|
|
Misology in America Part 2Misology in America Part 2 Misology is the hatred of objective knowledge gained by the scrupulous use of the scientific method when it contradicts the political goals, ideology or religious faith of the misologists. Misologists dominate the discussion of public policies in several areas in the modern world. In the United States misologists predominate in the media, the universities, the schools, and among the elected politicians and the clergy. In Part 1 I presented evidence that the misologists dominate the public discussion of the distribution of the general mental ability factor or IQ in various identifiable human genetic clusterings. For many decades the public health authorities, the media and politicians have propagated dire warnings about the harmfulness of smoking tobacco products for the individual smoker. When these dire warnings failed to persuade all smokers to stop, the public health authorities began propagating dire warnings about the effects of passive inhalation of tobacco smoke by non-smokers. I am not going to suggest that smoking tobacco products will make smokers more successful marathon runners, but I do suggest that relying upon the misologists currently in power for accurate advice on any issue is imprudent. If the “official” truth that smoking tobacco is a horrifying health hazard is true, then international statistics on the rate of tobacco use in different countries should show a consistent relationship to the number of people who die from cancer and from heart disease in these countries. Austria is the country with the highest rate of daily smokers in the world. 36.3% percent of Austrians smoke every day. 280 Austrians per 100,000 die of cancer each year. 109.3 Austrians die of hearth disease each year. Greece is the country with the second highest rate of daily smokers in the world. 35% of Greeks smoke every day. 68.8 Greeks per 100,000 die of heart disease each year. The number of Greeks who die from cancer each year is so low that that Greece does not appear in the international statistics of the for the countries with the highest rates of cancer deaths. Hungary is the country with the third highest rate of daily smokers in the world. 33.8% of Hungarians smoke every day. 411 Hungarians per 100,000 die of cancer each year. 192.1 Hungarians per 100,000 die of heart disease each year. Luxembourg is the country with the fourth highest rate of daily smokers in the world. 33% of Luxembourgers smoke every day. 409.7 Luxembourgers per 100,000 die of cancer each year but only 68.9 per 100, 000 die of heart disease. The United States is far down the list of countries where people smoke tobacco daily. In fact, the United States is ranked as 29th. Only 17.5% of Americans smoke tobacco every day. However, 321.9 Americans per 100, 000 die of cancer each year and 106.5 Americans per 100,000 die of heart disease each year. I find it astonishing that more people are dying of cancer per 100, 000 in the United States where only 17.5% of people smoke tobacco every day than in Austria where 36.3 % of people smoke tobacco every day. Let us look at the list of the sixteen countries where the most people smoke tobacco products every day. #1 Austria: 36.3% #8 Japan: 30.3% #9 Spain: 28.1% #10 Denmark: 28% #12 Belgium: 27% #14 France: 27% #15 Switzerland: 26.8% #16 Mexico: 26.4% How many of the top sixteen smoking nations are in the top sixteen nations for worst rates of cancer deaths? Only six! Austria Luxembourg: Netherlands: Ireland: France: How many of the top sixteen smoking nations are in the top sixteen nations for worst rates of heart disease deaths? Only five! Austria Hungary Denmark Belgium France How many of the sixteen countries with the worst rates of cancer deaths are among the sixteen countries with the highest daily rates of tobacco smoking? Only six! Netherlands Hungary Luxembourg Ireland France Austria How many of the sixteen countries with the worst rates of heart disease deaths are among the sixteen countries with the highest daily rates of tobacco smoking? Only four! Hungary Ireland Austria Denmark A rational person ought to conclude that the correlation between smoking tobacco products daily and horrible health consequences is quite weak. Peter Finch is a professor of mathematical statistics in Australia. He has contributed to The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Information Sciences, The Australian Journal of Statistics, The Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Acta Mathematica Scientia, Biometrics, The European Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology, as well as to such books as The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, The Encyclopedia of Statistical Science and The Foundations of Statistical Theories in the Physical Sciences. He has concluded that “even if one accepts the edited versions of the facts presented by health promoters, then their message should perhaps more accurately be: smoking kills relatively infrequently.” How infrequently? Professor Finch points out that for every 100,000 smokers 99, 841 will not get lung cancer as a result of smoking. That is right. 99.841 percent of smokers will not get lung cancer as a result of smoking. Ninety-nine thousand eight hundred and forty-one is a very large number. As I previous contributed regarding the alleged risks of secondhand tobacco smoke, the damage caused by inhaling secondhand tobacco smoke is too small to measure.
Posted by Robert Reis on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 03:53 AM in Health Comments:2
Posted by Robert Reis on December 23, 2007, 01:00 AM | # http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2004/results_merged/sect_15_lung_bronchus.pdf Dear Desmond, This is the best I could do. Cheers, RER 3
Posted by Desmond Jones on December 23, 2007, 03:47 AM | # Thanks Robert. Sorry to put you to so much trouble. 4
Posted by Christopher Edge on December 24, 2007, 08:05 PM | # The autopsy performed on my father (a life-long smoker, from 14 to 72) showed that, at the time of death, he was suffering from emphysema, an aneurysm of the aorta, lung cancer, and that his brain was scarred due to a stroke in recent years. The “cause of death” given was “pneumonia”. So just what the Hell do your idiotic statistics prove? Are you employed by the tobacco industry? 5
Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 24, 2007, 11:57 PM | # I agree with the blogger that second-hand smoke is harmless. The big to-do about it a few years back was completely trumped-up and political. Christopher Edge however makes a good point: let no one forget that lung cancer is only one health risk of smoking. Others include emphysema/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart attacks, strokes, cancers of the mouth and throat, arterial insufficiency of the lower extremities, and many others. If someone wants to be as healthy as possible, cigarette smoking just is not on. And yes, it confers a degree of protectin against Parkinson’s disease and, I believe, breast cancer. No matter: it’s still not on. 6
Posted by Valerie McTaggart on December 27, 2007, 11:01 PM | # What it boils down to is: look at the whole damn picture, not just parts & pieces, no matter what the issue is. I would like to see you take a stab at the pathetic HIV alone-causes-AIDS hypothesis. Such garbage: it was invented to have a reason to build a giant industry. Dr. Peter Duesberg refuted all the ridiculous claims of the virus-hunters, and for his trouble was damned thoroughly. The AIDS profiteers tell us that, what, 30% of everybody in Africa has the HI virus? Have they tested everybody in Africa? Of course not. But if a bunch of Africans are sickly and weak, aha, it’s “AIDS”. And they need what? Circumcisions and anti-virus drugs! Look it up, friends, look it up. Duesberg & Brian Ellison wrote a book refuting the nonsense of AIDS, and their book was banned. 7
Posted by larch on December 28, 2007, 11:46 AM | # Brilliant. If we say that smoking is an important contributing cause for *lung* cancer, then comparing smoking to general cancer rates isn’t exactly the appropriate metric is it? Actually, smoking is just *one* of possible contributing causes for lung cancer; others may include radon, viruses, asbestos exposure, randon mutation, etc. Smoking increases the *risk* for *lung* cancer; the epidemiological evidence for that is quite strong. However, lung cancer is, of course, just one of many types of cancer, and other factors, such as diet and environmental exposures, not to mention genetics, influences general cancer rates around the globe. Wth respect to heart disease, yes, smoking increases *risk*, but don’t you think that diet, stress, and genetics play roles as well? To naively graph smoking rates against general cancer rates or against heart disease, without considering cancer type as well as various other influencing factors, is quite absurd. And what the hell does any of this have to do with racial and cultural preservation anyway? Is crackpot “science” going to attract thinking people to the blog? I’m not even going to bother with the McTaggert comment. 8
Posted by larch on December 28, 2007, 11:55 AM | # http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Epidemiology.html#cigarette So, with respect to cancer, it’s primarily lung cancer, along with cancer of the mouth and throat, which show the greatest enhancement with smoking. Rate changes in other forms of cancer are relatively low, and if countries like Greece show diet-induced inhibition of these other forms of cancer, it wouldn’t be surprising that overall cancer rates are lower there. Smoking enhances the risk for heart disease, but diet can be reasonably seen as being more important; a person’s HDL and LDL and cholesterol ratings are a more important contributor to heart disease than smoking. That doesn’t mean that smoking has no negative effect on cardiovascular health. 9
Posted by larch on December 28, 2007, 11:57 AM | # This may be of relevance also, no? “A rational person ought to conclude that the correlation between smoking tobacco products daily and horrible health consequences is quite weak.” No, a rational person ought to conclude that you don’t know what you’re talking about. 10
Posted by larch on December 28, 2007, 12:14 PM | # Here’s a link to the Finch article which, for some reason, was not given in the original post: Finch is correct concerning the relative infrequency of lung cancer. Then again, for *any* particular disease or way of dying, the relative frequency for any given individual is going to be low. Only death itself is a given, the way and timing varies considerably. That’s not a reason to ignore the heightened relative risk for aspects of health that are under your control. The chances of dying in an automobile accident are low for any given individual, even if they drive recklessly on a daily basis. The chances of being “passively killed” by a reckless driver are similarly low. However, the greatly heightened risk should be considered superfluous; thus, traffic laws. Now if people want to smoke, so be it, but I’m not interested in inhaling their carcinogens. You need to distinguish between raw rates and heightened risk. I’ll agree with Finch that the person needs to balance the costs/benefits. Howver, given that non-smokers don’t derive any “benefit” from someone else’s “pleasure” in smoking, even a small increase in the raw risk rate (which may translate into a significant heightened relative risk) is a cost with no counterbalancing “benefit.” Next entry: White Nationalists Should Negotiate Settlement with Lakota Nationalists Previous entry: Hi! I’m Carolyn Doran! |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. Hyman commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/09/12, 05:47 AM. (go) (view) RES commented in entry 'Who caused the 2008 housing bubble to burst in the U.S.?' on 02/09/12, 05:44 AM. (go) (view) Robert Reis commented in entry 'Free speech and open discussion issues' on 02/09/12, 04:07 AM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/09/12, 12:27 AM. (go) (view) anon commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 11:18 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:51 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 10:28 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 09:48 PM. (go) (view) Mary commented in entry 'Anti-white ideology is like anti-biotic overuse' on 02/08/12, 09:24 PM. (go) (view) J Richards commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 09:04 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 08:15 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 08:09 PM. (go) (view) Guessedworker commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 07:52 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 07:48 PM. (go) (view) jamesUK commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 07:36 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 07:10 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 06:49 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:45 PM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 06:27 PM. (go) (view) marloe commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 06:21 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:17 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 06:08 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:07 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 06:03 PM. (go) (view) Ivan commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 05:53 PM. (go) (view) Jimmy Marr commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 05:51 PM. (go) (view) dc commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 05:13 PM. (go) (view) Lurker commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 04:55 PM. (go) (view) MP commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 04:43 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 04:31 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 04:07 PM. (go) (view) Wild Bill commented in entry 'Bowery Goes Stark!' on 02/08/12, 04:02 PM. (go) (view) Graham_Lister commented in entry 'The communitarian critique of liberalism left and right' on 02/08/12, 03:47 PM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Aquilon Speaks: Moscow 2010' on 02/08/12, 03:24 PM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Desmond Jones on December 20, 2007, 03:41 PM | #
I find it astonishing that more people are dying of cancer per 100, 000 in the United States where only 17.5% of people smoke tobacco every day than in Austria where 36.3 % of people smoke tobacco every day.
Can you break the US numbers down by race? In other words compare white Americans to Austrians.