Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


MSP slams tobacco idea

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 25 September 2009
BANNING tobacco displays from shops in Scotland will only damage small businesses, a Lothians MSP said.
Conservative Gavin Brown said measures set out in the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services Bill were unnecessary: "There is no robust evidence to suggest banning tobacco displays will have the kind of impact on smoking levels the Scottish Government claims."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 25 September 2009 10:24 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 25/09/2009 13:03:05
Thank christ that there is a spark of common sense left in this insane parliament.

There's no robust evidence to suggest that banning tobacco displays will reduce smoking, in the same way that there is no robust evidence that "passive smoking" does anyone any harm.

Tell you what... How about ditching the insane smoking ban too? After all, there is a hell of a lot more compelling, hard evidence that it has INCREASED smoking than decreased it. There is also plenty of compelling, hard evidence that it has ruined the livelihoods of many and torn communities apart.

And if loosing this objectionable, unneccessary legislation will upset a certain Rev. S Cumball then so be it. He can stay out of pubs and out of everyone else's hair.
2

english charlie,

25/09/2009 22:29:22
ASH love to use false evidence from canada, but they don't mention:
Store owners say the sale of illegal butts is responsible for the closing of 1,875 convenience stores since April 2008.
The London Ontario Free Press, states that 20% of the 600+ butts picked up around London high schools were counterfeit.
3

Scottish Eric,

26/09/2009 08:12:40
#1 and 2

Take a look at the INDEPENDENT review of evidence by Channel 4 News and you'll see they've done the right thing

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck%20tobacco%20ban%20evidence/2879692
4

Belinda-2,

26/09/2009 08:36:27
Writing INDEPENDENT in caps all the time does not make Channel 4's comments any more valid than anyone else's. Even the Health & Sport Committee does not claim that it has conclusive evidence to support its position. It no longer thinks that the lack of an evidence base is a problem because the Scottish government can go ahead and create one - even though several other countrries have already tried it and not created one.
5

english charlie,

26/09/2009 08:45:10
#3. A couple of Canadians have shown you that that item is untrue.
More lies from MSPs
http://www.prlog.org/10354840-minister-misleads-parliament-and-should-resign.html
6

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 26/09/2009 12:58:50
Interestingly Freedom to Choose (Scotland's) press relief above for some reason is not allowed for DIGGS submission as the site deems it spam.

There is now a wealth of evidence via Freedom of Information of email exchanges between ASH/CRUK/DoH and a shop fitting company in Canada which clearly shows that the whole issue of cost and effectiveness is a sham.

The matter has already featured in the UK press, and it is my understanding that Lord Stoddart of Swindon is to ask why the Minister for Health has mislead the House over the whole issue of displays. So it seems whether Scottish or UK Government health ministers are not adverse to obfuscation or some might say lying.
7

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 26/09/2009 13:07:13
Having checked out the C$ link, this was done in December. It has been conclusively shown since that the whole 'evidence' base was a fraud.
8

Scottish Eric,

Falkirk in SCOTLAND 26/09/2009 14:04:13
I think some of the posts here show how desperately worried tobacco interests are in this proposed ban.

We have the founder of the pro-smoking group Freedom2choose posting about a Scottish law from Swindon, Freedom2choose member and conspiracy theorist Charlie posting from Suffolk about Scottish law and Freedom2choose Scottish boss Belinda too.

Robert in Swindon, it hasn't been shown at all that the evidence base was a fraud. Even the Tobacco Retailers Alliance have given up disputing the Iceland evidence.


At least Belinda is in Scotland, but Belinda I keep saying INDEPENDENT about the Channel 4 review because none of your clique of posters from Freedom2choose really do approach this with an open mind, and it shows in what you all post and the debating techniques used.

You are (perhaps unwitting) tools of the tobacco industry who seem to be going all out to undermine this measure that is solely designed to stop them recruiting children as smokers.

Smokers have posted on other threads that hiding the fags in shops is no big issue, yet members of your organisation inundate these discussions with cherry picked information or mad conspiracies.

Is it REALLY that big a deal for the fags to be hidden from view?
9

english charlie,

26/09/2009 14:29:42
#8. What have you got to say about the lies of MSPs?
http://www.prlog.org/10354840-minister-misleads-parliament-and-should-resign.html
Is it REALLY that bigger deal for fags to be on display? NO.
10

Scottish Eric,

26/09/2009 15:10:24
#9 Charlie - I've read the link you posted (you should try reading mine sometime) and that wasn't too big a deal, and looks lke a pretty understandable mistake.

I didn't know you could sell alcohol in vending machines before reading that.

Did you?



I am much more concerned about lies and misinformation being spread by members of your club, by the tobacco companies and their lackeys.

Post 7 says of the Channel 4 study "Having checked out the C$ link, this was done in December. It has been conclusively shown since that the whole 'evidence' base was a fraud."

This is not true.
11

Belinda-2,

26/09/2009 15:25:24
Independent doesn't mean that the other side is biased Eric. What is your proof that you are approaching this with an open mind? Surely the point of debate is to learn from each other, not prove to prove that we are more open -minded than the other side?

What is your proof that the point of advertising is to recruit children? Why is it better to hide the product than to educate children about the dangers? How do you deal with the risk of crossing a road ... by telling children not to cross roads?

I think that tobacco companies put effort into promoting their products just because they can afford to. They are very rich companies (this is why I believe ministerial investment/pensions portfolios are still tied up in tobacco), but government won't them do anything useful with their money like sponsoring sports. So they spend their money promoting their products.

The retailers claimed that the display ban would damage their businesses. They have been watching tobacco sales being pecked at by bootleggers for years. They spend hours every day in their shops and learn plenty about their trade without being told what to say by the tobacco industry.

Freedom2Choose is against the denormalisation of tobacco because this encourages the stigmatisation of tobacco users.
12

Belinda-2,

26/09/2009 15:32:59
#10

It is quite understandable that the Health Minister does not know the law about whether it is legal to sell alcohol from a vending machine, but since she made an error in her statement it is less understandable that she should not correct it fully before the relevant debate in Parliament.
13

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 26/09/2009 18:16:43
Scottish Eric, we live in a global communications world. A fact the anti smoking lobby very much rely on to get their distorted message out so forgive me for having the audacity to post from the tiny enclave of Swindon.

I am flattered that you know of such a tiny fish in such a big pond. We know from the Scottish ban that England, Wales, and NI will probably follow suit so your Parliaments decision will affect us all. For the record Freedom to Choose is a pro choice organisation, not a pro smoking organisation, at least it was when I and others set it up.

The fact remains that the evidence to support display bans simply does not stack up, including the lies about the cost to business. As for Ms Shona Robison she new what she was saying was not true, in pre Parliament meetings her errors were pointed out to her. She simply didn't care. There may well be vested interests at work here. The biggest vested interest and the big money winner is the Pharmaceutical Industry whose big 'bucks' investment into the anti smoking campaigns makes Big T, well, look Small T.
14

Scottish Eric,

26/09/2009 18:23:09
Robert #13

Vested interests at work? Pharmaceutical industry?

How does the pharmaceutical industry make ANY money out of children not starting to smoke?

15

Scottish Eric,

26/09/2009 18:25:06
Robert #13

If Freedom2choose are pro-choice why are you resisting a measure that is designed to stop children getting hooked on smoking?

Smokers have posed on here to say it isn't a problem.

The only people who will lose out from children not starting to smoke are the tobacco industry.

Why are you fighting their battles for them?
16

Scottish Eric,

26/09/2009 18:26:28
#15 should have read

Smokers have posted on here to say it isn't a problem.
17

english charlie,

26/09/2009 20:24:55
Scottish Eric. You appear to believe that Channel 4 are independent and wouldn't lie. Do you believe that MSPs are indepentent and wouldn't lie?
18

Belinda-2,

26/09/2009 22:48:02
#13

Robert, I can confirm that we are still a pro-choice organisation, not a pro smoking one.

Eric, you are not reading the posts properly. Many MSPs have concluded that the evidence is inconclusive that this will work and Dr Simpson said, 'The fact that we do not have all the evidence is not a reason not to have such a ban': on the basis of partial evidence he wants to believe it will work. Since the evidence is not conclusive it seems to me there are also grounds for believing that it won't work, i.e. there is also gounds for belief that the rate of decline in youth uptake of smoking is slowing down (and do we have the figures for illicit sales anyway?).

They do wish to denormalise cigarettes and smoking. We do not share that aim.

We know that there is a thriving black market and that people will not stop smoking. It seems reasonable to assume that if the government pushes the trade underground, then bootleggers will exploit the difficulties put in front of legitimate traders.

Pharmaceutical interests sponsored a major Edinburgh conference about the tobacco display ban this week. Was this out of the kindness of their hearts or genuine philanthropy?




19

Scottish Eric,

27/09/2009 00:19:26
Psst Charlie #17
I hear the David Icke site has unearthed evidence that all drug company bosses are alien lizard people who are spraying mind control chemicals high in the atmosphere so that we never get to realise that cancer is a fungus that can be easily cured by baking soda. The Government is behind it.
Why don't you go and check out this important new avenue?

In the meantime, I'm never going to respond to you again until you start debating like an adult on this very important issue.
You are definately freedom2choose's weakest link. Goodbye.
20

Scottish Eric,

27/09/2009 00:37:17
Belinda

The drug companies will sponsor things like that to try to curry favour for their stop smoking products. I suspect the chance of finding a drug company with a kind heart or truly philanthropic vision is about the same as Chas from Suffolk making a half decent contribution to the debate - around 0.

There is no evidence that display bans increase bootlegging.

If your organisation was truly about choice you would be supporting measures to avoid children becoming addicted to nicotine before they reach sufficient maturity to make an informed choice.

If your organisation was truly about choice, you wouldn't be peddling propoganda fed to you by tobacco interests that cloud the ability of a person to make a mature, informed choice about smoking. Look at other discussions about smoking on these forums and you'll find posts by your members that deny smoking is addictive. Some of your members post that exposure to smoke is good for children - that was a favourite of your former chairman Colin who boasted that he smoked in the presence of his grandchildren to protect them from cancer.

You aren't pro-choice. Your group's actions, your members repetition of stuff straight out of tobacco industry press releases, the failure of people like yourself to contradict the more extreme nonsense postings by your members all indicate that you really are a pro-smoking organisation.
21

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 27/09/2009 08:30:37
'exposure to smoke is good for children' oh dear Eric of all the things you could choose you chose that one. The WHO/Boffetta study published in 1998 I am afraid said exactly that. I think Boffetta's words from memory were something like, 'early years childhood exposure is shown to have a positive effect on a child's immune system in later years.' Now I don't know about you but that rather suggests exposure to ETS could be beneficial.

But of course we are not talking about that we are talking about the notion banning displays will reduce young people smoking.

Lets examine that: The first ban on Advertising was I think in 1997/8. Did that reduce smoking. Answer NO. Then we had bans all over the world and in the UK. Did they reduce smoking levels. Answer NO, they have increased. Will point of sale bans and vending machine bans. Answer NO. You cannot possibly conclude a positive when you haven't even set the base line. There is absolutely no statistical analysis been done on how many 'children' purchase cigarettes illegally. We have obviously the 'evidence' of LA stings and the like.
22

Scottish Eric,

Scotland 27/09/2009 08:39:30
#21
Robert, a superb example of why freedom2choose and its members are pro-smoking rather than pro-choice

You cherry pick a report from 1998 that shows a benefit from exposing children to smoke.

You don't mention the others that show harm.

Like the work on cot death that found that 86% of recent cot deaths were in homes where people smoke.

A pro-choice organisation would present the full picture and allow choice.

A pro-smoking organisation would hide all of the negative stuff about smoking and only talk about the positive, so that people are conned into doing it.

That is exactly what freedom2choose do.
23

Belinda-2,

27/09/2009 09:45:12
Eric ... I am glad that you understand that pharmaceutical interests are not about people's health. Their inflence in this debate is far too strong ... why should they care whether cigarettes are displayed or not?

I disagree with you that the sight of cigarettes is enough to make children smoke. If that were true, far more of them would smoke. Hiding these cigarettes will not make children any wiser about the dangers of tobacco. How can it? Your way of dealing with tobacco and the young seems to be to pretend the stuff doesn't exist and assume that when they don't see it in the shops that they won't see it anywhere else. How can they ask you openly about a taboo subject?

The Scottish government cannot produce conclusive evidence that the ban will lower youth smoking uptakes. It is working on a hunch, likewise when putting the case that radio controlled vending machines won't stop youth smoking. (They did the same with the smoking ban, when they denied that modern technology could remove toxins from the air.) To clinch the argument and deride the opposition they referred to the nonsensical studies about heart attacks following the smoking ban - the new story is that they have dropped by a third, even though statistics released by the ISD show drops of about 8 per cent over the last several years.

24

Belinda-2,

27/09/2009 09:47:33
correction: the case that radio controlled vending machines won't stop kids getting access to them.
25

Belinda-2,

27/09/2009 09:55:04
This link shows an surge in smuggled tobacco driven by the recession. This will be available to the public at less than the market price, and youngsters will probably not have to show ID if they offer themselves as customers. So how will hiding shop displays help anyone?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6851063.ece
26

Scottish Eric,

27/09/2009 10:24:43
Belinda#23
"I disagree with you that the sight of cigarettes is enough to make children smoke."

I've never said that I thought 'the sight of cigarettes is enough to make children smoke'

Don't you start misquoting me, I'll just take it as further evidence your organistion is an extension of the tobacco industry marketing strategy.

What I have said is "A youngster goes into a shop every day for the first 12 years of his life and sees pretty packaging on display next to the sweets.

The display is now much bigger, brighter and more atractive than in the youngster's earlier life, because tobacco companies can no longer advertise their products elsewhere.

The health warnings on the packages are carefully hidden behind the price label.

Over his formative years the child develops the view that "these can't be dangerous as they are on open display and next to the sweets."

The child is more likely to start smoking due to this different perception.

Charlie, as you clearly won't read the INDEPENDENT review by CHannel 4 News, here's their verdict;-

'The claim
"What other countries have found when they've banned point of sale [tobacco] displays is they reduced the number of young people taking up smoking, and that's the primary concern we have here.
Alan Johnson, health secretary, Today, Radio 4, 9 December 2008" '

' The verdict
Statistics from Iceland and Canada show fewer young people smoking after cigarette displays were banned.

Statistics alone don't prove conclusively that banning the displays caused the drop. But a wealth of other research shows cigarette displays encourage young people to smoke (and make it harder for smokers to quit).

Taking the two things together, the evidence points pretty firmly the government's way. And to say, as the opposition parties do, that there's no evidence the ban will have an effect on smoking among young people seems pretty misleading. '

"
27

Scottish Eric,

27/09/2009 10:35:21
Belinda
Can you offer one shred of evidence that your organisation is anything other than an unwitting tool of the tobacco industry marketing machine?

We never get anything balanced from your members' posts.

A truly pro-choice organisation wouldn't have a problem with the display ban, but yours does.

The tobacco industry seem terrified of it and are doing a huge amount of lobbying against it. They are planting stories all over the place and terrifying newsagents about the threat of closure and the influx of bootleg cigarettes.

Many of the independent (ie not in Freedom2choose) smokers who've posted here don't think hiding cigarettes is a problem. The newsagents I've discussed it with can see through the scare stories and don't see it as a problem.

So do we get a measured, proportionate response from your members? No. We get rehashed tobacco industry information and spin.

Like I said earlier, a real pro-choice organisation would present the full picture and allow choice.

A pro-smoking organisation would hide all of the negative stuff about smoking and only talk about the positive, so that people are conned into doing it.

That is exactly what freedom2choose do.
28

english charlie,

27/09/2009 10:39:10
http://www.prlog.org/10354840-minister-misleads-parliament-and-should-resign.html
29

Scottish Eric,

27/09/2009 10:48:53
#28, in typical propogandist fashion, posts a link to a press release from Freedom2choose's Scottish Chairman without presenting it as such.

More evidence that freedom2choose are a tool of the tobacco industry. (as if we needed it)
30

Belinda-2,

27/09/2009 11:25:31
Eric: what is it about the word 'ban' that suggests choice to you?

You are reading selectively. Illegal tobacco is everywhere already. When legal tobacco outlets are not allowed to display their merchandise, it stands to reason that the position of illegal peddlers will be stronger.

31

Belinda-2,

27/09/2009 11:28:18
#29 The Scottish government recently published a consultation on smoking in mental health services in Scotland without including a single reference or referring to any evidence to back up its assertions. Is that evidence that the Scottish government is a tool of the tobacco industry?
32

Robert Feal-Martinez,

swindon 27/09/2009 11:31:53
Cherry picking indeed. This study was flagged up by the WHO as the conclusive proof that ETS/Passive Smoke caused terminal ill health, and was the biggest study at that time. The problem for the WHO is that there are people who actually read the studies, not just the press release.

The study concluded no such thing as Boffetta's own conclusions said. The irony is that at the time this was the biggest study ever conducted, there had been smaller ones before and after, and you are of course right they reached conclusions that ETS was harmful, the trouble of course is that the results are within the same margins as Boffetta.

And guess what the largest and most in depth study of them all by Enstome and Kabat in 2003 showed once again at best a minor scientifically insignificant association.

I have read over 100 studies on the topic and there is not one that has achieved a scientifically significant association between passive smoke and major ill health. I would contend that is not 'selective' reading or comment.

For the record I have never smoked and if they banned tobacco products tomorrow I would not object. But I guess the British Government would losing 10 billion at the stroke of a pen, but I guess they are good at that.
33

Scottish Eric,

27/09/2009 15:26:25
Robert #32

Your post demonstrates you don't really understand what cherry picking means

If you can't grasp that, what credence can we attach to your assessment of the 100+ studies you have read?

What about the study that found that 86% of cot deaths occur in homes where people smoke? You have conveniently avoided that one, plus all the others that don't agree with your bias.

Why don't you go and find out what cherry picking means and come back and give us an unbiased assessment of the full evidence base?
34

Scottish Eric,

27/09/2009 15:28:44
#30 Belinda, that is your belief.
There is no evidence that display bans are the cause of increased bootlegging, just a load of supposition and spin by the tobacco companies and their stooges.
35

Belinda-2,

27/09/2009 16:19:21
#34 Eric
What evidence are you offering that the display ban will stop the young from buying tobacco and will not lead to a larger market share for the bootleggers? You base your beliefs on the official line, and on writing off what the tobacco retail trade says as tobacco industry propaganda. DO you really believe that shopkeepers who disagree with you don't have the ability to think for themselves? Bootlegging is a far more serious problem for shops than it is for tobacco commpanies.

It is my opinion that if customers are denied the opportunity to see what is available for sale, some of them - not all - might vote with their feet and save money into the bargain. Bootleggers beat shops on price and, thanks to the government, customer service - they will be able to show the customer their product.

36

Belinda-2,

27/09/2009 16:21:07
A link on the risks to small shops (all propaganda from the tobacco industry of course!!)

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/markets/article.html?in_article_id=491183
37

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 27/09/2009 18:20:16
OK cot deaths: Just a random search on Google: What is the cause of cot deaths. Not one says smoking causes SIDS. In fact they all list similar factors and yes advise people not to smoke. That is totally different from saying smoking is the cause.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/3593568/Smoking-is-not-all-evil.html

http://tinyurl.com/yakkn5h

http://www.happychild.org.uk/nvs/cont/articles/cotlife.htm

http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/sids.html
38

Robert Feal-Martinez,

swindon 27/09/2009 18:51:00
I assume this is the research Eric refers to.

First direct link of passive smoking to cot death

Posted Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:00am AEST

Researchers in Sydney have found the first direct evidence that exposure to cigarette smoke increases the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

The research, conducted by the University of Sydney's Bosch Institute, found exposure to second-hand smoke caused changes to babies' brain cells.

Researchers led by Rita Machaalani were trying to turn parents' tragedy into medical progress, analysing brain tissue from babies who had undergone autopsies at Glebe morgue.

They found 81 per cent of the infants who died of SIDS had been exposed to cigarette smoke, while only 58 per cent of those who died of other causes were exposed to second-hand smoke.

The researchers also found more brain cells in the part of the brain responsible for vital functions like breathing and blood circulation had died in babies that succumbed to SIDS.

"This study provides further evidence of increased apoptosis [cell death] in the brainstem of SIDS infants, but shows for the first time that these changes are also affected by age and gender, and by clinical risk factors such as the sleep position and cigarette smoke exposure," the authors said.

Passive smoking has long been identified as a risk factor for SIDS and anti-smoking campaigns around Australia have warned parents not to smoke around their babies.

Scientists say this is the first time that the biological mechanisms that lead to death have been revealed.

It also adds to a growing body of research that shows if a mother smokes while pregnant they significantly increase the risk of their baby dying from SIDS.

Dr Machaalani led the research team and says the findings amount to "hard evidence".

"I can only hope that the doctors and the scientific board can take the report and send it across to parents and let them know finally that look, what we've been telling you all a
39

Robert Feal-Martinez,

swindon 27/09/2009 18:52:59
If the cause is known it isn't SIDS is it.
40

english charlie,

27/09/2009 19:16:06
The SIDS sites say that they do not know the cause of SIDS. They only give risk factors.
41

Scottish Eric,

27/09/2009 20:40:24
Robert #38
No, it's a different study that I'm talking about.

You continue to destroy your credibility by thinking you can pick individual studies and either promote them (if you like their findings) or rubbish them (if you don't like their findings).

When you're in a hole, stop digging.
42

Nitro,

UK 27/09/2009 21:37:20
Well least Gavin Brown has the sense to admit that there is no robust evidence that banning tobacco displays will have the impact on smoking levels that the Scottish Government claims.

The only effect it will achieve is to close down vast amounts of small businesses exactly as smoking legislation forced the closures of Pubs and Bars and to increase exposure of dangerous contraband cigarettes.

The rosy claims of success in Canada have turned out to be myth, Canada has been flooded with contraband cigarettes and as youngsters can not easily access the market, thousands of young Canadians are being exposed to the black market for cigarettes.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health/young-smokers-choosing-contraband-cigarettes/article1278938/

As stated by ASH and their smokefree partners contraband cigarettes may contain up to 5 times the amounts of toxic materials and can prove to be very dangerous indeed.

There is no evidence that banning cigarette displays will have any effect on stopping youngsters from smoking so why pursue it? concentrate on removing dangerous contraband cigarettes from circulation and let responsible shop owners regulate and only sell cigarettes to citizens over the correct age.

Existing legislation is more than adequate but the general public will once again be exposed to passive brainwashing by government backed organisations and individuals whose target is the total eradication of tobacco.
43

Scottish Eric,

27/09/2009 22:34:30
Nitro in London #42
You are just another member of the pro-smoking group Freedom2choose spreading tobacco industry propoganda.

Here's what the independent assessment by Channel 4 News concluded
"Statistics from Iceland and Canada show fewer young people smoking after cigarette displays were banned.

Statistics alone don't prove conclusively that banning the displays caused the drop. But a wealth of other research shows cigarette displays encourage young people to smoke (and make it harder for smokers to quit).

Taking the two things together, the evidence points pretty firmly the government's way. And to say, as the opposition parties do, that there's no evidence the ban will have an effect on smoking among young people seems pretty misleading"

PRETTY MISLEADING - that's what some independant journalists who have weighed up the evidence say about your claims.

Your group are a propaganda tool of tobacco industry interests, trying to mislead us into keeping their supply of child smoking recruits coming through every year to replace the smoking customers who have been able to stop smoking, or the less lucky ones who have died.

44

Scottish Eric,

27/09/2009 22:57:36
Belinda #36 says "A link on the risks to small shops (all propaganda from the tobacco industry of course!!)"

The article her link takes you quotes Dave Brian, President of the Canadian Convenience Stores Association talking about the difficulties of the display ban.

A quick google search takes you to an article talking about how the tobacco industry impacts on Canadian convenience stores and gives us the following nugget that perhaps our Belinda didn't know when she posted the link

"prior to becoming president of the Canadian Convenience Stores Association, Dave Bryans was employed by tobacco company RJR-Macdonald Inc."

Here's a link to the full article http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0013267

Are you starting to see that I'm right in my assessment of your group as tools of the tobacco industry Belinda?
45

Scottish Eric,

27/09/2009 23:33:09
#44 Before anyone from pro-smoking group freedom2choose comes back and says that it is just a coincidence that a tobacco industry employee ends up in charge of a small store association, they should research the UK Tobacco Retailers Alliance.

Until last year they didn't declare that they were funded by the tobacco industry. And who is their publicist? A Tobacco Manufacturers Association lobbyist.

And who is their publicist's step father? An English labour MP who appears in their literature and is campaigning for the return of smoking rooms in pubs.



46

Scottish Eric,

27/09/2009 23:39:27
#44 and 45

Imagine what a conspiracy theorist could make of all of that.

Belinda, it took me about an hour on google to unearth all of this.

Have you never taken the trouble to check out the sources of your group's propaganda with the same enthusiasm as you do when checking out information you don't agree with?

If you are pro-choice rather than pro-smoking you should do that. Otherwise you will continue to be the tool of the tobacco industry that you are now.
47

Nitro,

uk 28/09/2009 01:29:13
#43 Scottish Eric

Why are you hounding me and trying to link me with any organisation, I am not even a smoker.

As an individual one thing I object to is passive brainwashing of the public by organisations and individuals that are funded by govenments to the tune of multi millions of pounds for social engineering projects that are not warranted.

Are you part of one of these organisations Eric? is your organisations aim the total eradication of tobacco. What are the targets of your organisation, are you not prepared to listen to rational debate?.

As I have stated before the banning of tobacco displays will not reduce youngsters from smoking they are a smokescreen for the eventual eradication of tobacco products by unelected bodies.

This legislation will ensure that a multitude of small shops will close, honest hard working employees will be made unemployed all because of ASH and associated smokefree organisations ill thought out policies.









48

soapy1,

Rainworth 28/09/2009 04:56:38
May I ask Scottish Eric with reference to his post #33 by what right he sees fit to add to the grief of Parents who have lost children to SIDs?

Would he not agree that it is bad enough that scientists release so many conflicting research documents on SIDSs that it is clear even to the village idiot that they have not got a clue as to the causes of SIDs without irresponsible people using them to imply that parents are killing their offspring?

If Scottish Eric believes he has evidence that smokers who have lost babies to SIDs are guilty of manslaughter why does he not take his case to the police as is his duty?

He will of course say that that is not what he meant, that he is merely quoting research, a modern day orders are orders defence that saw many of the SS camp guards hung for their crimes at Nuremberg. Perhaps he will dismiss me as a conspiracy nut as he does anyone else who defies him, perhaps even a tool of the tobacco companies.

I am a smoker Scottish Eric, a smoker who has lost a child to SIDs, I am sick and tired of people adding to my grief if you have a case for smoking SIDs parent's killing their children then prove it in a court of law, while you are doing that you can explain to us all how non smoking parents of SIDs victims are killing their children for if as you imply smokers are killing their children then non smokers must be doing something to kill theirs too.

It is your implication, all you achieve by it is to increase the grief of parents who are as much a victim of SIDs as their children are.
49

Scottish Eric,

28/09/2009 06:30:16
#47 Nitro in London.

I'm not hounding you.

I'm just asking that you stop posting rehashed tobacco industry propaganda.

So are you not one of the Freedom2choose crowd?
50

Scottish Eric,

28/09/2009 06:48:54
#48 Soapy in Rainworth in the English midlands

Lots of emotion in your post Soapy, and I am sorry if you have suffered any distress because of my post.

But you are another member of the pro-smoking pressure group Freedom2choose aren't you?

I have never said that smoking causes SIDS, I have pointed to evidence of it being a major risk factor.

Robert failed to grasp that, and you do too.

Perhaps it is time for members of Freedom2choose to stop this ridiculous campaign of shouting down anyone who dares to suggest that smoking has a multitude of harmful effects.


Soapy, I've been on Google and searched on your name, your town and SIDS.

It seems that you make this sort of emotional post to stifle discussion whenever anyone suggests the link between smoking and SIDS.

Have a look at the SidsScotland site if you need any confirmation of how huge a risk factor smoking is for babies http://www.sidscotland.org.uk/risks.html
51

Robert Feal-Martinez,

swindon 28/09/2009 08:24:28
Eric it seems to me you are the only one doing the shouting down. I post 4 links to totally independent sites, giving medical advice on SIDS. I then post a link for research that appeared to be what you were referring and then once again you accuse me of being selective, when I suggest the research by it's own statements is fatally flawed.

So Eric please provide me with a link to this unequivocal research document that makes claims about SIDS. I will read it and then respond with logical scientifically based argument based on the document.

Whilst your at it perhaps a piece of ETS research, that says Passive Smoke Kills. Not the usual words, 'we believe' 'our findings suggest' 'we estimate' 'we calculate' a simple categoric statement that passive smoking kills.

And what part of I am not sponsored, indebted to, associated with or have any affiliation to Big T, do you not understand.
52

Robert Feal-Martinez,

swindon 28/09/2009 08:31:10
I have read your link Eric, I would ask just one question: Why do they not put risk factors on the other 'avoidables'.

The risks associated with passive smoke give no reference to source data. So I ask again please can I have the link.

It seems to me Eric, your responses can be summed up by the following statement. 'If it appears on an official Government backed site, it must be true. if it doesn't it must be false.'
53

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 28/09/2009 08:53:52
A closer examination of Eric's SIDS link shows items of completed research. The one specifically about smoking seems not to have been published, although completed.
54

Scottish Eric,

28/09/2009 09:20:07
Robert #51

"So Eric please provide me with a link to this unequivocal research document that makes claims about SIDS. I will read it and then respond with logical scientifically based argument based on the document."

Robert, you will cherry pick the bits you like and dismiss the bits you don't.

Your posts to date demonstrate that are in no way qualified, nor sufficiantly unbiased, to "read it and then respond with logical scientifically based argument based on the document".

You still haven't got a grasp on 'cherry picking' and you have shown that you are prone to making claims that are wildly sweeping on the basis of your bias, eg #7 "Having checked out the C$ link, this was done in December. It has been conclusively shown since that the whole 'evidence' base was a fraud". It has not been shown that the whole evidence base was a fraud; that statement is not true at all.

I suggest Robert that you contact SidsScotland yourself and ask them for details of the research they base their opinion upon.

And when they give you it, take your blinkers off when you read it, suspend your bias for the duration, and see what you think.

Then, BEFORE YOU POST YOUR VIEWS HERE, contact them and check that your understanding of the evidence, and the conclusions you've drawn, are accurate.

All you have managed to prove thus far in this thread is that your own opinion of your ability to assess medical research surpasses your actual ability by quite a long way. Save yourself the embarrassment of further exposure by talking it through with people who are good at this before you post, I said earlier -when you're in a hole stop digging.
55

Belinda-2,

28/09/2009 09:27:16
#49 Guilt by association is your forte Eric. Nitro is a member of our association because he thinks on similar lines and the connection of a Canadian convenience association director with a tobacco company is proof positive that we are tobacco stooges.

We are not tobacco stooges but even the voice of tobacco companies has a legitimate voice in a policy discussion involving its product, just like any other 'vested interest'. The fact that they are talking about tobacco does not make them wrong, we just need to be aware that they have an interest in promoting their product when listening to their argument and the counter argument.

Your attacks on other debaters are getting very boring by the way. You are no great source of independent evidence yourself.
56

Belinda-2,

28/09/2009 09:32:08
#54 'Robert, you will cherry pick the bits you like and dismiss the bits you don't.'

It takes one to know one, Eric.
57

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 28/09/2009 09:35:10
Eric, it is not I who have made the claim over SIDS, you did. It therefore follows in line with the normal rules of debate that you provide the evidence, de facto the research you have alluded to. Anything less clearly casts doubt on your comments and contentions.

I have provided links supporting my contentions, which of course you are at liberty to discount, however what you cannot do is state your opinion as scientific fact without doing others the courtesy afforded you. If you cannot or refuse to do that you should withdraw from the debate.
58

Scottish Eric,

28/09/2009 09:35:29
Robert, I only brought up the study that shows that 86% of cot deaths occur in homes of smokers at #21 to demonstrate that the full body of research on smoking and health didn't demonstrate that smoking was good for children, as is suggested by your pro-smoking pressure group.

Ther are many other studies of different health conditions that show that smoking isn't good for kids.

I just used the SIDS one to demonstrate the dangers of cherry picking the things that agree with your bias.

You seem to be trying to turn this thread about the Scottish display ban into a vehicle for you to post protracted messages trying to show that you are cleverer than the medical profession? (Believe me; you aren't).

To allow Scottish people to debate a Scottish law without distraction, can I suggest we take this particular debate elsewhere? Perhaps you could start a discussion on a forum for a Swindon newspaper, post the link here and I'll join that debate.

I'm not trying to stifle relevant debate, but this isn't relevant debate.
59

Scottish Eric,

28/09/2009 09:42:49
Belinda #55

So aren't you even vaguely embarrassed that you are posting links that you think lead to independent information, only to find that the tobacco marketing machine is actually behind it?
60

Belinda-2,

28/09/2009 09:49:51
Assocation is not causation, Eric. The retail organisations are making a stand against the display ban, The fact that the tobacco companies fund some of these organisations does not mean that they dictate what the organisations say.

Freedom to Choose may have the same outlook as the tobacco companies, but the tobacco companies are of no interest to me as I don't consider that they will lose sales as a result of the display ban. The shops however will lose sales. Whoever the president of the Canadian stores association is makes no difference to the fact that many of them have witnessed adverse consequences to their trade from this legislation.

I've got nothing to be embarrassed about.
61

Belinda-2,

28/09/2009 09:52:31
That is not to say that we would agree with what the tobacco companies say about everything. I am aware that they are in the background as far as shop organisations are concerned but take the view that shops will be hit rather hard by this but the total sales in tobacco are not in any danger. So the protests come from the shops rather than the tobacco companies.
62

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 28/09/2009 09:54:31
Eric, simply not good enough. There is either a research document or there isn't. The whole debate has moved backwards and forwards in the main by you. Indeed in an earlier post I made the exact same point in my post 21, when you chose to move the direction of the debate.

It now suits you to say 'it's not your law' etc, when I previously explained exactly why it is of interest to the rest of the UK. Let's face it Eric you cannot provide any substantive evidence to back up your claims so you wish to shut down debate. Something ASH etal do frequently.
63

Scottish Eric,

28/09/2009 10:22:35
Belinda #60
"The fact that the tobacco companies fund some of these organisations does not mean that they dictate what the organisations say"

So you don't think having a tobacco industry person leading both the british and canadian small shops associations will lead to them spreading scare stories about display bans?

The industry has its entire future based on maintaining the recruitment of child smokers. Get real.
64

Scottish Eric,

28/09/2009 10:24:58
Robert
I'm not looking to shut down debate on an issue that isn't relevant, I'm looking to take it to a relevant place.

Passive smoking is not relevant to a debate on a display ban that could reduce the numbers of child smokers. Nor is your ego.
65

Belinda-2,

28/09/2009 10:31:42
Eric, the only proof you have offered that this display ban will reduce youth smoking comes from Channel 4. Kids find it much easier to get cigs from friends, family and bootleggers, rather than shops, which usually ask how old they are and need to see ID. The concern that traders have is that existing trade should go through legal channels.

In answer to your question, no I don't think the scare stories come from tobacco companies, because the shops have far more to lose.
66

Scottish Eric,

28/09/2009 10:36:29
Belinda
It is a rough tough world out there, and the tobacco industry (and the drug companies) have been shown time after time to have very few scruples when it comes to shaping their markets.

Don't you think you are being naive?
67

Scottish Eric,

28/09/2009 10:39:02
Belinda #65

In fairness, the Channel 4 assessment drew its proof from a wide range of sources.

You and your pro-smoking pressure group haven't been able to produce any independent proof, just stuff with links to, or roots in, the tobacco industry or your own opinion.

68

Belinda-2,

28/09/2009 10:40:51
No. I think you are being naive. But I am glad you are wise to the drug companies, because they are pushing for this legislation too. I fail to see how your post follows on from previous ones.

69

Belinda-2,

28/09/2009 10:49:31
For crying out loud Eric, the debate is about tobacco. It would be very surprising if a government apologist like yourself were unable to trace links between what we say and what tobacco outlets say and put them down to tobacco industry influence.

This is like McCarthyism ... we are useful idiots who are not necessarily Communists but are being used by the Communists. But substitute tobacco companies. It is done to deny the validity of the opposing view.
70

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 28/09/2009 11:17:26
Eric, the SIDS issue as raised is primarily about smoking not ETS.

Eric I hate to be a bore and state the blindingly obvious, however it is not for us to prove a negative it is for the proponents of bans to prove a positive. In other words the resultant outcomes achieve their objectives. Smoking bans do not reduce smoking, advertising does not reduce smoking, and there is no evidence that banning displays will reduce childhood smokers.

You simply cannot backup your claims. So I ask again produce a link to the SIDS research, because at the moment SIDS Scotland can't either, I've asked but haven't received a response.
71

soapy1,

rainworth 28/09/2009 11:51:53
Since when has exercising the right to express an opinion stifled debate?

You are free to engage or not at your own will so where is the problem?

As predicted you did exactly as I said you would, you also avoided the questions you opened the debate into an emotive area and now object because someone challenged it emotionally. Can I assume then that both you and the anti smoking lobby condemn all victims of SIDs as you no longer pretend to make a distinction between smokers and non smokers?

Again you you jump into the Gospel according to Google and come up with the fact that as a cot death parent I have lobbied for them to left in peace to mourn their loss you then contrive to politisise it and worse still imply that thye kill their children and you describe this as good debating.

Will you or will you not prove your case in a court of law?

You chose to open this area to debate, you chose to imply SIDs parents are killers yes it is emotive it is also immoral to blame parents for something they have no control over. If cigarette smoke Is a contributing factor how is it that SIDs is seasonal?

You will of course ignore that question too and reiterate your junk about belonging to organisations, about emotionalism and how the lord our Google says so and does this at this frequency as if it were some religious rite.

If you have not got the will to prove your allegations if you have not got the will to get involved in emotional topics do not raise them, simples, but do not be hurt or surprised when people challenge them. The best thing you can do is to acknowledge the fact that implying SIDs parents are killers is wrong for if you do not then this issue coupled with its siblings the advocation of violence, the vilification of one fifth of the population of the UK (Smokers not SIDs victims), its uncanny parallels with the Nuremberg decrees of the 1930's will eventually destroy these acts of folly which pass as law.

Your cause is lost, the only con
72

soapy1,

raiworth 28/09/2009 11:53:28
Your cause is lost, the only control over smoking you have is banning in totality and that because of the massive income to the state will not happen. AS the black market share of tobacco rises the government revenue drops the government will be left with the choice of either completely banning tobacco or providing establishments for smokers.

Dress it up with fancy reports all you want but that is the bottom line is accept a few million smokers in a percentage of venues or increase the tax burden on everyone. Now they have began the same with alcohol, a the same rules apply there so an even greater tax burden for fewer workers is en route again the bottom line no doubt you'll expect praise for causing that as well as kicking grieving parents when they are down.
73

Scottish Eric,

28/09/2009 23:02:16
Soapy #71 and 72

Once again, I am sorry to have upset you.

I have never implied that sids parents who smoke are killers; I'm sure that the link was not as strong when your own personal tragedy happened, but it is there now.

Would you let anyone smoke in the presence of your child/grandchild with the current state of knowledge?

74

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 29/09/2009 08:20:02
The alleged study please Eric. SIDS Scotland don't seem willing to provide it either.
75

Scottish Eric,

29/09/2009 10:57:39
Robert #74
I'll look it up and post it later.

Whilst you're waiting, why don't you show us just how clever you are at this 'science' lark by explaining away the findings of the Enstrom and Kabat study on the increased risk of Emphysema in people exposed to other people's smoke?

You say at #32 "And guess what the largest and most in depth study of them all by Enstome and Kabat in 2003 showed once again at best a minor scientifically insignificant association.

I have read over 100 studies on the topic and there is not one that has achieved a scientifically significant association between passive smoke and major ill health. I would contend that is not 'selective' reading or comment."

But the Enstrom study did find a statistically significant increased risk of Emphysema from passive smoking. Are you suggesting that Emphysema is not 'major ill health'?

Did you miss that bit? Or did you just cherry pick the bits you like?

Do you want to stop digging yourself further into this hole you've started yet?
76

Scottish Eric,

29/09/2009 11:06:30
Robert, remember you are the man who said "Having checked out the C$ link, this was done in December. It has been conclusively shown since that the whole 'evidence' base was a fraud."

I've pointed out at least twice that this statement isn't true, but you haven't sought to justify it.
Even the Tobacco Retailers Alliance have given up disputing the Iceland evidence, and they have a tobacco industry lobbyist leading on the issue.

Do you want to apologise for misleading this thread?

Perhaps Freedom2choose should create a press release saying "Freedom2choose founder caught misleading the Scotsman" and post it on their press release website?

Or is it not he same when their own people do it?
77

Scottish Eric,

29/09/2009 11:09:14
And finally, for now, here's a critique of the Enstrom and Kabat study that pro-smoking groups keep telling us about.

"Enstrom and Kabat
Two recent studies by Enstrom and Kabat conclude that the previous studies overestimated the effect of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) on both lung cancer and heart diseases.

These studies have been criticised by the American Cancer Society, which describes the study as "misinformation", as both the original cohort and Enstrom and Kabat's spotty follow-ups, were entirely inappropriate for reliably determining ETS exposure, smoking history, etc. Furthermore, Enstrom and Kabat are funded by the tobacco industry. ASH published an analysis of the studies that concluded that the studies can not be trusted, as there appears to be a direct conflict of interest. Alongside other faults, this analysis also criticizes the BMJ for failing to inform readers who funded the studies.

Enstrom and Kabat have rejected this criticism, claiming that the American Cancer Society funded most of the first study, but pulled their funding at the last minute, forcing the researchers to look elsewhere to find funding. Further, they say were only able to find funding from a foundation funded by the tobacco companies. In response, ACS vice-president Michael Thun asserts that Enstrom had been funded by the tobacco industry since 1997 without informing the ACS, and that Enstrom had communicated with Philip Morris about the potential value of the CPS-I follow-up as early as 1990.

The study also attracted criticism for a number of methodological flaws:
* It did not account for participants' considerable ETS exposure before California implemented a smoking ban in the late 1990s
* The analysis did not account for losses to follow-up, nor misclassification
* The lower than usual relative risks for active smoking and coronary heart disease could have obscured the effect of ETS
* The participant group they used was designed to assess the effect of
78

soapy1,

Rainworth 29/09/2009 11:12:10
*Please enter your commentFirstly thank you for your apology, no parent expects to bury their children, the impact of such an event is strong and long lasting particularly when the cause is unknown, as scientists continuously change their minds about the causes of SIDs nothing they write in their reports is of any real value the truth is they just do not know what the causes are.

The citation of reports that claim smokers children are more susceptible to SIDS is the implication that smokers are killing their children especially when evidence or reports cite mites or sleeping position, chemicals in mattresses et al in non smoking families SIDs deaths.

The role of a parent is to advise and guide their children not dictate their lifestyles. this applies equally when they become adults, while I advise my children what I believe to be good practice at the end of the they are parenting their children not I, the principles and values my children choose to instill into their children are basically their business, if I have concerns then I can and do mention them.

I do not have the right to dictate how my grandchildren are raised so issues such as smoking are issues that my children will deal with according to their beliefs until such time as their children are old enough and free to choose their own lifestyles. Since I do not have that right neither the government or anyone else has that right either. Unless parents are a clear and present danger there is no reason for any form of intervention. Advice, yes fine under condition that advice is just that and it free to accept or reject under free will and conscience.

So advice not to do something is fine, coercion to do something is not and this is the position that the smoking issue is in. the attempts to coerce smokers into a non smoking lifestyle is wrong, I would be happy with a percentage of smoking pubs where like minded people and I may smoke served by smokers and run by smokers, this would satisfy thos
79

Scottish Eric,

29/09/2009 11:15:12
continued

* The participant group they used was designed to assess the effect of active smoking, not ETS Allan Hackshaw, deputy director of the cancer trials center at UCL, concluded "Enstrom and Kabat's conclusions are not supported by the weak evidence they offer, and, although the accompanying editorial alluded to "debate" and "controversy," we judge the issue to be resolved scientifically, even though the "debate" is cynically continued by the tobacco industry."

In addition, Enstrom and Kabat's work confirmed some harmful effects of secondhand smoke, in particular that it increased the risk of COPD"


Source http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pa/passive_smoking.htm
80

soapy1,

29/09/2009 11:16:15
I would be happy with a percentage of smoking pubs where like minded people and I may smoke served by smokers and run by smokers, this would satisfy those who do wish to be in a smoke laden environment, the non smokers who enter would be there by choice, aware of the alleged risks
knowing it to be smokers pub they will have accepted personal responsibility for their actions as is fitting in an adult and civilised society. this is called compromise, it allows freedom of choice for both smokers and non smokers which is the entitlement of all people whether they smoke or not. I do not want all of the pubs, I certainly do not want alco-gastro-cafes like Wetherspoons, non smokers are welcome to them as they seem to enjoy them, just a few pubs where my peers and I may drink, smoke, and discuss the issues of the day, sport, family play darts or pool, snooker or billiards, in other words a pub! It is not an unreasonable request.
81

Scottish Eric,

29/09/2009 11:18:26
Soapy
I suppose a yes/no answer was too much to ask for.

but.....
Imagine your grandchildren had been entrusted to your care for a week.
Would you let someone smoke in a room in which they were playing or sleeping?
82

Scottish Eric,

29/09/2009 11:22:01
Soapy
Sorry to keep coming back to this, but this issue is too important for obfuscation.
83

Robert Feal-Martinez,

29/09/2009 11:47:17
What of course you neglect to say Eric was that ACS were forced to apologise to Enstrom as they could not substantiate any of their allegations with regard to BigT, other than the declared support to publish the study results, ACS having withdrawn funding when the results weren't going their way.

As for the study, here it is, please indicate where it mentions Emphysema. http://tinyurl.com/lnkjjg
84

Scottish Eric,

29/09/2009 12:09:47
#83
Robert, you're still digging that hole for your credibility.

You were so full of your abilities to dissect clinical studies earlier in the thread. "I will read it and then respond with logical scientifically based argument based on the document."


I'm sure you don't need me to show you the relevant part.
85

Robert Feal-Martinez,

swindon 29/09/2009 12:46:56
Emphysema is merely one disease amongst others under the generic term COPD, the results for which are as follows:

and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease.

So where does it show an increased risk please.

What about the SIDS research, if it's that widely known about finding it should be easy. I've tried using every variation of words I can think, the only thing I keep coming back to is 'statement' not studies.
86

Robert Feal-Martinez,

swindon 29/09/2009 12:51:20
http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/IT030106.pdf

There you go read some of the other research compare the figures. I am trying to make your life easiere.
87

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 29/09/2009 13:02:39
This ones from late 2006. Despite all the intimidation of honest scientists they still can't shut them up.

http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/ArchIntMed2006.pdf
88

Scottish Eric,

29/09/2009 14:18:53
Robert

from the horse's mouth.

"For COPD, in both men and women, we found a 60 percent increase in people who had heavy exposure," Kabat said. "That is suggestive of an effect."

89

Scottish Eric,

29/09/2009 14:21:08
Robert #86 and #87

Why have you posted 2 papers that make no reference to COPD in a discussion about COPD?

That hole gets deeper and deeper.
90

Robert Feal-Martinez,

swindon 29/09/2009 17:19:41
The discussion is the harmful or otherwise of ETS. COPD is just part of the question.

So exactly where did your quote come from. The study is a scientific document and thus does not mention either researcher by name, except of course as authors. So yet again we have a quote which can't be verified. Even the mention of COPD in your link http://en.allexperts.com/e/p/pa/passive_smoking.htm is merely a statement referenced to a link that doesn't work.
91

Scottish Eric,

29/09/2009 18:39:55
Robert

Here's the link to the abstract of the study on sids

http://www.earlyhumandevelopment.com/article/S0378-3782(07)00129-6/abstract

Prenatal exposure to tobacco smoke is a major risk factor associated with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and the risk has increased despite continued advice against this practice. Evidence from the UK suggests the prevalence of maternal smoking during pregnancy has risen amongst SIDS mothers (from 50% to 80%) when the rate amongst expectant mothers in the general population has fallen (from 30% to 20%) confirming pooled estimates from recent studies of a four-fold risk. An additional risk from postnatal exposure has also been identified; increasing with the number of smokers in the household or the daily hours the infant is subjected to a smoke-filled environment. Exposure may lead to a complex range of effects upon normal physiological and anatomical development in fetal and postnatal life that places infants at greatly increased risk of SIDS. Recent legislation prohibiting smoking in public places needs to emphasise the adverse effects of tobacco smoke exposure to infants and amongst pregnant women.

92

Belinda-2,

29/09/2009 19:13:07
#91

I am not impressed with the author of this study. 'Prenatal exposure to tobacco smoke is a major risk factor associated with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and *the risk has increased despite continued advice against this practice*.' Risk cannot increase regardless of how many warnings are issued. The author means 'prevalance'. If the author is equating prevalance with risk he or she is ignoring all the other known/unknown risk factors.

As far as the prevalance of other people smoking in the vicinity of a child who becomes a SIDS victim, I don't see how any consistency can be expected in exposure levels since we know nothing about numbers of smokers, size of rooms or levels of ventilation, or any other factors: never mind the accuracy of recollection in any of these areas, in homes where SIDS occurs or where it doesn't.
93

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 29/09/2009 19:19:08
Thank you for that however I am sure you know that unless I pay $40 dollars I can't see the research data. A favourite trick to avoid scrutiny of the 'science'.

I suspect SIDS Scotland have just used the headline data also, hence not being able to confirm the source of their chart.

What is interesting of course is that in the US there has been a 50% reduction in SIDS but an alarming 24 fold increased risk in Black Americans caused by a gene variant. More SIDS occur during colder weather which leads to suggestions that central heating and over protectiveness is also a factor. The list is endless, because No One Knows.

What we do know is that Tobacco Smoke is the target for most health groups. But it doesn't make it true.
94

Scottish Eric,

29/09/2009 19:30:08
Robert #93
Now you're cherry picking reasons - "More SIDS occur during colder weather which leads to suggestions that central heating and over protectiveness is also a factor."

You fail to add that we ventilate our homes far less when it's cold, reducing the dilution of indoor pollutants like tobacco smoke.

Are you incapable of having an open mind on this issue?

Perhaps pro-smoking pressure group Freedom2choose could give you the $40

95

Scottish Eric,

29/09/2009 19:33:46
#92 Belinda
"I am not impressed with the author of this study"

Of course you aren't, you're from a pro-smoking pressure group.
96

Scottish Eric,

29/09/2009 19:37:45
#94 Robert, before you come back to try to dismiss my suggestion that the increase in SIDS in winter may be down to people ventilating houses less, remember that this is the main reason that flu spreads better in winter.
97

english charlie,

29/09/2009 19:51:18
Erica. How can it be a 'pro-smoking pressure' group, when many of its members are non-smokers? How many smokers do you have in your anti-smoking group?
98

Belinda-2,

29/09/2009 20:03:39
#95

Correct Eric (although we are not a pro-smoking group): none of our group likes the careless reasoning and use of words evident in this abstract.
99

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 30/09/2009 07:26:14
Eric, of course some houses are less ventilated but that doesn't imply that it is ETS, it could be cooking toxins,
air fresheners, furniture, curtains, open fires. The list is endless.

As for the research angle, you have posted statements or extracts. I have posted links to raw data, the only way to evaluate a study. And still nothing from SID Scotland. Do you not find it odd that an enquiry based on concerns for the well being of infants is ignore by the very organisation funded by the Scottish Executive, in part, fails to provide advice and guidance.
100

Scottish Eric,

30/09/2009 08:39:41
#98 Belinda
As I have said earlier, if you were pro-choice rather than pro-smoking you would want people to have the full information about the risks when exercising that choice.

All your members ever seem to do is to try to rubbish anything that suggests smoking is harmful.

A pro-CHOICE organisation would surely advise its members (and anyone else who might listen) to exercise their choice to smoke away from babies. Your former Chairman advised people to smoke in their presence, and boasted about doing this with his grandkids.

On the other side, a pro-SMOKING organisation would deny all harmful effect of smoking, which is what your organisation does.
101

Scottish Eric,

30/09/2009 08:49:50
Robert

Are Freedom2choose going to give you $40 so you can access the data?

Less ventilation does indeed increase the concentration of all indoor air pollutants. But with over 80% of cot deaths being in the homes of smokers it seems reasonable to assume that the other pollutants you mention are significantly lesser risk factors - I'm sure I don't need to explain to you why.

Re your comment "I have posted links to raw data, the only way to evaluate a study." - you also need an open mind, and you have demonstrated on just about every post here that you don't.

And why haven't SidsScotland responded to you? I have no idea, perhaps they have better things to do. Why don't you take this up with them instead of inventing a conspiracy theory, as intimated by your last comment?

102

english charlie,

30/09/2009 09:13:59
Eric. When has anybody on here said that smoking was harmless?
Passive smoking is a myth. When I was a kid, I was exposed to SHS. My own children have been exposed to SHS, we are all very healthy and with very good immune systems.
103

soapy1,

30/09/2009 09:38:28
This is too important for an yes/no answer and demanding yes/no answers because you cannot defend your position exposes how weak the anti smoking case really is.

So is the principle of parental guidance over parental dictatorship really that abhorrent to you?

Given your clear disposition toward governmental dictatorship I would suggest the answer is yes, why else would you support the government dictating lifestyle choices on legal products?

Again I accept your apology but don't you think pressing the point on SIDs is counterproductive to your cause, Implying that all SIDs parents are killing their children by scientific decree injures the anti smoking cause, science and indeed the government by its very suggestion.

The persecution of minority groups is abhorrent, this was demonstrated by the Third Reich's treatment of minorities, is the persecution of smokers and grieving parents any better than that, they are both minority groups too are they not?
104

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 30/09/2009 09:49:11
Eric once again you distort F2C present any studies that can be analysed, and offer a critique. It is the research itself that falls down, not because F2C are selective.

As I have said we have no way of knowing whether the 80% estimate has any validity as there is no readily available data, however what we do know of the anti smoking lobby is their misuse of percentages.

Now I would accept that if the 80% figure was an Absolute Risk there would clearly be a causal association, between the 'smoker/passive smoke and the death. However I suspect this is based on a relative risk of 1.8, which is not sufficient to suggest, let alone confirm a causal association. I do not say this, amongst others the US The National Cancer Institute do.

"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

Now you either accept the rules of science or you don't. I choose to accept what the experts say about RR and causal association.
105

Belinda-2,

30/09/2009 10:11:04
#98 Your assessment about what constitutes a pro-choice group doesn't alter the fact that the abstract is poorly worded and seems to confuse risk with prevalance.

'As I have said earlier, if you were pro-choice rather than pro-smoking you would want people to have the full information about the risks when exercising that choice.' No disagreement here.

'All your members ever seem to do is to try to rubbish anything that suggests smoking is harmful.' Incorrect. Some of our members believe that smoking is harmful, others believe that everything is harmful ... you can find harmful effects from anything if you look hard enough. We are probably united in the view that passive smoking is not harmful.

'A pro-CHOICE organisation would surely advise its members (and anyone else who might listen) to exercise their choice to smoke away from babies.' An interesting definition of a pro-choice organisation.

'Your former Chairman advised people to smoke in their presence, and boasted about doing this with his grandkids.' This would be because Col estimates that the risk from smoking is negligible. I would share that position myself but I do not have any children and I would not smoke in front of other people's children if it were an issue for the parents. Since I smoke so little anyway and have no regular contact with children it is not much of an issue in my own case.

'On the other side, a pro-SMOKING organisation would deny all harmful effect of smoking, which is what your organisation does.' That is not what we do. We are united on the issue of choice and may differ on different kinds of harm that result from smoking, and some of us defend the benefits of smoking too. Most media discussions are about legislation on smoking, and usually we oppose it, as in the case of display bans.

106

Belinda-2,

30/09/2009 10:15:42
Eighty per cent of cot death cases occur in smoking homes. Ninety-nine per cent of felons eat bread.

Ok I know bread eating looms larger in the population than smoking but if that is the only factor they have found linking all the SIDS cases I think they probably haven't looked hard enough for any others.
107

english charlie,

30/09/2009 10:52:32
Japan has the second highest smoking rate in the world and yet the number of SIDS and lung cancer cases there are amongst the lowest of the world.
108

Scottish Eric,

30/09/2009 11:19:16
Belinda #106
"Eighty per cent of cot death cases occur in smoking homes. Ninety-nine per cent of felons eat bread."

What does this post seek to achieve, other that to demonstrate your lack of understanding.

I presume it was an attempt to show that correlation doesn't equal causation?

If that is what you're trying to show you need to try harder.

Felons and the general population eat bread to the same degree.

About 24% of the population smoke, but 86% of cot deaths are in the homes of smokers.

This is not the same as:

99% of the population eat bread, and 99% of felons eat bread.

Like I keep saying, if you were pro-CHOICE rather than pro-SMOKING you wouldn't even be trying to find ways to desperately downplay the evidence.

But you keep reinforcing the fact that you're pro-SMOKING.

109

Belinda-2,

30/09/2009 11:29:55
Eric

Exactly what I said in the second part of my post. You are a master in only reading what it suits you to read. I also managed to include the criticism that anti-smokers don't look for other factors besides smoking. All they want is to show that smoking causes everything from lung cancer to dandruff and ingrowing toenails.
110

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K. 30/09/2009 11:34:16
#105, Belinda C.
It might have saved a lot of fruitless argument if Eric had referred to the 905 club as a "pro-smokers group", as the main raison d'être of its members would appear to be to have smoking restrictions rescinded, or at least relaxed, so that they may revert to their old practice of smoking wherever and whenever they would wish.
Interesting to note how the so-called luminaries of F2S have chosen to descend on this thread with such vehemence.
Unless they all have poor old aunties, struggling with corner sweetie shops to make a crust of bread flogging the poison sticks, their interest in the matter would seem somewhat suspect.
Perhaps they simply see this as a further containment of nicotinics' addiction, and another step to a smoke free world.
One might have hoped they would have been happy to see a measure that might save a few, or probably many, lives of future generations, or would that be too much to expect?
111

Robert Feal-Martinez,

swindon 30/09/2009 11:50:37
David from New Mills must have been on holiday. Do ASH allow such things, I hope you didn't fly because we know how harmful that is to the environment.

The reason we are posting is a simple one. There is no evidence to support a ban on displays as a means of reducing young persons smoking, which Eric knows, hence him constantly changing direction and then accusing us of going off topic.

And before it's brought up I have seen the latest stats from the NHS about cost, but of course no link to the source data, and as normal when it involves Smoking articles in the Nationals no way of commenting.
112

Belinda-2,

30/09/2009 11:58:14
The usual emotive language from DNM. 'One might have hoped they would have been happy to see a measure that *might* save a few, or probably many, lives of future generations, or would that be too much to expect?'

Or might not. You don't seem very sure. The Scottish Parliament also accepts that the evidence is inconclusive. so you are in good company.

And your interest in this topic is ... ?
113

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K 30/09/2009 12:31:01
#111, RF-M.
David has been a correspondent more frequently on these threads than el señor F-M of late, so is UKIP a bit slack at the moment? What does the ASH reference signify?
So what's RF-M's big interest in opposing these measures, if he minds thenm so inconsequential?
He is free to comment on these threads, or doesn't he deem the Scotsman to be a national paper, as it probably has a wider circulation than the Swindon Advertiser?
114

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 30/09/2009 13:01:42
Constructive as ever David. We actually have shops in Swindon, that's my interest and of course challenging the lies of the anti smoking lobby of course.

Have the Scotsman posted the new NHS info then?.
115

Scottish Eric,

30/09/2009 14:12:13
Soapy #103

"This is too important for an yes/no answer and demanding yes/no answers because you cannot defend your position exposes how weak the anti smoking case really is."

Why can't or won't you give a yes or no answer?

You only seem to be able to give long, wordy and rambling posts that too frequently refer to nazis.

All I want to know is whether you practice what you preach, and would allow someone to smoke in the presence of a baby with which you had some form of bond.

I can easily answer an emphatic 'no' to that.

Freedom2choose former Charirman Colin Grainger would presumably answer 'yes'

Can we presume that you would answer 'yes' too?


116

Scottish Eric,

30/09/2009 14:23:30
#109 Belinda

There are loads of risk factors for SIDS, and smoking is one of them.

The SIDS researchers are desperately trying to find ways in which the number of cases can be reduced, to prevent further families suffering the catastrophe of losing a child.

For you to suggest that they are persuing a single issue mission to blame smoking for all cases is insulting.

You and Robert seem to want a nice, tidy world in which things like cancer and sids have only 1 single cause so that you can argue against that cause being smoking.

Each case of cancer and each sids event will probably have four or more contributing factors, and could have been prevented by the removal of just one.

For either, one factor will invariably be a genetic predisposition, and there's nothing one can do to avoid that.

But other factors are in our control - smoking is often one of them.

Your desire to promote the joys of smoking seems to be more important to you than helping others to make choices in their lives that might reduce their risks of cancer or losing a child.

You just keep on proving that you are pro-SMOKING, I'm surprised you can even convince yourself that you are pro-choice.

117

english charlie,

30/09/2009 16:10:30
#116. Eric, Why is it that Japan has the second highest smoking rate in the world, and yet has one of the lowest amounts of SIDS?
118

Belinda-2,

30/09/2009 17:10:51
'Your *desire to promote the joys of smoking* seems to be more important to you than helping others to *make choices in their lives that might reduce their risks of cancer or losing a child*.'

You just made up the pro-smoking accusation again. Nothing that we say will prevent people from assessing the different risks for themselves. We were not set up to advise people about health risks. Smoking is a factor, it may even be a removeable factor, that does not mean that not smoking will save your life or your baby's life.

Contrary to what you say I understand that most conditions in life attributed to smoking are multifactorial.

I said, 'anti-smokers don't look for other factors besides smoking. All they want is to show that smoking causes everything from lung cancer to dandruff and ingrowing toenails.' I didn't say that SIDS reaserchers were trying to pin the blame on smoking.
119

Scottish Eric,

30/09/2009 18:18:59
Belinda #118

"Nothing that we say will prevent people from assessing the different risks for themselves."

If you really believe that what you say has no influence, why do you and your fellow members spend such vast amount of your time posting claims all over the internet that smoking's not so bad for you?

You, soapy, robert and even poor chas post screeds of stuff in an attempt to create doubt about there being an increased risk of sids if you smoke when pregnant.

Won't this doubt that you're all working so hard to create influence some people when they are assessing risks that they take in relation to themselves and their children?

Of course it will.

Poor soapy seems to be unable to say whether he would or wouldn't stop people smoking in the same room as a grandchild if he was in charge of its care for a period.

Even worse,your former Chairman Colin Grainger has made the choice to actively smoke around his grandkids, because he has listened to some of the mangled logic that your group apply to health data. (ie if 100 studies show some sort of harm but one shows a minor health gain it is safe to ignore the ones you don't want to hear about)

How many times do I need to say it - IF YOU WERE REALLY PRO-CHOICE YOU WOULD PROMOTE THE TRUTH and let people make their minds up.

But all you do is confuse and obfuscate in an attempt to create doubt - a doubt that may lead to some confused souls making a decision that kills themself or a child.
120

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 30/09/2009 18:25:10
Eric perhaps we maybe naively believe that the 'truth will out'. One thing is for certain if ASH etal have their way it won't, and despite a follow up email to SIDS Scotland still nothing.
121

Scottish Eric,

Falkirk 30/09/2009 18:30:58
Robert #120
More conspiracy theorising?
Why not just ask freedom2choose to give you $40?
122

Belinda-2,

30/09/2009 18:47:18
'You, soapy, robert and even poor chas post screeds of stuff in an attempt to create doubt about there being an increased risk of sids if you smoke when pregnant.'

This is close to lying. This is the only time I hava posted on the subject of SIDS and it is only to point out that there are other risk factors (a point that we are not even in disagreement over). This is not tantamount to posting 'screeds of stuff'. People can come to their own conclusions, and I am sure that if they are concerned they will look at all available sources of information and not rely on F2C for information that it does not set out to supply to the general public.

'How many times do I need to say it - IF YOU WERE REALLY PRO-CHOICE YOU WOULD PROMOTE THE TRUTH and let people make their minds up.' The truth is that smoking is one of many risk factors. There.

'But all you do is confuse and obfuscate in an attempt to create doubt - a doubt that may lead to some confused souls making a decision that kills themself or a child.' There is doubt about all these things. A risk factor does not mean a cause. Even someone who smokes in the vicinity of the child cannot be sure that the temperature in the room, whether the child was on its back or its tummy, what bacteria was embedded in the sheets, what the blanket was made of or some genetic reason does not cause the tragedy of SIDS.

A friend of mine was admitted to hospital with serious heart trouble. He was a heavy smoker and knew what the medics would say to him about his condition, but was interested in what they would say to the man in the next bed who was a non-smoker, also in his 50s. Probably 'it can happen to anyone'. But the smoking may not have been the cause of my friend's condition either. It is impossible to know, amd in this case you can't even be wise after the event because every case is different.

123

english charlie,

30/09/2009 19:34:56
Eric. Why do don't you tell the truth and let people make up their minds, instead of repeating the lies of anti-smoking propaganda?
Instead of believing everything that I see and hear from the media, I believe in researching things and looking for the truth. Try it some time.
124

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K 30/09/2009 20:56:58
#114, RF-M.
I had thought my posting at #113 to be fairly cogent and relevant, even if it apparently does not meet Roberto's criteria for "constructiveness", whatever they may be.
It is worthy of note that he has declined to elucidate his ASH allusion, any more than explaining why the Scotsman apparently does not satisfy his definition of being a national newspaper, but then he, like so many of the 904 club never seems too keen on answering questions that he feels uncomfortable with.
If he's so very concerned about the fate of shops in Swindon, then let him patronise them, as this proposed legislation will in no way prevent that.
"Have the Scotsman posted the new NHS info then?." Why doesn't he ask them, as I'm scarcely part of their editorial staff?
How's UKIP doing these days?
125

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K. 30/09/2009 21:15:07
#112, Belinda Cunnison.
I find Belinda's choice of the word "emotive" rather odd, in that I felt my posting to have been very straightforward, and I am more normally accused of being in soapy1's words, some one where "moral issues are not your forté".
I have never claimed that these current proposals will of necessity save lives, but then Belinda and her supporters seem unable to prove that they won't.
My interest in the topic is supporting any measure that is likely to reduce the prevalance of smokers, present or future, exuding their fumes in my vicinity.
And Belinda's is what? Supporting her Auntie's corner sweetie shop, sustainng share values in B.A.T. or Tesco? Or what, exactly?
126

Belinda-2,

30/09/2009 21:36:30
David, the government is proposing legislation which it admits is not yet supported by a conclusive evidence base that it will have any effect on youth uptake on youth smoking. Tobacco retailers have indicated that not only is this not likely to make any positive difference in terms of a drop in youth smoking rates ... they also indicate the strong presence of bootleg tobacco on the streets, which kids can at half the price without questions asked.

The government dismisses this as tobacco industry propaganda, even though shops are THE legitimate outlet of a legal product. Of course they don't want to see more of the trade go underground.

Instead of believing the trade, government would rather believe people who say that kids will prefer to buy tobacco from vending machines which are even more expensive than shop-bought tobacco.

I have no auntie in a shop, but I do work in a small branch of a minor supermarket ... I have not checked but I reckon their booze turnover is far higher than their tobacco
127

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K. 30/09/2009 21:58:42
#126, Belinda Cunnison.
So the 904 club has evidence that it will have no effect, or doesn't it? Belinda often refers to "bootleggers", as if they were some kind of philanthropists, trying to give the nicotinic a better deal, whereas they are either flogging stolen or contraband goods.
She has often portrayed tobacco retailers as providing a comprehensive service. Does this include after sales service, when the consumer contracts tobacco related illness?
The fact that vending machine companies are whingeing about the legislation indicates that they feel their apparatus engenders income.
So is Belinda afraid for her job? Her shop's sales of beans and Persil is probably even higher, but so what?
128

Belinda-2,

30/09/2009 23:10:31
sorry could not finish last post as PC froze. We oppose the denormalisation of tobacco which is a legal product. We oppose it because it stigmatises users of the product. We also don't accept that stigmatising the product will have the intended effect of reducing youth smoking.

#127 there is no proof that the display ban will work or otherwise, the government itself suggests that the evidence is inconclusive. Since the government wants to introduce legislation that will disrupt trade it is incumbent on them to show that it will have the desired effect. But it appears that intuition is good enough for them.

No I don't believe that bootleggers are philanthropists, I think they are opportunists. All I mean by a comprehensive service is that they can show their wares to the customer (in a living room, pub, car boot or however they do it). I don't mean to convey approval of what they do.

Of course the vending machine operaters generate an income, they have never made a secret of that. It's what companies do. Their service is not aimed at children either. Since their product is to be banned their companies will fold, unless they can convert their machines in which case they will be competing for someone else's market and jobs may very well be lost anyway.

I am paid by the hour in the shop regardless of what I sell at the checkout so I don't believe my personal income affects my decisions.
129

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K. 01/10/2009 20:37:08
#128, Belinda C.
I've tried twice to respond to Belinda, but my reply keeps falling over. Perhaps the site is unstable, or, as in Chas. Winfield's mind, evil conspirators are at work. I'll try again later.
130

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 02/10/2009 09:48:29
Perhaps they we just fed up with the anti smoking brigade posting sound bites and no substance.

And still no reply from Sids Scotland. I think we can safely conclude now that they have just put information on their site without bothering to verify the truthfulness of it.

Quite appalling when dealing with such an emotive subject as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.
131

english charlie,

02/10/2009 11:04:48
130. Robert, have you read how Japan reduced SIDS by not vaccinating babies until they are two years old?
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990705002005
132

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K. 02/10/2009 11:49:03
#128 (part, ctd. from #126), Belinda C.
Smoking tobacco may be legal, but it is certainly not “the norm”. Perhaps Belinda recalls the old monologue by, I think it was Bob Newhart, with the immortal line along the lines of “So, what do you do then, Walt? You put it in your mouth and set fire to it?”, accompanied by howls of laughter from the audience? If smokers feel stigmatised, maligned or derided, it is perhaps merely a result of their selfish indifference to others around them. The 904 club is free to hold any opinion it wishes, but scarcely has any influence over events.
133

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K. 02/10/2009 12:17:21
#128 (main part), Belinda C.
As other correspondents have noted, there is just no justification for enticing people to consume what is basically a toxic product. I scarcely think trade will be “disrupted” as retailers, like any successful business, will either adapt to change or die. Does she perhaps recall the old bacon slicer and sugar being poured into brown paper bags? They are a relic of the past, but groceries are still available, albeit in a different format.
If Belinda declines to approve of “bootleggers”, why does she give tacit approval to other tobacco retailers? The end result is surely the same, albeit in comfier surroundings.
I wouldn't have thought it an insurmountable problem to convert these machines to supplying choccie bars, novelty toys, or mini packs of Ribena. Versatility is, as always, the name of the game in business. I seem to recall it was the CEO of such a business who was instrumental in founding the Publican Party, presumably for the likelihood of personal gain. Smart move, as it's since “folded”
I've never implied Belinda having a personal pecuniary interest in opposing this legislation, any more than I have for taking a contrary view.
134

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K. 02/10/2009 12:30:58
#130, RF-M.
Unlike Charlie Winfield, I'm not a great one for conspiracy theories, and simply attribute the problem to a computer glitch, as the same thing happened to-day. However copying from a Word document defeats the ”conspirators “in the pro-smokers brigade. Roberto should know by now that I don't give up easily, as I've been on these forums almost as long as he has.
Perhaps he feels my #132/133 had at least some substance, rather than consisting of chas. style sound bites.
If he has an issue with SIDS Scotland, why not address it directly to them?
As Roberto has suddenly become so attentive, perhaps he could elucidate his ASH allusion in his #111, or would that be yet another question he would find difficulty in answering.?
135

Belinda-2,

02/10/2009 13:09:16
It's like talking to someone at nursery school.

Nobody is telling anyone to smoke, and you clearly can't tell the difference between accepting that people sell legal commodities and approving of said commodities.

Forget tobacco. The issue is whether people in shops are entitled to display what they sell. How do you know that other lobby groups won't insist on similar action being taken for booze, sweets, cheese and full fat cream till we all have to sell everything out of closed cupboards.

Suggesting that bootleggers won't take advantage if legislation is put in place to get in the way of traders is naive.

I don't care how normal you think smoking is David ... it's not going away.
136

english charlie,

02/10/2009 15:24:04
Belinda-2. Please don't insult nursery school children.
137

Scottish Eric,

02/10/2009 16:23:27
Robert #130 just keeps digging that hole in which to bury his credibility

"And still no reply from Sids Scotland. I think we can safely conclude now that they have just put information on their site without bothering to verify the truthfulness of it."

That's just the sort of conclusion we'd expect from such a biased commentator.

A bit like #7 "Having checked out the C$ link, this was done in December. It has been conclusively shown since that the whole 'evidence' base was a fraud."

This is not true, but has Robert withdrawn it?

Of course not.

Typical freedom2choose; bury the truth in smear, insinuation or just the downright untrue. Then try to claim that it is everyone else who is telling lies.

As Jim Royle would say, 'Pro-Choice my a45e'

Freedom2choose and its posters on here are transparently Pro Smoking all the way.



138

english charlie,

02/10/2009 19:06:10
#137. Eric you more or less implied tht smokers kill their children, by quoting that about 80% of children who die from SIDS live with smokers. Have you read the following report?
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=19990705002005
139

Belinda-2,

02/10/2009 19:24:28
I take your point, Chas.
140

Scottish Eric,

02/10/2009 19:50:34
Chas #138 and Belinda #139

A classic pair of Freedom2choose posts.

The study that found over 80% of SIDS victims live with smokers appeared in a proper medical journal (http://www.earlyhumandevelopment.com) where clinicians publish peer reviewed research papers for discussion by other highly qualified medical professionals.

Chas tries to cast doubt on this research by posting a link to an article at a site which publishes articles promoting alternative therapies. There is no expert scrutiny of anything they publish. Their solutions to health problems are categorised, and include:
Acupuncture
Ayurveda
Chelation Therapy
Colonics
FlowExercise er Remedies
Herbs
Homeopathy
Iridology
Macrobiotics
Nutrition
Oxygen Therapy
Rejuvenation
Sound Therapy
Spiritual Healing Energy

The two journals aren't the same, and Charlie's is just another of his 'Natural Health' type, where people selling expensive and unproven cures and "high vibration" chocolate can meet the more gullible in society and sell them stuff.

I can't believe that Chas and Belinda can't tell the difference. I think this is just another ploy to confuse people and deny them the knowledge to exercise freedom of choice.

Coming back to Charlie's claim that "Eric you more or less implied tht smokers kill their children, by quoting that about 80% of children who die from SIDS live with smokers."

The 80%+ figure is how it is Charlie, no matter how many quack sites you choose to bring to our attention.

What is of concern to me is that Charlie and Belinda want to prevent people from forming an informed decision about whether to smoke whilst pregnant, or in the presence of babies.

They try to prevent people making that informed decision, which might be a matter of life or death for some babies.

That is not the behaviour of pro-choice people.

I think that most people would find their attempts to bury the truth on this matter pretty disgusting.
141

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K 02/10/2009 19:55:02
#135, Belinda C.
Sadly, Belinda can't, or won't, recognise the fact that, rather than dealing with gullible nursery school children, she's corresponding with intelligent adults, who decline to swallow the 904 club line blindly.
I can tell the difference she cites, in that I can recognise the difference between realising that the sale of legal, but toxic, products exists and approving of same. Can she?
If the display of alcohol, sweets, cheese and full fat cream were to be restricted, I'd not be too fussed. Would Belinda be happy to see prostitutes displaying their wares in shop windows, Reeperbahn style?
How have I suggested or implied that "bootleggers" will or won't take advantage of the proposed legislation? A specific reference would be appreciated.
Smoking tobacco may not cease, but at least it's been sent outside where it belongs.
I note that Belinda has totally ignored my retailers' adaptability and cigarette machine conversion points. Perhaps, like her colleague R F-M, she simply ignores any argument she feels uncomfortable with?
142

Belinda-2,

02/10/2009 20:26:14
Eric and David both accuse Freedom2Choose of depriving the public of choice by expressing their view. This is manifest nonsense. Since the readers of this column are not nursery school children they will be clear that expressing a view does not deprive anyone of the opportunity to express a view.

You have more or less denied that illicit sales will increase when legitimate retailers are forced to hide their merchandise. I can't give you a reference because it hasn't happened yet. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence about bootlegging in Canada, but there is no point in posting it because you dismiss it as tobacco industry propaganda.

I haven't ignored your point about retailers' adaptability, but you might like to tell me when bacon slicers and brown paper bags were outlawed. I already indicated of course they can adapt by making something that someone else is already making. Very helpful, but
not the point of the discussion which is that the machines can be made very effective against youth sales by making them age restricted. Any determined youth who can get fags out of an age related cigarettes machine is not going to be deterred from procuring tobacco by a ban on such machines.
143

english charlie,

02/10/2009 20:31:40
#140 Eric if you was to learn to read, the article was implying that vaccinations were to blame.
144

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K 02/10/2009 20:44:06
#143, chas.w.
If chas. were more conversantd with the English tongue, he would not have written or keyed "if you was to learn to read". I pointed out this faux pas to him in a previous thread, but then memory retention is scarcely one of chas.' fortés.
145

english charlie,

02/10/2009 21:16:48
#140. I know that you have a fixed mind of an anti-smoker, so I don't expect you reseach into natural foods, but here is a video which shows that people who have a staple diet of vitamn B17 NEVER get cancer:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4312930190281243507#
146

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K 02/10/2009 22:06:48
#142, Belinda C.
When have I made this accusation? I applaud B.'s approval of the freedom to choose to indulge in expression of a viewpoint.
How have I "more or less" denied that illicit sales will increase when legitimate retailers are forced to hide their merchandise". Can B. "more or less" give a specific reference, please?
"because you dismiss it as tobacco industry propaganda". Where and when, please?
Bacon slicers and sugar in brown paper bags were never outlawed. Like smoking, they just seemed to dwindle in popularity.
Most of the pro smokers' side claim that youths get their cigarettes from family, friends or "bootleggers", so is she saying that "age related cigarette machines" are pointless?
147

Belinda-2,

02/10/2009 23:01:43
So much for smoking dwindling in popularity. It declined for 30 years following the 1960s, but there is no evidence that it is still declining.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23750503-nhs-ban-made-no-difference-to-the-number-of-smokers.do

Re your other comments. I may have confused you with Eric.
148

Scottish Eric,

02/10/2009 23:11:28
#145
To most people, a video which admits, in its accompanying text, "This story is not approved by orthodox medicine. The FDA, the AMA, and The American Cancer Society have labeled it fraud and quackery." would be taken with a big pinch of salt.

To our Charlie it is "a video which shows that people who have a staple diet of vitamn B17 NEVER get cancer"
149

Scottish Eric,

02/10/2009 23:20:39
#145
Charlie's video is from wacko G.Edward Griffin, founder of freedom force interational. They have a website http://www.freedom-force.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=home

This is a glowing example of where Freedom2choose member Charlie gets his information on health issues - mad postings on the internet with no support from the medical profession.

This is seriously dangerous misinformation, posted here by a Freedom2choose
150

Scottish Eric,

02/10/2009 23:25:25
Belinda
How can we trust anything your organisation says when we are given such weird and bizarre sources of information confirming your beliefs by Charlie?

His latest is really off the wall, even by his standards.

You never disagree with him. Can we presume you share his opinions?

151

Scottish Eric,

02/10/2009 23:36:34
# 145 Charlie's video tells us how cancer can be prevented by B17 or Laetrile.

Here's what Cancer Research UK say about Laetrile

"Because of the lack of evidence that laetrile works, and the serious side effects it has, it is not authorised for sale in the European Union. The Food and Drugs Agency in the US (FDA) have also banned it."
152

Belinda-2,

03/10/2009 00:25:29
Where have I posted about cancer or Vit B anything? What makes you say this confirms my beliefs when I have not looked into the issue of cancer or vitamins and don't even know what my views are?

This is your normal tactic of smearing by association.

In general pharmaceutical companies are suspicious of any medicine or drug that they do not control and because of their economic strength they have enormous lobbying power. I would not take banning by the EU or FDA in itself as evidence in itself that a substance is harmful.
153

Robert Feal-Martinez,

03/10/2009 09:05:07
David when one seeks to ridicule another, it is perhaps imperative that one is 'bomb proof', 'conversantd with the English tongue,!!!!!!!.

Oh Eric, CRUK promote several smoking cessation products as do ASH which have been known to kill. I don't think their standard of expertise should perhaps be promoted.
154

english charlie,

03/10/2009 09:47:29
#153. You are correct in saying that CRUK and ASH promote pharmaceutical products that kill, whereas taking vitamins do not kill. I am not suggesting that people should take vitamins or promoting vitamins, but that people should do some research in preventing cancer.
155

english charlie,

03/10/2009 09:50:12
Eric. You not appear to have come up with the answer, why Japan have next to no SIDS since it stopped giving vaccinations to babies under 2 years old?
156

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K 03/10/2009 11:19:14
#153, R-FM.
I'm glad that RF-M's reading skills are superior to chas', who hadn't managed to spot my typographical error, but assume that RF-M knows the difference between a typo and a grammatical clanger. Now that he's resurfaced from his bomb shelter, would he perhaps care to clarify his ASH allusion in his #111, or will he merely scuttle back inside at the smell of a hot potato?
157

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K 03/10/2009 11:40:38
#147, Belinda C.
As Belinda's link gave a response of "We found no results for your search.", I am unable to comment on it, but should be obliged if she would feed me it's conclusion.
I note her confusion, which I find a common feature amongst members of the 905 club.
To help her out, Eric's the one from Falkirk, whereas I'm the one from New Mills in Pleasantville. I'm disappointed she could have forgotten me so readily after all these years.
158

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K 03/10/2009 11:46:51
#147, Belinda C.
No response to my "is she saying that "age related cigarette machines" are pointless?" at #146. What's up? Didn't she like the question?
159

Belinda-2,

03/10/2009 12:10:08
Don't understand why the link doesn't work for you David. The article is entitled 'Smoking ban made no difference', and explains how smoking males under 35 smoke more, though males over 35 smoke less (no figures for women).

It also claims that exposure for adults is lower because adults are smoking at home, yet children's exposure remains unchanged. I would have thought that if people are smoking more (especially the young, who party more) their exposure at least at home (and their friend's homes) will be at least as high as before the ban.

It refers to new figures pointing to a reduction in heart attacks of one-third. Again I find this unlikely on many grounds not least because the population of young males is smoking more!

No I am not saying that age-restricted machines are pointless, it is a common sense restriction that applies to all other tobacco sales. But since tobacco from machines is so much more expensive than from other sources, I don't expect many youths would take up machines as their regular source of supply. Even most adults only use them in emergencies.
160

english charlie,

03/10/2009 12:31:57
I don't bother to read David's posts now, as he finds it difficult to comment on a story. His postings are usually restricted to giving English lessons and making trivial criticism.
#110. 'so that they may revert to their old practice of smoking wherever and whenever they would wish'. Where have 'they' implied this?
'sweetie shops'. very childish.
161

english charlie,

03/10/2009 12:39:12
#110 was David's first posting on this thread and if I went through his other postings, I would find more stupid comments from him.
David, I know you find it difficult to make comments on any story, but please try.
162

Scottish Eric,

03/10/2009 17:06:37
Belinda 152

When I posted at #150 the 'your beliefs' was in the context of your organisation; Freedom2choose.

There have been around 5 members of your organisation past and present posting here, and it seems reasonable to infer that the Freedom position is the sum of those contributions.

So when Charlie posts something barmy from a site whose raison d'etre is to sell unproven herbal cures to gullible individuals, and none of your group contradict Charlie, I think it is safe to assume that Freedom2choose endorses that position.

And the sum of the efforts of freedom2choose posters on here is the creation of a smokescreen of lies, sales pitches for miracle cures, and links to tobacco industry propaganda.

And what your smokescreen obscures are some pretty worrying facts about the number of babies that die from SIDS in homes where people smoke.

Your (the F2C clan) efforts seek to cloud facts which might inform a decision that a pregnant woman or new parent might make to err on the side of caution and stop smoking for a while is absolutely disgusting.

You have heard how much of a catastrophe losing a baby to SIDS is from Soapy, yet you (the F2C clan) can't bring yourselves to allow people to make their minds up on a proper medical study, reported in a proper medical journal.

If your organisation really was pro-choice you wouldn't try to cloud an issue like this but, as most people will now see, you're (the F2C clan) PRO-SMOKING to the core.
163

Scottish Eric,

03/10/2009 17:11:46
#153
Freedom2choose promotes a product that kills about 110,000 British people every year.
164

english charlie,

03/10/2009 19:10:15
#162 Eric. Where have I try to sell herbal cures? I have shown alternatives, but expect others to research and make up their own minds. You appear to treat anybody that does research as being conspiracy theorists.
#163 Eric. Where has anybody tried to PROMOTE smoking?
165

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K 03/10/2009 19:22:36
#160, chas.w.
If chas. were to "bother" to read my postings, he might just learn something, assuming it's not too old for an old dog to pick up new tricks. If he finds my critiques trivial, then that is perhaps a deficiency in his comprehension abilities.
When have members of the 905 club exhibited anything other than a pro-smokers' fruitless agenda?
Does the allusion to "sweetie shops" bring back childhood memories for old Charlie?
Hopefully he now knows to say "if you were .....". Honestly, just what did he learn in Suffolk kindergarten?
166

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K 03/10/2009 19:55:02
#161, old Charlie Winfield.
When I "bother" to go through his postings, I inevitably find the usual inane ramblings and sound bites from him.
I know chas. finds it difficult to respond to points raised, and he prefers to change tack, but could he just bite the bullet at least occasionally? But then, it's probably so much easier to hide under the bedclothes when chided, and say "Don't want to talk about it!", which is the usual ploy of five year olds.
167

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville,U.K 03/10/2009 20:06:58
#153, R F-M.
No comment from bomb proof Roberto about chas.' "You not appear", at #155, or was Charlie still in Japanese mode, or perhaps had he just returned from the Chinese chippie? And the "ASH" allusion at #111? Still a deafening silence on that one?
168

Belinda-2,

03/10/2009 22:47:49
You are entitled to draw whatever you conclusions you like from what you read of our 'members' (do you have access to our member list as opposed to our forum list?), but if you take every utterance as F2C policy just because a member of F2C's exec doesn't contradict it you are more gullible than I thought.

I have just googled smoking/cot death correlation and got this: http://www.gr8x.net/prevent_cot_death_faq.shtml

'What does Dr Sprott say about orthodox cot death prevention advice?
1) Don't smoke around your baby.

Recent history refutes any suggestion that smoking causes cot death, says Dr Sprott. Smoking was very common in Britain in the 1930s and 1940s, but cot death was virtually non-existent. Smoking is prevalent in present-day Russia and Japan, but the cot death rates are low. No cause-and-effect relationship between smoking and cot death has been established – they are socio-economic parallels. Put another way, smoking is more common among poorer people, and so is cot death. But it does not follow that smoking is therefore a cot death risk factor.'

So thanks for implying that anyone who listens to us, and smokes near a baby who subsequently dies can blame F2C.
169

Belinda-2,

03/10/2009 22:48:24
That was for Eric, not David (I think!!!!)
170

Scottish Eric,

03/10/2009 23:59:55
Belinda is your post at #168 intended to mislead?

Dr Sprott's advice comes from his book "The Cot Death Cover-Up?" which was published in 1997 and seems to be out of print.

This is very old advice, and he assigns one cause to cot death - fumes from mattresses. (Chas might be distressed to hear that he says that "Vaccination is not the cause of cot death")

Since this book was written all countries have run 'back to sleep' campaigns which encourage mothers to have their babies sleeping face up. As a result, the numbers of deaths have fallen dramatically.

Sadly, there are still too many, and 86% happen in homes where people smoke. This figure comes from proper research, reported in a proper medical journal, in November 2007.
171

Scottish Eric,

04/10/2009 00:13:34
Belinda

How are we supposed to know what your pro-smoking group thinks, if not by what it's members post?



And if the 903 members aren't members but just a forum list, how many proper members do you have? Is Charlie one? Is Soapy one?
172

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 04/10/2009 09:14:40
Unlike you,it seems, David I work for a living. I do not hide, but I have other things to do. I would have thought my reference to ASH, holidays and you was extremely transparent.

And because a piece of advice is old and the book out of print why does that make it any less valid.

Using your logic the much hyped and misleading Boffetta Study in 1998, which appears to have disappeared from the universe should now be dismissed and not quoted as often as ASH etal still do.
173

Scottish Eric,

04/10/2009 09:58:47
Robert #172

"And because a piece of advice is old and the book out of print why does that make it any less valid."

Can't you see Robert? The answer was in my post. This is all about risk factors and their elimination.

The 'back to sleep' campaigns eliminated all of the risk factors associated with a baby sleeping on its front, and the number of cot deaths fell dramatically.

The babies that are still succombing have different vulnerabilities to the larger population of babies who died before the campaign.

Before the campaign, the scale of the smoking risk factor was much less significant for that broader population and the proportion of SIDS deaths in smoking homes was much lower.

Now, living in a smoking home seems to play a much larger role, with 86% of SIDS victms being in homes where people smoke.

I hope you can understand this and stop wriggling on this issue. It just destroys your credibility further.
174

Belinda-2,

04/10/2009 10:37:28
No doubt you will have explanations as to why Russia, Japan and generally in the 1930s and 1940s there were low SIDs rates.

As to what our members think of the world in general, why should you need to know that? I am a member of Amnesty International but this does not mean that I speak for them in anything I say. Membership details are certainly nor information that can be shared on a public discussion forum and you should know better than to ask for them.

If you want to know a poster's view on a specific issue, ask them, but don't assume that 'member' speaks for freedom2choose or any of its members or supporters.
175

Belinda-2,

04/10/2009 11:24:21
Another interesting view

http://www.aims.org.uk/Journal/Vol15No4/PoliticsCotDeath.htm
176

Scottish Eric,

04/10/2009 12:33:18
Belinda #174
Why should we believe that you are not a pro-smoking organisation when the sum of postings by your members indicates that you are?

And as for your latest link, it is just more cherry picking.

The people running the SIDS charities keep abreast of all developments in the understanding of the condition, and can't cherry pick.

Try and find any SIDS charity anywhere in the world that doesn't strongly advise against smoking whilst pregnant, or in the presence of a baby.

It would be a good demonstration of you being pro-choice if you saw sense and concede that there is merit in the advice of the SIDS charities on the smoking issue.
177

Belinda-2,

04/10/2009 12:39:00
Where have I said there isn't merit in their advice?

Post 174, which you say gives evidence that I am pro-smoking, asks about the cot death rates in the 1930s and 1940s. It ticks you off for requesting confidential membership details to be posted on a public forum. If that makes me pro-smoking so be it.
178

Belinda-2,

04/10/2009 12:56:13
176, Misread your post. You are entitled to whatever conclusions you wish from postings. They may not be accurate but that's your prerogative.

179

Scottish Eric,

04/10/2009 17:33:10
Belinda 174 and 177

Without asking for confidential information, how many members does freedom2choose have. There are around 900 in the forum list, so how many actual members do you have?

As for your question about russia, china, 1930s and 1940s I am not going to attempt to answer as I do not consider myself to be an expert, like Robert does. There were an average of 42,883 infant deaths/year in the 1940s, this has now fallen to 3,745/year. Before Charlie and Robert chime in, these are infant deaths from all causes, including SIDS. Perhaps this is a question for Robert to ask the charity, if he can get them to talk to him

Thanks to advances in medicine and prevention, the number of SIDS deaths in the UK has fallen to around 300/year. [86% of 300 is 258, ie 258 of the SIDS deaths are in the homes of smokers, and 42 are in non-smoking homes.]
180

Scottish Eric,

04/10/2009 17:55:02
Robert Feal Martinez post #7

Robert, I've challenged you to withdraw your untrue claim in post 7 a number of times, but you ignore the question.

You say "Having checked out the C$ link, this was done in December. It has been conclusively shown since that the whole 'evidence' base was a fraud."

The statement you make is untrue. What does that make you? What would you call someone else who posted such manifestly untrue claims?

For an independent assessment of the facts around the substantive theme of this thread, go to the Channel 4 News page at http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck%20tobacco%20ban%20evidence/2879692

181

Belinda-2,

04/10/2009 19:03:54
I have checked the website and and decided that since the number of members is not accessible there it is not meant to be in the public domain.

'Studies in the UK, Australia and Canada have shown teenagers who were most aware of point-of-sale cigarette displays and marketing were more likely to smoke.' Is this what CRUK is spending its money on? People who are more brand aware are more likely to buy the products whose branding interests them? Hardly rocket science. And they'll forget the branding and go back to eating kitkats once the ban comes in? And the younger ones coming up through the ranks will just forget all about smoking even though their older relatives do it.
182

english charlie,

04/10/2009 19:55:29
179.Eric. Japan changed the start time for vaccinating from 3 months to two years and straight away their SIDS rate plummeted? "Delay of DPT immunisation until 2 years of age in Japan has resulted in a dramatic decline in adverse side effects. In the period of 1970-1974, when DPT vaccination was begun at 3 to 5 months of age, the Japanese national compensation system paid out claims for 57 permanent severe damage vaccine cases, and 37 deaths. During the ensuing six year period 1975-1980, when DPT injections were delayed to 24 months of age, severe reactions from the vaccine were reduced to a total of eight with three deaths. This represents an 85 to 90 percent reduction in severe cases of damage and death." Raymond Obomsawin, M.D.
85 to 90 of SIDS were due to vaccinations and not smoking.
183

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 04/10/2009 21:48:25
#172, RF-M.
Not sure why Bobby should show such an interest in how I earn a living.
I appreciate that he is a busy man, trying to run a successful pub and be the UKIP PPC for Swindon, but at least he's spared the chore of keeping his Freedom2Choose.org site going, following the same "lack of support" that the much vaunted F2S judicial review merited.
He seems to be confusing me with Eric in directing paras. 2 & 3 at me, but then confused minds would seem to be a common thread in members of the 905 club, as evidenced by Belinda.
However, it was good of him to spare a moment from his busy life style to draw my attention to the typographical error in my #144, even though he didn't show the same dedication in commenting on Charlie Chan's rather quaint "You not appear" at #155.
Reverting to his somewhat fatuous "David from New Mills must have been on holiday. Do ASH allow such things?" comment at #111, I can think of no earthly reason why ASH would be interested in my absences or holiday arrangements. Can Bobby? He claimed in his #172 that his reference was "transparent". I assume he meant to say "apparent", so perhaps he could provide a blindingly unobvious explanation.
If his remark were simply a caustic piece of nonsense, following too many hours slaving over a hot bar, perhaps he's the one in sore need of a holiday, flying or otherwise.
184

Scottish Eric,

04/10/2009 22:15:46
Belinda #181
"I have checked the website and and decided that since the number of members is not accessible there it is not meant to be in the public domain"

So it's a big secret is it?

Can't you go to the forum list and count the number of people with rings against their name?
185

Scottish Eric,

04/10/2009 22:19:00
Belinda# 181

You fail to interpret the statement about children and brands correctly.

Is this a mistake, or are you trying to mislead?
186

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 04/10/2009 22:23:03
#174, 177 & 181, Belinda C.
Belinda is being very coy, if not disingenuous, in trying to avoid disclosing the number of members in F2S.
I am sure she recalls its site previously showing a list of members, under the heading of something like "membership list", including early stalwarts like Colin Gee, Bill Gibson and Belinda herself, with relative no. of postings made, many of which were "zero". The last time I recall seeing the list, numbers were in the region of 700-800, so a forum list could scarcely be greater than that, unless membership numbers have swollen dramatically since.
Whilst F2S are entitled to keep the details of members confidential, in a change from previous policy, perhaps Belinda as Hon. Treasurer could give us a ball pack figure of actual members? No great accuracy is sought, as a figure to the nearest thousand should make her reply easier to formulate.
It may of course cause embarrassment to reveal the high, or not so high, number, but a lack of any approximate number would lead us to draw our own not unreasonable conclusions.
187

Scottish Eric,

04/10/2009 22:32:21
#182 Charlie
This was 30 years ago.
188

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 04/10/2009 22:35:23
#184, Scottish Eric.
If Eric cares to look at the "forum" section of the F2S site, he will see which "registered users" are online. Assuming that registered users are members of F2S, he'd then spot some familiar names such as soapy's, Bill Gibson's and nitro's. Belinda and chas. make frequent appearances, possibly seeking advice about how to deal with we infidels.
189

Scottish Eric,

04/10/2009 22:55:46
Freedom2choose seem to be having a lot of difficulty evidencing their claims on here at the moment.

Poor Belinda misunderstands the evidence about the influence of dispalys on children.

Robert tells a massive whopper of a lie about the validity of an independent review of the evidence.

Charlie tries to find something to refute the lateset evidence that found that 86% of SIDS victims live in smoking households, and comes up with stuff from vitamin sites or stuff that is 30 or so years old.

I think we can take it that, 188 posts into a discussion on the issue, the proposed display ban is a good thing which will make a big difference to the number of children starting to smoke.
190

Scottish Eric,

04/10/2009 22:59:40
David #188
I think the people in the 'registered users' bit are forum users rather than freedom2choose members.
If belinda looks through the members (forum users) bit and counts the people with the double rings that indicate membership she'll come up with about 140.


191

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 04/10/2009 23:16:06
#190, Scottish Eric.
I await Belinda's reply to my #186 with interest. Mind you, I could have a long wait. If the number of members is really as low as you suggest, then sub. income at £10 a skull isn't liable to buy many hills of beans. No wonder mandyv is always trying to raise funds. Wonder whatever's happened to her of late?
192

Scottish Eric,

04/10/2009 23:43:14
A site that Charlie should bookmark and visit often.

http://www.quackwatch.com/00AboutQuackwatch/altseek.html
193

Belinda-2,

05/10/2009 00:53:15
'Studies in the UK, Australia and Canada have shown teenagers who were most aware of point-of-sale cigarette displays and marketing were more likely to smoke.' I may not interpret the words in the same way as Eric, but this seems to me a statement of the obvious. People who are interested in clothes will be more brand aware in that area and more interested in buying clothes. It doesn't follow that selling clothes from closed cupboards will make them less brand aware. Even the Scottish government could not find conclusive evidence that cigarette displays will reduce youth smoking, but as usual have decided to procede without it.

Re F2C membership: Since you are aware that 'rings' is our membership symbol on the forum you are quite capable of making some rudimentary calculations, always remembering that many of our members are not also registered on the forum. Yes I am Treasurer but this does not mean I am going to spend time counting rings for the benefit of non-members, who have already demanded that I reveal the identity of members on a public forum. No doubt you will say that if we had multiple thousands of members we would be boasting of it, that is again your prerogative.

Are you now going to tell me that hiding something doesn't make you more curious about it?
194

english charlie,

05/10/2009 07:57:20
#187. Because of that study thirty years ago, Japan now have very few SIDS, despite having the second most number of smokers in the world. This shows that Pharmaceutical companies are the major cause of SIDS.
195

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 05/10/2009 08:04:48
#193, Belinda C.
As I said at #186, "F2S are entitled to keep the details of members confidential", and I have not seen any non-members "demanding" that she breach that confidentiality. Her reticence in disclosing any indication of membership numbers does rather leave one to feel that there is correspondingly little to boast about.
I am sure Belinda must appreciate that there is a world of difference between not displaying information or goods openly, but being willing to reveal these on request, and refusing to open the Pandorah's box for alleged reasons of confidentiality.
196

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 05/10/2009 08:19:01
Very interesting article, and very much in line with the DoH in relation to smoking and drinking. Publish the headlines and never show the evidence. That way it can't be challenged.
197

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 05/10/2009 08:19:57
That was Belinda's 175
198

Robert Feal-Martinez,

05/10/2009 08:30:49
David, not I meant transparent, as in clear.

Why would I wish to spend my life correcting others posts. I am not a school teacher. Frankly those who engage in that form of 'attack', show how weak their own arguments are. I merely did on this occasion to highlight the dangers of being an arrogant self opinionated pompous oaf.

As for the members of F2C, perhaps if you are so interested you should join or have you already. ?
199

Robert Feal-Martinez,

05/10/2009 10:55:30
This is another amusing piece of science:
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/interactive/news/theme_news_detail.php?id=19391886&tab_id=116

Headline:
No link' between smoking drug and self harm.

Conclusion:

The authors said that although they found no strong evidence of an increased risk of self harm linked to varenicline, 'the limited power of the study means we cannot rule out either a halving or a twofold increased risk'.

So in other words the study is absolutely worthless, despite the headline. Typical Government propaganda for a Government Agency.
200

Scottish Eric,

05/10/2009 15:22:30
Robert# 196-199

regarding your post #7

Robert, I've challenged you to withdraw your untrue claim in post 7 a number of times, but you ignore the question.

You say "Having checked out the C$ link, this was done in December. It has been conclusively shown since that the whole 'evidence' base was a fraud."

The statement you make is untrue. It is a whopping great lie.

For an independent assessment of the facts around the substantive theme of this thread, go to the Channel 4 News page at http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics/factcheck%20tobacco%20ban%20evidence/2879692
201

Scottish Eric,

05/10/2009 16:55:35
Belinda #181 and 193

You miss the point, twice!

In 181 you say "'Studies in the UK, Australia and Canada have shown teenagers who were most aware of point-of-sale cigarette displays and marketing were more likely to smoke.' Is this what CRUK is spending its money on? People who are more brand aware are more likely to buy the products whose branding interests them? Hardly rocket science. "

This isn't about brands engendering brand loyalty, like you seem to think. It doesn't mean that kids who like the pretty lambert and butler packet are most likely to smoke lambert and butler.

It actually states "teenagers who were most aware of point-of-sale cigarette displays and marketing were more likely to smoke." Smoke full stop.

By not putting bright shiny displays of fags in front of them when they are growing up they will be less brand aware, and a proportion will be less likely to start smoking.

This has NOTHING to do with stopping existing smokers from smoking, despite efforts by the tobacco industry and its friends to cloud the issue with that concept.(and I include Freedom2choose as a friend of the industry).


Naturally, for a poster from a pro-smoking group, you quote a section of a report that you think you can have a go at, but omit the following sentences from the Channel 4 report.

What followed your quote "'Studies in the UK, Australia and Canada have shown teenagers who were most aware of point-of-sale cigarette displays and marketing were more likely to smoke.'" was:
"There's some evidence that, if you expose children to any kind of cues, such as point of sale tobacco, they are more likely to buy cigarettes," says Jenny Fidler, a UCL research health psychologist who specialises in adolescent smoking.

"Anything that makes young people think smoking is normal has a really big effect on their behaviour."


Did you forget to post that? Or did you just cherry pick, like your group do as a matter of course.



202

Scottish Eric,

05/10/2009 16:57:28
#201 continued

Here is the independent verdict from Channel 4 news (no cherry picking, the whole verdict)

"The verdict

Statistics from Iceland and Canada show fewer young people smoking after cigarette displays were banned.

Statistics alone don't prove conclusively that banning the displays caused the drop. But a wealth of other research shows cigarette displays encourage young people to smoke (and make it harder for smokers to quit).

Taking the two things together, the evidence points pretty firmly the government's way. And to say, as the opposition parties do, that there's no evidence the ban will have an effect on smoking among young people seems pretty misleading."
203

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 05/10/2009 19:29:13
I think, 'dumb de dumb', applies. Eric we know what the article says. But can we have a link to the research
204

english charlie,

05/10/2009 19:40:32
Eric sees one report which he likes and believes it to be gospel, and thinks that those who investigate other reports are conspiracy theorists.
If Eric was to read other report on SIDS, he would see that nearly all of them say that they do not know the cause of SIDS.
205

,

05/10/2009 20:16:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
206

Scottish Eric,

05/10/2009 20:29:34
Robert# 196-199 and 203


Robert, I've challenged you to withdraw your untrue claim in post 7 a number of times, but you ignore the question.

You say "Having checked out the C$ link, this was done in December. It has been conclusively shown since that the whole 'evidence' base was a fraud."

The statement you make is untrue. It is a whopping great lie.

So you've lied on this thread, yet continue to expect us to listen to your viewpoint.

I think the hole you dug for your credibility has finally collapsed on you.
207

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 05/10/2009 21:05:06
#198, RF-M.
Transparent normally means pellucid or perspicuous, in which case can Bobby yet explain the ASH allusion?
I note that Bobby has made no claim to be a school teacher, which is perhaps just as well, in that his "not I meant transparent" scarcely displays much erudition. I had previously avoided mentioning his "press relief" and "the Minister for Health has mislead the House" gaffes at #6, lest he accused me of being "an arrogant self opinionated pompous oaf." Before he casts such insults around so gratuitously, perhaps he would be well advised to look in the mirror, and to remember the old adage about "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (St. John ch 8,v.7).
Bomb proof Bobby? Not bloody likely! (Pygmalion , act 3)
While he is digesting those words of wisdom, he will presumably recognise that I would not wish to breach F2S's confidentiality about membership details on a public forum, and would refer him in that respect to the Membership Secretary of that organisation, one John H. Baker, I believe, for confirmation of my status, or does he believe that there are fifth columnists in F2S's midst? Shades of conspiracy theories!!
208

Robert Feal-Martinez,

06/10/2009 07:55:47
Nice to see that the level of debate from the anti's have followed the usual pattern.

Eric, the C4 report contains no research data just statements that cannot be substantiated, why is my version any less true. I am merely stating opposite view to the article.

David, I am not a member of F2C so cannot do as you suggest.
209

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 06/10/2009 11:22:54
#208, RF-M.
As the freedom2choose.org website says "This is your gateway to the Freedom To Choose websites; please select a destination from the links below", and as Robert was previously seen on F2S's site, performing his little homily on video, explaining the aims and motivation of that group, there is ( or perhaps was )obviously a good relationship between him and F2S.
It may be, of course, that Chinese walls exist within F2S, and he then feels unable to approach them about membership data. Equally, I would not wish to breach confidentiality considerations. He and F2S will just have to go on wondering whether there any moles in their midst.
I note that RF-M, as is the wont of so many of the pro-smokers' brigade, has simply ignored the parts of my #207 that he didn't care for.
210

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 06/10/2009 11:32:19
#205.
I do not understand why my #205 has been removed, as my stating that "most schools always had a minority with learning difficulties." is scarcely either inaccurate or contentious. Perhaps the phrase "a minority with memory retention disorder" would have been more acceptable?
211

Scottish Eric,

Falkirk 06/10/2009 11:47:50
Robert #208

You didn't say what you say in #208. ("Eric, the C4 report contains no research data just statements that cannot be substantiated, why is my version any less true.")

You said ""Having checked out the C$ link, this was done in December. It has been conclusively shown since that the whole 'evidence' base was a fraud."

Did you even read the Channel 4 News site? It has a hyperlink to a research document with 6 pages of references.

The Channel 4 News review also cites 7 other documents from which it has drawn evidence.

Did you read it and miss these? Did you not read it and give us a misleading statement and hope you'd get away with it?



You have said "It has been conclusively shown since that the whole 'evidence' base was a fraud"

That's a lie, no matter how you look at it.



212

Robert Feal-Martinez,

Swindon 06/10/2009 12:26:06
It seems the not so happy Bunnies at ASH are upset that the Ireland tobacco Advertising and display ban is to be challenged in the courts.

Why would they not wish the democratic process to be followed. Surely they have nothing to hide, except of cause that they are accomplished liars and will be exposed in a court case.

It is relatively easy to stop cases involving individuals but with the might of Philip Morris as one of the Plaintiff's it won't be that easy.

David you are right I did simply ignore your childish ravings.

Eric you can post the same thing Ad infinitum but I have nothing to retract. I have posted numerous pieces and links about SIDS that disagree with these findings. SIDS Scotland have simply refused to respond despite the fact I doubt they had any idea who I was. This for the record is what my email said:

Hi,

I wonder if you can assist me with regard to the above (Passive Smoking). I note from your website that you list risk factors for SIDS. Most notably smoking and passive smoking. The risks of smoking are quite specific. I wonder therefore could you provide me with a link to the research that your chart is based on.

I would also like to know in percentage terms where all the risk factors fit, and what they are based on. You will appreciate I am sure how emotive SIDS are to many families, and whilst there still is no definitive cause for the tragic event, there are continually changing opinions and views.

Thank You in advance

Bob Feal-Martinez
213

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 06/10/2009 12:37:28
#212, RF-M.
Bobby is quite free to ignore questions he is unable or unwilling to address, but referring to them as childish ravings and resorting to name calling insults would rather indicate just who the one with childish traits really is.
214

Scottish Eric,

06/10/2009 12:47:47
Robert #212

"Eric you can post the same thing Ad infinitum but I have nothing to retract. "

YOU TOLD A BIG, FAT WHOPPER OF A LIE AT POST 7, which was designed to mislead the good readers of this forum.

That's what you have to retract.

It is a bit rich you calling ASH liars when you seem to be able to do it yourself without conscience.

215

english charlie,

06/10/2009 17:50:58
Eric. Because of that study thirty years ago, Japan now have very few SIDS, despite having the second most number of smokers in the world. This shows that Pharmaceutical companies are the major cause of SIDS. Because the study was done 30 years ago, does that make it untrue?
216

Scottish Eric,

06/10/2009 19:58:13
Charlie
at #168 Belinda directed us all to another bit of cherry picking.

This 1997 book states that "Vaccination is not the cause of cot death"
217

Scottish Eric,

06/10/2009 20:25:16
Charlie
Perhaps you should have a look here
http://stason.org/TULARC/child-parent/vaccinations/3a-14-Did-SIDS-disappear-in-Japan-after-the-Japanese-changed.html
218

Scottish Eric,

06/10/2009 20:36:35
Charlie

Do you really think SIDS has a single cause?

I know you like to have black and white simplicity in your life, but can't you grasp that things like SIDS (and most cancers) are the result of the tragic coming together of a number of contributory factors?

This explains why the number of SIDS cases fell so dramatically after the 'back to sleep' campaign - sleeping on the back removed many risk factors associated with sleeping face down, and has saved thousands of parents from the tragedy of losing their child.

When children traditionally slept face down, SIDS cases were far more common but smoking was a much less significant risk factor.

Now they sleep on their back there are far fewer cases, but 86% occur in homes where people smoke. I still wouldn't claim that smoking causes SIDS, but it does look like a very significant risk factor.

Surely even you can see that.
219

english charlie,

07/10/2009 10:54:01
Eric. It is you that is guilty of selective reading. You see one media report and believe it, because you want to believe it. If you were to read all the SIDS sites, you would see that nearly every one states that they do not know the cause of SIDS.
220

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 07/10/2009 13:07:35
#214, Scottish Eric.
I'd have thought that RF-M's simple course of action would be to substantiate the sweeping allegation he made at his #7.
Mind you, Eric could have a long wait as I'm still seeking an explanation for his asinine and somewhat caustic "David from New Mills must have been on holiday. Do ASH allow such things?" comment at #111.
RF-M and his fellow pro-smokers are rather inclined to face a question not to their liking with an attitude of "Oh, keep your head down, and the pests will go away!"
In the real world, Eric and I, just like wasps and hornets, have an unfortunate tendency to return.
221

Scottish Eric,

07/10/2009 17:09:37
#219 Charlie, there is no singular cause of a SIDS tragedy. SIDS (and most cancers) are the result of the tragic coming together of a number of contributory risk factors.

The SIDS charities all realise this - it's their job to be at the forefront of knowledge.

All of the one's I've seen list the cotributory risk factors and advise people on how to reduce the impact.

Have you found any SIDS charity anywhere in the world that doesn't advise against smoking in pregnancy or in the presence of a baby?

Will I get a straight answer to this question? Unlikely.
222

english charlie,

07/10/2009 18:50:49
'Risk factors'. There is more risk of a baby dying from drinking milk than being near some SHS. Babies have choked to death drinking milk, but no babies have ever been proven to have died from SHS.
223

Scottish Eric,

07/10/2009 20:12:42
So I ask a straightforward question to Charlie at 221

"Have you found any SIDS charity anywhere in the world that doesn't advise against smoking in pregnancy or in the presence of a baby?"

He's not going to answer, so here is some advice from SIDS charities around the world.

Our own SIDS Scotland;
"While no-one understands what causes Cot Death, research has shown that by following the advice below the risk can be substantially reduced:
Place baby on the back to sleep
Avoid smoking during pregnancy - fathers too!
Do not let anyone smoke in the same room as your baby
Avoid overheating baby
Keep baby's head uncovered - place baby's feet at the bottom of the cot
Do not share a bed with your baby if you have been drinking alcohol, take drugs or if you are a smoker
Consult a doctor if baby seems unwell"

Charlie's English FSID;
Advice for parents to reduce the risk of cot death:
Cut smoking in pregnancy – fathers too! And don’t let anyone smoke in the same room as your baby.
Place your baby on the back to sleep (and not on the front or side).
Do not let your baby get too hot, and keep your baby’s head uncovered.
Place your baby with their feet to the foot of the cot, to prevent them wriggling down under the covers, or use a baby sleep bag.
Never sleep with your baby on a sofa or armchair.
The safest place for your baby to sleep is in a crib or cot in a room with you for the first six months.
It’s especially dangerous for your baby to sleep in your bed
if you (or your partner):
• are a smoker, even if you never smoke in bed or at home
• have been drinking alcohol
• take medication or drugs that make you drowsy
• feel very tired;
or if your baby:
• was born before 37 weeks
• weighed less than 2.5kg or 5½ lbs at birth.
Don’t forget, accidents can happen: you might roll over in your sleep and suffocate your baby; or your baby could get caught between the wall and the bed, or could roll out of an adult bed and be injured.
Set
224

Scottish Eric,

07/10/2009 20:13:39
continued from #223
Settling your baby to sleep (day and night) with a dummy can reduce the risk of cot death, even if the dummy falls out while your baby is asleep.
Breastfeed your baby. Establish breastfeeding before starting to use a dummy.

The American SIDS Institute;
"Parents-To-Be

1. Get medical care early in pregnancy, preferably within the first three months, followed by regular checkups at the doctor's office or health clinic. Make every effort to assure good nutrition. These measures can reduce the risk of premature birth, a major risk factor for SIDS.

2. Do not smoke, use cocaine, or use heroin. Tobacco, cocaine, or heroin use during pregnancy increases the infant's risk for SIDS.

3. Don’t get pregnant during the teenage years. If you are a teen and already have one infant, take extreme caution not to become pregnant again. The SIDS rate decreases for babies born to older mothers. It is highest for babies born to teenage mothers. The more babies a teen mother has, the greater at risk they are.

4. Wait at least one year between the birth of a child and the next pregnancy.The shorter the interval between pregnancies, the higher the SIDS rate.

Parents

1. Place infants to sleep on their backs, even though they may sleep more soundly on their stomachs. Infants who sleep on their stomachs and sides have a much higher rate of SIDS than infants who sleep on their backs.

2. Place infants to sleep in a baby bed with a firm mattress. There should be nothing in the bed but the baby - no covers, no pillows, no bumper pads, no positioning devices and no toys. Soft mattresses and heavy covering are associated with the risk for SIDS.

3. Keep your baby’s crib in the parents’ room until the infant is at least 6 months of age. Studies clearly show that infants are safest when their beds are close to their mothers.

4. Do not place your baby to sleep in an adult bed. Typical adult beds are not safe for babies. Do not fall asleep with your ba
225

Scottish Eric,

07/10/2009 20:14:21
continued from 224


4. Do not place your baby to sleep in an adult bed. Typical adult beds are not safe for babies. Do not fall asleep with your baby on a couch or in a chair.

5. Do not over-clothe the infant while she sleeps. Just use enough clothes to keep the baby warm without having to use cover. Keep the room at a temperature that is comfortable for you. Overheating an infant may increase the risk for SIDS.

6. Avoid exposing the infant to tobacco smoke. Don't have your infant in the same house or car with someone who is smoking. The greater the exposure to tobacco smoke, the greater the risk of SIDS.

7. Breast-feed babies whenever possible. Breast milk decreases the occurrence of respiratory and gastrointestinal infections. Studies show that breast-fed babies have a lower SIDS rate than formula-fed babies do.



8. Avoid exposing the infant to people with respiratory infections. Avoid crowds. Carefully clean anything that comes in contact with the baby. Have people wash their hands before holding or playing with your baby. SIDS often occurs in association with relatively minor respiratory (mild cold) and gastrointestinal infections (vomiting and diarrhea).


9. Offer your baby a pacifier. Some studies have shown a lower rate of SIDS among babies who use pacifiers.


10. If your baby has periods of not breathing, going limp or turning blue, tell your pediatrician at once.


11. If your baby stops breathing or gags excessively after spitting up, discuss this with your pediatrician immediately.


12. Thoroughly discuss each of the above points with all caregivers. If you take your baby to daycare or leave him with a sitter, provide a copy of this list to them. Make sure they follow all recommendations.
226

Scottish Eric,

07/10/2009 20:23:55
continued from 225

Charlie, this is from the Japanese SIDS Family Association;
http://www.sids.gr.jp/english/recents.html
- Sleep the baby on the back
- Do not smoke near the baby or during pregnancy
- Breastfeed as much as possible
- Do not leave the baby alone when asleep

The National SIDS Council of Australia;
1. Sleep baby on the back from birth, not on the tummy or side
2. Sleep baby with face uncovered (no doonas, pillows, lambs wool, bumpers or soft toys)
3. Avoid exposing babies to tobacco smoke before birth and after
4. Provide a safe sleeping environment (safe cot, safe mattress, safe bedding)
5. Sleep baby in their own safe sleeping environment next to the parent's bed for the first six to twelve months of life
227

Scottish Eric,

07/10/2009 20:28:35
Charlie
There you are, advice on reducing the risk of SIDS from all around the world - no cherry picking needed, they all agree on the smoking issue.

I notice you are now trying to shift the argument into milk drinking being more dangerous, so I take it you concede on this issue?
228

Scottish Eric,

07/10/2009 20:30:23
a reminder for Robert Feal-Martinez, who seems to have run away having been caught telling lies to us.

Robert #212

"Eric you can post the same thing Ad infinitum but I have nothing to retract. "

YOU TOLD A BIG, FAT WHOPPER OF A LIE AT POST 7, which was designed to mislead the good readers of this forum.

That's what you have to retract.
229

english charlie,

07/10/2009 20:41:00
Eric. How many children have been PROVEN to have died from second hand smoke?
230

Scottish Eric,

07/10/2009 21:34:26
Chas can't disprove that nowadays 86% of SIDS tragedies occur in homes where people smoke.

Chas can't find any SIDS charity anywhere in the world that doesn't advise against smoking during pregnancy.

Chas can't find any SIDS charity anywhere in the world that doesn't advise against smoking in the same room as a baby.

He's lost the debate, so he's using the "impossible expectations" technique, looking for absolute proof.

Life and death is far more complex than this, and that is why the tobacco industry and its friends (like pro-smoking group freedom2choose) look for absolute answers where they know science can't provide them yet.

To counter rising evidence of tobacco harm Philip Morris are credited with inventing a form of propaganda called denialism. Denialism has many strands, and this one of Charlie's is "Impossible expectations" - Seeking to prevent the implementation of sound policies or acceptance of a theory by citing the absence of 'complete' or 'absolute' knowledge.

If anyone is interested in Chas and his pro-smoking pals unusual style of debating issues, their 'manual' is available here.
http://www.denialism.com/2007/03/what-is-denialism.html


231

english charlie,

07/10/2009 22:00:32
Eric. You have taken a lot of trouble showing many causes and risks associated with SIDS deaths. Some of which have been proven to have been the cause of baby deaths, but SHS has NEVER been proven to have been the cause of one.
232

Scottish Eric,

07/10/2009 22:45:49
Charlie
None of the other things have been proven to be the sole cause of a SIDS case.

You like things to be black and white, but life isn't that simple.

You've shown that you can't understand the health arguments.

You've shown you do believe in the absolutist arguments put forward by quacks, and have directed us to watch "a video which shows that people who have a staple diet of vitamn B17 NEVER get cancer"
233

Scottish Eric,

07/10/2009 22:53:26
Charlie
You aren't up to arguing about a complex issue like SIDS, why don't you leave it up to the experts in all of the SIDS charities around the world.

All they want to to is eliminate, or at least further reduce, cases of SIDS.

They are all better advised than you.

They are all better at understanding the complexity of the issue than you.

And they all agree that there is sufficient evidence to advise against smoking in pregnancy and smoking near babies.

That you can't see that, and are now making a vain attempt to discredit their efforts says an awful lot about how you and your Freedom2choose group are so committed to being pro-smoking that you are willing to cast doubt on the work of these charities to further your promotion of smoking.

Deep down, are you proud of what you do?

234

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 08/10/2009 10:09:29
#228,Scottish Eric.
F2S members and their cohorts are noteworthy for tending to disappear in the face of adversity, leaving old Charlie to be the cannon fodder, as usual.
235

Scottish Eric,

08/10/2009 10:23:43
Belinda, are you still out there?

Do you remember your allegation that banning fag displays leads to more tobacco smuggling?

I've just learned that, according to Imperial Tobacco, the biggest rise in smuggling in Canada happened in the states that implemented their display bans last (Ontario and Quebec), which basically shows the opposite of your argument.

How are you going to dig yourself out of that one?



236

soapy1,

Rainworth 08/10/2009 11:18:11
I note the reference to SIDs rates in Japan and i offer you this for your consideration:

http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/ ... 0705002005
snip~
(d) JAPAN In 1975, about 37 Crib Sudden Deaths were linked to vaccination in Japan. Doctors in one prefecture boycotted vaccinations, and refused to vaccinate. The Japanese government paid attention and stopped vaccinating children below the age of two years. When immunization was delayed until a child was 24 months of age, Sudden Infant Death cases and claims for vaccine related deaths disappeared. Japan zoomed from a high 17th place in infant mortality rate to the lowest infant mortality rate in the world when they stopped vaccinating. Japan didn't vaccinate any children below the age of two years between 1975 and 1988, for thirteen years. But then in 1988, Japanese parents were given the choice to start vaccinating anywhere between three months and 48 months. The Ministry study group studied 2,720 SIDS cases occurring between 1980 and 1992 and they established that their very low SIDS rate quadrupled.

You will no doubt note that it was written for and by the Pharmaceutical industry itself and is Pro vaccination. The parents involved clearly followed 'best advice' from their health authorities and yet their babies still died from SIDs.

The lesson is that Parents can do everything 'right', follow all the 'advice' given and stand every chance of of losing their children to SIDs.

The parents of SIDs victims live day in day out with the consequences of losing their children.

Does anyone believe that it serves any useful purpose to blame a section of that community who smoke for their children's deaths, to what cause do you attribute the deaths of non smokers children to SIDs and could it not be possible the cause is the same for both comunities?

The underlying causes for SIDs are still unknown but one thing is certain, in the natural order of things nature culls the numbers of all species to maint
237

soapy1,

08/10/2009 11:20:55
maintain balance on Earth be it by disease of predators.

Who among says it is right to as the Americans say inflict a cruel and unusual punishment on those who have suffered enough?
238

Scottish Eric,

08/10/2009 11:43:23
Soapy

I know you have suffered greatly, but I would have thought that you of all people would want the terrible toll of SIDS to come to an end. There is certainly no intention on my part to infer any blame on parents of children who have died in the past, when evidence was less clear.

The world of paediatric medicine has adapted to the findings in Japan in the 1970s and 80s. Only Charlie is daft enough to think that SIDS charities still operate in national silos, and don't adapt their advice to recognise the emerging evidence from across the whole world.

Now the advice given by the Japanese SIDS Family Association is in tune with SIDS organisations around the world, they advise;
- Sleep the baby on the back
- Do not smoke near the baby or during pregnancy
- Breastfeed as much as possible
- Do not leave the baby alone when asleep

Thanks to advances in medicine and prevention advice from SIDS organisations, the number of SIDS deaths in the UK has fallen to around 300/year.

But the reality is that now 86% (258)of the SIDS deaths are in the homes of smokers, and only 42 are in non-smoking homes.

I would certainly not judge you or your wife if you smoked before your child was born, or in the same room when your child was a baby - the body of knowledge was less well clear then.

But we are now in 2009, and your freedom2choose colleague Charlie hasn't been able to find a single SIDS charity anywhere in the world that doesn't advise against smoking in pregnancy or in the presence of a baby.

With our current knowledge, I think most people would agree that smoking in pregnancy, or around babies, is an irresponsible risk to be taking.

I've challenged you earlier in this discussion to say whether you would tolerate someone smoking in the same room as your grandchild, if you were looking after them for a week.

You choose not to answer that yes or no question.

That is your choice.

But I am disappointed in you that you put your need to sm
239

Scottish Eric,

08/10/2009 11:43:58
from 238
You choose not to answer that yes or no question.

That is your choice.

But I am disappointed in you that you put your need to smoke, and your need to dismiss evidence that smoking can cause harm to unborn children and babies, above the need for parents of the future to receive clear, unambiguous and unchallenged advice on how to avoid a tragedy like the one that has so disastrously affected your life.

I hope that you will reflect on this before responding.
240

english charlie,

08/10/2009 12:19:21
Eric. You have taken a lot of trouble showing many causes and risks associated with SIDS deaths. Some of which have been proven to have been the cause of baby deaths, but SHS has NEVER been proven to have been the cause of one
241

Scottish Eric,

08/10/2009 14:03:35
Charlie # 240

Can I suggest that you get someone with a modicum of intelligence to read #232 and 233, and then sit with you and explain it in terms you can understand (if this is possible).

Then you can stop making pointless posts like #240 and get on with your life
242

english charlie,

08/10/2009 14:25:48
232. 233. Same old rubbish. now read the true facts. You have taken a lot of trouble showing many causes and risks associated with SIDS deaths. Some of which have been proven to have been the cause of baby deaths, but SHS has NEVER been proven to have been the cause of one
243

Scottish Eric,

08/10/2009 15:10:19
#242 Charlie

All you demonstrate with posts like this is that you aren't up to discussing a reasonably complex issue.

Get someone to explain it to you
244

Scottish Eric,

08/10/2009 15:13:33
Anyway Charlie, you might be able to understand the less complex issue I posted about at #235

Imperial Tobacco research in Canada shows that tobacco smuggling increased less quickly in the Canadian provinces that banned tobacco displays earliest.

Excellent news for Scotland I'm sure you'll agree!
245

soapy1,

rainworth 08/10/2009 15:46:32
So are you saying that despite parents following recommended advice and their children are still dying from SIDs that they are at fault then?

Despite all of your ersatz sympathy and apologies you still imply that SIDs parents are killing their children so tell us Eric just how are the non smokers achieving this then?

Could it be because they bought approved mattresses and followed religiously all the advice given by the state, got all the approved vaccines, or believed when a doctor told them their child has a temperature of 102 degrees but they are not to worry as I was told?

Have they not done all that is required then Eric? Yet their child is dead and you imply it is their fault! Just what kind of person are you?

You raised a point about 30 year old research being no good, Second hand smoke was researched by the Nazis Eric over 70 years ago paid for out of Adolf Hitler's own pocket! Yet you complain about comparisons to the Nazis, by your own criteria that 30 year old research is no good then what good is SHS research? Sir Richard Doll the author of British SHS research worked with the Nazis on the original research and this is the basis of the Health acts! By your own criteria it is useless data Eric! A law that you support is based on what you describe with your research age theory useless research.

I say again Eric prove I killed my child in a court of law or withdraw no ifs, no buts, prove it. When you fail or if you choose to withdraw or fight the only thing you prove is that the anti smoking lobby will use anything to get their way irrespective of who they have to hurt, of however many jobs are lost, lives ruined just because you personally disapprove of someone else's lifestyle. Prove the Coroner was wrong when he wrote Death by natural causes-cot death. If you cannot disprove his verdict then please have the common decency to allow others like me to grieve without without people like you implying they have committed any crime.

You c
246

Scottish Eric,

08/10/2009 17:38:00
Soapy 245

I didn't say that 30 year old research was no good, AND YOU KNOW IT.

I said "The world of paediatric medicine has adapted to the findings in Japan in the 1970s and 80s. Only Charlie is daft enough to think that SIDS charities still operate in national silos, and don't adapt their advice to recognise the emerging evidence from across the whole world."

Your 'misunderstanding' seems just a feeble ruse to bring nazis into the debate again.

I've never said or implied that you killed your child, so stop using that tragedy to suppress information and advice that might help future parents to avoid losing their own child.

To reflect part of your last paragraph back on you, I find it sickening that the pro-smoking lobby will try to suppress information that may save the lives of hundreds of children in the future, just to promote a habit that they are addicted to.
247

english charlie,

08/10/2009 17:59:58
#246. Eric. How many babies have proven to have died because of SHS? None, One, Two, Three or more?
248

soapy1,

Rainworth 08/10/2009 18:50:53
Deny it all you want SHS is Nazi research you were foolish enough to discount research carried out in the past and now you whine when someone points out that the original research is more than twice as old!

You clearly have no intention of showing any form of compassion to those who lost children, to those who will lose them to SIDs, what will it take for you to do so? The loss of a grandchild perhaps? are you really one of those who cannot show compassion unless it is personal?

If you actually read the post it is clear that the advice given does not work Babies are still dying of SIDs would you prefer that parents are given false hope, perhaps one of your children?

To tell parents that if you do this or that your child will not die from from SIDs only for them to find they can and do is reprehensible, this is what you advocate, this is what you would advise your children to do? Eric what will you tell your children if you advice them to follow all the advice and they lost a child to SIDs anyway? That you were wrong? That some guy who lived through it told me it was wrong and I ignored him? No of course you won't! Just what will your children think of you then Eric, The advice I give to my children is based on personal experience Eric, Two of my children shared that experience Eric my last was born after the event, whose word would they accept Eric the word of someone who has experienced it or the word of someone who read it somewhere?

Give whatever advise you wish to your own Eric, if the worst happens then I Guarantee someone will do unto you what you are doing to me, it will not be me Eric, despite your position your children would get the same compassion, the same shared grief as any other SIDs victim.

You have my earnest hope that such a tragedy will not befall you and yours, I would not wish it on anyone but understand this if it happens to you or yours and it could then you will understand why I take a stand against your position.

Remembe
249

Scottish Eric,

08/10/2009 18:51:22
#247 Charlie

All you demonstrate with posts like this is that you aren't up to discussing a reasonably complex issue.

Get someone to explain it to you
250

soapy1,

08/10/2009 18:52:44
Remember this, advice is only good if it works and there is absolutely no substitute for personal experience.

Those who read books/reports and pontificate on peoples lives without experiencing their lives are absolutely useless when compared to those who have lived it. You have neither the qualifications nor the experience to support your position, I have both, others like me may not be in a position to defend themselves against people like you, I am, I can and I will, you have taken your position with those who seek to deny free choice, you have chosen to stand with those who would imply some parents harm their children when they follow all the advice they are given and their children die anyway, I will defend your freedom to make that choice to the grave, by doing so I defend my freedom to choose whether or not to smoke, drink , eat hamburgers, by defending you I defend myself the two are indivisible and this is why at the end of the day, ASH have lost and sadly you will have lost whatever humanity you have just as the Nazis did all those years ago, I hope that the price is worth paying Eric.
251

english charlie,

08/10/2009 19:13:06
#249. Eric If you don't know how to answer a simple question, get somebody to explain how to.
How many babies have proven to have died because of SHS? None, One, Two, Three or more?
If you cannot answer, then I could assume that you have NEVER heard of any?
252

Scottish Eric,

08/10/2009 19:14:34
Soapy
I have no wish to cause you suffering, but your response to this issue seems to be different to many people's response to a tragedy.

In many, many cases the bereaved want to ensure that nobody goes through the suffering that they did.

You seem to be taking a different approach, and don't want people to hear advice that reduce the risk of them suffering a SIDS tragedy because it causes you pain.

I have never said you were responsible for your own tragedy.

I've never said that you didn't do everything right.

I HAVE said that the relevance of smoking to SIDS seemed less in years gone by, and the recent research confirms it to be a much more factor in the much rarer SIDS cases that occur today.

But the research that showed that 86% of current SIDS cases occur in homes where people smoke wasn't done by the nazis, as you suggest, it was done in Bristol, England in 2007.

None of the SIDS charities say, as you infer, that following their advice will guarantee a child's safety, they only give advice on reducing the risks.

I am really finding it difficult understand why you are so desperate to suppress their advice.

I find it difficult because you not a lone voice on this thread, you are from a pro-smoking group, and your posts seem to be coordinated with other members from your group.
253

english charlie,

08/10/2009 19:14:55
Eric. Another simple question. As the majority of obese people are non-smokers, does that mean that not smoking is the cause of obesity?
254

Scottish Eric,

08/10/2009 19:23:24
Charlie # 253
Obesity is another complex issue that you aren't up to understanding intellectually, so why don't you pose that question on the David Icke site and tell us what they say?

Or try Natural News - they'll doubtless have loads of answers that involve buying miracle cures for obesity that are available on a sister site. Perhaps they'll tell you that low vibration chocolate is the cause.

You might be able to understand the less complex issue I posted about at #235

Imperial Tobacco research in Canada shows that tobacco smuggling increased less quickly in the Canadian provinces that banned tobacco displays earliest.

Excellent news for Scotland I'm sure you'll agree!
255

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 08/10/2009 19:44:16
Various from soapy1.
I find it rather sad that soapy1 has allowed a sense of personal grief to override any capability for rational thought. I think that Eric has been extremely restrained, reasoned, and reasonable in his comments, yet soapy can only reply with vindictive remarks, occasioned perhaps by strong feelings of remorse and self questioning.
Hopefully, in time, he will be able to move on, and regard the whole area a little more dispassionately.
256

english charlie,

08/10/2009 19:49:45
#254. Eric. re 251. How many babies have proven to have died because of SHS? None, One, Two, Three or more?
If you cannot answer, then I could assume that you have NEVER heard of any?
As you didn't reply, I take it that you have never heard of any?
257

soapy1,

rainworth 08/10/2009 19:50:26
I am not seeking to suppress anything as you yourself acknowledge I followed all the advice and my child died.

a large number of SIDs victims also followed that advice and their children are dead. To anyone with an open mind that suggests that there could be something wrong with the advice, all I am suggesting is that parents make an effort to find out for them selves and not rely on so called expert advice when none of the advisors ahve been through the mill.

Would you accept advice on driving from someone who cannot drive? Why in gods name would I accept advice from someone who does not have the experience?

Advice is just that it is not carved in stone it may taken or discarded as you well know, so the bottom line Eric is this:

Parents may accept the advice, their child may or may not die from SIDs, a parent may decline the advice, their child may or may not also die from SIDs in short the advice is really useless as in both cases there is a chance that their child may die from SIDs.

Those who choose to condemn parents for the death of their children through SIDs after following that advice are implying that the parent did something wrong despite following that advice, now if you can prove a criminal offence has been commited through not taking advice then arrange prosecution, since you cannot prove this, despite all advice parents are losing children to SIDs I would suggest that the advice is of no practical value, that is my opinion based on experience.

So to recap if a parent takes the advice or if the parent does not take the advice they both have an even chance of losing their children to SIDs Why are you so intent on forcing parents to take advice that makes no difference?

My affiliations with organisations is not the issue Eric I could be a member of the Ku Klux Klan and still hold the same viewpoints on this issue, Of course being a Klansman does not say much about me as an humanitarian in fact you would have to look hard to find a mo
258

soapy1,

08/10/2009 19:51:11
bigoted organisation although ASH runs close to it.

Was it not you who panned Chas for spouting conspiracy theories and here you are doing the very same thing, there is I think a word for that Eric but it eludes me for the moment! Look at that Eric, I've made an implication! You really are a bad influence so I'll wander off and do penance for my sins.
259

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 08/10/2009 20:01:54
#253,english charlie.
Just what data does soundbite Charlie base his latest observation on? Most obese people I can think of turn to, or increase, their smoking addiction, in order to suppress their appetite by losing their desire to taste and enjoy food. Perhaps old chas. is confusing cause and effect?
260

Scottish Eric,

08/10/2009 20:38:05
Soapy

Would I accept advice on driving from someone who cannot drive? No.

Would I accept advice on reducing the risk of my child suffering SIDS from SIDS Scotland? Yes

Would I accept advice on reducing the risk of my child suffering SIDS from a Freedom2choose member? Definitely not.

You are from Freedom2choose, so is Charlie and Belinda. Robert Feal Martinez founded the organisation but was thrown out.

All of you are committing effort to suppress any suggestions that smoking is a significant risk factor in SIDS.

I've never said there is a conspiracy, but you all seem to have a common goal - talk down, dismiss, ridicule anything that suggests smoking may be harmful to babies.

Yet NOT ONE OF YOU has shown the 2007 Bristol research to be incorrect.

NOT ONE OF YOU has found a SIDS charity that doesn't currently recommend avoiding smoking in pregnancy or smoking in the presence of a baby.

But you are still trying to argue against the evidence.

Like I said, I have difficulty in understanding your collective motivation in trying to suppress the advice of the SIDS charities.

Your need smoke seems more important to you all (not Robert) than the need to avoid new cases of SIDS. Can't you see why I have difficulty in understanding your motivation?
261

english charlie,

08/10/2009 21:26:11
#260. Eric. I have read all those risks and have told you that some have caused the death of babies, but SHS has NEVER caused one death. I'll ask you again, have you ever heard of any baby being killed by SHS?
262

Scottish Eric,

08/10/2009 21:28:18
#261 Charlie

All you demonstrate with posts like this is that you aren't up to discussing a reasonably complex issue.

Get someone to explain it to you
263

english charlie,

08/10/2009 21:42:39
#262. Eric. If you have never heard of any baby being killed by SHS, I suggest you apologise to soapy. This is not a complex question, it is quiet easy really, even for you.
264

Scottish Eric,

08/10/2009 22:17:12
#263 You're still unable to appreciate the complexity of the issue, I suggest you go and get someone to explain it all to you.

You could also find a SIDS Charity that doesn't advise against smoking in pregnancy, or against smoking near babies.

It should be really easy if you're right.
265

english charlie,

08/10/2009 22:21:31
#264. What do find so difficult to understand?
I have read all those risks and have told you that some have caused the death of babies, but SHS has NEVER caused one death. I'll ask you again, have you ever heard of any baby being killed by SHS?
Surely this question isn't too difficult for you?
266

Scottish Eric,

08/10/2009 22:51:00
#265 Charlie
The reality is that now 86% (258) of the UK annual average SIDS deaths are in the homes of smokers, and only 14% (42) are in non-smoking homes.

You try to simplify it to a level you can understand, but life is more complex.

Every SIDS charity in the world advises against smoking in pregnancy, and smoking in the presence of babies.
267

english charlie,

09/10/2009 08:40:06
#266 Eric. Obviously my question was far too complex for you, so I'll simplify it for you. Have you ever heard of any baby dying from SHS?
Yes or No?
268

Scottish Eric,

09/10/2009 09:17:56
#265 Charlie

From the 2007 Bristol study that you have been unable to refute:
"An additional risk from postnatal exposure has also been identified; increasing with the number of smokers in the household or the daily hours the infant is subjected to a smoke-filled environment. Exposure may lead to a complex range of effects upon normal physiological and anatomical development in fetal and postnatal life that places infants at greatly increased risk of SIDS."

You won't understand that of course, but it means that there is a pretty clear correlation between the degree of exposure to smoke in the home and the risk of SIDS.

Here's what your English FSID charity says:
"How significant is the risk of cot death if I smoke at home?
The risk is very significant. Scientific evidence shows that about 30% of cot deaths could be avoided if parents didn’t smoke around their children.

Babies who are exposed to 1-2 hours of smoke a day are more than twice as likely to die as those who have no exposure to tobacco smoke, while those living in a smoky home where they are exposed to smoke all day are 8 times more likely to die."

Are you going to keep asking your silly question now?
Of course you are, because you just can't or won't understand.

But why do you think your need to smoke is more important than parents getting hold of this potentially life saving information?
269

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 09/10/2009 10:52:36
#268, Scottish Eric.
I'm sure that Scottish Eric has come to realise, as I did some years ago, that old Charlie, like so many of the F2S members, has little capacity for rational thought, preferring instead to concentrate on the single agenda that smokers should be free to smoke as they please, believing that their habit is harmless, both to themselves, and to others around them, babies or adults.
270

english charlie,

09/10/2009 12:26:14
Eric. So your answer is NO?
271

Scottish Eric,

09/10/2009 12:36:39
#270 My answer is
From the 2007 Bristol study that you have been unable to refute:
"An additional risk from postnatal exposure has also been identified; increasing with the number of smokers in the household or the daily hours the infant is subjected to a smoke-filled environment. Exposure may lead to a complex range of effects upon normal physiological and anatomical development in fetal and postnatal life that places infants at greatly increased risk of SIDS."

You won't understand that of course, but it means that there is a pretty clear correlation between the degree of exposure to smoke in the home and the risk of SIDS.

Here's what your English FSID charity says:
"How significant is the risk of cot death if I smoke at home?
The risk is very significant. Scientific evidence shows that about 30% of cot deaths could be avoided if parents didn’t smoke around their children.

Babies who are exposed to 1-2 hours of smoke a day are more than twice as likely to die as those who have no exposure to tobacco smoke, while those living in a smoky home where they are exposed to smoke all day are 8 times more likely to die."

Are you going to keep asking your silly question now?
Of course you are, because you just can't or won't understand.

But why do you think your need to smoke is more important than parents getting hold of this potentially life saving information?
272

Scottish Eric,

09/10/2009 13:06:34
David #269

I don't know if you spotted it in the flurry of posts above, but Imperial Tobacco research in Canada shows that tobacco smuggling increased less quickly in the Canadian provinces that banned tobacco displays earliest.

Excellent news for Scotland I'm sure you'll agree!
273

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 09/10/2009 13:17:31
#271, Scottish Eric.
Indeed I had, and for we mortals in England too, in due course. I'm sure that the F2S members and their cohorts had too, but then they're not very good at responding sensibly to items not to their liking.
274

soapy1,

Rainworth 09/10/2009 13:23:45
You apparently have great difficulty accepting the fact that advice is just that, advice. It did not come down with Moses from the mount!

Advice is not compulsory one has the freedom to to accept or reject it at will that is what I am saying, the fact that despite parents accepting advice their children still die from SIDs In my opinion it is bad advice, if it were good advice children would not be from SIDs.

If I were to offer any advice to parents it would be get all the facts, weigh them up, and make your own decision. That is all you can do because whether or not you take that advice you have an even chance of losing your child to SIDs. Either way you will have fulfilled your duty as a parent, and except for a small minority who gain pleasure from causing suffering to already grieving parents by apportioning blame it will be accepted that you simply endured a very tragic loss.

The reasons for SIDs may never be understood Scientists express opinions not facts, Statistics can made to say whatever anyone wants them to say if they have the money.

I am saying that as parents you all have a choice as to whether or not to accept advice it is your decision alone, not mine, not the governments not anyone else's but yours.

Anyone who disagrees with that contention had better be prepared to accept the full and total responsibility for ramming advice down parents throats. Do you have the courage to accept that responsibility Eric or will you accept that the acceptance or rejection of advice is best left to the parents?

It is called freedom of choice Eric, those who advocate its removal accept the responsibility for the consequences of its removal. Finally when you remove the freedom of one man you remove the freedom of all men including your own!
275

Scottish Eric,

09/10/2009 15:53:02
Soapy

We can both agree with your statement "Advice is not compulsory one has the freedom to to accept or reject it at will"

What is your motivation for trying to obscure the advice of the SIDS charities from people who are looking for advice about their child's health and welfare?

276

english charlie,

09/10/2009 16:02:21
#275. Eric, you have never heard of any baby that has been killed by SHS, so why do you harp on about risks.
Japan ignore the risks and yet they have one of the lowest number of SIDS in the world, and they live the longest.
277

soapy1,

09/10/2009 19:09:29
My motivation is the fact that advice is not mandatory, that there is freedom to accept or reject advice without anyone condemning or implying that because they exercised that freedom to reject or accept that advice they are guilty of causing harm especially when the advice makes no difference to the outcome.

Since you agree with the principle that parents are free to accept or reject advice there is no further need for you or anyone else to imply parents are responsible for the death of their children due to SIDs regardless of whether or not they choose to accept that advice.




278

Scottish Eric,

09/10/2009 20:41:17
#277 Soapy
The advice DOES make a difference.

The advice to sleep babies on their backs reduced the number of SIDS cases dramatically, by 75% according to FSID in England.

FSID now say that "smoking could be linked to 60% of cot deaths"

That means that a further 180 SIDS cases a year could potentially be avoided if mothers didn't smoke and nobody smoked in the presence of the baby.

Why do you want to put potentially 180 families a year through what you have suffered by your efforts to undermine the advice of the SIDS charities?

You seem more concerned with your own feelings, your own need to smoke without guilt and your allegiance to your pro-smoking group than anything else.
279

Scottish Eric,

09/10/2009 20:44:07
#276

Japan don't ignore the risks.

The advice given by the Japanese SIDS Family Association is;
- Sleep the baby on the back
- Do not smoke near the baby or during pregnancy
- Breastfeed as much as possible
- Do not leave the baby alone when asleep
280

english charlie,

09/10/2009 21:48:59
#278. Eric. 'smoking COULD be linked to 60% of cot deaths", COULD, but you don't know of ONE.
#279. Are you saying that the Japanese, despite having the second highest smoking rate in the world, don't smoke near their babies?
281

soapy1,

Rainworth 10/10/2009 01:37:28
Do you personally have one shred of evidence to back up anything you claim? Have you personally conducted any kind of experiment that backs up your claims? Do you have any personal experience at all of SIDs?

If you did you would not be so glib in quoting advice that has proven unsound, you started by quoting a figure of 86% smoking related SIDs deaths, you now quote 60%, you quote advice that has been adopted by smoking and non smoking parents alike yet children still die from SIDs making that advice redundant at best, all you are proving is that the anti smoking lobby will trade on the grief of parents, to inflict as much pain and misery as possible to get their own way.
Tell me when balance of SIDs deaths swings to the point where more non smokers babies die from SIDs what are you going to use to imply that non smokers kill their children? Your implication that smokers are killing their children will be proved as the lie that it is. Deny it all you want Eric but it appears that your sole aim is to cause as much pain and suffering as you can to further the anti smoking cause.

As for the advice making a difference I am a living breathing testimonial that it does not, I know this to be true through personal experience, and for the record at the time of my child's death I was a non smoker having given up a year prior to her birth, a choice I made freely just as it was my free choice to take up smoking again after her death.

Do you honestly believe that blaming cot death parents for the death of their children to achieve a political end is right and proper?

Well you are entitled to your opinion and indeed have expressed it, you have every right to spout your ideology, I will not stop you in fact I have borne arms to defend that very right and would do so again until my demise that Eric is the difference between you and I.

I am not required to like your views, I am free to choose my lifestyle, I am free defend those who cannot defend themselves, unli
282

soapy1,

10/10/2009 01:38:10
I am not required to like your views, I am free to choose my lifestyle, I am free defend those who cannot defend themselves, unlike you I do not seek to persecute a section of society whose only 'crime' is to pursue a legal habit, to persecute a minority group whose only 'crime' is to lose a child to natural causes and who do not fit with your ideology of the perfect citizen, one who does not smoke and follows to the letter state 'advice' for example.

283

Scottish Eric,

10/10/2009 07:03:49
Soapy, your posts are getting more bizarre.

I haven't made any of this up, it is all there in the research carried out by, or on behalf of, the organisations trying to rid the world of SIDS.

You don't seem at all interested in ridding the world of SIDS.

You seem more interestged in promoting smoking.

Why do you and Charlie always post on threads together?

I've googled "Soapy* smoking , SIDS" and you are invariably posting on forums together, no matter where in the world the forum is based.

Are pro-smoking organisation using you and your tragedy to promote smoking?

Are YOU using the tragedy that befell your family to promote smoking, sick as that sounds?

I am completely at a loss to understand why someone who had gone through this would stand in the way of the best, most up to date advice being given to families.
284

Scottish Eric,

10/10/2009 07:17:07
Soapy # 281

The problem with you and Charlie commenting on this issue is that neither of you grasp the innate complexity.

To clarify the figures:
86% of the 300 average annual deaths from SIDS in the UK occur in the homes of smokers. Not all of these will have exposure to smoke as a significant risk factor.

The english FSID charity are saying, based on the medical advice that they have access to, that about 30% of the 300 could have been avoided if the mother hadn't smoked, and a further 30% could have been avoided if nobody had smoked in the presence of the baby who died.

If you have an issue with this, take it up with FSID.

With such a rare condition, the attempts made by Charlie and you to dismiss the evidence on the basis of a denialist propoganda technique (ie name one baby that has been killed by SHS) is both pathetic and gross.

Your question "Do you personally have one shred of evidence to back up anything you claim? Have you personally conducted any kind of experiment that backs up your claims?" are equally stupid.

I don't personally have any evidence, but I rely on SIDS charities to assess the evidence base and pass on advice drawn from that evidence.

The SIDS charities are the ones to rely on for medical advice on this condition, not you, not Charlie and not that pro-smoking organisation that you both belong to.
285

english charlie,

10/10/2009 10:43:03
Eric. There is a hell of a difference between risk and cause.
Soapy has had a baby that died of SIDS and must have gone frantic trying to find out why.
Do you really believe that you know more about SIDS than soapy?
286

Scottish Eric,

10/10/2009 14:18:05
Chas#285
Until you and Soapy learn that there is no single "cause" of SIDS you will never understand.

In the average year there are 300 SIDS cases in the UK.

258 (86%) of these occur in the homes of people who smoke.

If the mother stops smoking, FSID in England estimate that 90 of these wouldn't happen. This is based on an understanding of the condition that is way in excess of anything you or Soapy will ever be capable of.

If, once the baby is born, FSID estimate that a further 90 babies wouldn't die.

For the remaining 78 babies (of the 258) the tragedy would happen anyway because of other factors.

That's what an understanding of the relevance of risk factors brings to the debate, and that's why you and Soapy will continue to hold the mistaken belief that smoking around babies is ok, because that's what you want to believe.

This whole discussion about SIDS came about because I pointed out that your former Chairman Colin Grainger encouraged people to smoke in the same room as babies because he said it was good for them.

Your whole pro-smoking group is so blinkered and prejudiced that you are blind to the realities of life in your quest to deny anything that suggests smoking is unhealthy.
287

english charlie,

10/10/2009 14:28:38
'FSID in England estimate that 90 of these wouldn't happen'. NONE have been PROVEN. Do you REALLY think that you know more than soapy about SIDS?
288

Scottish Eric,

10/10/2009 17:38:47
Chas
SIDS charities and medical personnel around the world promoted sleeping babies on their back, as babies sleeping on their front died more frequently.

The campaign led to a reduction in SIDS of 75%, probably saving around 900 lives a year in the UK.

By your twisted logic, this can't have happened because we don't have the names of the babies who didn't die.

You are sticking to your tobacco industry propaganda tool of demanding absolute proof where it is unlikely to be available. SIDS is, by definition, only applied to deaths where the cause is unknown.

If we wait until you have the names and causes that you want, 180 babies a year could die needlessly because you, Soapy and your pro-smoking pressure group are fixated on stifling the advice that could save them.
289

english charlie,

10/10/2009 18:54:16
'By your twisted logic, this can't have happened because we don't have the names of the babies who didn't die'.
I could name many of the billions of babies that didn't die from SIDS. Can you name any of the babies that died of SIDS caused by SHS?
290

soapy1,

Rainworth 10/10/2009 20:59:17
SIDs charities issue advice not facts, you agree that advice is just that advice, that advice can be freely accepted or rejected yet you imply that advice is fact, that SIDs parents are killing their children, irrespective of whether they take that advice you maliciously imply they are murderers.

You fudge the issue with who belongs to what organisation as if that has a bearing on the fact that despite following advice babies still die from SIDs.

Your case is so weak you have to resort to diversionary tactics, are you are so morally bankrupt that in order to stop people smoking you have to cause pain and suffering to those already grieving?

Such Bullying disgusts every decent person, it degrades humanity tell me Eric are you proud to cause so much pain and suffering?

Does it really bring you pleasure?

Are you reveling in the alleged glory that hurting people brings to bullies?

Bullies are cowards, they revel in the pleasure and false kudos they get from their peers when they beat up on those who are weaker than they are. Your attitude is no better than the thug who mugs pensioners to buy what he craves.

I dare you to trot out the 80% of the country supports this line, go on tell me that 80% of this country supports bullying the grieving parents of dead children.

Tell me that the charities who provide this advice support your view, tell me they will write you glowing letters of recommendation for your actions here, That ASH, CRUK support your endeavours.

While I disagree with their advice even they would not stoop to what you are doing, they will not publicly support you, they will not publicly condemn you either because they need you too much, why would they when you do their work for them without implicating them or even support them.

You are a patsy Eric, be my guest carry on your campaign of bullying for no decent person could support your position.

As for FSIDs their provision of grief councilling, is an act of humanity, the
291

soapy1,

10/10/2009 21:00:05
As for FSIDs their provision of grief councilling, is an act of humanity, they provide a service that brings relief to those who are suffering, while I do not agree with some of the advice they present they should be praised for the relief they bring and not used as a political football in the cause of anti smoking by bullies.

My best advice to you Eric is for you to strike your colours, surrender your sword with your honour intact you have done enough.

You have lost, the anti smoking cause has lost, it is lost because the anti smoking lobby say it is done, the debate is over, if that were true Eric then why are we here?
292

Scottish Eric,

12/10/2009 10:07:04
Soapy 290 and 291
I have no intention of bullying anyone, and you should remember that there have been 4 members (past and present) of pro-smoking group Freedom2choose posting against me on this thread. One of them has been shown to be telling lies, and has gone away.

The problem here Soapy is that you don't care about anyone but yourself.

This whole debate is about a vain attempt to grant yourself absolution. You tell us you did everything you were advised - I have never disputed that.

Evidence in the past wasn't as strong about smoking and SIDS. It is very strong now.

You and your group are trying to stifle evidence about the significant risk of smoking in pregnancy and smoking near babies for a cause that isn't a noble one.

IF PEOPLE LISTEN TO YOU INSTEAD OF THE SIDS CHARITIES, 180 BABIES COULD DIE IN THE UK EVERY YEAR.

That is based on the estimates provided by FSID after consideration of the whole evidence base (not snippets, not cherry picked phrases)

These babies would probably survive if the mother stopped smoking during the pregnancy and nobody smoked in the presence of the child in its first year.

You seem to be able to mentally dismiss the evidence because ALL OF THE SIDS CHARITIES present it as advice.

Why do you think they give the advice in the first place? It is because of the evidence.

The Canadian SIDS Charity have a 33 page summary of the evidence about smoking that they have considered to come to their conclusion. It is available here http://www.sidscanada.org/images/Smoking.pdf.

Charlie says you're an expert so none of this should be new to you. I've read it and there seems little there to give any glimmer of support to smoking not being very important in many cases of SIDS. How can you remain so firmly in denial about the importance of smoking and SIDS NOW (not back when you suffered your own personal tragedy) when the evidence is so clear?
293

David from New Mills,

Fug Free Pleasantville, U.K. 12/10/2009 10:37:11
#292, Scottish Eric.
Eric has perhaps overlooked nitro, so that would make it five, famous or otherwise.
294

Scottish Eric,

12/10/2009 10:42:28
Hi David
I had forgotten NITRO, but he/she did disappear early in the debate.

I see the English parliament are voting on tobacco display bans today.

I hope they know about the Imperial Tobacco research in Canada that shows that tobacco smuggling increased less quickly in the Canadian provinces that banned tobacco displays earliest.
295

David from New Mills,

Fug Free Pleasantville, U.K. 12/10/2009 11:06:05
#294, Scottish Eric.
Nitro is easily forgotten. Belinda noticed too, as she managed to compose a treatise on F2S, fervently forecasting the demise of tobacco display legislation. It may be that she was too occupied in composing her epistle to reply to your posting addressed to her, telling her about the situation in Canada. Perhaps she'll spare a moment to switch on the Parliament channel, and discover the good (or bad) news?
296

David from New Mills,

Fug Free Pleasantville, U.K. 12/10/2009 13:06:36
#294, Scottish Eric.
Just to help Belinda out, proceedings are due to commence at 2.30p.m.
297

english charlie,

14/10/2009 22:32:06
Eric. Look at the latest on SIDS in The Scotsman: 'MORE than half of babies who die in their sleep are lying alongside a parent'.
298

soapy1,

15/10/2009 13:05:54
So you think listing people who you think may belong to a pro choice group will win your argument?

Do you think a statement that you are not a bully is acceptable after apologising for causing hurt on more than one occasion by restating the same point that brought the first apology, your apologies were false why would anyone believe the statement that you are not a bully?

You are not making a case here at all you are merely attacking someone who is standing for those who cannot defend themselves, you are attacking others who have presented reasoned points with useless conspiracy theories that they belong to pro smoking groups, or critique their spelling or grammar or any other. The only reason for those tactics is to mask the point that you have no case. You like Julius Streicher publish bile, promote fear and lie a bout a minority to force an evil ideology down the throats of decent people.

Striecher was hung at Nuremberg, you however are less fortunate, when this is all done you will have to live among those you vilify, those you bullied, It has taken you two days to think up and write your diatribe, had you any kind of case a it would have been hours and it would. In fact Eric I think that were it not that you were chastised elsewhere for mentioning this thread we would not even be back here now. Like your mentors you will rant to 'the last shell, fight to the last man'

History shows your mentor, Adolf Hitler, died a cowards death in cold damp bunker, do the world a favour allow his ideology to die with him, decent people do not want it.

They are his tactics you use, his ideology you are spreading, like him you prey on those who cannot speak for themselves, you use our children just as he used his, you care not for the elderly or you would not condemn them to a wretched existence, lonely but for the odd visit by friends or a relative the health act ensures they stay home by removing their Bingo halls pubs and clubs. you vilify parents whose onl
299

soapy1,

15/10/2009 13:06:48
You vilify parents whose only crime is to lose a child through natural causes. You force smokers onto the streets using the law then object to them being there as well. You believe it's right to dictate how people should live in their own homes, who they may carry in their own cars.

Hitler forced the Jews out of their businesses, vilified them , forced them onto the streets then into ghettos, he used his children to keep their parents in line.
No different to forcing smokers onto the streets, no different to vilifying smokers, no different to using children to keep their parents in line.

Hitler exterminated not just Jews, but the elderly, the infirm homosexuals, religious groups, anyone he felt did not live a good National Socialist life.

55 million died in world war two, My grandfather served from the desert to to the jungles, my parents lived through the Blitz, compared to the mainland Europeans they were indeed fortunate.

I am sorry but if you believe for one second that I am willing to allow a group of Third Reich throw backs and I do not care if they they are foreign or domestic, to ram Nazi ideology down the throats of decent people then you are as misguided as your Fuhrer.

If you believe nothing else believe this, those who read history should learn the lessons from history, those who ignore history's lessons are doomed to repeat them.
300

Scottish Eric,

15/10/2009 13:57:15
Ah, we're back to nazis.

Instead of you reading the evidence at http://www.sidscanada.org/images/Smoking.pdf we're back to trying to justify your love for smoking on the basis that adolf didn't like it in his later life (having smoked from age 8 to 35 according to some).



I don't "vilify parents whose only crime is to lose a child through natural causes"

I try to stop pro-smoking propagandists like YOU putting parents of the future through that tragedy.

IF PEOPLE LISTEN TO YOU INSTEAD OF THE SIDS CHARITIES, 180 BABIES COULD DIE IN THE UK EVERY YEAR.

That is based on the estimates provided by FSID after consideration of the whole evidence base (not snippets, not cherry picked phrases)

Stop this avoidance of the issue.

Stop hiding behind your belief that you are some sort of freedom fighter. You are using your circumstances to justify a mistaken belief that smoking is healthy.
301

english charlie,

15/10/2009 14:27:29
'180 BABIES COULD DIE IN THE UK EVERY YEAR', but they can't name ONE that has died from SHS.
Eric. PROVE that ONE baby has died from SHS or shut up.
302

David from New Mills,

Fug Free Pleasantville, U.K. 15/10/2009 20:33:29
#301, chas. Winfield.
Chas. would appear to be attempting to indulge in the kind of bullying that his mate soapy always purports to be so sensitive about, but I am sure that Eric is made of sterner stuff.
303

Scottish Eric,

Falkirk 16/10/2009 10:56:47
#302
David, you are right, someone with Charlie's debating skills resorting to telling me to shut up doesn't worry me.

It has been really disappointing what a feeble effort the Freedom2choose pro-smoking group has put into the debate on facts in this and other threads.

Going back to 22, I posted
"#21
Robert, a superb example of why freedom2choose and its members are pro-smoking rather than pro-choice

You cherry pick a report from 1998 that shows a benefit from exposing children to smoke.

You don't mention the others that show harm.

Like the work on cot death that found that 86% of recent cot deaths were in homes where people smoke.

A pro-choice organisation would present the full picture and allow choice.

A pro-smoking organisation would hide all of the negative stuff about smoking and only talk about the positive, so that people are conned into doing it.

That is exactly what freedom2choose do. "

And what have we had since then? Robert telling lies then leaving. Belinda directing us to information from groups who appear independent but turn out to be part of the tobacco industry entourage. Chas consistently missing the point. Soapy descending into his trademark rant about Nazis.

You would think there would have been a little bit of decent evidence that smoking isn't harmful to babies in the hundreds of posts that have happened in the last 2 and a half weeks. They can't find it. They don't have the decency to admit it. So we end up with the all too familiar tirades and nonsense to mask their inadequacy.

304

english charlie,

16/10/2009 11:44:39
'180 BABIES COULD DIE IN THE UK EVERY YEAR', but they can't name ONE that has died from SHS.
Eric. PROVE that ONE baby has died from SHS or shut up
305

David from New Mills,

Fug Free Pleasantville, U.K. 16/10/2009 11:58:19
#303,Scottish Eric,Falkirk.
I'm sure that you realise, as I do, that F2S is of little substance, preferring to consist of smoke and mirrors.
At #50 in the “Sheila Duffy young people key” thread, I had asked tug f. wilson to enlighten us as to the various huge successes of his beloved group, as he had claimed “F2C is a Huge success” in his #47. Soon after, he disappeared, offering no elucidation. Says it all, really.
306

David from New Mills,

Fug Free Pleasantville, U.K. 16/10/2009 12:14:50
#304, chas. Winfield.
Charlie boy reminds me of Long John Silver's parrot, which kept squawking “Pieces if Eight” from it's rather limited set pieces. Anybody got a flintlock?
307

Scottish Eric,

16/10/2009 12:23:15
#305
Now then David, they now have 910 members on their web forum and who knows how many in their organisation (my guess is 140)

It's just an alternative way of viewing 'huge success'
308

english charlie,

16/10/2009 15:35:14
Eric. Has the membership of your group grown from 2 yet?
309

David from New Mills,

Fug Free Pleasantville, U.K. 16/10/2009 19:20:52
#308, chas. Winfield.
Just to which “group” is old Charlie referring?
Perhaps if he could manage to struggle to post #116 in the “Sheila Duffy: young people key”, he will see some names he may be familiar with, his amnesia permitting.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.