Of course this is due to Ryan’s good work!

I have to laugh where is this 70% majority they keep talking about.  From the article.

Miller provided the city clerk with signatures from 3,000 Fond du Lac residents and 3,600 patrons from neighboring communities who are opposed to a smoking ban.

OK that is 6600 against as opposed to.

SAFE members collected more than 2,000 signatures in favor of the ban from people who live and work in Fond du Lac and patronize Fond du Lac businesses. The group is credited with bringing the proposed ordinance to the council.

6600 Oppose 2000 Favor a ban yup that looks like a 70% majority to me!

Oh an I absolutely love this part

Post said he felt Council President Tim Lakin’s PowerPoint presentation at the meeting about the loss of revenue and business by Madison tavern owners was “inappropriate use of his position.”

Lakin said the meeting agenda is “dictated by the president.” He said the presentation wasn’t an attempt to stifle proponents of a ban but to show the effect on business.

“It doesn’t surprise me they cried foul,” Lakin said after the meeting.

In the presentation, the owner of a Madison bowling alley said a smoking ban in his community put him at a “competitive disadvantage.”

The owner said he lost 200 bowlers who moved to other lanes.

He said the average bowler represents $500 to his business.

“I’m down in every aspect of my business,” the owner said.

But wait I thought the ban In Madison was good for business? Please don’t tell me they were lying again!

Police Chief Tony Barthuly said his officers would enforce a smoking ban only if they were headed into a tavern to check for underage drinking or other violations.

“I don’t have the manpower or the time to do that,” he said.

To this I only have one word to say . . . . Ohio.

Actually if you do the Math 77% oppose the ban.

Or so says Dr. Post of the Fond du Lac Board of Health.

To which I will stand firmly and soundly against every single time.

Why? Because there is no right to work and no person can dictate their own working conditions unless they own the place of employment. People like Mr. Post (sorry, but I have to respect somebody to call them by their title) have forgotten that sometimes choice is all we have and sometimes we have to make choices that aren’t perfect. It’s called life. Mr. Post seems to think that everybody should have everything handed to them as they want it.

To which I say PHOOEY! I will take Mr. Post to task on this any time… After all, I am an American, and that’s what we do. We fight for our right to live free.

So we salute the efforts in Fond du Lac on behalf of freedom and choice. They had their hearing last night and heard arguments for and against the ban. We’ll try to stay ahead of the news here. There’s two weeks before they vote. There’s no time to build up more arguments. Just time to fight.

This is big bully government at its worst.  LaCrosse County Health and Human Services is imposing their will on small business owners in rural areas, knowing full-well that these mom and pop shops don’t have the power (or the time, for that matter) to fight these tyrants.

These small businesses are mere pawns in the game of a statewide smoking ban.  Once little taverns in unincorporated areas start losing their business to nearby taverns in towns and cities that don’t have bans (which will happen instantaneously), the ban proponents are hoping that there will then be a call for a statewide ban to ‘level the playing field’.  They’ll say, “Look how unfair these patchwork of bans are to these small business owners!”…as if they really care.

Let’s not mince words…these ban proponents are evil and calculating tyrants hell-bent on destroying small business, under the guise of caring about you (which they don’t).

Contact the LaCrosse County Department of Health and Human Services by filling out this web contact form, and tell them that you see through their little charade.  Better yet, call them at (608) 785-5875.  Here’s a list of folks you may want to talk with:

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Sharon Hampson, Chair

Jill Billings, Vice-Chair

Margaret Wood

Bill Brockmiller

Tammy Gamroth

Robert Erickson

Loren Kannenberg

Dr. James Glasser

David Trapp

Well, the ball is rolling and four complaints have now been officially filed with the US Deptartment of Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity over the 2006 Surgeon General’s report. Four different groups from four different areas of the country filed complaints in a coordinated effort as well as a show of solidarity and force.

Here is BtBWI’s contribution (or in PDF form)

Many concerns about errors in the 2006 Surgeon General’s report, The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General have arisen.  We know that Forces International, Opponents of Ohio Bans, the Hawaii Smokers Alliance and BantheBan-Wisconsin have filed formal complaints with the Office of Research Integrity (ORI).  Moreover, many outstanding researchers, such as Dr. Elizabeth Whelan and Dr. Michael Seigel, have aired rather serious flaws in the report.  According to § 93.402 ORI allegation assessments (part a) of the “Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct; Final Rule,” Federal Register, Vol. 70, No. 94, P. 28392 concerning Rules and Regulations, the ORI “may conduct an initial assessment or refer the matter to the relevant institution for an assessment, inquiry, or other appropriate actions.”

Funding Jurisdiction

As stated in  § 93.402 ORI allegation assessments part (b), the ORI “considers whether the allegation of research misconduct appears to fall within the definition of research misconduct, appears to involve PHS supported biomedical or behavior research, research training or activities related to that research or research training, as provided in § 93.102, and whether it is sufficiently specific so that potential evidence may be identified and sufficiently substantive to warrant an inquiry.”  In short, the ORI is responsible for investigating scientific misconduct in research, reports and studies funded by the Public Health Service (PHS).   According to http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/, “[t]he Office of the Surgeon General, under the direction of the Surgeon General, oversees the operations of the 6,000-member Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service and provides support for the Surgeon General in the accomplishment of his other duties.”  Therefore, whether or not the 2006 Surgeon General’s report exhibits research misconduct as defined by the ORI should be investigated by the ORI.  In particular, as per § 93.403 ORI review of research misconduct proceedings, “ORI may conduct reviews of research misconduct proceedings. In conducting its review, ORI may (a) Determine whether there is HHS jurisdiction under this part”.  The launch of the 2006 Surgeon General’s report was given by “Vice Admiral Richard H. Carmona, M.D., M.P.H, FACS, United States Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services .“  The jurisdiction is clear and verified.

Significant Departure from Accepted Practices of the Relevant Research Community

According to § 93.104 Requirements for findings of research misconduct, “[a] finding of research misconduct made under this part requires that (a) There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and (b) The misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly; and (c) The allegation be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.”

The vast majority of results are well below the accepted threshold for publishable studies according to experts in the field of epidemiology, especially when confidence intervals tend to be wide and biological plausibility is called into question.  Two authoritative epidemiologists gave illustrative quotes in “Epidemiology faces its limits”:

“As a general rule of thumb,” says Angel of the New England Journal, “we are looking for a relative risk of 3.0 or more [before accepting a paper for publication], particularly if it is biologically implausible or of it’s a brand new finding,”   Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration, puts it bluntly: “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3.0 or 4.0, forget it”

Clearly, although relatively small RR values are not always taken with a grain of salt, the fact is that any value assigned to relative risk must have a narrow confidence interval to indicate the reliability of the result(s).  In addition, absolute risk is never discussed in relation to the relative risks.

In the file containing the 2006 Surgeon General’s report, a simple search on “RR” yields a list of instances of RRs reported in the 2006 Surgeon General’s report.  The list is given in the enclosed table (page numbers corresponding to the PDF page numbers, not to the publication page numbers).  The list is lengthy, the results are highly inconsistent, and many of the studies are woefully inadequate for inclusion in a serious discussion of science.  Of the results cited in the 2006 Surgeon General’s report with significantly high RR values, the confidence intervals tend to be extremely wide, usually the result of extremely low sample sizes.  Some of the larger studies are listed here:

·         Enstrom JE, Kabat GC. Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960–98. British Medical Journal, 2003;326(7398):1057.

·         Blettner M, Zeeb H, Langner I, Hammer GP, Schafft T. “Mortality from Cancer and Other Causes among Airline Cabin Attendants in Germany, 1960-1997,” American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 156, No. 6.

·         Wu-Williams AH, Dai XD, Blot W, Xu ZY, Sun XW, Xiao HP, Stone BJ, Yu SF, Feng YP, Ershow AG, et al. Lung cancer among women in north-east China. British Journal of Cancer 1990;62(6):982–7.

·         Boffetta P, Agudo A, Ahrens W, Benhamou E, Benhamou S, Darby SC, Ferro G, Fortes C, Gonzalez CA, Jöckel K-H, et al. Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1998;90(19):1440–50.

The Enstrom study was incorrectly dismissed as not having been published in time for inclusion in the 2006 Surgeon General’s report, despite the fact that it had been completed, subjected to peer review, accepted and published in the prestigious British Journal of Medicine.  The Blettner study was not mentioned at all.  The Wu-Williams study was dismissed as “anomalous” despite the fact that it’s conclusions, showing a significant reversal of harm from exposure to SHS/ETS, is indeed congruous with the other largest studies, including the Boffetta study.  Hence the largest studies with the most reliable results were either omitted or disregarded.  Coupled with the fact that the studies used in the 2006 Surgeon General’s report were relatively small with more erratic results and confidence, this is highly unusual and unacceptable practice for a meta-analysis in epidemiology.

From “Defending legitimate epidemiologic research: combating Lysenko pseudoscience”:

The BMJ study has a major impact on the meta-analysis, as pointed out in our 2003 BMJ letter [29] and our 2006 meta-analysis [39]. Note that inclusion of BMJ results yields a relative risk (RR) of CHD death in the U.S. of 1.05 (0.99–1.11), based on a comparison of current to never exposure to ETS. This is much less than the summary RR (exposed/unexposed) of 1.27 (1.19–1.36) contained in Figure 8.1. The Surgeon General’s Report should have pointed out that the ETS and CHD relationship is much larger outside of the U.S. than it is within the U.S. We estimated that the RR outside the U.S. is approximately 1.5 [39] and the 1999 Thun meta-analysis found the RR was 1.41 (1.21–1.65) [32]. This large difference between the RRs within the U.S. and those outside of the U.S. is worthy of further discussion and investigation, in order to determine if it is a real difference or an anomaly due to methodological issues.

However, we do note that the Surgeon General relied on one large meta-analysis, namely the 1992 EPA report, , Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders.  This EPA report was discredited by three congressional committees, a federal and numerous well-respected researchers.  The words of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (July, 1993) are eerily appropriate for current findings on the 2006 Surgeon General’s report:

EPA’s risk assessment on ETS released in January of this year claims that ETS exposure is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer cases per year in the United States.   Analysis of the risk assessment reveals, however, that EPA was able to reach that conclusion only by ignoring or discounting major studies, and by deviating from generally accepted scientific standards.

The result of the significant departure from standard practices in epidemiology in SHS/ETS studies has been dire.  We refer to Carl V Phillips’ “Warning: Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science”  from the October 22, 2007 issue of  Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations:

When Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations called for submissions that analyzed cases of abuse of epidemiology or epidemiologists by organized political interests, we expected to discover stories about industry and government, the entities most typically associated with using their power to the detriment of science….It turned out that all of the submissions we received about stories that had not previously appeared in the literature involved attacks on epidemiologists or epidemiology by anti-tobacco activists. Two of those submissions (both of which relate to the effects of passive exposure to cigarette smoke (a.k.a. “secondhand smoke” or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)) appear with this commentary.

This outcome was particularly striking to me, since between the time of the first call for papers and this publication, I too became the target of abuse by anti-tobacco activists. This coincidence allows me to offer further information and insight in this commentary.

In the instance of the Surgeon General, this significant departure is most alarming.  With the enclosed table, we have proven the obvious allegation of significant departure from accepted practice in the use of epidemiology and meta-analyses by a preponderance of the evidence.  We suggest that perhaps the Surgeon General recklessly committed this misconduct from a zeal to demonize tobacco use, although we make no inferences as to whether or not he did so knowingly or willfully.  However, as the highest healthcare authority in the United States of America, he certainly should have known better.  The enclosed table and discussion here certainly demonstrate a “preponderance of the evidence”.

For your convenience and easy reference, we provide a copy of this letter at http://banthebanwisconsin.com/documents/oriletter.pdf. The hyperlinks provide easy access to the discussed reports, quotes and judicial proceedings.  We look forward to your reply.

“This really is a surreal experience,” Carmona said. “It is as if the fairy godmother reached out and touched me and cast me in the best Disney movie ever made.”

Under questioning, Carmona didn’t dispute reports that it took him eight years to win board certification in his field, general surgery, and that he failed the exam twice.

“I don’t think anyone has ever questioned my ability,” he told the committee. He said he passed the test within the window allowed by the board.

Carmona dismissed reports that he brings a confrontational style to his work. He said he has been “an agent of change” in leadership positions, improving systems that he led.

“At times that’s upsetting to people who live in the status quo,” he said. “Those who do step out may be characterized as confrontational. I always treated my patients, staff and co-workers with respect.” Referring to a dispute with a co-worker who complained about his behavior, Carmona said there were disagreements but “never was there any yelling, screaming.”

The complaints against him were detailed in letters to Kennedy from a University of Arizona colleague, Dr. Charles W. Putnam, and a health advocacy group as well as in a report in the Los Angeles Times.

Putnam, a fellow surgery professor at Arizona, contended Carmona was unfit to become surgeon general due to his lack of experience in health policy and an inability to work “in an effective or even a civil manner” with others.

Putnam also argued that Carmona’s work on a sheriff’s SWAT team was in direct conflict with his duty as a physician to “do no harm.” He cited an incident where Carmona shot and killed a mentally ill man who was a suspect in a murder.

In 1999, Carmona spotted one driver assaulting another after a car accident and intervened. Shot at, Carmona fired back and — as the administration tells it — tried to stanch the man’s ultimately fatal wound. The assailant, who was mentally ill, turned out to have been a murder suspect who had stabbed his father to death that day.

However, some reports indicated that Carmona had acted differently. The Los Angeles Times quoted a police interview with Carmona at the scene indicating that, in fact, he did not try to save the man after shooting him but went to his car to reload his revolver.

Putman questioned whether his action was fitting for a surgeon general.

“Whatever the precise circumstances of that encounter … it is patently clear that Sheriff Carmona … not Dr. Carmona was at center stage in that emergency. Could not a physician have recognized the behavior of a mentally ill individual and responded in kind?” he wrote.

Others in public health share this concern.

“Am I proud that our surgeon general (nominee) shoots people? … I don’t find that inspiring,” Dr. James Curran, dean of the Emory School of Public Health, said in an interview. He predicted that the administration would regret the nomination. “This guy is a cowboy.”

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (AP) _ The latest casualty of the economic crisis may be the ban on smoking in Atlantic City casinos.

The City Council moved Wednesday night to postpone for a year a law that was to take effect next week banning smoking from the gambling floor. A final vote will be held in two weeks.

The council was showered with boos as it narrowly gave the delay preliminary approval. One person in the packed chambers shouted that the council “gave us a death sentence.”

The casinos and the head of their largest workers union asked the council to put the ban on hold until the economy improves.

They fear deep losses and significant layoffs if smokers take their money elsewhere. Some casinos in nearby states do not restrict smoking.

Yesterday Ryan brought up the fact that LaCrosse County was under fire and how they were trying to use DNR air quality standards to justify it. Talk about trying to compare apples to rocks . . . you might as well try to measure the temperature of water using a ruler. Ignoring the fact that this study was done by a biased group namely various tobacco control groups whose bias is apparent, don’t believe me here is the study.

The DNR standards are not only designed for outdoor air quality, they were designed to be measured over a long period of time and averaged out.

Most of the air quality standards are based on a particular time length for averaging, and the average concentration during that time. For a violation to be recorded the average concentration, usually rounded to the same number of significant digits as the standard, must be greater than the standard during the specified averaging period.

Now exactly how does the DNR use these numbers.

2. Method of Comparison for the 24-hour Standard.

* Determine the 98th percentile value by the following method:
1. Arrange from highest value to lowest value all 24-hour measurments for a calendar year.
2. Assign the number one to the lowest value, the number two to the second value and so on untill each of the values is assigned a number, with the largest number (n) being assigned to the highest value .
3. Multiply the largest number(n) times 0.98.
4. The whole number part of the above product, plus one, is the number of the 98th percentile value.
5. Using the value number obtained in step “D”, determine the 98th percentile value by matching the value number to the list in step “B”.

* Average the 98th percentile value with the 98th percentile values of two other consecutive years.

* Round the above three-year average to the nearest one microgram per cubic meter (ug/m)3. Use the convention that if the number 5 is found in the tenths place, the number rounds up.

* If the rounded three-year average of the 98th percentile values is greater than 65 ug/m3, a violation of the standard has occurred.

Now did these activist take the required 24 hour samples over a three year period and apply them in the correct formula. Absolutely not! From the study!

Unlike the testing protocol conducted by the DNR and EPA which collects samples 24 hours per day over a number of days, the monitoring conducted for this study was taken over 30 minutes on a single occasion. For many establishments a longer study, especially over 24 hours would not be relevant to their health and safety concerns.

Would not be relevant? What bullshit! They take an outdoor standard which was intended to be a time averaged outdoor standard changed the rules of the standard and called the thresholds peak threshold and applied them to a 30 minute interval. So in essence they are trying to measure the air temperature using nothing but a ruler!

Not to mention that many parts of Wisconsin already have background particulate pollution that already are in the moderate to unhealthy category.
http://dnr.wi.gov/air/PDF/tsp_background_march_2004.pdf

Places like Milwaukee were in the moderate to unhealthy 75% of the time in 2005.
http://dnr.wi.gov/air/aq/monitor/pm25trends.html

If they were honest they would go into a factory or a welding shop take the same measurements so that we would have an honest comparison. Why didn’t they? Well that is obvious, for the same reason they didn’t use the proper indoor measurements which would be the OSHA guidelines, there would be no shock value. Since this is for the health of the worker why didn’t they take these same measurements in the kitchen of a non-smoking establishment. Same reason the kitchen would fail and they would lose the shock value.

Without some serious filtering it would be virtually impossible for the air quality of the inside air to exceed that of the outside air, There is a reason the standards are stricter for outside air quality.  The bottom line is if you don’t like a smoky enviroment, don’t go to an establishment that allows it.

The proposed LaCrosse County smoking ban passed the first hurdle and will be going to the County Board on October 16. Needless to say, this is an unwise move. Amongst everything else that’s wrong with smoking bans, do we really need to have local governments meddling in - and further damaging - the economy in this time of economic turmoil?

I have prepared a form letter and would encourage everybody - not just LaCrosse residents - to fill out the “to” and “from” blocks and send it to every member of the county board. I am preparing a more in-depth letter that will be sent to each board member as well. Email it, print it and mail it, call them. Just make sure that they know that they are in the wrong here.

All of the board members’ contact information can be found here.

It seems like we have been bringing this up too many times lately, but the gestapo in Chippewa Falls is apparently very persistant.

Either way, the proposal was killed again last night. I guess the leaders in Chippewa Falls are smarter than their neighbors!