Is it statistically significant? Clinically significant?
It's not as easy saying that 131g out of 2000-2500g isn't that much. There's a lot more to it than that. Especially because healthcare folks obviously know less about biostats than you.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Pregnant Smokers
- Thread starter FBS1996
- Start date
Is it statistically significant? Clinically significant?
It's not as easy saying that 131g out of 2000-2500g isn't that much. There's a lot more to it than that. Especially because healthcare folks obviously know less about biostats than you.
It's purely anecdotal based on years of watching doctors demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of basic statistics.
Most doctors are amazing craftsmen/artists - but outside academic settings, most aren't scientists.
Barring any quibbles with their methodology, it appears to be statistically significant.
Possibly - but based on the evidence I've read I'd say an average increase of 131 grams on population that averages just below the AGA weight is unlikely to have a large effect.
Correct.
Looking at the relative effects shows it isn't that much.
I sure hope that I never reach the point where the folks I care for are just numbers and stats.
Other than being able to see the value or lackthereof in journal articules, does medicine need to be centered around biostats? My academic hospital might say so, but fortunately most of us are results oriented.
However, when you are in practice and looking at more than papers and statistics, you see much more in terms of big picture. Connecting the dots really isn't that difficult, especially when you start to notice trends of frequent flyers.
OK, so she sat on the board of a nonprofit charity that is a sister organization of J&J, which I am very willing to bet makes less than 5% of its revenue from Nicorette. On top of that, if she got paid for that position, it probably wasn't much. And I am unclear of the financial relationship between the two--does J&J partially fund it? This conflict of interest looks microscopic at best.
...drinking water from the garden hose. Good times.
Hmmmm, hose water. I miss the 60's.
ROFL. That's right out of Beavis and Butthead ... "Dammit, Beavis, just because one thing sucks, doesn't mean something else doesn't!"
There really isn't going to be anything you can say that will convince anyone you're not harming yourself by smoking cigarettes.
Well you would be wrong, RWJ is actually the biggest single shareholder of J&J. Also one of the biggest anti-tobacco crusading lobbying arms in the world.
$99 mil from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association:
The SmokeLess States Program - RWJF
$1.5 mil from RWJF to American Non-Smoker’s Rights:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Manufacturer of Nicoderm & Nicoderm CQ is ALZA: (check the box, manufactured by ALZA, distributed by GSK)
Link Removed
ALZA is owned by Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical company:
Link Removed (ALZA / Johnson & Johnson removed their website, backup is from previous ALZA website)
RWJF owns 80 million plus shares of J & J:
Check out RWJF financials here on page 8 of this pdf file
And by the way the financial interests of the pharmaceutical nicotine companies even extends to medical "studies" to influence lawmakers to take a pro-smoking ban stance.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Smoking Cessation is a 500 million dollar a year business (Not including Wal-Mart Data):
Drugstores can't miss with smoking cessation - - Drug Topics
But yeah, they have no interests, they just pushed 444 million dollars as an anti-tobacco lobbying arm, in contributions to various such causes:
Clearing The Air: RWJF's $446+ million contribution to boost Nicoderm sales and parent company Johnson & Johnson profits (That's not even counting subsidy funds and earmarked funds towards tobacco control that have been made available.
Of course, all this money isn't going to waste, it is a good thing J&J bought Pfizer so they have Chantix, Commit, Nicoderm, Nicotrol, Nicorette,
Now you can see a list of some grants from the foundations own website:
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Odd that virtually every study you can find on smoking cessation especially ETS and SHS, has money funding it from RWJF, a company poised to make the most money off of it out of any entity in the world. (Being the majority Stockholder in J&J sure helps to recoup investment)
Using J & J's $50 billion dollar annual coffers and RWJF's $5.4 billion+ resources, investing a mere couple hundred million $$ to pass smoking bans is an investment that pays dividends.
Since the 1998 election cycle, employees of the pharmaceutical and health product industry, their family members and industry political action committees have given $133 million in campaign contributions to candidates running for federal and state offices.
All we have now is Pharmaceutical companies seeking to increase their means and it is becoming easier to do with more regulations on all sorts of homeopathic medicines as well as drugs. Essentially you just end up with a bunch of legalized Drug Mafia's. Half the time pushing pills that haven't even been thoroughly tested (Chantix, Vioxx, hundreds more), that many times many of these miracle drugs end up having unbelievably detrimental effects. However it is nice to be able to do such things without fearing any kind of reprisal.
If by conflict of interest being microscopic, you meant gargantuan, then yes. I wish I would have gotten that 500 thousand dollar grant from the RWJF Fellows program like her as well.
You are taking context out Munji. I stated multiple times now that I think it does do harm to you. The extents of that harm, however, I feel are greatly exaggerated in general, specifically SHS, and low levels of tobacco intake. Context is good.
Stethescopes, doctors, and PFTs are lying, too. The 45 year old admitted yesterday with advanced COPD, oxygen dependence, and a bad case of pneumonia is obviously an exaggeration. Smokes like a chimney, medicare, and won't be able to afford the copays on discharge meds, despite smoking 2 packs a day. Yes, I'm totally exaggerating. I'm also exaggerating when I say that I'll see many more like that this week. My hospital isn't even in that part of town.
On this subject you have zero intellectual honesty, you won't even take the time to consider anything. Half of your comments took mine out of context, because you are a skimmer and replying on emotions quickly instead of actually looking into the subject. I have zero respect for your expertise in this area as you have shown more than adequately your vitriol towards smokers, and your lack of pursuit in any kind of intellectual honesty. Data doesn't lie, those who interpret it many times do, especially when they have agenda's. Once again, health-care and the provision of it is a separate issue. Though obviously some with biases so big and anger so large, are incapable of recognizing that. I have never said it is not harmful, I said the effects are exaggerated a lot especially lately and mainly by studies funded by pharmaceutical companies poised to make billions through asserting more control over nicotine, just as they have over many other substances. I have seen plenty of people in bad ways that smoke, I have seen plenty of people in bad ways that don't. Most people who smoke do not end up like this person you mentioned, some do. Of course it is the same with many things. You don't take the time to read anything, but instead just post about how much experience you have, your degrees and some cases that are meant to appeal to empathy. Yes smoking can cause terrible things, it doesn't most of the time, but it can. The lies about SHS are even more greatly exaggerated to make the public who doesn't look into any of this shrivel in fear of smokers. The last report put out by the current SG on SHS is one of the most disastrous and absolutely fallacious documents ever put out by any one in any administration in the history of the country. The lies are rampant in it, and the pharmaceutical companies benefit. You want to encourage people to quit smoking because of health reasons fine. That is a noble goal, and I wish you luck. You want to lie on the way, exaggerate everything and force people to quit and push them onto untested drugs, not fine. I'm not going to dive into emotional anecdotes, that is a tactic generally employed by those who cannot reason through things. Smoking is harmful and can be fatal, I am happy to take the risks it brings and avoid plenty of others at the same time. I am just simply tired of the hatred directed towards me for my choice.
I only skim because I have better things to do. Take that comment at face value. You really should hang out with that weed fanboi Von something. You two would really get along and share BS "studies".
You haven't the background to tell me I'm wrong, so you and other interw3b know-it-alls post studies that are more flawed than the medical documents, which you call flawed. I never had a biostats major, but I took enough biostats to know the tactics, especially your comeback tactics to try to discredit me. It's easy to think you're smarter than medical professionals. You consider yourself winning because your cocky.
You want to believe I'm lying, but 10 years at a metropolitan hospital has taught me more than you'll ever know. I honestly don't care what studies say when I can veryify things with my own eyes. I'd hate to think how my opinions would be if I worked in the ghetto hospital.
It's funny that you think I'm making stuff up. Truth is, I don't need to. America is so unhealthy that most of my "exaggerations" are dead-on. I've seen them since day 1 and will more than likely see the same trends until the day I retire, as will everyone else in the medical profession.
OK - dbhokie - spade2you - we get it. You disagree with each other.
Smoking does cause health problems - period.
People like to smoke and if they want to accept responsibility for their choice to smoke, that's their call.
Pregnant woman who bought, lied about, then smoked = ill-advised, IMO.
Calling her on it would be rude, albeit warranted, but would almost certainly not change her behavior.
Zealots on each side of the debate with NEVER agree that the other side has anything of value to offer to the discussion and will engage in nothing by vitriolic name-calling at the expense of otherwise discussing the issue like rational people.
Way to define the extremes, fellas. How about some middle ground or some silence?
Smoking does cause health problems - period.
People like to smoke and if they want to accept responsibility for their choice to smoke, that's their call.
Pregnant woman who bought, lied about, then smoked = ill-advised, IMO.
Calling her on it would be rude, albeit warranted, but would almost certainly not change her behavior.
Zealots on each side of the debate with NEVER agree that the other side has anything of value to offer to the discussion and will engage in nothing by vitriolic name-calling at the expense of otherwise discussing the issue like rational people.
Way to define the extremes, fellas. How about some middle ground or some silence?
Yes because I have posted so many BS studies, which one, just one were you referring to? Perhaps it would do you well to vent a bit more, get some more of that anger out of you. I have no idea who this weed "fanboi" (sic) is that you mention, but I could care less. I am used to people not being able to present themselves in a concise and logical manner and instead resorting to such tactics in conversation.
spade2you said:
I don't think I am smarter than all medical professionals, I am sure I am smarter than some. I have had a few doctors tell me that in discussion and upon completion of IQ tests. I am sure there are many smarter than me. Now as far as medical expertise, yes most of them exceed me by a good bit, at least hopefully they do. However, there are many "medical professionals" who do take the side that I am on, which has nothing to do with cigarettes causing harm, but rather how much, and conflicts of interests. You have discredited yourself if anyone has. I have no idea how good you are at your job, but I can tell you certainly aren't a statistician, which is a lot of what these studies use, much more so than medical science many times unfortunately. Which would really render many of the doctors in them and utilizing them amateur at best. Not at being doctors or medical professionals but at data manipulation, collection, and marginal statistical error, etc. I jump on you for things because you have obviously skimmed the majority of my posts, pulled out things out of context, post things insinuating beliefs I do not have, and over-exaggerate virtually everything.
spade2you said:
I never said you were lying about anything, I said I wouldn't use anecdotal emotional evidence. In which you are taking a very small percentage of the smoking population (minute), and making it equivocal with the whole. Once again for the at least sixth time, I know smoking does damage. My only contention is with the levels of and SHS especially. (esp in relation to bans etc). This was brought up because of the vitriol displayed towards the pregnant woman. You can verify whatever you want with your eyes, I don't have a problem with what you see with your eyes I have a problem with yours and many others efforts at data manipulation and extrapolation. You work at a hospital, of course you see sick people. (though smoking is more likely to contribute to heart disease than lung cancer). What you do not see however, is the overall effects in the total population of the not-sick, and not dying. You are not omniscient, you cannot reliably extrapolate that to an entire demographic from a very specific confined demographic.
spade2you said:
I never said you were making things up, I believe some of your conclusions and interpretations through the extrapolation of known data in your head in conjunction with unknown data are using faulty premises, and are wrong. However, I never said you are making anything up, I just have no way to verify what you say so I take you at your word, with the exception of when your word is rank with gross assumptions.
America is very un-healthy in general, the reason for the totality of un-healthiness is however a subject of great debate amongst medical professionals and all professionals. Those with agenda's seek to move it more to their side.
