geneb 
Member since Oct 13, 2011


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “In Support of the Smoke-Free Air Ordinances

Smartin quotes a tobacco-testimony-funded doctor with no history of studies whatsoever? HA!
And some other character. She had to clamber over under around and through mountains of legitimate evidence of secondhand smoke harms to uncover these two aberrant cherry-pickings.

I especially like her "BIG PHARMA" conspiracy theory.

Count the ads on TV: Pharma makes proportionately FAR more $$ from its hugely expensive meds that treat cancer, heart disease, COPD and other tobacco-related diseases.

If Pharma were out for profit only, they'd be advocating _against_ tobacco control measures, so as to increase demand for their expensive tobacco-related disease meds.

Maybe they'd be out spamming message boards with utter BS. . . .

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by geneb on 03/21/2013 at 11:43 AM

Re: “In Support of the Smoke-Free Air Ordinances

When you Google-Scholar “P Even,” you find that this “expert” has apparently not participated in a single study relevant to tobacco use. Period.

Then he says:

"If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man."

Translation: "I was too much of a coward to tell the truth then, but you should believe me now. Honest. Really. Really really really."

But he never said boo one way or another on the subject because no one ever asked him. Why should they? He knew nothing, had no standing at all. It'd be like asking a veterinarian to give insights on brain surgery. And no one's ever interviewed him about this, though pro-smoking advocates ballyhoo his nonsense, post it on websites and deluge msg boards all over the world with it (in violation of copyright laws).

Just another smoking French administrator.

The whole campaign stinks to high heaven.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by geneb on 03/21/2013 at 11:38 AM

Re: “Smoke-Free Proposal Turns Podium into Pulpit

Here's the difference between "bikerchick" and you, Audrey--SHE ACTUALLY LIVES IN BOISE.

She's not an interloping campaigner from New York, which has had this kind of ban for almost 10 years and even bans smoking in parks.

In Harleyrider's case (google him), she's not an interloping campaigner from Kentucky, which has similar smoking bans in all its major cities.

In all cases, business has done nothing but boom.

Where do you spammers find out about vulnerable sites that haven't yet banned your boilerplate and your abuse of local residents?

Posted by geneb on 10/13/2011 at 5:11 PM

Re: “Extra Public Hearing Added on Anti-Smoking Ordinances

Spam King "harleyrider" has been kicked off nearly every msg board in the US due to his boilerplate regurgitation of cherry-picked studies, tobacco-funded organizations' op-eds and his pals' blogs (these are ads, really--they raise the sites' google rankings).
Google him or his boilerplate for tens of thousands of his messages(!)

But all his tripe can't refute the data from reputable, open, peer-reviewed studies on the harms of secondhand smoke by real people with real educations, real expertise.

Here's a great example of his hogwash:

>>According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel . . . .

These nutty "researchers" Littlewood & Fennel run a -- well, I don't know what it is, but look: they call it "Independent Public & Health Policy Research." Why, it MUST be independent-- it says so in the title!

Did these two even graduate high school? You can't tell from reading their "study." You can't even find out what Littlewood's first name is. Are they scientists at all?? Obviously not.

They call their output, "a labor of our love," and I guess you don't need a degree or an education or anything for love, but usually you do for, you know--SCIENCE.

This weird entity is apparently run out of L&F's home in suburban Austin, TX; were it an actual business it may well be in violation of Austin's residential zoning codes--but I suspect it's nothing of the sort. No one's heard of it before or since.

It seems to me that "Independent Public & Health Policy Research" was set up for no purpose other than to try to contravene the well-established science on the harms of secondhand smoke.

But as far as harleyrider's concerned, this aberrant and unexamined output refutes decades of research by real scientists in open, peer-reviewed journals.

In 2005, after hearing 6 years of the best cherry-picking tobacco lawyers could muster, Federal Judge Gladys Kessler, found, in a decision recently upheld by the Supreme Court:

"Evidence of the health risks of passive smoking is derived from many sources. It comes from knowledge of the health risks of active smoking, the carcinogenicity and toxicity of the components in mainstream and sidestream smoke, the evidence that nonsmokers absorb the disease-causing components of tobacco smoke, and epidemiological studies that have assessed the association of passive exposure to tobacco smoke with disease outcomes."

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by geneb on 10/13/2011 at 6:09 AM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

© 2016 Boise Weekly

Website powered by Foundation