Smoking Conspiracy: Second Hand Smoke
In yet another bogus report, this time by Surgeon
General Richard Carmona, he claimes there is no safe level of secondhand smoke
and calls for a workplace ban on smoking.
"The scientific evidence is
now indisputable: second-hand smoke is not a mere annoyance," Carmona said. "It
is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in
children and nonsmoking adults."
"The scientific evidence is now
indisputable," he says.
The truth is every study used by the anti-smoking group on
second hand smoke has been proven to be flawed and the
data manipulated. A comprehensive list of these studies is illustrated in
the Environmental Protection Agency document EPA/600/6-90/006F, page 5-28 and
Writing in the National Post (Mar 25, 2000) Steven J. Milloy
"There is no controversy over whether second-hand smoke
can be a nuisance. But scientific studies purporting to link second-hand smoke
with health effects are invariably controversial. The Health Canada study is no
different. . . The statistical associations in the Health Canada study are
weak. And it has other shortcomings. Smoking itself is not an established risk
factor for breast cancer. . . In the financial world, legal remedies exist for
data omission and other fraudulent hijinks. Sadly, no system of accountability
disciplines rogue government agencies and their scientists who put political
agendas -- such as the anti-tobacco jihad -- ahead of sound science."
In fact, no study supports the anti-smoker's claims, even
after being manipulated. But, they defend their second hand smoke propaganda
because it effectively serves their purpose of advancing their socialist
A Smoking Jihad
The anti-smoking zealots in our society have declared a
holy war on smoking and are willing to advance their cause regardless of the
scientific evidence to the contrary. They have set aside common sense in favor
of some feely-feely politically correct nonsense.
"We believe the
health threats to children and adults from breathing second hand smoke are very
- EPA Administrator Carol Browner
Never mind the
evidence shows otherwise, but they "believe."
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) is hundreds or thousands
of times as dilute as mainstream smoke. Casual exposure to ETS (say a couple of
hours per week in a bar) exposes the non-smoker to perhaps one ten-thousandth
of what a smoker gets. Although the amount that gets into the bloodstream might
be measurable in a laboratory, the effect on the exposee would be difficult or
impossible to detect. Other factors such as the drinks our poor non-smoker
consumed while in the bar will potentially have far worse effects than the
second-hand smoke they inhaled.
"For the Children"
collectivist plea today is, "for the children," and the anti-smoking
propagandists have played this card to the hilt. They tell you, for example,
that the incidence of children with asthma is going up because of smoking.
Did you know... if the increased incidence of children with
asthma is going up because of smoking, why is it that when fewer people smoke
according to their statistics, then more children develop asthma? Duh?? Their
arguments may sound good ("for the children"), but they are total
Second hand smoke does not cause Asthma. There are no
allergens, protein or protein-carbohydrate complexes, present in tobacco smoke
to cause attacks either. But, asthma attacks can be psychosomatic. And, thanks
to the anti-smoking group and the media, a child who has been told that tobacco
smoke triggers an asthma attack possibly will have an attack if tobacco smoke
is visible. (Numerous clinical trials have shown that no attacks occur if
children do not know that they are in the presence of tobacco smoke.)
In studies conducted by the World
Health Organization, statistically significant evidence was found that
childhood exposure to cigarette smoke cuts the risk of lung cancer by 22 per
cent. But, because WHO was so "focused" on finding "proof" of an extra
cancer risk in statistically non-significant evidence, it was blind to seeing
anything at all in significant evidence for a lower cancer risk. As a result,
these results were ignored by WHO and not reported in the news media.
been said that if you tell people a lie often enough, they will begin to
That maxim has worked well for the anti-tobacco jihadists.
Today you will find many people who have bought in to this lie - they've taken
the bait hook, line, and sinker. They gleefully accept misleading statistics
and lies from a highly suspect government agency despite volumes of self
serving and flawed data.
A 2005 report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention said that second-hand smoke caused the death each year in the United
States of 3,000 people from lung cancer, 46,000 from heart disease and 430
newborns from sudden infant death syndrome.
"Smoking by parents causes
respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children," the report
added. "The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of
exposure to secondhand smoke."
According to the CDC, nearly 9 out of 10 nonsmoking
Americans are exposed to environmental tobacco smoke as measured by the levels
of cotinine in their blood. The data, reported by the CDC in the Journal of
the American Medical Association, shows measurable levels of cotinine in
the blood of 88% of all nontobacco users. The presence of cotinine, a chemical
the body metabolizes from nicotine, is documentation that a person has been
exposed to tobacco smoke.
In 1992, EPA completed a major
assessment of the respiratory health
risks of ETS (Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer
and Other Disorders EPA/600/6-90/006F).
- The report concludes that exposure to ETS is
responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking
adults and impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of children.
- The EPA claims ETS exposure is causally associated with
an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections (LRIs) such as
bronchitis and pneumonia, estimating that 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually in
infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to ETS.
- ETS exposure is causally associated with increased
prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, symptoms of upper respiratory tract
irritation, and a small but significant reduction in lung function.
- ETS exposure is causally associated with additional
episodes and increased severity of symptoms in children with asthma, estimating
that 200,000 to 1,000,000 asthmatic children have their condition worsened by
exposure to ETS.
- ETS exposure is a risk factor for new cases of asthma
in children who have not previously displayed symptoms.
Problem is ... It's Not True!
Click Here to See Why
NONSURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: There is no association between lung
cancer and ETS exposure!
In truth, there here is no
association between lung cancer and Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS),
regardless of whether the source is spousal smoking or workplace ETS.
In a report titled, "Cigarette Taxes to Fund Health Care Reform: An Economic
Analysis," the Congressional Research Service (CRS) found that the EPA study
made subjective judgements, failed to account for factors that could bias
results, and relaxed scientific standards to achieve the desired pre-determined
What they did was to ignore any data that did not conform
to their publicly stated conclusions, conclusions made even before the research
was begun! Hardly scientific!
The EPA report was a meta-analysis which combined the
findings of 11 US studies. None of the 11 studies found a statistically
significant risk because the low end of their CI was less than 1. A possible
reason for 'false negative' findings is too small a number of subjects causing
a wide CI range. Statisticians call this 'low power'. In order to increase
power the EPA combined the studies. The result was still not statistically
significant because the low end of the CI range was less than 1.0.
achieve the results that their theory demanded (that secondhand smoke causes
cancer) they simply altered the statistical methods used. They lowered the
confidence level to 90% in violation of their own published standard:
"Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment (51 FR 3392)."
the weight of the selective scientific evidence, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that the widespread exposure to environmental
tobacco smoke (ETS) in the United States presents a serious and substantial
public health impact.
With one exception (Fontham), no major scientific
study has found a danger in casual exposure to smoke in workplace or social
settings. They found it in non-smoking spouses exposed for over 40 years. The
danger, if any, from casual exposure is too small to measure. The CRS reported
that other studies that showed no relationship were ignored, stating that "the
one with the largest number of observations found no overall increased risk of
lung cancer among nonsmoking spouses of smokers."
The CAL-EPA has been seriously mislead by the analyses and
conclusions presented in the two largest U.S. epidemiologic studies of ETS and
lung cancer according to Dr. William Butler, a researcher in biostatistics and
epidemiology for more than 20 years. The Brownson and Fontham studies show
no association between ETS and lung cancer, when analyzed properly
according to standard epidemiologic practice. The results from these two
studies are plainly inconsistent with the conclusions of the U.S. EPA's 1992
risk assessment and CAL-EPA's preliminary report.
The conclusion of the Brownson study stated that "Our and
other recent studies suggest a small but consistent increased risk of lung
cancer from passive smoking."
However, this assertion is not supported
by or consistent with the results of a more valid analyses that include only
self-respondents, according to another researcher. Apparently in the Brownson
study, they did not include the quantitative results from the statistical
analysis of the self-respondents in their published report to the CAL-EPA.
Upon analysis of the omitted data, there is no association between
lung cancer and "Highest Exposure Category vs Never" exposure. Also, there is
no pattern of association between lung cancer and the categories of ETS
exposure. Further, when you analyze the Brownson data in the same manner for
occupational ETS exposure, the results are the same. There is no association
between lung cancer and "Ever vs Never" occupational exposure among the
self-respondents or among the surrogate respondents. These findings are
consistent with Brownson's conclusion that "there is no elevated lung cancer
risk associated with passive smoke exposure in the workplace." (p. 1527)
The Fontham study examined the joint exposure to childhood
and adult ETS exposure. Fontham interpreted the results to indicate that adult
ETS exposure is associated with higher lung cancer risk and that the elevations
in risk for women exposed during childhood were twice as high as those of women
not exposed during childhood.
The CAL-EPA was seriously misled by the
manner in which Fontham et al conducted and presented those analyses because
Fontham et al. did not acknowledge the presence of a statistical interaction
that supports the absence of an association between ETS and lung cancer. Dr.
Butler re-analyzed the Fontham data on the joint exposure to ETS during
childhood and adulthood using a single baseline group (that is, those with
neither childhood nor adult ETS exposure) for all combinations of exposure. The
use of a single baseline group is recommended in standard epidemiologic
textbooks such as Kleinbaum, Kupper and Morgenstern; Breslow and Day;
Schlesselman; and others.
Based on this single baseline group, there
was no association between adult ETS exposure and lung cancer - regardless of
whether or not the women had childhood ETS exposure. The data clearly
indicate that there is no increased risk of lung cancer associated with adult
or childhood ETS exposure, and any analyses that implies such an association
distorts the patterns present in the data.
The two largest U.S. epidemiologic studies of ETS and lung
cancer are in agreement: There is no association
between lung cancer and adult ETS exposure, a finding that
contradicts the stated conclusions of each study. Further, the two largest U.S.
epidemiologic studies are not consistent with U.S. EPA's conclusion that ETS is
a lung carcinogen or with CAL-EPA's conclusion that post-1991 epidemiologic
studies support a casual relationship between ETS and lung cancer.
July, 1998, U.S. District Judge William Osteen in North Carolina, ruled the EPA
based its 1993 report on inadequate science and failed to demonstrate a
statistically significant relationship between secondhand smoke and lung
cancer. Osteen wrote: "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research
had begun; excluded industry by violating the (radon law's) procedural
requirements; (and) adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to
validate the agency's public conclusions." The judge further criticized the EPA
for having "aggressively utilized" the report's findings "to establish a de
facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict plaintiff's products and to
influence public opinion." ("EPA stands behind link between
secondhand smoke, cancer," CNN, July 19, 1998)
The EPA later published their rebuttal to critics of their
bogus studies, "Setting the Record Straight: Secondhand Smoke is A Preventable
Health Risk." In the introduction of that document the EPA clearly states who
they believe are their main critics: the tobacco industry. While I would agree
the tobacco industry is one of their critics, they are not the only one. There
are many intelligent people with NO ties to the tobacco industry who can see
through their lies.
I believe the document demonstrates their paranoia
and fear of ANYONE who would dare question the perceived superior and exhalted
stature of the federal government, government bureaucrats, and socialist
organizations supporting their agenda. Indeed, the document furthers their
demonization attack on the "evil tobacco industry" and includes quite a bit of
new focus group tested, politically correct misrepresentations of the
There is no statistically
significant association' between secondhand smoke and lung cancer.
Doesn't make sense, does it? Why would the government,
knowing there is no association between lung cancer and ETS exposure, continue
to scare the public into believing there is? Why would Surgeon General Richard
Carmona lie through his teeth with the statement, "The scientific evidence is
now indisputable" when in fact, the evidence is highly disputed?
answer is simple:
If you knew
the truth about ETS exposure, you would not voluntarily contribute your money
to the government to continue funding their bogus studies.
The federal government has taken the
volumes of bogus data and used it to extend its reach into the private
false and misleading statistics we have allowed the courts and the government
to intrude into our lives more than ever in our history.
What's your risk of Second Hand