As we all know the claimed deaths due to second hand smoke are all computer generated. There has yet to be one confirmed death by ETS. What is not well known is the deaths caused by smoking are also computer generated. They not only are computer generated but the numbers spit out have remained unchanged for over twenty years. Could it be like Repace’s math trick, no matter what numbers you put into it you get the same results?
SAMMEC is the name of the computer program. Its initials stand for Smoking Attributed Morbidity, Mortality, and Economic Cost. Nickie McWhirter in “Computer blows out smoking-related death figures with no real human facts.” tries to find out about the computer and who wrote the program. Guess what she found? Nothing, she finally got a hold of the guy who runs the computer but he is unsure about the programing and the original authors.
SAMMEC Operations Manager, Richard Lawton, phoned. SAMMEC, I
learned, is the name of the computer program. Its initials stand for Smoking
Attributed Morbidity, Mortality, and Economic Cost. The computer is fed raw
data and SAMMEC employs various complex mathematical formulas to determine
how many people in various age groups, locations, and heaven knows what other
categories are likely to get sick or die from what diseases and how many of
these can be assumed to be smoking related.
He said he thought the original work concerning real people, their deaths and evidence of smoking involvement was part of work done by a couple of epidemiologists, A.M. and D.E.
Lilienfeld. It’s all in a book titled Foundations of Epidemiology, published
about 1980 by Oxford University Press, he said. SAMMEC came later, based on
the Lilienfeld’s work. Maybe. He wasn’t sure.
So there you have it, like the Star Trek show, where a war was done by computer and the casualties stepped in a disintegration chamber.
If you would like to read more on the inaccuracies of the SAMMEC computer FORCES has an excellent article.
Filed under: anti insanity, health issues, reality check | Tagged: anti insanity, Health, health issues, reality check, Smoke-Free Wisconsin, smoking, smoking ban
That’s pretty funny. As soon as I read the headline, I thought of the Star Trek episode with war fought by computer and compliant citizens walking into the disintegration chambers. But in the real world, the only ones sent to the disintegration chambers as punishment for computer-generated deaths are bar owners and smokers.
These deaths are all called premature.
When I was born,65 years ago,my life expectancy at birth was 63 years.
My death now could not be premature when I have already exceed my average life expectancy at birth!!
About 60% of the SAMMEC smokers deaths occur at age 70 or later.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5472
That 60% would be exceeding their life expectancy at birth by at least 7+ years.
http://www.data-yard.net/10/cdca.htm
THE OFFICIAL ANSWER OF THE CDC TO THE LEVY/MARIMONT LETTER
May 14, 1999
(AN EXCERPT)
Finally, the authors say that smoking-related deaths estimated by CDC are not real deaths, but “computer-generated phantom deaths” using non-representative populations to calculate risk. In 1989, the State of Oregon asked physicians to report on death certificates whether tobacco use contributed to the death. Between 1989 and 1996, physicians reported that tobacco contributed to 20 percent of Oregon deaths, the exact percentage of deaths attributed to smoking over the same time period using CDC’s method.
This real-life experience provides strong evidence that the statistical methods used by CDC provide an accurate calculation of the real deaths occurring daily in the United States that are caused by tobacco use.
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=80&cat=2
Percent of Adults Who Smoke, 2007
Oregon = 16.8%
I would guess that in the early 1990’s the adult smoking rate for Oregon was about 20%.
There is absolutely no proof offered that they would not have died if they did not smoke.
Smokers in Oregon certainly suffered a death rate that was the same as nonsmokers.
More on this topic.
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/marim2.htm
THE LEVY/MARIMONT REBUTTAL
TO THE CDC’s OFFICIAL REPLY
(excerpted)
No one denies that smokers have a higher mortality rate than nonsmokers. The question is how much of the difference is due to smoking, and how much to such confounding factors as low income, less exercise, more alcohol consumed, poorer nutrition, and greater exposure to other carcinogens and infections. Eriksen says that “controlling for other risk factors” has a trivial effect on the death count. Regrettably, he does not refer to any peer-reviewed studies that reach that conclusion, nor does he indicate what other risk factors were controlled for. The Battelle report, prepared for CDC but not peer reviewed, did not control for diet, exercise, income, or occupational exposure. By comparison, the Sterling study, which we cite, was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology; it found that smoking-attributable death counts declined by 55 percent after simultaneous adjustments for alcohol consumption and income.
Finally, Eriksen takes exception to our charge that CDC’s estimates include “computer-generated phantom deaths, not real deaths.” His rejoinder: “In 1989, the State of Oregon asked physicians to report on death certificates whether tobacco use contributed to the death.” Those reports, boasts Eriksen, corroborate CDC’s estimate of deaths “attributed to smoking.” In fact, Eriksen’s attempted explanation proves our point, not his.
First, Oregon physicians — constantly bombarded by anti-smoking missives — whose opinions were substantiated neither by autopsies nor other rigorous evidence, can hardly be characterized as a reliable scientific source.
Second, to ask doctors whether one factor — tobacco use — “contributed to the death,” is to commit the very error that we criticize. Nearly all diseases have multiple causes. By urging that one cause be affirmed and all others ignored, the state of Oregon — its findings now adopted by CDC — has elicited statistics on causation that can most charitably be described as irrelevant.
On one hand, Oregon physicians report that “tobacco contributed” to 20 percent of deaths; on the other hand, CDC reports that 20 percent of deaths are “attributed to smoking.”
Those two statements — notwithstanding Eriksen’s insistence that they are equivalent — are vastly different.
Clearly, there are many more deaths to which tobacco contributed than there are deaths attributable to smoking.
That’s why the same calculations that yield 400,000 smoking-related deaths suggest that over 500,000 people die annually from insufficient exercise, over 600,000 die from poor nutrition, and on and on — double-counting and triple-counting without any real-world analogue.
When Eriksen proclaims that a checked box on a death certificate corresponds to a death caused by tobacco, he reminds us yet again that CDC’s attributable deaths are no more than a statistical artifact.
And a little more.
http://www.forces.org/tevidbar/bar8/wn.htm
Big lies about tobacco
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist, 05/10/99
……But here’s the rub – one of several rubs, actually: the CDC included in its death toll diseases for which the relative risk to smokers was statistically insignificant………
There’s more. For all the talk of protecting children, the average age of death from a smoking-related illness is 72.
The number of young people killed by smoking is – ZERO!!!
How do the SAMMEC deaths apply to SHS and Wisconsin and smoking bans?
Wis. has about 47,000 deaths per year which is about 2% of the national 2.4 million.
SHS contributes about 12% of the smoking caused deaths(53,000 divided by 427,000).
About 60% of the SAMMEC smokers deaths occur at age 70 or later.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5472
Thus,there are about 171,000 of the smoking related deaths occuring before the age of 70 and could be considered somewhat premature..
SHS would be about 20,500 deaths(171,000 x 12%).
the CDC included in its death toll diseases for which the relative risk to smokers was statistically insignificant,about 39 percent of them.
20,500 x 61% = 12,505 SHS deaths under the age of 70.
Wisconsin would have about 250 SHS deaths under the age of 70(12,505 x 2%).
None of these deaths would be under the age of 35;so “for the kids” is not a valid issue.
The average age of auto death is 39.
Wisconsin will have about 800 people die in auto accidents each year and about 400 will be under the age of 35.
So, if you are under 35, being in a car is immensely more dangerous than SHS exposure.
If you are between the ages of 35 to 69, being in a car is more hazardous to your life than is being exposed to SHS.
Most people have to use an auto to get around, they can avoid SHS exposure if they so choose.
Just a thought, abortions cause the deaths of about 11,000 babies per year in Wisconsin.
Most pro-smokingban people are all for legalized any reason abortions.
Those aborted/killed babies do not have a choice-do they!!!!
“Just a thought, abortions cause the deaths of about 11,000 babies per year in Wisconsin.”
……………..
If you think that number is too high,consider this, in 2000 there were over 1,300,000 ‘REPORTED’ abortions the the US.
That is about 25 times the ‘claimed’ deaths from SHS exposure.
There are 44 times as many babies aborted in Wis. as there are people under 70 ‘claimed’ to die from SHS exposure.
Smoke Free Wisconsin says that there are about 853 SHS caused deaths per year.
If only 40% of them are younger than 70,there are only 341 deaths caused by SHS exposure in that age group.
If Wisconsin is similiar to Illinois,there is 1 nonsmoking hospitality worker working in fullservice restaurants and bars(most fast food places do not allow smoking) per 156 people in the state.(1)
That shows that there are about 2 nonsmoking hospitality workers per year under the age of 70(most of them) dying from exposure to SHS,according to Smoke Free Wisconsin, in the whole state.
If a city has 500,000 population,a city wide smoking ban could be expected to prevent .18 worker’s(2/10ths of one) death per year.
If a city has a population of 100,000,a city wide smoking ban could be expected to prevent .036 worker’s(about 4/100th of one) death per year,according to smoke free Wisconsin.
Thus,in that city of 100,000, a smoking ban would prevent one hospitality worker’s death every 25 years.
That is for SHS exposure 40 hours per week.
A patron that is only exposed for 4 hours per week would have 1/10tth the hazard and you could expect it to take 250 years to prevent any one patron’s death.
(1) According to US Dept of Labor data,there are about 100,000 food servers and bartenders in fullservice restaurants and alcohol only bars in Illinois. If 20% of them smoke(state average) there are 80,000 nonsmokers.
12,500,000 people in Illinois divided by 80,000 is 156.
Ahhhh, I apologize for ranting on!!
Smoking ban advocates always say that state-wide smoking bans are needed for the health of hospitality workers and to prevent their premature deaths.
Here is a quick way to approximate how many of these premature deaths would be prevented in your state.
First some needed information.
How many workers are involved:
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrcst.htm
According to US Dept of Labor data,there are about 100,000 food servers and bartenders in full-service restaurants and alcohol only bars in Illinois.
Most fast food and some other places are already smokefree.
If 20% of them smoke(state average) there are 80,000 nonsmokers.
12,500,000 people in Illinois divided by 80,000 is 156.
SHS caused deaths:
Health advocates say that about 50,000 people die each year from SHS exposure.
Your states percentage:
Divide your states population by the 300 million US population.
For instance Wisconsin has 5.5 million people or about 2%.
Determine the number of SHS deaths in your state.
For instance Wis. would be about 1,000 SHS deaths(50,000 x.02% = 1,000).
Determine the number of ‘premature’ deaths.
The 50,000 SHS deaths is a CDC SAMMEC generated number.
None of the SAMMEC SHS caused deaths occur under the age of 35.
About 60% of the SAMMEC smokers deaths occur at age 70 or later.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5472
Anyone 70 years old was born about 1940.
The average life expectancy at birth for 1940 was about 63 years.
A death can not be called premature when the person has already exceeded their life expectancy at birth by at least 7 years.
That 60% would be exceeding their life expectancy at birth by at least 7 years.
Find the number of premature SHS deaths for your state:
For instance Wis. would have 1,000 x 40% or 400 deaths.
Determine the number of affected hospitality wokers.
In Illinois it was 1 per 156 people.
12,500,000 people in Illinois divided by 80,000 is 156.
For Wisconsin it would be 400 SHS deaths divided by 156 or about 2.6 premature hospitality worker deaths possibly prevented by a state-wide smoking ban.
To make the number even less important,consider this.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5472
The CDC included in its death toll diseases for which the relative risk to smokers was statistically insignificant,about 39 percent of them.
For Wis.,the SHS deaths would be 2.56 x .6% = 1.6 deaths prevented for the whole state!!
Thanks to Dave Kuneman for this.
So the Wisconsin ban might prevent 2.6 premature deaths each year;
but, if Wis. has 100,000 hospitality workers and each one loses 20% of his/her income, then according to http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/320/7239/898 each 1% decline in income causes 21/100,000 more premature deaths, or 420 premature deaths in the state if income loss is 20%.
Actually,Wisconsin’s population is 44% of Illinois’s and has about 44,000 hospitality workers.
420 x 44% = 185 premature deaths if the loss in wages is 20%.
185 minus the possible 2.6 prevented premature deaths is an extra 183 premature deaths that would be due to a statewide smoking ban in Wisconsin.
If they lost only 10%, the deaths would be 92.5, minus the possibly prevented 2.6 deaths= 90 excess premature deaths caused by the smoking ban!!!
A smoking Ban will be good for the health of hospitality workers in Wisconsin,what a lie!!!!