tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2792211625965806829.post7834948227404348456..comments2019-12-15T14:41:35.697+00:00Comments on 'Kin_Free: Perennial anti-smoker emotional blackmailKin_Freehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08315471344708077392noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2792211625965806829.post-86746184266076922432015-03-28T22:14:36.546+00:002015-03-28T22:14:36.546+00:00One thing that occurs to me is that in terms of th...One thing that occurs to me is that in terms of the subjects of this research we have two very different sets of people. <br /><br />On the one hand, we have the non-smoking mothers. For them, going to hospital for several hours to do the tests, with all the waiting around which is inevitably involved is doubtless a bit of a pain, but they are in a comfortable environment where they can do, within the limits of the hospital, what they wish.<br /><br />On the other hand, we have the smoking mothers. Unlike the non-smokers, they cannot do as they wish. Their normal means of stress relief is forbidden to them. They are told they must leave the premises to be treated like pariahs out on the street if they wish to have a cigarette while they continue with their tests. And doubtless they are also being fed stress-inducing lies about the 'damage they are doing to their unborn'.<br /><br />So, dismissing the smoking / foetus aspect of the tests, do we have two equal groups here? Would we expect the same outcome from both groups? Whatever the tests?nisakimanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04563041282703559939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2792211625965806829.post-78025526675374763542015-03-28T20:32:36.413+00:002015-03-28T20:32:36.413+00:00There should be investigations – none to date - in...There should be investigations – none to date - into whether the antismoking hysteria adopted by Public Health produces needless stress/further stress in pregnant smokers.JohnBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05165051324276559561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2792211625965806829.post-78063778231797751852015-03-28T20:12:14.270+00:002015-03-28T20:12:14.270+00:00Antismokers making hysterical claims about smoking...Antismokers making hysterical claims about smoking in pregnancy has a long history.<br /><br />Early in the 1900’s it was some church groups (e.g., Methodist Episcopal Church’s Board of Temperance, Prohibition, and Public Morals) that considered nicotine as a “killer of babies.” The “controversy” was picked up by the New York Times in two stories. In one story it was claimed that 40 babies from a New York maternity hospital “suffered from tobacco heart caused by the cigaret smoking of their mothers.” In the other it was claimed that “sixty percent of all babies born of cigaret-smoking mothers die before they reach the age of two, due primarily to nicotine poisoning.” (quoted in Oaks, 2001, p.53; Journal of the American Medical Association, 1929, p.123) The American Tobacco Trust was viewed by the church board as “conscienceless baby-killers” that by promoting cigarettes to women were directing a “lying murderous campaign.”<br /><br />Consider the current antismoking crusade and the warning label “Smoking Harms Unborn Babies” (appears on Australian cigarette packs):<br />http://colinmendelsohn.com.au/news/how-consumers-are-manipulated-branding/<br /><br />The statistical associations between smoking women and particular problems in newborns is confined to a few percent of deliveries to smoking women. Further, the role<br />of smoking in these problems is highly dubious in that it is such a poor<br />predictor for these problems. The vast majority of deliveries to pregnant<br />smokers are comparable to pregnant nonsmokers. But you would never guess this<br />from the label above which implies that smoking harms all babies.<br /><br />This inflammatory nonsense comes from the late-1970s. Look at the Godber<br />Blueprint, the framework for the current crusade. Here’s an insight into how<br />antismoking fanatics/zealots/extremists “reason”:<br /><i>“Donovan’s most interesting remarks related to smoking and pregnancy. He<br />admitted that he couldn’t explain how or why smoking harmed the fetus but<br />suggested that, instead of worrying about such fine points, women be told that<br />all unborn children of smoking women will be hurt. Donovan urged every<br />participant to go back to their countries and publish estimates of the<br />lethality of smoking and pregnancy based on the number of pregnant smokers. He<br />urged this as an effective method to get women to stop smoking.”</i> 1979<br />(p.14)<br /><br />This is the sort of inflammatory trash that has been fed to<br />the public for the last 30 years. Facts don’t matter. All that matters to<br />antismoking fanatics/zealots/extremists is what needs to be said repeatedly to<br />terrorize women into antismoking conformity.<br /><br />Take a look at this utter nonsense:<br />http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-smoking-pregnancy-image14040841<br /><br />JohnBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05165051324276559561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2792211625965806829.post-57330664320119389562015-03-28T20:10:43.769+00:002015-03-28T20:10:43.769+00:00The “study” in question demonstrates only how noth...The “study” in question demonstrates only how nothing is manufactured into catastrophe by antismoking zealots, i.e., agenda-driven trash.<br />http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/25/fetuses-smoking-mothers-cover-face-womb-report<br /><br />The entire sample size was 20 with only 4 smokers. There’s not much that can be made with these small numbers. Yet beyond the small sample size, there are serious methodological issues. For example, “The pilot study of 20 pregnant mothers, conducted at Durham and Lancaster universities in England, was designed to find out how<br />fetuses react to smoking.” The researchers were convinced, a priori, that the research design measured only the effects of smoking. Firstly, for the smokers group, ultrasounds were NOT taken while the woman was smoking. Were there differences in time of day and pre-post meals that the ultrasounds were undertaken? Were some women on medication? Did some women have a history of stress? Were there fetus-gender differences? Were the ultra-sounds administered by the same/different operators? Are there ultra-sound techniques that can elicit fetal movements?<br /><br />The study doesn’t account for potential confounders. Further, there’s no particular reason why hand movements around the mouth would be considered a “distressed” activity. Fetal movements would be considered a “positive” in ultrasounds. Most importantly, “All fetuses were born with no obvious health issues.”<br /><br />Yet, this flimsy “study” has only provided opportunity for the researchers to engage in antismoking hysteria, which appears to be the [antismoking] intent from the outset. The researchers conclude, without basis, that fetal movements, especially in pregnant smokers, are “negative”, signs of distress. They conclude, without basis, that these fetal movements in pregnant smokers are solely caused by smoking. They go even further, without basis, claiming that the fetal movements were caused specifically by nicotine. These conclusions are inflammatory nonsense that go far, far beyond the scope of the study in question that further promote the antismoking agenda.<br />JohnBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05165051324276559561noreply@blogger.com