Belief and Disbelief

I’m no great mathematician. But I probably do more mathematics these days than I ever have before. I have an ever-expanding RK4 Newtonian simulation model of the solar system, which I’ve recently extended to include the Oort cloud of distant comets with Keplerian orbital equations.

Using this model I’ve been able to show that the fireball that fell on Chelyabinsk on 15 Feb 2013 could have been a companion of asteroid DA14 that passed near the Earth on the same day, despite NASA saying on the very same day that it came from the “wrong direction” to be a companion.  But my companion body, trailing 25 million km behind DA14, passed closed to the Earth at  about 10:15 UT on 15 Feb 2009, orbited the Sun three times over the next four years, and finally came in over Chelyabinsk on precisely the right radiant at 03:20 UT 15 Feb 2013, just like the real thing.

The astronomical community won’t have it, though. Spectroscopic analysis of the two bodies shows they’re made of different materials. And NASA has also told me personally that asteroids don’t have companions. Case closed.

But even if I haven’t managed to convince anyone that the two bodies were companions, using my simulation model I could at least make a good case for it. How many people can do that? One in a thousand? One in ten thousand?

Whatever the number, it means that very few people were able to disagree with NASA when they declared that the two bodies were unrelated to each other. Most people simply don’t have the mathematical skills or the mathematical tools to do so.

And the same applies when statistics are used to prove that smoking causes lung cancer, or global climate models are used to show that carbon dioxide is causing global warming. Most people can’t do much in the way of statistics, and even fewer have got simulation models of global climate. So they can’t argue. They can’t engage in the debate. They can only listen.

Being able to read and write and rationally debate is increasingly no longer enough. Fewer and fewer people have the mathematical skills and tools to engage in the real discussion. They can’t participate. And so the real debate is increasingly conducted within a select high priesthood, over the heads of ordinary people.

In this circumstance, people either unquestioningly believe everything the experts tell them, and repeat what they’re told as “proven scientific fact”, or else they become increasingly uncomfortable with expert advice of every kind – particularly if the expert advice is contradictory, or runs counter to common sense or everyday experience.

How many people who believe (or disbelieve) in global warming have their own global climate simulation models? Probably none of them do. I don’t have one. So they’re either just believing what they’re told by experts, or they’re disbelieving. They either trust scientific authorities, or they don’t. And it all comes down to blind faith (or lack of blind faith).

And what we have now, in the absence of the skills and tools to seriously examine these matters, isn’t really rational, because there is very little rational basis for people either believing or disbelieving what they’re told. And there’s no rational way for believers to change disbelievers’ minds, or vice versa.

Personally I tend strongly towards disbelief in so-called experts, because I don’t think any of them are anywhere near as ‘expert’ as they would have us believe, or imagine themselves to be. And that’s why when NASA declared on the same day as the Chelyabinsk fireball and the close approach of DA14 were completely unrelated events, I simply didn’t believe them. And I have the same attitude to global warming, smoking and lung cancer, and all the rest of the scare stories.

But lots of people are believers. Maybe most people are. They believe what they’re told. They trust authorities. And nobody is ever going to be able to shake their faith, because there’s no rational basis for that faith.

And these days one of the deepening divides in our  society is between these kinds of believers and disbelievers, whether it’s about belief in global warming, or smoking causing lung cancer, or anything else. And there’s no way of resolving the dispute while it all boils down merely to belief or disbelief, and not to actual science – because nobody (and maybe not even the experts) really knows how to do the science.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to Belief and Disbelief

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    Frank you put into words what Ive been saying for sometime. Its a belief system not a proof system.
    We have to demand Proof if we are to ever bring real science back.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      belief systems are nothing more than blackmagic. Todays belief systems are all wired to political agendas with junk scientists happily providing junk based upon other junk to feed the propaganda mills. Then we ask can you drop the LINKED to part of your claim and provide us proof………..that’s when they go silent.

  2. Lepercolonist says:

    In a court of law the prosecution brings in ‘their’ experts and the defense has their own experts. The experts are handsomely paid. They may be forensic anthropologists, psychiatrists, ballistics, blood spatter, financial, etc. The jury of common laymen has to decide which experts to trust. Very confusing for anyone who has no background in these fields. Some jurors just throw up their hands and focus on other evidence. They use their own common sense. As in global warming or smoking causes lung cancer.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Probably why I haven’t been called to jury duty in 30 years but my crazed exwife was. Chemical imbalance. The perfect jurist until it came to smoking she got up even in a mental state and left when she lit up in the jury box in downtown Nashville.

  3. Tony says:

    It is true that people don’t tend to question the “experts” enough and that they lack the knowledge and skills to do so, though I think it is largely an issue of motivation.

    Most pseudo-science, such as healthism, can be debunked easily without specialist knowledge. So to retain control, the charlatans have to demoralise the populace.

    But I don’t think we should dismiss our fellow humans too quickly. Sooner or later they’ll tend to stick a finger up at their oppressors and as you’ve written, this is already beginning to happen.

    I have to link to John Brignell’s article too: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/statistical_bludgeon.htm

  4. I believe that generally the best thing we can do is search for aspects of the lies that are very, VERY basic and simple to explain and follow… and then make sure a lot of people see them, AND see supporters of those lies challenged precisely on those weak points.

    People don’t NEED to understand all the scientific/medical/economic details of an argument between two parties *IF* they can be shown that one of the parties is a liar. You see it in politics all the time when someone simply gets “caught” in a blatant lie and then nothing else they do afterward can serve to redeem them.

    It hasn’t worked for us yet with regard to Antismokers but that’s largely a function of the fact that we don’t have a big enough microphone. As we keep “Banging on about the Smoking Ban” though, we’ll eventually find that microphone, either on our own or when folks out there with big microphones of their own are led to the water and actually drink.

    – MJM

    • RdM says:

      Michael, (or anybody else) –

      I’m trying to compose an email to MP’s, in warning about a submission that is basically “blinding with science”, and has statements that aren’t borne out by even the abstracts of the references, and even then the abstract falsely misrepresents, or fails to represent, the actual conclusions or even discussion of the study.

      What I’m looking for is some egregious examples of cases where abstracts misrepresent conclusions (or the body of the work) so that I can give examples of how often it occurs.

      With references, if possible. Particularly blatant ones, ideal.

      I can think of the WHO ETS one (don’t have references) but there must be many more.

      Do you (or anyone?) have some references conveniently at hand?

      Thanks in advance (& even later!) if possible!

      ~ Ross

      • Tony says:

        By the “WHO study”, presumably you mean Boffetta 1998, the Telegraph article and the subsequent WHO statement.

        I suspect the main difficulty with your project is that they tend to use weasel words that mislead rather than flatly contradicting their results. Having said that, you could try Stanton Glantz’s meta-analysis of his own heart attack studies. Not so much for any contradictions but simply because it is so outrageous. Chris Snowdon has written extensively about his output. From memory, I think his Italian study claimed a reduction when in fact there’d been an increase. But he did this by selecting a specific age range that happened to show a slight fall.

        • “I suspect the main difficulty with your project is that they tend to use weasel words that mislead rather than flatly contradicting their results. Having said that, you could try Stanton Glantz’s meta-analysis of his own heart attack studies. Not so much for any contradictions but simply because it is so outrageous. Chris Snowdon has written extensively about his output. From memory, I think his Italian study claimed a reduction when in fact there’d been an increase. But he did this by selecting a specific age range that happened to show a slight fall.”

          Tony, yes! “Weasel words,” “partial truths,” and what I described in Brains as the ex Surgeon General Kessler’s criticism of people using “Accuracy” as a guideline in avoiding actually telling the “Truth”

          E.G. (as a semi-made-up example), supposed I studied blood pressures in pregnant women married to smoking husband and found that their readers were ALMOST exactly the same as for those married to non-smoking husbands but that there *was* a “statistically significant drop” of one tenth of a millimeter in the systolic (the bigger/top reading) pressure.

          As a card-carrying Antismoker I could call a press conference the next day and say the following:

          “Our Research as discovered that these pregnant women experienced a SIGNIFICANT and LASTING drop in blood pressure when exposed to cigarette smoke! Drops in blood pressure can cause the death of not only the mother herself but alst of the innocent child she carries. This can happen even just MINUTES before the woman is due to deliver, and is thus, in effect, a PARTIAL BIRTH MURDER that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law if the person responsible for the drop can be pinpointed or if the actions or plans of several people together were responsible for the deaths. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE TO PROTECT WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN FROM MURDEROUS ABUSERS!”

          See? Everything I said was “Accurate.” I simply never mention that the SIZE of the observed drop was at LEAST several hundred times LESS than what would be required to bring about the results I mention (which would normally only happen if the pressure was dropping due to something like having your legs chopped off). But no one could ever fault me for lying.

          That’s the sort of thing you will find ALL OVER THE PLACE in smoking studies. E.G. see the short excerpt from the “Book Selections” link to “Of Vapors And Vapers” where an effect would only be noted if someone’s mouth was clamped tight to a gushing garden hose for hundreds of hours.

          Lots of different ways to “safely” spin a lie out there unfortunately. And one thing I’ve learned over the years is that it’s best to start out an examination of ANY antismoking study by ASSUMING that there will be lies in it if you look hard enough. When Glantz first came out with his Helena study I assumed at first it was just a crazy April Fools satire piece (It was published on April 1st of 2003 or 2004) and then, later, when I found out it was real, I was very depressed. The size of the effect found (The initial claim was a 60% heart attack drop during the six-month ban which then IMMEDIATELY rebounded to normal when the ban was lifted.) combined with the claims made about having corrected for confounding variables like smokers traveling out of town etc, all made me think that the Antis might have FINALLY come up with the “Proof” to justify smoking bans.

          It wasn’t until I managed to get more details on the actual research later that I realized just how THOROUGHLY the initial presentation and claims had been misleading. If I’d only known at that time that I should simply ASSUME the lie and then set about finding the trick of how they did it, I would have saved myself a lot of pain and worry.

          Hmmm… ok… following up with a second post with a good Brains passage to describe what we should always do. (Continued)

        • (Continued second half of response to Tony)…

          (excerpt from page 360 of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”):

          I was put in mind of this recently upon reading F. Paul Wilson’s new book, The Haunted Air (Forge Press. 2002). In that book he does a wonderful job of debunking a spiritualist con game known as the “one-ahead.” Any reader who remembers Johnny Carson’s “Incredible Karnak” routine has seen a similar, though more transparent, reenactment of this scam.

          The spiritualist in question will ask members of the audience to put questions to the dead into sealed envelopes that are dumped into a container and pulled out one by one. As each is chosen, the spiritualist will raise it to his or her forehead and deliver the “answer from the spirit world” before opening the envelope and apparently reading the question. Since there is seemingly no way for the spiritualist to know which question is coming up, the answers appear to have a genuinely supernatural origin. Anyone who generally believes in this stuff will sit there and be happy with this “proof” of the spirit world’s existence.

          Of course, it’s not “proof” of anything: it’s a scam based upon some sleight of hand in which the spiritualist, even before pulling the first envelope out of the container, has already seen the question “one-ahead” (a single envelope in the container is secretly and deftly opened and the question exposed before the readings begin) and in each case is merely making up answers to questions he or she has already seen.

          To a believer, it’s proof. To an unbeliever, even if they don’t know just how the trick was done, it’s nothing more than another example of clever fakery. Even if the “scam” can’t be immediately uncovered, the skeptic will know that there is one, somewhere, somehow, hidden away – Behind the Curtain.

          This is a good analogy for the situation that many of us “skeptics” of the Crusade find ourselves in. We’ve seen so many instances over the years where the public has been lied to and bamboozled in order to achieve the goal of a smoke-free world, that we know that each new study and each new claim that comes up is likely to be built upon very shaky foundations, even if such shakiness is not readily apparent.

          ===
          ===

          The safest bet to make, one that hasn’t failed me yet in looking at Antismokers’ claims, is that with any extreme result in the area of secondhand/thirdhand/17thhand smoke etc, there is virtually ALWAYS going to be lie, distortion, exaggeration, misrepresentation, prevarication, or at least some variation somewhere of outright forked-tongue BS hiding in there someplace. And the more studies you analyze, and the more that you see analyzed, the better you’ll become at spotting the new BS hidden in the new “Groundbreaking Study” from Glantz, Repace, and associates next time around!

          – MJM, who’s never yet met an antismoking study he didn’t like…. shredding to bloody pulpy little obscene gelatinous wriggling bits.

        • (Continued some more…THIRD part of continuation to Tony… I just found the passage in TNacht where I talked about this!)

          (Continued)
          I was put in mind of this recently upon reading F. Paul Wilson’s new book, The Haunted Air (Forge Press. 2002). In that book he does a wonderful job of debunking a spiritualist con game known as the “one-ahead.” Any reader who remembers Johnny Carson’s “Incredible Karnak” routine has seen a similar, though more transparent, reenactment of this scam.

          The spiritualist in question will ask members of the audience to put questions to the dead into sealed envelopes that are dumped into a container and pulled out one by one. As each is chosen, the spiritualist will raise it to his or her forehead and deliver the “answer from the spirit world” before opening the envelope and apparently reading the question. Since there is seemingly no way for the spiritualist to know which question is coming up, the answers appear to have a genuinely supernatural origin. Anyone who generally believes in this stuff will sit there and be happy with this “proof” of the spirit world’s existence.

          Of course, it’s not “proof” of anything: it’s a scam based upon some sleight of hand in which the spiritualist, even before pulling the first envelope out of the container, has already seen the question “one-ahead” (a single envelope in the container is secretly and deftly opened and the question exposed before the readings begin) and in each case is merely making up answers to questions he or she has already seen.

          To a believer, it’s proof. To an unbeliever, even if they don’t know just how the trick was done, it’s nothing more than another example of clever fakery. Even if the “scam” can’t be immediately uncovered, the skeptic will know that there is one, somewhere, somehow, hidden away – Behind the Curtain.

          This is a good analogy for the situation that many of us “skeptics” of the Crusade find ourselves in. We’ve seen so many instances over the years where the public has been lied to and bamboozled in order to achieve the goal of a smoke-free world, that we know that each new study and each new claim that comes up is likely to be built upon very shaky foundations, even if such shakiness is not readily apparent. … (skip a bit… to a place after I’d enjoyed ripping apart a study that I’d originally felt helpless in confronting…)

          . Like the psychic skeptic above, I may not be able to show just how the psychic is faking her act of channeling dead people, but I’m pretty damn sure that there’s at least some sort of chicanery going on when I’m told that there’s nothing of any importance beneath the locked trapdoor under the table. I might not be able to explain just why the sun rises after the rooster crows, but I’m not going to simply accept that the crowing wakes up the Great Sun-God… and I don’t think you should, either.

          ===

          – MJM, who has often greeted the Sun God as it rose… just before I’d hit the sack.

      • Ross, the WHO example really *is* the outstanding one in terms of what I’d consider to be outright misrepresentation in the body of a study’s abstract, though Glantz’s Helena may run a close second either in the abstract or the body (or both). What we’re usually being exposed to in the media is the “spin” put on studies by the researchers or by antismoking groups who put out the press releases about the studies or by reporters who see it as their civil or moral duty to try to write stories against smoking. We also see pseudo-studies: half-baked things presented at conferences and applauded by Antismokers but which have never had their data presented or examined by anyone outside of the group blathering away at the microphone to attendees at that particular time. I believe the latter is what happened in the case of the Baumgartner “study”:

        Baumgartner J, Witt W, et al. “Environmental Tobacco Smoke Exposure and Blood Pressure in Children and Adolescents: Results from the 1999-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES),” [2805.5] Platform Session: Environmental /International Epidemiology, May 1, 2011.

        While it’s possible your eyes will be sharper than mine, I was unable to find this “study” actually published anywhere. Please DO look… I’d like to see it if it’s out there. When I examined it in TobakkoNacht about all I had to go on were the news stories where Baugartner worried about the 1.6 mm increase in boys’ blood pressure and then dismissed the corresponding drop of 1.8 mm in girls’ blood pressure as ALSO being a possible “cause of concern”!

        Glantz’s Helena study ( http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7446/977?tab=responses ) relegated a VERY important piece of information down to the next-to-last paragraph of the study:

        “Researchers have predicted that smoke-free laws would be associated with a reduced incidence of acute myocardial infarction through a combination of reduced exposure to secondhand smoke and encouraging smokers to quit11 (38% of the patients with acute myocardial infarction in the study were current smokers, 29%were former smokers, and 33% had never smoked at the time of admission). While both of these effects are probably occurring, we do not have large enough sample size to estimate their relative contribution to our results”

        I.E. they admitted that the ban likely had two effects: reducing ETS exposure AND increasing smokers’ quitting. They also admit BOTH probably affected their findings. BUT… the entirety of the thrust of the rest of the text in the study only speaks of exposure! Helena also provides an example of a ridiculously large 95% confidence interval with bounds of between – 31.7 to – 0.3 based on 16 heart attacks while also somehow claiming that the increased heart attack rates surrounding Helena as smokers and drinkers left town to go party wasn’t QUITE large enough ( 5.6 (− 5.2 to 16.4) ) to be considered worthy of having enough of an effect to nudge that barely significant -.03 number up by three hundredths of a point!

        . Rehan’s chopped up fetal rats study (see: https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2016/01/06/michael-mcfadden-on-third-hand-smoke/ ) is a good example though of an abstract burying an outstandingly important fact so thoroughly that virtually not a single news reporter anywhere in the world realized that human babies weren’t studied!

        Researchers can put a lot of spin into their studies, and I have no doubt at all that in this area of research there’s also a massive amount of outright fraudulent data (Remember all the stories about something like 15% of NORMAL scientific studies being thought to be fraudulent? Picture how that figure must multiply when the researchers aren’t just nudging their numbers to get a paycheck, but ALSO because they have a fanatically religious devotion to the idea that their antismoking research results are for the GREATER GOOD… i.e. that, ok, they’re lying, BUT… it’s for a GOOD CAUSE! Add that gown of morality to the crass money-grubbing motivation and I wouldn’t be surprised if the 15% figure actually doubled.

        – MJM

        • Some French bloke says:

          pseudo-studies … which have never had their data presented or examined by anyone

          In the brave new world of Quackademia, the bathroom wall has become the last refuge of candour and intellectual honesty, as demonstrated by this Harvard University Houghton Library graffiti: “TO RAISE MY GRADES, I MUST LOWER MY STANDARDS”.
          Getting associated with a ghost study about a phantom menace affecting fictional beings is good enough for the successful researcher who, as a student, may have scrawled the above.
          While living up to such standards must be easy as pissing the bed (as long as dissentient bloggers and commenters like us are just a fringe phenomenon), living down having endorsed them will be hell on earth when it’s all over.

        • Some French bloke says:

          ok, they’re lying, BUT… it’s for a GOOD CAUSE!

          That is the obligatory assumption of those who won’t question anything further than the Godber SHS harm fraud.

        • Tony says:

          Quackademia – what a great word! I’ve not seen that before :)

        • Some French bloke says:

          The word “quackademia” might have been coined by David Gorski, who published this on September 29, 2014: “… a phenomenon that I like to call quackademic medicine, something that’s fast turning medical academia into medical quackademia”.

          https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/tag/quackademia/

          Chris Snowdon also used the word in his “Garbage in, garbage out” post earlier this month…

        • Well done for David Gorski on Quackademia then, but I’ve had problems with him in the past. Back in mid-July 2010 I ran across a blog he’d done four weeks earlier in mid-June where he defended himself from accusations of being a Big Pharma Shill. I filled out the forms to join the blog and leave a comment and left one supporting his concerns about that sort of argument and noted how it had been aimed at me and other Free Choice supporters in the past. I suggested a solution: i.e. that he put a very clear statement of his non-affiliations at the top of his blog (Evidently he had one somewhere up there that I’d missed and you’ll see his response below in a minute.)

          LOL! I was IMMEDIATELY attacked by a pack o’ wolves who seemed to consign anyone questioning the deadliness of ETS to the same bin where they kept the Flat Earthers and Fake Moon Landing people. Dr. Gorski himself jumped in with the attackers to say the following:

          “Well, given the usual quality of Mr. McFadden’s “research,” it doesn’t surprise me that he didn’t bother to read the disclaimer.”

          I responded, politely and specifically to every attack that was made during the following two weeks and was then accused of hijacking the thread by defending myself. Brains was then attacked by people who’d never read it but complained that the “Truth Is A Lie” excerpted Appendix online didn’t repeat the 300 pages of arguments and evidence that it made references to in various places. Throughout the two weeks, although asked repeatedly, Dr. Gorski never once offered anything specific to back up his characterization of the “usual quality” of my research, and the various posters to SBM virtually never acknowledged or responded to any of my defenses against their attacks.

          You can see the whole thing at https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/in-which-i-am-once-again-in-the-crosshairs-of-age-of-autisms-pharma-shill-machine-gun/#disqus_thread if you’re interested in seeing those attacks from almost six years ago. You’ll first need to click “load more comments three or four times, then do a search for the full word “Communist” which will take you to my entry comment. After that you need to read UPWARDS in the thread in order to follow the posting timeline. I have no idea if Dr. Gorski and his posters have improved their general approach to discussions since then, but it’s interesting to see the approach in the past. Heh, my comment was posted immediately after one in which Dr. Gorski told someone he never censored folks, and I will admit, true to his word he let the extended attacks and defenses play out until he eventually closed the thread after a final response by a “pmoran.”

          If you DO read the thread arguments, remember to “Load More” several times, then search for “Communist,” and then read upwards to follow the posting timeline.

          – MJM

        • Ahh! Quackademia actually seems to have been coined by a Dr. RW at http://doctorrw.blogspot.com/2008/01/exposing-quackery-in-medical-education.html back in 2007, but Dr. Gorski *does* get good credit for recognizing the importance of the term and spreading it through SBM!

          – MJM

        • Some French bloke says:

          @ MJM. Just finished reading all the related comments on that SBM thread, and it’s indeed quite “interesting to see the approach in the past”! Two thoughts:
          The conclusion to that final comment by pmoran goes: So what do you hope to achieve? To show that people are human, and subject to bias and prejudices and over-reactions? That’s not news. What a strange utterance to make on a site called “sciencebasedmedicine.org”! If biased-based preventative medicine can be tolerated on account of a concept of an un-buckable human “nature”, what’s to stop us from applying the same “principle” to science at large, or to the Justice system, “where there is an impartial arbitrator (as in a Judge)” to quote another commenter (daedalus2u) on the same thread?
          And to think you were only targeting the SHS claims in the 2006 SG report… one can only imagine what kind of jihadist hell would have broken loose if an attack had been directed at the claims contained in their Holy Quran (the 1964 Luther Terry report)!

        • French, indeed! But I always believe in going for the most vulnerable chinks in their armor to begin with: thirdhand smoke, outdoor bans, apartment/flat bans, vaping bans … things where they are so OBVIOUSLY lying that most of the public still has an open mind on the questions. And once someone truly accepts that the Antis have been blatantly lying to them about ONE thing… the door will be open for them realizing that they’ve been lying about a LOT more.

          – MJM

    • Frank Davis says:

      I think that this happened in global warming with Climategate, with them talking to each other about “hiding the decline”. They were caught in a lie.

      But none of them lost their jobs. And all the enquiries whitewashed them. And they’ve carried on merrily telling lies. Nevertheless Climategate provided the world with a peek under the bonnet of climate science, and it wasn’t a pretty sight.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      I attack the whole thing,rather than snippets. Challenge everything at one time it leaves them dragging the floor.

  5. Rose says:

    Warning Labels With Graphic Images Don’t Deter Smokers, May Encourage Reactionary Smoking
    Feb 24, 2016

    “According to the researchers, the graphic labels are perceived by many as a threat to their choices, freedom, or autonomy.

    “What we found is that most people don’t like these warning labels, whether they are smokers or nonsmokers,” said communications doctoral student Nicole LaVoie, lead researcher of the study, in a statement. “It makes them angry, it makes them express negative thoughts about the packaging, that they’re being manipulated. Ultimately, it also makes them think that the source — the government in this case, mandating these labels — is overly domineering, is being too much in their business.”

    The biggest problem is that the strongest response of this kind came from participants who measured high in psychological reactance; a trait that makes someone more prone to negative and resistant thoughts when they believe they’re being told what to do. Smokers, unfortunately, tend to be somewhat higher in this trait. Professor Brian Quick, a co-author of the paper, said that because of this, a boomerang effect can occur.

    “If these individuals see things as freedom threats, they are going to be more attracted to perform the threatened behavior,” he said.”
    http://www.medicaldaily.com/warning-labels-cigarette-box-tobacco-companies-374918

    In my view it’s reasonably correct in so far as it goes, but the glaring omission is that the graphic warnings in no way relate to anything I have ever seen in real life.
    For instance, I have been around for over 60 years now and the only person I ever knew that got mouth cancer was a neversmoker and that was about 40 years ago.

    If a regularly presented image is contradicted by experience, it just becomes a mildly annoying nuisance, like an advert for a breakfast cereal you can’t stand.

    More accurately Ryvita, what is that all about?

  6. prog says:

    “It makes them angry, it makes them express negative thoughts about the packaging, that they’re being manipulated. Ultimately, it also makes them think that the source — the government in this case, mandating these labels — is overly domineering, is being too much in their business.”

    Well let’s give them credit for being partially right occasionally – all too often government mandates are merely fulfilling PH dictates. But they were always going to have problems with the 15-20% that refuse to be bullied into quitting.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      that 80% should really feel stupid and fools by the time the message finally gets to them.
      Probably why the biggest number of new smokers is those who had quit.

      • prog says:

        it’s up to c.20% of all adults who are digging their heels in. The huge irony/elephant in the room is that this figure hasn’t really changed these last 10 years, despite the all the shit they’ve thrown.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          YA AND NOW GLANTZ is suing Hollywood for showing smoking in movies.

          The good ol’ USA! Glantz is at it again.

          National class-action lawsuit filed against Hollywood for negligently rating movies with smoking…

          Ever since we launched the Smoke Free Movies campaign in March 2001, I have been wondering when there would be a lawsuit against the MPAA and the major studios it represents for continuing to allow smoking in movies it rates as suitable for youth.

          smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    Forest criticises call to rate movies that portray tobacco use

     Mon 1st February, 2016

    Forest has criticised a call for governments to rate movies that portray tobacco use.

    The World Health Organisation also wants warnings to be displayed before such films are shown.

    Simon Clark, director of Forest, said: “The portrayal of smoking in films should be a matter for the film industry and individual producers and directors, not the World Health Organisation.

    “Disney has a no smoking policy for its PG 13-rated films, and that’s fine, but films aimed at older audiences must be allowed to reflect real life not some sanitised smoke free world.

    “Penalising films that portray tobacco use by giving them a rating equivalent to an 18 certificate is a clumsy and unnecessary attempt at censorship.

    “What next? Will films that portray drinking, violence and casual sex be given a similar rating in case they’re a bad influence too?”

  8. Rose says:

    Now I’ve finished laughing, this is not going to please ASH.
    (or you know when you’ve finally overdone it)

    Moschino’s Cigarette-Themed Show

    “And so, out of this decimated palazzo scene came Scott’s army of debutantes cum-biker-babes bedecked in taffeta bows and black leather: jangling with silver chains and skull and cross bows, their hems singed with cigarette burns, their handbags emblazoned with the inevitable ‘Fashion Kills’ fag-packet warning.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/milan-fashion-week/trashy-flashy-fun-at-moschino-milan-fashion-week-for-aw16/

    Marie Claire

    “Milan Fashion Week was on fire, literally, last night as Jeremy Scott presented his latest collection for Moschino – inspired by cigarettes.

    Yes, after devoting entire past shows to Barbie, McDonalds, the Looney Tunes and other pop culture phenomenons, Jeremy’s now turned his attention, controversially, to all things smoking, flames and fire related. And his cult following were loving it.”

    “This Season’s IT Phone Case Is A Cigarette Box
    According to Jeremy Scott, no one should be quitting the habit and instead, we should all be wearing our Marlboro Light boxes on our sleeves. Each season, the brand creates an Insta-phenomenon with its iPhone case designs and for AW16 they’re presenting an actual cigarette carton. On the runway, Jeremy further ran with his theme creating ‘Fashion Kills’ clutches and match box bags, all styled with match stripe knits, too.”
    http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/fashion/552102/moschino-aw16-fashion-show-pictures-the-cigarette-collection.html#index=1

    The Daily Mail commenters seem to be nonplussed

    http: //www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3464577/Moschino-models-blaze-trail-runway-scorched-dresses-SMOKING-Milan-Fashion-Week.html

    Sweaters with a cigarette between ruby red lips $625 according to stylecaster

  9. prog says:

    ‘Over diagnosis of childhood asthma is common in primary care, leading to unnecessary treatment, disease burden, and impact on quality of life. However, only in a small percentage of children is a diagnosis of asthma confirmed by lung function tests.’

    http://bjgp.org/content/66/644/e152

  10. Pingback: We Are The Goon Squad & We’re Coming to Town – Library of Libraries

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    The solution is outlawing Buildings not people

    Leave a reply

    The solution is outlawing Buildings not people.

    Funny first you have to believe in the so called ” HARM BELIEF SYSTEM” Since nobody can prove a smoking or vaping disease even exists. Next you have to peer into the over 3000 VOCs non smokers exhale into the same indoor space which almost matches chemically what smokers and vapors are releasing too. After you know the facts it might appear we just need to outlaw BUILDINGS.

    https://harleyridersblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/the-solution-is-outlawing-buildings-not-people/

    • Nicely done French and Harley! :) Quackademia! I *LOVE* it!!! That’s a definite keeper!

      The next step is getting rid of all those damn allergens growing in the parks and giving our children deadly asthma attacks. A side benefit of covering all that nasty green moldy stuff with concrete is all the money taxpayers will save with not having to have park groundskeepers mowing lawns and cleaning up leaves.

      It’s a WIN-WIN-WIN situation for EVERYONE, the struggling taxpayers; the workers forced to expose themselves to the dust, allergens, and fungi; and last but not least The Poor Choking Children who are simply trying to breathe clean air while playing in park’s playgrounds.

      Down With Big Green! Save The Children!

      – MJM, First Archbishop Of The Church Of The Cement Mixer!

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s