Blog describing the work of Freedom to Choose (Scotland). Educating the general public, and particularly the general public in Scotland,
on matters where freedom of choice is under threat....
"When health is equated with freedom, liberty as a political concept vanishes." (Dr. Thomas Szasz, The Therapeutic State)....
INTOLERANCE IS THE MOST PREVENTABLE CAUSE OF INEQUALITIES!
I'd seen it before jred, but without the opening sequences about the Nazis. But one of our anti smoking readers will not take kindly to the Nazi connotation.
jredheagirl ... I enjoyed watching it too, especially the Michael McFadden parts of the interview as I was probably less than ten yards away at the time of the recording, at the TICAP conference in March. I also liked that smart young presenter!
Wesley did an amazing job with this video! When he was taping me I had no idea he was planning anything this extensive. I figured he was just making a tape of the conference for himself and maybe a copy for TICAP and just wanted a few words from me for some background color so I really didn't give him much to work with. LOL!
Congratulations Wesley Vet on getting so many blatant lies into a 20 minute video. During the video Michael J McFadden asks why the media never listens to the pro-smoking lobby. Perhaps it's because they have so little regard for the truth?
Hmmm. So I put up comments on the DailyMotion page, listing just a few of the many lies in this video. Within a few hours, guess what? Comments for this video have been deactivated.
I can only surmise that our Wesley has chosen to deactivate any scope for comments, in a desperate effort to prevent his lies being exposed.
There is no requirement for blogs to have comments sections. If Sheila Duffy decided not to do so for a good reason (and let's face it, given the amount of personal abuse that seems to go her way, that of itself would be a good reason), then she is justified in doing that.
That video you posted, however, has been up for 3 months, with comments allowed all the while. It is only when I post comments exposing some of its many lies (i.e. not personal abuse) that remarkably the comments section is deactivated.
Also interesting is that some of the lies came directly from the mouths of Wiel Maessen and Michael J McFadden, who would have the world believe (as you do Belinda) that we should all be signing this "Brussels Declaration" to keep truth in science.
Thats a bit rich coming from Rollo,the anti smoking lobby has built its campaign on Lies,Discrimination and Bullying. I am sure if he just opens his eyes he will be able to see the link between anti's and nazis,it is true that the antis may not see themselves as nazis but they have no problem useing nazi propaganda methods to get Their own way. In there eyes the end justify the means.
Of course they're Nazis...what else do you call a policy like denormalization...They really hate being called Nazis though that is why gruppenfuhrer Rollo could'nt resist commenting.
Actually Rollo you set the tone for accusatory attacks by coming here accusing Wesley Vet of lying. I don't understand why his comments have been disabled. But it proves absolutely nothing about whether or not he is telling the truth. You haven't given us any basis to discuss the video other than an accusation of lying not only against Wesley Vet but also two people he interviewed - one of them already commented on this thread. Then you accuse the other side of sweeping accusations without bothering to explain the basis for your own accusations.
If you want a civilised discussion it helps to lead by example.
Belinda - Thank you for the invitation to reel off just a few lies on that video.
Want some examples? Here’s one. Wesley Vet claims the EPA report was overturned by a federal court because of “cherry-picking”. Wrong. The EPA report is still valid. That court decision was overturned on appeal. Funny how the video doesn’t mention that.
Here’s another lie. The video refers to the EPA report but not to other more recent reports (e.g. by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the US Surgeon General) which are based on more evidence and which also show that passive smoking is harmful. The tobacco lobby hasn’t been able to tarnish these other reports as they tried to do with the EPA report. Vet lies by trying to suggest that many health organisations still use the EPA report “as some kind of Bible” while conveniently ignoring these other reports.
And another lie. Wiel Maessens and Michael J McFadden claim that the 1998 report found no link between passive smoking and lung cancer. That’s absolutely wrong and I challenge anyone to find any such reference in the report’s conclusions. The report actually found results consistent with other studies which showed that passive smoking is associated with lung cancer: “The risk from ever exposure to spousal ETS was consistent with the combined available evidence from European studies, but it was lower than some previous estimates—a result that could be explained by the large number of subjects whose exposure to ETS ended several years earlier.”
Need another lie? Here’s one. The video lists and categorises studies according to their results. They claim that most studies are “insignificant”. They also argue that 10 studies show a protective effect, even though most of these results are insignificant. In other words, they deliberately create an uneven playing field where a study’s findings are only insignificant if the pro-smokers don’t like its conclusions.
Here’s a whopper. Vet claims that a statistically non-significant result equals no risk. That is an absolutely shocking falsification of basic scientific principle.
Here’s a lie from Michael J McFadden, who claims the concept of passive smoking was invented by the Nazis in 1939. It helps the pro-smokers to say that, because it allows them to associate passive smoking with Nazis. But it’s totally wrong. Scientific research into the risks of passive smoking was being conducted in the 1920s, when the Nazis were a tiny non-entity in German politics.
Another lie from Michael J McFadden. He says that after World War 2, nobody spoke again about passive smoking until Sir George Godber spoke about it at a conference in 1975. Pro-smokers like to make this claim but it’s utter rubbish. There had already been several studies showing harmful effects from passive smoking before that conference.
That's just a few of the lies on that video. But I trust you'll agree that's enough to be going on with for now.
Well that's a bit clearer thank you Rollo. I don't understand why you are accusing people of lying though. There are people who interpret things differently from the way you do: this is in the nature of any scientific, legal or any other kind of enquiry.
I have not studied all this in as much depth as the people you are being so rude about, however this is my understanding of the court ruling. From http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2003%20October.htm
The appeals court did NOT overturn Judge Osteen's findings that EPA had used deceptive science to support a policy on environmental tobacco smoke that it had adopted before it even began its study. It did not even address those issues. Instead the appeals court ruling focused only on whether the lower federal court had jurisdiction to review EPA actions in this matter and found that it did not. If Mr. Whent is interested in "academic accuracy," he can find the full text of the circuit court's ruling here: .
Worked for me Belinda. As for you Rollo your are so anti smoking you are willing to believe lies that are provided against the likes of Enstrom who said he'd not worry about inhaling other peoples second hand smoke.
I am not into number crunching, I'm only a lad from the sink estate who, like the rest of the people I talk to outside pubs, never ever believed that SHS was harmful to anyone, do not believe all the junk science that is put out there by tobacco control Nazis like yourself to shame us.
I do believe though in the likes of Michael J McFadden who calmly deciphers the bullshit, I do believe Chris Snowdon who calmly deciphers the anti smoking junk science, I do believe Rich White, who calmly deciphers the scientific communities who are in the pay of big pharma and who would would fuck their own grandmothers for those all important bucks!
What is that you say, two sides of one coin? We are liars, you are the truth, you are liars, we are the truth? Damn true, and I know squarely who the liars are!
The truth is out there but you and your ilk, smoke hating Nazis, don't want to see it, it upsets your eugenics agenda.
Belinda – You question why I should refer to these remarks as “lies”. Well, the video is quite happy to accuse the health and scientific community of lying, so we should expect the producers of the video would want to ensure they have their own facts in order.
Let me repeat what the video actually says.
“However in 1998 a federal court specified that the EPA was guilty of cherry-picking, from using existing small studies. However many Health organizations still use the report as a kind of bible was it then already rejected (sic).”
Wesley Vet is clearly trying to say that the EPA report is invalid now, because of a federal court ruling. That is a bare-faced lie. The court judgment by Judge Osteen was vacated in full, which means in the eyes of the law the Osteen judgment is irrelevant. The EPA report has the same status as if there were never a court ruling made about it.
By the way, here is the Appeal Court ruling vacating the Osteen judgement: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982407.P.pdf. It takes a bit of reading, but you will find that the court says that a court would have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the EPA report if regulation (e.g. new smoking laws) was introduced on the back of the report. As you know, many smoking laws have now been introduced in the USA. If any pro-smoking body or tobacco company seriously felt there were legal grounds to challenge these laws, they would have done so years ago. So why haven’t they? They must realise that no court is likely to uphold their claims, either because no other court would agree with Osteen, or because there is other more convincing evidence showing the harm of passive smoking than the EPA report now anyway.
I listed 7 lies from this video. You have only offered comments on one of these lies, and I have now answered it. You’ve said nothing more about the other 6 lies I listed.
Rollo, the Osteen judgement was not (as I understand it) overturned on the basis of its content, but on the basis of the court's competence in that case.
Yes I recommend the video. People have a right to see what the debate is about. I did not make the film and have no intention of researching it fully in order to defend it against your attacks. Even if you are right in certain points such as the historical timing of studies on passive smoking for example, does not change the essential character of denormalisation as a strategy against smokers.
The bodies criticised in the study are publicly funded and accountable to public scrutiny. Not just the scrutiny of those in society who share the goal of marginalising smokers, but the rest of us too.
Belinda - I'm not trying to suggest the Osteen judgment was overturned on the basis of its content. But, no matter how it was overturned, the content of the judgment is irrelevant now.
As I said in my last post, if any pro-smoking or libertarian body or tobacco company in the US wants another court to reach its own views on the issues which Osteen considered, they are free to raise another action. None has done so, even though the Court of Appeal stated that reports such as the EPA reports could be challenged in court if laws were introduced on the back of them.
And I am glad that you are at least not trying to defend the "accuracy" of that video.
It is irrelevant as a court judgment, as it has no status in law. It has no more relevance than anything you or I say on this board.
Tobacco companies funded that case. They have a few bob. Some libertarian groups are similarly well resourced. If they - with hand on heart - felt confident they could win their case, they would have pursued legal action.
None of this discussion, Belinda, affects the underlying issue, which was that the claim in the video that the EPA report is now invalid because of a court ruling is a lie.
I thought the Master Settlement Agreement prohibited or restricted litigation on the part of tobacco companies. As for libertarian groups there can be few that could out-resource Mayor Bloomberg or the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation or any other such group or individual that might have given their dollars to the anti-smoking cause.
I see how you might claim that the Osteen Judgement is not a viable legal document and that the EPA report still has legal validity. But if you are right, the claim that the EPA report is invalid is likely to arise from a misinterpretation in the law rather than a lie.
Interesting point about the MSA. But I don't think it prevents tobacco companies from raising legal actions (although they are not allowed to use courts to lobby against legislation intended to discourage youth smoking). http://www.ag.ca.gov/tobacco/resources/msasumm.php
In other circumstances, I might be inclined to describe this kind of mis-statement as a "misinterpretation" rather than a lie". But not here. There are too many falsehoods in the video for all to be genuine misinterpretations. At the very least, they demonstrate a reckless disregard for the facts - from Maessens, McFadden and Vet. And, since the video talks openly about the "lies" of the health and science community, the accusers are in no position to cast the first stone.
Rollo. It's in the nature of things that in controversial issues, both sides accuse each other of a reckless disregard for the facts. I find it hard to understand how something that is statistically insignificant can be medically harmful, and tend to think the resources expended in persuading people not to smoke and subsidising not-very-effective smoking cessation medication could be better expended on other more pressing medical issues.
As far as I'm concerned that's just another silly counter-accusation, Rollo. Since the people who made and participated in the video have shown no inclination to debate with you here, I think we'd better call it a day.
No Belinda, it has been the basic tenet of my argument from the outset. A tenet backed up by 7 specific examples of evidence, none of which have been answered and in fact most of which have been ducked.
I'll give you some credit for at least dealing with the issues at hand. I wouldn't necessary expect the participants to spend much time on this board, so their failure to participate is no surprise (not least given the sudden and oh-so-coincidental deactivation of comments on Vet's boards).
Shame that none of the other pro-smoking acolytes who participated were discuss the issues in any reasonable way.
36 comments:
I enjoyed watching that. Thanks for posting Belinda:-)
I'd seen it before jred, but without the opening sequences about the Nazis. But one of our anti smoking readers will not take kindly to the Nazi connotation.
No anti-smoking reader has commented on here yet. I'm ready!
The film maker does point out that he does not see anti-smokers as Nazis, but as people who use Nazi propaganda.
jredheagirl ... I enjoyed watching it too, especially the Michael McFadden parts of the interview as I was probably less than ten yards away at the time of the recording, at the TICAP conference in March. I also liked that smart young presenter!
Wesley did an amazing job with this video! When he was taping me I had no idea he was planning anything this extensive. I figured he was just making a tape of the conference for himself and maybe a copy for TICAP and just wanted a few words from me for some background color so I really didn't give him much to work with. LOL!
He'll be the Dutch version of Cecil B. DeMille!
:)
Michael
Congratulations Wesley Vet on getting so many blatant lies into a 20 minute video. During the video Michael J McFadden asks why the media never listens to the pro-smoking lobby. Perhaps it's because they have so little regard for the truth?
Hmmm. So I put up comments on the DailyMotion page, listing just a few of the many lies in this video. Within a few hours, guess what? Comments for this video have been deactivated.
I can only surmise that our Wesley has chosen to deactivate any scope for comments, in a desperate effort to prevent his lies being exposed.
What, no comments allowed? Like this you mean: http://sheilaashscotland.wordpress.com/
There is no requirement for blogs to have comments sections. If Sheila Duffy decided not to do so for a good reason (and let's face it, given the amount of personal abuse that seems to go her way, that of itself would be a good reason), then she is justified in doing that.
That video you posted, however, has been up for 3 months, with comments allowed all the while. It is only when I post comments exposing some of its many lies (i.e. not personal abuse) that remarkably the comments section is deactivated.
Also interesting is that some of the lies came directly from the mouths of Wiel Maessen and Michael J McFadden, who would have the world believe (as you do Belinda) that we should all be signing this "Brussels Declaration" to keep truth in science.
They speak with forked tongue.
Thats a bit rich coming from Rollo,the anti smoking lobby has built its campaign on Lies,Discrimination and Bullying. I am sure if he just opens his eyes he will be able to see the link between anti's and nazis,it is true that the antis may not see themselves as nazis but they have no problem useing nazi propaganda methods to get Their own way. In there eyes the end justify the means.
Tobaco Control's motto is tell a lie often enough and people will believe it.
Of course they're Nazis...what else do you call a policy like denormalization...They really hate being called Nazis though that is why gruppenfuhrer Rollo could'nt resist commenting.
Oh, the typical pro-smokers’ comments.
Complete failure to discuss the subject of the blog (the Wesley Vet video)? Check.
Totally off-topic, ignorant, evidence-free and sweeping accusations? Check.
Comments directed at me, rather than the issues? Check.
Obligatory Nazi references? Check.
Well done, Anon and Blue ‘n’ Bramble. You’ve perfected the art of being pro-smokers.
Actually Rollo you set the tone for accusatory attacks by coming here accusing Wesley Vet of lying. I don't understand why his comments have been disabled. But it proves absolutely nothing about whether or not he is telling the truth. You haven't given us any basis to discuss the video other than an accusation of lying not only against Wesley Vet but also two people he interviewed - one of them already commented on this thread. Then you accuse the other side of sweeping accusations without bothering to explain the basis for your own accusations.
If you want a civilised discussion it helps to lead by example.
Belinda - Thank you for the invitation to reel off just a few lies on that video.
Want some examples? Here’s one. Wesley Vet claims the EPA report was overturned by a federal court because of “cherry-picking”. Wrong. The EPA report is still valid. That court decision was overturned on appeal. Funny how the video doesn’t mention that.
Here’s another lie. The video refers to the EPA report but not to other more recent reports (e.g. by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the US Surgeon General) which are based on more evidence and which also show that passive smoking is harmful. The tobacco lobby hasn’t been able to tarnish these other reports as they tried to do with the EPA report. Vet lies by trying to suggest that many health organisations still use the EPA report “as some kind of Bible” while conveniently ignoring these other reports.
And another lie. Wiel Maessens and Michael J McFadden claim that the 1998 report found no link between passive smoking and lung cancer. That’s absolutely wrong and I challenge anyone to find any such reference in the report’s conclusions. The report actually found results consistent with other studies which showed that passive smoking is associated with lung cancer: “The risk from ever exposure to spousal ETS was consistent with the combined available evidence from European studies, but it was lower than some previous estimates—a result that could be explained by the large number of subjects whose exposure to ETS ended several years earlier.”
Need another lie? Here’s one. The video lists and categorises studies according to their results. They claim that most studies are “insignificant”. They also argue that 10 studies show a protective effect, even though most of these results are insignificant. In other words, they deliberately create an uneven playing field where a study’s findings are only insignificant if the pro-smokers don’t like its conclusions.
Here’s a whopper. Vet claims that a statistically non-significant result equals no risk. That is an absolutely shocking falsification of basic scientific principle.
Here’s a lie from Michael J McFadden, who claims the concept of passive smoking was invented by the Nazis in 1939. It helps the pro-smokers to say that, because it allows them to associate passive smoking with Nazis. But it’s totally wrong. Scientific research into the risks of passive smoking was being conducted in the 1920s, when the Nazis were a tiny non-entity in German politics.
Another lie from Michael J McFadden. He says that after World War 2, nobody spoke again about passive smoking until Sir George Godber spoke about it at a conference in 1975. Pro-smokers like to make this claim but it’s utter rubbish. There had already been several studies showing harmful effects from passive smoking before that conference.
That's just a few of the lies on that video. But I trust you'll agree that's enough to be going on with for now.
Well that's a bit clearer thank you Rollo. I don't understand why you are accusing people of lying though. There are people who interpret things differently from the way you do: this is in the nature of any scientific, legal or any other kind of enquiry.
I have not studied all this in as much depth as the people you are being so rude about, however this is my understanding of the court ruling. From http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2003%20October.htm
The appeals court did NOT overturn Judge Osteen's findings that EPA had used deceptive science to support a policy on environmental tobacco smoke that it had adopted before it even began its study. It did not even address those issues. Instead the appeals court ruling focused only on whether the lower federal court had jurisdiction to review EPA actions in this matter and found that it did not. If Mr. Whent is interested in "academic accuracy," he can find the full text of the circuit court's ruling here: .
(link provided does not work)
Worked for me Belinda. As for you Rollo your are so anti smoking you are willing to believe lies that are provided against the likes of Enstrom who said he'd not worry about inhaling other peoples second hand smoke.
I am not into number crunching, I'm only a lad from the sink estate who, like the rest of the people I talk to outside pubs, never ever believed that SHS was harmful to anyone, do not believe all the junk science that is put out there by tobacco control Nazis like yourself to shame us.
I do believe though in the likes of Michael J McFadden who calmly deciphers the bullshit, I do believe Chris Snowdon who calmly deciphers the anti smoking junk science, I do believe Rich White, who calmly deciphers the scientific communities who are in the pay of big pharma and who would would fuck their own grandmothers for those all important bucks!
What is that you say, two sides of one coin? We are liars, you are the truth, you are liars, we are the truth? Damn true, and I know squarely who the liars are!
The truth is out there but you and your ilk, smoke hating Nazis, don't want to see it, it upsets your eugenics agenda.
Now fuck of and play somewhere else eh.
(You can take the boy out of the sink estate...)
Is Rollo Tommasi your real name or is that a lie?
Rollo the Nazi bites again. Too easy lmao.
Hi TBY, the link that does not work is the one to the text of the circuit court's ruling, not to numberwatch
Belinda – You question why I should refer to these remarks as “lies”. Well, the video is quite happy to accuse the health and scientific community of lying, so we should expect the producers of the video would want to ensure they have their own facts in order.
Let me repeat what the video actually says.
“However in 1998 a federal court specified that the EPA was guilty of cherry-picking, from using existing small studies. However many Health organizations still use the report as a kind of bible was it then already rejected (sic).”
Wesley Vet is clearly trying to say that the EPA report is invalid now, because of a federal court ruling. That is a bare-faced lie. The court judgment by Judge Osteen was vacated in full, which means in the eyes of the law the Osteen judgment is irrelevant. The EPA report has the same status as if there were never a court ruling made about it.
By the way, here is the Appeal Court ruling vacating the Osteen judgement: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982407.P.pdf. It takes a bit of reading, but you will find that the court says that a court would have jurisdiction to consider the merits of the EPA report if regulation (e.g. new smoking laws) was introduced on the back of the report. As you know, many smoking laws have now been introduced in the USA. If any pro-smoking body or tobacco company seriously felt there were legal grounds to challenge these laws, they would have done so years ago. So why haven’t they? They must realise that no court is likely to uphold their claims, either because no other court would agree with Osteen, or because there is other more convincing evidence showing the harm of passive smoking than the EPA report now anyway.
I listed 7 lies from this video. You have only offered comments on one of these lies, and I have now answered it. You’ve said nothing more about the other 6 lies I listed.
Do you still recommend the video?
Rollo, the Osteen judgement was not (as I understand it) overturned on the basis of its content, but on the basis of the court's competence in that case.
Yes I recommend the video. People have a right to see what the debate is about. I did not make the film and have no intention of researching it fully in order to defend it against your attacks. Even if you are right in certain points such as the historical timing of studies on passive smoking for example, does not change the essential character of denormalisation as a strategy against smokers.
The bodies criticised in the study are publicly funded and accountable to public scrutiny. Not just the scrutiny of those in society who share the goal of marginalising smokers, but the rest of us too.
Belinda - I'm not trying to suggest the Osteen judgment was overturned on the basis of its content. But, no matter how it was overturned, the content of the judgment is irrelevant now.
As I said in my last post, if any pro-smoking or libertarian body or tobacco company in the US wants another court to reach its own views on the issues which Osteen considered, they are free to raise another action. None has done so, even though the Court of Appeal stated that reports such as the EPA reports could be challenged in court if laws were introduced on the back of them.
And I am glad that you are at least not trying to defend the "accuracy" of that video.
It's not irrelevant if the judge's conclusions were correct.
The Court of Appeal can say what it likes, but legal action is prohibitively expensive for most of the people affected.
It is irrelevant as a court judgment, as it has no status in law. It has no more relevance than anything you or I say on this board.
Tobacco companies funded that case. They have a few bob. Some libertarian groups are similarly well resourced. If they - with hand on heart - felt confident they could win their case, they would have pursued legal action.
None of this discussion, Belinda, affects the underlying issue, which was that the claim in the video that the EPA report is now invalid because of a court ruling is a lie.
I thought the Master Settlement Agreement prohibited or restricted litigation on the part of tobacco companies. As for libertarian groups there can be few that could out-resource Mayor Bloomberg or the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation or any other such group or individual that might have given their dollars to the anti-smoking cause.
I see how you might claim that the Osteen Judgement is not a viable legal document and that the EPA report still has legal validity. But if you are right, the claim that the EPA report is invalid is likely to arise from a misinterpretation in the law rather than a lie.
Interesting point about the MSA. But I don't think it prevents tobacco companies from raising legal actions (although they are not allowed to use courts to lobby against legislation intended to discourage youth smoking).
http://www.ag.ca.gov/tobacco/resources/msasumm.php
In other circumstances, I might be inclined to describe this kind of mis-statement as a "misinterpretation" rather than a lie". But not here. There are too many falsehoods in the video for all to be genuine misinterpretations. At the very least, they demonstrate a reckless disregard for the facts - from Maessens, McFadden and Vet. And, since the video talks openly about the "lies" of the health and science community, the accusers are in no position to cast the first stone.
Rollo. It's in the nature of things that in controversial issues, both sides accuse each other of a reckless disregard for the facts. I find it hard to understand how something that is statistically insignificant can be medically harmful, and tend to think the resources expended in persuading people not to smoke and subsidising not-very-effective smoking cessation medication could be better expended on other more pressing medical issues.
Yes, Belinda, both sides may throw accusations at each other.
But that doesn't excuse a video which is so ridden with falsehoods.
As far as I'm concerned that's just another silly counter-accusation, Rollo. Since the people who made and participated in the video have shown no inclination to debate with you here, I think we'd better call it a day.
No Belinda, it has been the basic tenet of my argument from the outset. A tenet backed up by 7 specific examples of evidence, none of which have been answered and in fact most of which have been ducked.
I'll give you some credit for at least dealing with the issues at hand. I wouldn't necessary expect the participants to spend much time on this board, so their failure to participate is no surprise (not least given the sudden and oh-so-coincidental deactivation of comments on Vet's boards).
Shame that none of the other pro-smoking acolytes who participated were discuss the issues in any reasonable way.
Rollo or is it Geoerge Washington who would never think of lying?
If Anonymous thinks that I have lied in any of my posts above, he or she is very welcome to put their arguments to me.
Post a Comment