Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official

13 November 2002

[SheLion]

UK Sunday Telegraph...
Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official


Headline: Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
Byline: Victoria MacDonald, Health Correspondent
Dateline: March 8, 1998

The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.

The World Health Organization, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.
-------
The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.

-------

The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.

The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases."
-------

Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."

[Great Dane]

Another thing, when we bring up our long living smoking relatives and healthy children, it's anecdotal, but minion can bring in a whole anecdotal book, and it's gospel

[VRWC_minion]

Another thing, when we bring up our long living smoking relatives and healthy children, it's anecdotal, but minion can bring in a whole anecdotal book, and it's gospel

Life expectancy of smoker is a whole different thing. Its absolutely been proven statistically that smokers live shorter lives, not to mention smellier.

Thank you by the way. You keep my SS taxes lower and my benefits higher.

[SheLion]

Neither does inhaling the air and stench of someone's fart, but it doesn't mean other people have the right to polute my air whether the noxious gas is coming out of their mouths or somewhere else.

Your showing your ass. You don't do much reading on these threads, do you! And don't worry "Sweet Lips," we have no more desire to be around YOUR hatred then you want to be around our second hand smoke......wimp.

[Great Dane]

Oh, by the way, my doctor is a fanatic ANTI smoker, he is one of those "smokefree by 2000," yet he has never once mentioned second hand smoke, that ought to say something.

[SheLion]

Cigarette smoke washes off; bigotry is to the bone.

That's a GOOD one, Max! Very true!

[Great Dane]

That's a GOOD one, Max! Very true!

Yes it is, and sooooooo true. :-}

[Gabz]

Neither does inhaling the air and stench of someone's fart, but it doesn't mean other people have the right to polute my air whether the noxious gas is coming out of their mouths or somewhere else.

However, if you are in a private bar or restaurant doesn't the "air" belong to the owner of the establishment? And shouldn't he have the right, particularly if he himself is a smoker to pollute his "air"? And even if he isn't a smoker, I would say he still maintains that right.

[SheLion]

As for the Doctors?

The Death Of Medicine

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 odor.

Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year

Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 250,000 Deaths Every Year
This article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is the best article I have ever seen written in the published literature documenting the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm.

I am not talking about the Doctors in here. But Doctors in general.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Actually in economic terms "air" is considered a public good not to be "owned" by anyone.

A nation can own its "air space", but since air is fluid like the ocean, in some respects, it would be like claiming to "own" the water in the ocean.

Similarly, since we need water to live and we need air to live, if people who had a nasty habit were to make the water you were drinking unpleasant with a nasty taste or smell (but nevertheless potable), I am sure you would be fairly quick to complain.

Think of air the same way and add a sore throat and irritated eyes and you will understand why we non-smokers are a bit cranky sometimes.

[SheLion]

How are you still here? Nicotine is a potent pesticide, they say. Shoo!

Can't get rid of this one. Plus, Cindy is trying to start a war with me to get me kicked off of FR. I got a good freep mail from her, that I am keeping for future reference.

I refuse to answer anything she posts to me. I don't need the heartburn. I'll leave it to the rest of you. Maybe in time, she will forget about meeeeeeeeeee

[SheLion]

As you said is it all about Money, and it is money that they will understand.

What gripes me is: the City Councils went in and forced a lot of restaurants to go smoke free, like here in Maine. Back in 1999, the proprietors had no idea at that time that they could have fought it. Maybe restaurants in Maine folded.

It's not that we CAN'T go without smoking while eating in a restaurant. But it's always been our right and now, like I said, there are three bar/restaurants left up here that have smoking sections. Why would we in our right mind, go out to spend our hard earned money in a place that no longer accommodated us! Nope! We refuse. It's the principal.

But all across the US, where the anti's are pushing for more smoking bans, i.e. New York City, the proprietors have now realized that they CAN fight these bans. And they are getting very vocal about it as well.

It's really a sad situation when we have so much crises in the world to be arguing about a petty assed issue like second hand smoke. I just hope we Americans can have our own places.......non smoking and smoking places , where we all have the right to spend our money. I bet Osama loves reading our in fighting in here.

[SheLion]

I don't want to eat my dinner in a smoke-filled room OR share a road with a drunk driver.

And that's your right. But personally, I think we all would be safer sharing the road with a smoker over a drunk driver anyday.

[Gabz]

Actually in economic terms "air" is considered a public good not to be "owned" by anyone. A nation can own its "air space", but since air is fluid like the ocean, in some respects, it would be like claiming to "own" the water in the ocean.

You are actually proving the point I was making. There are limits upon who can use the "airspace" above a nation, just as there are limits as to who can use the "waterway" adjacent too the nation. In a way it is all considered "private, i.e. sovereign property." Just as a bar or restaurant not owned by the government is private property.

Similarly, since we need water to live and we need air to live, if people who had a nasty habit were to make the water you were drinking unpleasant with a nasty taste or smell (but nevertheless potable), I am sure you would be fairly quick to complain.

In the municipality in which I live there is a recurring stench of rotten eggs (sulphur) in our municipal water supply. Yet the city water is consistently ranked within the top ten of good water in the nation.

Think of air the same way and add a sore throat and irritated eyes and you will understand why we non-smokers are a bit cranky sometimes.

While you have the "right" to enter certain private business establishments, there are going to be guidelines.

I'm sure you are familiar with the signs that state "No Shoes, No shirt, No service" and "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"????

What is wrong with a sign on the door stating "This is a smoking permitted establishment"???? That is the point I was trying to make.

I have never advocated for smokers to be able to smoke "anywhere, at anytime" nor have any of the smokers I communicate with on a regular basis. We believe in private property rights and believe the decision to permit smoking or not should be left to the owner of the establishment.

[Gabz]

But all across the US, where the anti's are pushing for more smoking bans, i.e. New York City, the proprietors have now realized that they CAN fight these bans. And they are getting very vocal about it as well.

Yes, you are correct. And it is becoming blatantly obvious the anti-smokers are starting to get scared. In my local paper this morning, dear old stan (liar,liar pantz on fire) Glantz has a screed accusing the people fighting the Delaware smoking ban to be fronts for the tobacco industry.

I'd love to know how someone on the left coast knows all of this information about Delaware - when I know for a fact that everything he said in his guest opinion is wrong???

Unfortunately my local paper doesn't put their opinion pages on their web site. Dang!!!!!1

[Publius6961]

And even MORE interestingly, just last month or so, WHO gathered up a bunch of anti-smoker "scientists" from around the world to create a "report" (not a study) that used meta-analysis of selected "studies" to determine shs is even MORE dangerous than they'd previously thought!!! Imagine that!

Isn't this exactly what the court slapped them silly about in '98?

What do these neurotics think? That the court forgot already?
I sure haven't.

Fraud seems to be the main tool of the controlling nutballs.
And they keep trying the same useless junk-science time after time. Are they trying to convince themselves? or just enjoy looking like drooling idiots?

[Publius6961]

Cigarette smoke washes off; bigotry is to the bone.

You forgot to include the most relevant one...

Stupidity is permanent.

[SheLion]

Glantz has a screed accusing the people fighting the Delaware smoking ban to be fronts for the tobacco industry.

Old Stan, eh?

One thing old Stan should realize by now: Private Citizens DO have the right to speak out! He's just putting spin on us trying to make us look like fools.

[Publius6961]

Those are obviously BAD doctors out for your money, not for your health.

Au contraire, ma 'tite fille
Those are the good doctors and the only ones I will consult.

I avoid like the plague those who come to play god.
If I hire a plumber, I expect him to fix the problem and not lecture me about Reynolds number, supercritical flow or partial flow velocities.
Same with a doctor. He's just a guy I hire.

Incidentally, my current brand of cigarettes was introduced to me by the top orthopedic surgeon in the area; in addition to being a good friend, he does not weigh 400 pounds.
It's amazing how much self-hatred translates into attempting to manupulate others.

[Gabz]

Isn't this exactly what the court slapped them silly about in '98?

Unfortunately our courts have no control over WHO.

Fraud seems to be the main tool of the controlling nutballs.

Ain't that the truth??????

Anti-smoker extrordinairre Stanton Glantz (from Kookiefornia) has a guest opinion piece in a Delaware newspaper this morning explaining all about the ins and outs of how the tobacco industry opposed the smoking ban in Delaware and accusing individuals and small business owners of being fronts for the tobacco industry if they have opposed it.

In 20 years dealing in Delaware politics never once have I ever encounter Mr. Glantz in the halls of the capitol - I wonder where he is getting all this inside information, information the insiders know nothing about???

Talk about fraud....................