Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Tobacco firm used scientist to subvert critics in Asia

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 24 December 2008
By MICHAEL CASEY
AN EDINBURGH University study released yesterday has revealed the tactics used by tobacco companies to "infiltrate" scientific institutes and undermine anti-smoking policies in Asia.
On the website of the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, researcher Jeff Colin at Edinburgh University, along with Ross MacKenzie, another researcher from Sydney University, has alleged that Philip Morris, an American tobacco firm, "planted" a scientist, Roger Walk, to lecture, and organise conferences at the Chulabhorn Institute in Bangkok to play down the effects of passive smoking.

The public health researchers produced their findings by analysing internal industry documents which were made public following legal proceedings in the United States. The report was partly funded by the National Cancer Institute in the US.

Mr MacKenzie said: "They (the tobacco companies] have shown they are willing to take advantage of economic situations and lax legislation in many south-east Asian countries to aggressively market their products."

However, Marija Sepic, a spokeswoman for Philip Morris International, dismissed the documents as outdated and said the company never hid its affiliation with Mr Walk.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 23 December 2008 9:40 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Tobacco
 
1

2dogs in D.C.,

24/12/2008 00:54:08
Honest to god, you almost can't see the brand name on a deck of smokes for the warnings.Any one who smokes (Me,for instance),has known the dangers for 20+ years. It's my life,and barring a car crash or falling space junk, I'll end it in my own fashion.I guess what i'm ranting about,is don't listen to the experts, read the freakin' health warning printed on the pack.
2

POSTMARK,-55,

China, 24/12/2008 02:53:23
Agreed double dog, I quit smoking 221 days ago, but who's counting eh?
Anyways, come and breathe the lovely air in a city like Chongqing and see if you even realize you have a cigarette in your mouth.
There's no clean air to breathe wherever you get industry and traffic combined and cigarettes are just a small part of the equation, a very small part.
3

TheTerminator,

24/12/2008 11:09:36
Dr Jeff Colin works in "Tobacco Control" and this is one of their tactics to stop the questioning of the junk science behind Second Hand Smoke. The Anti-Smoking lobby know that their case would not stand up to questioning.
I wonder how he will cope with this:-

THE 1ST WORLD CONFERENCE AGAINST PROHIBITION

"SMOKING BANS AND LIES"

IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT BUILDING 27/28 JAN 2009

http://www.antiprohibition.org/ticap_pages.php?q=6

4

DeniseX,

24/12/2008 11:20:27
“Over 96,000 responses were received... Responses overwhelmingly supported removing tobacco displays in shops, and tough action to restrict access to vending machines.”

In fact, almost 80 per cent of the responses were pre-written postcards or e-mails from campaigns by state-funded anti-smoking groups. 49,507 came from Smokefree North West and 8,128 from Smokefree North East. A further 10,757 came from D-myst, SmokeFree Liverpool’s youth organisation'.

So anti-smoking organisations don't use such tactics.
5

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 24/12/2008 12:07:48
So when supporters of the freedom to enjoy tobacco do something to support their cause, its considered "subversive" and "undermining policies". Yet when groups of fanatical nazis are permitted to dictate government policy to restrict the freedom of the individual and discriminate against vast tracts of society, it is considered a good thing?

My hatred of the vile, subhuman scum who seek to remove our freedom knows no bounds.
6

Nitro,

24/12/2008 13:34:57
Who are Jeff Colin and Ross MacKenzie, somehow these faceless people seem to want to preach to the masses they remind me of the despised school snitches.

The snitch these days seems to be the acceptable face of society while the rest of the law abiding community are frowned on.

I bet these faceless stakeholders do the Seagull Mating Dance every time a smoker is stopped from lighting up.

The only people taking advantage are the anti brigade who now have all the pubs and clubs to themselves until they close due to lack of revenue.

7

TheTerminator,

24/12/2008 13:59:58
Dr Jeff Colin is a "Tobacco Control" researcher. I have noticed that the Anti-Smoking lobby are flooding the press with reports and comments leading up to Christmas.

http://www.health.ed.ac.uk/CIPHP/staff/collin.htm
8

Chuckles,

24/12/2008 14:18:42
I wonder why Terminator. The antismoking fanatics are only good at snearing their opponents when their junk science is questionned.
9

Mcsnagpile,

24/12/2008 14:34:57
The average life is only about 28,000 days and going down as you read this. If that is too many for you who am I to argue.
10

Rollo Tommasi,

24/12/2008 14:43:28
Now if it's TRUE junk science you want, you need to look to the pro-smokers. Here is the Pro-Smokers' Top Ten Junk Science Tips:

1. Refer to the 1992 EPA report. Argue that a judge found the EPA was wrong to write it as they did. Ignore the fact that an appeal court threw out the first judge's comments and therefore the EPA report stands.

2. Refer to the 1998 WHO report. Claim that the WHO tried to hide its results. Completely ignore the fact that this claim was a lie instigated by Big Tobacco, as WHO later demonstrated.

3. Refer to the 2003 Enstrom & Kabat study. Ignore the fact its methodology is seriously flawed.

4. Ignore all the scores of research studies showing the harm that passive smoking causes.

5. Ignore recent assessments of the overall evidence (e.g. by IARC in 2002 and SCOTH in 2004).

6. Totally twist interpretations of epidemiological science. Wrongly claim that all studies require a relative risk of 2.0 or more (and misquote experts to try to make your point). Wrongly claim that no results straddling 1 at 95% CI can be statistically significant (and offer no evidence to back up your claim).

7. Wrongly claim that a study which is not "statistically significant" according to your own twisted interpretation shows that passive smoking is not harmful.

8. Argue that people ought to be able to name people killed by passive smoking, even though death certificates don't record long-standing causes (such as exposure to vehicle pollution or radon gas, as well as exposure to second hand smoke).

9. Quote experts like Michael Siegel and Carl Phillips, but only when it suits you (in other words, quote them when they criticise actions by anti-smoking groups, but ignore the fact they are convinced that passive smoking kills).

10. Only talk of risk in the smallest possible terms (a person's risk of dying as a result of passive smoke from a specific disease and in a specific year). Ignore the large number of people who die each year from
11

Rollo Tommasi,

24/12/2008 14:43:56
10. Only talk of risk in the smallest possible terms (a person's risk of dying as a result of passive smoke from a specific disease and in a specific year). Ignore the large number of people who die each year from passive smoking-related causes.

I wonder what new fairy tales will emerge from this conference in January.....
12

TheTerminator,

24/12/2008 16:25:22
#10/11

You try hard Rollo but the public now see through the SHS fraud carried out by the Anti-Smoking lobby.The game is up and they know it, the new " Tobacco Control Industry" created by the government should be scrapped and the money spent on real problems in the NHS.750 delegates attended the UK National Smoking Cessation
Conference in 2008,UKNSCC( what a waste of time and money), and of course it was funded by the pharmaceutical companies.
13

DeniseX,

24/12/2008 16:53:14
A real risk is Tomassi giving somebody his last Rolo. He's that selfish, he'd keep it for himself, even in this season of goodwill.
14

tug f wilson,

24/12/2008 17:06:17
Sorry Rollo, the SHS fraud has been exposed,as well as tax payer funded ASH,the con IS over,smokers and non smokers alike know it has been one great con,not anymore,the TRUTH is out.
15

Bill Crombie,

24/12/2008 17:10:58
Solo Rollo - If, and its a big if, you can produce just one body certified as dying from the effects of "passive smoking", I will be a convert to your cause for the remainder of my life. Unfortunately Rollie, dear boy, you cannot produce just this ONE body to justify your stance on smoking, or more correctly anti-smoking policies. Forget about Big Tobacco, the anti-smoking industry are the biggest fraudsters in living history and soon the pack of cards will come tumbling down in 2009.
16

Charles IIIX,

24/12/2008 17:34:56
Considering the Anti-Smoking stooge who calls him/herself Rollo has listed his/her myths (that are all true - before the addition of typical anti-tobacco misinformation).Rollo is a regular who consistently tries to distort the facts on behalf of his masters (anti-tobacco - or possibly even Big Pharma!) Take EVERYTHING he says with a pinch of salt.

Perhaps it is time to revisit the ASH handbook on the myths of anti-smoking legislation.(courtesy of Dick Puddlecote)

1) Myth: It will be bad for pubs

I think that has been answered emphatically by the British Beer & Pubs Association

The British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) has said closures across the UK are running at 5 a day, up a third on last year, with close to 1,900 of the country's 57,000 pubs set to shut this year if the current rate continues. (now running at nearly 3000 closed)

The industry is angry with the government for pressing ahead with tax rises when it is facing the toughest trading conditions for years with pressure on household budgets, last year's smoking ban, cheap alcohol offers in supermarkets, and the miserable summer weather encouraging drinkers to stay at home.

2) Myth: It will be bad for bingo

Yes it was.
Carmen Media has highlighted that over a year into the smoking ban in the UK, more than 53 land based bingo halls have closed, bringing the number of clubs still open to about 550.

The company said if one considers the impact of the smoking ban in Scotland (in effect since March 2006) where all reports showed that it has been an absolute disaster for all the top bingo clubs, the history has only repeated itself in the UK.

Odd that ASH didn't spot this repeating of history, don't you think?

3) Myth: There will be large scale non-compliance
That's answering a myth with a fabricated myth. Take away the £2,500 fines and see how much compliance you get.

4) Myth: There will be heavy handed enforcement with undercover officers and covert filming
Never gonna
17

Charles IIIX,

24/12/2008 17:35:57
Never gonna happen ... is it?

Westminster City Council brought a prosecution against him after environmental health officers twice visited his bar last August and reported he was permitting customers to smoke.

They didn't reveal themselves and ran up a bill for hundreds of pounds after a slap-up three-course meal with expensive wine, payable from taxpayers' money of course.

Nope, no undercover officers. Not at all.

5) Myth: Working men's clubs and shisha bars will close
Like the myth of Britain's oldest Working mens club closing perhaps? Amongst many many others? Or how about the myth of shisha bars closing?

When the ban on smoking in public places kicks in on July 1st hundreds of shisha bars across the UK will have to close their doors.
... and doesn't this one morph into so-called myth 4 about undercover officers ... at nearly 1am?

Katherine Jamieson, for the council, said environmental health officer Steve Joyce stopped outside the bar, in Evington Road, at 12.50am. He saw a member of the public enter and a number of people sitting at tables smoking shisha pipes.
A bit of myth 3 confirmed there too.

6) Myth: People won't really quit
*Cough* People really haven't. Increase in England reported this week and an increase in youth smoking in Scotland.
Plus, wasn't the legislation brought in to 'protect bar workers'? Patricia Hewitt's department said, only this week, that ...
'The legislation was never intended to be a measure to reduce smoking prevalence.'

You and ASH should get together sometime and agree on the lies you are telling, Hewitt.

7) Myth: Smoking is a victimless crime/ Claims about the health impact are flawed

Firstly, the claims ARE flawed, but the misdirection is the real issue. It should be up to the individual to make decisions based on educated risks. Smoking is very definitely a victimless crime if the victims are quite happy to be where they are happy. What the f**k has it to do with you?

8) Myth: House fir
18

Charles IIIX,

24/12/2008 17:36:36
8) Myth: House fires will increase as people will stay at home to smoke
This is a cracker of a lie. It's one group with a stated purpose quoting another with a business interest. The myth was apparently from Direct Line insurance. They were using ASH's very own scare tactic model to increase their business.

9) Myth: There will be an increase in exposure of secondhand smoke in the home, affecting children
This one is quite amazing even by the standards of these inveterate liars. ASH themselves confirmed a truth that they said was a myth. As lies go, this is a stunner.

Last night anti-smoking pressure group ASH told The People that the Government's public smoking ban had made the problem WORSE for children - because it encouraged parents to light up at home instead of in pubs.

ASH campaigner Hannah Sandford said the smoking ban had put kids at greater risk. She said: 'We now have a situation where adults are protected from second hand smoke but young children are not.(can we have smoking banned in peoples homes?)

Well, if you cared about the kids, why did you shift smoking from an adult environment like a pub, into other places where kids might be present, you p***ks?

10) Myth: The public do not want a smoking ban or any further tobacco control measures

The public have voted with their feet about your smoking ban. Further tobacco control measures have been proved to be motivated by rigged consultations and even this idiot Government have started to realise they are not too popular amongst voters. I think they may have finally worked out that ASH have conned them. Took them a while seeing as ASH have been boasting for a while now about how democracy was circumvented.

Objective: To examine how a Government committed to a voluntary approach was forced by effective advocacy to introduce comprehensive smokefree legislation.

Smokers have suffered all of this nonsense on your behalf, we are the guinea pigs. You may enjoy the smoking ban, but soone
19

Charles IIIX,

24/12/2008 17:37:23
Smokers have suffered all of this nonsense on your behalf, we are the guinea pigs. You may enjoy the smoking ban, but sooner or later these people are going to come after YOU. It might be the wine/beer you enjoy (ever more likely), it could be your Friday night curry. Perhaps they don't like you wife-swapping with your equally eager partner, or even that they don't agree with what you like to view on the internet. How about if they use their template to dictate which car you drive (they're getting there)? Or refuse you the services of the NHS for an arbitrary reason that fits their agenda?

All of the above can be banned by the utilisation of scares about Terrorism, Paedophilia, Climate Change or Cancer/Death ... if you let them.

If you value your own way of life without interference, then you must value the choices of others who choose a different lifestyle to you. One can't pick and choose freedoms that are acceptable without, at some point, having someone else telling you how to live your own life. If you are happy with the Governmant telling others what to do in a free society, knock yourself out, just don't start whinging when these lying a***holes start on you. Or, as it says in the good book, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."


Happy Xmas
20

Rollo Tommasi,

24/12/2008 17:45:23
Dear F2C friends:

I see that none of you have produced any evidence of the supposed "SHS fraud", as Tug describes it. Bill C simply repeats number 8 from my list of Pro-Smokers' Top Ten Junk Science Tips. And DeniseX is, well, DeniseX.

The public smoking laws are well established. The long-term risks to life from passive smoking are real. And the laws command overwhelming public support. Get used to the laws - they're not going to go away any time soon.

There is an ongoing debate, but it's moved away from passive smoking. The issue is now about whether we need further changes to the law to protect smokers from themselves (as I have said before, I personally have strong misgivings about restricting smokers' freedoms to harm themselves, without good evidence that the measures are likely to be successful).

Maybe next year you guys will wake up an smell the coffee. You lap up everything that the people at this conference next month (Forces, PASAN, Christopher Snowdon, etc) spew out. You don't bother checking the accuracy of their claims for yourself. If you bothered to do so, you'd soon begin to learn just how many flaws there are in their arguments.

These guys are the real twisters of the truth. And you have allowed yourselves to be their unwitting agents.
21

Rollo Tommasi,

24/12/2008 18:01:46
Charles IIIX: Beautifully cut and pasted, if I may say so. Another example of a pro-smoker lapping up what is spewed out on a pro-smoking site, without giving any personal thought to it (although, to be fair, you did acknowledge Dick Puddlecote).

If you had bothered to think about what you were cutting and pasting, you might have seen some pretty yawning gaps in Puddlecote's arguments.

But more than that, you might have realised that his blog does not get into the question about how dangerous passive smoking is.

Remember the problem about passive smoking is not the harm it does to the smoker. It's about the harm it does to those around them who are forced to inhale their smoke.

I'm glad to say I have my own mind. I don't rely on ASH, the pharmaceutical companies or anyone else for what I have tried to learn. Why don't you wake up and stop being a stooge for the pro-smoking lobby?

....And if you believe I twisted the facts in posts 10 & 11, why can't you explain how I'm supposedly wrong?
22

2dogs in D.C.,

24/12/2008 18:12:35
Addition to my post way back there,I never smoke indoors so any "passive" smoke never stinks up my house, and friends and family don't have to smell it.And I've been doing that for many more years than anti-smoking laws have been in effect.
23

Charles IIIX,

24/12/2008 18:12:48
Rollo, I did notice the 'yawning gaps' as you put it, but as I was quoting another person I decided not to edit it. The message is clear without any amendments.

I have seen many of your posts before, together with the replies that you have been given. You have been provided with more than enough evidence about the SHS fraud. You just close your eyes and put your hands over your ears and go la la la! Then deny any knowledge.


I have no intention of outlining the many flaws in SHS research that claims to show it is of any harm. It clearly is not and only those who want to misinform the public or the gullible will argue otherwise. You are being manipulated by anti-tobacco but you dont realise that (that is the beauty of mind control- you dont know that you have been subjected to it.)

Redeem yourself please by visting the web site 'velvet glove Iron fist' and look at the section under 'passive smoking' then try doing some other research away from the big pharma controlled anti-tobacco 'official' sites - dont pretend they dont exist or that they are all in the pay of big tobacco.

'Anti-tobacco' consists of a bunch of corrupt, self serving, liars (if I can put it mildly). I suspect you are part of that cabal.

The truth will come out despite your poor attempts to suppress it - and the smoking bans WILL be amended, it is just a matter of time.

Now, It is Xmas eve and I have better things to do than waste my time in futile attempts to educate the ignorant. Try to educate yourself!
24

Rollo Tommasi,

24/12/2008 18:22:36
Charles - Like I said in my last post, I have my own mind. I don't rely on ASH, the pharmaceutical companies or anyone else for what I have tried to learn.

I suggested that you wake up and stop being a stooge for the pro-smoking lobby. So what's the next thing you do? Offer "enlightenment" through the pro-smoking website of Chris Snowdon.

That really says it all.....
25

Nitro,

24/12/2008 18:22:53
Smoking is gradually creeing back into pubs in organised lock ins. On the surface it appears that the governments draconian police methods are working but they are not.

With regard to compliance with the smoking ban, everyone keeps missing out one area where there is mass disobedience and that is in motor vehicles.

Eventually the smoking ban will completly crumble, and that time is approaching rapidly, finances will soon dictate the agenda.

Will they keep sqandering billions on unjustified smoking bans or will they money have to spend on job seekers allowances.
26

Chuckles,

24/12/2008 18:28:45
Rollo 21- Well we dont rely on anyone either. We arent pro-smoking actually but pro-choice. Ive read all of Dick Puddlecote's arguments and it is clear he has done his homework and that all the evidence is genuine. ASH's stuff has been proven to be flawed- one just needs to use common sense and your own eyes!
27

tug f wilson,

24/12/2008 18:40:05
Sorry again Rollo,you are led by the nose and it is a shame you do not have your own mind,but like i said the Fraud is over,i dont blame you for being duped by a Lame government and Tax payer funded ASH,they have spent a massive amount of our money building the fraud,and as we know the smoking ban has cost the country millions and still is with No benefit to health at all,as we have seen smoking rates are UP so it has been a total failure,i am sure if you do your own research you will find the truth as most people have now.
28

Bill Crombie,

24/12/2008 18:44:03
Rollo - Get one thing into your head, we are not going away anytime soon. We are not prepared to be bullied, stigmatised or denormalised by a bunch of left wing wasters known as New or Old Labour. They are not interested in society in general, but control and command is their only modus operandi. They have had their decade or more of power and proved yet again they are not to be trusted. Bring in the broom and sweep away the years of mindless laws and give us back our freedoms.
29

Selgovae,

24/12/2008 21:57:50
#10

"1. Refer to the 1992 EPA report. Argue that a judge found the EPA was wrong to write it as they did. Ignore the fact that an appeal court threw out the first judge's comments and therefore the EPA report stands."

Sorry, Rollo. The appeal ruling had nothing to say about the accuracy of the report. It just defended the EPA's legal right to pressurize others using truths or lies as they saw fit.
30

Selgovae,

24/12/2008 22:00:21
#5 Alt

"My hatred of the vile, subhuman scum who seek to remove our freedom knows no bounds."

That made me feel a lot better. Funny think is hate. :-)

Merry Christmas!
31

helend498,

24/12/2008 22:25:30
I love the result so far of the poll on the right. It appears once again that the government is pressing ahead with its own agenda backed by the anti-smoking agencies, which totally disregards the majority view of the public.
All polls appear to be like this if you take note of them.
So far only a minority of 22% agree with the proposals that this government will impose regardless of the consequences.
32

Rollo Tommasi,

25/12/2008 09:08:13
I disagree, Selgovae (29). The Appeal Court ruled that Judge Osteen had no power to rule on what he ruled. It struck down everything he said, including his critical comments about the EPA report. So, like I said, the report stands.

Happy Christmas to anyone reading this board.
33

Rollo Tommasi,

25/12/2008 09:16:38
I should add a note of respect, Selgovae. At least you tried to offer a specific defence for one of the pro-smoking myths.

Unlike your chums on this board. It seems the only contributions they can muster are knee-jerk accusations of "you're wrong" or "anything anti-smokers say is a lie". They simply believe what they want to believe and don't the facts get in the way.
34

DeniseX,

25/12/2008 09:27:20
#31. Isn't it strange that when the Government send a consultation to anti-smoking groups, about 80% agree with bans, but when polls are open to the general public 80% are against bans.
35

Tim85,

Lancs, England 25/12/2008 16:13:42

"The public smoking laws are well established. The long-term risks to life from passive smoking are real. And the laws command overwhelming public support. Get used to the laws - they're not going to go away any time soon."

So you admit they will one day go away? Smoking bans are nothing new. They have been in operation since the middle ages, right through to the American prohibition period; through to Nazi Germany to the present day. They are a historical curiousity, but all with one thing in common: they were all repealed eventually.

History is on our side and not that of the prohibitionists.


"I suggested that you wake up and stop being a stooge for the pro-smoking lobby. So what's the next thing you do? Offer "enlightenment" through the pro-smoking website of Chris Snowdon."

How is Christopher Snowdon 'pro-smoking'? From what I can gather, Snowdon began researching smoking bans while he was in New Zealand. As a non-smoker curious as to the need for a total smoking ban, he researched the issue of passive smoking and found the evidence lacking. Is he a 'pro-smoker' simply because he came to a diametrically opposed conclusion to you? You're a person that rejects the term 'anti-smoker', but seems quite happy to blithely employ the crude binarism of 'pro/anti' when it suits you (and, notably, when describing those that disagree with you).

Anyhow, I'll respond to more of your points later. I have a turkey to eat.
36

Rollo Tommasi,

25/12/2008 23:44:47
Tim asks why I label Christopher Snowdon as "pro-smoking". I am comfortable about applying the term “pro-smoker” to him, as he is someone who uses the “anti-smoking” label liberally. He’s not interested in balance. Even the title of his website says it: “A History of Anti-Smoking”.

Let me give you 3 recent examples of Snowdon’s lack of balance and pro-smoking credentials.

1. Commentary on acute coronary syndrome (ACS) figures in Scotland (http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=65). Snowdon actually has a reasonable point to make in questioning conclusions drawn from the Jill Pell study on ACS levels in Scotland. But he has to exaggerate his point far beyond accuracy and beyond reasonableness. And his most fundamental claim, that ACS levels in Scotland rose by 8% in 2007, is wrong.

You see, Snowdon defines ACS as including all myocardial infarction (heart attack) and angina episodes. He claims that definition is used by WHO. Only it’s not the generally recognised definition of ACS. That definition includes heart attacks and only a sub-group of angina episodes (unstable angina). So Snowdon’s figures are, at best, a proxy for ACS figures in Scotland. But he fails to mention this.

He also fails to mention that Pell used another proxy measure for ACS – heart attacks only. Pell’s proxy was just as valid as Snowdon’s. But Pell’s proxy showed there was a reasonable fall in heart attack episodes in Scotland in 2007. Snowdon should have either used Pell’s proxy measure or explained clearly why he hadn’t. The problem for Snowdon was that, if he did so, he’d lose the headline for his story. So his article wrongly implies that there is only one definition for ACS, which Snowdon has used, and which shows that numbers rose by 8% in 2007. He’s twisted the truth in order to get a good story.
37

Rollo Tommasi,

25/12/2008 23:47:25
2. Banning tobacco displays in shops (http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=66). Again, Snowdon actually has a reasonable point in questioning the effectiveness of this proposal, based on experience in Iceland and Canada. But once again he abuses the statistical evidence in making his point.

For a start, he claims “The figures from Iceland and Canada are meaningless unless they are compared to other countries”. Actually, that’s wrong. The best evidence might be a longitudinal analysis - that is, to compare the trends in Iceland and Canada before and after the restrictions came into force there. But Snowdon doesn’t mention this.

Then he starts quoting a series of statistics comparing Iceland and Saskatchewan with other countries. But there seems to be no basis for the countries he’s selected. Are they the most suitable countries to compare with? No explanation given. Worse still, he quotes figures which are based on different years, different categories of young person (e.g. 15 year olds, 15-19 year olds) and, as far as I can tell, different definitions of active smoking. He draws conclusions based on these inconsistent sets of figures, with absolutely no commentary about the limitations of doing so.

3. Smoking and cervical cancer (http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=63). Snowdon’s attempts to argue that there is no link between smoking and cervical cancer are unadulterated pro-smoking bias.

Snowdon said “….cervical cancer mortality had fallen by 80% in the second half of the 20th century, at a time when tobacco consumption had never been higher (5). This, in itself, strongly suggested that smoking was not a cause of the disease.” In fact, there is a clear reason for the fall in cervical cancer mortality – the success of cervical cancer screening programmes. Snowdon doesn’t even mention this – and could give no independent source for his claim that this “strongly suggested that smoking was not a cause of” cervical ca
38

Rollo Tommasi,

25/12/2008 23:48:13
Contd...

Snowdon doesn’t even mention this – and could give no independent source for his claim that this “strongly suggested that smoking was not a cause of” cervical cancer.

Then he tries to argue that the discovery of HPV as a cause effectively meant smoking was in the clear. That claim is rubbish. He tries to explain away whether and why smokers may be more likely than non-smokers to contract HPV. But having HPV is no guarantee of contracting cervical cancer. In fact most carriers of the virus don’t go on to develop cervical cancer. But there is clear evidence that smokers with HPV are more likely to contract cervical cancer than non-smokers with HPV (see for example Gunnell et al (2006)). Snowdon completely ignores this fundamental point.
39

Charles IIIX,

26/12/2008 14:05:20
Rollo would like some more evidence about the SHS fraud. I know I said I wasn’t prepared to explain but he has cynically attempted to cast doubt on independent commentators. Here are one or two quotes (Neatly cut n pasted – just as you don’t like it)

Antismokers like to edge that ETS is more toxic than what smokers themselves experience, but the claim is spurious because smokers are also exposed to ETS far in excess of any nonsmoker. Evidence of a no effect threshold around 3-4 cigarettes smoked daily emerge from the statistical analysis of epidemiologic dose gradients in active smokers (Gori & Mantel, 1991). The finding is supported by two official and massive national surveys in the USA and in Australia, which found that smokers of less than 10 cigarettes/day enjoyed overall better health than nonsmokers ( Wilson 1967, Australian Bureau of Statistics 1994).

A 34 year follow up of the US Framingham study reports that for smokers of less than 10 cigarettes/day lung cancer rates were not elevated, and cardiovascular diseases were less than in nonsmokers (Freund et al, 1993). Similarly, a 22 year follow-up of the British Doctors study found that rates of lung cancer mortality and ischemic heart disease were the same in nonsmokers and in smokers of 1-14 cigarettes/day. Mortality from all diseases was slightly lower in smokers of 1-14 cigarettes/day (Doll et al., 1980)

Those profiting by a series of careless, faulted, and frivolous studies and statements purporting to prove the unprovable have prevailed--until now. The FDA, OSHA, or lung associations attempting to enhance their image, or the lawyers backing them and making billions at a rate faster than any industry could have dreamed possible, have, up until now, succeeded. Thankfully, the assault on common sense may be ending. The air is clearing. Enstrom and Kabat may be leading the way. (Hugh McGrath Jr.,
Professor of Medicine Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center – commenting on the ridiculo
40

Charles IIIX,

26/12/2008 14:06:20
commenting on the ridiculous attacks on Elstrom an Kabat study - that merely confirmed the majority of other studies)

Compare SHS with other substances that are usually considered relatively safe;

“Other causes for lung cancer: genetic background (RR=2.4 to 5.3), cooking methods (RR=1.4 to 8.3), Radon exposure (RR=2.4 to 4.3), Asbestos exposure (RR=2.3 to 10) and even beer drinking has been reported with an increased risk of 100%[1]. Also psycho-social traits can raise the risk for lung cancer with 100 to 200%[2]. All show significantly higher relative risks than the max RR=1.3 of ETS”

“Despite all the smoking bans, the incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers appears to be rising, even in men. According to a study by IARC (an arm of the World Health Organization), the rate of lung cancer in a cohort of never-smoking Swedish men was more than four times as high between 1991 and 1995 as it had been between 1976 and 1980[3].” “Further, about 50% of diagnosed lung cancer cases are in EX-smokers, some of whom have not smoked in 30 or more years,” ( Weil Maessen,)


“The rule of thumb 5 years ago was that if the risk ratio, RR, was not larger than 2 then any observed effect could be the result of confounders and it was considered improper to make any claims. A RR has to be larger than 2 to be admissible in federal court.”
(S. Stanley Young, National Institute of Statistical Sciences, June 2008)

A note about the value of scientific research by anti-tobacco and the admission of ‘selecting’ the ‘right’ studies - (ie. no value at all!);

Stanton Glantz was not alone in 1992 (Revolt Against Tobacco, p. 14) when he said, "…that's the question that I have applied to my research relating to tobacco. If this comes out the way I think, will it make a difference? And if the answer is yes, then we do it, and if the answer is I don't know then we don't bother. Okay? And that's the criteria."

Want anymore Rollo or would you rather put your own ‘spin’ on these
41

Charles IIIX,

26/12/2008 14:07:25
Want anymore Rollo or would you rather put your own ‘spin’ on these and try to deceive the public into believing you, or put a doubt in the public’s mind by misinformation? These are pure ASH tactics so you can understand why I believe you are an anti-tobacco stooge. Your attempt to discredit Chris Snowden’s work by using misinformation tactics as ‘evidence’ merely illustrates your collusion with the ASH et al propaganda machine. Chris Snowden’s work stands as correct and is of far greater value than your poor attempt to discredit it. (I recommend anyone read it themselves). You see, the public are beginning to look beyond the deception of the anti-smoking propaganda campaign!

The debate on ETS is over; it is known to be as good as harmless, despite anti-tobacco squirming to impart some credence to their false claims by ‘selective evidence’ and exaggerations. Isn’t it time you accepted this and moved on. The debate on primary smoking, the lies, misinformation and historic propaganda that is associated with it is about to begin!
42

Rollo Tommasi,

26/12/2008 18:28:07
So Charles: You produce a reply spanning 3 posts. And yet you still can’t deal with the points I made before about the lies of pro-smokers and why Snowdon can’t be trusted as an informed and objective commentator.

Astonishingly, in these posts you both accuse me of using ASH’s tactics (no evidence given, of course) and then show yourself to be a pro-smoking stooge by cutting and pasting the words of a Forces heid yin directly.

Have you actually looked at any original source material for yourself? Or have you simply lapped up whatever diarrheoa the pro-smoking websites produce?

Why don't you try to answer the points I actually made? And try to be brave enough to look to professional evidence before you answer. If I had copied and pasted quotes from the ASH website, you would accuse me of all sorts of things. You need to show that you're not simply a stooge for the pro-smoking websites.
43

Rollo Tommasi,

26/12/2008 18:30:25
Charles: Just to show I’m not frightened of an argument, let me take your points head on.

Your post 39 is all about whether or not passive smoking is more dangerous than smoking. I don’t see the relevance of this – I have never said that passive smoking is the more dangerous. What exactly is your point?

Other risks of cancer: Yes they certainly exist. Although you’ll find that cooking methods only present a real risk in Third World countries nowadays. But the law already protects people from asbestos, just as it now is giving some protection from smokers’ fumes in public places. And lung cancer is not the only risk associated with passive smoking. Heart disease and, it increasingly appears, stroke, are major causes of death attributable to passive smoking. Jamrozik estimated that passive smoking lies behind around 11,000 UK deaths each year. Passive smoking presents a significant public health risk.

I don’t see your point about smoking bans. You copy and paste ““Despite all the smoking bans, the incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers appears to be rising, even in men. According to a study by IARC (an arm of the World Health Organization), the rate of lung cancer in a cohort of never-smoking Swedish men was more than four times as high between 1991 and 1995 as it had been between 1976 and 1980[3].” Please tell me what smoking bans were introduced into Sweden between 1980 and 1991.

Your point about ex-smokers is interesting. The IARC monograph reports (at page 167) research by Peto et al in 1990 and 2000. It found that former smokers had had very substantially lower lifelong risks than those who continued to smoke. However, they still had significantly higher risks than men who had never smoked. So quitting smoking does not immediately reduce a person’s risk of lung cancer to the levels of a never-smoker.

As for relative risk, there is a convention that a RR of 2 or more is required to demonstrate causation from the results of a study……if those
44

Rollo Tommasi,

26/12/2008 18:30:57
As for relative risk, there is a convention that a RR of 2 or more is required to demonstrate causation from the results of a study……if those results are novel or counter-intuitive. It seems to me that Stanley Young is referring to RR in the context of an individual study. But this convention does not apply in cases where evidence is corroborated through scores of different studies, as is the case with passive smoking. Pro-smokers like Snowdon and Forces have claimed that a RR of 2 or more is always required. Only, they had to misquote the likes of Robert Temple and Marcia Angell to come to that conclusion.

On the subject of misquoting, I’ve seen the quote attributed to Stanton Glantz on a number of pro-smoking sites. Without seeing the full transcript, I can’t tell if Glantz was quoted accurately (an important point, given how pro-smoking sites have cynically misquoted Angell, Temple and others). However, I’ve not yet found the full transcript. Can you please point me to it? I’m sure you’d also want to be sure Glantz was not quoted inaccurately or out of context.
45

ChrisUK,

27/12/2008 00:58:05
To be honest, I don't really care about the studies from anti-smoking organisations, the BBC, the government, or tobacco companies. I care about the studies from independent scientists only; the others are too biased each way.

Also, I just look at real life statistcs.

Let's take Japan - one of the most (if not the most) country's where smoking rates are one of the highest amongst the population per capita in the developed world.
Guess what though, lung cancer in Japan is one of the lowest in the developed world, and choice is provided for the life-style activity of smoking.

Could someone please explain why that is?

Obviously Japan has invested in the real reasons for lung cancer and heart disease and has ignored extremism propaganda.

Shouldn't we be doing the same if we really cared about the health of the nation? Or do the anti-smokers prefer life-style choices like theirs only, irrespective of the health of the nation. It appears so. Tax-payers money is being filtered away due to a 'smell'.

Personally, I believe that tax-payer's money would be better spent investing in true research instead of propaganda, and the philanthropist's money spent on feeding the starving of this country (including the children).

For people to argue so strongly against a perfectly legal product sickens me, just because they do not like it.

I do believe that the majority (apart from Rollo) have realised that this is not about health now, it is about money for the those in the right positions - any lie will do - it's gone that far now.

Let's hope 2009 brings a new truth parade to our kingdom.

Don't get me wrong - if people want non-smoking venues, then the government should be obliged to provide non-smoking venues for the antis, and let everyone else get on with their lives
46

Rollo Tommasi,

27/12/2008 14:28:31
Chris: if you are genuinely interested in studies from independent scientists only, then welcome to my world. And why don’t you read the following reports by independent scientists to get you going:

- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans - Volume 83 Tobacco smoke and involuntary smoking (2004)
- Hackshaw et al, The accumulated evidence on lung cancer and environmental tobacco smoke, BMJ (1997)
- Law et al. Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and ischaemic heart disease: an evaluation of the evidence, BMJ (1997)
- Brennan et al, Secondhand smoke exposure in adulthood and risk of lung cancer among never smokers: a pooled analysis of two large studies, International Journal of Cancer (2004)
- Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH). Secondhand smoke: review of evidence since 1998. Update of evidence on health effects of secondhand smoke. (2004) [Appointed by the UK government but operated independently]

And if you want real life statistics, try this, from p.1180 of the IARC report:
“Lung cancer is the most common cause of death from cancer in the world. The total number of cases is now estimated to be 1.2 million annually and is still increasing. The major cause of lung cancer is tobacco smoking, primarily of cigarettes. In populations with prolonged cigarette use, the proportion of lung cancer cases attributable to cigarette smoking has reached 90%.”

So 9 out of 10 lung cancer cases are attributable to cigarette smoking. You can’t put such an overwhelming figure down to chance or confounders or bias.

Japan: Actually, smoking prevalence there is similar to Europe. The difference is that in Japan more men, but fewer women, smoke. There are many possible reasons why lung cancer rates in Japan are relatively low – see http://lungcancer.about.com/od/causesoflungcance1/f/lungcaparadox.htm.
By the way, if you genuinely support the Japanese attitude to smoking, wo
47

Rollo Tommasi,

27/12/2008 14:29:13
By the way, if you genuinely support the Japanese attitude to smoking, would you also see public service announcements all over our streets as exist in Japan too (see this: http://inventorspot.com/articles/japan_tobaccos_delightfully_dist_9553)? Many F2C members complain that UK government advice on healthy living already goes too far.
48

Rollo Tommasi,

27/12/2008 14:53:50
As for ChrisUK’s other comments, you make the same old mistake of thinking that people like me are wanting to limit your life-style choices. That’s nonsense. If people want to smoke, that’s their concern. But they should not light up in enclosed public places where their smoke can harm the health of OTHER PEOPLE near them who have to inhale it.

It’s no excuse to say that smoking is a “perfectly legal product”. It’s perfectly legal to drive a car. But the law places controls on drivers, to stop people driving in a reckless way that can harm other people. Hifis and TVs are also perfectly legal products. But it’s not legal to play them so loud that it disturbs neighbours. The smoking laws protect smokers’ right to smoke. But they provide protection for other people against the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.
49

Charles IIIX,

28/12/2008 10:38:23
Apologies for the length of this, but it could have been much longer.

ChrisUK – Too right! Corruption, self interest and empire building have actually put the ‘health’ of the nation at risk. The squandered anti-tobacco money would have probably made substantial in-roads into real cancer research and many lives that have been lost could probably have been saved. Nothing less than criminal!

It is not just Japan that is an enigma for anti-tobacco there is also a consistently wide difference between the developed (industrialised) and the underdeveloped world. Take Kenya or Uganda – around 50-70% of men smoke in these countries yet have around half the lung cancers and heart diseases of the UK or US. A bit inconvenient that – for anti-tobacco. (Gender in lung cancer and smoking research, WHO 2004). (Note for Rollo; smoking prevalence in Japanese males is around 47% compared to around 22% in UK)
Of course lung cancer is increasing in the underdeveloped world – is it because more are smoking (really) OR because the underdeveloped are developing - moving from a rural based economy to more of an industrial one?

Just as I suspected, more spin from Tommasi, throw in some irrelevant arguments and try to pass them off as genuine!

The point of the smoking studies I quoted in relation to the passive smoking debate is that, in addition to the 64 studies quoted by Chris Snowden that together show SHS as harmless, these were about actual light smokers who have less lung cancers than never smokers or ex-smokers. The point is that smoking incidence has reduced by almost 50% from the early 70’s to the late 90’s – yet more non-smokers are contracting IHD and lung cancer. The obvious implication to anyone is that there is something else that causes these diseases – something else that has been missed or not identified, been ignored or downplayed in terms of significance (by biased use of confounders?). If light smokers have less risk than non-smokers and ex-smokers then it f
50

Charles IIIX,

28/12/2008 10:39:23
If light smokers have less risk than non-smokers and ex-smokers then it follows that SHS is harmless. (Hence the fallacious claim that SHS is more dangerous than primary smoking – even if you are personally not claiming this)

“Other risks of cancer: Yes they certainly exist”

Now explain why these and many more everyday substances, according to research, are apparently a greater danger in terms of RR, yet considered to be of no real health concern? (By the way a normal two hour barbeque produces toxins equivalent to 220,000 cigarettes according to a recent study. From memory, the study noted that in order for this to be dangerous you would need to have two or three barbeques every week for 10-20 years- (clearly you wouldn’t be inhaling all 220000 cigs worth, but a substantial amount nevertheless) Are third world countries into barbeques too?


“Jamrozik estimated that passive smoking lies behind around 11,000 UK deaths each year.” - Who the F**k is Jamrozic? (Sounds like a rapper to me) –How did he work this out? show me his math? What did he use for data? (SAMMEC possibly?) There are allegedly 79,000 in EU and 500,000 in US – these figures, plucked out of the air, change almost daily. You see, these silly figures are probably based on the flawed SHS studies so if the data is flawed, the figures generated are also flawed.(You have already pointed out that not one death has been validly attributed to SHS).

“But this convention does not apply in cases where evidence is corroborated through scores of different studies, as is the case with passive smoking”.

Some do claim that if epidemiological studies can be replicated and reproduced then causation can be ‘inferred’. This is only one interpretation of the value of these types of study. Repeating the same studies with the same methodology is not what I and many others would call ‘corroborative’. (Even if those figures were valid in the first place, which in the case of anti-tobacco interpretation of ET
51

Charles IIIX,

28/12/2008 10:40:31
(Even if those figures were valid in the first place, which in the case of anti-tobacco interpretation of ETS studies, they are not). This is just repetition of a correlation only. Did you know that there is a strong statistically significant relationship between a rise in ice cream sales and a rise in shark attacks? This could be ‘corroborated’ by many studies – but does ice cream make sharks attack?

I will humour you and reply in relation to the anti tobacco propaganda you quote as ‘independent’ (give your head a shake!); It must have taken you all of 30 seconds to find these. This highlights the control anti-tobacco have over all media – you could have quoted many more anti-tobacco propaganda papers, but finding some REAL independent studies or studies that have been interpreted impartially will take much longer. (Persevere and you will be rewarded with a true outlook on the issue)

IARC is part of the WHO – synergistic effects with asbestos, radon etc
When deaths cannot be explained by SHS alone they resort to trying to link it with other cancer causing agents – they will NOT accept the full significance of those other agents as causes in their own right.

Do you know who controls the WHO, and subsequently IARC, its anti-tobacco section?
Clue; http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1999/en/pr99-04.html

Can the WHO ever be trusted? Example; http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/05/07/who-evidence.html


Hackshaw et al “Analysis of 37 published epidemiological studies of the risk of lung cancer (4626 cases) The excess risk of lung cancer was only 24% Do you know what an excess risk of 24% actually is? (It is NOT a 24% actual risk) let me know what your understanding is of this.
Note that this is a meta-analysis and ONLY 37 studies have been cherry picked to serve their purpose but still only 24% extra risk!! (Compare with Chris Snowden who explains 64 studies)

Law et al; “... to explain why the associated excess risk is almost half that of smoking 20 cig
52

Charles IIIX,

28/12/2008 10:41:34

Law et al; “... to explain why the associated excess risk is almost half that of smoking 20 cigarettes per day when the exposure is only about 1% that of smoking.”

Is SHS more dangerous than primary smoking – see prev. comment.

“Design: Meta-analysis of all 19 acceptable published studies of risk, increase risk by 23%”
This one uses only 19 ‘ACCEPTABLE’ specifically chosen studies!! (guess what ‘acceptable’ means?)

Brennan et al; “Pooled analysis of data from 2 previously reported large case-control studies was used. Subjects included 1,263 never smoking lung cancer patients and 2,740 population and hospital controls recruited during 1985-1994 from 5 metropolitan areas in the United States, 11 areas in Germany, Italy, Sweden, United Kingdom, France, Spain and Portugal. Odds ratios (ORs) of lung cancer were calculated for ever exposure and duration of exposure to secondhand smoke from spouse, workplace and social sources. The OR for ever exposure to spousal smoking was 1.18 (95% CI = 1.01-1.37) and for long-term exposure was 1.23”

Large case controlled studies? I suppose they are large - ish but Elstrom and Kabat’s study, that found SHS no risk, consisted of 26,000 subjects over 38 years!

And; ‘ever exposure’ –who has never been exposed? (all non smokers basically) only 5% less risk than long term exposure? Work it out!

“Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH). Secondhand smoke: review of evidence since 1998. Update of evidence on health effects of secondhand smoke. (2004)”

This document basically uses the studies you previously quoted, with the same conclusions, same methodology, same propaganda.
In fairness, it does ‘mention’ some other studies that show no link between SHS harm; eg “[The Elstrom & Kabatt study] reported no relationship between exposure to SHS and heart disease “but then spoils it by concluding; “ There is no reason to revise SCOTH’s conclusions relating to a number of causal effects” (only the ‘right’ stu
53

Charles IIIX,

28/12/2008 10:42:42
(only the ‘right’ studies can be used)

Check out the interests of those involved with SCOTH – then tell me its evaluation of the studies are ‘independent’ (Clue; the majority, if not all, are in some way funded, supported by, connected to, or represent Big Pharma and/or anti tobacco.)

I have to say Rollo that you have convinced me – not that SHS is harmful but that you are closely connected with ‘tobacco control’. Your attempt to disseminate anti-tobacco ‘cluster bomb’ propaganda tactics appears to be much more than just a passing layman’s interest. Now, show me some information that is NOT tainted, misinterpreted or skewed in favour of anti-tobacco. It is in the interests of YOUR and my freedom, to expose pseudo science and corruption – before modern fascism fully prevails.
54

Charles IIIX,

28/12/2008 14:04:30
Oh, and Rollo; Please don’t insult the intelligence of anyone by quoting this ridiculous “9 out of 10 lung cancer cases are attributable to cigarette smoking.” It is a total lie that has been repeated for over 50 years, and so obvious that anyone who quotes it should be ashamed at the ease in which they have been conditioned into believing this rubbish!

These are also estimated causes of lung cancer;

Asbestos; 2% to 5% of all lung cancers (grossly underestimated)

Radon: 14% of all lung cancers (2004 EPA)

Diet: 20 % to 42% of all lung cancers (Ziegler RG; Willett WC)

Air Pollution: 12% of all lung cancers (Karch and Schneiderman)

Just add these few up on top of your estimated 90% caused by smoking. WOW that = 173 % already!

This ignores many other lung cancer causes, eg genetic factors, PM2.5’s, diesel fumes, metals and chemicals such as chromium, arsenic, and man made radiation etc etc. etc.
55

Rollo Tommasi,

28/12/2008 18:43:37
Charles IIIX: Just as I suspected, more spin from you, throw in some irrelevant arguments and try to pass them off as genuine! Yes, your own words are so appropriately used against you.

But let me answer your points.

You refer to smoking prevalence in Uganda and Kenya but you clearly have little understanding of the issues. How ironic that the very document you cite (Gender in lung cancer and smoking research, WHO 2004) refers to tobacco use as the main risk factor behind lung cancer. Why didn’t you mention that? And why do you only refer to male smoking rates? Female smoking rates are much, much lower. You scoff at the notion that smoking consumption is rising fast in Africa, but it is – around 4% each year. Evidence from the developed world shows a time lag of 20-30 years between changes in smoking levels and changes in lung cancer episodes, so you should not expect increases in smoking prevalence to result in immediate increases in lung cancer rates. And then there’s another big reason. Average life expectancy in East Africa is only around 50, so many Kenyans and Ugandans die before lung cancer or heart disease takes hold.

You claim “that smoking incidence has reduced by almost 50% from the early 70’s to the late 90’s – yet more non-smokers are contracting IHD and lung cancer”. What sources do you have for this? What account do your sources take of the fact that, since there are more non-smokers in the UK now than in the 1970s, you would expect more non-smokers to contract IHD, lung cancer and other diseases?

Contrary to your claims, the overwhelming balance of evidence shows that light smokers are at MORE risk of lung cancer than non-smokers. Hackshaw et al (1997) examined data on the dose-response relation between the number of cigarettes smoked by the husband and the risk of lung cancer across 16 studies. The results show a significant dose-response relationship between dose and risk. This included a clear added relative risk for light smokers ov
56

Rollo Tommasi,

28/12/2008 18:44:12
This included a clear added relative risk for light smokers over non-smokers.

You ask why other risk factors are supposedly “considered to be of no real health concern”. Really? How wrong you are. The cooking smoke risk is a red herring – it is a risk only in developing countries. But vehicle pollution is accepted as a health concern, which is why vehicles are subject to increasingly stringent emissions limits. Asbestos is accepted as a health concern, which it why has been banned from construction projects for years now. People have easy access to dietary advice, including warnings not consuming too much animal fat. And, while radon gas and genetic links are accepted as risk factors, there’s not exactly much that can been presently done to address these, is there?

After your charming request as to who Jamrozik is, here is his article for the BMJ in 2005, which concludes with an estimate of around 11,000 deaths attributable to passive smoking in the UK each year. Compare that with the 3,000 or so deaths each year from road traffic accidents. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7495/812. Those figures are based on relative risk by the way (and yes, I do know the difference between that and absolute risk).

You then go on to question the evidence I have cited about the dangers of passive smoking. Only you don’t have the grounds to challenge the studies on their merits. Yours are cynical comments based on innuendo and ad hominem attacks.

Your complaints about IARC and SCOTH are ad hominem. You offer no evidence to back up your implication that these particular studies may have been tainted and have next to no critique to make of the studies themselves (other than a brief mention of Enstrom & Kabat in SCOTH – did you see that SCOTH said including E&K’s results made only a marginal difference to their overall findings?). It is particularly ironic that you make these smears about WHO and SCOTH being biased because of who gave them funding, when you go on
57

Rollo Tommasi,

28/12/2008 18:44:48
It is particularly ironic that you make these smears about WHO and SCOTH being biased because of who gave them funding, when you go on to extol the highly questionable virtues of Enstrom & Kabat – who received money from Big Tobacco. How hypocritical is that!

Your criticisms of Hackshaw et al and Law et al are based on unsubstantiated allegations that they “cherry-picked” studies. In fact, the Hackshaw report openly discusses which studies were excluded and why. And, if you are so convinced Law et al cherry-picked studies, please tell me which ones they should have included and why.

Hackshaw usefully shows how well the pooled results stand. Note in particular how similar are the results from case-control studies (1.24 RR) and cohort studies (1.27 RR).

You suggest Brennan et al, which featured 1,263 never smoking lung cancer patients, is not very big. You say Enstrom and Kabat is bigger. Really? Its overall sample size was big, but within that it contained only 256 people who died from lung cancer.

I have found all of this out through my own research. Nobody owns me. I have just taken the time and trouble to find things out for myself. Yours are the comments of a closed-minded bigot, who assumes I must be part of “tobacco control” because I can see your nonsense for what it really is.
58

Rollo Tommasi,

28/12/2008 19:31:10
As for your post 54, you are failing to mention that lung cancer for a particular individual could have a number of causes. Nothing you claim takes away from the fact that, in developed countries, around 90% of lung cancer cases involve smokers and that it is by far the biggest risk factor.

Radon – It is estimated that between 10% and 14% of lung cancer deaths in the US could be attributed to radon. But the risk of harm from radon is much greater for smokers than for non-smokers (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/bmj.38308.477650.63v1).

Air pollution: “Relative to cigarette smoking, the excess lung cancer risk associated with ambient air pollution is small.” (http://www.ehponline.org/members/2000/suppl-4/743-750cohen/cohen-full.html).

Diet: Appears to be a relatively minor factor (http://hcd2.bupa.co.uk/fact_sheets/html/lung_cancer.html#4).
“Avoidance of cigarette smoking is the most effective method of reducing the risk of lung cancer. Quitting smoking causes approximately a 10-fold drop in the risk, whereas the decrease in the risk of lung cancer associated with increased vegetable and fruit intake is, at most, 2-fold” (http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPNS%2FPNS58_02%2FS0029665199000440a.pdf&code=121ffef2962c697dae713db408d36660).
59

Charles IIIX,

29/12/2008 13:12:08
Rollo, have you not noticed yet that it is often a good way of showing the shortfalls in allegedly original study or alleged impartial interpretation of original study. Just because I cite a study does not mean that I endorse it – far from it on most occasions. You will find that most pro-choice commentators use the self same studies that anti-tobacco use plus the ones that they leave out.

Don’t you know what the female smoking figures are for Uganda and Kenya?– I’ll help you out; around 17% and 32%. Respectively - are these figures ‘much much lower’?

Do you know what other causes of lung cancer have a latency period of 20 – 30 years (give or take a few years) – should we not be considering those also?

Do I also detect a little ‘niggle’ in your post, as you realise that not everyone accepts your deference to anti-tobacco and that they are not beyond reproach, in fact their house of cards, I believe, is falling down as I write. Can I expect some ‘full on’ abuse in your next reply because of the contempt I and many others now have for anti-tobacco organisations and individuals because of the damage they have caused to society, the degradation of scientific medical research and their contempt for personal freedoms. This is in a country that was once the flagship of tolerance and freedom to the world but now to be pitied by more progressive societies, yet still copied by other, less progressive countries who believe our country (and the US to a degree) should be unquestionably followed because of some misplaced national loyalty, national deference or political ignorance. A sad indictment!

Innuendo – no! Ad Hominem attacks – yes, definitely! Not fallaciously but with due consideration and definitely warranted. What, as they say, ‘is good for the goose is also good for the gander’. There are £billions sloshing around anti-tobacco from Big Pharma, available to anyone who is prepared to sell their services for their 40 pieces of silver.

These Ad Hominem l
60

Charles IIIX,

29/12/2008 13:12:55
These Ad Hominem lessons have been learned directly from anti-tobacco who owe their very existence to ad hominem attacks on tobacco companies and individuals. Then their use of ‘appeal to authority’ is maintained to continue with their deception. Anyone who dares to question the ‘teachings’ of anti-tobacco is attacked as being a big tobacco stooge. Any independent or counter research to that produced by Big Pharma money is now almost non existent but some scientists do still believe in honesty, integrity, and personal honour.

In fact, this article, gives a little indication of just how much is money available to anti-tobacco? Here are two scientists apparently solely employed to try to discover any morsel of evidence with which to base ad hominem attacks on tobacco companies and individuals. (jobs for the boys! – or is ‘jobsworths’ more appropriate) They found a tobacco ‘plant’ (excuse pun); someone who has some affiliation with P Morris so he MUST be corrupt! - Let’s put out a press release to smear and degrade him while maintaining the perception that tobacco companies are the devils helpers!

“The report was partly funded by the National Cancer Institute in the US”. Tell me Rollo, who funds the NCI – you will need to look closely? Most people will think that the NCI’s purpose is to investigate the causes of and cures for cancer, not to discredit those who oppose Big Pharma corruption. Tell me Rollo, why the NCI would want to be involved in dirt digging against tobacco companies. Surely they should be trying to find cures for cancer? Can you point to anyone, anywhere who is employed purely to find any dirty linen in Big Pharma! Anti-tobacco are THE masters of deceit and ad hominem attacks and Big Pharma leave big tobacco standing when it comes to corruption!

Those few true scientists who still value integrity have invariably been viciously attacked by anti-tobacco – on both a personal basis by challenging their integrity and cynical attacks on their wor
61

Charles IIIX,

29/12/2008 13:14:00
on both a personal basis by challenging their integrity and cynical attacks on their work – and also withdrawal of funds for future research. Elstrom and Kabat are typical examples but there are more. Do you know (of course you do) that anti-tobacco have proclaimed that any scientist who has accepted any form of funding from tobacco companies at any time in the past will be denied any funding from Big Pharma- and they have the big money! – (If you control the money, you control the information AND the results)

You criticise ad hominem attacks then use your own (just like anti-tobacco) to try and discredit E&K! You know of course that E & K’s study,(that produced the embarrassing results), were actually funded by the American Cancer Society, an avid anti tobacco organisation. The ACS *WITHDREW * their funding when it became clear, near the study’s conclusion, that the study was going to come up with the ‘wrong’ results. E&M were denied funding by any other source (ask the question why?) so they were forced to use tobacco funds to produce their report. It was either that or allow it to be suppressed and forgotten about. Then, unbelievably, they try an ad hominem attack on E&K to discredit their own study (and you fall for it - or try to perpetuate it Rollo!). This not just hypocritical but an indication of how arrogant and beyond reproach they believe they are.

You OMITTED to mention this, can I ask WHY? (Who mentioned hypocrisy and contextomy?) This particular example, highlighted by your good self, is a perfect example of the shameful integrity of anti-tobacco and how I have the greatest contempt for them! If, as you say, you are an independent commentator then you are seriously brainwashed, and incapable of looking beyond anti-tobacco propaganda that you continually quote. Not just closed but a locked and barred mind perhaps?. Which poses the question, who is the most stupid, you for trying to indoctrinate others into the anti-tobacco religion or me for tr
62

Charles IIIX,

29/12/2008 13:15:28
Which poses the question, who is the most stupid, you for trying to indoctrinate others into the anti-tobacco religion or me for trying to get you to look at information beyond that religion? ‘Flogging a dead horse’ comes to mind.

I did ask you to explain how Jamrozik produced his 11000 deaths figure and what do I get in reply; a link that doesn’t work and a comparison with road accident deaths! Can you not understand the difference between ‘verifiable’ deaths as in road deaths, and ‘estimates’ based on flawed data (relative risk) and correlation (Ice cream and sharks)? Seeing as not one death can be verified for primary smoking how can you extrapolate for SHS? (rubbish in – rubbish out).Try again!

You then say you understand the difference between relative and absolute risk yet you do not explain what 24% increased risk, in relation to SHS harm, actually means. There are two answers to this; 1. You do NOT understand, 2. You DO understand, (more likely) but recognise that if you were to explain it, it would show how insignificant a 24% increased risk actually is and by so doing show the absurdity of such risk – and this is the ‘official’ RR. Explaining to the public one of the best uses of statistical manipulation is not good for the ‘cause’ is it Rollo? A 24% risk is so minor it cannot logically be used to direct smoking policy - yet it does!

My analogy, so you understand it, is as follows; you but a lottery ticket that means you have ‘x’ chance (risk) of winning the jackpot (slim) . You then buy a second ticket and as a result you have INCREASED your chances (risk) of winning, not by 24% but by 100%!! That’s a massive increase in your chances of winning – isn’t it? Any chance you would like to give your interpretation?

You point to all the studies that produce this 24% risk as ‘corroboration’ but in order for this to occur they have to account for ‘confounders’ and in any given epidemiological study there are literally hundreds or thousands of con
63

Charles IIIX,

29/12/2008 13:16:46
You point to all the studies that produce this 24% risk as ‘corroboration’ but in order for this to occur they have to account for ‘confounders’ and in any given epidemiological study there are literally hundreds or thousands of confounders – any one of which could drastically change the final result. Look a bit closer at this and you will realise that ‘confounders’ are one of the main fundamental flaws in epidemiological (statistical) study. Is it not logical that to find the same result over and over again each confounder must have the same value in every one of those studies? The question to ask is who determines the relative value or weighting of each confounder and how is this value determined? In reality it is almost impossible to account for every confounder hence the need for a RR over 2.0 for any study to be anywhere near close to indicating a slim causation (but as I said before – this can never be proved – only correlation). The other problem is not in omitting confounders but placing too much weighting on specific confounders (eg smoking when studying other carcinogens) In a nutshell, Epidemiology is fundamentally flawed – repetition is NOT corroboration!

Other points; Lung cancer/ smoking @ 90% plus Radon @ 14% = 104% + all the other ‘minor’ factors - so what is your point apart from trying to use the diversionary tactic of synergistic effects - that still do not add up?

Other substances that are more dangerous than SHS ; Red Herrings?
Cooking; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3106039.stm

How about Milk, http://www.rense.com/general26/milk.htm

Then there is coffee, electromagnetism near power lines even water +++ (I’ll let you find the risks associated with these products if you really are telling the truth about being your ‘own man’)

Hackshaw; chooses only 37 studies, ignoring many others, How would you describe it, if not cherry picking?

Brennan; Try learning the difference between prospective and retrospective studies, which i
64

Charles IIIX,

29/12/2008 13:17:31
Brennan; Try learning the difference between prospective and retrospective studies, which is considered the most accurate, and refer back to my previous comments on these studies.

"I always felt that a scientist owes the world only one thing, and that is the truth as he sees it. If the truth contradicts deeply held beliefs, that is too bad. Tact and diplomacy are fine in international relations, in politics, perhaps even in business; in science only one thing matters, and that is the facts." (Eysenck commenting on the demise of medical research)

These comments are getting larger – sorry, but it is necessary to expose anti-tobacco and those who preach that religion.
65

Rollo Tommasi,

29/12/2008 18:22:02
Charles IIIX: I had hoped that in 6 posts, you might have come up with a few reasonable points or concessions on the points I made yesterday. I was hoping this might be shaping up into an interesting and informed debate. How disappointed I was when I read what you came up with……

Actually, I’m prepared to start with a concession of my own. I thought female smoking rates in Kenya and Uganda were lower than they are. So I’ll give you that. But the smoking rates in both countries for “all adults” are much lower than for males only. In the case of Uganda, adult smoking rates are not much higher than in some European countries.

Remarkably, for such a long series of postings, you manage to completely ignore many of the points I made. Why is that? Did you forget to mention them? Or do you simply lack both the evidence to back up your original claims and the guts to admit you might be wrong?

1. On Africa, you were originally trying to place strong doubts on smoking being a main cause of lung cancers and heart disease. I explained why rates for these diseases might be lower in Kenya or Uganda than in the UK or US (e.g. average life expectancy in Kenya and Uganda is about 50). So what’s your response? Only a small comment that other factors can cause lung cancer in time too. True. But you pretend to forget that your original claim was that experience from Africa is “inconvenient” for “anti-tobacco”.

2. You claimed earlier that “smoking incidence has reduced by almost 50% from the early 70’s to the late 90’s – yet more non-smokers are contracting IHD and lung cancer”. I asked for your sources on this. I also suggested that, since there are more non-smokers in the UK now than in the 1970s, it might be reasonable to expect more non-smokers to contract IHD, lung cancer and other diseases. Guess what? In your latest postings, you have absolutely nothing more to say on this issue either. Why is that?

3. You also omitted to say anything about my answer to your clai
66

Rollo Tommasi,

29/12/2008 18:22:24
3. You also omitted to say anything about my answer to your claim that studies supposedly show light smokers have a lesser risk of lung cancer than non-smokers. Why is that?

4. I answered the points in your earlier response about the risks of other substances and factors. I see you once again neither have an answer for these points or the politeness to acknowledge what I might be saying. Your reply has 2 elements. First, you say (with nothing to back up your point) that “synergistic effects” is a “diversionary tactic”. In that way is it diversionary? Multiple risk factors are a relevant point. And I gave you links and quotes last time to show that radon, etc are much greater risks to smokers than to non-smokers.

The second element you use is to list new risk factors. Yes, they are risk factors too. But they are much, much smaller risks to most people than smoking. There is no risk ratio given for the barbecue link you provide. Consuming whole milk or coffee can indeed increase a person’s risk – if taken in large quantities. And, as I’ve already said, people already have easy access to dietary advice on how to reduce their risk to a range of diseases. As for electricity pylons, the issue continues to be investigated but causation has yet to be shown (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7503/1290).

And then we get to the issues of innuendo and ad hominem attacks. Your justifications for ad hominem attacks are out of order and have no part of a reasonable debate on the dangers of smoking and second hand smoke (by either side, incidentally). It’s also out of order for you to blithely reach conclusions about the scientists in this article when you know nothing about what they’ve been doing or what they’ve found. Tell you what: I’ve found the actual research article. Why don’t you read it: http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050238. Then tell me if it was out of order for this study to be undertaken or for
67

Rollo Tommasi,

29/12/2008 18:23:10
Then tell me if it was out of order for this study to be undertaken or for it to be supported by the NCI.

Let me put you straight. I did not make an ad hom attack on Enstrom & Kabat. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in your argument, by dismissing anything by anyone who might have received funding from Big Pharma but extolling the virtues of a study funded by Big Tobacco!

You make a big song and dance about how E&K were treated by the ACS. However, my understanding of what happened to them is not the same as yours. I understand the ACS withdrew funding after E&K repeatedly ignored advice that using CPS-I data to study the effects of secondhand smoke would lead to unreliable results. Looking at their report, I prefer my version of events to yours. There are many grounds on which the methodology E&K used can be criticised. For instance, although the study continued until 1998, no attempt was made to check if participants’ circumstances changed after 1972. In this time, their spouse may have quit smoking or taken it up; they may have died, or the couple may have divorced or separated. Any of these changes could have had a major bearing on a participant’s exposure to passive smoke, but the study did not pick these up.

So let’s sum up your comments on the 5 reports I highlighted as recommended reading:

IARC: Nothing, other than the ad hominem attacks on the committees in your previous postings.
SCOTH: Likewise nothing.
Law: Nothing – even though I explicitly asked you which studies you believe they should have included in their study but did not.
Hackshaw: You simply repeat a claim that they “cherry-picked”, but offer no examples of valid studies that should have been included. If you bothered to look, you’d see that Hackshaw included almost all of the studies listed by Chris Snowdon that were available at the time. He also includes some studies which Snowdon seems to have omitted from his (or should I say cherry-picked out of his?) supposedly “defini
68

Rollo Tommasi,

29/12/2008 18:23:47
He also includes some studies which Snowdon seems to have omitted from his (or should I say cherry-picked out of his?) supposedly “definitive” list.
Butler (1988): 8 cases, RR 2.0 (0.5–8.6)
Jockel (1991): 23 cases, RR 2.27 (0.75-6.82)
Lam (1985): 60 cases, RR 2.0 (1.1–3.7)

Brennan: Your only comment was a sarcastic message that I should “try learning the difference between prospective and retrospective studies”. Actually, Charles, if you have read my last message, you would have known that I understand the difference perfectly well. I pointed out how Hackshaw’s results showed remarkable similarity in the findings of case control (retrospective) and cohort (prospective) studies.

As for Jamrozik, I’ve been able to access the report easily enough. The report was called “Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults: database analysis” and it was in the BMJ in 2005.

You try to make a distinction between “verifiable” deaths and “estimates”. I’m quite prepared to accept the 11,000 figure should not be read to reflect the exact number of deaths attributable to passive smoking, but it is a good rangefinder for the scale of these deaths. And the estimates are based on sound measures.

You then give some definitions of “relative risk”, “corroboration” and “confounders”. Guess what? The studies I have referred to demonstrate corroboration and they are very good at taking account of potential confounders. If you disagree, it is up to you to read the studies for themselves and explain to me how you think the studies do not address the issues adequately. It’s nonsense to try to base an argument on innuendo that they might not address confounders when you haven’t even checked the studies for yourself!
You may think a 24% relative risk is insignificant. But it is very significant when it potentially affects so many people and relates to common causes of death. In the case of passive smoking, it is a risk factor for more than one cause of death
69

Rollo Tommasi,

29/12/2008 18:24:20
In the case of passive smoking, it is a risk factor for more than one cause of death – lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease and, it increasingly appears, stroke too. That is why these apparently modest relative risk levels can lead to such large mortality rates. For you to cling to the apparently small figures and ignore the huge public health implications is shocking.

And as for your claim that “Epidemiology is fundamentally flawed”. Well, you are entitled to your opinion. But independent professional scientists do not agree. Not even Eysenck says that. Hope you don't mind if I prefer their opinion to yours.
70

Belinda-2,

29/12/2008 23:58:06
Rollo

'You may think a 24% relative risk is insignificant. But it is very significant when it potentially affects so many people and relates to common causes of death.'

So let me get this straight. One person running a very slight risk is not a problem. Thousands of people running a very slight risk means that the very slight risk is actually a big one?

Your understanding of risk must be quite unique Rollo. A small risk is a small risk, no matter how many people run it. Just because many people die of 'smoking related' conditions, which are bound to kill people because they afflict vital organs in the body, does not entitle you to reason backwards and state that these diseases were largely caused by secondary smoke when we have already concluded a risk factor of only 24 per cent.

'The studies I have referred to demonstrate corroboration and they are very good at taking account of potential confounders. If you disagree, it is up to you to read the studies for themselves and explain to me how you think the studies do not address the issues adequately.' A poor argument. It is your task to demonstrate that the studies you have referred to can account for confounders.

I asked you in another thread about the underlying risk of non-exposed non-smokers to heart disease, and you said it was the total number of non-smokers dying of heart disease. Didn't you?

I think it is for you to demonstrate an awareness of the confounders, not the other people on this forum.



71

Colin Gee,

Banff 30/12/2008 00:32:54
(As a qualifier, I have not even read the story. I know it to be biased sh1te). They always are.

Rollo, although well meaning, is an unwitting tool of the pharmaceutical cartel.

I pity him, and the fools that adhere to his pathetic logic.

Evidence is wasted on these people. They prefer propaganda to fact, they prefer "consensus" to science.

To them, "the end justifies the means".

It never does.

The only thing that matters is an experiment that can be reproduced, time and time again.

What they CANNOT prove is that second hand smoke harms. Time and time again, over decades, they have been proved wrong. BILLIONS of dollars worth of experiments have NOT resulted in lab animals contracting illness. Not one, not ever. Even rats SPECIALLY bred to contract cancer, failed so to do.

I think the time has come to ask: does Rollo have a dead relative somewhere, who somehow, walked past a person who happened to be smoking, and by chance, contracted a cancer?

If it isn't money that motivates these freaks, it is the misconception that tobacco, however weakly, contributed towards their death, which, however tenuously, was somehow related to tobacco.

Tell all. I think we deserve to know.
72

ChrisUK,

30/12/2008 00:44:39
I posted earlier on how I only believe what actually happens rather than anti-smoking studies. The truth of time always tells.
Time has now shown by independant scientists that the majority of smokers do not develop lung cancer - and that funding needs to be directed elsewhere to understand the major contributing factor of this academic that is aflicting the developed world (even though smoking is being reduced!)
Time has also shown that smoking bans do nothing to prevent ACS admissions now that true government figures (instead of anti-smoking agency figures) have been published.
Time has also shown that smoking bans do nothing to reduce the smoking rates of populations. If anything, they actually reduce a previous downward trend.
Time has also shown that smoking bans do nothing other than increase unemployment, homelessness and hatred within societies and the breakup of communities
73

Rollo Tommasi,

30/12/2008 09:01:36
Gosh. Word has obviously reached F2C Towers that CharlesIIIX needed some help. So is this the cavalry riding in?

Belinda: my point about risk is that you and your F2C chums like to express risk in a very narrow way. In other words, the risk to ONE person from ONE passive smoking-related disease.

Jamrozik provides a calculation for what these apparently small additional relative risks (e.g. 24% for lung cancer) mean in terms of UK deaths per year. That’s how he comes up with his 11,000 figure of deaths from either lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease or stroke attributable to passive smoking. That total accounts for around 1 in 60 UK deaths each year. So, in terms of absolute risk, this excess relative risk of passive smoking is actually very significant. Compare it, for example, with the 1 in 200 UK deaths caused by road traffic accidents.

You say “It is your task to demonstrate that the studies you have referred to can account for confounders.” I totally disagree. These studies were produced by professionals, they have been published and are open to scrutiny by professionals and lay people. If Charles or anyone else has problems with these studies, then he’s within his rights to criticise them. But he has to read them first – preferably with an open mind. It is ridiculous for you to say that the validity of these studies should be challenged just because some lay person who hasn’t even read them has asked a broad question.

I recall having a debate with you about relative risk and its meaning previously. I could have just referred you to Jamrozik and asked you to find out for yourself. I tried to be helpful and we got into a confused discussion. I thought at the time I was being clear enough. This time, I’ll simply refer you to Jamrozik (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7495/812) and invite you to find out for yourself how he came up with his particular figures.
74

Rollo Tommasi,

30/12/2008 09:12:16
Colin: I must admit to liking your writing style. It’s very readable and digestable. It’s also pretty good at covering up yawning gaps in terms of underlying substance and evidence. You’d make a great political speechwriter.

Take your latest posting for instance. You claim “Evidence is wasted on these people. They prefer propaganda to fact, they prefer "consensus" to science.” But you then start a diatribe without the slightest hint of supporting evidence! You even openly admit that you’ve already decided that this report is biased without even reading it for yourself!! Whatever happened to you old claim that you had “opened your mind”?

By the way, if you’re serious about the animal experiments issue, you’ll understand the big issue is the difficulty in recreating life-like conditions in labs. But, contrary to what you say, evidence does show that mice exposed to passive smoke are a significantly greater risk of lung cancer than control mice (see De Flora et al., Modulation of cigarette smoke-related end-points in mutagenesis and carcinogenesis (2003) – you’ll find it discussed in the IARC Monograph).
75

Rollo Tommasi,

30/12/2008 09:22:07
ChrisUK: I gave you a detailed response to your previous post. I also posted details of 5 professional scientific reports – which are absolutely not the “anti-smoking studies” you now refer to. Don’t I deserve either a response or acknowledgement that I may be right?

I find this comment absolutely bizarre: “Time has now shown by independent (sic) scientists that the majority of smokers do not develop lung cancer”. Whoever said the majority did? Why is it important that they do? The majority of people have not been killed by wars, AIDS, SARS, flu epidemics or heart disease. Isn’t it still right that we take take appropriate action to reduce people's risk of death from all these causes - smoking attributable deaths included? After all, evidence does tell us that around half of current smokers will be killed by their habit if they continue to smoke. And 25-40% of smokers will die in middle age.
76

DaveA,

Room101 30/12/2008 10:00:54
Rollo seeing as you have mention the SCOTH Report let us have a look at the 16 person panel and their conflict of interests. Four are members of the Labour Party, two work for ASH, one for the WHO, one employed by a pharmaceutical company and three have enjoyed grants or hospitality at the hands of pharmaceutical companies. Hardly a balanced panel is it? For example tobacco companies employ PHD medical qualified people why were they not invited?

So what did the SCOTH report say, exactly what we have said the studies are statistically insignificant.

"In most studies considered individually the observed odds ratios failed to reach statistical significance."

http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/scoth/members.htm



http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4101474



77

DaveA,

Room101 30/12/2008 10:10:05
Rollo while I am here I have you at a disadvantage as these are the contents of private email from one of the committee members, especially the phrase "any level of risk is a matter of judgement." My point is the whole debate on SHS/ETS is not a matter of objectivity but subjectivity. Political expediancy and personal prejudice triumph over the truth and science.

"You raise the issue of Relative Risk, and I do not
propose to get involved in an argument as to what is a significant Relative Risk in this context - any level of risk is a matter for judgement, and particularly in the case of a public health issue there is an important precautionary argument, and we were asked as a committee to express an opinion, based on the evidence."
78

WITIGES,

england 30/12/2008 11:45:03
FREEDOM DOES NOT NEED ANY SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION
FREEDOM HAS BEEN EARNED BY GUTS AND HONOUR ,NOT WORDS.

IF THE ANTIS WANT TO TAKE OUR FREEDOMS AWAY SO BE IT
BUT NO CRYING NO WIMPERING
WHEN IN 09 WE WILL , REPEAT, WE WILL FIND THEM AND
TAKE THEIR FREEDOMS AWAY. THERE ARE NO HIDING PLACES

IN THE MEANWHILE TO ALL HEALTH FASCISTS

ASCENDO TUUM
79

WITIGES,

ENGLAND 30/12/2008 12:07:52
JUST READ A COMMENT BY SOME ROLLO CHAPPY ABOUT THE
ARRIVAL OF CAVALRY YO SUPPORT THE PRO SMOKING VIEW
MY DEAR ROLLO, WORRY THY CONCERNED SOUL NOT FOR
MY NOBLE PICTISH CAVALRY , ITS "RICHARD 1 AND THE
HEAVY HORSE" YOU'DE BETTER KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN FOR

I RESPECT YOUR VIEWS AND I WOULD FIGHT TO DEFEND
YOUR RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEM
BUT TO THIS SAXON SERF
THEY ARE
NON GRADUS "REAR" RODENTUM

(REAR) MEDICAL LATIN WORD PROHIBETED BY CENSOR

80

Tag,

Paisley 30/12/2008 13:15:23
Why is former F2C Chairman Colin Grainger masquerading as Colin Gee?

Why is Visogoth masquerading a WITIGES? (Does Visigoth/Witiges keyboard not do lower case?)

Why do the pro-smoking clan have to post in packs when they are losing the argument?

Why did f2c ever accept as their leader someone who happily opens a post "(As a qualifier, I have not even read the story. I know it to be biased sh1te). They always are."?

81

lordsid,

30/12/2008 13:46:56
As to the 92 EPA report.The study is junk,and so is every other study that includes it's results.The appeal was not over the validity of this "study" but (mainly) whether the EPA "Report was reviewable final agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)" The appeal was just a "face saving" attempt.Besides,the U.S. Senate found the same thing as Osteen.(3 times iirc)

As for hiding the 1998 WHO study.Who are you trying to fool Rollo? This story was world wide news at the time.It "broke" in an English newspaper.A WHO official did originally deny the existence of it.The WHO's cover story was changed as the story spread.(& yes I know the name of the (then) WHO official,he's now pretty well the head of an anti-smoker org. in Canada)
82

DaveA,

Room101 30/12/2008 14:04:31
LordSid: The WHO 1998 Passive Smoking Report, I have it!

The good news after busting a gut I have been able to get a copy. The Enstrom/Kabat report gives an RR of 1.25 for lung cancer, the WHO is 1.16. So Rollo et al you in the anti smoking lobby have just dug your own graves as it is now in the public domain. Also to rub your noses in it they also found that children of smokers had less lung cancer by a factor of 22%, SHS/ETS is indeed protective.

BACKGROUND: An association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer risk has been suggested. To evaluate this possible association better, researchers need more precise estimates of risk, the relative contribution of different sources of ETS, and the effect of ETS exposure on different histologic types of lung cancer. To address these issues, we have conducted a case-control study of lung cancer and exposure to ETS in 12 centers from seven European countries. METHODS: A total of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects up to 74 years of age were interviewed about exposure to ETS. Neither case subjects nor control subjects had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime. RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64- 0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93- 1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and sma
83

DaveA,

Room101 30/12/2008 14:06:27
The 1998 WHO Study URL

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/19/1440
84

lordsid,

30/12/2008 14:46:03
As for the 2003 Enstrom & Kabat study.This study was defended by the BMJ when the anti-smokers wanted it removed.They said that they were anti-tobacco,not anti-science.The antis then attacked the (then) editor,still trying to force compliance with their demands,by going over his head to the BMA.Obviously,this shady tactic did not work either.This is why the antis started their smear campaign which continues to this day.The drivel created around this study is a good indication of the tactics that the antis will resort to in order to get their way.The fact is that this study was started by the ACS,and was almost entirely financed by them.It was only when the results became apparent did the ACS withdraw the financing.This was an attempt to hide this study too.
85

lordsid,

30/12/2008 15:16:52
Thanks Dave,but I have a copy.Others reading this probably won't though.I haven't seen anyone trying to use Rollo's arguments for quite some time as (most of) them have been refuted.(have not read all yet though) By the looks of it,I'd have to spend a large part of the day here,which I can't.(have to go to work soon) Besides,others are doing a really good job so I'll try to "fill in around the edges" while I have time.

86

Belinda-2,

30/12/2008 15:30:52
Rollo

Thanks for posting the Jamrozik article. I can't see where he even attempts to address the confounders though. He appears to be a researcher dedicated to proving that secondary smoke is lethal, even opening his paper by denying that smoking bans can possibly harm the hospitality industry.

Nor can I see how a small risk of disease from secondary smoke can lead to a significant proportion of deaths attributable to secondary smoke, without some error in the figures.
87

lordsid,

30/12/2008 15:56:37
"Wrongly claim that all studies require a relative risk of 2.0 or more"You may have (accidently) come up with a point Rollo. If anything,2 is far too low.In this case,it would be that anything straddling 2 at 95% CI can be statistically significant.(low end,at least,would be below 2) Besides the antis make claims of harm with merely the high end being greater than 2.Using 2 as a harm/no harm dividing line is simply arbitrary.There isn't any guarantee that factors over 2 will actually produce harm in the real world.2 is just the number used (mainly) by people trying to show causation and,come to think of it,U.S. federal judges.(directed to ignore anything less) Actually,a figure over 2 is often considered to be needed to show that there may be an association.(not causation) Some scientists that have stated that they wouldn't even consider 5 as this figure.Many,including USSG,state that causation can not even be shown using statistical science.Epidemiology is a very weak science with major confounding problems and about 60 known biases.(cannot rule out other causes & flawed data collection)
88

tug f wilson,

30/12/2008 16:02:10
Rollo...Give it up mate,the passive smoke bandwagon has come to a halt,people know the truth now,this lame government and ASH have been found to be telling porkies ( AGAIN ),no shock there then,the smoking ban has been a complete failure,but i dont blame you,a lot of people were taken in by them.
89

Charles IIIX,

30/12/2008 17:26:22
Rollo, can I suggest you actually read my comments before telling me that I have not answered your questions. The answers are all there just maybe not in a manner that you can understand. Read them again and try to think independently rather than what you have learned from the ASH propaganda academy text book.

The sources for “light smokers have a lesser risk of lung cancer than non-smokers”. Are all in previous post, but here they are again; (Gori & Mantel, 1991; Wilson 1967; Freund et al, 1993; Doll et al., 1980)

“more non-smokers are contracting IHD and lung cancer”. I asked for your sources on this. I also suggested that, since there are more non-smokers in the UK.....”

Well spotted Rollo – this should have read ‘never-smokers’?

Incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers appears to be rising, even in men;
Bofetta Pet al, "Incidence of lung cancer in a large cohort of non-smoking men from Sweden," International Journal of Cancer, 94:4, pp. 591-593, 8/27/01

II asked you to explain why many everyday substances were of greater risk than SHS and asked you why these are not considered to be of any great harm. No answer, just an attempt to sidestep the issue!. You did however highlight one regarding electromagnetism “Compared with those who lived > 600 m from a line at birth, children who lived within 200 m had a relative risk of leukaemia of 1.69 (95% confidence interval 1.13 to 2.53); those born between 200 and 600 m had a relative risk of 1.23 (1.02 to 1.49)” – are there any bans on overhead cables or urgent re-housing of people living near them?

You quote your chosen studies to back up your case, cherry picked from anti-smoking sources. These I have already commented on if you care to look for these too. I have even explained in detail the reasons for believing these are of little value in terms of methodology. I also explained how insignificant the ‘official’ results were in terms of the 24% RR, but you choose to ignore that other than to sa
90

Charles IIIX,

30/12/2008 17:28:14
but you choose to ignore that other than to say ‘I don’t believe you, I believe anti-tobacco”

Doll & Peto – the patron saints of the profession – concede that epidemiology is no science but an exercise in imagination. (Doll R, Peto R. The causes of cancer. J Nat Cancer Inst 1981;66:1218)


Maybe you will allow to use my cherry picked studies in reply to your cherry picked studies;.


Boffetta et al. 1998 (WHO research again) (0.88 -1.39– statistically insignificant)
This was touted as evidence of shs harm but the study shows that there were no statistically significant results apart from the statistically valid conclusion that children of smokers had a lung cancer rate 22% LOWER than children of nonsmokers! Despite the fact that this was the only statistically significant conclusion found in the study, the official Abstract glossed over it by characterizing the finding as "no association."

Wu-Williams (1987) statistically significant 0.7 (0.6-0.9)
Negative association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. (Beneficial effect)

Neuberger (2006) statistically significant 0.37 (0.26-0.54)
Negative relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer (beneficial effect)

There are many more but this gives a rough idea of how cherry picking can produce the ‘right’ results.

OK Rollo- lets assume that your life expectancy is correct and according to you that accounts for the relative difference between developed/underdeveloped countries. Compare then one area of Africa with another that has a similar history and presumably same life expectancy and broadly similar smoking rates; Eastern Africa (inc Kenya) and southern Africa; There is, as you say, a difference between gender in most countries with women generally smoking less than males. Females smoke more in Western Europe almost on a par with males.(UK Males 22 or 23% and 21% for females) (Smoking average; Uganda 35% - UK 22% - not much difference?)

Lung cancer Mortality per 100000 populati
91

Charles IIIX,

30/12/2008 17:30:47
Lung cancer Mortality per 100000 population; (2000)

Eastern Africa Male: 2.84 Female 1.95

Southern Africa Male: 21.98 Female; 6.75

So why the obvious difference? Why does the south exceed the east by over seven times? Do those who reside in the same country but a couple of thousand miles apart have a life expectancy much greater? Or, could it be that the south has moved to an industrial based economy more quickly than the east/west, where they have a more rural based economy?

Now what about Western Europe.

Western Europe Male: 48.94 Female 9.18

16 times more lung cancers in Western Europe than Eastern Africa! More than 5 times more lung cancers in males than females. Yes there is a loose relationship with smoking prevalence if that is the only factor you choose to concentrate on. Look at it from a different perspective – industrialisation and factors that do not concentrate on lifestyle, the changing role of females from domestic to work, from less to more exposure to industrial pollutants etc.
This is not all the story though – lung cancer is far more prevalent in certain small areas in urban environments and substantially less in others, when smoking prevalence is similar throughout the country?



You wanted to know the origin of the Glantz quote, about his approach to research where he wants to know that the results will be ‘acceptable’ and conform to anti-tobacco goals before the study has even begun. You will find it came from;
The Anti-smoking convention, Los Angeles, CA, October 2, 1992, "Revolt Against Tobacco." Transcript p. 14)

Not happy with that? Then there is this telling ‘Confidence trick’ quote from D Arnott (ASH);

“It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition”

Or this;

"
92

Charles IIIX,

30/12/2008 17:31:44
Or this;

"At New York’s 1975 World Conference on Smoking and Health, Antismoking activists were told that to eliminate smoking it would first be essential to “create an atmosphere in which it was PERCEIVED that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children…” (Huber. Consumers Research Magazine. 04/92)

The anti-smoking propaganda machine duly responded and has been on full throttle since then to make people perceive that SHS is harmful. However, it didn’t reach its full potential until the massive money grab that resulted from the US master settlement agreement in the mid 1990’s. This provided almost unlimited funds to produce unlimited research studies to ‘prove’ that SHS was harmful whilst at the same time stifle genuine independent research and gag the tobacco companies. Then of course Big Pharma took advantage of this as a good marketing campaign to sell their nicotine replacement therapy. They pumped (and continue to pump) millions extra into the system. Hundreds of scientists were able to get their snouts into troughs, and take advantage of these ‘spoils of war’, the only condition apparently being that they produce the ‘right’ results. (Hence my description of the anti-smoking tactic of ‘cluster bombing’) – just keep on producing flawed study after flawed study to try to discredit real independent study and claim that the more recent the study, the more up-to-date it is and the more it can be trusted. Produce so much and brow beat the public into submission – the very essence of propaganda.

Is it any wonder that I and many others realise that since the mid 90’s very little scientific research into smoking can be trusted. It has been corrupted through and through by money and greed.

This corruption of science was accurately described by Nicolas Regush, an investigative reporter on health issues, in 2004 ;

“There is no way to be nice about this. There is no point in raising false hopes
93

Charles IIIX,

30/12/2008 17:32:29

“There is no way to be nice about this. There is no point in raising false hopes. There is no treatment or vaccine in sight. There is no miracle breakthrough on the horizon. Medicine, as we know it, is dying. It is entering a terminal phase. What began as an acute illness reached the chronic stage about a decade ago and progression towards death has been remarkably swift and well beyond anything one could have predicted. The disease is caused by conflict of interest, tainted research, greed for big bucks, pretentious doctors and scientists, lying, cheating, invasion by the morally bankrupt marketing automatons of the drug industry, derelict politicians and federal and state regulators — all seasoned with huge doses of self-importance and foul odour.”

Another one you question Rollo; The Osteen Case conclusion;

“In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, [the EPA] disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA's conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer”

You point out that Osteen’s judgment was later vacated by the appeals court and as such should be discounted. The judgment was vacated, as you say, but you have this habit of missing out the relevant information if it does not back up your arguments. (eg E&K) The appeals court overturned Osteen judgment only on the grounds of JURISDICTION, not on the content of the case. It was a TECHNICAL LOOPHOLE that anti-tobacco managed to dig out. Osteen's scientific reasons were not questioned.

Rollo can you be trusted to produce any factual information without putting your ‘spin’ on it?

Don’t you think that your claim that I needed h
94

Charles IIIX,

30/12/2008 17:33:05
Don’t you think that your claim that I needed help was a little premature – actually it was totally wrong. You have done nothing but preach anti-smoking propaganda,(which I expect I will see more of) refused bull headedly to admit defeat in just about every point in which you have. You accuse me of not answering questions when they clearly have, and fail to answer a straight question yourself.

I see that others have indeed made comments on here that have also ripped your arguments to pieces – Arguments that have been confirmed in detail many times before and which you clearly have not accepted and I am sure will never accept. I can understand why anti-tobacco professionals will continue to perpetuate the propaganda, they stand to lose substantially when called to account – but you? Sad really!
95

Rollo Tommasi,

30/12/2008 21:44:21
CharlesIIIX: You’ve writing style is becoming like that of an immature child in each set of postings. In the latest set, you go out of your way to misquote me and several other people too. Well isn’t that courageous debating!

Whose risk is greater: light smokers or non-smokers? You provide 4 studies: none more recent than 1993; one as early as 1967. I provide an overall assessment based on 16 studies undertaken between 1981 & 1997 (Hackshaw et al, 1997). I say my evidence beats your evidence.

Incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers: So your whole claim about this (and to be honest, I’m still not sure what point you are trying to make) is based on a single study pertaining to one country which is not the UK??????

Other risk factors: You claim other risk factors are not considered to be of great harm. As I have already said, I disagree. Asbestos is banned. There are increasingly tight limits on vehicle emissions. People receive countless warnings and pieces of advice about how to eat healthily (e.g. eat 5+ portions of fruit/veg daily; avoid too much caffeine/animal fats/alcohol, etc). Govts can do little about radon or genetic predisposition. The evidence about a link between leukaemia and electromagnetic fields remains unclear and continues to be investigated, as far as I can tell.

Lists of studies: This is where your immature debating style really takes over. You claim I cited studies “cherry picked from anti-smoking sources”. Pathetic. I gave you details of what I understand to be among the most comprehensive analyses of the evidence available. I have asked you repeatedly now to tell me in what ways you think these particular studies are flawed. You still have nothing to say. I have also asked you to tell me which studies you consider to have been unfairly omitted from consideration in these assessments. Again, you ignore my point. You claim that these studies have been “cherry-picked” is totally bogus.

By the way, the IARC monograph and SCOTH
96

Rollo Tommasi,

30/12/2008 21:44:51
By the way, the IARC monograph and SCOTH report both included your own cherry-picked studies by Wu-Williams and Boffetta (they preceded Neuberger), while Hackshaw included Williams (it preceded the other two). Further proof that the assessments I cited are fair and comprehensive in their coverage.

Lung cancer in eastern Africa: I’ve discovered a very interesting fact about lung cancer statistics. The quality of these data varies in different countries. In Kenya, Uganda and most sub-Saharan African countries (South Africa being a rare exception – hence your different southern Africa figures), WHO only has meaningful information about infant mortality rates, and deaths related to AIDS or war. They predict levels of adult mortality from child mortality figures. Is it any wonder recorded lung cancer levels are so low?! (www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/bodgbddeathdalyestimates.xls) So you need to treat lung cancer rates in this countries with one very large pinch of salt.

Doll & Peto: You claim they stated that “epidemiology is no science but an exercise in imagination.” I can’t find the article to read for myself. But what I have found out about the article is enough to make me deeply doubt your claim. Let me give you an exact quote I found from that self same article: “epidemiology, influenced by laboratory investigation, is far superior to the latter alone”. (http://books.google.com/books?id=E-OZbEmPSTkC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=doll+peto+"the+causes+of+cancer"+1981+EPIDEMIOLOGY&source=web&ots=jTKNzc0Ow7&sig=5ZbHjhYsoj5USWwTOQGdpckMrlg#PPA118,M1, p.118)

Arnott quote: An infantile bit of misquoting. Arnott was describing a legitimate campaigning technique, which a whole heap of lobby groups exercise from time to time (including F2C when they want to show off what they think is progress towards their cause). She was explaining how ASH’s case would be helped if they displayed an air of confidence about being successful in the Bill. The reference to “confidence
97

Rollo Tommasi,

30/12/2008 21:45:31
The reference to “confidence trick” was a play on words for that purpose – which is why she said “literally”. That is quite evident. To try to infer that Arnott was saying that ASH wanted to swindle MPs is a cynical an deliberate attempt to misquote.

Huber quote: Yes, I’ve seen this quote before. But it looks like classic pro-smoking misquoting to me. Pro-smokers try to infer that Sir George Godber wanted to stimulate an inaccurate perception that “active smokers would injure those around them” when it is more likely he wanted to ensure people perceived ACCURATELY that active smokers would injure those around them. To prove to me that you’re right and I’m wrong and assure us both that Godber was not misquoted, please tell me, in Godber’s own words, what else he said that day, so we all know he was not misquoted. If you don’t have that information, then you have no right to accuse somebody on the basis of a quote with no understanding of the context in which it was made.

Glantz quote: Likewise I think Glantz was deliberately misquoted here too. Again, please tell me, in Glantz’s own words, what else he said that day, so we all know he was not misquoted. If you don’t have that information, then you have no right to accuse somebody on the basis of a quote with no understanding of the context in which it was made.

Regush quote: Likely more misquoting here too. As far as I can tell, that would is about medicine in the US generally. Where were his specific criticisms about scientific research relating to passive smoking?

Osteen appeal: Oh how little you know! The Osteen decision was, as you say, overturned on grounds of jurisdiction. But that is not a “technical loophole”. That is a fundamental aspect of the legal system. Osteen was not viewed to have the knowledge or authority to rule on this case with credibility. Osteen’s scientific views hold absolutely no weight and could not be used in a court of law. Basically the decision serves Philip Morris right f
98

Rollo Tommasi,

30/12/2008 21:46:05
Basically the decision serves Philip Morris right for trying to have the case heard by Osteen in a “friendly” court in tobacco-loving North Carolina instead of through the proper legal channels where they would have faced a much tougher examination. Put it this way, if Osteen had any remaining relevance, it would have been referred to in this major recent passive-smoking-related case, ruled on by Judge Kessler (http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/litigation/cases/DOJ/20060817KESSLEROPINIONAMENDED.pdf).

In summary Charles: Simply trying to rummage through pro-smoking websites for more material to throw my way is not going to get you any closer to the truth. Your resorting to wilfil misquoting of me and others shows you are getting ever more desperate in your myopic, bloody-minded pro-smoking world.
99

Rollo Tommasi,

30/12/2008 21:46:47
I note that several other F2C people have joined the debate. I'll respond when I can. But I have a life to live too....
100

Trom,

'timbone' from F2C 30/12/2008 23:23:34
Hello Rollo. I hope you had a nice Christmas, and all the best for 2009, another year without smoke (watch out for those diesel fumes though, and I hear there is a lot of 'radon gas' in parts of Scotland).

I see you have been using bad language, I think the words Konrad Jamrozic should be filtered out!

Here are a couple of paragraphs from an article which mentions this esteemed number cruncher.

"They were determined to get smoking banned in places of hospitality, so they pulled out their trump card. The Royal College of Physicians, (an impressive name, but don’t be fooled, they are only a charity), had launched figures by Professor Konrad Jamrozik on the amount of people in the UK dying from second hand smoke, highlighting the theory that this included one hospitality worker a week."

"Professor Konrad Jamrozik is an epidemiologist, he plays with numbers. On behalf of a charity with an impressive name, he predicts that fifty two workers in the hospitality industry die every year from passive smoking. To protect the workers, British MPs’, based on a ‘guesstimate’ which has about as much substance as Patricia Hewitt, vote to completely change the social fabric of society!"
101

Tag,

Paisley 31/12/2008 08:37:49
Trom or Timbone

You don't say where your quote is from. It is wrong about the Royal College of Physicians, which isn't "only a charity". (It may well have charitable status, registered charity 210508, but so do many other professional bodies).

According to its website, "The Royal College of Physicians of London provides a huge range of services to our 20,000 Members and Fellows and other medical professionals. These include delivering examinations, training courses, continuous professional development and conferences; undertaking clinical audits; publishing newsletters, guidelines and books through to maintaining the College's historical collections. We also lead medical debate, and lobby and advise government and other decision-makers on behalf of our members."

Its members pay between and £105 and £470, depending on the category of membership.

It has over 20,000 medically qualified members.

How many medically qualified members does freedom2choose have?

And how many of freedom2choose's medically qualified members aren't addicted to nicotine?

If you do have any medically qualified members who aren't addicted to nicotine, can't you get THEM to take part in debates like this instead of your usual crowd of web quoters who never seem to get it right? (like in your quote)
102

Roger, Newcastle,

31/12/2008 09:22:54
Rollo and Charles
In the late 80's and early 90's the government told the National Radiological Protection Board to survey the UK for the risk of radon in homes. The NRPB used geological information to predict the areas where homes were likely to exceed the 200 becquerels per cubic metre action level, and supplemented this with a large monitoring programme across the entire nation (including areas you wouldn't expect to find radon).

This survey estimated that some 2000 houses, about 0.1% of the stock in Scotland, are likely to have an annual average radon concentration above the action level. The areas identified were part of the Dee Valley in Kincardine and Deeside and part of the coast between Caithness and Sutherland.

More detailed surveys were carried out in these areas and affected householders were able to apply for grants of up to £5,000 to put in gas barriers and underfloor ventilation. These grants are still available for homes that exceed the action level.

As a result of this action the number of people developing lung cancer as a result of radon exposure should be significantly lower than it was 20 years ago, with the risk falling year on year as more people take up the grants.

More information at http://www.ukradon.org/ and http://tinyurl.com/5akd79
103

Rollo Tommasi,

31/12/2008 09:25:30
DaveA (76): Your first point is yet another ad hominem attack on the SCOTH authors. What are your views about the study itself?

Your second point is a devious piece of selective quotation. You conveniently ignore the following sentence:
“They were nevertheless comfortably within the confidence limits of the pooled odds from the 1997 meta-analysis presented to SCOTH (1) of 1.24 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-1.36). That is an excess risk of 24% in non-smokers exposed to SHS compared to those not exposed.” In other words, pooling the results both confirms the excess relative risk that was already obvious from the individual studies and has the effect of narrowing the width of the confidence interval so that the excess risk is statistically significant at 95% CI.
104

Rollo Tommasi,

31/12/2008 09:26:09
DaveA (77): I really do not get your point. Science is not a mechanistic exercise. Any form of expert analysis requires some judgement.

You’re absolutely wrong about describing the debate as a matter of subjectivity. Subjectivity would involve basing judgement on personal opinions and prejudices. As the letter clearly explains to you, the Committee formed its opinion “based on the evidence”. That is OBJECTIVE analysis.
105

Rollo Tommasi,

31/12/2008 09:26:32
Lordsid & DaveA (81-83): My original point was this. Why is it that, when the pro-smoking lobby claims that the scientific evidence is questionable, it only refers to a small section of the evidence out there – typically the 1992 EPA report, the 1998 WHO study and some recent studies into acute effects of passive smoking (e.g. Helena, Pell)? Why does the pro-smoking lobby never mention other studies, such as the ones I previously cited? Is it not because you realise that these provide strong evidence about the risks of passive smoking but you don’t have the guts to admit it? Can you answer this point for me?

Let me deal with your other points too.

1992 EPA report: The appeal was not a “face-saving attempt”. See my reply in posts 97 & 98.

1998 WHO report. There was no attempt to hide the Boffetta study. The newspaper story was based on a planted story by Big Tobacco in a sympathetic paper (Sunday Telegraph). The reason the report hadn’t been published was that it had been submitted for peer review. If you want to learn more, read these:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/0442a.htm (yes, an interesting article recorded by Forces!)
http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/who_inquiry.pdf (pp.193-227)

Also on the 1998 study, yes its results showed a smaller excess risk than other studies. So did the reports I mentioned earlier ignore the study? Not a bit of it. The Boffetta study was included in both the IARC and SCOTH analyses. So much for unhelpful studies being cherry-picked out!
106

Rollo Tommasi,

31/12/2008 09:26:56
Lordsid (84): You’re referring to an apparently homogeneous group called “the anti-smokers”. The E&K study yielded around 140 rapid responses. A number of these were ad hominem attacks on E&K. I’m happy to describe that as unacceptable (although such ad hominem attacks are not the exclusive preserve of one side in this debate – witness for example the attacks made on SCOTH members in this thread). But many other responses raised reasoned and legitimate concerns, especially over the methodology underpinning the E&K study and on whether E&K were cute in the extent to which they declared their links with the tobacco industry. So don’t try to ignore these valid criticisms of E&K.

Your claim that ACS pulled funding “when the results became apparent” is fundamentally flawed. E&K received no funding for this study from ACS. Their initial support came from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, the group that oversees research funds earmarked from proceeds raised by California’s state cigarette tax. The TRDRP denied them further funding following consistent complaints from ACS about E&K’s inappropriate use of the CPS-I data. In other words, funding was dropped because of concerns about the methodology E&K were using, not the emerging results.
107

Rollo Tommasi,

31/12/2008 09:27:28
Belinda (86): You raise questions about Jamrozik. His was not an epidemiological study. It was a calculation of likely death levels from passive smoking-related diseases. So it did not cover “confounders” in the way an epidemiological study would. However:
1. In the “Discussion” section, he sets out openly assumptions he has used, limitations in his results and how he tried to overcome these.
2. His estimates of relative risk are derived from the results of epidemiological studies. They do deal with confounders.

As for the scale of deaths, compare the figures in Table 1 (all deaths) with those in Table 2 (passive smoking attributable deaths). So, for instance, he recorded a total of around 112,000 UK deaths in a year from ischaemic heart disease (table 1), of which around 5,200 were attributable to passive smoking.
108

Rollo Tommasi,

31/12/2008 09:28:17
Lordsid (87): I think your assessment of RR is simplistic, if I may say so. You seem to believe there is (or ought to be) a firm line in the sand to mark what an acceptable RR is. But in fact what makes an acceptable RR for a particular risk will depend on several factors, including how closely the results of a study accord with any previous research (or perhaps what researchers would expect to see), numbers of studies already undertaken on the subject, overall sample size and consistency of results.

Forces and other pro-smoking websites list a number of quotes by people like Robert Temple (as Director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration) and Marcia Angell (as editor of the New England Journal of Medicine). They are quick to includes quotes which show that these people are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more. But they conveniently miss out a vital qualification – that these quotes relate to a discussion about the relative risk required before a "single epidemiologic study is persuasive by itself”. In other words, when the results of a study are corroborated by the results of previous studies, then a much lower RR becomes acceptable.

If you still believe you are right and I am wrong, can you explain why, while Ms Angell was executive editor there, the New England Journal of Medicine published a report which showed that "nonsmokers exposed to environmental smoke had a relative risk of coronary heart disease of 1.25 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.17 to 1.32) as compared with nonsmokers not exposed to smoke" and concluded that "Given the high prevalence of cigarette smoking, the public health consequences of passive smoking with regard to coronary heart disease may be important"? Surely if you were right, she wouldn’t have accepted that study for publication. http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/340/12/920.

I also take issue with your conclusions about epidemiology. It can be a very effective tool, provided it is undertaken in a
109

Rollo Tommasi,

31/12/2008 09:28:37
I also take issue with your conclusions about epidemiology. It can be a very effective tool, provided it is undertaken in a responsible way. So far, I have not come across any specific criticisms about how the individual and pooled epidemiological studies I have cited were undertaken.
110

Rollo Tommasi,

31/12/2008 09:31:00
Tim (100): Thank you for your good wishes. A Guid New Year to you too.

I think Tag puts the thoughts I had about your comment better than I could. Thanks Tag!
111

Rollo Tommasi,

31/12/2008 09:33:26
Roger (102): I appreciate your views here. I know Deeside well and was aware that it's a radon hotspot. But I wasn't aware of the radon reduction measures you describe.

Further proof to Charles that radon and other risks to health ARE taken seriously.
112

Rich White,

kent 31/12/2008 12:21:07
Rollo, how do i know you're an anti-smoker? Because you instantly jump on 'pro smoking junk science' without looking for balance - in other words, any excuse to maintain the mantra smoking is harmful.

I'm going to go through some of your points:

1) "Refer to the 1992 EPA report. Argue that a judge found the EPA was wrong to write it as they did. Ignore the fact that an appeal court threw out the first judge's comments and therefore the EPA report stands."

And what do we know about this appeal court? Anti-smokers or pro? Judge Osteen was very anti-smoking and if you look at the EPA report the conclusion is spot on. But, just for you, here's some more:

1994 Congressional Enquiry:

"The process at every turn has been characterized by both scientific and procedural irregularities. Those irregularities include conflicts of interest by both Agency staff involved in the preparation of the risk assessment and members of the Science Advisory Board panel selected to provide a supposedly independent evaluation of the document."

US Congressional Research:

"The statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking.... Even at the greatest exposure levels....very few or even no deaths can be attributed to ETS."

A United States Department of Energy Report not only found serious flaws in the EPA’s methodology, but also demolished the underlying studies, and, extremely damaging to the report, quoted the EPA’s prior critiques (that is, prior to the EPA’s finding them useful) of the same studies. Confused? The EPA criticised studies as being statistically or methodologically flawed, and then decided to use them in their report as ‘proof’ that ETS was carcinogenic.

The Australian Supreme Court reached the same conclusion, saying:
"The [study] results set out in tabular and statistical form did not support the claim of risk."


“The important (opposing) findings” that Judge Osteen spoke o
113

Rich White,

31/12/2008 12:21:55
spoke of that the EPA “failed to disclose” were the results of the largest study done up to that point, conducted by Brownson et al in 1992, and funded by the National Cancer Institute. The reason the EPA omitted these results was simply because, if they had their premise would have been a no-starter.


That should settle the EPA discussion.

Now, deaths. How do you know people die from passive smoking? You can't possibly know. Everyone is exposed to SHS at various times, and the only way we can say it is a killer is if we presumptiously say 'well he got cancer and was exposed to smoke, therefore that caused it' WRONG. There is NO way to tell that passive smoke killed someone. Here's how the figures are generated:

even the officials themselves do not know where the numbers come from. There is an Internet News Group devoted to smoking, called alt.smokers. In the late 1990’s, one of the participants called the Office of Smoking or Health to find out how the government got to the estimate of 450,000 yearly smoking related deaths. The participant rang repeatedly, and different individuals within the government, only to find out that nobody knew the answer. One bureaucrat told him the calculations might have come from a book entitled Foundations of Modern Epidemiology by David Lilienfeld, but they don’t.
Despite nobody knowing where the figures come from, we can see how the anti-smoking lobby generates false figures of “smoking related” deaths. In April 1995 there was a letter written to the editor of the San Jose, Ca. Mercury News which informs us of the deception. Mary Ellen Haley, the author of the letter, says that she lost a loved one to adenocarcinoma, and that 17 days elapsed from the deceased’s first visit to the doctor to the day of his death. Haley was provided with the information for the death certificate which she then took to the attending physician for completion. She then says that on the death certificate there was a line for the do
114

Rich White,

31/12/2008 12:22:27
for the doctor to insert the immediate cause of death, and three lines for “due to”. The doctor in question stated that the “due to” was cigarette smoking, and Haley questioned him and asked if he was sure the tumour was the result of smoking. The doctor replied he was not sure, but the ACS had issued guidelines to say that when a person dies of certain conditions and has smoked, the doctor is instructed to list the cause of death as smoking. In this instance, Haley persuaded the doctor to not put cigarette smoking as the cause of death, but obviously this does not happen often.

The 'studies' showing passive smoke is harmful are fufnded by anti-smoking groups, would you trust a study conducted by BAT?

"Totally twist interpretations of epidemiological science. Wrongly claim that all studies require a relative risk of 2.0 or more (and misquote experts to try to make your point). Wrongly claim that no results straddling 1 at 95% CI can be statistically significant (and offer no evidence to back up your claim)."

The late Dr. Ken Denson of the Thame Thrombosis and Haemostasis Research Foundation said:
"I simply do not know where they conjure up their statistics. The statistics for passive smoking, in particular, would not be published or even considered in any other scientific discipline."

The Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell, says: “as a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before we accept a paper for publication” and Robert Temple, the director of Drug Evaluation for the FDA, says: “my basic rule is that if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4 forget it”

The RR of SHS is about 1.2 which is VERY low - lower than candles and incense.
It also transpires that studies show that diet affects lung cancer far more than passive smoke. In fact, the association between consumption of fruit and vegetables and rates of lung cancer is one of the strongest in epidemiology. There have been 25 pu
115

Rich White,

31/12/2008 12:23:00
been 25 published papers, and 24 of those show a clear statistical inverse relationship: the more fruits and vegetables consumed, the lower the incidence of lung cancer. The one remaining study found no association between diet and cancer. None of the 25 provided negative results (that eating fruit and vegetables caused lung cancer). The results amongst all of them are very consistent in showing that those who eat less fruits and vegetables have a 50% increased risk of lung cancer.

There are also 156 published studies on cancers of the colon, breast, stomach, bladder, pancreas and ovaries, 128 of which show a protective effect of fruits and vegetables over contracting those cancers. Conversely, there are 63 studies of non-smoking women married to smoking males, only 9 of which show a statistically significant positive association. 52 of them found no link, and two show a negative association. So, then, studies on smoking passive smoke causes lung cancer in women has only been successful 14% of the time, whilst studies showing a poor diet can increase the risk of lung cancer has been shown 96% of the time.

The WHO DID hide their data - it wasn't released until the Telegraph got hold of it and ripped it apart - christ Rollo, if you're going to get into this at least do your research!


Ahhh Michael Siegel - yes, the anti-smoker who admits that anti-smoking groups are untrustworthy? Yeah, ponder that. You may also like to look up Dr Elizabeth Whelan.

Lies in the anti-smoking field are abundant - to the point that the government resorted to closed-ended questionnaires on the ban because open-ended ones revealed most people don't want a ban. They claim the SHS proof is solid and quote an anti-smoking doctor from an openly anti-smoking organisation to say so. Convincing.....

You only need to take a look at world data to see the smoking/cancer thing is a sham. I would love to post it here, but it's far too long, i dedicated a whole chapter to it i
116

Rich White,

31/12/2008 12:23:32
dedicated a whole chapter to it in my book. But, i will post some things.

China now has the longest life expectancy in the world, yet the Chinese smoke more cigarettes than a lot of other countries. In the United Kingdom and the U.S.A. smoking rates have been declining for years, yet the rates of cancer have been increasing. Japan has a life expectancy of 80 years old for women, and late 70s for men, yet they have the highest or second highest percentage of smokers in the world. In 2007, 43% of lung cancer victims were non-smokers, compared to 57% who were smokers.

The male LCDR in the USA is 1.4%, and for females the risk 0.7%. Hungary, with the highest rate of cigarette consumption in the world in 1992 had a LCDR of 2.4% for males and 0.5% for women. Czechoslovakia, next to Hungary, also has a male LCDR of 2.4%, and for women it is 0.3%. Japan, second in the list by a marginal amount and still the highest rate of smokers in the world, has a male LCDR of 0.5% (which works out to be about a fifth of the Hungarian rate and a third of the U.S. rate), and for females it is 0.3%. It is also worth mentioning here that, despite their smoking rates, the Japanese have, or had until the Chinese recently overtook, the longest life expectancy in the world, at 80 years old for women. Finally, the World Bank inform us that the Chinese are a nation of smokers, and there is now much publicity into how much they are smoking and how their rates of smoking are increasing rapidly, and yet their LCDR is roughly the same as that of the Japanese – 0.56% for men, and 0.59% for women.

The most important thing is that the statistics do not waver, proving that the statistics of one year are not mere fluke. Let’s look at the rates in 1994: at this time, Iceland had the highest life expectancy, of 76.6 years, and 31% of males smoked. Japan, as expected, was second-highest with a life expectancy of 76.5 years, and 59% of the men smoked. Israel had a life expectancy of 75.9
117

Rich White,

31/12/2008 12:23:56
Israel had a life expectancy of 75.9 and 45% of men smoked. Greece was not far behind, with a life expectancy of 75.2 and 46% smokers. Finally, there are Cuba and Spain, with an expectancy of 74.7 and 74.5 respectively, and a smokers’ prevalence of 49.3% and 48% respectively.
Further figures tell the following: In 1939, Fortune magazine reported that 53% of American adults males smoke, and 66% of males under 40 years of age smoked; in 1900 4.4 billion cigarettes were sold; in 1091 3.5 billion cigarettes and 6 billion cigars were sold; the 1930 market share shows that 43.2 billion Lucky Strike were sold, 35.3 billion Camel were sold, and over 35 billion cigarettes sold across three other brands (Chesterfield, Old Gold, and Raleigh).

Did you know all the world's oldest people were smokers? Again, it's a whole chapter of information but i will post a segment:

In early 2003, the Italian newspaper Libero reported updates on the Tobacco Massacre of Milan. The city has a population of 2.2 million, with two being over 110, five being 109, 12 being 106. 217 of them are just 100 years old, 167 are 101, and 115 are 102 years old. Further to this, 35,000 Milanese are aged between 85 and 94, with a futher 92,000 being between 75 and 84. The paper also reports that the overwhelming majority either smoke, drink, or eat fatty foods, and most do all three. Some of the Milanese have even smoked for over 94 years.

One of the most famous elderly smokers was the Queen Mother, who liked to smoke cigarettes and drink gin cocktails. She died peacefully in her sleep aged 101 and, aside from suffering from a cold for the last four months of her life, was in good health.

On May 7th 2007, Zhang turned 100, as reported in China Daily and he began smoking and drinking strong liquor in his early twenties. Since he started, Zhang has smoked every day and had a drink with every meal, and his grandson claims that Zhang has smoked over a ton of tobacco in his lifetime. Not
118

Rich White,

31/12/2008 12:24:22
Not only did Zhang live to be over 100 years old, he was also in good health for his birthday – so not only was he living, but he was not fighting against lung cancer or struggling to breath as a result of emphysema.

Good luck with your quest, but don't expect success.
119

Rob Simpson,

31/12/2008 13:29:29
Tag 101

You have made the fundamental error of assuming people with medical training have more insight into the SHS debate than those without it.
The evidence suggesting SHS is a health hazard isn't medical, it's statistical. Do you imagine a medical doctor is better qualified to dissect a statistical analysis than someone with training in mathematics?

The anti-freedom movement's top man Stanton Glantz is a doctor of medicine the same way Jeremy Clarkson is a doctor of engineering. Glantz is a mechanical engineer (the same as myself).
I'm glad to mentioned the possibility of bias from smokers. Do you imagine press releases from an organisation that is openly anti-smoking are subject to any less bias?
Do you imagine that the pharmaceutical companies making 100s of millions peddling NRT are any less bias?

We're nearly three years in to the smoking ban in Scotland. Surely by now they'd be some verifiable decline in smoke related deaths. Obviously there isn't or the anti-freedom brigade would be screaming it from the rooftops.
Funnily enough there has been a similar lack of triumphant news from California - their ban is 11 years old now. If there was ever going to be a reduction in SHS related deaths we'd have seen it from there by now.

120

Rollo Tommasi,

31/12/2008 13:29:53
Crumbs. Someone else comes in with a charge. You are trying to flog a book, Rich White. You have absolutely NO excuse for the appalling lack of balance and lack of research in your comments. If your book is anything like these posts, it would clearly be a cynical attempt to throw lies and distortions to pander to the prejudices of the pro-smoking community out there.

Osteen: Was he pro- or anti-smoking? Well, he lobbied on behalf of the tobacco industry in the 1970s. And Philip Morris deliberately chose to take their case to the North Carolina District Court, as they expected to get the easiest ride there. my answer to that is pretty clear.

EPA: You claim the EPA report was widely rubbished. Well you’re wrong. Let me quote the Congressional Research Service Back at you (“CRS Report for Congress Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Risk” (1995)). They said “EPA's findings have received much support from the scientific community, but have been criticized by other scientists, statisticians and the tobacco industry”. So the issue is not as black and white as you claim.

By the way, since you refer to the Australian Supreme Court ruling, I take it you have read the full ruling for yourself. After all, as an author it would be pretty shoddy if you didn’t do your research. Can you please provide me with a link to the ruling.

Overall evidence: As I have already explained, my point in raising EPA and the 1998 WHO report was not to praise them to the rooftops. It was to ask why pro-smokers continue to based their criticism of the science around these reports, but totally ignore larger, more comprehensive and more recent reports like the SCOTH report and IARC monograph.

Tell me, how much discussion do YOU give to these reports in YOUR book? You certainly fail to discuss these reports and the other ones I mentioned in your lengthy postings here. WHY IS THAT? Why have you nothing more to say than “You state “The 'studies' showing passive smoke is harmful ar
121

Rollo Tommasi,

31/12/2008 13:30:42
Tell me, how much discussion do YOU give to these reports in YOUR book? You certainly fail to discuss these reports and the other ones I mentioned in your lengthy postings here. Why is that, by the way? Why have you nothing more to say than “You state “The 'studies' showing passive smoke is harmful are funded by anti-smoking groups, would you trust a study conducted by BAT?”? let me give you a straight answer to that. I have commented on the Enstrom & Kabat study. I criticised it on its methodology – I did not dismiss it because it was part-funded by Big Tobacco. Crumbs, if your criticism of scientific research in your book just focuses on funding, then it must be a pretty shoddy read.

Number of deaths: I have explained why I refer to the number of deaths I do. I have highlighted that it is an estimate, but it is based on a robust methodology and is a good indicator of the scale of deaths. I also gave you my source – Jamrozik. Yet all you have are a couple of homilies about how it has been difficult to assess the number of passive smoking-related deaths elsewhere. Why have you nothing to say about the Jamrozik study?

Relative Risk: Here is the epitome of lazy and pathetic research by you – an appalling advert for your book. As an author, you ought to know to check original sources of quotes for yourself before you use them in a debate. You obviously did not do so here. As I stated in post 108, the quotes by Temple and Angell relate to a discussion about the relative risk required before a "single epidemiologic study is persuasive by itself”. Yet you – either deliberately and cynically or out of blind ignorance – try to apply their quotes to all studies. As I also mentioned in post 108, if you are right why did the NEJM publish this report on Angell’s watch: If you still believe you are right and I am wrong, can you explain why, while Ms Angell was executive editor there, the New England Journal of Medicine published a report which showed that "nonsmokers expo
122

Rollo Tommasi,

31/12/2008 13:31:56
Crumbs. Someone else comes in with a charge. You are trying to flog a book, Rich White. You have absolutely NO excuse for the appalling lack of balance and lack of research in your comments. If your book is anything like these posts, it would clearly be a cynical attempt to throw lies and distortions to pander to the prejudices of the pro-smoking community out there.

Osteen: Was he pro- or anti-smoking? Well, he lobbied on behalf of the tobacco industry in the 1970s. And Philip Morris deliberately chose to take their case to the North Carolina District Court, as they expected to get the easiest ride there.

EPA: You claim the EPA report was widely rubbished. Well you’re wrong. Let me quote the Congressional Research Service Back at you (“CRS Report for Congress Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer Risk” (1995)). They said “EPA's findings have received much support from the scientific community, but have been criticized by other scientists, statisticians and the tobacco industry”. So the issue is not as black and white as you claim.

By the way, since you refer to the Australian Supreme Court ruling, I take it you have read the full ruling for yourself. After all, as an author it would be pretty shoddy if you didn’t do your research. Can you please provide me with a link to the ruling.

Overall evidence: As I have already explained, my point in raising EPA and the 1998 WHO report was not to praise them to the rooftops. It was to ask why pro-smokers continue to based their criticism of the science around these reports, but totally ignore larger, more comprehensive and more recent reports like the SCOTH report and IARC monograph.

Tell me, how much discussion do YOU give to these reports in YOUR book? You certainly fail to discuss these reports and the other ones I mentioned in your lengthy postings here. Why is that, by the way? Why have you nothing more to say than “You state “The 'studies' showing passive smoke is harmful are funded by anti-smokin
123

Rollo Tommasi,

31/12/2008 13:36:31
Please excuse post 122!

As I also mentioned in post 108, if you are right why did the NEJM publish this report on Angell’s watch: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/340/12/920.?Surely if you were right, she wouldn’t have accepted that study for publication.

Your assessment of studies into passive smoking and lung cancer in non-smoking women married to smoking males. The 52 studies you refer to do NOT show “no link”. They, like the first 9, show a positive association. The difference is that these positive associations are not statistically significant in themselves. But they remain entirely consistent with the results of the 9 studies showing a statistically significant positive association. Pooling the results in a professional and objective way provides overall results which clearly demonstrate a positive correlation which IS statistically significant. I know of no professional epidemiologists who would take your claim that “studies on smoking passive smoke causes lung cancer in women has only been successful 14% of the time” seriously.

I’ll look at the points you raise in your later postings when I can be bothered. I’ve better things to spend my time on right now.
124

Charles IIIX,

31/12/2008 15:21:58
WoW Rollo, I see that the comments are coming thick and fast now - Looks like you have awoken the sleeping giant, and you reply with comment fed by anti-tobacco. Accept it- anti-smoking propaganda WILL fail and you with it!


So we have ascertained that you don’t like my cherry picked studies that show smoking to have a beneficial effect then say your cherry picked studies are of greater importance and trump mine. Well that is some debating tactic isn’t it? You don’t really understand do you? You have been blinded by anti-smoking rhetoric and can’t seem to grasp the argument or the basic principles or do you just try to avoid the ‘too hard’ points.?

My cherry picked studies were not meant to prove that smoking is beneficial to health even though that is the only interpretation that you can put on those studies. They were quoted merely as a way of highlighting how evidence can be misinterpreted or misrepresented to further a specific agenda. Your use of ‘your’ studies is intended for just that purpose. There is a need to look at all the evidence not just the bits that suit your argument and this is something you fail to grasp.


“I provide an overall assessment based on 16 studies undertaken between 1981 & 1997 (Hackshaw et al, 1997). I say my evidence beats your evidence.” (Is this not an ‘appeal to authority’ or just anti-tobacco propaganda?)

Look at Chris Snowdon’s site - He covers most of the studies on passive smoking, some 64 in number AND 5 out of 6 of them show passive smoking of no concern whatsoever!

“ Britain's SCOTH committee and anti-smoking groups around the world have now settled on a relative risk for secondhand smoke and lung cancer of 1.24 but not one of the 64 studies below shows a risk of that magnitude. Even if one allows a generous margin of error and settles for any risk between 1.20 and 1.29, there are only five studies that fit the bill.” (Chris Snowden)

Your ‘overall assessment’ of 16 studies DO NOT beat Chris Snowden’s
125

Charles IIIX,

31/12/2008 15:23:00
Your ‘overall assessment’ of 16 studies DO NOT beat Chris Snowden’s ‘overall assessment’ 64 studies from 1982 to 2007 that I defer to!

I repeat also that 24% increased risk is insignificant and cannot (or should not) be used as evidence to drive political policy, particularly policy that is so invidious and threatening to a free society.

So what about that Rollo ? To pre-empt your anticipated out-of-hand comment - I expect the answer to the effect; ‘but that’s a pro-smokers site” (Ad Hominem) – Well Rollo just exactly where do you get the information you have? Oh of course, yours is original study? Unfortunately for you, the information on that site ALSO quotes original studies and whether it is listed on a pro-smoking site or not is irrelevant! Original study is original study.

You, are STILL avoiding the questions!

Why are many everyday substances as previously outlined that are MORE harmful than passive smoking considered to be of less harm? You point to reasonable responses to hazardous substances like radon and argue that it is being dealt with – no arguments with that, but you have double standards – “e.g. eat 5+ portions of fruit/veg daily; avoid too much caffeine/animal fats/alcohol, etc” Why are these cancerous products not banned, to protect the public who have no mind of their own? They are as dangerous as SHS, if not more so, according to research. Why, in the case of the passive smoking ‘danger’, were reasonable measures not taken to reduce exposure by ventilation, segregation etc?

You have already pointed that road accidents cause 3000 or so deaths that are verified. (Not ‘estimated’ as in SHS) Why are vehicles not banned, we have definite, incontrovertible proof that cars kill, yet no such evidence for passive smoking, just ‘estimates’ ‘possibly’ ‘probably’ ‘may’ ‘we think’ ‘believe us cos we know what we are tarkin aboot? If we save just one life, it is all worthwhile isn’t it Rollo?

The answer is common sense really – we
126

Charles IIIX,

31/12/2008 15:24:27
The answer is common sense really – we live in a world that has innumerable risks. We regulate to reduce those risks we do not immediately ban the cause. In the case of motors we ensure driving competency, exhaust emissions reduced as much as possible, MOT tests to ensure roadworthiness etc – We do not ban because that would be an excessive response, yet this excessive response appears to be fine when smoking is the ‘risk’. Asbestos is one substance that is banned and only right too – but that is another debate in its own right.

You mention Doll, the founding father of anti-tobacco, the holy prophet of the anti-smoking religion! It is from his studies that all others emanate. Even he is not excluded from making Freudian slips. In addition to the one I mentioned earlier he is also quoted, during a radio interview, as saying;

"the effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me". The outcry from other anti-tobacco sources was so overwhelming that he was later compelled to point out that he was only "speaking personally."

That’s all right then – he’s not bothered personally – but everyone else should be!!

I wouldn’t particularly want to get involved in a debate about him, but read this about his antecedents; http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/other/doll.htm

Incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers – If you don’t understand now, you never will.

Lung cancer in Eastern Africa; Pathetic response ‘quality of data varies’ Too bloody true – but you are talking about anti-tobacco aren’t you?

Quoting out of context in relation to Glantz, Arnott, Huber and Doll?
Pathetic response! What they did was to be so arrogant and sure of themselves that they didn’t put their brains into gear before speaking and let the cat out of the bag!

The Regush statement seems very clear to me, but I do realise that closed minds will avoid the obvious by any means. What are you saying? That research into passive smoking is NOT scientific s
127

Charles IIIX,

31/12/2008 15:25:23
What are you saying? That research into passive smoking is NOT scientific study? Well that would be right then, it is more like political propaganda than genuine science! Anti-tobacco treat it that way.

Osteen; If this was a ‘friendly court’ ‘ instead of through the proper legal channels’ (What absolutely stupid remarks! You really are talking through your ar*e) What are courts if not part of the ‘proper legal channels’ and why did anti-tobacco go along with it – right up to the judgment that found against them? They thought they would win- that’s why ! Then had to resort to technical loopholes. (slither-slither)

Osteen’s remarks on the science STAND.

p.s. As you don’t seem to know the various roles within court, Osteen was the judge. A judges role is to oversee and assess the evidence of witnesses – not a witness giving evidence of ‘what can be used in a court of law’(sic) – there is a slight difference? The appeal court judge ruled on the ‘jurisdiction’ aspect – not the evidence that was used in Osteen’s court.

Thanks for the Kessler notes (albeit irrelevant to Osteen) but it’s a large document that will take some time to read.

“Myopic, bloody minded” – Good use of words there Rollo that are oh-so relevant to yourself! I do believe you referred to me before as ‘bigoted’ too. Definition: (utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own). Take a good look in the mirror Rollo! Your responses are becoming more and more ambiguous and dare I say frantic! Have a trawl through your ASH propaganda manual. I’m sure you can come up with more and, surely, better anti-tobacco propaganda?
128

Charles IIIX,

31/12/2008 15:40:08
Roger, thanks for that.

"As a result of this action the number of people developing lung cancer as a result of radon exposure should be significantly lower than it was 20 years ago, with the risk falling year on year as more people take up the grants".

Rollo is so tied up with himself he hasn’t realised that maybe this wasn’t a confirmation of his (irrelevant) arguments about radon.

He has failed to realise that the measures in reducing lung cancer caused by radon, actually go some way to explain the reduction in so called ‘smoking related’ lung cancer. A confirmation that many of the lung cancers attributable to smoking are related to other external factors – radon, asbestos, radiation and all the other industrial pollutants. Maybe lifestyle choices are not the main cause of lung cancers after all?
129

Rollo Tommasi,

31/12/2008 19:30:04
I’ve got a few spare minutes, so I’ll deal with Rich White’s other points.

1998 WHO report: You claim “The WHO DID hide their data”. I say they didn’t. I have produced 2 sources to back up my argument. You produce…..ehm….absolutely nothing. And then you have the temerity of accusing ME of not doing MY research!!!!?????

Siegel/Whelan: I really don’t see your point here. Both say that the evidence showing the dangers of passive smoking is strong and there is no need to resort to inaccurate argument. I agree with that. Do you?

And I have to add this. When you are trying to make money by flogging a book which, based on your comments here, will be full of distortions and possibly outright lies, I do not think you are in any position to be preaching on the ethics of accurate debate to anyone.

World data: I don’t recognise your figures. What are your sources?

You claim China now has the longest life expectancy in the world”. I say the average life expectancy in China is much lower than developed Western countries (72 years in 2004). (http://www.who.int/whosis/mort/profiles/mort_wpro_chn_china.pdf; http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSPEK32846520070212).

You claim “the Chinese smoke more cigarettes than a lot of other countries.” Actually, the smoking rate in China has fallen dramatically since the mid-1990s and is now on a par with western Europe (http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/02/content_396825.htm).

You claim lung cancer death rates are 0.56-0.59%. I say lung, trachea and bronchus cancers account for 4% of Chinese deaths (not dissimilar to the 6% total for the UK). (http://www.who.int/whosis/mort/profiles/mort_wpro_chn_china.pdf).
And you may find this article about the dangers of smoking in China interesting: http://www.wpro.who.int/media_centre/fact_sheets/fs_20020528.
Consider this too. The World Bank notes that “recent major studies from China, and emerging studies from India, indicate that although the overall ri
130

Rollo Tommasi,

31/12/2008 19:30:40
Consider this too. The World Bank notes that “recent major studies from China, and emerging studies from India, indicate that although the overall risks of persistent smoking are about as great as in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, the pattern of smoking-related diseases in these nations is substantially different.” So, for example, IHD mortality is much higher in the UK (20%) than China (8%). But COPD mortality in China is much higher (14% vs 5%). And 3% of Chinese deaths are attributable to TB, as opposed to a figure too small to be recorded for the UK. (http://www.who.int/whosis/mort/profiles/mort_wpro_chn_china.pdf; http://www.who.int/whosis/mort/profiles/mort_euro_gbr_unitedkingdom.pdf)

So you would be misguided to look at lung cancer alone as the barometer against which to measure the threat of smoking to health.

Elderly smokers: Yes, of course they exist. Some smokers will always enjoy a long life. But smoking increases the risk that they will not. And today’s elderly are from a generation where more people smoked than today. When someone who is now 110 was born, the average life expectancy of a newborn baby was only 58 for a female and 52 for a male (http://www.jbending.org.uk/stats3.htm). Thankfully life expectancy is much higher for today’s children. Reduced smoking prevalence is a major reason for this.

As you will see, in answering your comments I have consistently substantiated my views with supporting evidence. If you are going to respond to any of my points, I would be grateful if you could do the same. As someone who has written a book on the subject, you should surely be able to do that.
131

Rollo Tommasi,

31/12/2008 19:45:14
I see our friend Charles IIIX has returned. He appears to disagree with many of my arguments. From a quick glance, he has offered absolutely NOTHING as supporting arguments to back up his lines (other than a reference to Snowdon in response to a point I did not even make!!). His is truly an empty intellectual vessel.

If I can be bothered, I'll reply to his post in time. For now, I have a Hogmanay to enjoy.

To all reading this board who believe in the power of evidence, reason and constructive debate, I wish you a Happy New Year.
132

Tim85,

Lancs, England 31/12/2008 21:18:12
With the frenzied activity of Rollo over this yuletide / New Year period, I must wonder when he has the time to frequent the smoke-free public places he claims to like so much.

I'll deal with just a few points because quite frankly, I do actually have better things to do.

E & K: most epidemiologists with the longevity of career of Enstrom and Kabat have received money from the tobacco industry. Indeed, I believe Stanton Glantz's own university did at one stage. Of course, we hear less about those who have, in the past, benefitted from tobacco industry funding when their studies yield results which are undesirable to the tobacco industry. Nebulous point.

WHO study: There are two conflicting accounts of what exactly transpired. 1) is that of the tobacco industry, the Telegraph, the Economist, etc., and 2) is that of the WHO, Glantz et al, ASH. The two accounts are entirely contradictory, and, short of having been there (or doing painstaking research - enough to fill a book), I don't believe that reconciling the contentions made by either side and finding an 'objective truth' is easy, or perhaps even possible. It is noteworthy, however, that it has been stated by many leading tobacco control proponents that there was nothing anamolous / out of the ordinary about the 1998 WHO study when the results were very close to an RR of 1 (i.e., no overall risk). Either this is a tacit admission that the body of passive smoking evidence is insufficient to infer an increase in risk, or they are lying, hoping most people haven't read its conclusions. Unfortunately, those of us who have put something of a spanner in the works.

Overall, I am on the fence about the whole thing, but you seem to have accepted the anti-tobacco stance lock stock and barrel. Interestingly, however, the Press Complaints Commission dismissed the case brought by ASH against the Telegraph, which leads one to wonder if they were similarly perplexed by the competing diatribes in operation. Ever the on
133

Tim85,

Lancs, England 31/12/2008 21:38:01
Charles's comments to Rollo:

"Why are many everyday substances as previously outlined that are MORE harmful than passive smoking considered to be of less harm? You point to reasonable responses to hazardous substances like radon and argue that it is being dealt with – no arguments with that, but you have double standards – “e.g. eat 5+ portions of fruit/veg daily; avoid too much caffeine/animal fats/alcohol, etc” Why are these cancerous products not banned, to protect the public who have no mind of their own? They are as dangerous as SHS, if not more so, according to research. Why, in the case of the passive smoking ‘danger’, were reasonable measures not taken to reduce exposure by ventilation, segregation etc?"

Oh, don't ask Rollo this, his head will explode. The evidence is 'robust', 'strong', etc., whereas he will go to myopic (yes, that word again) lengths to ignore risk factors - especially risk factors which impact upon passive bystanders - which carry an RR higher than that of the 1.25 associated with passive smoking.

As I've never had a satisfactory answer from him, I will ask the question again: why aren't wood burning stoves, which carry an RR far in excess of passive smoking for lung cancer, also banned in public places, and/or the use of them around children frowned upon/subject to a health warning? Tell me, how many people do wood burning stoves kill per year? Hadn't we better be given some hard figures for this unseen holocaust? The RR for with childhood leukemia and overhead powerlines/pylons is approximately 1.70 (70% increased risk). This is indeed confirmed by multiple studies, and if the same evidence were present for passive smoking you'd no doubt delineate it the most persuasive argument in the history of science.

If, as according to one study, usage of the contraceptive pill between the ages of 25 and 29 leads to 47 in 100,000 deaths from breast cancer as compared with approx 5-10 per 100,000 from passive smoking ACROSS A LIFETIME w
134

Rich White,

31/12/2008 21:41:11
Rollo, i'm giving up on this one it's doing my head in. For one the format of this page is annoying in the fact we can't have long posts.

Second, you're not actually reading what i said, i didn't ask whether Osteen was pro- or anti- i asked whether the judge who overruled the ruling was. Next, Dr. Whelan is an anti-smoker, founder of ASCH, who admits SHS does not kill people.

Next, Glantz is not a doctor of medicine he holds a doctorate in engineering. Oh, he also has admitted many times (probably by accident) that the movement is all about money.

World data, again you've missed what i have said. You do that a lot.

If you want to continue this discussion, i request we take it to a proper forum simply because the posts can be as long as they need to be. Feel free to use mine: www.smokescreens.org/forum
135

Roger, Newcastle,

02/01/2009 00:12:21
Charles 128
I think you're reading too much into the radon issue. In Scotland only 0.1% of homes had radon at above the action level, although I think the figure was a little higher in England. The government effort to reduce radon exposure in the home will have saved many lives but, numerically, these will probably be insignificant compared with other risk factors. At the macro level the change will be small, but at an individual level, many dozens of families will have been spared from lung cancer.

Staying at the individual level, a family friend is a thoracic surgeon. He reckons he’s treated more than 500 individuals with lung cancer but finds that way over 90% have been long term heavy smokers, which seems to be at odds with the reported proportions.

What is more striking about his views on the matter, is how the people who have smoked and then suffered lung cancer feel about smoking. Bearing in mind he’s had approaching 500 lung cancer patients who had been heavy smokers, he is yet to meet one that didn’t deeply regret starting to smoke. Not one.

I know that many of the posters on this thread feel strongly that smoking is a freedom issue. With the benefit of hindsight, all of my friend’s patients who had smoked see it as a curse rather than a freedom.
136

DeniseX,

02/01/2009 11:14:17
A common myth about smoking assert that the lungs of smokers become brown or even black from years of accumulation of tars and goo. Not true, according to Wray Kephart. Mr. Kephart presently works as an engineer but he previously worked in a hospital, performing autopsies, most of which were paid for by insurance companies, seeking to determine whether the deceased committed suicide, or died from "natural causes". Kephart tells me that he's done approximately 1560 autopsies, and he's seen some strange things, such as the lungs of auto painters, which were "effectively sealed with catalyzed lacquers".

Kephart insists, however, that it is normally impossible to tell, from autopsy, whether the deceased was or was not a smoker. Upon resection, the lungs are always clear, unless the deceased lived in a large city where there was significant industrial pollution. In that event, carbon deposits may be found, but these are unrelated to smoking. So the "brown lungs" myth is exactly that: a myth
137

Rollo Tommasi,

02/01/2009 12:53:32
Roger (135): Thank you for that post. The experiences of your family friend help to show just how serious this debate is.

The BMA produced this collection of views of doctors on their personal experiences about the effects of smoking and passive smoking on health: http://www.bma.org.uk/images/tobacco_tcm41-21294.pdf.
138

Rollo Tommasi,

02/01/2009 14:00:55
Tim85: You seem to be itching for a reply from me, particularly on your favourite topic of leukaemia and high voltage power lines and pylons. You appear to be making the mistake of assuming that the relative risk figure is all that matters.

I’ve read the Draper et al study from 2005. It said that the 1.7 relative risk is “highly significant”. So if the issue was just about that, then the researchers would presumably have concluded that pylons are dangerous.

But the issue was not just about that. The researchers were unable to conclude that this was due to a causal relationship between high voltage power lines and leukaemia. The results could have been due to chance. The results differed from what the researchers expected to find in some material ways (particularly over the continuing risk at greater distance from the lines). There was potentially relevant information which the researchers did not available to them (e.g. characteristics of households who are more likely to live close to high voltage power lines; where children in the control group lived throughout their lives). The researchers estimated that their findings could account for around 5 child leukaemia deaths each year, but highlighted that this estimate is imprecise.

In the past I have told you I believe it is right for further research to be conducted into the risks of high voltage power lines and pylons. Hopefully this explains way. Thankfully, we have the benefit of much more research into the dangers of passive smoking, which is why the risks it presents can be assessed with greater certainty.

Wood-burning stoves: I’ve done enough digging around for you. If you want to discuss this, please provide me with links to the relevant studies. And make sure the studies are relevant for the UK and conclude the researchers are satisfied that these stoves present a significant risk to health.

Foods: You may be aware that we all have to eat! I’m not aware of conclusive evidence that any food is
139

Rollo Tommasi,

02/01/2009 14:01:22
Foods: You may be aware that we all have to eat! I’m not aware of conclusive evidence that any food is carcinogenic in low quantities. Whole milk, coffee, etc are fine if consumed in moderation. Why should they be banned?

Compare that with passive smoking. We all have to eat and breathe but we don’t all have to smoke! If there is a safe level of exposure to passive smoke, it is not known. And, of course, a person’s eating choices affect their OWN health. A person’s smoking puts OTHER PEOPLE at risk from the secondhand smoke they emit. And then there’s the big fact that smoking is not banned!!! People can still smoke, provided they do not do so in enclosed public places where their actions could put the health of other people at risk.
140

Belinda-2,

02/01/2009 15:22:11
Roger's friend the surgeon finds a high proportion of lung cancer sufferers are long-term heavy smokers. That is not the same as saying that most smokers get lung cancer. Even if those patients had stopped smoking it might not have saved them from lung cancer.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but must not be confused with foresight. Using people's regrets about not giving up smoking when they find themselves seriously ill is surely not a basis for policy. In any case, nobody is talking about outlawing smoking.

It is not clear that anti smoking policies have the desired effect of lowering smoking rates.

As for 'no safe level of secondary smoke' (Rollo), of course there is. Isolate the supposedly dangerous constituents of smoke, measure their concentration in the air. Toxicity can be measured. Standards can be established, depending not on the perceived source of contamination (a dilute mix of air and tobacco smoke) but on actual chemicals that are the source of the problem, whether they originate in tobacco smoke or not.

141

tug f wilson,

02/01/2009 17:53:52
Rollo....second hand smoke will not kill or harm you,do not be afraid to go out and talk to smokers,they are very nice people,they are the same people they were before the smoking ban,bosses,workmates,MPs,council workers,doctors,nurses,dentists,well i think you get the picture,dont get fooled by this lame government and ASH, the SHS CON is over.
142

DeniseX,

02/01/2009 18:16:20
Come on everybody. We all know that smoking causes lung cancer. That is why all smokers get lung cancer.
We all know that breathing in somebody elses cigarette smoke causes heart attacks and this is why anybody who walks past a smoker will have a heart attack.
143

Roger, Newcastle,

03/01/2009 00:15:49
Belinda and Denise
NOBODY has claimed that most smokers will get lung cancer.
The fact is that the vast majority of lung cancer victims are smokers.
Can't you see the difference?

And I can tell the difference between hindsight and foresight.

But if a lot of smokers die early from unpleasant diseases like cancer, heart disease and emphysema, and most of these people regret ever having smoked, why do you and your fellow supporters have such a problem with the government trying to help people stop smoking and trying to stop kids from starting to smoke?
144

Charles IIIX,

03/01/2009 15:55:19
Roger;.
Don’t downgrade your previous comment (#135), it is very relevant. It highlights that there are many causes of lung cancer, some more dangerous than others but also that this is recognised and measures are being taken to reduce their affect on health. Any reduction in cancers will of course be attributed to the reduction in smoking. They have the other lifestyle choices of what we eat and drink to fall back on if the reduction is not in line with smoking reduction. Ie. “We have reduced the incidence of cancers by reducing smoking, all the new cancers are down to obesity, lack of exercise, and alcohol”. “We have a responsibility for the health of the nation and need to control these aspects more vigorously”” (they will think of more as is necessary)
Anti-tobacco, and governments have always played down industrial external costs, the causes of lung, and many other cancers (role reversal) no surprise industry has embraced the claim that the individual is responsible and industry is not!


The smoking issue IS a freedom issue, in fact it is probably the biggest freedom issue since Hitler and it is notable that the same tactics are being used today as Hitler employed in his day. The pseudo science and the propaganda techniques used to validate that science to demonise and coerce a substantial minority is exactly the same. The motives may well be different; Hitler’s aim was to propagate a pure German race and attain world domination – Anti-tobacco’s is to enforce a tobacco free (pure) world and in the process protect the profits and culpability of big business, whose handouts they greedily accept.

Comparison between Nazi campaign and Anti Tobacco campaign;
http://www.data-yard.net/science/papers/denying_the_undeniable.pdf

“The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings… The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is
145

Charles IIIX,

03/01/2009 15:56:32
The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct” (Excerpt from Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’)

Even the most naive should be able to understand the likely consequences and restrictions on further removal of freedoms. (Which minority is the next?)

Your example of the thoracic surgeon is only evidence of the success of anti-tobacco propaganda and the pseudo science – what chance does the layman stand? Even he apparently does not appreciate the difference between correlation and causation, the difference between ‘corroboration’ as in evidence obtained by replicating results using different methodology and ‘repetition’ as in the equivalent of taking one study that comes up with the ‘right’ results, copying it a hundred times and changing the names on the top of each one.

I attempted to draw rollo on this one. To produce some true corroboration. eg hard scientific evidence by experimentation. Unfortunately all he could come up with was retrospective and prospective statistical study, (and of course Hackshaw et al !). I suppose that is what he classes as ‘superior intellect’ – only answer the questions that suit him and ignore the rest.

I had expected him to quote the Joe L. Mauderly et al (2004) study that showed some rats exposed to substantial amounts tobacco smoke showed excess lung and nasal cancers and this would have provided an attempt at ‘corroborative’ study. He didn’t, so I will, for the sake of balance, but balance that too because no corroborative evidence has been found other than this and none is forthcoming!

In fact this study, only really confirmed that smoking improves vascular growth. Better vascularization (e.g. better branching of capillaries) (Google it), and stronger, quicker self-repairing blood vessels are normally a good thing for an organism but, with cancer rats all these circulatory benefits also mean more blood and nutrients for cance
146

Charles IIIX,

03/01/2009 15:57:41
more blood and nutrients for cancer cells at the places where tobacco smoke is the most concentrated, therefore more and bigger cancers in those places.
.
Other studies of this nature that have been unearthed have only ever proved the beneficial effects of tobacco smoke. Anti-tobacco has been frantic to provide ‘hard evidence’ for decades and have consistently failed.
The results show that the highest number of tumors occurred in the untreated control [non-smoking] rats. The next highest number of tumors occurred in rats subject to sham smoking, i.e. rats which were placed in the smoking machine without smoke exposure, and the lowest number of tumors occurred in the smoke-exposed rats. (A.P. Wehrner, et al, 1981)
Of course there are the claims regarding other animal experiments. But;
“Coggins (1998, 2001, 2002) reviewed several chronic inhalation studies using rodents, dogs, and nonhuman primates, and concluded that no study has produced a statistically significant increase in lung tumors” (Oxford Journal 2004)

“At a U.S. congressional hearing in 1982 Dr. A. Furst, director emeritus, Institute of Chemical Biology, University of San Francisco, gave sworn testimony that he had tried for many years to induce lung cancer in animals with cigarette smoke but without success. He also testified that every other investigator who had attempted this had also failed. This was confirmed by the testimony of scientists Schrauzer, Macdonald, Hockey, Buhle and Hackett, showing quite clearly that no animal has ever got lung cancer from inhaling cigarette smoke.” (Whitby WT 1986 p6)

In 1986 Whitby, an Australian physician, comments on his experience;

“In my medical practice patients frequently told me that smoking relieved their coughs. Because this was contrary to what the text books and the lecturers said, I at first thought they just imagined it. But as it continued over the years I began to wonder if there was something in it. My own experience with smoking showed
147

Charles IIIX,

03/01/2009 15:58:26
My own experience with smoking showed me just how right they were. From childhood I had a history of bronchitis accompanied by marked wheezing. I was warned by doctors not to smoke. In my late thirties I got such frequent disabling attacks, sometimes with pneumonia, that they seriously interfered with my work and made life rather distressing. An old country doctor said to me one day, "I used to be like you. Then someone put me on to the secret - take up the pipe. I did and I've never been better." I had never smoked because of warnings from chest 'experts' but remembering my patients' claims, I took the old doctor's advice. The change in my health was miraculous. In the years since I took up smoking, my chest troubles have been few. It is many years since I have had an attack of bronchitis. I am sure I would have been dead long ago if I hadn't smoked. When I hear 'experts' talking or I read books decrying smoking in chest conditions I just smile and think how little they know.”

The same propaganda that affects Roger’s thoracic surgeon is also true of the patients – they are not immune to the propaganda blaming them for their own demise. If they knew the truth about smoking, would they still feel the same?
http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html

Rollo has consistently chosen to answer his own interpretation of the questions posed and avoided the main points – corruption and the role of business and pharmaceuticals, the demise and untrustworthiness of recent medical research, ad hominem attacks on anyone who argues against the anti-tobacco religion, the obvious flaws in anti-tobacco logic, such as why lung cancers are more specifically associated with small geographic areas, or why there is such an obvious difference between smoking prevalence throughout the world and lung cancers. He did try to point to validity of specific smoking and mortality data and has tried to answer the farcically low (and challenged) 24% official increased risk re SHS but could
148

Charles IIIX,

03/01/2009 15:59:51
the farcically low (and challenged) 24% official increased risk re SHS but could only come up with a few cherry picked anti-tobacco studies that were not as convincing as those of Chris Snowden. One point he tried to counter was the obvious ambiguity that similar or greater risks to SHS are invariably discounted as of no concern. He quoted electromagnetic risks that had an increased risk of 69%. I am not sure if he realised that he merely confirmed my previous point of the problems associated with ‘confounders’. He says that the study was not valid without further study, yet fails to explain WHY further study has not been carried out, bearing in mind that this obvious risk affects ‘the children’ - compared with studies on SHS that are in overdrive!

The defenders of anti tobacco have merely assisted big business and industry in the most misleading, though successful, social engineering scam in history, their holy grail! This scam has perpetrated what amounts to genocide by diverting attention away from their culpability, the real causes of cancer and onto individual lifetime choices. I do hope that they and others have been sufficiently motivated to do some meaningful research to uncover more of the copious bad science, and propaganda used in the furtherance of the anti-smoking agenda.

I will let Gabriel Donohoe have the last word on the integrity and threat to the world that is the pharmaceutical industry, the driving force behind the anti-smoking movement. http://www.naturalnews.com/024534.html

I intend to withdraw from this debate now, but reserve the right to return if I consider it of value to do so. Rollo and his ‘superior intellect’ appears to have noting further to add to the debate, His comments have been totally inspired by anti-smoking propaganda and he clearly cannot break free from that. I can see no immediate change in his position. Finally, he cannot see that he would only be exposed to SHS if he chose to by entering smoking areas. Smokers do
149

Charles IIIX,

03/01/2009 16:00:33
Finally, he cannot see that he would only be exposed to SHS if he chose to by entering smoking areas. Smokers do not have that choice. He seems to think that his freedom is more important than everyone else’s. THAT, at the very least, is selfishness, at worst, the implications are far more sinister.

My thanks go to the Scotsman and the moderator for allowing this debate to run and come to a (sort of) conclusion. Best wishes for the New Year!
150

Tim85,

Lancs, England 03/01/2009 17:27:25
Rollo - Draper et al: this study was commensurate with other studies on the exposure to pylons/power lines. Surely your whole point is that a body of evidence, when taken together, is 'robust'?

"The researchers estimated that their findings could account for around 5 child leukaemia deaths each year, but highlighted that this estimate is imprecise."

Didn't passive smoking studies form the basis for Jamrozik's assertion that something like 11 people died per year in Australia from passive smoking? You seem to be scoffing at the number of 5.

"In the past I have told you I believe it is right for further research to be conducted into the risks of high voltage power lines and pylons. Hopefully this explains way. Thankfully, we have the benefit of much more research into the dangers of passive smoking, which is why the risks it presents can be assessed with greater certainty."

There aren't that many more. And 20 years ago, roughly the same amount of studies on passive smoking which are available now on pylons / powerlines were sufficient for medical authorities to declare it a health risk. I simply don't understand why a meta-analysis has not been funded / performed on the issue. Is it simply because it isn't anything to do with smoking? Or because the rules, when applied to passive smoking are applied far less rigidly when analysing any other risk factor?
151

Tim85,

Lancs, England 03/01/2009 17:31:46
Rollo:

Wood burning stoves - what digging have you done for me, exactly? Surely you should be aware of the studies performed on this issue. The similarities between wood burning stoves and the theory of environmental tobacco smoke can hardly be lost on you. The studies I have read put the figure at between 1.50-3.0 (but, once again, I am unaware of any meta-analysis having been conducted on this particular risk factor. How convenient).
152

Rollo Tommasi,

03/01/2009 19:01:54
Tim85: I have never understood why you assume that I must be able to give an expert opinion on every single risk to health out there. Just because I discuss the risks of passive smoking does not mean I don't respect the existence of other risks I don't talk about.

You're very quick to raise issues, but not so quick to explain your sources for your positions. What is your considered viewpoint on the risks of wood burning stoves and what are your sources for this?

Likewise, on power lines, I'm prepared to discuss this further with you but I'm not prepared shadow box when I don't know what position you are trying to take. In this particular case, the issue of leukaemia from power lines is inextricably linked with studies into the effects of other electromagnetic fields within the home. I honestly don't know what your detailed conclusions are about the risks of power lines (you say 70% excess relative risk, but for whom, from what and in which circumstances, what supporting evidence your conclusions are based upon and what qualifications are contained in that evidence).

It's time for you to show me your arguments for once.
153

Tim85,

Lancs, England 03/01/2009 23:49:08
Rollo:

I'm not saying you don't. All the examples I have given are illustrative of medical authorities apparent willingness to in some cases dismiss, but in most cases focus disproportionately upon risks which epidemiological evidence indicates is at least as risky, if not more so, than passive smoking.

We can begin with power lines if you wish:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1940086

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10944614

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/178947.stm

The Health Protection Agency claims that most of the epidemiological evidence indicates that the RR is double (p. 38 (p.46 of 223):

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947383619

Earlier, I perhaps inaccurately stated that no meta-analysis had been performed on EMFs and their relationship to childhood leukemia, but, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, the info is more difficult to find than in the case of passive smoking and lung cancer/heart disease.

On the whole, however, you are right in one respect: if one compares the body of research with passive smoking, the issue is under-researched. After all, when researchers first began examining the purported link between passive smoking and lung cancer / heart disease, study after study after study yielded disappointing results. Research into any other risk factor would have all but been scrapped as a bad job. Have you any explanation for this, Rollo?
154

Belinda-2,

04/01/2009 12:02:14
Roger, 143: Of course I can see the difference between them Roger, that's why I raised it.

The reasons I don't support government efforts to persuade people to give up smoking concern their ineffectiveness. There is no success story behind their efforts to persuade people to stop. We are told things like 'help from NHS make it four times easier to give up smoking', when there is absolutely no way to collect the evidence that will support this claim.

As others have pointed out, tobacco is an organic substance that affects people differently. Some have found that smoking gives them benefits. Presenting smoking as an unqualified health disaster will simply not convince people who feel its benefits. But we used to be told that in order to stop smoking you really need the motivation. Scare stories from the government will not increase that motivation.

There is no evidence that measures proposed to stop children smoking will have the desired effect either. Smoking was declining before this hysterical anti-smoking campaign started, and will probably continue to decline when it stops.
155

Tag,

04/01/2009 20:28:20
Charles 144

You've spent such a lot of time posting on this thread, it is a shame you chose to shoot your credibility in both feet with this comment - "The smoking issue IS a freedom issue, in fact it is probably the biggest freedom issue since Hitler"

I did read carefully on to see if you were being ironic rather than silly and pompous, but you are dead serious aren't you?

I checked out whether the world's foremost freedom organisation; Amnesty International, agree with you. Amnesty state that their purpose is "We are ordinary people from around the world standing up for humanity and human rights. Our purpose is to protect individuals wherever justice, fairness, freedom and truth are denied."

So what do Amnesty International say about the smoking ban - not a peep. The only thing I can find is a posting on a blog on 1 July 2007 (first day of English smoking ban) which ends - "But basically stop whining. You can still light up outside or at home if you do wish to continue with the darned things. So an example, interspersed with a rant, of where everyone is now claiming their human rights are being abused by someone else. Bit the like speed camera court case. All in all, seems rather petty when AI are fighting to literally save lives around the world. Ho Hum."

Get off your high horse Charles, this isn't a big freedom issue at all.
156

Rollo Tommasi,

05/01/2009 01:24:21
Tim85: Thanks for the clarification.

Before we start, I should say that I know little about electro-magnetic fields. I have not done anything like the same reading on that as I have on passive smoking and, to be honest, I find the research on EMFs mind-numbingly complex. So I don’t pretend to have all the facts. But I will give you my honest opinion.

My first point is you seem to focus absolutely on the risk ratio figure in research and forget the surrounding commentary in the reports. I do think you have to be careful about not becoming too fixated on the risk ratio at the expense of everything else. The Bradford Hill criteria for assessing evidence of causation have 9 elements. Only one deals with the strength of the association (i.e. the relative risk). Other criteria deal with issues such as consistency (consistent findings observed by different persons in different places with different samples), specificity (where risk is seen to apply to a specific group of people at a specific site and with no other likely explanation) and plausibility (it helps if you know something is biologically plausible).

In the case of EMFs, it appears from my reading of the reports that researchers have been struggling with a few difficulties. A key issue is that exposure to EMFs at most levels appears not to affect the risk of childhood leukaemia, but the risk suddenly doubles at the highest levels. Researchers (reasonably) doubt that this is due to chance but have been unable to settle on whether the cause is EMFs or other factors (confounders or bias). Most animal and lab studies appear to have produced no evidence that EMFs are dangerous. And research has shown that US child leukaemia remained stable in recent decades, despite a rapid increase in electricity consumption in this time (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=48897&blobtype=pdf). This doesn’t appear to be consistent with what you’d expect if EMFs are indeed a factor behind child leukaemia cas
157

Rollo Tommasi,

05/01/2009 01:25:41
(contd...). This doesn’t appear to be consistent with what you’d expect if EMFs are indeed a factor behind child leukaemia cases.

I mentioned that, if EMFs from power lines increase a child’s risk of leukaemia, then that might account for up to 5 cases a year. I wasn’t trying to belittle the importance of those cases, but it is a relevant point. The first reason is that, when researchers are dealing with such a small affected sample base, it is very difficult to build up a clear picture about what risk may be attributable to power lines. Compare that with passive smoking, where researchers have been able to work with thousands of non-smoking case studies over the years.

The other reason is the motivation for these research studies. You can tell me what you think the motivation is – I’m sure many of your fellow F2C members would claim it is simply to pursue an anti-smoking agenda with Big Pharma support. I totally, absolutely disagree.

I genuinely believe the motivation behind the vast majority (all?) of these studies is a strong professional ethic and deep concern about public health. You claim researchers found the results of early studies “disappointing” (where’s your evidence for this, by the way?). I believe they actually found the results alarming. Yes, 15-30% is a small excess relative risk. But they knew that even that, if confirmed, would be enough to have a huge effect on public health, given the high levels of illness and premature death associated with smoking, the chemical similarity between mainstream and sidestream smoke, and the considerable likelihood for exposure of non-smokers to second hand smoke.

So why have there been all these studies into passive smoking? It’s because researchers knew how dangerous passive smoke would be to public health if the emerging results were right. They needed to know whether these fears were either justified, over-played or even under-estimated. And they needed to verify whether Bradford Hill’s other crit
158

Rollo Tommasi,

05/01/2009 01:26:28
(contd...). And they needed to verify whether Bradford Hill’s other criteria were also met.

It seems to me that the scientific community has actually been very careful before concluding that passive smoke presents a risk to health. They have done so only after considerable time and in light of numerous studies. The 1992 EPA report only looked at lung cancer and respiratory diseases. Most of the research into passive smoke and heart disease took place in the late 1980s and 1990s and as far as I can tell it was not until 1997 or so that scientists were prepared to state with confidence that passive smoking increases the risk of heart disease. Even now, the issue of a link between passive smoking and stroke has not been fully resolved (SCOTH wasn’t satisfied of a link in 2004), although the evidence in favour of a clear link continues to increase. Scientists are also not satisfied that there is a demonstrable link between passive smoking and other respiratory diseases. The 2002 IARC monograph states that there is insufficient evidence of a link between passive smoking and breast cancer. And there are many other diseases attributable to smoking where there as far as I can tell has been no attempt made to draw a parallel risk from passive smoking (e.g. cancer of the kidney, stomach, liver and bladder).

In other words, if the scientific community was as rabidly anti-smoking as some pro-smokers believe, then they would have been quick to announce the varied dangers of passive smoking far earlier and on the basis of far less evidence.

Yes, I understand why it may seem strange that more research is undertaken into the risks of passive smoking than into the risks of EMF. But if you worked in public health, would you not want to prioritise the research you commissioned on projects that might provide answers that help to address the biggest public health issues? When EMFs might account for 1-5 child leukaemia deaths each year, and passive smoking might account for 5,0
159

Rollo Tommasi,

05/01/2009 01:27:20
(Contd...and sorry for length). When EMFs might account for 1-5 child leukaemia deaths each year, and passive smoking might account for 5,000-15,000 deaths each year (11,000 according to Jamrozik), which topic would you choose to focus your research on?

You’ve given me a link to an extract of the Ahlbom et al pooled analysis. Don’t know if you’ve read it in full. If not, here’s a link: http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v83/n5/pdf/6691376a.pdf.
160

Roger, Newcastle,

05/01/2009 08:35:42
Belinda 154

I presumed from your original post you had thought I was suggesting that most smokers get cancer, which I clearly wasn’t. (You said “Roger's friend the surgeon finds a high proportion of lung cancer sufferers are long-term heavy smokers. That is not the same as saying that most smokers get lung cancer. “)

Your comment at 143 seems a bit of a redundant response to my post, because nobody has claimed that most smokers will get lung cancer.

You say tobacco is an organic substance that affects people differently, so are Prussic Acid, Botulinum and Ricin. Organic doesn’t equal healthy.

You say the reasons you don't support government efforts to persuade people to give up smoking concern their ineffectiveness. So you are concerned with efficiency rather than the freedom issues touted by Charles?

Rather than just criticising, can you suggest some positive ways in which the government could better help people who want to stop smoking, and what they could positively do to stop young people from starting?
161

Tim85,

Lancs, England 05/01/2009 12:10:17
Rollo:

Bradford-Hill criteria: fair point. I am not a convert to the EMF theory (although, interestingly, it has been around for a good deal longer than passive smoking, if you discount the term's coinage as 'passivrauchen' in Nazi Germany that is). Although I take your point about small available sample sizes.

The strength of the association in terms of passive smoking, in my opinion, is relatively weak. A question: of the passive smoking studies conducted, how many of them have (plausibly) yielded a significant positive result as opposed to a null hypothesis or a significant negative? And can you tell me of another precedent in public health where such low risks have been deemed to strongly evidential of a causal link?

No doubt some researchers were concerned with the potential effects of second-hand smoke. Some, however, were attempting, to paraphrase George Godber in 1975, to reduce smoking prevalence by necessarily fostering an atmosphere in which smokers perceived themselves as harming those around them.
162

Tim85,

Lancs, England 05/01/2009 12:34:34
Rollo (cont'd): You assert that medical authorities have been 'very careful' in identifying passive smoking as a health risk and that it wasn't until 1997 or so that they were prepared to declare a link between passive smoking and heart disease. Yet it was in 1986 that the Surgeon General "concluded that secondhand smoke caused lung cancer among nonsmoking adults and several respiratory problems among children". With the sparsity of studies conducted on second-hand smoke by 1986, it's enough to make the body of evidence on EMFs look positively unimpeachable.

You say the scientific community would have announced the "varied dangers" far earlier. But the main danger was always going to be lung cancer - this was the one which would have scared smokers and non-smokers alike because it is such a brutal and painful disease. And they declared it very early. By the way, are you aware of any studies on the link between passive smoking and throat cancer? Surely it is just as biologically plausible as with lung cancer that passive smoking cause throat cancer.

Are the recent studies and estimates really 'robust' enough to infer an increase of between 3,000 and 13,000 from Repace's estimate of 1,200 which was being used as late as 2003, especially Jamrozik's (*sniggers*) masterful piece of extrapolation? Instead of allowing for lessening exposure in workplaces, estimates on deaths from passive smoking keep going up and up and up. I remember c. 1996 I heard the figure of approximately 400 deaths. Then it because approx 1200 deaths. Now it's 3,000-15,000 deaths. It's wholly implausible. Given that Jamrozik's work in Australia saw an earlier estimate of between eight and eleven deaths per year from passive smoking, I'd say that one could have been forgiven at that stage for having thought that there both were equally pressing (i.e., not very).
163

Tim85,

05/01/2009 13:37:11
"You say the reasons you don't support government efforts to persuade people to give up smoking concern their ineffectiveness. So you are concerned with efficiency rather than the freedom issues touted by Charles?"

If I may interject, the two are interlinked. The more people are told not to do something, the less effect the public health messages will have. We all know that shock advertising is of limited value.

Example: between 1974 and 1982, when the tobacco control movement was in its relative infancy, smoking prevalence fell from 45% to 35%. Indeed, the only measure present in the late 1970s and early 1980s which is present today were duty increases on tobacco (of limited effectiveness because they were introduced incrementally, and are dwarfed, in relative terms, by the duty increases seen on tobacco in the 1990s and 00s). Yet in eight years, we saw a 10% decrease, whereas in the last 26 years we have seen a decrease of between 11% and 13%.

My rather mischievous answer is to make the public information on the effects of active smoking available, while nationalising and then forcibly disbanding all anti-smoking groups (or, where they are part of a larger organisation, such as the tobacco control dept of CRUK, doing the same to this part of the charity). Their bleating has only been counterproductive.
164

Rollo Tommasi,

05/01/2009 18:38:11
Tim85: Outputs of passive smoking studies: If epidemiological science dictated that risk should be decided on the basis of individual study results set at a rigid 95% confidence interval, then the evidence behind passive smoking would be questionable. But epidemiological science dictates no such thing. In fact, the only people I have seen claim that 6 out of 7 (or whatever the figure is) studies show no significant link are NON-scientists. Unless, that is, you can show me otherwise…..

The great majority of studies consistently show that passive smoking increases the risks of lung cancer and heart disease. When the results are pooled, the collective results both reflect this consistently found level of risk and do so in a way that IS statistically significant at 95% CI.

I cannot speak of an example where action has been taken in light of a smaller RELATIVE risk. There may be; I haven’t explored the issue. However, in terms of ABSOLUTE risk to the UK population, the risks of passive smoking are high. Deaths attributable to passive smoking greatly exceed the number of deaths from road traffic accidents, MRSA, murders, AIDS, etc.

I’ve now seen a few references to Sir George Godber’s quote. It’s unclear from the quote whether he wanted to foster an ACCURATE or INACCURATE perception that passive smoking is harmful. People using the quote try to imply that he meant an inaccurate impression. But nobody has yet been able to prove that point and nobody seems to know what else he said that day. Have you seen his full speech? How do you know you’re not misquoting him?

You claim the Surgeon General reached his 1986 position on the basis of sparse evidence. I disagree. As far as I can tell, the Surgeon General based his 1986 assessment on no fewer than 13 studies into the links between passive smoking and lung cancer (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7114/961?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=secondhand+smoking&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1
165

Rollo Tommasi,

05/01/2009 18:39:10
Tim85 (contd)
(http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7114/961?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=secondhand+smoking&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1132414045128_5567&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=10&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=1). Fig 1 of Hackshaw et al’s 1997 BMJ report (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7114/980), shows how far a pooled analysis of available studies had evolved by 1986. By that year the overall relative risk from available evidence had reached a position very close to that recognised today. Also, the width of the confidence interval had narrowed substantially and presented a statistically significant positive risk. I stand by my contention that medical authorities have been very careful in identifying passive smoking as a health risk.

You asked me about my view that scientific community has actually been very careful before concluding that passive smoke presents a risk to health. As discussed, I don’t agree that the scientific community declared the risk of passive smoking and lung cancer early. It was after an assessment of around 13 studies. I’m not sure why you’re referring to throat cancer. I’m not aware of any such studies. Doesn’t that show that the scientific community is NOT obsessed with trying to link passive smoking with as many diseases as possible?

As for your final comments about death rates attributable to passive smoking, I note you snigger about Jamrozik but don’t actually provide any meaningful critique. Are you not in danger again at looking at the figures and not at the surrounding commentary? What do the respective figures refer to? Deaths from lung cancer only? Or heart disease and/or stroke too? Do they relate only to never smokers? Or to ex-smokers too? Do they cover both genders? Or do they relate to the results of female spousal studies only?
166

Tag,

07/01/2009 08:39:22
No response from Charles to my post at 155?

Have the pro smoking movement realised that the smoking ban isn't a huge freedom issue after all?

Has a sense of proportion descended on Charles and his colleagues?
167

Belinda-2,

07/01/2009 11:47:17
Something called a ban isn't a huge freedom issue? Come on, Tag.

Many people feel it unreasonably restricts the use of a lawful product. Many more people feel the grounds for these restrictions are at worst fabricated and at best exaggerated and that people should be enabled to assess the risks for themselves.

It may not be an issue quite like 42 days' detention without charge for example but it is not insignificant and those protesting it are not going away.

168

Tag,

07/01/2009 14:33:13
Belinda

It isn't called a ban, it is called 'smokefree'.

There are bans on using asbestos, drink driving, discharging firearms in public places, eating swans, fishing on some seaside piers, bungee jumping from some bridges, drinking alcohol in some parks, public nudity, etc. There are loads of other bans on using legal products where they might harm someone else.

Surely it is more of a freedom issue to ban drinking alcohol in the park (where the biggest risk might be drunken behaviour) than it is to ban smoking in a pub? But your organisation doesn't seem bothered about that one.

Amnesty International don't seem bothered by these either (see post 155 for details of their view on the smoking ban). Amnesty seem to have a sense of proportion about this.

With regard to the grounds for the smoking ban, Rollo has more than competently debunked all of the 'smoking is safe' propoganda that Charles and others have put forward on this thread. You and your colleagues will probably never open your minds enough to see that, but I'm sure most people can. How can people assess the risks for themselves when there is so much pro-tobacco pseudo-scientific nonsense clouding the issue whenever this gets discussed.

A week ago (post 101) I asked Timbone/Trom:

"How many medically qualified members does freedom2choose have?

And how many of freedom2choose's medically qualified members aren't addicted to nicotine?

If you do have any medically qualified members who aren't addicted to nicotine, can't you get THEM to take part in debates like this instead of your usual crowd of web quoters who never seem to get it right?"

I didn't expect an answer, and he lived up to my low expectation. I suspect if you did have any non-addicted medically qualified people in your membership they would be advising that Rollo pretty much has it right.
169

Belinda-2,

07/01/2009 16:15:28
Tag

Last time I looked it was called a ban.

Yes there are restrictions on other things. Freedom2choose was formed to fight the smoking ban. We are aware of other campaigns, but don't have the resources to fight all of them.

In order to be taken seriously it seems we need medically qualified members not addicted to nicotine. Since being addicted to nicotine means enjoying it, that seems to be a freedom issue in itself, since you are tarring people's judgements as inaccurate on the basis that they enjoy smoking, regardless of their expertise in any direction.

Amnesty's position in detail has not been revealed, you said only one person had posted about smokers 'whining'. That happens in all the papers every day and is not a detailed policy position. Amnesty's main concerns are to do with unfair imprisonment and being unjustly imprisoned for crimes that don't involve violence. I can't see them approving the imprisonment of people smoking at their place of work, but this has not been mooted here, so it has not reached Amnesty's field of endeavour.

So Rollo has it right, has he, according to you? And why should we believe you? Rollo is impressively thorough in building a case but I don't agree with his conclusions about the risks of secondary smoke, nor his view that they are an acceptable basis to BAN smoking in enclosed 'public' places.
170

Tag,

07/01/2009 22:51:26
Belinda
You say you are aware of other campaigns. Are you seriously suggesting that there are campaigns against bans on using asbestos, drink driving, discharging firearms in public places, eating swans, fishing on some seaside piers, bungee jumping from some bridges, drinking alcohol in some parks, public nudity, etc?

Amnesty's position is pretty clear, they don't have one! As you say, Amnesty are mainly concerned about more important freedom issues.

Has anyone seriously suggested locking people up for smoking at their place of work? No, of course they haven't. You are making up issues to argue against. Again.

I wouldn't expect you to believe me for one minute. But why don't you seek out someone well educated and independent, like one of the 20,000 qualified doctors that aren't a member of your organisation. My issue with doctors addicted to nicotine is that their addiction stops them being as objective about the issue as non-addicted doctors.

If you really want the truth, what are you scared of?
171

Roger, Newcastle,

08/01/2009 13:25:58
Belinda
Back at 143 I asked you ".. if a lot of smokers die early from unpleasant diseases like cancer, heart disease and emphysema, and most of these people regret ever having smoked, why do you and your fellow supporters have such a problem with the government trying to help people stop smoking and trying to stop kids from starting to smoke?"

You replied "The reasons I don't support government efforts to persuade people to give up smoking concern their ineffectiveness. There is no success story behind their efforts to persuade people to stop.
and
There is no evidence that measures proposed to stop children smoking will have the desired effect either."

Back at 160 I asked you "Rather than just criticising, can you suggest some positive ways in which the government could better help people who want to stop smoking, and what they could positively do to stop young people from starting?"

Are you going to duck that one?
172

DeniseX,

09/01/2009 11:54:12
Anti-smokers also die younger.
Ronald M. Davis, a former president of the American Medical Association who campaigned against tobacco, alcohol, obesity, illicit drugs, and unhealthy lifestyles in his career as a public health official, died Thursday at his home in East Lansing, Mich. He was 52.
173

Tag,

09/01/2009 15:55:09
Another completely pointless post DeniseX, well up to your usual standard.
Were you hoping to prove something, or did you just want to gloat?
174

DeniseX,

09/01/2009 16:57:37
Just to show that even anti-smokers die young.
175

Tag,

09/01/2009 18:32:38
Denise

"even anti-smokers die young"

Of course they do, but in nowhere near the numbers that smokers do.
176

Tag,

11/01/2009 20:16:34
The pro-smoking brigade seem to have run out of puff.
Has Belinda taken the trouble to talk to an unbiased doctor and finally learned the truth?
Has Charles learned to get things in proportion?
177

Roger, Newcastle,

12/01/2009 13:38:15
Belinda

Back at 160 (and 171) I asked you ""Rather than just criticising, can you suggest some positive ways in which the government could better help people who want to stop smoking, and what they could positively do to stop young people from starting?"

Are you going to duck that one?"

That'll be 'yes' then.


178

Belinda-2,

13/01/2009 14:21:08
Roger:

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=f6c87bf9-d04b-49b2-9211-146a2e66a566

An unusual situation but it is not unheard of and I didn't make it up. I don't make things up.

As for not encouraging youth not to smoke, I think Tim answered that question for me. Kids don't respond well to negative messages from authority, and telling them something has bad effects will roll off like water. I would focus on the positive things that kids do, or could do, and let them know that help is available for addiction problems.

I am not trying to criticise by pointing out that the government's approach to the problem is simply showing higher figures. Young people (in this area) are increasingly self-abusing. It might not be popular to say it but smoking tobacco might be preferable to kids resorting to self harm when their support systems let them down, and might also be preferable to stronger drugs. Sigmatising smoking is not doing vulnerable people a favour.

I don't know how much time should be given to subjects like smoking on the school timetable, but school is for providing the elements of a good all round education and gaining qualifications to enable kids to support themselves into adulthood. All the time in the world spent on smoking/drinking/sex guidance classes won't help them earn a living.
179

Belinda-2,

13/01/2009 14:21:53
Just to clarify this discussion is already three weeks old and I am not likely to visit again.
180

Rich White,

13/01/2009 20:17:44
I'd just like to make a much needed point about Epstrom and Kabat that doesn't seem to have been mentioned. That is WHY they accepted tobacco money. Rollo, the study was originally funded by the American Cancer Society, but when preliminary data came in it showed what they didn't want - passive smoke wasn't killing people. Oops! So they did something that should be a big red flag to you: pulled their funding. With the data showing what it did no other medical organisation would touch it - after all, it's not in their interest to make out smoking isn't killing everyone. They had no choice but to take tobacco money in order to finish the study.

So don't get the cart before the horse: the results weren't the way they were because tobacco money was used, tobacco money was used because the results were what they were
181

Rollo Tommasi,

13/01/2009 21:55:52
Rich White: You are wrong, wrong, WRONG!!

The American Cancer Society did NOT fund the Enstrom & Kabat study. It was initially funded by the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program. If you don't believe me, read the E&K report in the BMJ for yourself!

So your whole point is wrong. The ACS didn't pull its funding.....because it didn't provide funding in the first place. TRDRP withdrew its funding following ongoing complaints it received from the American Cancer Society about how E&K were misapplying information from the ACS's CPS-I database.

How many other complete inaccuracies are there in your book?
182

Tag,

14/01/2009 10:29:21
So Belinda will answer Roger's questions but not mine.

I think we're safe to assume that
1 Belinda and her mates at freedom2choose don't have any doctors that are not addicted to nicotine in their membership
2 Belinda and her mates won't go and talk directly to non-addicted doctors to get a properly qualified opinion
3 Belinda and her mates much prefer to base their opinions on stuff they read on the internet that supports their prejudices. Before you deny it, remember the words of former Chairman Colin Grainger earlier in this thread - "(As a qualifier, I have not even read the story. I know it to be biased sh1te). They always are." Says it all really.
183

Tag,

14/01/2009 11:39:42
Belinda
You found a canadian website that said that Niger might be imposing up to 3 months imprisonment for smoking in areas where it is banned. 8% of the population of Niger are believed to be slaves, despite this being outlawed in 2003.

I still don't thing Amnesty International will prioritise the freedom of those locked up for breaking the law when there are so many other freedom priorities in that country.
184

Rich White,

14/01/2009 13:50:17
Wrong wrong wrong eh Rollo? The ACS commissioned the study, and it was also partly funded by the TRDRP - an anti-smoking organisation funded by proposition 99 money.
185

Rich White,

14/01/2009 14:43:11
Tag:

1) No one is addicted to nicotine. If you knew anything of the chemical composition of nicotine or what happens when combusted you would think twice before making that statement.

2) I have spoken to numerous non-smoking doctors, including physicians, nurses, and pathologists. They start on the typical spiel but when you actually ask them real questions they start to squirm and have no answers - why? Because they only get told the superficial stuff like we do, they don't get taught the how and why smoking is bad because there is NO scientific evidence to support the claim

3)I don't have prejudices, only a few years ago i agreed with all the anti-smoking stuff, warned my friends against smoking and thought smokers were dirty and stupid. I started heavily researching cancer and health, which inevitably lead to reading on smoking, and i changed my opinion. This is not just stuff on the internet, this is books, studies, court cases, reports, pharmaceutical reports on how they're using tobacco to develop drugs, did you know coenzyme Q10 is made from tobacco? You know, the anti-aging miracle drug?

You make the assumption that we have prejudices and read the internet, but you're only spouting what the likes of ASH tell you - and like all anti-smokers with no argument you're not exactly above insults and attacks on our character, in an attempt to make up for the lack of intelligence and knowledge.

Try again.
186

Rollo Tommasi,

14/01/2009 14:48:06
Yes Rich, You're wrong wrong wrong. Even second time around, when you try to change the meaning of your original point!

In post 180 you claim "the study was originally FUNDED by the American Cancer Society". You retreat in post 184 to saying "The ACS COMMISSIONED the study". But you don't have the evidence to back up your earlier claim that ACS funded the study. Nor have you the guts to admit you were wrong.

As far as I can tell, the ACS did not even commission the study. The report itself states that "JEE (i.e. James Enstrom) conceived the study". All the ACS did was allow access to its database.

If you think you are in fact right, show me some evidence.
187

Tag,

14/01/2009 16:31:47
Rich

I am not a medical person. If not nicotine, what is it in cigarette smoke that triggers withdrawal symptoms after a period without a cigarette? You might well be right, but most people say it is nicotine.

You say "I don't have prejudices" then say about me "you're only spouting what the likes of ASH tell you". But I don't read anything that ASH produce, don't visit their website or take part in any anti-smoking webforums if there is such a thing. You DO have prejudices.
188

Rollo Tommasi,

14/01/2009 22:39:29
Rich White: I had to laugh when I read your comment to Tag (post 185) about your discussions with nurses. Your claim that “They start on the typical spiel but when you actually ask them real questions they start to squirm and have no answers” applies to YOU on this board.

Since you’ve decided to return to this board, would you care to deal with 20 questions you failed to answer earlier? I have even put everything down in a nice little list so the issues are clear. Are you ready?

Before you start, remember that you should be able to provide evidence to back up your claims. Surely you have this evidence if your book is truly “the definitive book on smoking” as you oh-so-modestly claim in your own press release!!

My questions from posts 120, 121 & 123:

1. I challenged your claim that the EPA report was widely rubbished by quoting the Congressional Research Service. No response from you. Do you stand by your claim? If so, why?

2. I asked you for a link to the Australian Supreme Court ruling, to show you had read the full ruling for yourself. After all, as an author it would be pretty shoddy if you didn’t do your research. To date, you have provided no such link. Have you actually read the full ruling? If so, please provide the link.

3. I asked you for your assessments of the 2002 IARC monograph and 2004 SCOTH report, which conclude that passive smoking is a definite risk to health. Why have you ignored these reports?

4. I asked you for your assessments of the 2005 Jamrozik report, which estimates that passive smoking lies behind around 11,000 deaths in the UK each year. Again, why have you nothing to say about this report?

5. On Relative Risk, I asked you why you had misquoted Temple and Angell in your attempt to argue that a relative Risk of 2 or more is necessary. Why have you nothing to say about this? Why did you misquote them?

6. I said I know of no professional epidemiologists who would take your claim that “studies on smoking passive sm
189

Rollo Tommasi,

14/01/2009 22:39:56
6. I said I know of no professional epidemiologists who would take your claim that “studies on smoking passive smoke causes lung cancer in women has only been successful 14% of the time” seriously. Again, you appear to have no answer to offer to this.

My questions from posts 129 & 130:

7. I produced 2 sources of evidence to back up my argument that the WHO did not try to hide their report of 1998. You still claim they did. But you still have offered no evidence to back up your claim. On what grounds do you claim they tried to hide their report? As a minor politician once said, “Put up or shut up.”

8. I made the point that Michael Siegel says that the evidence showing the dangers of passive smoking is strong and there is no need to resort to inaccurate argument. I said I agree with that and asked if you did too. No reply from you.

9. World data: I asked for the sources behind your claims. You still haven’t given any. Nor have you made any attempt to deal with the points I made to counter your claim that “China now has the longest life expectancy in the world”.

10. Nor have you made any attempt to answer my point that the World Bank notes that “recent major studies from China, and emerging studies from India, indicate that although the overall risks of persistent smoking are about as great as in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, the pattern of smoking-related diseases in these nations is substantially different.” Have you anything to say on this?

11. I also answered your argument that some smokers live a long life. You’ve not responded. Do you agree with my comments? If not, why not?

Your post 134:

I didn’t bother answering your points here earlier as you indicated in that post you weren’t going to return to this board. But since you’re back, let me deal with your points.

12. You said “I didn't ask whether Osteen was pro- or anti-“. Actually, that’s true. You actually made a definitive statement that “J
190

Rollo Tommasi,

14/01/2009 22:40:45
12. You said “I didn't ask whether Osteen was pro- or anti-“. Actually, that’s true. You actually made a definitive statement that “Judge Osteen was very anti-smoking”. I challenged that and explained why. You appear to have no answer for my point.

13. You then said “I asked whether the judge who overruled the ruling was.” Actually, if you’d bothered to read the appeal ruling, you would know the appeal was heard by 3 judges, which is normal for a judicial appeal. I have seen no suggestion that any of these judges was “anti-smoking”. The fact that there were 3 judges makes it harder for any bias in one judge to be reflected in the verdict.

14. You then totally misquote Dr. Elizabeth Whelan. From what I have seen, she has never admitted “SHS does not kill people.” Once more, if you have proof, show me it. If not, have the decency to admit your error. What she actually said is that, while she considers the dangers of passive smoking to children’s health are real, she thinks the link to chronic disease is less clear cut. But she also states:

“Now, having said that, the existing data do strongly suggest that living for years with a smoker and breathing in the inhaled smoke is not good for you -- and may indeed increase your risk of both lung cancer and heart disease.” (http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.800/news_detail.asp)

15. You then claim “Glantz is not a doctor of medicine”. Actually, he has post docs in cardiology and cardiovascular research. Aren’t they medicine?

16. On that issue, what point are you trying to make? Is it that Glantz should not be making money expressing his view if he has no professional expertise in the subject? I see neither you (degree: psychology & sociology) nor Chris Snowdon (degree: history) have professional expertise in the subject. By your own standards, what right have either of you got to try to make money by flogging pro-smoking books?

17. If Glantz has admitted that “the movement is all about money”, please poi
191

Rollo Tommasi,

14/01/2009 22:42:23
17. If Glantz has admitted that “the movement is all about money”, please point me to where he has said it.

18. On world data, you claim I missed what you said. I made a genuine attempt to answer your point. If you don’t think I answered it properly, all you have to do is explain your point to me again.

My post 186:

19. You claimed that the American Cancer Society both commissioned and funded the Enstrom & Kabat study. I still await evidence to back up your claims and to counter the evidence I have given which shows that the ACS did neither.

And finally....

20. I'd also be interested in an answer to Tag's question at post
192

Rollo Tommasi,

14/01/2009 22:43:31
20. I'd also be interested in an answer to Tag's question at post 187. If it's not nicotine addiction, what is it that makes it so hard for many people to quit smoking even though they really want to?
193

Rich White,

16/01/2009 17:45:49
Rollo, i've not 'returned' here, i just check by now and then. i still find it hard to read and post here because of the inability to have one long post. I apologise for having missed your questions, i hadn't seen them. I will answer them but not here, i'll make a page on my site and then paste the link here ok? Unless you want to give me your email address, either is fine with me.

Tag, cigarettes are not 'addictive', people have a habit. There aren't really withdrawal symptoms, i haven't yet met a smoker who suffer withdrawals, other than cravings - but we can crave anything. Nicotine gets converted to cotinine in the body, and if nicotine is as addictive as they say (more than heroin, which gets you hooked after one use) then we would be addicted to various foods like eggplant and tomatoes.

If you talk to smokers or if you're lucky enough to know one personally, study the pattern, you'll find they tend to smoke at regular times, like after a meal, before bed and so on. It is a 'habit', not an 'addiction'.

Tag, you may not read ASH, but there's no denying your responses are exactly what is spouted in the media
194

Tag,

16/01/2009 18:50:15
Rich White

You said earlier that "nobody is addicted to nicotine" and now say cigarettes are not addictive.

So not one of the world's 1.1 billion smokers is addicted?

What about the people in dressing gowns you see standing smoking outside hospital wards with their drip stand next to them?

Or the people you see standing in the cold outside pubs when it is lovely, warm and dry inside?

Or the thousands of pregnant women who can't stop smoking, despite knowing the harm they are doing to their baby?

Are you staking your reputation on your claim that smoking is not an addiction, just a habit?
195

Rich White,

16/01/2009 19:31:29
it's much more complex than that. Some smokers may be psychologically addicted in that they believe they need to smoke, especially with all the hype of how addictive smoking is (but if you think smoking is as addictive as heroin, you're completely mad). Smoking isn't physically addictive because of what happens when they stop: nothing! Maybe a headache or being grumpy, but no physical withdrawals like nausea, vomiting, cramps etc, which is what real addiction does.


Rollo - i have answered ALL 20 of your questions here: http://www.smokescreens.org/rollo.htm
196

Rich White,

16/01/2009 19:38:16
Oh, also, if you have any more questions or comments, can you email me at richwhite@smokescreens.org because i'm very likely to miss them here - and i wouldnt want to be accused of avoiding them again.

I will check here now and then, but posts get lost very easily and as i've said already i find long posts hard to follow - and it takes AGES to load this page to make long posts too. So if you email me i'm guaranteed to read it and can write a proper reply
197

Rollo Tommasi,

17/01/2009 15:46:30
Well Rich. Thanks for taking the time to comment on my questions. I have to be frank and say I consider very few of them to be meaningful replies.

Your comments largely seem to be about:
- Accusing me of not doing my research – even though I provided copious sources behind my arguments in earlier posts.
- Not backing up your own claims with evidence.
- Not even giving sources for any of your quotes.
- Making numerous other spurious comments.

I am happy to comment in further detail. But it won’t be on your website (thanks for the offer, though). If not here, I can give my comments on another independently moderated website.
198

TheTerminator,

17/01/2009 16:34:12
ROLLO:

You must have had the Tobacco Control scriptwriters
working overtime.
199

DeniseX,

17/01/2009 20:33:10
Not backing up claims of all the people dying from passive smoking without being able to name ONE.
200

Rich White,

18/01/2009 00:03:34
Hmm, nice backout Rollo. I provided verbatim quotes, sources, and the Australian source you wanted. What, exactly, was not good enough? I commented on SCOTH like you asked, i spoke on the WHO AND the ACS study. (Oh, the ACS DID fund the E&K study, E&K gathered data from a study started in the 50s by the ACS. They may not have paid E&K themselves, but they paid for that data to be collected)

I see you haven't actually offered any refuttal of what i had to say. Your 'evidence', SCOTH, WHO etc i shot down with real facts which you don't want to acknowledge. That's up to you
201

Rollo Tommasi,

18/01/2009 01:19:27
Rich.

Who's backing out? As I said, I will happily respond to your comments on this board or another independently moderated board.

I'm happy to keep going and I have quite a lot to say about your remarks.

The choice is yours.
202

Rich White,

18/01/2009 02:41:25
Rollo, who are you trying to kid? I'm clearly not 'backing out', and the choice is not mine whether or not you decide to reply.

I fail to see why you won't do so on my forum, what are you expecting to happen? I'm not going to delete anything you have to say if that's what you're worried about with your 'independently moderated' statement, it was my idea to host it there and mostly because it is a smoking-orientated forum, ergo people who visit it will be interested to read both sides of the argument - i.e. what you say vs what i say.
203

Rollo Tommasi,

18/01/2009 16:19:14
Rich: I am asking because I have a lot of comments to make but I won't bother if my comments won't be read.

Sorry, but your site won't do. Your entire site is built on a pro-smoking premise and you are directing your marketing of it to pro-smokers. I'm not going to allow myself to be used as some kind of Aunt Sally for the pleasure of you and a few other pro-smokers.

So, if I give you my remarks on this site - over time and cut into bite-size chunks - will you read them? If so, I'll happily provide. If not, give me the details of another independently moderated site and I can offer my musings there.
204

DeniseX,

18/01/2009 16:41:32
Rollo only wants comment on here, so that he can preach his anti-smoking propaganda for the general public to see, but as this story started on 24th December 2008 he is wasting his time, but then he has nothing else to do. What a life he must have.
205

Tag,

18/01/2009 18:26:01
DeniseX
You really are angry and pointless, what do you think you add?

Rollo can answer for himself, but from what I've seen Rich White just wants to answer on his own site so he can answer most question with 'do your own research'. This site is where the discussion is happening, Rich doesnt have the answers so he wants to hide on his own site.
206

DeniseX,

18/01/2009 19:11:38
Tag. Rich and Rollo can answer for themselves. Rollo won't go onto the other site because he doesn't have the answers and he knows that very few is watching this site.
207

Tim85,

Lancs, England 18/01/2009 20:35:44
"The great majority of studies consistently show that passive smoking increases the risks of lung cancer and heart disease."

No they don't. When I first read this, I thought you were talking about pooled analyses. But then you mentioned that subsequently. When taken individually, do passive smoking studies exhibit statistical significance?

You say that the 1986 SG report was the result of 13 studies. This would hardly be sufficient today. Any other examples of where approximately 8 years of research amounting to a total of 13 studies has led to a prominent scientific authority declaring it a risk?

Did the Surgeon General take into account the 1930s Germany studies on the issue? Do you believe this was an oversight?

"Deaths attributable to passive smoking greatly exceed the number of deaths from road traffic accidents, MRSA, murders, AIDS, etc." Combined, or individually? I can name a few people killed by the above. Can you do the same with passive smoking?

Re: George Godber: True. But contextually, it is reasonable to infer that it was necessary to foster such an atmosphere in order to substantiate a politically expedient claim. It's called manufacturing the evidence (irrespective of its validity) in order to formulate policy, as opposed to evidence based policy formulation. Which ever way one looks at it, it's Machiavellian at best.

"I’m not sure why you’re referring to throat cancer. I’m not aware of any such studies. Doesn’t that show that the scientific community is NOT obsessed with trying to link passive smoking with as many diseases as possible?" Possibly. Interesting default position. The opposite position, which I'm not necessarily adopting, is maybe they've tried to link passive smoking and throat cancer but cannot (publication bias, etc.)
208

Tim85,

Lancs, England 18/01/2009 21:11:10
"16. On that issue, what point are you trying to make? Is it that Glantz should not be making money expressing his view if he has no professional expertise in the subject? I see neither you (degree: psychology & sociology) nor Chris Snowdon (degree: history) have professional expertise in the subject. By your own standards, what right have either of you got to try to make money by flogging pro-smoking books?"

On this point (I could have highlighted others but this one jumped out at me) - what makes Christopher Snowdon either pro-smoking or unqualified? He has written a book about the history of the anti-smoking movement. As a historian, he has researched the issue. Historical research is all about viewpoints.

I think the point Rich was trying to make was that Glantz does not hold a medical degree, but rather his undergraduate degree was engineering. So he's not really a doctor, more of a pseudo-doctor. Or quack, if you like. Also, Glantz writes articles for medical journals, whereas Rich W and Chris Snowdon write books. I know nothing of Rich's prospective work, but Chris Snowdon's is a work of history. Or does he need to have completed a PhD thesis in the History of Medicine so as to be qualified to pen his supposedly 'pro-smoking' book?
209

Tag,

18/01/2009 23:16:20
Denise 206
Rollo has clearly been to Rich's site and been unimpressed by his attempts to answer Rollo's questions.
I've been too, and I can see why Rich wants to answer them away from this forum.
What is wrong with continuing the debate here, apart from it being a very clear example of Rich failing to come up with answers to support the point he's trying to make.

Rich's feeble efforts on here to explain why he feels smoking/nicotine shouldn't be defined as addictive will be enough to wreck his credibility in most free thinking people's minds.
210

DeniseX,

19/01/2009 10:38:06
Why is it an addiction just because some enjoy doing something and don't want to quit? Many enjoy drinking alcohol, but very few are addicted. According to ASH hundreds of thousands quit every year, so it must be easy and not addictive. I don't wake up in a cold sweat in the morning craving for a fag. I have my breakfast first and don't have a fag until I have a cuppa.
211

Tag,

19/01/2009 20:51:39
Denise

Rich said earlier #186 "No one is addicted to nicotine." You are one of 1.1 billion smokers, many of whom feel addicted.

Most medics think nicotine is addictive. Many people who try to stop smoking but suffer withdrawal symptoms believe that nicotine is addictive.

Rich's reasoning when he later tried to back up his statement was almost as poor as yours.
212

DeniseX,

19/01/2009 21:45:04
If nicotine is addictive, why do ASH recommend nicotine products to quit smoking?
213

Tag,

19/01/2009 22:13:36
Denise
Weaning yourself off an addictive substance, by gradually reducing the amount you consume, avoids many of the unpleasant withdrawal symptoms.
214

DeniseX,

19/01/2009 22:26:33
You cannot wean yourelf of an addictive substance. Ask any alcoholic or heroin addict.
215

Tag,

20/01/2009 08:28:11
Denise
Addicts use a variety of techniques to escape their addiction.
Some go cold turkey and brave the withdrawal symptoms.
Some cut down gradually
Some use other support to take the edge off their cravings.

You and Rich are doing a fantastic job of destroying the credibility of the pro-smoking community with your silly statements:
Rich at #186 - "No one is addicted to nicotine"
Denise at #213 - "You cannot wean yourelf of an addictive substance"
216

DeniseX,

20/01/2009 09:51:28
The vast majority of ADDICTS ie alcoholics and druggies cannot quit by going cold turkey. Millions gave up smoking in the later part of the 20th century with NO problem.
Alcoholis and druggies cannot cut down gradually, whereas smokers can with NO problem.
Alcoholics and druggies need help to stop their cravings. Smokers can stop smoking if they want to, with NO help.
I am not an pro-smoker. I do not encourage people to smoke. I just defend my right to smoke, whereas you are an anti-smoker, who is trying to discourage people from smoking.
217

Tag,

20/01/2009 11:13:50
Denise
Not all smokers can stop smoking when they want to.
218

Tag,

20/01/2009 11:44:38
Denise
You and Rich seem to live in a world of absolutes:
Rich at #186 - "No one is addicted to nicotine"
Denise at #213 - "You cannot wean yourelf of an addictive substance"
Denise at #216 - "Alcoholis and druggies cannot cut down gradually, whereas smokers can with NO problem.
Alcoholics and druggies need help to stop their cravings. Smokers can stop smoking if they want to, with NO help."


In the other thread about smoking in pregnancy I pointed out that the Dundee Smoking in Pregnancy Project found that 85.5% of the smoking pregnant women they interviewed wanted to stop smoking. A very small proportion of them stopped.

That doesn't really fit into your assessment of the the addictiveness of smoking does it? ("Smokers can stop smoking if they want to, with NO help.
")
219

DeniseX,

20/01/2009 11:45:47
'Cut methadone use or you won't turn tide of drug addiction, ministers are warned' Scotsman.com
220

DeniseX,

20/01/2009 11:50:08
'The 11-year study, funded by the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation, found many adolescents smoked as a stress-reliever, or simply because they liked it and wanted to'. Scotsman.com
Those addicted to anti-smoking can relieve their stress by taking up smoking.
221

DeniseX,

20/01/2009 12:24:06
218. plaese show the full quote 'You cannot wean yourelf of an addictive substance. Ask any alcoholic or heroin addict'.
222

Rich White,

20/01/2009 16:23:15
Rollo, the issue isn't just your posts, but my replies - i find it hard to post a detailed response because i have to keep cutting, pasting, and loading this site which takes ages. It's a chore to use this page. If we use my forum, we can talk through private messages so no one else can see the conversation, it's not an attempt for me to lure you there to get attacked by others.

Tag, people are told nicotine is addictive because that leads them to pharmaceutical products. ASH have ties with the pharmaceutical industry and so recommend their products. These are not wild philosophical musings, they are solid fact. Smokers don't suffer withdrawal symptoms, they have cravings which is different. Believe me, i have no problem answering any questions aimed at me.
223

Tag,

21/01/2009 08:29:57
Rich
There you go again with your absolute statements. "Smokers don't suffer withdrawal symptoms, they have cravings which is different."

Is that the experience of every one of the world's 1.1 billion smokers if they stop smoking for a few days?

Or are people different?

I think you are oversimplifying a very complex issue, about which your understanding is not as good as it should be if writing a book on the subject.

You said at #185 "I don't have prejudices, only a few years ago i agreed with all the anti-smoking stuff, warned my friends against smoking and thought smokers were dirty and stupid."

This does make you sound like someone prone to prejudices, as do all of your absolute pronouncements that suggest every smoker is the same. I've NEVER thought smokers were dirty and stupid - they are people and everyone's different. I'd suggest you try to embrace diversity in your life. It isn't as simple to get your head around as the world of absolutes you seem to prefer, but we do live in a world of individuals and that's what makes life so great.


224

DeniseX,

21/01/2009 09:18:38
Tag. Have you ever smoked? You sound like a frustrated ex-smoker, who is missing the enjoyment of a fag.
225

Tag,

22/01/2009 00:27:11
Denise
I have smoked but I'm not frustrated.

When I smoked I enjoyed about 1-2 cigarettes a day, the other 18 a day I smoked to keep the cravings at bay. The hook advert that was on television last year was a pretty good representation of what it was like for a while. I did find it incredibly difficult to stop.

You might not feel like this, you might love every cigarette you smoke but, as I keep saying to you and Rich, we're all different.
226

DeniseX,

22/01/2009 11:26:04
So you admit that you enjoyed cigarettes. You are obviously missing that enjoyment.
The hook advert was banned by the ASA.
227

Tag,

22/01/2009 19:13:33
Denise
I admit to enjoying 1 in 20 of the cigarettes I smoked.
I also admit to not enjoying 19 out of 20 cigarettes I smoked, which I smoked to keep withdrawal symptoms away
228

Rich White,

24/01/2009 16:48:07
Tag, this is my problem with this board as i've said numerous times: i can't make long posts. That means i have to condense my posts which in this instance involves generalising. You can't have it both ways - if you want to keep the discussion here then don't complain my answers aren't complete enough.

Some smokers can experience withdrawals, but it is rare and usually affects only heavy smokers. The vast majority of smokers will have nothing except maybe a headache or irritability. Cravings don't count as withdrawals. Conversely, each and every heroin addict will experience severe withdrawals. Why? Because with a physical addiction your body adapts to need that substance to function, and it screws up when it is removed. Smoking does not do that to the body, which is why NRT fails, and why it is a psychological addiction at worst.
229

Rollo Tommasi,

24/01/2009 19:26:21
Tim85: Work has kept me away from this board of late. Hopefully you’ll find these comments.

I stand by my statement that "The great majority of studies consistently show that passive smoking increases the risks of lung cancer and heart disease." If you look at the studies they will tell you that. What is the relevance of your question “When taken individually, do passive smoking studies exhibit statistical significance?”

Let’s imagine your test applied to the criminal courts. Let’s say it’s a murder trial – the victim was shot. The prosecution’s case relies on 3 pieces of evidence:
- a bullet was found in the victim’s body;
- the bullet was fired from the accused’s gun; and
- only the accused’s fingerprints were on the gun.

It’s obvious the accused is guilty, based on the corroborative value of the 3 pieces of evidence. But no single piece of evidence would be enough by itself to prove the accused was guilty. So, if the prosecution was forced to play by your rule, he could never secure a conviction. Your rule would be considered unacceptable and perverse in a court room. And it is just as unacceptable and perverse in the context of public health. Pro-smokers and the tobacco industry might disagree with me. But I doubt many professional doctors, epidemiologists or statisticians would.

You claim “that the 1986 SG report was the result of 13 studies….would hardly be sufficient today.” You’re making this charge. What’s YOUR evidence for this claim?

Was any of the 1930s research published in a renowned medical journal? If not, there is no reason why the US Surgeon General should have referred to it. What difference would including this research have made to his results anyway?

You ask if I can name people killed by passive smoking. No, offhand I cannot. What’s your point? Are you trying to suggest that passive smoking is somehow less harmful as a result? In whose medical journal does it state that a substance is harmless if it is not identi
230

Rollo Tommasi,

24/01/2009 19:27:32
(Contd...)
In whose medical journal does it state that a substance is harmless if it is not identified on a death certificate? Does that mean radon gas is harmless? UV light? Diesel fumes?

Godber: Thank you for acknowledging my previous comment. But you then go on to make a claim based on the assumption he was trying “to substantiate a politically expedient claim”. But you have no sense of the context in which to make that claim. There are many examples in this debate of the pro-smoking lobby deliberately misquoting people or articles in order to make their point. (e.g. deliberately twisting Sir Richard Doll’s statement about the risks of passive smoking to him as an 89 year old man “The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."

Snowdon: He is pro-smoking. His book is not just a “history of anti-smoking”. It contains numerous self-assessments of epidemiological evidence about passive smoking. I don’t know whether these will feature in his book, but he’s also produced articles on the same websites about present-day issues (as I referred to in posts 36-38).

So what’s my point? I’m happy for Snowdon for write what he wants and to have his arguments tested on their merits, in spite of his having no expertise in epidemiological/medical/statistical issues. Are you and Rich prepared to say the same about Glantz (who DOES have medical qualifications)? You say Glantz writes articles for medical journals. That’s right, which means he’s subject to peer review and challenge which will never apply to Rich White or Chris Snowdon. Mr White in particular seems to have an interesting habit of making ill-informed statements with no supporting sources or evidence.
231

DeniseX,

24/01/2009 22:04:32
229.Rollo. You admit that you cannot name anybody that has died from passive smoking and that it cannot be proven. All you keep saying is that there are 'RISKS'. playing conkers at schools was banned, because there are 'RISKS'.
232

Rollo Tommasi,

24/01/2009 23:44:53
DeniseX: You have a habit of paraphrasing only part of what other people say and ignoring the rest of their comments, in a deliberate and nasty attempt to misquote them. As I mentioned in post 230, it is a trait of many pro-smokers to deliberately misquote. But you and one or two of your F2C chums (Chas/English Charlie springs to mind) are particularly guilty of this.

Besides, your point is absolutely wrong. The evidence about passive smoking is strong enough to tell us that, without a shadow of a reasonable doubt, it causes many people in the UK to die needlessly each year. It causes risks to individuals.

If you are so blase about risks, why don't you cross a road with your eyes shut? There's only a certain risk that you'll walk into the path of an oncoming vehicle. By your logic, "risk" is something you clearly should not worry about.
233

DeniseX,

25/01/2009 09:05:56
RISK. Nearly everything in life is a risk and it does not mean those risks will cause any serious harm. As you said, it cannot be proven that passive smoking can cause serious harm. Some 'experts' say there is a 'risk' and others say there isn't.
234

Rollo Tommasi,

25/01/2009 09:40:18
DeniseX: I did not say "it cannot be proven that passive smoking can cause serious harm". It can be proven, beyond any reasonable level of doubt.

Don't try to pretend that professional opinion is evenly split. Virtually all experts say passive smoking presents a risk.

Given the huge evidence, any person who tries to pretend that passive smoking is a "myth" (as F2C has frequently said) is playing with the lives of many thousands of people in the UK.
235

DeniseX,

25/01/2009 11:38:18
Rollo. I have seen your 'proofs' and I have also seen Rich White's 'proofs'. The two of you can go on for ever quoting different 'experts' 'proofs'. Until it can proven that passive smoking can cause serious harm or not, I will remain sceptical and leave the two of you to carry on with your debate.
236

Rollo Tommasi,

25/01/2009 11:57:40
That's fine with me, DeniseX.

Of course, if your really are "sceptical" and not closed-minded, then in future debates you should be as prepared to challenge what your F2C friends say (especially those who claim that passive smoking is a "myth") as you are to argue with the likes of Tag and me.
237

Rich White,

26/01/2009 11:50:54
Rollo, you sure are funny. You rag on about me backing myself up, yet i answered all your questions and you've subsequently ignored me. Your proofs have been shot down by the medical community and judges, but that's inconsequential to you. The risks for passive smoking can indeed be calculated, and they have - and the results are conclusive in showing the risk is zero and possibly protective. But again, that's inconsequential to you. You rejected the E&K study because of tobacco money even though i've explained how the data they collected was from an ACS study started in the 50's, and the TRDRP was also funding and pulled out because they didn't like the data. Big Tobacco did not sway the results. The WHO had results embarassing to themselves because they found SHS as harmless and protective. You also speak highly of SCOTH, and i've spoken about that too.

Glantz may hold a medical doctorate, but he's not subject to peer review because he doesn't go and conduct studies. Did you read the cigarette papers of his? Utter bunk. And look at the medical community today, with groups being specifically about tobacco control not tobacco analysis, anti-smoking is a conforming trend and any and all results will be published because of the cause. Case in point: genetically bred rats, bred to develop cancer so it can be blamed on smoking, i think the rats are F344 rats or something, i forget the exact name. Time and time again it's been shown that tobacco smoke not only doesn't cause cancer in rats but increases life expectancy. In court cases, such as Minnesota vs BT in 1997, both sides confessed that the animal studies had never succeeded in inducing lung cancer in animals. FACT.

You really amuse me Rollo, because for all your accusations to us you keep resorting to flimsy self-analysis and your only back-up is reports that are ridiculous and have been discredited - like SCOTH, WHO etc, but you cling to them like a pup to its mother and refuse to accept they might just b
238

Rich White,

26/01/2009 11:51:40
be wrong.
239

Tag,

27/01/2009 09:39:24
Rich
Your post about addiction at 228 is not in accordance with your earlier claim that nobody is addicted to nicotine.
Your exclusion of nicotine/smoking from being addictive is also reliant on your own definition of addictive, which seems far more limited than most people's.
Nicotine is clearly addictive within the following definition "In medical terminology, an addiction is a state in which the body relies on a substance for normal functioning and develops physical dependence, as in drug