Complaints Filed Against 2006 Surgeon General Report

Four Groups File Complaints Against Carmona’s 2006 Report. Citizens Freedom Alliance’s complaint is centered on “changing and omitting data”. The data for a meta-analysis is the studies collected from the body of research, but the SG’s meta-analysis omits relevant studies such as the Enstrom/Kabat study, belittles other large relevant studies, includes highly questionable studies, and relies heavily on the thoroughly discredited 1992 EPA report (which was not only discredited by a Federal Judge, but by three congressional committees). By omitting relevant long-term, large studies as well as relying heavily on discredited reports, the Surgeon General both changed and omitted data in his meta-analysis of research on secondhand smoke (SHS)/environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), which did indeed ensure that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. He, therefore, committed “research misconduct” as defined by the “falsification” according to the “Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct”. According to Gary Nolan, U.S. Regional Director for Citizens Freedom Alliance, “Americans should be angry about this waste of tax payer dollars. I truly believe this study was released for purely political reasons and is an insult to every honorable scientist in the world. The result of Carmona’s ETS study was to needlessly ruin business, cost jobs and harm the economies of local communities and states across the country. He should be ashamed of his actions.”

 

 

WELL, WHEN I READ THIS IT MAKES ME WONDER WHAT THE TRUTH IS?

 

WHO CAN COMMENT ON THE REPORT? HAS THE PUBLIC BEEN MISLEAD? WHICH SIDE DO YOU THINK IS RIGHT? WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON SECOND HAND SMOKE (ETS)? WHAT OTHER REPORTS ARE THERE THAT CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEX ISSUE OF SECOND HAND SMOKE (ETS)? WHAT DO YOU THINK IS THE TRUTH? WAS THE SURGEON GENERAL RIGHT OR WRONG?

16 comments ↓

#1 Bill Godshall on 11.01.08 at 3:37 PM

This so-called complaint was nothing more that a press release issued by several right-to-smoke supporters criticizing the 16 year old EPA report. The press release has zero legal or scientific relevance, especially considering that a federal court already dismissed a real lawsuit filed by cigarette companies (on the grounds that the EPA had the authority to issue the report).

As one who was/is familiar with the scientific research and who followed this issue very closely before and when the EPA report was released in 1991/92, I found the EPA report accurate, reliable and consistent with most subsequently conducted and published research.

In contrast, the right-to-smoke supporters who issued this press release have no scientific credentials and are affiliated with FORCES, which insists that tobacco smoke pollution is harmless and alleges that government agencies, researchers and anti smoking groups have engaged in a massive conspiracy to lie about secondhand smoke risks in order to discriminate against and harass smokers.

I haven’t seen even one news story in response to this month-old press release, indicating that the news media similarly don’t take this group or their claims seriously.

Many of these folks at FORCES also insist that cigarette smoking doesn’t even harm the health of smokers (claiming yet another massive conspiracy against smokers) and routinely refer to me and other supporters of smokefree policies as Nazis, fascists, terrorists, etc.

#2 Bill Godshall on 11.01.08 at 3:54 PM

Correction on my last posting, as this month old press release criticized the 2006 SG report on second hand smoke, which was the most recent federal agency report on secondhand smoke hazards since the EPA’s 1991/92 report, which was criticized by FORCES using many the same arguments.

I found the 2006 SG report scientifically accurate and reliable. Even Mike Siegel fully supports the findings and conclusions in the 2006 SG report.

Instead, Siegel has criticized several statements made by SG Carmona about the 2006 report, which implied that short term (less than 30 minutes) exposure to secondhand smoke can increase a person’s risk of heart attack.

I tend to agree with that latter mentioned criticism by Siegel (and others), although people who are already at higher risk of a heart attack probably have an even higher risk if/when exposed to secondhand smoke for a short period of time.

Regardless, the press release criticizing the US SG report has no legal or scientific merit.

#3 Pam on 11.01.08 at 10:38 PM

Yes, Bill posts on Siegel’s blog and Bill gets routinely thrashed for his take on parents being child abusers for smoking around their children. He has his own agenda.

The bottom line is there ARE four new complaints filed with Health and Human Services, Office of Research Integrity on Carmona’s 2006 report. All four groups filed very VALID complaints claiming the report: ignored credible studies showing economic harm from smoking bans to the hospitality industry, inflated relative risks, omitted relevant large long-term studies and relied heavily on discredited reports..not to mention Carmona’s speech and press release don’t appear to many people that he even read his report, as the two vastly differ.

All four complaints can be found here: http://opponentsofohiobans.com/news.aspx
So, Mr. Godshall, once again you’re wrong. These complaints HAVE been filed, return receipts from HHS, ORI show they have been received. As to the question “Has the public been misled”? You bettcha!

#4 Joseph Sinnett on 11.02.08 at 10:43 AM

I get a little confused by whether shs is an enviromental issue or a health issue. If it is enviromental then why are the American Cancer Society research results showing shs levels 25 times lower than EPA exposure risk safety levels. If it is Health then why are there exemptions and Tobacco is still a Legal Substance. It kind of reminds me of the McArthy era when everyone but him was a Communist. Turns out his theory even with all the Documentation was some what erroneous.

#5 Smoker Babe on 11.04.08 at 11:02 AM

Hey Mister Bill,

Does the mere exposure to ETS for 30 seconds mean I am on the way to getting cancer? If it does I might as well smoke.

Smoker Babe

#6 Bill Godshall on 11.06.08 at 2:41 PM

Per Pam’s posting, the four letters sent to the US DHHS won’t change anything.

I strongly suspect that the new Secretary of DHHS and Surgeon General (to be appointed by Obama) will be more supportive of smokefree policies than during the Bush administration.

But grass roots smokefree advocates (who have successfully campaigned to enact smokefree laws in hundreds of municipalities and dozens of states) will staunchly oppose any federal legislation/regulation that would/could preempt state or local smokefree laws.

#7 Native Son on 11.15.08 at 3:55 AM

Bill – now lets be real the majority of the folks in the anti-smoke group are really wanting tobacco to just be outlawed. I wonder why folks like you don’t take on the issue of governments two-faced approach to tobacco. They want to killbut yet they keep taxing it higher and higher. It amazes me why the government doesn’t look at taxing alcoholic beverages. More folks probably drink beer than smoke cigarettes.

#8 Smoker Babe on 11.15.08 at 4:55 PM

Mr. Godshall I was reading on another site and it inferred that your organization believes that smoking in the presence of children is child abuse which is a bit far fetched. It may not be the smartest thing in the world but I think your a bit off base in your fanaticalism!

#9 Bill Godshall on 11.17.08 at 5:03 PM

Per comment by Smoker Babe, since 1990 Smokefree Pennsylvania has advocated policies to protect nonsmokers (children as well as adult workers) from tobacco smoke pollution indoors.

Our advocacy resulted in PA’s first smokefree child custody court order (back in 1990) stipulating that a father couldn’t smoke indoors in the presence of his asthmatic child (who had been repeatedly hospitalized by exposure to the father’s cigarette smoke).

Ours was the first organization in the world (beginning in 1993) to advocate for legislation to ban smoking in a car if a child was present, which has been enacted in several states and countries.

We also successfully advocated for federal legislation that banned smoking in all preschools and K-12 schools (in 1994), and for the inclusion of child care services in the recently enacted PA Clean Indoor Air Act, which protects 22,000 foster children from smoke pollution.

But then again, Smokefree Pennsylvania also has successfully advocated for many other changes that were/are opposed by various segments of the tobacco industry.

But rather than attempting to be divisive or disagreeable about our differences (as Smoker Babe’s post attempts to do), I prefer collaborating with like minded folks to achieve mutually beneficial goals.

Smokefree Pennsylvania and I also have been urging companies to market smokefree tobacco products to smokers as less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, and we’ve criticized public health agencies, health organizations and healthcare professionals for misleading consumers about the comparable health risks of different tobacco products.

#10 Pam on 11.17.08 at 5:16 PM

Wow, Bill. I’ll bet you’re proud for sticking your nose into families’ businesses. Like minded people like you….hmm bet you’re on John Banzhaf’s Face Book. He wants employers to fire smokers. He also wants it to be against the law for children to be served in a fast food restaurant without a parent or guardian. You two sound “like minded”. So tell me, where do you stop? I mean if you don’t mind sticking your nose where it’s not only not asked for but totally not welcome, what else is on your list to control?

#11 Joe Sinnett on 11.18.08 at 10:01 AM

Bill seems to be well informed. Perhaps he can answer why the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation and the American Cancer Society joined together to prevent North Dakota from banning smoking altogether. The Stated reason by these two organizations is there would be no need for smoking cessation products. If Bill is ever in the area I have posted a sign for those who need Government assistance in making choices.
Smoking is not good for you! Non one in here cares! If you do, STAY OUT! I have found it is not the smoking that bothers the elite. What truly baffles and enrages them is the simplicity of the message.

#12 Bill Godshall on 11.18.08 at 11:08 AM

Per Joe’s inquiry, prohibition of the manufacture, sale and/or possession of tobacco products (which has been proposed by polemic extremists on both sides of the tobacco wars) would be a disaster for everyone.

#13 Smoker Babe on 11.19.08 at 5:25 PM

Joe- So are you saying one can smoke or not smoke in your location?

#14 Smoker on 12.11.08 at 3:45 PM

Lies.. All of it.
I won’t believe it until the doc tells me i have cancer.. And even when he does, PROVE it was from cigarettes and not every other toxin that our environment is flooded with.

#15 dl turner on 12.14.08 at 10:09 AM

p. 10, Ch. 1 – Table: “Four-level hierarchy for classifying the strength of causal INFERENCES BASED ON AVAILABLE EVIDENCE (caps, mine).”

An “inference” is a GUESS, not a “scientific conclusion”.

p. 10, Ch. 1 – para. 4: “… all of the health effects considered in this report have causes other than involuntary smoking.”

p. 9, Chp. 1 – Definitions & Terminology – para. 2: “Because of its dynamic nature, a specific quantitative definition of secondhand smoke cannot be offered.”

#16 www.brokenpowerlines.com on 11.07.14 at 2:29 AM

Have an MP3 player or i – Pod full of 1000’s of songs.
You’ll wish to consider multi-channel home audio amplifiers
with at least 150 watts to 350 watts per channel. The front speakers ought
to be placed about four-five feet away in the TV, along with the rear speakers
should also be placed in the identical manner, but on the rear portion along with appropriate distances from each other.

Leave a Comment