Why Call It News Any More?
 

With Madonna's Baby's name being far more important than the FBI's Most Wanted List... know anyone on it?... and now out-right, blatant, corporate and federal brain-washing, lets plug-in..tune-in... and turn-on...

Me, I would prefer a bullet.

Newsmercial at 11

I agree. It's so disturbing, I wouldn't even know where to start....

Personally, I'm very interested to know how Tom prepared his new kid's placenta before he ate it. I usually just toss it on the grill but that's getting old and was hoping to find some new recipes. :rolleyes:

God help us.

Frankly, I don't consider the FBI's ten most wanted newsworthy, either. By time they make that list, they've probably all dyed their hair and grown beards or had plastic surgery. All news about them does is add to my vague sense of distaste for the modern world. News is usually about some tragedy that I can do absolutely nothing about - be it placentas or mass murderers. I don't watch it anymore.

It was just an example... the fact is that we see less actual news than the tripe and now corporate and federal pap that is being fed to us.
News is what actually affects, or may affect, our lives presented in a objective or editorial manner, the latter done so fully disclosed... when was the last time you saw that?

I don't get my news from the TV. I get 60% of my news from the Washington Post, which is one of a handful of remaining independent major newspapers, and 40% from the Cellar and its links.

Personally, I hate to watch the "news" at least on local channels because it's all about the ratings and trying to convince me that (insert station name) is better that (any other station name) because our helicopter is better'n theirs. AND these folks always have some crucial bit of information that you absolutely must hear so "tune in next thursday night at 10P." If it's so damn important, why the H3LL aren't you telling me NOW, dammit? If I must watch the news, I try to stick to CNN or somesuch. Mostly I get news from USAToday.com or CNN.com. That way, I can decide what's important, cuz, yeah, I couldn't really care less what TomKat are (is?) naming the child.

Um...has anybody said "katie couric!" yet? Does that not send chills down your spine?

Anyway, I get my news from the Daily Show, the Colbert Report (great guests) and here.

I'm sorry, but what's presented on TV as "news" is not news at all. It's entertainment. If TV can't dress it up, it's not going to cover it --- how often does a TV reporter show up at a city council or planning board meeting? Almost never.

If you want news, read a newspaper or fall back on the World Wide Whatever.

And I used to be in the newspaper business, so I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about.

On a daily basis, I get my news from the following sources:
NPR
The Daily Show
The Colbert Report
BoingBoing
NYTimes (okay, so that's mostly fiction these days)
New Scientist
Slashdot
Scientific American
...And of course, the Cellar.

Huh. No wonder I can't seem to get anything done.:right:

I got tired of being pissed off by things I couldn't do anything about. :mad:

I'm not going to watch corp. news any longer... I feel that is doing something about it.
I may write CNN if I find they were doing this.

The news is essential if you want to make somebody paranoid.

True in the US, that is for sure.

Along those lines.

I agree and that was part of the point I was trying to make to tw but he never got it. The news sources we have all present the truth, some conjecture and falsehoods/inaccuracies. It is the proportions of each that are hard to know and to put your FAITH in any of them as pure truth is just plain crazy. Everyone out there has a slant and until you take that into consideration then you might believe everything on CNN, or FOX or [pick one]. Personally I don't trust any of them. Get my general news from CNN, watch FOX once a month just to laugh usually.... (but I laugh at CNN too, so I guess that is only fair). I freely admit to not being as knowledgeable about US and World events as I should. (but we only have so much time in a day and that is not how I choose to spend it!)

Nice.:cool:

Because the local gossip (ie Ten O clock news that hypes a latest murder or reports on car crashes without ever saying why it happened or how to avoid the same mistake) perverts perspective, then all news services pervert perspective? That is what you said then and that is what you are saying now.

CNN mostly reports only that a news story exists; woefully insufficient as a primary news source. If CNN is considered a primary news source, then a consumer has, essentially, no news - insufficient knowledge of the world. Meanwhile, Fox News is news only sufficient to report propaganda. Fox News has same purpose as 1965 Radio Moscow.

Cartoon describes news best described as 'local gossip'. 'Local gossip' reports hype. For example, they ask, "How do you feel". Is that news? Obviously not. When one's primary news source is only CNN, and if one assumes is a typical news source, then one has a distorted grasp of reality.

Responsible news reporters such as Peter Jennings were even blunt with fluff news types. I suspect Barbara Walters was describing a confrontation because Barbara confused fluff - ie Hollywood interviews - with news. According to logic by FloridaDragon, if Barbara Walters did news badly, then all news sources do news badly.

For example, FloridaDragon, tell us about the Sprately Islands. Did CNN report on that military confrontation? Where was your news source when this battle was fought? Were reasons for that battle reported? Responsible news sources, if using them, means a larger significance behind Sprately Islands is common knowledge.

Meanwhile the local gossip shows a car crash. Did they report how that crash happened, why it happened, and how you can avoid making the same mistake? No. They simply report hype - a smashed car and the number of victims. That's not news. That's hype: an emotion that is too often confused as fact. Same confusion causes so many to consider Fox News - propaganda - as news.

I have always listened to NPR, but found them to be pretty biased (you will NEVER hear them criticize Israel or their army no matter what the action, that is just one example, there are many), but for the most part I am happy.
Air America, biased again, but good info and most hosts do give both perspectives, regardless of their editorial slant.
Started getting the NY Times on-line e-mail daily updates and check the website as often as feasible and am much happier.
I'm sorry.... I just cannot watch Fox... too much wasted time.

I was raised on propaganda; advertisements that lie by telling half truths. That was my father. Before toothpaste had flouride, back then, all toothpastes and mouthwashes did nothing. Classic suckers for propaganda are easily identified. They even buy Listerene and believe it actually does something.

Do you really believe Pond's Institute makes age defying creams? Sales say so many women do when not one fact is ever provided. Not one fact. Classic worshippers of propaganda.

In another example more based in science: from The Economist of 29 Apr 2006 entitled 'Filtering the evidence': In America, cigarette dangers were well published and broadcast since 1964. Not so in Europe. However if knowledge was so available, then why do 40% of youngest Americans smoke? Have we raised a generation that is manipulated by spin rather than by facts? Whose beliefs 'don't need no stinkin science' to somehow know? At least Europeans have an excuse. Dangers of smoking were not promoted aggressively and continously since 1964 in Europe.

Why, a) with a sudden upsurge in extremist politial views, b) with people actually saying, "Rush says what has to be said", c) with massive attraction to extremist religious beliefs, d) with a generation less technically educated, and e) with people so even inspired by lies of pre-emption; why is this same generation also so easy to addict to cigarettes? This is the first generations fully cognizant of the dangers. Why is this generation, instead, so easily attracted to the 'dark side'? Why are so many younger Americans so easily perverted by propaganda - have so much difficulty cutting through myths and half truths? Notice how many actually believe those 'power drinks' provide more healthy energy? Coca Cola once promoted that myth - by including drugs. Caffine can make anyone feel 'healthier'. He did not say "I feel; therefore I am". And yet 'feeling' somehow becomes how facts are 'proven'.

It's called propaganda. It works when a victim is that naive. So naive as to not see a difference between real news and "Hard Copy".

They are called Video News Release or VNR. To promote spin, make a video, release to the press, and some 'local gossip' stations will air it as news. BTW, my favorite example of a 'local gossip' is one of 77 stations listed.

The study by Center for Media and Democracy is read located at:
Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed

The list of stations cited for airing VNRs without noting the source is:
http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/stationlist

TW, you obviously have no teenaged children and haven't been one yourself for a long time (maybe never? :)) Youths who smoke absolutely do not believe that it isn't harmful. They are taking pride in not caring that it is harmful. Being self-destructive is what teenagers are all about. They do not believe that energy drinks give them "healthy energy." They believe that they are tastier and more conspicious to consume than speed.

There is a lot of popaganda out there, one that kills me is that shampoo and conditioners can heal or fix hair... hair is dead. Can't be done.

Your smoking example is another, there are no facts to back-up the American Lung and Cancer Associations claims, in fact OSHA and the department in charge of measuring how dangerous second hand smoke is in the workplace for the AMA (I think it was the SEC) got called on the carpet in front of congress for lying about their numbers.
In fact the restarunts were perfectly safe and met OSHA standardards.
There has never been a link between second hand smoke or smoking and cancer in any clinical trials... NEVER. It has never been shown or provenpropagandarestraintsstandards in any way. We are being lied to.

An ironic thing is that smoking may contribute to cancer... sure but hell, many things do... one thing we do know is that cooking fumes are far more toxic than second hand smoke and much that we do is far more toxic than smoking.
The black lung used by the American Lung Association's and the Cancer Association's fear posters on smoking is not just a smoker's lung but one from a miner who smoked who had black lung and rampant lung cancer.
A normal smokers lung cannot be told by a mortician from a non-smokers lung.
A lot of this is on junkscience.com, but I have been reading about it for a while.
Personally I think asphalt and atmospheric nukes have a lot to do with it... funny Japan and France have low lung cancer rates. Think about it.

Stop right there. Smoking has clearly been proven to cause lung cancer and other killing diseases such as heart attacks. So what would a scum news service like Fox do? Do exactly what you have done here. Where do references to sceond hand smoke come from? It is a classic Rush Limbuagh and Radio Moscow trick. Nobody, for one minute, at any time, said anything about second hand smoke. You have thrown in second hand smoke to outrightly decieve.

Furthermore, no doubt that smoking kills people - as the Surgeon General accurately reported in 1964. The Surgeon General is a responsible source of facts not to be confused with propaganda from a shampoo commerical.

Yes hair is dead. Why do you assocate outright and intentional propaganda with science fact? Smoking kills. That from those who report facts. 'Curing dead hair' commercial proves the Surgeon General is wrong?

Demonstrated is my point. All news sources lie because Fox News lies? Bull. Because propaganda lies about 'curing hair' then smoking really does not kill? Bull. Not only did you use classic distortion techniques by adding second hand smoke. You have also associated science on smoking with claims of 'dead hair cures'. One is science. The other says a TV viewer is that science ignorant.

rkzenrage - your two paragraphs suggest how one cannot see a difference between propaganda and accurate facts - why a president could lie about WMDs and so many believed his outright and now known to be intentional lies. Why Rush Limbaugh - arrested again this weekend for drug violations - is respected. You are an American? You cannot tell the diference between a responsible Surgeon General's report verses propaganda about curing dead hair? No wonder the 'local gossip' is watched by 77% of TV viewers. I get this sinking feeling that most Americans have become that dumber.

Please tell me you did not use a 'dead hair cure' commerical to disparge well proven science - that smoking kills. Please tell me you made that association - and another reference to second hand smoke - all in error.

He made that distinction but that's yesterdays news.
Today, and for awhile now, it's all about secondhand smoke. That's the justification for all the smoking bans going on today, both indoors and outdoors. Shit like you can't smoke in your own house if you have an employee (maid, housekeeper, etc) or the Maytag Repairman coming in. :rolleyes:

Please show me the study that has shown that smoking, or any carcinogen, causes cancer.
It has not happened... I can tell you that.
Carcinogens increase your risk of cancer, they do not cause it, at least no study has shown that to date. Smoking is no different.

Common knowledge = superstition, people have a hard time with that, I understand.
Having well respected groups like the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association lie about it does not help.

The hair commercial example was just of propaganda, it was not tied to the smoking example.

A distinction without a difference. If you gamble with weighted dice, those dice are a cause of your winnings, even though all they did was increase your chances.

Let me be more specific, I do not agree with smoking anything other than pure tobacco. That leaves out most commercial cigs. They contain things that no sane person wants in their lungs, formaldehyde, bleach and worst of all for many reasons ammonia.
The AMA's last study showed that people like myself, who smoke as a hobby or casually, actually live longer on average than non smokers. No shit.
Think about this, what I mentioned earlier, the nations with the highest, per capita, percentage of smokers also have some of the lowest numbers of lung cancer instances.
Now that smoking is down over seventy percent in the US and Europe lung cancer is up...
Lung cancer is an old person's disease, it is a symptom of asphalt, of car exhaust, of nuclear testing in the atmosphere and our "fabulous" chemical living... not natural tobacco used sensibly. People are living longer, particularly Northern European people, who get lung cancer when they get older. It has nothing to do with smoking.
I believe, and science backs me, that a nice cigar, organic non-additive cig or pipe is no worse for me than a nice grilled steak or salmon fillet from time to time... & that is common sense.
But, we/I am OT.. the point was that the two organizations, American Lung Association and American Cancer Society, have been knowingly lying to America as propaganda for many years... that is all.

Why did you put "not" in there? It ought to be "and".

Surgeon General's report in 1964. Many studies even before WWII demonstrated a connection between cigarettes and cancer - and to other diseases. From papers obtained by a multi-state lawsuit against the tobacco industry, first they tried to make a healthy cigarette only to discover cigarettes destroy health even worse than expected. So the industry stopped trying the impossible - to make a safe cigarette - and started protecting their turf. Having learned from science how at risk their entire industry was, the cigarette industry quickly learned Rush Limbaugh tactics.

Where is this study that claims no relationship between smoking and lung cancer? Where is this study that claims no relationship between smoking and heart complications? Where is this study that so contradicts the Surgeon General after so many generations of science repeatedly confirmed that 1964 report? Where is this study that proves both the AMA and ACS have been lying for two generations? Those are really bold accusations with no supporting evidence. Accusations currently done in Rush Limbaugh style - without supporting facts. Show me.

Meanwhile cigarettes are not the topic. The topic is about responsible news sources; which somehow are confused with shampoo (that will somehow cure dead hair like Sadam's WMDs). You got the example correct. But why then associate a shampoo commerical as an example of news? And why did you do what Rush Limbaugh types do - confuse all lurkers here with irrelevant nonsense about second hand smoke? People who believe Fox News is news and believe Rush Limbaugh is honest - they would do that spinning for confusion.

(Honest? The professional propagandist Limbaugh just got arrested again on drug charges. Something expected of professional liars.)

So you actually believe that cigarettes are not deadly? Show us what responsible news sources somehow forgot to show us. Show us how 40 years of undisputed Surgeon General research got it all wrong. Show us this conspiracy to destroy a patriotic American tobacco industry - that conspired even to addict 14 year olds to nicotine. Oh. Honest tobacco executives would not do that? Clearly 40 years of news sources are lying - just like the Pond's Institute and shampoo companies. Clearly we should instead trust the tobacco industry - not the Surgeon General?

Are you saying responsible news services lie - conspire with the AMA and ACS to pervert truth? Someone tried that previously - claimed that all news sources lie - and only ended up getting angry when he could not defend himself. But lets see these studies - kept from us by responsible news services - that prove no relationship between cigarettes and lung cancer. Show us how the news services conspired with the AMA and ACS to deny us truth - because that is what you appear to claim? Show us where causal smoking increased health - as only those 1960s advertisements from the tobacco industry claimed.

Maybe tobacco can also cure dead hair? I know I put that study somewhere.

It is good to see you say connection and not cause now... well done.
I do not know why the study came out the way it did, though my theory is that pipe and cigar smokers tend to take time out each week to intentionally relax and stress is the number one killer in America. That does make sense.
The AMA has never said that smoking causes cancer, not once... no medical trial has ever shown that or anything related to second hand smoke, in any way. As I posted earlier, you must not have read that, there has been shown a small elevated risk, nothing more.
I am saying that if a news service lied about it they are not responsible any more than the societies I mentioned.
Is smoking cigarettes laden with chemicals habitually, inhaling them as much as you can, bad... of course it is.
Does it cause cancer, no... is that all there is to tobacco, no... does it make it ok to tell business owners what to do on their private property as long as they comply with OSHA air quality standards, no, not at all.
Propaganda is propaganda, lies are lies, plain and simple.

A 1964 Surgeon Generals report said smoking kills. It specifically cited lung cancer as created by smoking. Why do you know that 40 years of confirming research was all wrong? Where is that citation?

So again, why do you mention second hand smoke - doing what only Rush Limbaugh types would do? Nobody said anything about second hand smoke. Why do you do what Rush would do?

So again, "Where is this study that claims no relationship between smoking and lung cancer? Where is this study that claims no relationship between smoking and heart complications? Where is this study that so contradicts the Surgeon General after so many generations of science repeatedly confirmed that 1964 report? Where is this study that proves both the AMA and ACS have been lying for two generations? "

So again, "Show us how 40 years of undisputed Surgeon General research got it all wrong. Show us this conspiracy to destroy a patriotic American tobacco industry - that conspired even to addict 14 year olds to nicotine."

Show us how the new serviced have conspired to condemn smoking - and how astronauts never went to the moon - and how Hitler did not kill millions of Jews.

Thank you for making my point, that statement was, and every time the SG made it after that (they have since stopped due to criticism) it was pure propaganda, with no basis in medical science.
Again, No study has ever shown smoking or second hand smoke leads to cancer.
What you are asking for "no relationship" is impossible, you cannot prove a negative and no scientist would try to do so in a clinical trial.
The SG never stated from where or how they are getting their information.
The AMA study from 1968, did not come to that conclusion... it was, in fact, the same study that stated that casual pipe and cigar smokers lived longer than non-smokers, on average.

Epidemiology 101

If you think Statistics is a complex, difficult to understand subject, you're right, but this page will help remove a lot of the mystery. If you think Statistics can be twisted and manipulated to produce just about any desired result, you're right again. But once you know how the numbers are twisted, it is usually easy to spot the dishonesty.

Since almost all studies on health and medicine use epidemiology to reach their conclusions, understanding how it works is the only way to sort out the facts from the deceptions and frauds. Once you learn to pick apart these studies, you'll be able to approach the media with a very different attitude. When some talking head on TV tells you that some study proves that coffee is bad for you, and a week later another head tells you it's good for you, you'll know how to find out which one is reporting the facts. In many cases, you'll find both of them are wrong.

Types of Studies

Fact: Cohort Studies follow a group of people with different exposures to a substance over a period of time. Tracking people before any health effects occur reduces the impact of bias and increases the accuracy of the study, and allows testing for a variety of illnesses. It is the most expensive, time consuming and difficult type of study to conduct.

Cohort Studies are useful for common illnesses, but are too expensive and impractical for studying rare diseases.

Fact: Case Control studies examine two groups of people, those who already have an illness, and a control group. The control group may contain a random sampling of the population, or a sample specifically selected because they don't have the illness being studied.

Case Control studies are more likely to be biased because they start by selecting people who are already sick. For instance, if you wanted to find out if coffee caused stomach cancer, a case control study would start out with a sample of people who already had stomach cancer, leaving out the coffee drinkers who remained healthy. Case Control studies are much less expensive and time consuming, requiring much smaller sample sizes and eliminating the need to track people over long periods of time. They are often the only practical way to study uncommon illnesses.

Fact: Meta Studies (more accurately referred to as Meta Analysis) are analyses of existing studies. The researcher gathers data from other studies, picks the appropriate ones, pools the results and extracts his data.

It is extremely difficult to do this with any degree of accuracy, and extremely easy to twist the results to a predetermined outcome. Simply leaving out one or two studies can skew the data dramatically in one direction or the other. Be highly suspicious of any meta analysis. Carefully check for any researcher bias. If you automatically reject any meta study conducted or financed by someone with a strong agenda, you will almost always be right.

There are other types of studies, but these are the most common.

Relative Risk

Fact: The goal of an epidemiological study is to determine Relative Risk (RR).

Relative risk is determined by first establishing a baseline, an accounting of how common a disease (or condition) is in the general population. This general rate is given a Relative Risk of 1.0, no risk at all. An increase in risk would result in a number larger than 1.0. A decrease in risk would result in a lower number, and indicates a protective effect.

For instance, if a researcher wants to find out how coffee drinking effects foot fungus, he first has to find out how common foot fungus is in the general population. In this fictional example, let's say he determines that 20 out every 1,000 people have foot fungus. That's the baseline, a RR of 1.0. If he discovers that 30 out of 1,000 coffee drinkers have foot fungus, he's discovered a fifty percent increase, which would be expressed as a RR of 1.50.

If he were to find the rate was 40 out of 1,000, it would give him a RR of 2.0.

He might find foot fungus was less common among coffee drinkers. A rate of 15 out of 1,000 would be expressed as a RR of 0.75, indicating that drinking coffee has a protective effect against foot fungus.

The media usually reports RRs as percentages. An RR of 1.40 is usually reported as a 40% increase, while an RR of .90 is reported as a 10% decrease. (In theory, at least. In practice, negative RRs are seldom reported.)

Note: Some studies calculate an Odds Ratio (OR) instead of an RR. The formulas for determining the two numbers are different, but when studying rare diseases the results are approximately the same. When studying more common diseases ORs tend to overstate the RR.

Fact: As a rule of thumb, an RR of at least 2.0 is necessary to indicate a cause and effect relationship, and a RR of 3.0 is preferred.

"As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." - Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine"

"My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.

"Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." - The National Cancer Institute

"An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio [relative risk] is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer." - Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist

This requirement is ignored in almost all studies of ETS.

While it's important to know the RR, it's also very important to find the actual numbers. When dealing with the mass media, beware of the phrase "times more likely."

For instance, a news story may announce "Banana eaters are four times more likely to get athletes foot!" You find the study, read the abstract and find the RR is, indeed, 4.0. But further digging may reveal that the risk went from 1.5 in 10,000 to 6 in 10,000. Technically, the risk is four times greater, but would you worry about a jump from 0.015% to to 0.06%?

Confidence Intervals

Fact: The Confidence interval (CI) is used to determine the precision of the RR. It is expressed as a range of values that would be considered valid, for instance .90 – 1.43.

The narrower the CI, the more accurate the study. The CI can be narrowed in many ways, including using more accurate data and a larger sample size.


Fact: Confidence intervals are usually calculated to a 95% confidence level. This means the odds of the results occurring by chance are 5% or less.

This is one reason epidemiology is considered a crude science. (Imagine if your brakes failed 5% of the time.) The EPA, in their infamous 1993 SHS study, used a 90% CI, doubling their margin of error to achieve their desired results.

The RR could be any number within the CI. For instance, an RR of 1.15 with a CI of .95 – 1.43 could just as well be a finding of 1.25, an 25% increase, or .96, a 4% decrease, or 1.0, no correlation at all. Pay close attention to any study where the CI includes 1.0. (It does in virtually all ETS studies.) When the CI includes 1.0, the RR is not statistically significant.



Confounders

On average, women live longer than men. Any study on longevity has to account for this fact. This is called a confounder, which is easy to remember because it can confound the results of a study. Some studies use the term "confounding variable." Any study of longevity (usually referred to as a study of morbidity) which doesn't take this confounder into account will be very inaccurate. For instance, when studying the longevity of smokers, it's important to adjust for the gender difference, and adjust for the percentage of men and women in the study.

Sound complicated? It gets worse. Poor people die sooner than rich people. Black people die sooner than white people, even when adjusting for the income confounder. People in some countries live longer than people in others. So if an impoverished black male smoker in Uruguay dies before reaching the median age, is it because of his income, race, gender, smoking, or nationality?


Fact: When studying the effects of tobacco exposure, either to the smoker or to those around him, confounders include age, allergies, nationality, race, medications, compliance with medications, education, gas heating and cooking, gender, socioeconomic status, exposure to other chemicals, occupation, use of alcohol, use of marijuana, consumption of saturated fat and other dietary considerations, family history of cancer and domestic radon exposure, to name a few.

Oct/Nov 1999 Editorial
(According to WHO/CDC Data)*
By: James P. Siepmann, MD

Yes, it is true, smoking does not cause lung cancer. It is only one of many risk factors for lung cancer. I initially was going to write an article on how the professional literature and publications misuse the language by saying "smoking causes lung cancer"1,2, but the more that I looked into how biased the literature, professional organizations, and the media are, I modified this article to one on trying to put the relationship between smoking and cancer into perspective. (No, I did not get paid off by the tobacco companies, or anything else like that.)
When the tobacco executives testified to Congress that they did not believe that smoking caused cancer, their answers were probably truthful and I agree with that statement. Now, if they were asked if smoking increases the risk of getting lung cancer, then their answer based upon current evidence should have be "yes." But even so, the risk of a smoker getting lung cancer is much less than anyone would suspect. Based upon what the media and anti-tobacco organizations say, one would think that if you smoke, you get lung cancer (a 100% correlation) or at least expect a 50+% occurrence before someone uses the word "cause."
Would you believe that the real number is < 10% (see Appendix A)? Yes, a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer (see Appendix A). In fact, the data used is biased in the way that it was collected and the actual risk for a smoker is probably less. I personally would not smoke cigarettes and take that risk, nor recommend cigarette smoking to others, but the numbers were less than I had been led to believe. I only did the data on white males because they account for the largest number of lung cancers in the US, but a similar analysis can be done for other groups using the CDC data.
You don't see this type of information being reported, and we hear things like, "if you smoke you will die", but when we actually look at the data, lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US.**
When we look at the data over a longer period, such as 50 years as we did here, the lifetime relative risk is only 8 (see Appendix A). That means that even using the biased data that is out there, a USWM smoker has only an 8x more risk of dying from lung cancer than a nonsmoker. It surprised me too because I had always heard numbers like 20-40 times more risk. Statistics that are understandable and make sense to the general public, what a concept!
The process of developing cancer is complex and multifactorial. It involves genetics, the immune system, cellular irritation, DNA alteration, dose and duration of exposure, and much more. Some of the known risk factors include genetics4,5,6, asbestos exposure7, sex8, HIV status9, vitamin deficiency10, diet11,12,13, pollution14 , shipbuilding15 and even just plain old being lazy.16 When some of these factors are combined they can have a synergistic effect17, but none of these risk factors are directly and independently responsible for "causing" lung cancer!
Look in any dictionary and you will find something like, "anything producing an effect or result."18 At what level of occurrence would you feel comfortable saying that X "causes" Y? For myself and most scientists, we would require Y to occur at least 50% of the time. Yet the media would have you believe that X causes Y when it actually occurs less than 10% of the time.
As ludicrous as that is, the medical and lay press is littered with such pabulum and gobbledygook. Even as web literate physician, it took me over 50 hours of internet time to find enough raw data to write this article. I went through thousands of abstracts and numerous articles, only to find two articles that even questioned the degree of correlation between smoking and lung cancer (British lung cancer rates do not correlating to smoking rates)19,20 and another two articles which questioned the link between second hand smoke (passive smoking) and lung cancer.21,22 Everywhere I looked, the information was hidden in terms like "odds ratio," "relative risk," or "annualized mortality rate." Most doctors probably could not accurately define and interpret them all these terms accurately, let alone someone outside the medical profession. The public relies on the media to interpret this morass of data, but instead they are given politically correct and biased views.
If they would say that smoking increases the incidence of lung cancer or that smoking is a risk factor in the development of lung cancer, then I would agree. The purpose of this article is to emphasize the need to use language appropriately in both the medical and scientific literature (the media, as a whole, may be a lost cause).
Everything in life has risk; just going to work each day has risk. Are we supposed to live our lives in bed, hiding under the blanket in case a tornado should come into our bedroom? We in science, have a duty to give the public accurate information and then let them decide for themselves what risk is appropriate. To do otherwise is a subtle imposition of our biases on the populace.
We must embrace Theoretics as a discipline that strives to bring objectivity and logic back into science. Every article/study has some bias in it, the goal is to minimize such biases and present the facts in a comprehensible and logical manner. Unfortunately, most scientists have never taken a course in logic, and I'm sure that English class was not their favorite. Theoretics is a field of science which focuses on the use of logic and appropriate language in order to develop and communicate scientifically credible theories and ideas which will then have experimental implications. As someone whom I respect says, "Words mean things." Let us use language and logic appropriately in our research and in the way that we communicate information.
* * * * *
Yes, smoking is bad for you, but so is fast-food hamburgers, driving, and so on. We must weigh the risk and benefits of the behavior both as a society and as an individual based on unbiased information. Be warned though, that a society that attempts to remove all risk terminates individual liberty and will ultimately perish. Let us be logical in our endeavors and true in our pursuit of knowledge. Instead of fearful waiting for lung cancer to get me (because the media and much of the medical literature has falsely told me that smoking causes lung cancer), I can enjoy my occasional cigar even more now...now that I know the whole story.
* * * * *

Cont'


The Untold Facts of Smoking (Yes, there is bias in science)
or
"I feel like the Fox Network" (a bastion of truth in a sea of liberalism)
1. USWM smokers have a lifetime relative risk of dying from lung cancer of only 8 (not the 20 or more that is based on an annual death rate and therefore virtually useless).
2. No study has ever shown that casual cigar smoker (<5 cigars/wk, not inhaled) has an increased incidence of lung cancer.
3. Lung cancer is not in even in the top 5 causes of death, it is only #9.**
4. All cancers combined account for only 13% of all annual deaths and lung cancer only 2%.**
5. Occasional cigarette use (<1 pk/wk) has never been shown to be a risk factor in lung cancer.
6. Certain types of pollution are more dangerous than second hand smoke.3
7. Second hand smoke has never been shown to be a causative factor in lung cancer.
8. A WHO study did not show that passive (second hand) smoke statistically increased the risk of getting lung cancer.
9. No study has shown that second hand smoke exposure during childhood increases their risk of getting lung cancer.
10. In one study they couldn't even cause lung cancer in mice after exposing them to cigarette smoke for a long time.23
11. If everyone in the world stopped smoking 50 years ago, the premature death rate would still be well over 80% of what it is today.1 (But I thought that smoking was the major cause of preventable death...hmmm.)
*This article was revised after errors in the data and calculations were noticed by Charles Rotter, Curtis Cameron and Jesse V. Silverman. This is the corrected version. A special thanks to both.
**WHO data of member countries
Keywords: lung cancer, mortality, tobacco, smoking, Theoretics, language, WHO, cigarette, cigar, logic.

References (I back up my statements with facts, will those who respond do the same?)
1. Articles:
• Pisani P, Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Estimates of the worldwide mortality from 25 cancers in 1990, Int J Cancer 1999 Sep 24;83(1):18-29; "Tobacco smoking and chewing are almost certainly the major preventable causes of cancer today."
• American Thoracic Society, Cigarette smoking and health.. , Am J Respir Crit Care Med; 153(2):861-5 1996; "Cigarette smoking remains the primary cause of preventable death and morbidity in the United States."
• Nordlund LA, Trends in smoking habits and lung cancer in Sweden, Eur J Cancer Prev 1998 Apr;7(2):109-16; "Tobacco smoking is the most important cause of lung cancer and accounts for about 80-90% of all cases of lung cancer among men and about 50-80% among women."
• JAMA 1997;278:1505-1508; "The chief cause of death included lung cancer, esophageal cancer and liver cancer. The death rate was higher for those who started smoking before age 25. If current smoking patterns persist, tobacco will eventually cause more than two million deaths each year in China."
• JAMA 1997;278:1500-1504; "We have demonstrated that smoking is a major cause of death in China...."
• Hecht SS hecht002@tc.umn.edu, Tobacco smoke carcinogens and lung cancer, J Natl Cancer Inst 1999 Jul 21;91(14):1194-210; "The complexity of tobacco smoke leads to some confusion about the mechanisms by which it causes lung cancer."
• Sarna L, Prevention: Tobacco control and cancer nursing, Cancer Nurs 1999 Feb;22(1):21-8; "In the next century, tobacco will become the number-one cause of preventable death throughout the world, resulting in half a billion deaths."
• Liu BQ, Peto R, Chen ZM, Boreham J, Wu YP, Li JY, Campbell TC, Chen JS, Emerging tobacco hazards in China: 1. Retrospective proportional mortality study of one million deaths, BMJ 1998 Nov 21;317(7170):1411-22; "If current smoking uptake rates persist in China (where about two thirds of men but few women become smokers) tobacco will kill about 100 million...."
• Nordlund LA Trends in smoking habits and lung cancer in Sweden. Eur J Cancer Prev 1998 Apr;7(2):109-16; "Tobacco smoking is the most important cause of lung cancer and accounts for about 80-90% of all cases of lung cancer among men and about 50-80% among women."
• Skurnik Y, Shoenfeld Y Health effects of cigarette smoking, Clin Dermatol 1998 Sep-Oct;16(5):545-56 "Cigarette smoking, the chief preventable cause of illness and death in the industrialized nations."
2. Websites:
• JAMA Website: http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/sci...96/snr0424.htm [link no longer active as of 2004]; "Yet huge obstacles remain in our path, and new roadblocks are being erected continuously," writes Ronald M. Davis, M.D., director of the Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Mich., in urging a review of the effort against "the most important preventable cause of death in our society."
• JAMA Website: http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/sci...03.htm#joc6d99 [link no longer active as of 2004]; "According to the authors, tobacco use has been cited as the chief avoidable cause of death in the U.S., responsible for more than 420,000 deaths annually ...."
• JAMA Website: http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v281...wm80010-2.html [link no longer active as of 2004]; "The researchers reported that deaths caused by tobacco...."
3. The World Health Report 1999, chapter 5 and Statistical Annex and CDC data (http://www.cdc.gov/scientific.htm).
4.Mutat Res 1998 Feb 26;398(1-2):43-54 Association of the NAT1*10 genotype with increased chromosome aberrations and higher lung cancer risk in cigarette smokers. Abdel-Rahman SZ, El-Zein RA, Z
5. Schwartz AG, Rothrock M, Yang P, Swanson GM, "Increased cancer risk among relatives of nonsmoking lung cancer cases," Genet Epidemiol 1999;17(1):1-15
6. Amos CI, Xu W, Spitz MR, Is there a genetic basis for lung cancer susceptibility?, Recent Results Cancer Res 1999;151:3-12
7. Silica, asbestos, man-made mineral fibers, and cancer. Author Steenland K; Stayner L Cancer Causes Control, 8(3):491-503 1997 May
8. Lam S, leRiche JC, Zheng Y, Coldman A, MacAulay C, Hawk E, Kelloff G, Gazdar AF, Sex-related differences in bronchial epithelial changes associated with tobacco smoking, J Natl Cancer Inst 1999 Apr 21;91(8):691-6
9. Ignacio I. Wistuba, MD, Comparison of Molecular Changes in Lung Cancers in HIV-Positive and HIV-Indeterminate Subjects, JAMAVol. 279, pp. 1554-1559, May 20, 1998
10. Kumagai Y, Pi JB, Lee S, Sun GF, Yamanushi T, Sagai M, Shimojo N, Serum antioxidant vitamins and risk of lung and stomach cancers in Shenyang, Cancer Lett 1998 Jul 17;129(2):145-9 China.
11. Nyberg F, et al., Dietary factors and risk of lung cancer in never-smokers, Int J Cancer 1998 Nov 9;78(4):430-6
12. Sinha R, Kulldorff M, Curtin J, Brown CC, Alavanja MC, Swanson CA, "Fried, well-done red meat and risk of lung cancer in women." Cancer Causes Control 1998 Dec;9(6):621-30.
13. Young KJ, Lee PN, Statistics and Computing Ltd, Surrey, UK. Intervention studies on cancer, Eur J Cancer Prev 1999 Apr;8(2):91-103
14. Long-term inhalable particles and other air pollutants related to mortality in nonsmokers.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1999 Feb;159(2):373-82.
15. Blot WJ, Fraumeni JF, Lung Cancer Mortality in the US: Shipyard Correlations Source, Ann N Y Acad Sci; 330:313-315 1979 UI: 80659437
16. Lee IM, Sesso HD, Paffenbarger RS Jr, Physical activity and risk of lung cancer. Int J Epidemiol 1999 Aug;28(4):620-5
17. Kamp DW, Greenberger MJ, Sbalchierro JS, Preusen SE, Weitzman SA, Cigarette smoke augments asbestos-induced alveolar epithelial cell injury: role of free radicals, Free Radic Biol Med 1998 Oct;25(6):728-39
18. The Complete Reference Collection, 1996-9, Compton's.
19. Lee PN, Forey BA, Trends in cigarette consumption cannot fully explain trends in British lung cancer rates, J Epidemiol Community Health; 52(2):82-92 1998
20. Pandey M, Mathew A, Nair MK, Global perspective of tobacco habits and lung cancer: a lesson for third world countries. Eur J Cancer Prev 1999 Aug;8(4):271-9
21. Jahn O, [Passive smoking, a risk factor for lung carcinoma?], Wien Klin Wochenschr; 108(18):570-3 1996
22. Nilsson R, Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer: a reappraisal, Ecotoxicol Environ Saf; 34(1):2-17 1996
23. Finch GL, Nikula KJ, Belinsky SA, Barr EB, Stoner GD, Lechner JF, Failure of cigarette smoke to induce or promote lung cancer in the A/J mouse, Cancer Lett; 99(2):161-7 1996
Appendix A: US white male data3

________________________________________
For those of you who actually read the whole article...
As long as I'm being controversial by presenting both sides of the story, do I dare tell you that a woman is three times more likely to die from an abortion than from delivering a baby (WHO data).
Journal Home Page

email: mail@journaloftheoretics.com

© Journal of Theoretics, Inc. 1999 (Note: all submissions become the property of the journal)

January '64, CBC broadcast in Canada.

Only a slight hijack. :blush: