Smoking Ban Advocate Says Some Claims Just Smoke
Print This Article
Opponents to a statewide total smoking ban say anti-tobacco advocates are playing a little loose with their facts.
They have an unlikely ally in Michael Siegel, a medical doctor and professor of community health sciences at Boston University’s School of Public Health. He’s a long-standing anti-tobacco advocate, a proponent of smoking bans and a strong critic of bad science.
In a story published Feb. 18 on his weblog, “The rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary,” Seigel wrote, “It is irresponsible to disseminate conclusions that are not supported by any scientific evidence, especially if that information will be used to infringe upon the freedom, autonomy, and rights of individuals.”
— Story continues below video —
“I believe that anti-smoking groups have been recently exaggerating the evidence in several ways,” Siegel said during a phone interview Wednesday. “To me, the truth is enough. I really don’t understand why these groups are exaggerating when I think it would be enough to tell the truth.”
“A lot of groups have been saying that 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand hand smoke is enough to cause heart disease. I think that’s an exaggeration. It’s not true that somebody walks into a smoky restaurant for thirty minutes and they’re going to suffer a heart attack.”
The proposed ban would not exempt bars and other gathering spots for adult smokers
Another exaggerated claim Siegel sees is that passing a smoking ban will immediately and dramatically reduce heart attacks. “The evidence shows that in countries which have enacted these bans, they haven’t seen a decline in heart attacks within one or two years of the ban,” Siegel said.
The third claim Siegel objects to is called third-hand smoking. Some smoking ban advocates say nicotine left on a person’s clothing and skin is deposited on the surfaces away from the smoking area then create vapor that exposes non-smokers to harm. “I think that’s just a gross exaggeration, and the levels of exposure are so small that it’s not creating any meaningful hazard,”
Siegel says credibility is the key to changing public attitudes about health. “Once we start exaggerating the evidence and the public becomes aware of this they’re going to lose trust in everything that we say.”
Proponents of a statewide total ban on public smoking came under fire at a recent Health and Human Services committee meeting of the Kansas House of Representatives. Committee Chair Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita, and other committee members challenged smoking ban advocates claims about studies used to support a ban.
Several ban supporters referenced a study led by Dr. David Meyers, professor of cardiology and preventive medicine at Kansas University Medical Center. The study, officially released Sept. 29, 2009, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC), claimed bans correlated to at least a 17 percent reduction in heart attacks shortly after enacted.
On Nov. 10, 2009, JACC published a correction to the study. The language of the correction gave no hint of its importance nor did it say the study’s most quoted claim was nullified.
Siegel, who was critical of the study’s original findings, published the correction and clarified its meaning on web sites he operates. The KU study was an analysis of smoking ban studies in 11 locations. Data from one of the studies was incorrectly reported, thus throwing off the broader analysis.
“As it turns out, the study findings were due to a careless error. In the original study, the authors had inadvertently reported the Pueblo study has having reported a 70 percent reduction in heart attacks (a result that is completely implausible and clearly should have been noticed as having been in error). Instead, that study actually reported a 34 percent reduction in heart attacks. The meta-analysis authors published a correction in which they re-analyzed the correct data.
“It turns out that the 11 studies did not find a 17 percent reduction in heart attacks, only an 8% reduction.
“This level of decline in admissions for heart attacks is obviously not significantly different from the levels of decline in heart attacks that are being observed in the absence of smoking bans, which have varied between 5 percent and 10 percent per year in many communities.”
The study’s original claims of a dramatic decrease in heart attacks was heralded by dozens of anti-smoking groups and reported by media across Kansas and around the world.
The correction received far less exposure. For example, the Lawrence Journal World reported the study’s 17 percent claim on Sept. 27, 2009. Well after the correction was published by the JACC, a Feb. 9, 2010, article the Lawrence newspaper’s online edition included a link to the original, uncorrected story.
Dr. Mike Munger, president of the Kansas Academy of Family Physicians, used the uncorrected study’s findings in the Feb. 10 HHS committee meeting. His office sent notice of the correction to Landwehr Feb. 16 after committee members were made aware of the correction by an anti-ban advocate.
Dr. Jason Eberhart-Phillips, director of the Health Kansas Department of Health and Environment, also used the data and sent a detailed explanation of the correction to a committee member around the same time.
Smoking rights advocates support a House bill because it creates a uniform public smoking ban statewide, preempting a hodgepodge of local ordinances. It permits smoking in bars so long as signs outside warn that smoking is permitted inside, prohibits anyone under 21 from entering and requires a $1 per square foot fee for an exemption. The House bill does not automatically exempt state-owned casinos.
Anti-tobacco activists support a Senate bill which leaves existing local bans intact and offers no exemption for bars, private clubs or other drinking establishments. Several ban proponents said they’re willing to accept the bill’s exemption for state-owned casinos in order to avoid broader exemptions.
Siegel says the casino exemption is rank hypocrisy that, along with some shady science, helps fuel the skepticism tobacco supporters have for real science he says supports smoking bans.
Siegel says his colleagues have attacked him for his stand. “People think somehow if I’m saying these things, if I don’t buy every single line that the anti-smoking groups say, somehow I must be working for big tobacco.”
He says he decided to speak out when his conscience would no longer allow him to be silent. “I’m trying to tell it like it is. When it comes to smoking bans and their effect on youth the evidence shows an effect. When it comes to an effect on adult cessation, I don’t see an effect. I’m basically calling it as the science sees it.
That perspective is not welcome in the anti-smoking movement, Siegel says. “They don’t see that there’s any role for scientific objectivity. Either you just spout the entire line of propaganda or you are somehow not worthy of being in the movement.”
Siegel sees parallels to suppression of dissent in the global warming issue. “This is why there isn’t a lot of dissent in the anti-smoking movement, because people are afraid to speak out because this is the way they’re going to be treated. They know that if they speak out their funding is going to be at risk and they’re going to be not able to participate in the tobacco control community. They’re not going to be invited to speak at conferences. It hurts their careers.”
He says the parallels extend to the animal rights movement as well. “It went so far that they basically lost credibility. I think this is the way eventually that things are going in the anti-smoking movement unless they kind of wake up and change their approach.
Smoking rights advocates have created several web sites monitoring the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation’s spending on anti-smoking efforts. The foundation was created in 1968 by the founder of Johnson & Johnson and became the largest single investor in the world’s largest health products maker.
Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries make and market more smoking cessation products than any other company and critics say RWJF’s anti-smoking advocacy is merely a way to redirect tobacco money to smoking cessation product sales.
Siegel says he doesn’t believe RWJF is motivated by anything other than a genuine public health movement but he is worried that talk of an profit motive does not bode well for a scientific approach to public health.
“Even the fact that there’s a perception that somehow this is a movement that Johnson & Johnson is behind, it sounds like people are already losing sight of the fact that this is a significant health hazard and this is the problem when you make hysterical health claims.”
Posted under Health Care, Legislature, News, Video.
Tags: Brenda Landwehr, Health and Human Services Committee, Health Care, Kansas Legislature, Smoking ban
19 Comments For This Post So Far
Trackbacks
-
Senate, in Push for Smoking Ban Exempting Casinos, Cancels House Meeting
[...] More on the smoking ban debate: Bad Science [...]
-
Just the facts, ma’am! « Missouri Group Against Smoking Pollution
[...] web page which I recently checked out for the first time. The specific article of interest is Smoking Ban Advocate Says Some Claims Just Smoke by Paul Soutar, posted on February 20, 2010. It’s a well-prepared article featuring video [...]
-
Easy Labels Inhibit Real Debate
[...] article, titled “Just the facts, ma’am!” called a KansasWatchdog article “well-prepared” and agrees with KansasWatchdog that bad science was used in the [...]
4:02 am on February 21st, 2010
siegel its time to cross over dude…………..This editorial just confirmed you have made it to the other side! Now drop the anti-smoking pretense and get completly on board with the smokers rights movement.
Your name may be the only unblemished one left after this tobacco control prohibition movement is properly scuttled just like the global warming movement has been.
2:10 pm on February 21st, 2010
I’d like to say VERY well done to Mr. Soutar and KansasWatchdog.com for this expose.
The doctors claim that if they had known of the flaws their testimonies would have been different? How could it be that full time professionals directly concerned with the field would be so blindingly ignorant of a major correction to one of their strongest supporting bulwarks for a ban argument?
How could it further be that the doctor in the video above could make his comment about the “bounce back” in heart attacks in Helena MT when that bounce back was clearly shown to be a falsehood within the Rapid Responses to the BMJ article itself? Note that this correction was not published just three months ago, but actually over FOUR YEARS AGO!
See the last part of my response, “Independently Confirmed?”, the paragraph starting with “The third point focuses on the ‘rebound’ in AMIs…” at:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38055.715683.55v1#125618
and you will see that not only was the claim refuted, but it was shown that the basic data showing the falsehood of that claim was actually REMOVED from the internet … until it was re-discovered through the use of an internet archival engine!
There is absolutely no excuse for full time paid professionals, testifying in advocacy of a ban that could destroy the lives and livelihoods of thousands of Kansans, to claim ignorance as a defense for such misleading testimony. They should at least deeply and publicly apologize, perhaps even be formally censured in some way, and other such testimony should be examined with a VERY critical eye.
I believe a lot of it would fare no better under real examination.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
2:20 pm on February 21st, 2010
A brief additional note regarding other testimony: While the video did not show any claims about economic effects, the same sort of games are played there as well. Read Jacob Grier’s article AND my Aftercomments to it at:
http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/2210.html
to see how antismoking study results claiming no economic harm are produced and why they are produced (hint: million dollar grant applications).
And for an overview of further “exaggerations” (to be polite) read “The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans” (aka, “The New Stiletto) at:
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257.html
– MJM
8:42 pm on February 21st, 2010
We actually issued a press release about the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation scam. http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-23-2008/0004854270&EDATE
What you DON’T know is that RWJF created and funded Tobacco-Free Kids. They started them off with $84,000,000. One of Obama’s “no lobbyist” policy appointments was LOBBYIST William Corr from TOBACCO-FREE KIDS to Health and Human Services in a DIRECTOR position. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124139960819782109.html
Who does the FDA report to? Health and Human Services.
Everyone involved has gotten money from the RWJF. Michael Fiore was instrumental in writing the federal guidelines on tobacco and smoking cessation. He’s a RWJF “award” winner. Stanton Glantz, UCSF, received over $1,000,000 from RWJF to create the TobaccoScam website, whose purpose it is to say bars and restaurants are not hurt by smoking bans (he even claims it’s Big Tobacco who says bans hurt bars). He never declares competing interests with his published studies. Bans DO hurt bars. When data is INTENTIONALLY SKEWED, we report it http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS143891+29-May-2009+PRN20090529 BTW, Glantz is ALSO a RWJF “award” winner. These “awards” come with a $300,000 grant. RWJF profits because, as of last annual report, they OWN 42,343,391 SHARES OF JnJ STOCK! J&J has the market cornered on over-the-counter alternatives to nicotine, Nicorette, Nicoderm and Commit.
RWJF has given $500,000,000 in “obesity” grants. Their CEO has been to the White House more than Hillary Clinton. RWJF was instrumental in pushing a tax on pop with sugar and corn syrup. Now, who do you think owns SPLENDA? Johnson & Johnson. EthiconEndo just release a “study” they paid for saying that it’s cost effective for Medicare/Medicaid and insurance companies to pay for the surgery. EthiconEndo is a JOHNSON & JOHNSON company who owns the medical device for the lap band surgery. http://www.ethiconendo.com/dtcf/pages/morbid_obesity.htm?pgn=4
Surprised? Maybe you’d be surprised to find that a study found carcinogens in baby products that include Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Shampoo and Baby Magic Lotion. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/12/AR2009031202940.html?hpid=moreheadlines
“The FDA and other government agencies around the world consider these trace levels safe, and all our products meet or exceed the regulatory requirements in every country where they are sold,” Johnson & Johnson said in a statement. So, according to what RWJF touts, there’s NO SAFE LEVEL of exposure to SHS/ETS but Johnson & Johnson says you can rub carcinogens into a baby’s skin and it’s safe.
People, wake up! A recent study claims Nicoderm patches have a 98.4% failure rate for quitting smoking 1 year or longer. Another study just out says more people quit successfully with NO drugs. THIS website shows all the harm Nicorette gum has caused the users http://www.askapatient.com/viewrating.asp?drug=18612&name=NICORETTE&page=1 and THIS study says if you quit smoking you have a 80%-90% chance of developing Type 2 Diabetes. http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/01/04/diabetes.smoking.risks/index.html
And yet, the RWJF funded people keep pushing their nicotine REPLACEMENT drugs. There was even $75,000,000 put into the stimulus plan for NRT. STIMULUS?
If you don’t think smoking bans hurt bars and private clubs, then you haven’t done any research on your own. Ohio’s family owned bars, restaurants and private clubs are DYING! In the first year, 13.35% of the “drinking places” ceased paying sales taxes. THEY CLOSED. Don’t listen to these people with their own agendas. Look for the truth on your own.
It’s money and politics. It’s marketing at its finest. It’s WRONG and should be exposed.
7:32 am on February 22nd, 2010
Excellent points and the exposure of the anti-tobacco lobby for what it truly is………..junk science created to impose prohibition yet again!
8:09 am on February 22nd, 2010
If your local government is legislating secondhand smoke because they claim secondhand smoke is a WORKPLACE health hazard…….shouldn’t they consult with the authority on workplace health hazards? –OSHA
And in fact air quality testing of secondhand smoke results compared to OSHA permissible exposure limits proves there is no health hazard. Results found SHS is 2.6 – 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA workplace regulations.
More here:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/11/is-secondhand-smoke-health-hazard.html
OSHA itself has stated regarding secondhand smoke:
“Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.”
online here:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2010/02/quintessential-argument-against-smoking.html
11:43 am on February 22nd, 2010
I think Kansas ought to look deeply into whose hands they are dealing with. As Ohio has found out telling the anti smoking cartel enough is enough can be costly as anti tobacco is money maker to the anti smoking cartel! American Cancer Society Employee lobbyist attempts to steal $190,000,000.00 with the help of the out of control (ROUGUE STATE AGENCY as one legislator called them) Ohio Tobacco Prevention Foundation! Here it is $190,000,000.00!
Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Foundation Page 3 of 12
Board of Trustees
April 4, 2008
Ms. Jagers then made a motion to authorize the transfer of $190,000,000 from the Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Foundation endowment fund to one or all of three organizations equally: Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, American Legacy Foundation, Ohio Hospital Association for Healthy Communities Foundation, to carry out the mission of OTPF.
11:52 am on February 22nd, 2010
Rebutal to Legacy
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/01/16/Whyde__SAT_ART_01-16-10_A9_FNGAIS2.html?sid=101
Read the extravagant pay of these antis even higher than the Presidents pay!
http://blog.dispatch.com/dailybriefing/2010/02/antismoking_group_is_generous.shtml
By the way American Legacy upon their tax returns list 6 vehicles for travel $752,256. Or $125,376 a vehicle! 2010 Mercedes Benz CL-Class invoice are $102,672 to $143,592 ! That’s being very lavish to say the least! If ya want to look at the Legacy Federal tax returns look here http://www.legacyforhealth.org/56.aspx located at the middle of the page towards the bottom!
Kansas wants them I will find out if we can ship the anti smoking cartel by FEDEX to you!
4:01 pm on February 22nd, 2010
Let’s hope that the next Congress and Senate will have the guts to shut down this kind of prohibitive rubbish! If they don’t we WILL find some who will! This nannying from ANY anti this or that group must stop! The global warming debacle is nothing but an excuse for the government to legitimize the extreme taxation it would bring. The second hand smoke issue is nothing more than a way to control a huge segment of the population, perhaps as much as 1/2 of it or more. The obesity issue that has kids feeling guilt, not love, is nothing more than a way for big pharma’s controlled FDA to further limit our choices and thus our very lives! All of these issues are really targeting our children and grandchildren and parents everywhere need to tell government to stop! When will people open their eyes and see all of this for what it is? We have become a nation of sheeple “for our own good”!
1:42 pm on February 23rd, 2010
Siegel sees parallels to suppression of dissent in the global warming issue. “This is why there isn’t a lot of dissent in the anti-smoking movement, because people are afraid to speak out because this is the way they’re going to be treated. They know that if they speak out their funding is going to be at risk and they’re going to be not able to participate in the tobacco control community. They’re not going to be invited to speak at conferences. It hurts their careers.”
Indeed! Thank you, Dr. Siegel. Sometimes, it seems as if smokers and the obese are the last “outcasts” anyone can bash with impunity. It is pleasant to see a small dose of sanity injected into this discussion.
4:25 pm on February 23rd, 2010
You know that surgeon general’s report on second hand smoke?
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/
DEBUNKED!
Health Facts And Fears
ww.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.800/news_detail.asp
Everything else:
DEBUNKED!
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf
AND:
http://www.google.com/search?q=SECOND+HAND+SMOKE+DEBUNKED&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGGL_enUS318
For this we give up freedoms that we’ve had for hundreds of years!
6:13 pm on February 23rd, 2010
It’s interesting that none of the doctors whose statements have been attacked here, either in the original article or the commentaries, have made any effort to defend themselves. They must certainly know about the article, and I think I’d lay about 20 to 1 odds in favor of them having come here to see it online… so why are they afraid to stand up for themselves?
In particular I’d be interested in knowing if the professional in the video who cited the Helena story was professional enough to have actually read the study and its reviews or if he was just making up his testimony out of hearsay. If indeed he’d read the study’s Rapid Responses (which of course any responsible researcher would do before presenting formal testimony about it) did he simply decide to deliberately ignore such things as the clear evidence against the bounce back claim so as to better mislead the legislators or was he simply not competent enough to understand what he was reading?
Inquiring minds would like to know. Mr. Soutar, do you yourself happen to know for a fact whether these people have seen the story? Would you yourself perhaps be in a position to put questions such as the above to them?
Or do you think you’d simply be stonewalled with a “No Comment.” ? I would think that as a precursor to passing any smoking ban in the future, or perhaps even discussing one, these people should be required to reappear before the legislators and offer their explanations… under oath if possible.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
7:04 pm on February 23rd, 2010
I don’t know if either doctor has seen this story. As reflected in the video, I spoke with Munger and received an email reply from a representative of Philips’ office. Both said they did not know the KU study had been corrected at the time of their appearance before the HHS committee and they said they would not have used the data had they known of the correction. I can not verify the truth of their statements, only what they reported to me. It does lead one to wonder about the lack of self-correction regarding the KU study in Kansas and elsewhere, or other studies for that matter. I’m not sure I’d want a doctor who doesn’t check his work or, worse yet, doesn’t correct something he knows is wrong.
9:33 pm on February 23rd, 2010
Here’s something to consider. How is the State of Kansas going to PAY for enforcement of this ban? The State of Ohio has spent $3.2 million enforcing the ban. They’ve only collected $400,000 in fines. See this article and how the media, even in an expose, is influenced by its political agenda and special interests. http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/02/22/copy/state-smoking-ban-has-cost-2-million.html?sid=101
Notice the health orgs speak of the $4.37 billion in “SMOKING” related illnesses. Smoking? I thought bans were about SECONDHAND smoke and “protecting” employees? Where’s the documentation of of SECONDHAND smoke costs? THEY CAN’T PRODUCE THEM AND TRUE DOCUMENTATION of those costs. Then, they say the smoking rate in Ohio has decreased from 22.5 to 20.2. Again, is the ban about decreasing the smoking rate or protecting workers? What the smoking rate fails to consider is that many Ohioans near the border now go to Kentucky to buy their cigarettes. Many, many (like myself) now roll our own since the ban. Those factors are not taken into consideration.
Let’s talk about the employees. Name ONE OTHER workplace safety law that is NOT REGULATED by OSHA! If this is about a dire need to protect workers, how many workers comp claims have been filed in Kansas for SHS/ETS? In Ohio ONE claim was filed and it was DISALLOWED because no one could PROVE any harm from SHS. Now, our employees are forced outside, in the inclement weather. Is THAT safe for their health? They’re also forced outside of their safe work environment late at night. There was a robbery in Lakewood, Ohio where 2 patons and the BARTENDER (Employee) were ROBBED at gunpoint (the gunman kept saying, “I should KILL you). Is THAT keeping our employees safe?
This is nothing more than special interest groups trying to secure their futures in tobacco control. The money flows like manna from Heaven.
8:39 pm on February 24th, 2010
I read the article. I have a high regard for Dr. Mike Siegel so if your quotes are accurate and taken in context I’m unlikely to dispute them.
Out of curiosity I checked out a couple of links from Pam (comment #4) who has posted on the mogasp blog. They were supposed to support her contention about Nicorette gum and your greatly elevated chance of developing Type 2 Diabetes if you quit smoking.
Pam wrote: “THIS website shows all the harm Nicorette gum has caused the users http://www.askapatient.com/viewrating.asp?
and THIS study says if you quit smoking you have a 80%-90% chance of developing Type 2 Diabetes. http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/01/04/diabetes.smoking.risks/index.html
The first has a mixed bag of comments from users, some saying they were now hooked on the gum, for example, but it wasn’t obvious to me that the gum was as bad as smoking tobacco, which would be really hard to believe, given all the toxins and carcinogens known to be in inhaled by smokers that are absent from the gum.
The second was interesting for what Pam had omitted, and I quote the first two paragraphs from the article to put it into context:
“People who quit smoking are at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes after they kick the habit, most likely due to post-quitting weight gain, a new study has found.
Experts caution, however, that the benefits of quitting smoking — including a lower risk of heart attack and lung cancer — far outweigh the risk of developing diabetes, which can be treated with diet, exercise, and medication.”
Just another example of deliberately skewing the data to suit an agenda. One thing I can assure you: Missouri GASP doesn’t operate that way because we don’t need to. The results are conclusive, and they emphasize the real risks of smoking to both the smoker and the exposed nonsmoker.
What the U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, stated in 1986 still holds true today:
Nonsmokers should be protected from secondhand smoke, and smokers should be helped to quit.
Martin Pion, President, Missouri GASP
http://www.mogasp.wordpress.com
2:03 pm on February 25th, 2010
it used to be government by the people now it is government by the state. if we smoke we are breaking the law if we gamble at my bar we are breaking the law. but you can smoke and gamble at a state owned casino and it is legal. what we have is a bunch of overzealous hypocrital buercrats running the state you all should be ashamed of yourselfs!