Gene Borio loses the plot.

Gene Borio is one of those fundamentalist anti smokers who you can easily imagine foaming at the mouth that someone disagrees with him. You can see from his rant at me that the last thing on his mind is empirical evidence and rational argument.

The good news in the Borio household, I assume someone somewhere might like him, it must be a bumper year for presents. After all Borio’s refund from the Charm School must be due about now.

I posted the first comment in the Kentucky Kernel a newspaper and then Borio soiled himself. Professor Chapman earlier, Gene Borio today, next Debs Arnott of ASH might pick up the keyboard, who knows.

“I am sure many of you did not believe Bill Clinton when he said he did not have “sexual relations” with Monica Lewinsky. I am also sure that many of you did not believe that George W Bush’s assertion that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Yep the government lies to you as so it is with second hand smoke (SHS).

The basic facts are that in a smoky bar a non smoker breathes in 1/100th of that of a smoker, in an airy room, 1/1,000 and outside 1/10,000th. Active smokers who smoke up to 4-5 cigarettes a day do not run any higher risk of lung cancer and heart disease.

We have been misled on a Biblical scale.

I will leave you with the words of Dr. Jerome Arnett a Pulmonolgist (lungs).

“In addition, influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas. The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty “scientific” outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money. Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers.”

Borio replies.

“Go back to England, Atherton! Quit spamming US with your BS.

You pandering Brit–

Yeah, sure, UK Freshmen didn’t believe Clinton in 1998–back when they were 5(!) And they sure didn’t believe Bush on WMDs in 2003, either–when they were 10. But even we Americans _do_ know a pulmonolgist’s area of expertise is the lungs. And that you don’t capitalize “pulmonologist” to make it look like a big deal.

Quit your pandering to the people you’re trying to mislead, you smarmy campaigner.

You know nothing about the US, you know nothing about our Universities or our students, and most especially, based on your authoritarian pronunciamentoes on secondhand smoke, you certainly know nothing about science or health.

You only how to spam hogwash all over the internet. I see your slop infests boards in the UK–you’ve probably been kicked off so many boards there that now you have to spam the US. Well get out.

PS: Your link to a tobacco-funded website citing a tobacco-funded study and a tossed-out-on-its-ear decision by an ex-tobacco-lobbyist judge doesn’t help your cause. That “Pulmonologist” also misunderstands–or deliberately misrepresents–confidence intervals, statistical significance and the 1995 CRS report–which in _no way_ disputed the findings of the 1993 EPA report.

It’s all just typical tobacco-funded swill. You’re the modern version of the Flat Earth Society–if the FES had its propaganda provided by an entire industry.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Gene Borio loses the plot.

  1. Pat Nurse says:

    And don’t forget that the most famous Flat Earth believer who put up prize money to anyone who could disprove his theory that the earth was flat was one of the biggest anti-smoker nutters of last century. W G Voliva from Illinois banned smoking in the whole town when not one shred of evidence had ever been shown of harm except for the imaginary phobia in his head.

    He believed that his diet of brazil nuts and buttermilk would ensure he lived to be 120. He died aged 70 of cancer.

    These are the sort of flat earth nutters that the anti-smoker industry, Debs, Arnot, Rollo, Borio and our own UK health dept are supporting. It is very true to say that the nutters have taken over the anti-smoker asylum.

    Well done Dave. Please keep it up and don’t let the mentally ill smokerphobics grind you down. Let them speak and show the world that their “science” is based on prejudice, lies, mental disorders, and hatred.

  2. JJ says:

    When the antis spew vitriol of this magnitude rather than give us substantial intrinsic scientific or medical evidence, then you know you have seriously undermined everything they stand for -and that is something they can’t live with.

    Keep it up Dave – the cracks are getting bigger by the day.

  3. There’s been a theory over here for a while now that Gene actually has gone over the edge from neurosis into psychosis on this issue. 25 years ago he was antismoking, but he was still fairly rational. At that time on the early internet, before he got funding from the big money boys, he tried to look for reasonable compromises to address the virtually total lack of accommodations for those who were either sensitive to smoke or just didn’t like it. Back in those days most grammar schools had a smoking break room for the teachers, very few store owners would blink an eye at selling a pack of smokes to a ten year old “for his mom,” nursing stations in the center of every hospital floor were wrapped in haze of smoke, and even the American Cancer Society refused to ban smoking in its own offices because it would have been “too dictatorial.”

    BUT… just like the rest of the antismoking movement, he was never satisfied with anything reasonable. And over the last three years or so his whole approach to the effort has undergone a radical and increasingly fanatical change. If you enter:

    GeneB Spammer

    into Google you will find literally hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of boards where he’s attacked Free Choice supporters as spammers, often trying to play the tarbrush game with innuendos about Big Tobacco (although he’s almost always careful to stay a few millimeters outside the libel limit), and also trying to play the “bandwagon card” on webmeisters with his constant claims that news boards everywhere are banning me and everyone else he doesn’t like. Meanwhile, if you look around a bit you’ll find Gene posting as “Gene,” “GeneB,” GeneBB,” “GeneBBB,” “GeneBBBB,” and “GeneB5” in order to overcome spam barriers from webmeisters annoyed at his constant off-topic attacks on people. Heh, it would almost be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

    An interesting sidelight: If you visit the Patch site where James Repace attacked several of us as “Tobacco Industry Spammers” and pled with the Patch editors to ban us when he couldn’t answer our arguments rationally, you’ll find some very interesting matchups of phraseology between Gene and James. Unfortunately for Mr. Repace, the effort didn’t work any better for him than it has for Gene. See:

    and note Mr. Repace’s VERY conspicuous absence at:

    Unlike Gene, it seems Mr. Repace was smart enough not to stick his hand back into the same cage where it almost got bitten off the last two or three times.

    – MJM

  4. Gary K. says:

    These people claim that it is 100% absolutely certain that 20% of the lung cancer/heart attack deaths that occur to never-smokers exposed to SHS are due to the SHS.

    They get that by finding 5 such deaths where they think there should be only 4.
    That is a RR=1.25 and since 0.25 is 20% of 1.25, 20% of those deaths are 100% certain to be ’caused’ by SHS.

    Stating which death is THE ONE is impossible; since, there is NO SUCH a type of death.

    Each death has a 1/5th chance of being THE ONE and out of 5 such deaths antis claim there MUST BE one that was ’caused’ by SHS.

    A simple use of dice shows that:
    1) There is a 33% probability that NONE of those deaths were ’caused’ by SHS.
    2) There is ONLY a 20% probability that any of those deaths were ’caused’ by SHS.

    Consider a 5 sided dice which has a 20% probability of coming up a particular number, such as 1.
    If you roll 2 such dice, your chances of getting a 1 are still 20%.(25 possible combinations of which only 5 are a single 1.)
    NOTE: Each extra dice adds 5 more faces to the numbers, 1/5 X 5= 5/25……5/25 X 5 = 25/125…etc

    Antis seem to claim that 20% times two dice gives you a 40% chance.

    Rolling 5 dice gives you the same 20%.(3,125 possible combinations of which only 625 are a single 1.)

    Each dice has a 4/5 chance of NOT coming up a 1.
    4/5 X 4/5 X 4/5 X 4/5 X 4/5 = 1,024/3,125 = 33% probabilty of NOT rolling a 1.

    Antis(in America) claim that there are 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart attack deaths to never smokers per year ’caused’ by exposure to SHS.

    There is a 33% probability that NONE of those deaths were ’caused’ by SHS and ONLY a 20% chance they were ’caused’ by SHS!!!!!!

  5. Gary K. says:

    In America, the antis claim there is a loss of $97 billion in productivity/wages due to smokers pre-mature deaths.

    However; when a smoker dies,the company will just hire another worker to earn those wages and there is NO loss to society of wages earned.

    Since there are many millions of un-employed, there is no shortage of people looking for work.

    Antis also claim that smokers cost society $96 billion per year in health care costs.

    Apparently they think that smokers get the money, put it jars, and bury the money somewhere.

    Actually, the money goes right to another part of society and that is the health care providers.

    There is NO net cost to cociety.

  6. junican says:

    Sometimes, Gary, I find your maths a bit confusing! So here is what I have just done:

    I have taken an ordinary, six-sided dice and rolled it six times. This must surely be the equivalent of rolling six dice all at the same time. I did not get a ‘one’ at all on the first occasion that I rolled the dice six times.
    I rolled the dice six times on five occasions (thirty rolls in all).. Sometimes I did not get a ‘one’ at all. Only once out of the five groups of six rolls did I get ‘one’ twice in a group.

    So we are saying this:

    When I roll the dice once, there is a 1/6 chance of a ‘one’ appearing. When I roll the dice six times (the equivalent of roliing six dice together at the same time), there is still only a 1/6 chance of a ‘one’ appearing. To put it another way, when I roll the dice once only, it is rather unlikely that a ‘one’ will show. If I roll the dice six times, there is an even chance that a ‘one’ will show. My little experiment shows it to be true that the 1/6 chance holds good since, when I roll six dice, I am creating six times six (36) chances of any number showing, but only six of these chances can be a ‘one’. QED. That’s better!

    I’m off to the pub. I will think about the rest while I am have a bevvy.

    • Gary K. says:

      “My little experiment shows it to be true that the 1/6 chance holds good since, when I roll six dice, I am creating six times six (36) chances of any number showing, but only six of these chances can be a ‘one’.”

      The 1 in 6 chances is true enough.

      The 6/36 is not true for six dice.
      Each time you add another dice you are adding 6 more faces and the previous numbers would be multiplied by 6.

      The odds would look like this:
      one dice = 1/6
      two dice = 1/6 x 6 = 6/36 = 1/6
      three dice = 6/36 x 6 =36/216 = 1/6
      six dice = 7,776 /46,656 = 1/6

      This is all very niice; but, it is needlessly complicated and for that I apologise.

      A simpler idea is this, I hope.

      Antis state that never-smokers exposed to SHS will have 5 lung cancer deaths and that 1 of them,with 100% certainty, must be ’caused’ by the SHS.

      In effect, the antis are claiming that if you flip two coins and one comes up tails there is a 100% certainty that the other must come up heads.

  7. Junican, if you have one bevvy, there is a one in six chance you will take a beautiful lass home with you.

    If you have six bevvies, there is a one in six chance you WON’T find your way home with or without a lass, beautiful or not.

    If you have ANOTHER six bevvies there is a one in six chance that you WILL find your way home, though very probably without a lass, beautiful or not, two legged or four legged, and if/when you get home there’s less than a one in six chance that you’ll be able to find your keys and not end up just sleeping on the doorstep.

    How ya like THEM odds?


  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    Gene Borio-merry christmas! LMAO

  9. Anonymous says:

    As a practising psychologist I am all for including “anti-smoking” in the revised edition of the DSM. The way these people act really is textbook. And they must be fairly severe for their poor mental health to come across in emails and random board postings. I’d also love to know where they got their training in research methodology. If I could use some of the shortcuts and methods it would certainly make my working life a lot easier.

  10. “Quit your pandering to the people you’re trying to mislead, you smarmy campaigner”

    He’s a fine one to talk, what an arsehole!

  11. junican says:

    Hic! Well, I have arrived home somehow. There was a girl in the pub whom I have known for some years – she is about 29. A lovely girl, but a bit too big for little me. I asked her where she had been since I had not seen her for a couple of months. She said that she does not go out as much these days. In its own little way, that bears out what Frank Davis has been saying – the social lives of even the young are being compromised. I wonder when the pubcos will wake up and realise that the smoking ban is losing them the custom of a generation of young people?

    Gary, please do not apologise! Your figures are not needlessly complicated. The reason that I used a six sided dice is because it is easier to imagine than a five sided dice. Also, because it is ‘equivalent’ to an RR of 1.20 (isn’t it?), which is not much different to 1.25.

    My understanding of what the tobacco Control quacks have been trying to do is to get together many studies which all (or at least the ones that they cherry-pick) show an RR of, say, 1.20. They then claim massive support of a 1.20 RR. Then they convert the 1.20 into thousands of hypothetical people. But my view is that all these studies are, individually, showing zero real risk in statistical terms, and that 100 times zero is still zero, for all intents and purposes. That is the statistical trick which is being employed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s