GREAT JOB! YOU GO GAL!!! 
Posted on 11/13/2002 9:23:09 AM PST by 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."
A right is a principle specifying something that an individual should be free to have or do. A right is an entitlement, something you possess free and clear, something you can exercise without asking anyone else's permission. Because rights are entitlements, not privileges or favors, we do not owe anyone else any gratitude for their recognition of our rights. When we speak of rights, we invoke a concept that is fundamental to our political system. Our country was founded on the principle that individuals possess the "unalienable rights" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Along with the right to property, which the Founding Fathers also regarded as fundamental, these rights are known as liberty rights, because they protect the right to act freely.
Liberty rights protect individual autonomy, leaving us responsible for and in control of our own lives. They guarantee us that society will allow us the freedom to act on our own judgement, to pursue our own ends, and to use whatever resources we have acquired by our own efforts as we see fit. Liberty rights assume the individual may not be used against his will for any purpose, even to benefit society.
The purpose of liberty rights is to protect individual autonomy. They leave us responsible for our own lives, for meeting our own needs. But they provide us with the social conditions required to carry out that responsibility: the freedom to act on the basis of our own judgment, in pursuit of our own ends, and the right to use and dispose of the material resources we have acquired by our efforts. Liberty rights reflect the assumption that individuals are ends in themselves who may not be used against their will for social purposes.
Don't you wonder why, after the millions of dollars and hundreds of "studies" trying to prove that shs "does" cause cancer, such proof still doesn't exist? Or do you, like the vocal but not too bright antis here, believe: ""I'm right, and I know I'm right because they wouldn't keep proving I was wrong if I wasn't right."
Stan is turning into a beached whale! ugh!
That's your belief. However, "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?" (U.S. Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge).
Oak Ridge Lab And Second Hand Smoke
Statistics and Data Sciences Group Projects
GREAT JOB! YOU GO GAL!!!
The full 93-page decision document can be found at the above link.
The following was posted on the Internet by a very Irate Lady:
This judge vacated all the EPA scientific findings on ETS as fraud and lies and states that passive smoking is not a carcinogen. Vacated means that the science involved no longer exists. The antis are still using this unavailable struck down bullshit against the smoker and the media lets them. WHY???The decision accuses politicians, health Nazis, certain doctors, and whoever else has engaged in the persecution of smokers of being corrupt. In other words this learned and respected judge is informing you dumbass reporters that anti-smokers lie their bloody pants off, but is this newsworthy, hell no, your lot just keeps taking the crap off the antis with no investigation into its being factual and print it. Are you a bunch of spineless jellyfish? Why are you frightened to go against the health Nazis? If I as a factory worker can see through the crap why cant you??
I need say no more about this decision it speaks volumes for itself, take the time to find the full court transcript and ask yourself why this was not the biggest news story of the 20th century. ANTI-SMOKING CARTELS AND HEALTH ACTIVIST, GOVERNMENT LIED. The general public and even the smoker have been lied to and brainwashed on this subject through the media for so long now that they believe anything they hear because they never or rarely hear anything pro-smoking. Like the juror on the latest 173billion dollar lawsuit in the state believed that a smoker couldn't get throat cancer any other way but from his smoking, his work didn't matter and now anything the tobacco industry says is seen as a lie without any research into the matter. If you smoke by association that is what you die of. It's a lie a damned lie and there are many scientists and doctors who would back me up on that.
And the anti-smoking lies go on as they still try to tell whoever is silly enough to listen that Judge Osteen did not deal with asthma and ETS. Bloody lying bastards!!!!!
Joy Faulkner
My main point had nothing to do with bars - you remember incorrectly. I speak of private property rights.
I am completely aware that 'stand alone bars' are not included in the amendment.
I also have much family in Florida and have spent much time there - get off your high horse about what you think you know of what others know.
Very good point!!!!!!
A lot of us, and Wendy Stone worked our butts off to get Amendment 6 to fail. But we didn't have the funding that the anti-cartel did. But Wendy and a lot of us worked our hiney's off.
Addict?
I disagree with anyone that posts false information, however, my time is limited and I reserve my posts for those that portray smoking in a positive manner.
My position was this says you will let slide false information if it supports your side. I further stated that I have never promoted smoking.
I'm sorry - you have no call to be having a hissy fit over this - you said it and you can not deny you said it.
The presence or absence’s of representatives doesn't establish a body as either a republic or a democracy. Like as in representative republic for instance, or a direct republic, direct democracy, representative democracy, pure democracy as in town meetings or on beach at Troy,.....
At one time, these fundamental distinctions were taught and learned in middle school civics classes. Your ignorance is pathetic, although there is the distinct possibility of plain old dirt stupidity. This would explain everything. You have my sympathies.
shirley you jest - the man is a heart attack waiting to happen with his weight. And he's a proffessor of cardiology??????? BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Yea, go figure. Thank God he doesn't SMOKE! 
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.