Head of CDC resigns after report says she purchased shares of a tobacco company while in office - Polidicks

[QUOTE=sgman91;53097906]Thank you for the clarification, but I'm still not seeing how any of that showed these stocks to have an effect on her work. Remember we had already had two posts, before my initial post, claiming that this was an example of corruption, that she was using her political power for her own financial gain. Clearly her conflicts of interests from before getting the job have had an effect because of the waivers that she had to sign, I don't disagree.[/QUOTE] Not testifying in front of Congress four times in seven months because of CoI recusals isn't an effect on her work? Having conflicts in the cancer and opioid arenas causing her to have to recuse herself from important CDC business related to ongoing health crisies isn't an impact on her work? I can't claim to be the authority on what the head of the CDC does on a moment-by-moment basis on the job, but if these self-imposed limitations have "no effect" on their work what does the position actually contribute to America? I have no argument to make on the matter of if the tobacco stocks are worth quitting over; I'm not informed enough in this situation to say it's a fatal blow. But it's just one of many conflicts and appearances of conflict she has and recently had following her around, and in the sum of things I think it's obvious that she shouldn't have been in the position she was appointed to.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;53097839][URL]https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm[/URL] I can't believe this is your argument. Wow.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=srobins;53097850]Have you ever heard of secondhand smoke?[/QUOTE] oh boy I have a lot to say about secondhand smoke. let's start with this, the cdc's stance is based on a meta-analysis by the epa where they cherry picked out half the available studies and still had to double their margin of error to get the conclusion they were looking for. no proper study (ie not a meta-analysis, but an actual study with test subjects and all) since the epa's analysis has come up with conclusive results saying it's bad (but several have come up with it being no big deal or is inconclusive either way) because theyre using the standard 95% confidence level instead of the 90% the epa adopted for that one singular analysis. further, there was a recent study on non-smoking full time bartenders working in establishments where there are always smokers, and found that they consumed on average the equivalent of 3 cigarettes annually. for comparison, you inhale more harmful substances in 8 hours of living in Los Angeles than you do working in a smoky bar for the same amount of time. second hand smoke does exist but the amount you inhale has near zero nicotine and no tar and unless 3 of your buddies are hotboxing a mini the particulates are somewhere in the range of 3 parts per million secondhand smoke is quite possibly the single most irrelevant point anyone can even imagine to bring to the table. you may as well have said "but what about GOATS" [editline]31st January 2018[/editline] of course the particulates are a mild irritant and if someone has asthma and gets stuck with someone who's hotboxing they're gonna have a bad time, but there has been no conclusive evidence from any real scientific study saying it's causes any long term problems.

[QUOTE=butre;53098170]oh boy I have a lot to say about secondhand smoke. let's start with this, the cdc's stance is based on a meta-analysis by the epa where they cherry picked out half the available studies and still had to double their margin of error to get the conclusion they were looking for. no proper study (ie not a meta-analysis, but an actual study with test subjects and all) since the epa's analysis has come up with conclusive results saying it's bad (but several have come up with it being no big deal or is inconclusive either way) because theyre using the standard 95% confidence level instead of the 90% the epa adopted for that one singular analysis. further, there was a recent study on non-smoking full time bartenders working in establishments where there are always smokers, and found that they consumed on average the equivalent of 3 cigarettes annually. for comparison, you inhale more harmful substances in 8 hours of living in Los Angeles than you do working in a smoky bar for the same amount of time. second hand smoke does exist but the amount you inhale has near zero nicotine and no tar and unless 3 of your buddies are hotboxing a mini the particulates are somewhere in the range of 3 parts per million secondhand smoke is quite possibly the single most irrelevant point anyone can even imagine to bring to the table. you may as well have said "but what about GOATS" [editline]31st January 2018[/editline] of course the particulates are a mild irritant and if someone has asthma and gets stuck with someone who's hotboxing they're gonna have a bad time, but there has been no conclusive evidence from any real scientific study saying it's causes any long term problems.[/QUOTE] It's a super rare occasion that I find myself agreeing with Butre but this is actually pretty accurate. The big danger is smoking with children in your house (or worse, in your car).

The big surprise here is that someone in the current administration has shame.

[QUOTE=phygon;53098305]It's a super rare occasion that I find myself agreeing with Butre but this is actually pretty accurate. The big danger is smoking with children in your house (or worse, in your car).[/QUOTE] even then, there's no significant danger. there was another study I read about a while back about non smokers living with smokers long term and it found after 30 years the incidence of heart disease and cancer were slightly higher than average within this group, but not high enough to be statistically significant. in other words, it makes fuck all difference. now of course an infant is going to be significantly more susceptible to lung irritants, but just smoke outside or in a smoking room like a sensible person and this won't be an issue.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53098532]There honestly aren't enough studies on the topic to make an assumption in one way or another, medical science hesitates to change things when there are only a handful of studies. More are coming out, but I doubt that they'll change the rhetoric around smoking.[/QUOTE] I mean, if new studies show that second hand smoke isn't as harmful as we thought it was, don't they have a responsibility to change the rhetoric concerning second hand smoke so that it lines up with the science?

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53098511]If you smoke in your house or car, you're going to smell like shit constantly. Everyone living there, aswell.[/QUOTE] while true, smelling bad isnt hazardous to your health

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;53098616]Can be if you're a school-going child with bullies.[/QUOTE] I don't think people getting beat up is something within the cdc's jurisdiction

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;53098618]No but the other effects of smoking are indeed proven hazardous for your health. So much so that the more we study smokers, the more deadly the reality of smoking becomes. While second hand smoke is up for debate, the actual effects of smoking on the smoker aren't.[/QUOTE] there's no doubt that smoking kills, but all the credible studies that are out there point to it only killing the smoker, not everyone the smoker has ever loved

[QUOTE=butre;53098629]there's no doubt that smoking kills, but all the credible studies that are out there point to it only killing the smoker, not everyone the smoker has ever loved[/QUOTE] No, most recent studies are inconclusive, mainly because there are lots of compounding factors when you're studying environmental effects. You can't ethically subject humans to studies where there's risk of significant harm. This pretty well rules out methods of direct measurement. This is also a problem people run into when identifying carcinogens. What we do have evidence of though is that health outcomes generally improve for people in places where restrictions are placed on secondhand smoke.

[QUOTE=butre;53098170]oh boy I have a lot to say about secondhand smoke. let's start with this, the cdc's stance is based on a meta-analysis by the epa where they cherry picked out half the available studies and still had to double their margin of error to get the conclusion they were looking for. no proper study (ie not a meta-analysis, but an actual study with test subjects and all) since the epa's analysis has come up with conclusive results saying it's bad (but several have come up with it being no big deal or is inconclusive either way) because theyre using the standard 95% confidence level instead of the 90% the epa adopted for that one singular analysis. [/QUOTE] 90%? What the fuck, that means that there's a 10% chance that their entire study (even after cherrypicking) falsely rejected the null hypothesis. The standard for most medical studies in at least 95%, and oftentimes 99% is used. 90% is what you use for shit like sociology and psychology (which has a massive problem in non-reproducible studies).

[QUOTE=The Aussie;53098713]90%? What the fuck, that means that there's a 10% chance that their entire study (even after cherrypicking) falsely rejected the null hypothesis. The standard for most medical studies in at least 95%, and oftentimes 99% is used. 90% is what you use for shit like sociology and psychology (which has a massive problem in non-reproducible studies).[/QUOTE] yep. you can see it in the original report here (ctrl+f and search confidence, look towards the end of the page) [url]https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-09/documents/passive_smoke.pdf[/url] for medical studies 95% is what you expect out of a student paper. if a government agency sets anything with a worse confidence level than 99% you can pretty much expect it to be completely bunk [editline]1st February 2018[/editline] e: just checked, look at 106/111, they try and fail to explain how they decided 90% was a good number there [editline]1st February 2018[/editline] [url]https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-01/documents/reducing_exposure_to_secondhandsmoke_us_progress_since_epas_1993_landmark_report.pdf[/url] the january 2018 followup is hilarious because the nonsmoking households graph follows dead on the trend against smoking ("i dont smoke so this is a smoke free household" isn't statistically relevant) nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke section is totally garbage on account of recall bias and there's no data that actually shows that any of the reductions in smoking in general has actually done anything good for the population

[QUOTE=butre;53097782]smoking only causes direct harm to people who choose to smoke anyway, and all smokers know the health risks. don't want copd? easy, don't smoke[/QUOTE] That's not true in the fucking least and you know it. Second-hand smoke is fucking dangerous.

[QUOTE=Chris Morris;53099419]That's not true in the fucking least and you know it. Second-hand smoke is fucking dangerous.[/QUOTE] I already covered this. second hand smoke is bunk. there is literally zero evidence suggesting that it's harmful in any meaningful way

[QUOTE=butre;53099420]I already covered this. second hand smoke is bunk. there is literally zero evidence suggesting that it's harmful in any meaningful way[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44330/[/url] You didn't look very hard.

Whether second hand smoke is proven to be bad or not, it's better to stay on the safe side - not to mention that second hand smoke is annoying for everyone else. The change in public opinion on second hand smoke has spurred legislation that has made public places way more enjoyable for the vast majority who don't smoke. Smoking is something that should be inconvenient as well - if the fear of hurting your child makes you stop, I honestly don't care whether that should be a real concern. In the end you're helping your child have their parents for longer anyway.

[QUOTE=The Aussie;53098713]90%? What the fuck, that means that there's a 10% chance that their entire study (even after cherrypicking) falsely rejected the null hypothesis. The standard for most medical studies in at least 95%, and oftentimes 99% is used. 90% is what you use for shit like sociology and psychology (which has a massive problem in non-reproducible studies).[/QUOTE] Replication is a massive issue in medicine as well, along with relatively high levels of misconduct reports. Turns out good science is often prohibitively expensive. And even when the confidence interval is fine, there can be other issues. One thing psychologists joke about a lot is that they have an incredibly in-depth understanding of college students, but no-one else, because they're the most available research subjects.

[QUOTE=butre;53099420]I already covered this. second hand smoke is bunk. there is literally zero evidence suggesting that it's harmful in any meaningful way[/QUOTE] Really? Secondhand smoke is "bunk?" There have been studies that doubt how harmful the effects really are, but consider that most places in the US ban indoor smoking. That was not the case a few decades ago, when smoking in offices, restaurants, airplanes, closed-window vehicles, and so on was the norm. People who developed cancer or lung disease from years of sitting in smoke-filled offices, even when they'd never smoked in their life, would really challenge the idea that secondhand smoke is "bunk." I smoke, and the simple fact that most everyone in the modern U.S. smokes outside makes secondhand smoke a negligible issue. When the wind carries your smoke away, and it doesn't linger, and it isn't being blown into other people's respiratory systems, yeah, secondhand smoke is basically a non-issue. The concern isn't about how secondhand smoke effects you when you walk past someone smoking a cigarette on the street and a wispy tail of smoke passes by your face - you probably inhale worse just from nearby car exhaust. The concern is more about areas without proper air circulation, like buildings and vehicles, where the smoke lingers in the air and doesn't dissipate. That kind of secondhand smoke is demonstrably dangerous to your long-term health, since oxygen free radicals and other carcinogens remain present in measurable amounts in the air, and are necessarily inhaled by people who breathe that air. Saying "secondhand smoke is bunk" is incredibly ignorant. Carcinogenic particulate matter lingers in the air from cigarettes, and in high enough concentrations they can absolutely lead to cancer. Cigarette smoke doesn't magically lose all carcinogenic properties once inhaled. In an isolated system with poor circulation, smoke lingers, in the same way smog used to plague the California coastline and currently plagues the Chinese coastline. You're basically making the argument that air pollution isn't real - and while you're right that secondhand smoke from a guy smoking a cigarette across the street isn't very dangerous, it is demonstrably dangerous in closed environments. Children raised by heavy indoor smokers are pretty clear-cut evidence of this, since they have much higher incidences of respiratory issues than the general population.

[QUOTE=Zombinie;53097334]Why isn't it a criminal offense to abuse your position of political power for personal financial gain, exactly? Why isn't it illegal to make decisions while in high governmental office that compromise your impartiality and dedication to your job duties? This shit happens way too much, I feel like our entire government is bought out by oligarchs and no one ever suffers for their malpractice except for the American people.[/QUOTE] Because the only people with the ability to make it illegal are the ones who benefit from that kind of behavior. [QUOTE=gokiyono;53097345]Politicians basically[/QUOTE] FTFY