This week I came across an article in the Wall Street Journal on smoking bans in condominiums. No big surprise, the antis’ have been trying to ban smoking everywhere, why not your own home. What really drew me in was the name James Repace in the comment section. Having already been aware of the exchange that MARK WERNIMONT HAD WITH MR REPACE. I decided to engage him. If you notice when ever you try to corner them on the questionable mehodology or the out and out Junk science the responce can be found in this song.

A

james repace wrote:

Those who are actually interested in the scientific and medical facts about secondhand smoke as opposed to bloviation and ad hominem attacks which attempt to divert attention from the subject matter, please check out the National Cancer Institute’s website:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

  • Cy Zane replied:
  • Oh because everyone should just believe that the NCI is a trustworthy source with independant studies that couldn’t possibly be biased in any way? I could give you plenty more such links, but I will not play the same game of overwhelming people with tons of information just to discourage them from carefully reading and analyzing the issues for themselves.

    http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/05/11/review.finds.conflicts.interest.many.cancer.studies
    Review finds conflicts of interest in many cancer studies

    http://www.preventcancer.com/publications/pdf/Con_of_Int_030404.pdf
    CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN THE LOSING CANCER WAR

    For all those that want a glimpse of the political and corporate shenaningans that are going on with this issue, I urge you to read the following: http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2010/12/beliefs-manipulation-and-lies-in.html
    BELIEFS, MANIPULATION AND LIES IN THE TOBACCO ISSUE – Robert Molimard

    Iro Cyr

    I jumped in with;

    Funny your link references the1992 EPA report as if it were scientific fact when it is not. And of course it references the Surgeon Generals report which used the same questionable methodologies, and why not it was written by many of the same activist in scientific clothing, I guess I will quote the report itself to prove my point. From page 21.

    Judge William
    L. Osteen, Sr., in the North Carolina Federal District
    Court criticized the approach EPA had used to select
    studies for its meta-analysis and criticized the use of 90
    percent rather than 95 percent confidence intervals for
    the summary estimates (Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative
    Stabilization Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection
    Agency, 857 F. Supp. 1137 [M.D.N.C. 1993]). In
    December 2002, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
    threw out the lawsuit on the basis that tobacco companies
    cannot sue the EPA over its secondhand smoke
    report because the report was not a final agency action
    and therefore not subject to court review (Flue-Cured
    Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. v. The United
    States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 98-2407
    [4th Cir., December 11, 2002], cited in 17.7 TPLR 2.472
    [2003]).
    Recognizing that there is still an active discussion
    around the use of meta-analysis to pool data
    from observational studies (versus clinical trials),
    the authors of this Surgeon General’s report used
    this methodology to summarize the available data
    when deemed appropriate and useful, even while
    recognizing that the uncertainty around the metaanalytic
    estimates may exceed the uncertainty indicated
    by conventional statistical indices, because of
    biases either within the observational studies or produced
    by the manner of their selection.
    http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/fullreport.pdf

    james repace replied:

    To be clear: my original post pointed out that tobacco smoke in a multi-famiily dwelling inescapably migrates into neighboring apartments. Tobacco smoke is inarguably a toxic substance: “This [2010 Surgeon General’s] report also substantiates the evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to cigarette smoke. When individuals inhale cigarette smoke, either directly or secondhand, they are inhaling more than 7,000 chemicals: hundreds of these are hazardous, and at least 69 are known to cause cancer. The chemicals are rapidly absorbed by cells in the body and produce disease-causing cellular changes. This report explains those changes and identifies the mechanisms by which the major classes of the chemi- cals in cigarette smoke contribute to specific disease processes. In addition, the report discusses how chemicals in cigarette smoke impair the immune system and cause the kind of cellular damage that leads to cancer and other diseases. From the 2010 Surgeon General’s Report—How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease.
    http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2010/index.htm

    To this I responded.

    AHH yes Mr. Repace, you don’t even try to justify the fertilizer you spread, you don’t try to justify using flawed methodology. You just pile on more fertilizer. As far as the 2010 SG report, here is what a former member of your merry band of thieves had to say.
    http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/winner-of-2010-tobacco-control-lie-of.html

    james repace replied

    Mike Siegel’s observation focuses on the lack of emphasis on dose-risk relationships in the 2010 SG report. My next paper, due out this month discusses this issue in detail. It discusses the evidence showing that exposures to secondhand smoke at levels commonly found in the indoor environment can impair the circulation even in healthy young persons, and place those with existing cardiovascular disease at significant risk. Insofar as the data being flawed, I don’t think you understand it in the least.

    To this I responded

    Ah yes Mr Repace deflect and spread more. Completely ignoring the fact that no cause of a disease has been proven conclusively at the relative risks associated with ETS. How many can you name with RR’s that low based on observational studies..
    http://geography.ssc.uwo.ca/faculty/baxter/readings/Taubes_limits_epidemiology_Science_1995.pdf

    You fail to justify the highly questionable methodology of meta-analysis even though world renowned experts like John C. Bailar, III who said ” My objections to meta-analysis are purely pragmatic. It does not work nearly as well as we might want it to work. The problems are so deep and so numerous that the results are simply not reliable. The work of LeLorier et al. adds to the evidence that meta-analysis simply does not work very well in practice.

    As it is practiced and as it is reported in our leading journals, meta-analysis is often deeply flawed. Many people cite high-sounding guidelines, and I am sure that all truly want to do a superior analysis, but meta-analysis often fails in ways that seem to be invisible to the analyst.

    The advocates of meta-analysis and evidence-based medicine should undertake research that might demonstrate that meta-analyses in the real world–not just in theory–improve health outcomes in patients. Review of the long history of randomized, controlled trials, individually weak for this specific purpose, has led to overwhelming evidence of efficacy. I am not willing to abandon that history to join those now promoting meta analysis as the answer, no matter how pretty the underlying theory, until its defects are honestly exposed and corrected. The knowledgeable, thoughtful, traditional review of the original literature remains the closest thing we have to a gold standard for summarizing disparate evidence in medicine.”

    It is way too easy for activist to skew the results by the manner of selection and the weight given to each study.
    http://www.improvingmedicalstatistics.com/Meta%20Beware%20gifts.htm

    You also have yet to justify your tornado math trick.
    http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=38

    Dr Siegel also posted on how stress or even eating a big mac has the same effect on blood flow. Is your article going to emphasize that fact or are you going to treat it as somthing unique to second hand smoke?
    http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/10/anti-smoking-researcher-claims-that.html

    james repace replies

    You’ll just have to wait and see, along with all the other members of NYCLASH…

    To which I respond.

    I am not a member of NYCLASH, I was however a very active member of Ban the ban Wisconsin and have dug deeply into what you call science. I am well versed in tobacco controls science by press release.
    https://peoplesrepubmadison.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/universiy-of-wisconsin-guilty-of-science-by-poltical-agenda/

    You admit that there is a dose response curve, is it linear as that is the only no safe level that I am aware of. And even the LNT is highly debated.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/0952-4746/26/3/N01;jsessionid=40E08EAB54FFB09C40986EFFAB03EB31.c2

    Again you fail to justify the use of questionable methodology.

    Mr condescending snaps back with

    James Repace replies

    Since the State of Wiscons prohibited smoking in public places and workplaces, whether publicly or privately owned, including taverns and restaurants in July 2010, I gather your excavation into secondhand smoke science wasn’t deep enough.

    So I snapped back

    As you know Comrade Repace, Comrade doyle rammed it through by putting a more draconian ban in the budget. It was rammed through with no public hearings. Luckily Comrade doyle is gone and we now have a governor who is willing to repeal the ban.
    http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/98165269.html

    Fortunately in the mean time i live in an area where enforcement is non-existent
    https://peoplesrepubmadison.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/snitch-on-your-neighbor/

    But then we all know what a dismal failure the smoking bans are.
    https://peoplesrepubmadison.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/smoking-ban-a-dismal-failure/

    But then it is common knowlage that bans like those pushing for them have historically been failures. Mark Twain even had a few choice words for your kind.
    http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/mark-twain-on-smokin-nannies/

    Martin Pion president of MoGASP jumps in.

    Martin Pion replied

    It was useful Marshall Keith referencing the Fox News report from April 23, 2008, in which EPA scientists were being subjected to pressure to suppress good science. That was during the George W. Bush presidency when environmental science on things like greenhouse gases and climate change was being subverted by the Bush Administration, which was closely allied to anti-environmental business interests.
    The tobacco lobby has also worked hard in the past to suppress damaging findings by EPA scientists, such as when taking the EPA to court before industry-friendly Judge Osteen after it released its report in secondhand smoke and indoor air quality in December 1992: “Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders.”.
    That approach is reminiscent of that taken in the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in which John Scopes was taken to court accused of teaching evolution in the classroom.
    When the scientific argument fails find a lawyer.
    http://www.mogasp.wordpress.com

    To which I shot back with’

    Come on Martin, how can you be so dishonest. For one thing the scientist did not say it was the Bush administration that pressured them or that it was on global warming. Just as those that complained about pressure from above on ETS came from the White House. It is funny how theses anti-smoking activist try to paint any distention as tobacco friendly. of course as always they ignore the fact that just a year before Judge Osteen ruled in favor of the FDA against big tobacco.
    http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0029.pdf

    Martin also ignores the fact that Osteen was vindicated when the Congressional Research Service came to the same conclusions.
    http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm

    And the 2006 Surgeon Generals Report all but admits the methodology was flawed on page 21. . .

    All of this was ignored by Mr Tornado.  He tried to start over with a long post.

    james repace wrote

    According to the lead in this WSJ article “Smoking Bans Hitting Home”, “At least half a dozen Manhattan co-ops are expected to ask shareholders during annual meetings this spring to vote on an all-out smoking ban that would prohibit residents from lighting up in their own homes, real estate attorneys say. Another dozen co-op or condo buildings are considering such a vote.” It is worth exploring why that might be so. In a smoker’s apartment, toxic clouds of air pollution containing numerous irritants as well as fine particulate matter and hazardous air pollutants are liberated during smoking.>snip<

    To which I responded

    Or could it be a well orchestrated and funded push by anti-smoking zealots like yourself. Martin Pion used one of the top tactics in his smear of Judge Osteen. This tactic was exposed by former Tobacco Control Trainer Dr Micheal Siegel.
    https://peoplesrepubmadison.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/42/

    Then there is the commentary in EPI Warning: Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to
    epidemiologic science
    http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/pdf/1742-5573-4-13.pdf

    And Dr Siegel talkes about the Scientific McCarthyism within the movement.
    http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/02/on-mccarthyistic-element-in-tobacco.html

    And of course the movement couldn’t possibly be accused of astroturf.
    http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/smoke-free-wisconsinbig-pharmaastroturf/

    But hey who can argue with the big parma money and tobacco money that you got from the MSA and your winning dishonest tactics.

    MARK WERNIMONT jumps in with;

    Smoking bans on private property have been a dismal failure, only thing they’ve accomplished is destroying businesses and causing unemployment of hundreds of thousands of people around the globe:

    http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2009/03/worldwide-economic-meltdown-and.html

    Hey Mr. Nicoderm….er, I mean Repace how’s the Nicoderm (RWJF) money flowing?

    http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/08/tuesdays-with-mr-repace.html

    james repace wrote

    For those who are interested in the anatomy of diagnosing smoke infiltraton in a high-rise, please visit:
    http://www.exposurescience.org/scientific-node-type/document

    To which I responded.

    FOR MORE ON AIR QUALITY

    http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/11/repaces-new-study-uses-same-old-tricks.html

    http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2005/08/tuesdays-with-mr-repace.html

    http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2010/10/air-quality-testing-of-secondhand-smoke.html

    james repace replies

    Since you are raising the issue of OSHA’s PELs in the context of tobacco smoke, Mr. Keith, why don’t you explain to the rest of us how OSHA calculates the PEL for a mixture of toxic chemicals such as secondhand smoke? You might also explain why you think workplace standards are appropriate for residential housing. You obviously are completely ignorant of what you’re talking about.

    To which I respond;

    OSHA has PELs for the individual constituents contained in tobacco smoke They obviously did not buy into your no safe level. How about you show us those linear dose response curves. And don’t bother with the latest scare about DNA.changes as everything from cooking fumes to candles have the same effect.
    https://peoplesrepubmadison.wordpress.com/2011/01/08/surgeon-general-blows-smoke-up-our/

    MARK WERNIMONT puts the final nail in the coffin with;

    “Since you are raising the issue of OSHA’s PELs in the context of tobacco smoke, Mr. Keith, why don’t you explain to the rest of us how OSHA calculates the PEL for a mixture of toxic chemicals such as secondhand smoke?”…-Repace

    Duh…..the same way they measure permissible exposure limits (PEL) for welding smoke which also has a mixture of “toxic chemicals”

    Welding smoke is far more hazardous than secondhand smoke. Yet air quality testing shows that welding smoke is regulated to safety standards by OSHA, so lawmakers allow OSHA do do its job rather than ban it.

    more here:

    http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/03/double-standard-welding-smoke-vs.html

    And

    Secondhand smoke in workplace could (should) be regulated by OSHA not banned…..that’s how the more hazardous welding smoke is treated:

    http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/03/secondhand-smoke-should-be-regulated-by.html

    And again all we hear is.

    Advertisements