Government costings, for damages they did to smokers
Failings are obvious in the reliability of the Kaiserman study, and the utilization of SAMMEC as a reliable means of calculation of costs of smoking for public announcements, defaming smokers.
Prior to reading further!!! Read this first.
SAMMEC produces information, which assesses the cost of smoking not only to government but also to the smokers themselves. If the information produced is accepted as valid by government it shows willingness to in effect double the damages against smokers. If Tobacco industries can be held to account for essentially the same act of equal damage how is it even conceivable a Government could justify the doubling of that damage for purely financial gains. The first act against the public could not have been made possible without decades of co-operation of government, which has been compensated enormously in doing so. Now with Taxation they seek to deliberately affect an equal damage against the same victims of their first acts of incompetence. The total damages to smokers amount to 21 Billion dollars annually excluding damages for defaming an identifiable group for what the government believes to be an addiction, an act already condemned by Amnesty International and the Human Rights Commission as an illegal act of torture. All this is true if we can believe the Governments best evidence. Welcome to SAMMEC world.
You might like to review a few facts in regard to why smoking and second hand smoke is considered so damaging and by recent calculations thought to be responsible for extreme financial amounts expressed inaccurately as costs to community or to governments. It all stems from companies competing in Nicotine delivery products and charity foundations, just to mention one group, RWJF for instance are paying and directly training lobbies in methods to subvert government process in a very much planned and deliberate way. Identical processes are being utilized in selling drugs, fat taxes and Globalization while protecting the companies doing the most damages, from ever paying for the damages they cause.
In real testing everything they say about smoking statistically and more can be found in this report.. 30-year reactions by smoking or results in a single day with actual measurements to back up the multiple significant findings in ozone and particulate matter found in the air we breath. This compilation needs be read thoroughly
If Democracy or any small part of it is to survive on this planet. The leaders of industrialized countries need to seriously consider taking back control of their respective nations, with a simple act of nationalizing the holdings of charity foundations and all future charitable deductions. Directing future charity investments from within existing government bureaucracies staffed by community leaders. By placing the funds under the control of real community leaders we can end the tyranny of industrial lobbies that figured out how to undermine Government process through UN agencies. The product of industry lobbies is to protect the industries, who finance them this is causing enormous mortality in not dealing with pollutants in our environment while we chase a created villain
This would not be taking of funds from the corporate giants in reality those funds allowed the large corporations to pay little or no taxes accelerating their growth for decades. The shortfall in Taxation has been heavily subsidized, by those who can least afford to do so the poorest working classes. In effect it is already our money we all worked to create it. 7 Trillion dollars is being invested in stock markets and other investments reducing overall profit possibilities for others. The most cash invested takes the larger share of profits earned. The effect of charity holdings of this magnitude is to lower the standard of living and health consequences for all of society. As a national security issue not many can deny the power all that money earns in the influence of governments around the planet. The added protections in avoidance of community principles and process, in effect now recreating those values only adds to the problem. The rule of law moving out of reach in cost to the majority will not allow much to change without the substantial assistance of those we elect and pay to advocate for us. At the moment they are participating they need to understand who is paying the freight and soon.
In a review of where the current healthcare numbers originate you have to look closely. Read every word to understand what is being said as opposed to what it sounds like. A good deal of spin doctoring went into the creation of the precise wording we hear daily from a number of seemingly independent sources around the globe. It starts here. If you read carefully you start to understand this study is a replication of another by the same author with newer numbers abet still 10-year-old numbers, being plugged in. What you are actually seeing is an update to the political rhetoric to include some, thought to be required, numbers regarding childhood mortalities, just to strengthen the message selling the ad strategy; smokers are to be hated for what they do to defenseless babies. Hitler’s propagandists used this strategy constantly 60 years ago. Kaiserman as a dedicated extremist exhibits a willingness to “do what ever it takes”. The source of the original Political trash is the 1991 Kaisernman report utilizing the original SAMMEC program based in a mystical Cancer society report. How extremist American medicine will go to accomplish it’s goals is very apparent on the main page of the ACS website. The subtle blaming is divided by nationality in place of socioeconomic indicators expressing education and income. This guilt by association tactic in reinforcing racial stereotypes has always worked throughout history. The American medical community always had a large part in those efforts as well. Canada and others learned some embarrassing lessons in Eugenics Hitler carried those ideals to the extreme in his health advocacy campaign. Bone chilling realities show the same industry names that supported the eugenics movement, now heavily involved as heralded NGOs and stakeholders in W.H.O. decision-making and strategies to make us all live better. Apparently our politicians are in need of more shame, in revisiting painful failures of the past. Indeed organized crime gained its roots in America during the last tambourine campaign.
SAMMEC numbers derive from never published or available in the public CPS II numbers to produce multiplier fractions, which are in turn used to create population statistics. The CPS II study must be a good one, as it seems to have more relevance, in fact creation strategies, than the thousands of other studies concerning smoking done to date. Perhaps a glimpse of “figure 4” in the 1991 Kaiserman report of previous financial studies in the same area, which failed to produce on average half the costs SAMMEC does, might give you a hint why even Neil Coleslaw who wrote the runner up presentation recommends the numbers and statements made possible in this beauty. Coleslaw in fact liked it so much he helped adjust SAMMEC for use in the Canadian media.
The Sammec research is deeply flawed primarily because it expresses a cost in the majority of smoking damages 10.5 of the 15 Billion cited is actually lost wages, damages of the smokers themselves in early mortality. An additional 2 billion cited would be a loss to industry. Government costs at the most shown in this study cannot exceed 2.5 billion. The government is therefore, in considering the incomes from cigarette taxation, profiting 5.4 Billion dollars annually if, as the report states, all numbers remain constant. In fact that surplus has risen dramatically since 1991.
In additional 2 billion is a cost to industry in absenteeism non-smokers were found to be less reliable by a factor of 20% in some age groups, this was dismissed as improbable by the author who then stated the 2 Billion dollar figure was accurate with nothing to guide that decision above personal opinion. At the drop of a hat, a 2 billion dollar creation.
Both the 1991 and the 1996 assessments were made ignoring the fact the mandatory age of retirement was 65 years of age. This allowed an addition of 20 wage earning years to the calculations of lost wages and absenteeism. The study group numbers were primarily between the ages of 35 and 85 this would have a large effect on the overall costs. 20 of the 50 years accounted for would almost double the numbers of cost. In addition, by extending the working lifetime it could be ignored 2/3 of those identified [in chart 1 provided] indeed lived past the age of retirement and see no financial wage losses aside from pensions, in the norm. This would reduce the group with actual wage losses by 2/3, which would have tremendous impact on the final numbers as well.
If you consider the other 79% of mortalities occurring in the same age groups who could also be applied to the scrutiny and process to produce 60 Billion dollars in community cost with similar credibility sustained. Considering smokers although apparently according to the report, they almost all die of smoking related diseases, as it would appear. Few die of other causes irrespective of the statistics, which should find, half of them should be dying of other causes. This should be compounded in this group who represent 54% of the population at the time of the study in ever smoking characterizations. By comparison the other 79% of total mortalities would appear to be comprised in the majority of non smokers, providing strong evidence smoking could be curative of all other non smoking related causes of death. Discounting this conclusion it can only be found the SAMMEC study numbers are in fact seen to be grossly miss stated.
The origins of the primary risk factors derived solely from the American Cancer society CPS II research would cast some light on the situation. This group has been seen when advantageous or in denying other opinions to be heard, to exaggerate facts and numbers ignoring real science or simply denying it exists. In order to make possible fallacious statements promoting hatred, in garnering financial rewards. They are seen to be contradicting their own numbers often.. Cancer Societies promote themselves above any positive aspects they could provide society. The use of this research, as it is described as a debt of society, for the sin of dying before 85 years of age is laughable. Until you realize they are doing it and conveying those exaggerated costs to the public for approval. A new campaign is in the wings now to do exactly the same thing for those who eat unhealthy foods. While paying 300% tax rebates to advertisers of healthy foods. The mainstream media groups are silent for obvious reasons they want the business. The government expresses the idea they believe these products to be unsafe, but allow them to be sold and tax the victims. If the products cause harm or, even if statistics predict they might, the statement 50% of smokers will die of their habit indicates by taxing as a group half of that group are paying excess taxation over and above the rest of the population based purely in speculation. That same speculation governments allowed when most started smoking not knowing what to believe as Governments were hiding the truth from the public they held for decades.
In reality if 10.5 billion annually for at minimum the past 15 years is owed to smokers as the government seems to confirm in SAMMEC research, they should be free to collect it from both of the partners who have profited by it’s sale industry and the government
In Population studies the product mortalities said to be resulting from Tobacco use are amazingly close to 21% meaning SAMMEC was never necessary other than to calculate age distribution categories. Deliberately used to distribute the total keeping in balance distributes. The resulting 21% was already said to be known balances needed to be maintained in allowing the illusion of credibility. Amazingly all SAMMEC studies have this same characteristic of producing this 21% figure regardless of what population base is studied or what other factors may be evident in respective environments. It may be interesting to test the Russians living close to the nuclear accident at Chernobyl a few years back to see how much variance SAMMEC can produce. From observations so far in Germany, Canada, Taiwan, The world population and the USA all with 21% mortality of total mortality results. This is not what a researcher would expect to find even with absolute proof in theory the 10s of millions of variables would in fact make this tendency almost impossible. Unless the figure was the goal and category distribution was the only task at hand.
The American Lung association has a different view which is rejected by the American CDC and the EPA based in actual testing and real world observations the facts in the 6 cities research and follow up showed for each reduction of 1 Microgram of particulate matter reductions in mortality would be 75,000 lives. The ALA estimates the level where pollution would be within safe limits would require a reduction of 5 Micrograms saving 375,000 lives. In reviewing what all groups are saying smoking is accumulative and risk is not associated with casual exposure as they believe is the case with second hand smoke ETS, indicated by numerous studies and research announcements. As little as 20 minutes of exposure ASH decries causes immediate and irreversible heart damage in otherwise healthy individuals. This will remain a cause for debate in establishing credibility in the source
The political arguments and the risk expressed in the fear factor 5000 deadly ingredients, which may or may not exist in ETS. In actual calculated amounts in the most smoky of environments these chemicals are found in quantities measured in Billionths and Trillionths of a gram per cubic meter of air. The air on the other hand is known to have levels of these same chemicals in addition to 35,000 more in quantities measured in millionths of a gram per cubic meter of air. You can assess the true risk yourself with basic common sense.
Statements risk decreases with cessation in both primary and ETS, even in later years cessation reduces mortality risk this could not be true unless the risk was in fact a level of accumulation. If more dangerous chemically enhanced particulate matter was accumulated in addition to smoking accumulations it stands to reason smokers would be more affected than non-smokers although in fact all would be affected to a large degree regardless of smoking. It should be noted those who contribute large sums to both the major charities and lobby groups creating hatred in our communities are the very industries that contribute to the majority of those air contaminants in the process of producing their products for sale. Tobacco industries although a convenient diversion do not contribute to pollution levels in outdoor air in a significant factor compared to Petrochemicals, Metals, Energy production or Oil; fuel and lubricating products. This could be expanded into the risks of drug peddlers fear inspired sales of a long list of deadly products of their own. The total of all smoke produced by cigarettes could be calculated to almost non-existent in comparison to millions of megatons being released into the air every year. How so can these emissions be not popularly seen to have tremendous circumstance. I would propose because all the major medical charities in smoking campaigns offer protections to industries in the lowering of public awareness and urgency. The so-called healthcare / charities lobby groups would not exist very long, if you were to take away their ability to distribute fears.
Is it not time the public was let in on this dirty little secret undeniably liked to partisan politics in the “earned media” Liberals like to talk about behind closed doors.
I like to call it Gomery gone wild.
The existence of Cancers was not known prior to 1920 in The UK by 1931 less than 2000 cases were reported annually by 1952 a mere 20 years later, the reported Cancers grew almost 10 fold. Smoking certainly existed long before 1900 when the sales in the United States alone were in the billions smoked per year. The category in Chart one defining caused by tobacco is quite arguable to even make such a generous assessment as to the cause of death regardless of the death categorization being listed in a disease category defined as attributable to Tobacco use fails to recognize how many other causes are also related to the same disease categories. The fact in the chart non smokers appear to not die of those diseases is telling in the final assessments. In fact the 70% causation assumed is highly unlikely unless you are prepared to say the other factors had little effect, which historically you could be shown to be quite wrong. The overall effect of this assessment would be to assume a cost of all other factors and apply it to one cause alone.
The Cost of Smoking in Canada, 1991
Murray J Kaiserman
In 1991, smoking-attributable health care costs in Canada were $2.5 billion (CAN). Additional smoking-attributable costs included $1.5 billion for residential care, $2 billion due to workers' absenteeism, $80 million due to fires and $10.5 billion due to lost future income caused by premature death. Adjustments for future costs if smoking had not occurred and smokers had not died were estimated to be $1.5 billion. According to this analysis, smokers cost society about $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes. The results indicate that smoking-attributable costs in Canada have increased steadily since 1966 to the 1991 value of $15 billion. Nevertheless, while the determination of smoking-attributable costs is important, the issue continues to be public health. In addition, for the first time in Canada, the smoking-attributable cost for residential care has been estimated.
Results and Discussion
It is estimated that roughly 6.5 million current smokers and 4.9 million former smokers accounted for approximately $2.5 billion in smoking-attributable excess health care costs in 1991, which is about 3.8% of the $66.7 billion total health care bill in Canada. Since ever smokers represent about 54% of the population, it must be remembered that they would also be responsible for about 54% of "normal" health care costs, or about $35 billion. An additional $1.5 billion was spent on former smokers in residential care facilities.
Despite the use of different methodologies, these costs are comparable to those of the state of California, which has about the same size of population as Canada. Using the Rice model, it was estimated that approximately 4.5 million Californian smokers aged 12 or more accounted for $2.2 billion in 1989. In addition, the US Department of Health and Human Services, using a method similar to the one presented here, recently estimated that smoking-attributable health care costs in the US were $21.89 billion in 1993 for a population about 10 times the size of Canada's.
It is not surprising that all three studies would arrive at roughly the same estimates since they use the same basic SAF methodology and estimate the same health care categories: hospitals, physicians and drugs. Of the three studies, the one prepared by the US Department of Health and Human Services is probably more complete because it incorporated other categories, including Medicare, Medicaid and nursing-home care, some of which do not exist in Canada. Nevertheless, whatever method used, the estimates are probably low because all of the costs cannot be estimated.
From the Conclusions;
Smokers spent $10.45 billion on tobacco products, of which about 75% went to governments in the form of taxes. Excluding lost income (which costs individuals and not governments) and disability (which incurs costs for the employer), the cost of smoking for governments was about $2.3 billion in health care costs (including residential care) and an additional $96 million in lost income taxes from smokers who died in 1991. The latter number is estimated by assuming that, on average, those smokers who died in 1991 earned one half of their income at a tax rate of 19.8%. Even with this latter amount included, the result is that smokers paid in more than they took out by about $5.4 billion.
The above chart should demonstrate clearly the deceptions in statements made. An estimation of what smoking could cost as identified in the wording smoking “attributable” as opposed to attributed costs. Attributable would include all disease categories attributable to smoking meaning by statistical association regardless of Relative risk or Associated correlation. A total of all disease categories, which could be caused by smoking irrespective of the fact in reality, are responsible for a much lesser percentage, which could have been found in calculating by age groups and disease categories the actual risk factor as a percentage of the possible costs. The calculation was not included and this report stands as the basis for political arguments we hear today gratuitous fear mongering; to sway public opinion and justify the excessive taxation and banning of smokers from privately owned property establishments or sheltered outdoor spaces. This is discussed in the conclusions of the report, which clearly states smokers pay 5.4 Billion more than they actually cost the community. The chart showing the costs found in this study compared to others demonstrate clearly why the anti smoker biased crowd preferred these numbers when expressing to the public statements regarding the costs of smoking. Further the reference to this study in the current report in establishing norms in SAMMEC research can be seen to invalidate the assumptions made in later exaggerated SAMMEC numbers.
The researcher in this study shows an enormous error that can explain the disparities in assumptions made. The comparison to California research that is said to give credence to the numbers in close relationship to the numbers found in this study. This can be easily found to actually show proof in the lack of credibility in the numbers and possibly the researchers who formulated this report. The recent 6 cities study showed by actual measurements a differential in all disease categories between least and most polluted cities this included a confounding effect for smoking. A 26% disparity. I would challenge the researcher to demonstrate an offset which could explain his assessment although the California population would be close to the total population of Canada in a research group restricted to a 54% of total population who lived prior to 1960. The levels of pollution and it's affects on the population through their lives in California would be hard to find in the research period any where in Canada. Pollution levels have increased in Canada substantially in the past decade however still do not come close to the levels in California today even with the substantial reduction efforts they have made.
In addition In the United States despite not having a national healthcare program per capita they spend a lot more than we do in Canada in Federal health care spending. This can only decrease the actual Canadian costs in comparison to a population base 10 times as high. Further in a ratio comparison the numbers demonstrated with a smaller population group approximately 10% of our neighbors to the south. Huge disparities exist in higher estimates of harm and expense in all categories. Larger group studies should result in more accuracy in the final estimated numbers. Higher risk assessments in Canada have not been explained. In one part of this report it actually states non smokers in absentee numbers are 20% higher because this is a curative number suggested in smoking it is summarily dismissed, however in final tabulations smokers are stated to cost in absenteeism 2 billion dollars. This amount is stated later to be a cost of employers who in reality would, if the need were there, simply replace the workers and complete their tasks regardless. The 10.5 billion stated as lost future earnings are not an expense or for that matter owed to government, amounts if any are actually a cost to only ever smokers themselves not truly consistent with the estimations being sought in this report. This amounts to 12.5 Billion dollars tabulated as a cost, which in fact is not a cost to government or community in the least. Even the taxes on these amounts are not lost to government or community any more so than the loss of life from the other 79% of annual mortalities.
In a 1997 Audit the Government was told to clean up their act at Health Canada as an international embarrassment. They not only did not follow the recommendations they got rid of the science staff replacing them with spin-doctors and politicians. The head scientist today is a political scientist I kid you not.
It is not reasonable to expect these amounts realistic in order to assess costs to levy taxes against smokers or use in slanderous campaigns in the media. By charging them damages derived from their own damages, for the 50% risk stated in other Health Canada information, “they would die due to one of the statistically related diseases” is inexcusable.
In the United States the multi-Billion dollar Tobacco settlement was marked up and attached to the sale price of the product negating any punishment of the industry. Successive Tobacco tax increases have allowed product price increases as well. In effect smokers are paying for lost wages they would be estimated to suffer regardless of when those deaths will occur based in a population statistic encompassing at minimum 54% of the population regardless of the fact only 20% of the population smokes. Although smokers were compensated in the settlements no effort was ever made to return the portions in the majority of those settlements paid in settlement amounts. The most damning fact can be found in the majority of smokers living today; 20% smoke; smokers are being forced to pay for a future population base exceeding 54% in the majority who don’t smoke and never did. Compensation for amounts equal to wages, Healthcare including residential care, fire damages and income taxes to the age of 85, of 34% of the population when no such damages actually occurred or will in the future, in more than half of the compensated amounts.
The effects of smoking shown in the chart are insignificant prior to the age of 35. The report encompasses a population group born prior to 1955 still living or dying in 1991. The report can be further defined as those between the ages of 35 and 85 in 1990 this would be a group born between 1905 and 1955. The population demographic historically would be much different than we see in 1990 and still different today. The use of coal was the most popular heating fuel in most homes. Little was known of the effects of leaded fuels in cars or asbestos, which was used extensively. During that era we had atomic testing and the use of 2 atomic bombs in Japan with known affects globally in the increases of cancers. Influenza, Scarlet fever, TB and many other diseases were common which have since been all but eliminated although patients would have sustained permanent damages despite survival. The lead in the air did not just vanish because we stopped adding to it with the advent of unleaded fuels. The replacement product benzene in levels 10,000 time the known safe level as a replacement is all but ignored although it should be reasonable to see there would have to be some dangerous outcomes. Mysteriously although we know a lot of oil products cause cancers we as a nation can find wisdom in smoking bans for a calculated estimate of 3000 lives in a 30 million population. 1 in 10,000 is the international acceptable risk factor. In fact the very studies which made the 3000 assessments started at 1 in 10,000 if the level is below were they started where is the real harm they swear exists?
The use of mustard gas during 2 world wars and even the use of lead and mercury in house paints and dinnerware were not realized as potential hazards all in the test groups smoking and non smoking would have been exposed however how many would be affected more than others is not considered. Socioeconomic conditions remains a problem as smokers are in the majority at the bottom of the scale they also live in the most polluted areas and come in contact with toxins more often in the workplace. The huge pollution levels reduced through coal reductions would have to have left some lingering effects. Proof of the effects of reduction or elimination of many of these factors can be found at the Stats Canada database between 1950 and today with life expectancy figures gaining 12 years in average. The 100 years study group of Doctors who smoke which I would assume would make a very exceptional group in relaying information to the research group. The Study indicated a 10-year loss of life duration on a declining scale to no significant loss with less than 12 years of smoking quitting by age 30. The ever smokers inclusion and risk factor applied seems to discredit the reported information in favor of a smaller and less lengthy report done by a biased lobby group known as the American Cancer Society, who’s very existence depends on the level of public concern they are able to create. In fact the 1996 study includes a 1.3 risk factor, which was never found in actual research. The WHO study clearly stated the risk was insignificant.
In assessing the numbers presented in Figure 1
If you take into effect the ever smokers totaling 65% of the total population very few die from other causes compared to non smokers comprising the majority of the non smoking related mortality figures. Either this study proves smoking has a curative effect in relation to all other causes of death or the figures are seen to be largely flawed. Calculations below will demonstrate this discrepancy.
If you look at the age categories the last two columns on the right ever smokers as previously stated comprise 54% of the total population and should represent 54% of the mortality of all causes regardless of smoking.
Take a number from any line in the second last category representing total mortality in the country in 1991.
Multiply that number by .54 to get the normal ever smokers total, which should be normal if smoking did not exist.
Multiply by .46 to get the deaths of non-smokers from all causes.
Here is what you will find
Male |
[A] Total Mortality |
[B] Ever Smokers 54% of total population |
[C]Non-smokers 46% of total population |
[D] Tobacco use attributable deaths |
[E] Smokers deaths of all other causes Subtract B-D |
Compare E to C and B |
__________A______ B______ C______ D______ E |
25-34 >>>3185 .......1720 ......1465 ...........0 ........1720 |
35-49 >>>4097 ........2212 ......1885 .......1849 .......363 |
45-54 >>> 6616 .......3573 ......3043 .......3256 ........317 |
55-64 >>>14,839 .....8013 ......6826 .......6664 .......1349 |
65-74 >>>26,697 ...14,407 ....12272 .....11419 ......2988 |
75+ >>>>45,642 ...24,647 ....20995 .......8451 .....16196 |
>>>>>>>101075 .....54572.... 46486 .....31639..... 22933 |
Female |
[A] Total Mortality |
[B] Ever Smokers 54% of total population |
[C]Non-smokers 46% of total population |
[D] Tobacco use attributable deaths |
[E] Smokers deaths of all other causes Subtract B-D |
Compare E to C and B |
__________A ______B______ C______ D______ E |
25-34 >>>1237 ........668 ........569 ...........77.......... 591 |
35-49 >>>2276 ......1229 ......1047 ...........55 ........1174 |
45-54 >>>3801 ......2053 ......1748 ..........975 .......1078 |
55-64 >>>8307 ......4486 .......3821....... 2269 .......2217 |
65-74 >>>17520 ......9461...... 8059 ......4093 .......5368 |
75+>>>>>54625.... 29498 ....25127 ......1764 .....27734 |
Examples of research referencing the numbers in this report can be judged on their own merits.
This one predicted general decreases in mortality figures would be seen between 1991 and 2000. In actuals we know from the various charity groups mortality figures in all disease categories continued to climb in significant numbers.
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/16-2/c_e.html
Smokers and ever smokers comprised the prevalence factor indicating a total of 54% as the starting point in exposed multipliers applied against mortality in specific age groups for a particular year. In most cases the multiplier would exceed 70% as ever smokers all with a common risk factor varying through age and gender groupings. The majority of these Relative risks also exceed expected norms consistently found in research studies, by a large degree. The risk assignments appear to be the highest in the 55-64 ranges declining from there to the lowest in the 75+ ranges. In physical reality smoking is an accumulative risk dependant on the amount smoked and for how long. The research bears this out in those who smoke less are affected less, those who quit reduce risk over time.
The risk factors applied seem to indicate no inclusion of these effects. The averaging of confounders toward a linear scale needs to recognize the variations of smoking prevalence not only between smokers but a smoker’s variation as well. The wide brush of those who quit needs recognition of how much they smoked and how long ago they quit no methods are discussed with the exception of a single unpublished study with no access or peer review to substantiate methods of determining specific Relative Risk calculations which are provided to the researcher by the SAMMEC program. The Relative risk is applied consistently in current and ever smokers despite the vast dissimilarities of the two groups discussed.
It should be understood it would be impossible to avoid the use of an empirical model of mean and variance, in discerning the effects of primary smoking as opposed to simplistic standard deviation. Standard deviation requires a single dimensional equation Smoking is in the least 3 if you assume 3 dimensions at minimum in ever smokers you now require 9 dimensions with at least half unknown priors requiring estimation to be reduced to one for use in the SAMMEC system. The added complexity of inclusion of a second group skews the model entirely. The abilities of a 1980 spreadsheet assumed to be utilized in SAMMEC, would have no such capabilities as to calculate reliable estimates without considerable intervention prior to the submission of linear figures to facilitate the calculations. The use of massaging the data with Log averaging methods should be considered cautiously. Because the list of other factors which co-exist in study of a population group are so numerous as to be almost impossible to even compile a list and assessing the associated confounding factors in numeric terms will make the task of an unassisted linear principle quite remote even with the computing power available today. More recent research bears out the reason for caution the re-evaluation of outdoor pollution dangers as triple what was previously believed will require a new recalculation of all leveling efforts basically a reevaluation of this entire report The filtering down to a linear base is so heavily dependant on human judgments the true value or dependability of a model of this nature should be used with extreme caution. The haphazard way this is applied in varying degrees of political posturing is evident throughout the 1991 report in the transposing of “attributed” figures in numerous causative statements and assumptions being relayed as factual and determinant in assessing costs.
SAMMEC can generally be judged in its consistent Risk Factors produced globally with respect to diverse population bases. The six cities research showed a distinction in significant numbers with confounding for smoking a 26% differential between most and least polluted cities. The observed decreases in Lung Cancers and cardiovascular diseases as pollution levels declined, even with the short span of the study lifecycle is absolute proof Particulate matter is a major cause of smoking related diseases categories and the reactance time is significantly shorter than causation factors traditionally allied to smoking. SAMMEC applies little respect to other well-known determinants but rather envelops them all in assessing cost for their effects as one item, regardless of smoking or air quality prevalence. The author indicates both in the preamble and the conclusions the report was to be used if a lawsuit ever happened against Tobacco companies in Government seeking damages both for Government and community including smokers. It was never meant to be used in the way it has been in subsequent SAMMEC research the basis for smoking bans and Taxation. It includes smoker’s damages, which are then being billed to smokers in Tobacco taxation.
References
The 6 cities study
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press03152006.html
Doctors smoking study Co authored Sir Richard Doll
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/328/7455/1519
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sammec/
Welcome to SAMMEC
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sammec/overview.asp
Infant calculations addition, funded by RWJF
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/rhs-ssg/factshts/mort_e.html
Health Canada preparation of data to utilize in SAMMEC II promotions for political purposes
Consistent with the need to protect children as described in RWJF lobbying tactics found here
http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/BMSG_AccelerationReport.pdf
The format required; Current upgrades and maintenance as directed to promote political anger.
http://www.whsc.emory.edu/_releases/2002april/smoking_costs.html
Why lobbies prefer Studies to physical scientific research
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
Non Randomized effects of bias
http://www.hta.ac.uk/execsumm/summ727.htm
Talking to the wind
Manufactured medical conditions
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060411-6573.html
Disease mongering
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27264823.shtml
Disease mongering
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=41427
Disease Mongering
Fear mongering at Health Canada the training course
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/activit/marketsoc/index_e.html
Provincial counterpart; the new ministry of propaganda
http://www.mhp.gov.on.ca/english/strategicframework/what.asp
Is the use of Taxes for political purposes are no long a matter of law or ethical principles?
Autonomy rights are now obviously outdated in Canada.
The process obviously comes with prepared media statements as they are all written in similar fashion.
American CDC shows off their new improved weapon and how to use it
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5339a2.htm
From Taiwan
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/suppl_1/i62
Results: Total smoking attributable medical expenditures (SAEs) amounted to US$397.6 million, which accounted for 6.8% of the total medical expenditures for people aged 35 and over. Mean annual medical expenditures per smoker was US$70 more than that of each non-smoker. Smoking attributable years of potential life lost (YPLL) totaled to 217 761 years for males and 15 462 years for females, and the corresponding productivity loss was US$1371 million for males and US$18.7 million for females.
In Germany
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/1/31
Direct costs were mainly calculated based on routine utilization and expenditure statistics and indirect costs were calculated according to the human capital approach. Results: Twenty-two percent of all male and 5% of all female deaths as well as 1.5 million years of potential life lost were attributable to smoking.
The District of Columbia
We even have a calculation from the Black vs. White, race perspective.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2621749&dopt=Abstract
Comparisons of black and white
Smoking-attributable mortality, morbidity, and economic costs in the District of Columbia.
Rivo ML, Kofie V, Schwartz E, Levy ME, Tuckson RV.
”Cigarette smoking is generally considered to be the most important preventable cause of death in the United States. To determine the public health impact of smoking in the District of Columbia, the DC Commission of Public Health calculated smoking-attributable mortality, morbidity, and economic costs in this predominantly black population. In 1985, an estimated 933 district residents died from smoking-related diseases, resulting in 3535 years of potential life lost. Cigarette smoking contributed to approximately 13.5% of all District deaths in 1985 (N = 6921) and accounted for 30% of all deaths of persons over age 20, far exceeding the affect of other potentially preventable causes of mortality. Black residents, especially black men, shared a disproportionately greater burden of smoking-attributable mortality when compared with white residents. These smoking-attributable deaths resulted in over $110 million in direct medical and indirect morbidity and mortality costs to District of Columbia residents. The results indicate that cigarette smoking is a major contributing cause of the black-white disparity in health status in the District of Columbia.”
I have a link to more research funded by RWJF however most of this research is dismissed by the totalitarian attitudes responsible for this process.
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/14/suppl_2/ii38.pdf
If you want to see the impact of this link in real terms.
Look at the strategy submissions and final draft WHO strategy at this link.
Pay special attention to the Canadian submissions Feb. 2004
If you want to see the future from a Health Canada perspective.
http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/strategy/eb11344/en/index1.html
This link connects the Pan Canadian strategy to CSPI largely funded also by RWJF. They declared in Lobby registration they sought to have labeling applied to pop cans after talking to the Liberals they progressed into dictating the Romano report and the budget in addition to the WHO submissions all within months of the Canadian submissions at the WHO. Ralph Goodale in the past two Liberal terms introduced this bill twice with apparently little notice of the opposition parties. The first time it did not get through due to an election the second time around it was introduced and funded in his budget.
Feb. 16 2004
http://www.cspinet.org/canada/who_glstrat.html
March 5 2004
http://www.cspinet.org/canada/prebudget_consult.html
May 13 2004
http://www.cspinet.org/canada/PanCanadianLetter.pdf
June 9 2004
http://www.cspinet.org/canada/pdf/SudburyTalk.ppt
Power point presentation page 2 item 4
"CSPI does not accept funding from industry or government"
Reality from another source.
http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=CSP100#grant
This one should sound very familiar.
I found one section, which was entirely telling in understanding the very chummy relationship with this group and the Liberal party in determining health care direction. The question we have to ask here is, who might be leading whom.
The timing of this groups actions leave that one, very suspiciously open to interpretation.
April 17 2003
http://www.cspinet.org/canada/PanCanadianLetter.pdf
"The Scope of the problem of diet- and inactivity-related disease
Preventable diet- and inactivity-related diseases cause immense human suffering and disability,
lead to an estimated 20,000 to 47,000 premature deaths every year,2 precipitate between $2.5 billion
and $4.6 billion in health care spending per year, and drain between $5.3 billion and $9.9 billion per
year from the Canadian economy as a whole.3 Recently, Health Canada estimated the total economic
burden of diet-related disease alone to be $6.3 billion annually. If unchecked, these costs will likely
increase substantially in the coming years as a result of rising rates of obesity, rising pharmaceutical drug costs, and the aging baby boom population.
The World Health Organization has recognized that diet, in particular, can play a key role in
disease prevention. In its October 2002 World Health Report, the World Health Organization
estimated that healthy life expectancy can be increased by as much as 6.5 years in Canada by avoiding
the top 25 preventable health risks.4 However, the report found that, in the healthiest sub-region of the
Americas (which includes Canada), virtually all preventable deaths examined are attributable to six of
the 25 health risk factors:5 four diet-related factors (blood cholesterol, blood pressure, overweight, and
low fruit and vegetable intake), physical inactivity and tobacco. Among the diet-related disease risk
factors, blood pressure alone accounted for 13.5% of all deaths in 2000. Blood cholesterol accounted
for 12.7%, overweight for 9.9%, low fruit and vegetable intake for 6.2%, and physical inactivity for
5.6%. While these risk figures are not completely additive -- because many deaths may be caused by
more than one risk factor -- it seems evident that diet and, to a lesser extent, physical inactivity (partly
mediated through obesity) play very large roles in chronic disease mortality. Perhaps, together, poor
diet and physical inactivity are responsible for more deaths than tobacco, which the report indicated
was responsible for 23.5% of deaths in this sub-region.6 Certainly, for the great majority of Canadians who are non-smokers, the chief risk factors for mortality among those reviewed in the report were diet and physical inactivity-related. In April 2001, the Canadian federal government, alone, committed $100 million per year for five years to its anti-tobacco strategy.7 By stark contrast, the budget for
Health Canada's Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion was roughly $1.5 million in 2000-01.8"
An economist should investigate this research
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/18-1/c_e.html
http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/c903ce.html#0.2.2Z141Z1.NBS3AG.68WQBF.V
CDC version 2003
In 2000, an estimated 8.6 million (95% CI = 6.9--10.5 million) persons in the United States had an estimated 12.7 million (95% CI = 10.8--15.0 million) smoking-attributable conditions. For current smokers, chronic bronchitis was the most prevalent (49%) condition, followed by emphysema (24%). For former smokers, the three most prevalent conditions were chronic bronchitis (26%), emphysema (24%), and previous heart attack (24%). Lung cancer accounted for 1% of all cigarette smoking-attributable illnesses (Table).
ACS Version Today
Health Effects of Smoking
About half of all Americans who continue to smoke will die because of the habit. Each year, about 438,000 people die in the US from tobacco use. Nearly 1 of every 5 deaths is related to smoking. Cigarettes kill more Americans than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined.
Cancer
Cigarette smoking accounts for at least 30% of all cancer deaths. It is a major cause of cancers of the lung, larynx (voice box), oral cavity, pharynx (throat), and esophagus, and is a contributing cause in the development of cancers of the bladder, pancreas, cervix, kidney, stomach, and some leukemias.
About 87% of lung cancer deaths are caused by smoking. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women, and is one of the most difficult cancers to treat. Fortunately, lung cancer is largely a preventable disease. Groups that promote nonsmoking as part of their religion, such as Mormons and Seventh-day Adventists, have much lower rates of lung cancer and other smoking-related cancers.
From the ALA
This annotated bibliography presents brief summaries of selected research papers published in 2005 (or in press in January 2006) on the health effects of particulate and ozone air pollution.
Some of the highlights of the more than 50 new studies summarized include:
• A long-term study showing risk of premature death attributable to PM is three times greater than previously reported;
• Studies linking daily exposures in PM with increased hospital admissions for strokes, congestive heart failure, heart attacks, COPD and other respiratory problems;
• A toxicology study showing links between exposure to PM2.5 at levels near or below the current standards and development of atherosclerotic plaques;
• Many studies elucidating the biological mechanisms and pathways for cardiovascular effects;
• Studies linking prenatal exposure to air pollution with increased risk of low birth weight, preterm birth, infant mortality, and cancer;
• Research showing that coarse particles exacerbate respiratory disease;
• Three meta-analyses linking ozone air pollution with premature mortality and a multi-city study showing that effects are not due to temperature;
• Intervention studies showing that reductions in air pollution yield measurable improvement in children’s respiratory health and reduction in premature deaths; and
• Policy analyses showing the need for strong annual and daily fine particle standards to protect susceptible populations and provide equivalent levels of protection to different regions of the country.
Attached files
2005 Research Highlights: Air Pollution and Health ( 1-32-2005 2005 Health studies final.pdf 357.56 KB )
Highlights of 2005 Health Studies on PM and Ozone
For immediate release: Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Boston, MA - An eight-year follow up to the landmark Harvard Six Cities Study has found an association between people living longer and cities reducing the amount of fine particulate matter, or soot, in their air. The study has been published in the March 15 issue of the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.
The follow-up study found that an average of three percent fewer people died for every reduction of one ug/m3 in the average levels of PM2.5 fine particulate matter, defined as having a diameter of 2.5 microns or less -- narrower than the width of a human hair. This decreased death rate is approximate to saving 75,000 people per year in the U.S., said lead author Francine Laden, HSPH Assistant Professor of Environmental Epidemiology.
The WHO facts on Second hand smoke ETS despite what you may have heard.
http://jncicancerspectrum.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/jnci;90/19/1440
Why ETS is nothing more than a bad joke
posted by FXR @ 12:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home