tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3508346572086151757.post1148927146287116829..comments2024-01-09T00:39:13.955+00:00Comments on Oh what NOW!: Tobacco control will kill you.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3508346572086151757.post-18360339708253234622014-04-24T16:03:45.508+01:002014-04-24T16:03:45.508+01:00Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof o...Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!<br /><br />It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):<br /><br />http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/the-mctear-case-the-analysis/<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />(2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and<br />Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in<br />2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that<br />ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite<br />long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll<br />said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might<br />cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.<br />(2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion<br />arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted<br />to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,<br />therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused<br />lung cancer.<br /><br /><br /><br />[9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.<br />Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the<br />use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of<br />causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung<br />cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,<br />it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an<br />individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer<br />(paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).<br />[9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any<br />point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence<br />case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a<br />consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer<br />knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The<br />individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally<br />intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his<br />life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to<br />[7.181]).<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3508346572086151757.post-6359995867732355022014-04-24T16:03:07.153+01:002014-04-24T16:03:07.153+01:00This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand ...This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:<br /><br />http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite<br /><br />Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.<br /><br />By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.<br /><br />Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.<br /><br />What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.<br /><br />“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...........................<br /><br />Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!<br /><br />The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:<br /><br />Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.<br /><br />146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.<br /><br />A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.<br /><br />Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh! <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com