provides satire.
As for ....debating? Well sometimes it is intellectual banking other times interesting.
Yes the facts are well known though still obscured by clouds even with google.
As others have said, this is not all we do. What would you do? As Colin asked: How would you 'get organized'?
Surely it isn't up to me, a newcomer on here, to tell you how to get organised? The Colin you refer to is, if I am not mistaken, one of the 'names' over on another well known smoker friendly website, which has been in existence for a number of years, and if he doesn't know what to do, then God help us all.
But in reality, you only have to stop and look at where you are at. If I am not wrong I believe FOREST has been going even longer than the other site, ten years if I am not mistaken? It is FOREST who you should be asking how to get organised, not me!
I didn't mention anything about organising in my original post, what I said was that so many people on here seem to have a very good grasp of the law and the way it is being bent to suit the politicians, but instead of using their knowledge to fight the people who imposed this law, they are wasting their time and their knowledge in fighting some fictitious Internet general.
I will repeat; This man is not real, even his name is not real, he has nothing to do with the law or the government who imposed it. He is just some sad character who gets his kicks from quoting blocks of Googled information, as if he is an expert, which he certainly isn't.
Sally, you're missing the wider issue. We're not here because Rollo is here, we're here because we read the blog and subsequently discuss it. I disagree that we are wasting our time, we are discussing studies ,facts, figures and so forth that are very real. As has been stated before, this discussion increases our knowledge and ability to discuss properly.
"Rollo" is not fake. He may use a fake name, and he may be here to wind us up, but he is a real person and he is presenting arguments. Sure, they're largely ridiculous arguments and loaded questions with more than a little of his own brand of ignorance thrown in, but he's still real.
Sally,
Just for clarity: my question was not a plea for suggestions, per se, rather I wanted to know if you had anything useful in mind.
We certainly do know what we are doing and we have launched many successful initiatives in the past, and we have many more lined up. It would be foolish to lay out our plans here, so I am sure you will understand if I do not trot out what we intend here, on a public forum.
You should know, however, that we will win. Smoker bans since the 15th Century (some 20-25 significant bans) have all been overturned.
This one is no different, and will end the same way.
Sally,
Or a Rollo alter-ego? I hope you finally got the point, you did a great job of ignoring very clear answers, just like him!
Just to explain my own position: I have a job where sometimes only my presence is required. I use that time to read blogs like this.
I am not nearly so knowledgeable as Rich, Idlex and the others and am learning a great deal from them, regardless of whether Rollo is present as agent provocateur. I was enjoying this debate very much, the points brought up about Doll, Hill and Fischer were very informative and I did not feel my time was wasted until you started repeating the same criticisms while ignoring the answers and on a much more superficial level than Rollo (in his Rollo incarnation, at least, where the debate has substance, even if he is rather impossible).
Why don't you now contribute something of value?
It seems very suspect to me that you seem to be asking, or telling, me to stop posting, as you say you liked very much what you were hearing before, and do not seem to like what I have to say. That is a shame but I am sorry to say that I disagree with you. My point is that this site could be of much more value if 'real' discussion was used on here, instead of rehashing old 'facts'.
There is another site, that I mentioned before, which is pro-smoking, and from what I have been told, that particular site also started out with the very best of intentions, but slowly and surely the 'debate' on there has deteriorated into something resembling a group of mates, having a bit of fun as they rant about what they just read in their local paper. Nothing wrong in that, but I want to hear and see answers not gripes which go nowhere.
By the way "Kendra", I have just been through this whole thread, and noticed that your name hasn't appeared on it before, yet you tell me that I should contribute something of value to this debate. I would say that trying to get people to use their knowledge and expertise in a gainful way is of much more value than sitting back on the sidelines and saying nothing for the majority of the thread and then piping up just to complain because someone has the guts to speak up for what they believe in.
I can only think of one other person who would want to shut me up, does the name Rollo ring a bell?
Actually Sally I can assure you that Kendra and Rollo are not alone in wanting you to shut up.
Ironically, all of us here, on the smoking board, were discussing smoking. You have come wandering in and taken it not only off course, but over to a whole new track
How about following your own advice and offering something of worth? Criticising us for discussing smoking facts on a smokers board is like going to an old folks home and complaining there's no young blood.- what the hell were you expecting?
How old are you Rich?
Why does that make a difference?
It's a rhetorical question
Sally. You refer to 'another pro-smoking site'. Of what you have said, I believe that you are referring to an anti-prohibition site. Perhaps you would like to name that site to save any confusion. If you want to catch Rollo out stick to one point at a time, as he hates that. He likes to cause confusion by using several issues at one time.
Sally, we all have other lives - you might notice that this is not even the most recent post on the site. I was lucky enough to have 4 days off myself, which was spent mostly outside. So I missed the beginning of this discussion. That you did not see my name previously in the comments signifies nothing whatsoever.
I explained that I am learning from this site as well as a few others. I use the knowledge I gain in other contexts. I had no reason to post a comment here as what was being discussed was quite clear and very interesting to me. Otherwise, I would have commented or questioned. I also had no reason to try to change the focus of the debate.
I did not have a problem with your first comment, asking for clarification and challenging the commenters. I became annoyed when you ignored their answers. There is a huge difference between my not commenting at all and your continued gratuitous aggression. You could have brought up any number of points relevant to the issue and indeed you were kindly welcomed to do so.
You are really behaving like a troll and you're certainly not now in a position to accuse us of wasting time with Rollo, rather we are with you. You have become not only annoying but a bore.
Since you seem to primarily be interested in scoring points off people, you are quite welcome to have the last word in relation to me. Rollo will definitely be a relief if he returns and we can get back to the science or lack thereof. If he does not, I personally am still interested in what can be known about Doll, Hill and Fischer, considering their influential role, although perhaps this thread has run its course.
Rhetorical? That would suggest you detected immaturity or sarcasm in my post, is that so? And if it is so, I apologise, neither was meant - I wrote that with sincerity.
If you come to a smoking board, expect smoking discussion. And you failed to validate your statement that we're wasting our time - as I said before, we don't only come here and our time is divided. However,this serves a purpose as has been stated numerous times: we are discussing and learning, and that education can and will be applied elsewhere. Consider this our training ground if you will
Sally G.
You will find that I too have not contributed previously to this thread. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, I do not buy into the paid-for contrived "research" which has produced all the statistics forever being bandied about. Secondly, there are highly intelligent people already contributing here who put in hours of dedicated research to refute, in detail, statements made by people like Rollo.
They are not wasting their time. Collectively, we need to be able to refute such anti-smoking claims when they are hurled at us.
As a newcomer, you were welcomed here with courtesy and given every opportunity to contribute something useful. Instead, you have been ill-mannered and contributed absolutely nothing.. You have even twice attacked Colin Grainger, of all people! You obviously have no idea who he is and the very high esteem in which he is held.
If you are genuine, I suggest you now do your own research by reading back over the years on this site and also on the F2C site where Colin Grainger's recent "Mission Statement" should give you a glimpse of what has been achieved so far. This is not just in Europe, but has international involvement.
Believe me, we are not just people who come here for a merry chat. Each one of us is active in a much wider context outside of these sites. The information we give to each other - even the humour and satire - is constantly and successfully used elsewhere.
You cannot 'debate' with an anti-smoker as we all know. There will be no quarter given by Rollo and his ilk, regardless of any scientific facts given, or studies demolished, as this 'religion' does not allow for this, and doesn't recognize reason.
However, it is worthwhile to sharpen the blade now and then, as long as not too much time is given to these fanatical cretins.
Sally, a few points.
Forest started in 1979 and is funded by the tobacco industry. Simon Clark is the present director and this is his blogsite.
I have communicated with Rollo on several other comment/blog boards. We have even bantered about meeting up with Paul Flynn to discuss why Labour will be decimated next year.
I do not believe for one instant that the troll who appeared was his wife.
I have already explained that 'the other site' you refer to is a forum not a blogsite. As for the inroads the official organisation is making, it is slow but sure.
Finally. Most on here know who I am. They also know that I am patient and polite. Occasionally however, I will say what has to be said. Sally, you are extremely patronising. One example is where you seemed to think that we did not realise that Rollo Tomassi was a user name. For goodness sake, we are not children who have been on the internet for a couple of days.
Even I've heard of Rollo!
I always think of chocolate though when he appears.
I'm not a science person, I'm a choice person. I love seeing Rollo's arguements melted by those more knowledgeable than me.
He always picks at tiny bits of science and just ignores everything else.
Bless his cotton socks.
Don't be browbeaten by the old-timers on here Sally. You have made very relevant points which are new and full of promise, which is a lot more than can be said about most of their stale old rhetoric. Who do these people think they are, telling you what you should and should not say? This is Simon Clark's site, and if he thinks you are wrong, I am sure he will tell you, or delete your posts.
As for telling you off for 'attacking' Colin Grainger, I have never read anything so ridiculous in my life. Who on earth do she think he is, God? If you do not agree with him then of course you have the right to say so, just as they are telling you, in a very nasty way, that they do not agree with you.
The truth is Sally, that they are safe and warm in their own little environment, and you have come along and upset their little apple-cart. Keep up the good work, we need more like you, with positive strong ideas, not the 'all mouth and no trousers' brigade which try top dominate on here.
p.s. I also find it very strange that since you have spoken up, the mysterious Rollo seems to have disappeared, very strange indeed.
Just wanted to thank Margot for speaking up for my mentor, Colin Grainger.
Keep it up, MJ, the man is never wrong!
I hope I can put my two penneth in. Rollo for all his faults is well mannered, but maybe a trifle misinformed. I have noticed over the last few months that as we have gained more knowledge, Rollo has had to raise his game too. Him stalking us in the blogosphere including here I think is useful. Most of our points are well researched and invariably point to a peer reviewed report.
It shows that there is ample evidence to those who are not part of one side of the argument that SHS is harmless, in a public forum.
Thank you so much Naomi for your kind words. I came to this site because a friend recommended it and also because I am a smoker. I did not expect to be spoken to as if I was some sort of monster just because I have views of my own, and do not fall into line with what the old guard on here have to say. I was under the impression that this was a place where free speech was encouraged not shouted down, as I have been.
I spoke to my friends about it and they couldn't believe it when they read some of the comments which had been hurtled at me. I was determined not to write any more on here, until my friend told me about your post, which I was so pleased to see.
You Naomi, have given me new strength and determination to carry on and speak my mind on here once again. I am determined they will not silence me.
Thank you.
Well done, Sally and Naomi. I'm looking forward to what Sally has to say.
Sally, I'm confused. What has actually been said to you that is so offensive? No one is suppressing your free speech, but you have come marching on here being very patronising and told us we are wasting our time. What, exactly, are you doing that is a) not wasting your time here and b) changing the smoking laws?
Sally
I don't post often on here yet, like many others, I do read this blog. I can understand your frustration with the ban, yet I can also understand the responses that you have received from those who post often here.
Rollo very rarely apprears on this blog, and when he does he always meets his match - as I'm sure you'll agree.
We don't know who is reading this blog. We've a good idea - so we can't just ignore Rollo. We need to debate with him and debate is healthy. Debate, unfortunately is something that the anti-smoking organisations will not engage in - we all know the reason for that as well.
There's no chance the anti-smoking zealots would ever agree to debating with Colin Grainger in a room either. He knows his stuff. Just like many do who post here as well.
The racist National Front (NF) of the seventies had a big problem in that it could not persuade the majority (that it claimed to represent) that an easily identifiable minority was a dirty and filthy burden on society. So what they (the NF) did was use little “white lies” and claim that this minority caused harm (made up tales of rape and violence) to unnamed people in the majority. It mattered not to these puppet masters in the NF that these lies were not true, what was important was that they could not be proven to be untrue. These lies were spread among their footsoldiers in order to get more footsoldiers and to encourage acts of retaliation. This created a platform for their hate agenda out of thin air because it created division, confusion and mistrust where there was none.
Simon,
I have been reading your blog for a long time but have never posted once. I am sorry for being a little cryptic here but I think now would be a good time for you to address Rollo in open debate.
"I think now would be a good time for you to address Rollo in open debate"..Fredrik Eich
I absolutely do not agree. Many of us believe his arguments are based on contrived junk science as, indeed, are those of the entire antismoking movement. To enter any further into debate at that level simply gives it a sort of credence. He has been more than adequately dealt with by learned posters above and I doubt he will be back.
Dave Atherton sums up neatly:-
"I hope I can put my two penneth in. Rollo for all his faults is well mannered, but maybe a trifle misinformed. I have noticed over the last few months that as we have gained more knowledge, Rollo has had to raise his game too. Him stalking us in the blogosphere including here I think is useful. Most of our points are well researched and invariably point to a peer reviewed report.
It shows that there is ample evidence to those who are not part of one side of the argument that SHS is harmless, in a public forum."
For myself, I find it interesting to see how many new names are suddenly appearing here in the wake of Rollo's appearance and subsequent [seemingly] disappearance. By hook or by crook, he is certainly getting his 15 minutes of fame.
RichW, you say you are confused, you indicate that you do not know what has been said by yourself and others on here to offend me so much. I was under the impression, after reading so many of the posts on here that you all do a tremendous amount of reading and taking in what has been said? From what you have said, you seem to have missed an awful lot!
To put the records straight, I have not come "Marching" anywhere. I came onto this site in the same manner as everyone else did. I do not march, I leave that for the more militant posters who seem to like forming closely guarded groups.
As for accusing me of being patronising, please have a look at your last post to me.
I came to this site because it is a free speech site where people can state their views. I read through several different threads and thought there were some very good views being put forward, and then I came to this actual thread, where I saw this Rollo character, so obviously trying his best to wind everyone up. I wondered why anyone was bothering to answer him, when his silly plot was so obvious. I have seen characters like him on other sites before, they are there to aggravate and annoy, they are the type who will argue about anything. If you mentioned the world being round, they would argue it was flat! This is why I said that everyone who bothers to argue with people like him are wasting their time. It is like trying to argue with a drunk on the street, you will never get the better of him, it is better to ignore him and eventually he will go away. You want to argue? Go ahead that is your prerogative, but it is also my prerogative to say I disagree with you.
You ask me what am I doing about changing the smoking laws. Bit of a silly question that don't you think? What are you doing about it, what is anyone doing about it? I have looked at most of the pro-smoking sites, and as far as I can see, nothing has really changed since the ban was brought in here nearly two years ago. Trying to make me feel like I am sort of to blame because the smoking ban hasn't been overturned yet, is absolutely silly and does not wash with me. I want the ban to end as much as I am sure you do and every other sensible person does.
Here are some of the comments which have been said to me, which I class as offensive, and you seem to have missed:
Sally, you are extremely patronising.
you have been ill-mannered and contributed absolutely nothing..
You have even twice attacked Colin Grainger, of all people!
I became annoyed when you ignored their answers.
.... and your continued gratuitous aggression.
You are really behaving like a troll
You have become not only annoying but a bore.
Kendra and Rollo are not alone in wanting you to shut up.
How about following your own advice and offering something of worth?
you did a great job of ignoring very clear answers, just like him(Rollo)
Why don't you now contribute something of value?
Sally, the problem is, those comments directed at you are entirely true from my point of view. And anyway, you say you came here because it is a free speech blog - so accept the free speech.
No one closes ranks here. I'm new to the smoking debate, but when I, and any else, gets involved we are all welcomed and made to feel like good friends. Do not turn this around into 'closing ranks' just because you riled some people up. I found your remarks to me about Dr Who to be insulting, patronising and childish, but I didn't stamp my feet about it.
As has been said about Rollo, we're aware of the game he is playing. But, it still provides a useful way of sharpening our arguments. Rollo has actually introduced me to a couple of researchers and studies that I was previously unaware of, I then went and researched them and continued a debate with him. It does not matter what Rollo's game is, we look at the wider picture: Rollo will not get the better of us because he lacks the truth, and we know he's reliant on dodging questions and twisting things. We also know that other people read these blogs and will see our comments. That is important. We know that by decimating Rollo's, and others, anti-smoking arguments we are a little closer to the end goal because at least one person will stumble across the site, read it, and either be convinced or do their own research.
This is not where we spend all, or even most, of our time. So it is not a waste. Many, many people put a lot of hard work and effort into this whole thing, from trapsing around every pub and club, to writing, to recruiting new members and so forth.I personally relish debates with anti-smokers, for one I acknowledge I an not infallible and may be utterly wrong, so they provide me the opportunity to take new information and digest it. Secondly, it broadens our ability to debate and refute things. For instance, if Rollo mentions a study then we can discuss it, thus allowing any of us to go and debate that study elsewhere, or if an anti-smoker approaches us with the study we have a full arsenal of reproaches to contend it with.
Bearing in mind that most of the population, smokers included, believe the anti-smoking spiel it is imperative that we do these things.
I have deliberately stayed away from this debate the last couple of days, partly because I’ve been busy with other things (including having a life – yes, it is true), and partly because the debate has veered away from the issues I came here to discuss.
It’s interesting to get the chance to see ourselves as others see us. Sally seems to think me as some kind of wind-up merchant. Others (such as Rich) contend that my technique is in “dodging questions and twisting things”. I view myself quite differently. I discuss these issues because I have grown to become deeply interested in them. I’m not here to wind anyone up, although I’m very happy to rattle someone’s cage where I think they have got something very wrong. Like most people here, I am an ordinary punter. And like most people here, I genuinely believe in the points I’m putting forward.
I also see you in a way that you will probably not see yourselves. I see Sally as being hypocritical in being quick to assume that my stance is not genuine and criticise me for that, but then quickly take offence when someone criticises her. And to me it is the pro-smokers on this board who have been “dodging questions and twisting things”. I set out my stall right at the start of this thread by criticising the Forest document, which was what this blog was actually about. Very, very few of the 80-odd comments since have touched on that.
If someone wishes to list what I’ve supposedly ignored and twisted, I’ll try to respond to the points – and will certainly aim to do so if the comments relate directly to my critique of the Forest document. I can recall points about the Doll-Hill studies and about the mortality rate for smokers from lung cancer which I would like to respond to. And, yes, in my haste I did refer to Doll & Peto instead of Doll & Hill in error in an earlier post.
Does anyone else care to offer me the same courtesy of acknowledging or responding to the numerous points I’ve made?
Rollo, be you real or be you false, at least you have not been accused of all the things I have on here. And you know the reason why? In you they have something they all agree on and can argue against, with me they cannot understand that a "smoker" can have the audacity to question their actions.
Don't get me wrong Rollo, I do not agree with you and the things you say, but I certainly do not agree with the ignorance and abuse I have been subjected to on here either. And as I have said before I will not be silenced up by these people.
I am a smoker and I am against the ban, and I intend to say what I believe in, come what may. This is not Nazi Germany, even though some of these people are acting like it is.
Sally the only one acting like it is is you, playing the victim all day and night. Look at all the people disagreeing with Rollo, he doesn't bitch and moan, he fights his corner and whether we agree or not we can't take that from him. You've had a handful of people disagree with you and the drama that's ensued is like we've gone and killed every member of your family!
I also must point out the irony in you stating Rollo is wasting our time, yet you are the only one who has detracted from the smoking discussion.
With that, I'll be dropping this 'discussion', and posting only about the smoking issue from now on.
"Does anyone else care to offer me the same courtesy of acknowledging or responding to the numerous points I’ve made?" - Rollo.
May I Rollo?
I think your point about Doll has validity because there seems to be (to me) some confusion about what Doll really thought about the subject of the harm theory of passive smoking. There also does seem to be evidence that he had later on indicated that he thought that passive smoking kills as has Sir Richard Peto. Doll as a harm theorist had never (as far as I know) quantified ETS related death theory, nor has the harm theorist Gio Batta Gori quantified the theory of ETS related deaths, nor has the harm theorist Sir Richard Peto. However, all three are harm theorists who have so far not quantified these risks (Gio Batta Gori seems to be more sceptical about ETS harm theory).
Rollo, when you stated that "So, when Sir Richard Doll was saying that he was no longer worried about the effects of passive smoking on his health given he was already 89 years old" is this a fact or speculation on your part?
As for your other points I am going to bow out of this one because I am waiting for Simon to address you.
Hi Fredrik. Thank you for your message. I’m happy to oblige.
I’ve looked at the transcript of Gio Gori’s speech to the TICAP conference. I’ assuming this represents a fair reflection of his views – please tell me if you’d rather I looked at other material he’s produced. I have several difficulties with what he says.
Gori argues that, because no study can measure accurately exactly how much secondhand smoke a person has been exposed to over the course of a lifetime, the results of any studies must be false. I totally disagree. The purpose of the studies is to find out, whether exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of certain diseases and, if so, by how much in broad terms. Those are the factors which studies need to discover in order to determine whether passive smoking is a risk to health. All the studies need to elicit for these purposes is a sense of the scale of secondhand smoke to which people have been exposed. Gori’s argument that studies need to discover exactly how much smoke a person was exposed to is only necessary if scientists need to reach a precise figure about what the excess risk of passive smoking is. They don’t.
But Gori falsely tries to argue that studies have tried to reach an exact figure. He says that a precise level of risk of lung cancer has been produced (1.21). I really don’t know where he draws this conclusion from. Individual studies provide both a 95% confidence interval range alongside a figure for estimated risk. Overview studies also speak in terms of ranges. The 2006 US Surgeon General’s report states “The pooled evidence indicates a 20 to 30 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke exposure associated with living with a smoker.” The IARC report states “The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men”. The 2004 SCOTH report states: The evidence published since 1998 continues to point to a causal effect of exposure to SHS on risk of lung cancer. The pooled increased relative risk remains in good agreement with that estimated by Hackshaw, Law and Wald (24%; 13-36%, 95% CI)”.
Gori’s other arguments are equally skewed. He talks about the limitations of retrospective studies. But he says NOTHING about prospective cohort studies, which do not suffer from the limitations he talks about but which have shown very similar results to case-control studies. And he points to the risk of confounders, while ignoring the fact that studies have taken into account the key potential confounders and these have made little difference to overall results.
What I find particularly disturbing about Gori’s line of argument is that he KNOWS the type of study he argues is necessary would be absolutely impossible to undertake in practice. How on earth could researchers ascertain exactly how much passive smoking a person was exposed to over a continuous period of many years from birth? He is trying to set impossibly high standards which no study could hope to meet. And it seems to be nothing other than a device to hide from the truth, that passive smoking is harmful to health.
I’ll come to comments on Doll when I have time.
Because Sally wishes to take the smoking debate to higher levels is no reason call her abusive names. I personally agree with her ideas, which I note, no one seems to have the courage to answer, other than to hurl yet more abuse at her.
She has not detracted from the smoking discussion at all, far from it, she is right on track with saying that we should mobilise our energies into fighting the real enemy, not waste it, in so called "debate" with someone who is simply looking for an argument, which just goes endlessly on and on and eventually ends up back where it started.
Some on here have used the excuse for this endless argument with Rollo as sharpening your debating skills? With all these supposedly newly honed skills, why are so many of you reverting to playground name calling instead then?
I have noticed that Rollo does not try to pull Sally into his "debates". He knows damn well that he would be onto a hiding for nothing if he did. She speaks up and will take no prisoners, unlike some others.
The smoking ban has been in force for nearly two years, and all your arguing with each other has gained us absolutely nothing. Like Sally says, we need to change, we need to focus more, we need to look the other way and laugh when characters like Rollo come along. There is a great deal of work that needs to be done if ever we are to make any headway with this law, and it will not be done in useless argument.
Hi Rollo,
You do not need time to answer this question.
When you stated that "So, when Sir Richard Doll was saying that he was no longer worried about the effects of passive smoking on his health given he was already 89 years old" is this a fact or speculation on your part?
Can you indicated as to whether this is speculation?
Naomi, Sally was greatly offensive in her remarks. As has been said enough times, we ALL do a lot of things regarding this ban elsewhere, and her ignorance to that is responsible for her ridiculous comments. If either of you have suggestions then please state them.
Fredrik – Have no fear. I had every intention of dealing with your query about Sir Richard Doll. But I have other things to do of my day than just talk about passive smoking.
The very, very minimum charge that can be levelled against the various quotes used in the Forest statement are that they are poor evidence. Anybody who claims to be quoting somebody but who cannot provide evidence to prove that they said it cannot expect their quote to be treated very seriously. And Forest’s paper relies to a large extent on quotes which various people (including Sir Richard Doll) supposedly made, but where Forest cannot point to any transcripts or similar proof.
But the issue about Doll’s quote goes further than that. A lot of people heard him say “the effects of other people smoking in my presence are so small that it doesn’t worry me". Some people assume that he meant by that that nobody should be worried by passive smoke. But that is not what he actually said. If he really meant “anybody”, why did he not say that? If people are trying to place an interpretation on a statement which goes beyond the literal interpretation (as people are trying to do with this quote of Doll’s), then the onus is on them to show it is reasonable for his quote to be interpreted in that way. Nobody has yet done that.
Some people on this board claim that Doll had a clear view at that time that passive smoking was not a significant threat to health. But I’ve seen quotes attributed to Doll as early as 1985 saying that “An hour a day in a room with a smoker is nearly a hundred times more likely to cause lung cancer than twenty years spent in a building containing asbestos” (e.g. http://www.cancer.org/downloads/AA/TobaccoAtlas09.pdf). So I don’t accept that Doll considered second hand smoke to be just a minor nuisance.
But what was particularly appalling about the Forest statement was this. By the time Forest wrote their paper, Doll’s views about the dangers of passive smoking were crystal clear (e.g. "As a responsible citizen, I believe that nobody should have to work in an atmosphere polluted by other people’s smoke" (http://www.bma.org.uk/images/Smokefree_tcm41-20691.pdf) and his statement when announcing the results of the IARC study in 2002 that "This is the first time there has been a formal evaluation by scientists that has concluded that involuntary smoking causes lung cancer"). Forest must have known about these statements. They therefore knowingly misrepresented what they knew to be Doll’s views on passive smoking when they included his Desert Island Discs quote in their paper and tried to imply from that that he considered passive smoking to present little risk to health. I think that is pretty despicable behaviour.
Shame that Simon doesn't have the guts to either defend his paper or acknowledge its shortcomings.
“An hour a day in a room with a smoker is nearly a hundred times more likely to cause lung cancer than twenty years spent in a building containing asbestos” (e.g. http://www.cancer.org/downloads/AA/TobaccoAtlas09.pdf)
Yes, but as I'm sure you are aware, Doll was being paid considerable money to defend products like asbestos. So his comments cannot be taken seriously in that context. And I'm sure even you agree that to say an hour of SHS exposure is more dangerous than 20 years of asbestos exposure is ludicrous.
"Some people assume that he meant by that that nobody should be worried by passive smoke. But that is not what he actually said. If he really meant “anybody”, why did he not say that?"
Because it wasn't a scientific discussion on the actual effects of SHS. So he wasn't offering advice or guidance. Furthermore, many people say such phrases as "it doesnt worry me.." to be an encompassing term for "i see little to no risk in that activity". Finally, you are implying that Doll effectively said SHS is a risk but the risk did not bother him, which would mean Doll felt either he had some immunity, or that SHS becomes dangerous after years of exposure and he was at an age when that was unlikely or impossible to reach. As such, even by your own interpretation of his words, SHS is not harmful enough to warrant fear-mongering or a ban
Rich said “I'm sure even you agree that to say an hour of SHS exposure is more dangerous than 20 years of asbestos exposure is ludicrous.” Yes, Rich. But nobody said otherwise. Including Doll. Your quote completely misrepresents the point he was making. He said an hour A DAY of SHS exposure - not a single hour of exposure. And he talked of time spent in a building containing asbestos - not direct exposure to asbestos. Why have you chosen to misrepresent his comments in these ways?
Rich also says that what Doll said on Desert Island Discs “wasn't a scientific discussion on the actual effects of SHS. So he wasn't offering advice or guidance.” Absolutely right, Rich. Which is even more reason why Doll’s unscripted, impromptu comments on DID should not be regarded as valid professional evidence for the purposes of a paper on the dangers of SHS.
I don’t get your last point. I do think it I at least highly possible that Doll’s comments referred to his view that passive smoking was unlikely to cause him harm at his age – because at that point he had not fallen foul of a disease attributed to passive smoking and he was unlikely to in his remaining years. But that is VERY different from Doll saying that passive smoking is unlikely to cause ANYONE harm. So I don’t accept how you can conclude from Doll’s words that “SHS is not harmful enough to warrant fear-mongering or a ban”.
And I see you’ve ducked my point about Doll’s views about the dangers of passive smoking being clear from comments he made after 2001 but before the Forest paper was produced. Have you any comment to make on whether it was acceptable for Forest to use Doll’s quote from 2001 when it was apparent from these later statements that he was clear that passive smoking presents a real danger to public health?
Rollo Tommasi wrote: Anybody who claims to be quoting somebody but who cannot provide evidence to prove that they said it cannot expect their quote to be treated very seriously.
But you have conceded that Doll said what he did on Desert Island Discs.
You have said that Forest misquoted Doll, but they did not misquote him. They quote him exactly as you quote him.
But the issue about Doll’s quote goes further than that. A lot of people heard him say “the effects of other people smoking in my presence are so small that it doesn’t worry me". Some people assume that he meant by that that nobody should be worried by passive smoke. But that is not what he actually said. If he really meant “anybody”, why did he not say that? If people are trying to place an interpretation on a statement which goes beyond the literal interpretation (as people are trying to do with this quote of Doll’s), then the onus is on them to show it is reasonable for his quote to be interpreted in that way. Nobody has yet done that.
You seem to be suggesting that what Doll meant was that passive smoking didn't personally bother him. But why would he appear on Desert Island Discs simply to tell the world about his personal indifference to passive smoking?
Is it not more plausible to suppose that when he said that "the effects of other people smoking in my presence are so small that it doesn’t worry me", he meant that in his personal and professional judgment the effects of other people's smoke were very small, and nothing that he, in his personal and professional judgment, thought worth worrying about, That's certainly what I thought he meant, and I see no reason to change my mind.
We are hampered by not having the full transcript of the programme. I have read that Sue Lawley was surprised by what he said, which I take to mean that she understood his remarks the same way that I did.
Nor is it the first time he said something like this.
"I don't mind in the least if someone in the room lights up a cigarette," he told the Journal of Addiction in 1990. "It's their decision and their life, not mine."
Once again, if this is supposed to refer only to his personal preference, why did he tell the Journal of Addiction about it? Did he also tell them that he liked just one spoonful of sugar in his tea? Surely he is expressing not only his personal opinion but also his professional judgment.
Or, to put it another way, when Doll was speaking thus about passive smoking, if he really was only expressing his personal preference, he should have made it perfectly clear that this was just his personal preference, and it was at variance with his professional judgment, if this actually was the case.
At very least, you should admit that what Doll said was rather unfortunate, because it is open to the interpretation that I, and many others, have placed upon it. If he was not expressing his professional judgment, he should have made this clear.
And it would not be at all surprising if Doll didn't believe that passive smoking posed any significant threat. The other grand old man of tobacco research, Ernst Wynder, also didn't believe it. Both made their names researching active smoking. Neither were among the principal proponents of the passive smoking scare, which began some 25 years after they had conducted their research.
The fact of the matter is that antismoking researchers are divided over passive smoking. Some of them believe it is a threat, and others don't. Some use it as a justification for smoking bans, while others prefer to justify these bans on the grounds that they encourage people to give up active smoking, which is what they see as the significant threat.
As the claims of antismokers get wilder and wilder (e.g. third hand smoking), it isn't really at all surprising if those with any shred of integrity (such as Michael Siegel) distance themselves from what they see as the wilder claims of the movement?
What an absolutely patronising and ignorant person you are RichW. Both Sally and I have contributed new and fresh ideas to these boards, whereas all I can see from yourself, is a great big bag full of hot air. You constantly speak about doing something about the ban "elsewhere". Terribly hush-hush, top secret I suppose, so top secret that no one in the country has heard about it, because Mr Rich, in case you hadn't noticed, the ban is still with us 100%, and people like you, in all your ignorance, are still ranting and raving at anyone who opposes your way of thinking.
Sally was never offensive in her remarks, but I assure you I can be, as I tend to treat like for like. I am not normally the sort of person to use this type of remark, but in your case I will make an exception.
When are you going to make any positive suggestions on here instead of your constant stream of abuse?
Rollo, the only one misquoting Doll is you. The DID was not a scientific debate, but in some ways that makes it more reliable - he is giving an honest opinion. His asbestos claims are still ludicrous, because no study has been done like that and he was paid to protect asbestos, so he cannot be trusted on what he says about it. Furthermore, there's no way an hour a day is a risk. Given that heavy smokers don't tend to get lung cancer until old age, at what age are non-smokers supposed to get it? Studies looking at spouses and work exposure over many,many years still have a low RR. And how many days is Doll talking about? A week? 20 years? I am actually of the opinion that Doll changed his words because of pressure from people in the tobacco control movement, because that is what his words lead me to believe.