Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Hello! New Visitor here! :)

Expand Messages
  • cantiloper
    I must confess... I am not a pipe smoker... just cigarette smoker. Ahhh welll... I think I can qualify as Christian though, courtesy of the Christian
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 5 7:35 PM
      I must confess... I am not a pipe smoker... just cigarette smoker.
      Ahhh welll... I think I can qualify as Christian though, courtesy of
      the Christian Brothers De La Salle of Manhattan College and 16 years
      of Catholic School. :)

      I'm new here, and again I'll be honest, will probably not be a
      regular contributor. I am an activist and have been fighting the
      Antismoking Lobby tooth-and-nail (although peacefully so!) for many
      many moons.

      As pipe smokers, most of you have always been subject to exile after
      dinner if you chose to indulge while eating out at most places, but
      recently the Antismokers have even begun invading people's homes.
      ASH encourages neighbors to mount lawsuits against "smells"
      of "deadly toxic tobacco smoke" from next door. Foster children are
      being taken from smoking foster parents and even birth children are
      being grabbed from smokers on basis of parental smoking during
      custody disputes.

      Your pipe smoking, always limited, is becoming even more
      threatened... and your families are being told that you're killing
      them.

      This is a time you can fight back if you care to. Read the press
      release below and do what you can. I'll carry on any discussion you
      might like, here or in email, but I won't come back uninvited to hit
      your gathering with more "political" messages.

      Smoke in peace!

      :)
      Michael J. McFadden

      =======

      Press Release: 12/05/05

      As you're probably aware, there are very important ban fights in
      several places this week, most notably in Chicago and D.C. The
      Antismokers are pushing VERY hard for bans in both places and we have
      mounted strong fights against them in both places.



      At this critical juncture, something important has come up. Dave
      Kuneman and I have just released a new study that completely and
      totally shoots down one of the major pillars that they rest
      their "urgent need for bans" on. That pillar is made of the Helena
      study and its clones: studies that have looked at heart attack rates
      in selected small towns and claimed dramatic decreases immediately
      after bans were implemented.



      This new study, based on a database literally 1,000 times larger than
      these small ones, DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS their findings: NO effect at
      all from bans. If this news can get spread quickly enough and far
      enough, particularly if it garners anywhere near the massive
      attention that the press lavished on Helena in the first place, it
      could make a massive difference for all of us. Get the below press
      release to any contacts you have, particularly political or media
      contacts. Scour your online newspapers over the past week or two
      for any articles or editorials that mention the Pueblo Study or the
      Helena study and send them a STRONG letter to the editor: those
      studies have now been completely invalidated and the press should
      make up for its earlier reporting of them.



      As you'll see from the press release below and the links at its end,
      we stand a good chance of making a major impact here, but it depends
      on all of you getting the word out to the politicians, to the media,
      and to anyplace you travel on the web.



      Keep your fingers crossed and best of luck to all of us!



      :)

      Michael





      Press Release

      For Immediate Release: December 5 , 2005






      Do Smoking Bans cause a 27 to 40% drop in admissions for myocardial
      infarction in hospitals?

      December 5, 2005

      Antismokers claim that studies have shown that bans bring about an
      immediate and drastic decrease in heart attacks among nonsmokers
      exposed to smoke at work.

      This claim was never true to begin with - the cited studies never
      separated and analyzed nonsmokers as a separate group - and it has
      now been pointed out in the pages of the BMJ that even the claim of
      saving lives among the combined population of smokers and nonsmokers
      might be worthless.

      While many making that claim may have believed their information to
      be accurate, it is now obvious that its basis has been thrown
      strongly into question. As Jacob Sullum noted in a December 1st
      reaction to the announcement, "An effect this dramatic (i.e. an
      immediate and pronounced drop of hospital admissions for heart
      attacks) should have been noticed all over the country..."

      Just a week before the Chicago Aldermen were due to vote on a
      citywide smoking ban, two independent researchers working together,
      David W. Kuneman and Michael J. McFadden, unveiled a new study
      covering a population base roughly 1,000 times as large as the
      previous town-based studies. The new study indicates strongly that
      rather than a 30% decrease in heart attacks, statewide smoking bans
      seem to have literally NO EFFECT AT ALL on heart attack rates.
      Incredibly the data even indicates that California's statewide heart
      attack rate went UP by 6% in the first full year of their total
      smoking ban!

      The data for the study and the basis of its design have been backed
      up and expanded by well-known antismoking researcher Michael Siegel
      who has come out in support of the researchers' approach as
      providing "compelling evidence that brings into question the
      conclusion that smoking bans have an immediate and drastic effect on
      heart attack incidence." His observation is echoed by researcher
      Kuneman who asks, "Ever wonder why you didn't hear about post ban
      heart attack declines in New York City? Or in Minneapolis or Los
      Angeles? Now you know!"

      On December 4th the British Medical Journal entered the fray with the
      online publication of a Rapid Response by Mr. McFadden outlining the
      new research and posing sharp criticisms of the earlier studies and
      of the refusal of the authors of those studies to respond to previous
      criticisms and questions. McFadden points out that the data in the
      Kuneman/McFadden study are fully open for public examination and far
      less selective than the data in the earlier studies and notes with
      pride that he and his co-researcher have been quick to respond to all
      queries posted about their methodology on Dr. Siegel's web blog.

      He also poses the wider ranging question of whether studies
      commissioned by the "Antismoking Industry" should begin to receive
      the same cautious reception accorded those commissioned by "Big
      Tobacco." The current study, as well as an earlier one by the duo,
      were unfunded and neither researcher receives grants for their work
      from either interest group. Kuneman sharply asks the question, "Why
      the difference between the studies? For one thing we weren't
      dependent on antismoking-targeted grants!"

      At this point there appears to be very little, if any, real
      scientific support for the claim that protecting nonsmokers from
      normal levels of exposure to secondary smoke prevents any heart
      attacks. And it is this claim that has always provided the impressive
      numbers upon which ban advocates have pressed legislators to pass
      smoking bans.

      Without those numbers proponents of extreme bans are left with little
      other than the widely discredited EPA figures relating ETS to lung
      cancer and a few isolated instances of hospitality workers who have
      come to believe that their own cancers were caused by working in
      smoking establishments. Samantha Phillipe, editor of the
      longstanding smokersclubinc.com newsletter, notes that while it's
      always a cause for sadness when someone becomes ill that it's even
      more sad when they are misguidedly advised to blame family and
      friends for their illness.

      Without a compelling body of scientific evidence backing them up,
      smoking bans are an unnecessary and overbearing intrusion of
      government into the spheres of free choice, private property and free
      enterprise. And the Kuneman/McFadden study points up just how
      uncompelling even some of the strongest and most publicised evidence
      actually is.
      References:

      Article:
      http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/hospitaladmissions.html

      2)Mike Siegel's blog analysis and followup comments:
      http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2005/11/new-study-casts-doubt-on-
      claim-that.html

      3) BMJ Response:
      http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/328/7446/977#123038

      4) Jacob Sullum's REASON column:
      Hit and Run

      =======

      Michael J. McFadden
      Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
      Mid-Atlantic Regional Director of SmokersClubInc.com
      web page: http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
      Email: Cantiloper@...
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.