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
You twist words fairly well. I'm not going to take the time to post what you want, because I have more important things to do than sit at a computer all day long in an argument about this. I have nothing to prove to you, actually. Check out statistics all you want. Enjoy.
This is a response to Mr. Borgman.
This is a response to Mr. Borgman.
Yes, your story about how you see it "everyday" is the very definition of anecdotal.
aborgman said:
Say what you want. I'll be happy to send plenty of studies and statistics to your inbox for you to digest tonight. Have a great afternoon being oblivious to truth as it pertains to the topic at hand.
I've read plenty of the studies.
There are definitely negative effects on the fetus from smoking.
The degree/magnitude of those effects and their relative frequency is what is in question.
I really wish you could learn context, and not twisting words.
Interpretations of facts skew things, facts themselves are incapable, it is data. The interpretation of data is subjective, which is what you have with these studies largely funded by pharmaceutical companies (even government ones). However, keep drinking the kool-aid.
Interpretations of facts skew things, facts themselves are incapable, it is data. The interpretation of data is subjective, which is what you have with these studies largely funded by pharmaceutical companies (even government ones). However, keep drinking the kool-aid.
Wow, that's full of some unpleasant stuff. The birth weight distribution graphs are frightening.
Why not just cut to the chase and call all healthcare practicioners liars?
Incidence rates? I love the interw3b. I love how it inflates how smart people think they are. I go to school and get 10 years experience and some keyboard jockey with an internet connection knows more than me. Riiiiight.
OT but.....
Rights are inherent in people. Government cannot give you rights they are yours simply because you are living breathing human. Government can only recognize or suppress your rights.
Rights are inherent in people. Government cannot give you rights they are yours simply because you are living breathing human. Government can only recognize or suppress your rights.
Just fyi but appeals to authority - i.e. I'm an expert and you're not - are one of the weakest arguments one can make and are often used to cover the fact that the person making doesn't have a cogent argument to begin with (though I'm saying that is the case here).
Non-smoker, son of ex-heavy smokers here.
Smoking is stupid, smokers are stupid. Period.
That said, leave that woman alone. She has the right to smoke. And to face any eventual consequence.
Smoking is stupid, smokers are stupid. Period.
That said, leave that woman alone. She has the right to smoke. And to face any eventual consequence.
As for the aforementioned, since currently I do not have the time, though I will make time for it if neccessary, the below resource has quite a lot on the subject, from someone that in my opinion does a very good job of looking at the facts instead of being swayed by money, profiteering and other such things. He is an anti-smoking activist, but chooses to be intellectually honest about it. Since so much is compiled here in one resource, then you can visit it here conveniently:
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary
An excerpt about the Doctor:
Dr. Siegel is a Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health. He has 25 years of experience in the field of tobacco control. He previously spent two years working at the Office on Smoking and Health at CDC, where he conducted research on secondhand smoke and cigarette advertising. He has published nearly 70 papers related to tobacco. He testified in the landmark Engle lawsuit against the tobacco companies, which resulted in an unprecedented $145 billion verdict against the industry. He teaches social and behavioral sciences, mass communication and public health, and public health advocacy in the Masters of Public Health program.
Of course the most evident of late studies of unbelievably twisted information was put out by the current surgeon general claiming there are no safe levels of SHS.
I did mis-speak she was not on the board of Pfizer and Pfizer, but here is an objection put out against the report as well:
"The IPCPR noted that prior to her nomination as U.S. Surgeon General, Regina Benjamin served as a trustee of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which contributes tens of millions of dollars every year to promote smoking bans and fund anti-tobacco groups. Why is this a potential conflict of interest? McCalla asked. Because the foundations sister organization is Johnson & Johnson, maker of Nicorette, a nicotine replacement product."
It is simply untrue to assert that brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause such results, said Prof. Michael Siegel of Boston Universitys School of Public Health. If there is no safe level of exposure to any carcinogen, that would include exposure to automobile exhaust, the suns rays, benzene, radon in homes, arsenic in drinking water and many other everyday items.
This is what I mean by blatant exaggeration. You will also find in the confines of the report, that it takes all fire related deaths, then says well a certain percentage of these were likely caused by smokers, lumps them in with the deaths, and lumps in an unbelievable amount of infant deaths to SHS with no backing whatsoever. Just arbitrarily. (It doesn't help that a lot of the study was funded by pharmaceutical companies Johnson & Johnson, as well as Pfizer & Pfizer).
Interesting also is all of the pharmaceutical companies are working against electronic cigarettes, which is one of the best smoking cessation things out there, as it replace the habit and the carcinogens. Why? Anti-smoking is a huge money business.
Funny enough, Chantix has managed to skip many safety, and security examinations given to other drugs (Pfizer has a comfortably huge lobbying arm). Despite organizations like the Canadian Medical association finding Chantix to be incredibly dangerous to physical health and mental health.
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary
An excerpt about the Doctor:
Dr. Siegel is a Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health. He has 25 years of experience in the field of tobacco control. He previously spent two years working at the Office on Smoking and Health at CDC, where he conducted research on secondhand smoke and cigarette advertising. He has published nearly 70 papers related to tobacco. He testified in the landmark Engle lawsuit against the tobacco companies, which resulted in an unprecedented $145 billion verdict against the industry. He teaches social and behavioral sciences, mass communication and public health, and public health advocacy in the Masters of Public Health program.
Of course the most evident of late studies of unbelievably twisted information was put out by the current surgeon general claiming there are no safe levels of SHS.
I did mis-speak she was not on the board of Pfizer and Pfizer, but here is an objection put out against the report as well:
"The IPCPR noted that prior to her nomination as U.S. Surgeon General, Regina Benjamin served as a trustee of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which contributes tens of millions of dollars every year to promote smoking bans and fund anti-tobacco groups. Why is this a potential conflict of interest? McCalla asked. Because the foundations sister organization is Johnson & Johnson, maker of Nicorette, a nicotine replacement product."
It is simply untrue to assert that brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause such results, said Prof. Michael Siegel of Boston Universitys School of Public Health. If there is no safe level of exposure to any carcinogen, that would include exposure to automobile exhaust, the suns rays, benzene, radon in homes, arsenic in drinking water and many other everyday items.
This is what I mean by blatant exaggeration. You will also find in the confines of the report, that it takes all fire related deaths, then says well a certain percentage of these were likely caused by smokers, lumps them in with the deaths, and lumps in an unbelievable amount of infant deaths to SHS with no backing whatsoever. Just arbitrarily. (It doesn't help that a lot of the study was funded by pharmaceutical companies Johnson & Johnson, as well as Pfizer & Pfizer).
Interesting also is all of the pharmaceutical companies are working against electronic cigarettes, which is one of the best smoking cessation things out there, as it replace the habit and the carcinogens. Why? Anti-smoking is a huge money business.
Funny enough, Chantix has managed to skip many safety, and security examinations given to other drugs (Pfizer has a comfortably huge lobbying arm). Despite organizations like the Canadian Medical association finding Chantix to be incredibly dangerous to physical health and mental health.
Not according to my license. Fact is, I put in the time, jumped through the hoops, etc. Did you?
I can list off experiences all I want, but I'm wrong. One of the bestest things about working in health care these days is that the information age has many misinformed. As much as I hated biostats, at least it helps me know what research is adequate and what is junk.
Maybe you need to read a little about logic, rhetoric and critical thinking.
I didn't say you were wrong. I said that saying "I'm right because I have all these credentials" is a logical fallacy and not a particularly good way to win an argument.
Contrary to the popular belief, being pregnant doesn't instantaneously cure you from addiction.
It may give serious motivation but it doesn't make it less difficult.
It may give serious motivation but it doesn't make it less difficult.
