Bans increase business???

[gary k]

More anti-smoker nonsense(lies)!!!

Antis claim that smoking kills and that 1/2th of smokers' deaths will be caused by smoking.

Thus; if there are 200,000 smoking caused deaths,there are 400,000 smokers dying.

The numbers below are approximate for your ease in following the reasoning.
The basics will hold true.

About 10% of the population is over the age of 65 = 30,000,000.

About 10% of the population over 65 are smokers = 3,000,000.

The number of smokers over the age of 75 would be much less than 3,000,000.

Antis claim there are about 450,000 deaths per year caused by smoking, with ETS exposed nonsmokers being about 50,000 deaths,there are about 400,000 smoker's deaths per year.

Here;we see that the median age of those deaths(half above and half below) is about 75 years of age.
(NOTE: This is CDC data.)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf

R E G U L A T I O N • V O L . 2 1 , N O . 4 , 1 9 9 8
LIES, DAMNEDLIES,& 400,000
SMOKING-RELATED DEATHS

Table 4
U.S. Smoking-Attributable Mortality by Cause and Age of Death
1990-1994 Annual Average

75 - 84.. 120,670

85 +..... 71,697

Thus,over the age of 75,there are about 200,000 smoker's deaths per year caused by smoking and a total of 400,000 smokers dying every year.

3,000,000 smokers divided by 400,000 dying per year means that after about 7.5 years they have all died.

75 years of age plus 7.5 years shows that by 82.5 years of age there are NO MORE smokers.They are all dead.

YET,after the age of 85, CDC data says that there are about 70,000 smoker's deaths caused by smoking and about 140,000 smokers dying each year!!!!!

The statement that: " Half of smokers' deaths are caused by smoking", is just ANOTHER anti-smoker LIE and is just so much BULLCRAP!!!!!

[flex]

Lightningboy mentioned the economic impact of the bans.
A clear thinking individual would and should know that prior to this enforced ban, no owner of any bar or restaurant was forced to allow smoking.
It was a choice.
Need I say more?

No amount of reason or common sense is going to change the minds of nico nazis, extremists and crooks.
The anti tobacco movement had evolved into a very profitable anti smoker industry which will use any means possible to remain profitable.
As it stands now, it is a coalition of individuals, groups, companies and business interests which have a common agenda: making money.
Other groups or individuals with different agendas is welcomed by them as long as it helps their cause regardless how twisted their agendas are.
For most of Us involved in this fight against them, nothing I said here is anything new. It is simply the scary truth.
Welcome to the 21.st century.

[gary k]

"As it stands now, it is a coalition of individuals, groups, companies and business interests which have a common agenda: making money."
...................................

And they use smoking and smokers to cover up their own shortcomings and the death toll that they cause.

I hope you can stay healthy and out of any hospital!!!

The following is about Canada;but,the principle would hold true for the USA.

http://fightantismokertyranny.blogspot. ... -results=4

Posted by The Old Rambler on Sunday, December 14, 2008
Smoking, SHS and false allegations

Health Canada claims that 831 non-smoking Canadians are killed, each and every year, by exposure to secondhand smoke. .
............................................
From Friday's Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... ealth/home

January 16, 2009 at 4:51 AM EST

Underlying these changes are figures published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal in 2004, showing that as many as 23,750 hospital patients died avoidable deaths in 2000.
.....................................................................

Sooooo,being admitted into their hospitals is 28 times more deadly than being exposed to SHS/ETS!!!!!!

Hospitals have signs that say:"NO SMOKING ALLOWED";it would be more appropriate if they put up signs saying: "CAUTION, BEING ADMITTED INTO THIS FACILITY IS 28 TIMES MORE DEADLY THAN BEING EXPOSED TO SHS/ETS!!!"

[gary k]

Are these people educating our children about the possible health hazards of tobacco or indoctrinating them into the anti-smoker cult?(Stupid question!!-GK)

Bits of the original.

http://fightantismokertyranny.blogspot.com/
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Smoking kills a busload of kids every day?

The Butt Ugly web site makes the following claim: “In Alberta, tobacco kills the equivalent of a school bus full of children everyday.”

That’s a pretty remarkable statement. And, what makes it even more remarkable is that it’s stated so matter-of-factly.

It’s not a little white lie, and it’s not just an exaggeration; it’s a whopper of a lie.

So, let’s say that, out in Red Deer, a school bus holds 10 children. Yes, I know. That’s a very small school bus. But, I want to be fair. So, multiply 10 by 365, the number of days in a year, and you get 3,650 deaths per year.

That’s better isn’t it? Well, no; not really.

Looking at the 2002 mortality tables from Statcan, we find that only 3,612 Canadians between birth and 20 years of age, died in that year.

Uh-huh. Butt Ugly is claiming more children died from tobacco in Alberta than died in the whole damn country from all causes.

Alberta is home to only 12% of Canada’s population.

For a busload of kids to die every month, let alone every day, is a statistical impossibility.

Are these people educating our children about the possible health hazards of tobacco or indoctrinating them into the anti-smoker cult?

[gary k]

Posted: Thu Apr 10, 2008 1:29 am Post subject: Smoker's Lung Transplanted to a Nonsmoker posted by Dancing Tiger Bait

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Smoker's Lung Transplanted to a Nonsmoker". LEILA JOHN MARQUES, HELMUT TESCHLER, JOSUNE GUZMAN, and ULRICH COSTABEL. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., Volume 156, Number 5, November 1997, 1700-1702.
http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/conte ... 156/5/1700

Another important note on this artcle is the date: 1997 Even as late as few a months ago, I remember reading questions from people wondering whether or not a smoker's lung could ever be used as a transplant to a nonsmoker. Common sense tells us that a healthy lung is pink and a diseased lung is not; ergo, a healthy lung from a smoker can be (and has been) transplanted into a nonsmoker.
..................................

This is from 4 years earlier,there have been thousands(?) of smokers' lungs used for transplants!! :shock:

The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, Volume 22, Issue 11, Pages 1183-1200(Nov 2003)
A review of lung transplant donor acceptability criteria
http://www.jhltonline.org/article/PIIS1 ... #section15


Donor smoking history

There are no published studies in the field of lung transplantation that specifically address post-transplant outcomes with respect to donor smoking history.

The generally accepted criterion for an ideal donor is a smoking history of ≤20 pack-years.67 A smoking history of >20 pack-years falls into the category of a “marginal” donor.

Bhorade et al.12 from the Loyola Group assessed outcomes from the greatest number of smoking donors with 15 of 52 marginal donors having a >20-pack-year smoking history with an average of 36 pack-years overall.2

Complications by sub-group of extended donors were detailed, but the investigators concluded that there were no clinically significant differences between sub-groups and the ideal donor group with regard to operating room (OR) complications, ICU complications, intubation time, length of hospital stay or hospital survival.

One of the major potential risks associated with the utilization of lungs from donors with a significant smoking history is the development of lung cancer in the transplanted lung.

No article has provided specific commentary on this and one assumes that this was not a significant finding within the period of follow-up in these studies.

There have been no studies in the lung transplant literature reporting functionally significant emphysema, attributable to donor pathology or smoking pre-mortem, developing in transplanted lungs.
...................
When you consider that the ratio of smoke that a smoker breaths in to what a passive smoker does is 75,000 to 1(OSHA -1994), what does that say about the grossly over stated harms of passive smoking?

[gary k]

Non-smokers and lung cancer death(LCD),how big a risk?

Anti-smokers claim that there is 'NO SAFE LEVEL' of exposure to SHS/ETS.

SG's 2006 Report says that scientific evidence indicates there is no risk free level of exposure to SHS/ETS.

Let's see just how much risk there is for a non- smokers dying a LCD in any one given year and life-time.

The 1993 EPA Report said that a non-smoker's risk for LCD is 1/10,000 per year and a non-smoker exposed to SHS/ETS has a 20% increased risk over that.

That is .2/10,000 per year or 1/50,000 chance of LCD per year.

That means 49,999 nonsmokers per 50,000 will not have a LCD per year or there is a .99998 chance they will not suffer a LCD.

That is 99.998% of the exposed non-smokers will not suffer a LCD.

1/50,000 exposed nonsmokers having a LCD is a .00002 risk rate for LCD.

That is a .002% chance.
1.0 = 1% risk
0.1 = 1/10th of 1% risk
0.01= 1/100th of 1% risk
0.002= 2/10th of 1/100th of 1% risk per year of a LCD.

Only in an anti-smoker's demented,deluded mind could 2/10ths of 1/100ths of 1% be considered an unacceptably high level of risk!!!!

OK, let's look at the life time risk.

We will take 50,000, non-smoking, 20 year old food/drink servers and put them to work where they are exposed to SHS/ETS and find their life time risk for dying a LCD.

Here we see that there are 'NO' smoking related adult deaths below the age of 35.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf

R E G U L A T I O N • V O L . 2 1 , N O . 4 , 1 9 9 8
LIES, DAMNEDLIES,& 400,000
SMOKING-RELATED DEATHS
Table 4
U.S. Smoking-Attributable Mortality by Cause and Age of Death
1990-1994 Annual Average

This report shows that the average age of a smoking related death is about 72 years of age.

Our 50,000 servers will have 'NO' LCD's before the age of 35 and 1 per year after that or 37/50,000 by the average age of death of 72.

This shows us that,after 52 years of exposure to SHS/ETS, 49,963 out of the 50,000 will 'NOT' have died a LCD.

That is,99.93% of them will not die a LCD and the life time risk rate of a LCD for any one of them is .0007!!!!

That is a .07% chance.

1.0 = 1% risk
0.1 = 1/10th of 1% risk
0.01= 1/100th of 1% risk
0.07= 7/100th of 1% life time risk of a LCD for any 1 of our 50,000 non-smoking servers.

Only in an anti-smoker's demented,deluded mind could 7/100ths of 1% be considered an unacceptably high life time level of risk!!!!

The odds of one of our servers dying a LCD is 0/50,000 before the age of 35 and 1/50,000 per year afterwards with a lifetime odds of 1/1,351(50,000 divided by 37).

No one is calling for cars to be banned;but,here are our servers' odds of death from driving around in their cars:

Per year= 1/6,539(as compared to 0/50,000 and 1/50,000)

Lifetime = 1/84( as compared to 1/1,351)

No one worries about second hand exposure to cars; but,here are the odds of death to people walking around and getting whacked by cars!

Per year = 1/48,816

Lifetime = 1/627

http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx
Odds of Death Due to Injury, United States, 2005

Type of Accident or Manner of Injury...One Year Odds...... Lifetime Odds


Motor-Vehicle Accidents..........................1/6,539................1/84

Pedestrian............................................1/48,816...............1/627

[gary k]

This was posted by 'ADMIN' last Spring;unfortunately,Maryetta did not post a link.

It shows that over half of the lungs transplanted are 'SMOKER'S LUNGS'!!!

But, I trust her!!
..........................................

And finally I will allow the American College of Chest Physicians to have the last say. As announced in October of 2003, this group of highly knowledgeable and skilled doctors use the lungs of smokers for transplants to patients who needed them to expand the list of available donors.

This more than doubled the number of transplants done.

Tests run by the University of Texas Health Science center stated no comprise in patient health or compilations, even with the lungs of smokers after 20 pack years.

When you consider that the ratio of smoke that a smoker breaths in to what a passive smoker does is 75,000 to 1(OSHA -1994), what does that say about the grossly over stated harms of passive smoking?

[gary k]

Anti-smokers claim that there is 'NO SAFE LEVEL' of exposure to SHS/ETS.
...........
The obvious question is: "As compared to what?"

The 1993 EPA Report said that a non-smoker's risk for Lung Cancer death(LCD) is 1/10,000 per year and a non-smoker exposed to SHS/ETS has a 20% increased risk over that.

That is .2/10,000 per year or 1/50,000 chance of LCD per year.


We will take 50,000, non-smoking, 20 year old food/drink servers and put them to work where they are exposed to SHS/ETS.

Here we see that there are 'NO' smoking related adult deaths below the age of 35 and the average age of death is about 72.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf

R E G U L A T I O N • V O L . 2 1 , N O . 4 , 1 9 9 8
LIES, DAMNEDLIES,& 400,000
SMOKING-RELATED DEATHS
Table 4
U.S. Smoking-Attributable Mortality by Cause and Age of Death
1990-1994 Annual Average


Our 50,000 servers will have 'NO' LCD's before the age of 35 and 1 per year after that or 37/50,000 by the average age of death of 72.

No one worries about second hand exposure to cars; but,here are the odds of death to people walking around and getting whacked by cars!

Per year = 1/48,816

http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx
Odds of Death Due to Injury, United States, 2005

Our 50,000 non-smoking servers will have one pedestrian death per year(second hand automobile) for each of the 52 years between 20 and 72.

52 deaths from second hand exposure to cars is 40% greater than the 37 LCD's from SHS/ETS exposure.

Our non-smoking servers' level of exposure to SHS/ETS is 'MUCH' safer than their level of second hand exposure to automobiles!!!

[gary k]

Non-smoker's risk of Coronary Heart Disease death due to ETS/SHS exposure

http://www.doh.wa.gov/hws/doc/CD/CD-HRT2007.pdf

Coronary Heart Disease(CHD)

The age-adjusted coronary heart disease mortality rate in the United States = 151 deaths per 100,000 in 2004.
...............
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184016,00.html
(The study appears in the Feb. 14, 2006 issue of the American Heart Association journal 'Circulation'.)

Smokers and nonsmokers had similar lifetime risks for cardiovascular disease.
...................
Nonsmokers are about 80% of the adult population and they would have about 120 CHD deaths per 100,000.

That is 60/50,000 CHD deaths for nonsmokers.

2006 SG's Report says that nonsmokers exposed to SHS/ETS have a 25% increased risk of CHD death.

Thus,non-smokers exposed to SHS/ETS would suffer 15/50,000 CHD deaths.

We will take 50,000, non-smoking, 20 year old food/drink servers and put them to work where they are exposed to SHS/ETS.

Here we see that there are 'NO' smoking related adult deaths below the age of 35 and the average age of death is about 72.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf

R E G U L A T I O N • V O L . 2 1 , N O . 4 , 1 9 9 8
LIES, DAMNEDLIES,& 400,000
SMOKING-RELATED DEATHS
Table 4
U.S. Smoking-Attributable Mortality by Cause and Age of Death
1990-1994 Annual Average

Let's see just how much risk there is for of a non-smoker dying a CHD death in any one given year and life-time.

There would be 'ZERO' CHD deaths before the age of 35.

After the age of 35, non-smokers exposed to SHS/ETS would suffer 15/50,000 CHD deaths per year.

That means 49,985 nonsmokers per 50,000 will not have a CHD death per year or there is a .9997 chance they will not suffer a CHD death.

That is 99.97% of the exposed non-smokers will not suffer a CHD death.

15/50,000 exposed nonsmokers having a CHD death is a .0003 risk rate for CHD death.

That is a .03% chance.
1.0 = 1% risk
0.1 = 1/10th of 1% risk
0.01= 1/100th of 1% risk
0.03= 3/100ths of a 1% risk per year of a CHD death.

Only in an anti-smoker's demented,deluded mind could 3/100ths of 1% be considered an unacceptably high level of risk!!!!

OK, let's look at the life time risk.

Our 50,000 nonsmoking servers will have 'NO' CHD deaths before the age of 35 and 15 per year after that or 555/50,000 by the average age of death of 72.

This shows us that,after 52 years of exposure to SHS/ETS, 49,445 out of the 50,000 will 'NOT' have died a CHD death.

That is,98.89% of them will not die a CHD death and the life time risk rate of a CHD death for any one of them is .01!!!!

That is a 1.0% chance.

Only in an anti-smoker's demented,deluded mind could a 1% risk of CHD death after 52 years of exposure to ETS/SHS be considered an unacceptably high life time level of risk!!!!

The odds of one of our servers dying a CHD death is 0/50,000 before the age of 35 and 15/50,000 per year afterwards with a lifetime odds of 1/90(50,000 divided by 555).

No one is calling for cars to be banned because they are too risky;but,here are our servers' odds of death from driving around in their cars:

Lifetime = 1/84( as compared to 1/90)
Our servers will not spend 40 hours per week in cars;but,most of them will work and be exposed to SHS/ETS for that long.

http://www.nsc.org/research/odds.aspx
Odds of Death Due to Injury, United States, 2005

Type of Accident ......... Lifetime Odds
Motor-Vehicle Accidents........1/84

[gary k]

Will smoking bans and less exposure to SHS/ETS prevent diseases and death?

NO, it has not and will not!!

Since 1965 smoking in the United States has declined by over 47
percent among people age 18 and older.

SHS/ETS exposure has declined about 75%.

The Cardiovascular Disease incidence rate has increased 26% over the 1970 incidence rate.

There has been a 43% increase in lung cancer deaths since 1970.

There has been a 74% increase in COPD(emphysema) deaths since 1979.

Since 1980 asthma death rates overall have increased more than 50% among all genders, age groups and ethnic groups.

The asthma death rate for children under 19 years old has increased by nearly 80%

The adult smoking rate had been steady for many years before 1965,there was no big increase after WW2 to justify the big increases in disease and death that we have seen over the last 3-4 decades.

Why do health authorities make such a big fuss over SHS/ETS?
Perhaps it is to keep people and politicians from noticing the death toll that they cause.

This was published on July 23, 2002:
The Chicago Tribune analyzed records from patient databases, court cases, 5,810 hospitals, as well as 75 federal and state agencies and found 103,000 cases of death due to hospital infections each year.

That is TWICE the claimed deaths caused by SHS/ETS!!

In case you missed it,this was in the Sunday paper supplement.

Posted are bits of the article.

PARADE MAGAZINE
Don't Let A Hospital Make You Sick
By Dr. Ranit Mishori
Publication Date: 02/08/2009

Isn’t a sick person always safer in the hospital than at home?

My answer—and plenty of studies support it—was an emphatic “no.” From hospital-acquired infections to medication errors to surgical mistakes, being a hospital patient carries a risk of its own, known as “preventable complications.” Millions of these occur every year.

An Institute of Medicine study estimated that nearly 98,000 Americans die each year due to medical errors. “It is a very serious problem,” says Joe McCannon, vice president of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.

That also is TWICE the claimed deaths caused by SHS/ETS!!


http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/to ... hap_6.html

1939: STATISTICS: Fortune magazine finds 53% of adult American males smoke; 66% of males under 40 smoke.
1949: CONSUMPTION: 44-47% of all adult Americans smoke; over 50% of men, and about 33% of women.

1965:Smoking Status: 42.4% of all adult Americans smoke; 51.9% of men and 33.9% of women.

http://www.americanheart.org/downloadab ... Update.pdf

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics — 2005 Update
Page 32:
Since 1965 smoking in the United States has declined by 47
percent among people age 18 and older. (Health, United
States, 2004, CDC/NCHS)

Page 6:
Hospital Discharges for Cardiovascular Diseases
United States: 1970–2002

1970= about 3.2 million
(population was 203.3 million,CVD incidence rate of 1/63.5 people)

2002= about 6.2 million
(population was 290 million,CVD incidence rate of 1/46.8 people-this is a 26% increase over the 1970 incidence rate)

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf

Health,United States,2006
Page 212
Table 39 (page 1 of 3). Death rates for malignant neoplasms of trachea, bronchus, and lung, by age: United States, selected years 1950–2004
[Data are based on death certificates]

All persons: Deaths per 100,000 resident population
All ages, age-adjusted

1970 = 37.1

2004 = 53.2

This is a 43% increase in lung cancer deaths over a time period when smoking rates have decreased by about 50%!!!


TRENDS IN CHRONIC BRONCHITIS AND EMPHYSEMA MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY;
AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION;
EPIDEMIOLOGY & STATISTICS UNIT;
RESEARCH AND PROGRAM SERVICES
MAY 2005

COPD Age Adjusted Death Rates Population, 1979-2002
Age-Adjusted Death Rate per 100,000 Persons

1979 = 24.2

2002 = 42.0

That is a 74% increase in COPD deaths.

Source: Age Standardization of Death Rates: Implementation of the Year 2000 Standard. National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 47 No. 3.
Additional Calculations Performed by the American Lung Association, Epidemiology and Statistics Unit.



Smoke and the Asthma Epidemic:

Date of original release: 7/17/00

In the United States, the incidence of adult and childhood asthma has climbed to an unprecedented high during the past twenty years, while smoking and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke [ETS] have decreased significantly during the same period.

"...Between 1980 and 1995, the number of people reporting asthma in the U.S. more than doubled (from 6.7 million to 13.7 million) , a 75% increase in the rate per 100,000 population. And, after a sharp increase beginning in the early 1990's, the rate is still climbing.

The Center for Disease Control estimates the 1998 rate at 17.3 million, a 150% increase since 1980."

http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=8&sub=42

The prevalence of asthma has been increasing since the early 1980's across all age, sex and racial groups.

Mortality:Since 1980 asthma death rates overall have increased more than 50% among all genders, age groups and ethnic groups.

The death rate for children under 19 years old has increased by nearly 80% percent since 1980.

[gary k]

"This was published on July 23, 2002:
The Chicago Tribune analyzed records from patient databases, court cases, 5,810 hospitals, as well as 75 federal and state agencies and found 103,000 cases of death due to hospital infections each year.

That is TWICE the claimed deaths caused by SHS/ETS!! "
.....................
In case you missed it,this will be(or was) in the Sunday paper supplement.

Posted are bits of the article.

PARADE MAGAZINE
Don't Let A Hospital Make You Sick
By Dr. Ranit Mishori
Publication Date: 02/08/2009

Isn’t a sick person always safer in the hospital than at home?

My answer—and plenty of studies support it—was an emphatic “no.” From hospital-acquired infections to medication errors to surgical mistakes, being a hospital patient carries a risk of its own, known as “preventable complications.” Millions of these occur every year.

An Institute of Medicine study estimated that nearly 98,000 Americans die each year due to medical errors. “It is a very serious problem,” says Joe McCannon, vice president of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.

Hospital-Acquired Infections
The Risk: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that 99,000 patients a year die from hospital-borne infections. Germs are everywhere: on surfaces, doorknobs—e ven your doctor’s necktie.

Surgical Errors
The Risk: About 1300 times a year, surgeons operate on the wrong person or remove the wrong limb or organ. Also, doctors leave surgical instruments inside the body once in every 5000 surgeries.(NOTE: 32,000 deaths per year-GK)

Medication Errors
The Risk: Giving the wrong drug, administering the wrong dose, mixing drugs that interact badly, or giving a medication to which a patient is allergic—all can be deadly. Unfortunately, such mistakes are not rare. Adverse drug events cause one out of five injuries or deaths to hospital patients in the U.S.
(NOTE: Over 100,000 deaths per year-GK)

Not mentioned are bedsore deaths,malnutrution deaths, and the deaths that happen to out-patient visits like Doctors office prescriptions.

50,000 claimed deaths due to SHS/ETS exposure and hundreds of thousands of deaths due to exposure to the health care community.

[gary k]

TC and health authorities and their lies.

SHS/ETS exposure may be a 'risk factor' for lung cancer;but, one should consider how it matches with other risk factors for death.

According to the 1993 EPA report, non-smokers have a 1/10,000 yearly risk of lung cancer death.

That EPA report said that non-smokers exposed to SHS/ETS have a risk for lung cancer that is .2% greater than the non-smokers or .2/10,000 or 1/50,000 yearly risk of dying from lung cancer caused by SHS/ETS exposure. .

CDC data says that there are no smoking related adult deaths under the age of 35.

Let's compare 50,000, 36 year old, non-smoker hospitality workers that are exposed to SHS/ETS for 40 hours per week and 50,000 ,36 year old, non-smokers that are being admitted into a hospital for treatment once a year.

(iatrogenic refers to adverse effects or complications caused by or resulting from medical treatment, in addition to harmful consequences of actions by physicians, iatrogenesis can also refer to actions by other healthcare professionals, such as psychologists, therapists, pharmacists, nurses, and others.)

http://qshc.bmj.com/cgi/content/...bstract/13/1/ 76

Iatrogenic illness on a general medical service at a university hospital*
K Steel, P M Gertman, C Crescenzi, J Anderson

Geriatrics Section and the Section of Health Care Research, Evans Memorial Department of Clinical Research, Department of Medicine, University Hospital, Boston University Medical Center, 720 Harrison Ave, Suite 503, Boston, MA 02118, USA

ABSTRACT
We found that 36% of 815 consecutive patients on a general medical service of a university hospital had an iatrogenic illness.

In 9% of all persons admitted, the incident was considered major in that it threatened life or produced considerable disability.

In 2% of the 815 patients, the iatrogenic illness was believed to contribute to the death of the patient.

2% of our 50,000 non-smoker hospital admissions is 1,000 deaths.

Our 50,000 hospitality workers would have ONE lung cancer death caused by the exposure to SHS/ETS.

In this case,hospitals are 1,000 times more deadly than SHS/ETS.

http://hcup.ahrq.gov/HCUPnet.asp

The total number of patient discharges from hospitals in the United States in 2001 was 37,187,641.

37,187,641 times .02(2%) equals 743,753 iatrogenic deaths in the USA per year!!

That 743,753 hospital/doctor in hospital caused deaths absolutely DWARFS the estimated number of smoking related deaths per year(440,000).

To the 743,753 hospital iatrogenic deaths could be added the about 200,000 out-patient iatrogenic deaths per year.

When health authorities claim that smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths, they are just trying to divert attention away from themselves and the bloody carnage that they cause.

These people should have a warning message tattoed on their foreheads.

The rest of the TC advocates are only too happy to go along with the agenda.

[gary k]

Many thanks to Dave Kuneman for this.


Reference Guide on Epidemiology, Michael D. Green, D. Mical Freedman & Leon Gordis
http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/looku ... iman06.pdf

Page 384
When the relative risk reaches 2.0, the agent is responsible for an equal number
of cases of disease as all other background causes. Thus, a relative risk of 2.0
implies a 50% likelihood that an exposed individual’s disease was caused by the agent.
....................................................
An RR of 1.5 implies that there is a 66.7% chance a disease was caused by other background causes and only a 33.3% chance it was caused by the agent.(1 is 2/3rds of 1.5)

SG's 2006 Report states that the RR for heart disease/lung cancer due to SHS exposure is 1.2 to 1.3(average RR= 1.25).

Thus, if a nonsmoker is exposed to SHS and gets heart disease/lung cancer there is only a 20% chance the heart disease/lung cancer can be attributed to SHS and an 80% chance the heart disease/lung cancer was caused by other risk factors!!!
( 1 is 80% of 1.25)

Smoking bans would do very darn little to prevent those diseases from happening to non-smoking hospitality workers!!

The 1993 EPA Report gave a RR of 1.19 for lung cancer due to spousal smoking.
The EPA called SHS a cancer causing agent when there is an 84% chance that a spouse's lung cancer is due to other risk factors.