Comments on: The physician who disputes second-hand smoke claims http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/11/physician-who-disputes-second-hand.html Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:56:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Diorahttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/11/physician-who-disputes-second-hand.html#comment-81832 Diora Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:25:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/11/the-physician-who-disputes-second-hand-smoke-claims.html#comment-81832 ema,<br/>So according to you, conflict of interest or bias in studies doesn't matter? Why then it is a common practice for a study authors to disclose potential conflict of interest? Also, wasn't there recently a paper comparing results of Cochrane reviews vs industry-sponsored studies and showing different results? <br/><br/>Wouldn't smoking be similar to a potential conflict of interest or bias that can affect interpretation of data? As to the data, he is using short term exposure and heart desease risk to dispute second-hand smoke claims and doesn't touch on repeated exposures over long term or other ills. ema,
So according to you, conflict of interest or bias in studies doesn’t matter? Why then it is a common practice for a study authors to disclose potential conflict of interest? Also, wasn’t there recently a paper comparing results of Cochrane reviews vs industry-sponsored studies and showing different results?

Wouldn’t smoking be similar to a potential conflict of interest or bias that can affect interpretation of data? As to the data, he is using short term exposure and heart desease risk to dispute second-hand smoke claims and doesn’t touch on repeated exposures over long term or other ills.

]]> By: emahttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/11/physician-who-disputes-second-hand.html#comment-81795 ema Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:48:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/11/the-physician-who-disputes-second-hand-smoke-claims.html#comment-81795 diora,<br/><br/><i>I wonder if this doctor smokes. If so, he is hardly objective.</i><br/><br/>That's not how it works. You judge what he has to say based on the quality of the evidence he presents, not based on his personal habits. diora,

I wonder if this doctor smokes. If so, he is hardly objective.

That’s not how it works. You judge what he has to say based on the quality of the evidence he presents, not based on his personal habits.

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/11/physician-who-disputes-second-hand.html#comment-81790 Anonymous Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:57:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/11/the-physician-who-disputes-second-hand-smoke-claims.html#comment-81790 No argument that cigarette smoke irritates many people, physically and/or emotionally. However the U.N. WHO organization conducted worldwide studies on second-hand smoke over a twenty-year period and found no ill-effects on non-smokers. Then they did a third study, a shorter one, and reported there probably are harmful effects. I think political correctness got the better of them. The tobacco-nazis never consider how their own nastiness causes stress that definitely has harmful effects. They are just so 'pure' and 'righteous', don't you know. Drunks, snorters, etc, but...pure and righteous. No argument that cigarette smoke irritates many people, physically and/or emotionally. However the U.N. WHO organization conducted worldwide studies on second-hand smoke over a twenty-year period and found no ill-effects on non-smokers. Then they did a third study, a shorter one, and reported there probably are harmful effects. I think political correctness got the better of them. The tobacco-nazis never consider how their own nastiness causes stress that definitely has harmful effects. They are just so ‘pure’ and ‘righteous’, don’t you know. Drunks, snorters, etc, but…pure and righteous.

]]> By: Diorahttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/11/physician-who-disputes-second-hand.html#comment-81780 Diora Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:30:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/11/the-physician-who-disputes-second-hand-smoke-claims.html#comment-81780 Totally agree with It burns. If you spend some time with a smoker, your throat itch, you nose itch. After a little bit of time, your clothing starts smelling of smoke. When you travel to Europe, someone's smoking next to you in a restaurant is enough to spoil your lunch.<br/><br/>My neighbors smoke. If open my second floor windows, their smoke gets in. If I don't close my windows quickly enough, the smoke gets into my bedrooms. Very unpleasant.<br/><br/>I wonder if this doctor smokes. If so, he is hardly objective. Totally agree with It burns. If you spend some time with a smoker, your throat itch, you nose itch. After a little bit of time, your clothing starts smelling of smoke. When you travel to Europe, someone’s smoking next to you in a restaurant is enough to spoil your lunch.

My neighbors smoke. If open my second floor windows, their smoke gets in. If I don’t close my windows quickly enough, the smoke gets into my bedrooms. Very unpleasant.

I wonder if this doctor smokes. If so, he is hardly objective.

]]> By: Matthewhttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/11/physician-who-disputes-second-hand.html#comment-81779 Matthew Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:53:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/11/the-physician-who-disputes-second-hand-smoke-claims.html#comment-81779 it burns-<br/><br/>I think the point is that the things you just asserted are not, in fact, evidenced by science. Go back and reread what Siegel says, and if you're able to actually find evidence to support your assertions, I'm sure that he or I would be happy to hear them. Siegel often correctly harps on the point that anti-smoking crusaders habitually exaggerate or even at times create evidence from whole cloth to support intrusive legislation and coercive tactics. It seems that you've fallen into that same trap, knowingly or not.<br/><br/>I certainly wouldn't argue that some people find second hand smoke irritating. But that bears no relation to whether or not it should be regulated, or whether or not it actually carries long term health consequences. I find Hillary Clinton's voice causes me much irritation and discomfort, but I'm not looking to legislate her out of existence or control my environment to the point where others who want to hear her can't do so.<br/><br/>If you don't want to smoke, go for it. But keep your regulations, exaggerations and parentalism off of me. it burns-

I think the point is that the things you just asserted are not, in fact, evidenced by science. Go back and reread what Siegel says, and if you’re able to actually find evidence to support your assertions, I’m sure that he or I would be happy to hear them. Siegel often correctly harps on the point that anti-smoking crusaders habitually exaggerate or even at times create evidence from whole cloth to support intrusive legislation and coercive tactics. It seems that you’ve fallen into that same trap, knowingly or not.

I certainly wouldn’t argue that some people find second hand smoke irritating. But that bears no relation to whether or not it should be regulated, or whether or not it actually carries long term health consequences. I find Hillary Clinton’s voice causes me much irritation and discomfort, but I’m not looking to legislate her out of existence or control my environment to the point where others who want to hear her can’t do so.

If you don’t want to smoke, go for it. But keep your regulations, exaggerations and parentalism off of me.

]]> By: It burnshttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/11/physician-who-disputes-second-hand.html#comment-81778 It burns Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:45:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/11/the-physician-who-disputes-second-hand-smoke-claims.html#comment-81778 He's sort of missing the point. <br/>Even if transient exposure doesn't cause people to drop dead on the spot, repeated exposures over the long term are soundly linked to an assortment of ills.<br/><br/>And it is inarguable that transient exposure causes irritation and discomfort. Walking through or Smoking someone elses smoke is a nuisance, plain and simple. <br/><br/>When smokers can enjoy the habit without inflicting misery on others, go to it. I don't care if you die. Just keep your chemical soup off of me. He’s sort of missing the point.
Even if transient exposure doesn’t cause people to drop dead on the spot, repeated exposures over the long term are soundly linked to an assortment of ills.

And it is inarguable that transient exposure causes irritation and discomfort. Walking through or Smoking someone elses smoke is a nuisance, plain and simple.

When smokers can enjoy the habit without inflicting misery on others, go to it. I don’t care if you die. Just keep your chemical soup off of me.

]]>