Families 'fear smokers will die early'

Jason Gaskell, pictured at home in Darlington with his grandson Morgan.

Jason Gaskell, pictured at home in Darlington with his grandson Morgan.

First published in News The Northern Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Health & Education Editor

SEVEN out of 10 smokers in the North-East say their family worries about them dying at an earlier age, according to figures released ahead of a TV campaign.

As Fresh Smoke Free North-East re-launches its ‘Don’t be the 1’ advertising campaign - urging smokers in the region to quit - the new survey lays bare the worry of children and partners losing someone special to the addiction.

Half of smokers die early from a smoking related illness, some in their forties, and latest figures show that 5,600 North-East smokers aged over-35 die every year from a smoking-related disease – 15 deaths a day.

When the TV campaign first launched in February, nearly 14,000 people responded with 63 per cent of smokers saying they were more concerned after seeing it.

The survey, carried out by Fresh following the campaign, found that: 68 per cent of smokers say their family worry about them smoking and would like them to stop; 85 per cent of smokers wish they’d never started; 75 per cent of smokers were concerned about the health risks and 72 per cent of smokers are concerned about not being around for their loved ones in the future as a result of smoking.

Having watched his dad, Derrick’s, health deteriorate because of smoking-related Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Jason Gaskell, 45, from Darlington, quit his 20-a-day cigarette habit to be around longer for his loved ones, including grandson Morgan.

Mr Gaskell, who worries that his daughters smoke, said: “I didn’t want to put my family through all of the pain of having a disease like COPD. I’m a granddad myself now – so I was determined to stop once and for all to be around for the Morgan growing-up."

“When I quit it was life changing. I had never previously thought about running, but took it up to occupy my time and to prevent me from putting on any weight.”

Despite one in two long term smokers dying early, nine out of 10 smokers seriously underestimate the risks.

Ahead of the TV advert screened from Wednesday August 21, Fresh is urging the North East's 460,000 smokers to quit and be around longer for their loved-ones.

Anyone who would like to quit smoking can find details about local stop smoking service support and links to free online quitting tools at dontbethe1.tv

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:26pm Tue 19 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

This is really fun, and oh-so typical.

Einstein College recently studied folks who lived past age 95. The reluctantly reported result: “People who live to 95 or older are no more virtuous than the rest of us in terms of their diet, exercise routine or smoking and drinking habits.”

Einstein College press release:

http://www.einstein.
yu.edu/home/news_pr … 78&pt=news

Did you notice in link above that they just state that the very old smoked about as much as did people who died younger, with no detail given, although detail is given regarding eating, boozing, exercise, and so on? Well, when it came to publishing the abstract with the National Institutes of Health, they ignore smoking results entirely! They do say that smoking was studied, but make no mention whatsoever that smoking was not shown to impair longevity: again, as with the press release, precise detail is given regarding other studied factors, but when it came to smoking — the holy taboo of all holy taboos — they simply couldn’t bear even to mention their own finding!

Here it is: the official NIH abstract:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed/21812
767
This is really fun, and oh-so typical. Einstein College recently studied folks who lived past age 95. The reluctantly reported result: “People who live to 95 or older are no more virtuous than the rest of us in terms of their diet, exercise routine or smoking and drinking habits.” Einstein College press release: http://www.einstein. yu.edu/home/news_pr … 78&pt=news Did you notice in link above that they just state that the very old smoked about as much as did people who died younger, with no detail given, although detail is given regarding eating, boozing, exercise, and so on? Well, when it came to publishing the abstract with the National Institutes of Health, they ignore smoking results entirely! They do say that smoking was studied, but make no mention whatsoever that smoking was not shown to impair longevity: again, as with the press release, precise detail is given regarding other studied factors, but when it came to smoking — the holy taboo of all holy taboos — they simply couldn’t bear even to mention their own finding! Here it is: the official NIH abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pubmed/21812 767 harleyrider1777
  • Score: 3

12:28pm Tue 19 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

There are no smoking related diseases they are in FACT OLD AGE DISEASES! Cleverly the tobacco prohibitionists started renamimg old age diseases as smoking related in the 1950s and 60s yet have no proof that smoking causes a single disease in anyone or anything!

JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS"
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.


http://cot.food.gov.
uk/pdfs/cotstatement
tobacco0409


"5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease."

In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
There are no smoking related diseases they are in FACT OLD AGE DISEASES! Cleverly the tobacco prohibitionists started renamimg old age diseases as smoking related in the 1950s and 60s yet have no proof that smoking causes a single disease in anyone or anything! JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS" 7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18 November 2004. http://cot.food.gov. uk/pdfs/cotstatement tobacco0409 "5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease." In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does. The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory. harleyrider1777
  • Score: 2

12:29pm Tue 19 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

http://boltonsmokers
club.wordpress.com/t
he-mctear-case-the-a
nalysis/

(2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
(2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
lung cancer.

In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
(paras. to ).
In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras. to
).
Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation! It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’): http://boltonsmokers club.wordpress.com/t he-mctear-case-the-a nalysis/ (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in 2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages. (2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right, therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused lung cancer. [9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation. Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker, it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer (paras.[6.172] to [6.185]). [9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to [7.181]). harleyrider1777
  • Score: 2

12:29pm Tue 19 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

Lung and Bronchus. Invasive Cancer Incidence Rates and 95% Confidence Intervals by Age and Race and Ethnicity, United States (Table 3.15.1.1M) *†‡

Rates are per 100,000 persons. Rates are per 100,000 persons.

Note the age where LC is found…………..O
LD AGE group incidence hits the 500/100,000 at age 75-85

AGE it seems is the deciding factor……….

http://apps.nccd.cdc
.gov/uscs/cancersbya
geandrace.aspx?Gende
r=Male&Count=false&P
opulation=false&Data
Type=Incidence&RateT
ype=CrudeType&Cancer
Site=All Cancer Sites Combined&Year=2010&S
ite=Lung and Bronchus&SurveyInsta
nceID=1
Lung and Bronchus. Invasive Cancer Incidence Rates and 95% Confidence Intervals by Age and Race and Ethnicity, United States (Table 3.15.1.1M) *†‡ Rates are per 100,000 persons. Rates are per 100,000 persons. Note the age where LC is found…………..O LD AGE group incidence hits the 500/100,000 at age 75-85 AGE it seems is the deciding factor………. http://apps.nccd.cdc .gov/uscs/cancersbya geandrace.aspx?Gende r=Male&Count=false&P opulation=false&Data Type=Incidence&RateT ype=CrudeType&Cancer Site=All Cancer Sites Combined&Year=2010&S ite=Lung and Bronchus&SurveyInsta nceID=1 harleyrider1777
  • Score: 2

12:30pm Tue 19 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors - of which smoking can be one.

Here's my all-time favorite "scientific" study of the the anti-smoking campaign: "Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths," Robert A. Levy and Rosalind B. Marimont, Journal of Regulation, Vol. 21 (4), 1998.

You can access the article for free on the Cato Institute's wesbite, Cato.org. This article neither defends nor promotes smoking. Rather it condemns the abuse of statistics to misinform and scare the public. Levy, by the way taught Statistics for Lawyers at Georgetown University Law School. There is also a popular law school class called How to Lie With Statistics.
Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors - of which smoking can be one. Here's my all-time favorite "scientific" study of the the anti-smoking campaign: "Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths," Robert A. Levy and Rosalind B. Marimont, Journal of Regulation, Vol. 21 (4), 1998. You can access the article for free on the Cato Institute's wesbite, Cato.org. This article neither defends nor promotes smoking. Rather it condemns the abuse of statistics to misinform and scare the public. Levy, by the way taught Statistics for Lawyers at Georgetown University Law School. There is also a popular law school class called How to Lie With Statistics. harleyrider1777
  • Score: 2

1:41pm Tue 19 Aug 14

harleyrider1777 says...

A dozen reasons to stub out the smoking ban

Musician Joe Jackson on why it's time to extinguish this illiberal, undemocratic, junk science-inspired legislation.

http://www.spiked-on
line.com/newsite/art
icle/9278#.U_MmjDYo5
9D
A dozen reasons to stub out the smoking ban Musician Joe Jackson on why it's time to extinguish this illiberal, undemocratic, junk science-inspired legislation. http://www.spiked-on line.com/newsite/art icle/9278#.U_MmjDYo5 9D harleyrider1777
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree