Oh, that's beautiful! What side of the world are YOU living on!
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."
Most of the studies that the anti-smoking cartel use have been PROVEN to be fatally flawed, by the Congressional Research Institute, OSHA, or some other governmental agency.
And don't think I missed the extra s in the word leading off your previous post before this one.
As a father I have two choices. I could avoid smoking near my children and be 100% sure that any subsequent lung problems were not from my smoke or I could just deny that any connection as an unsupportable conclusion If it were me, I rather err on the side of caution. However, if its up to the smoker they would ratehr err on the side of convience. That is why they are selfish.
You haven't been paying attention have you.
Yes, all those other "studies" are fatally flawed, and the courts found them to be so: contrived, invented, unscientific and assembled to fit a preconceived conclusion.
See the link to the court findings elsewhere in this thread.
Neurotic controllers always assume that the end justifies the means, and that the universe (of course) revolves around them.
This is definitely NOT just one study.
The BIG LIE That Smoking is an Economic Burden To Society
Federal Court Rules Against EPA on Second Hand Smoke
Oak Ridge Labs & SHS
I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S.Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?
Also: Second Hand Smoke Frauds
Are you listening to yourself? What you say here and in an earlier post is simply that the mob rules; the rights in question are those of the retaurant owner, not the individual smoker.
If I go someplace where I find myself unwanted, I leave, you want to come in and kick me out - big difference.
Power has a way of shifting; when the tobacco pile is swept away there will still be a big broom scouring the floor for another pile, don't find yourself in it.
So, if a large enough mob gathers together and decides to restrict someone else's property rights to accommodate their sniveling, gutless little lives, that's A-OK with you.
Yup, mob rule's just fine with Lennie.
Your posts reek of mental illness, too bad. Let me be the first to vote that you be committed, for the public good, for the attempted murder of freedom. By your reasoning, if we get enough votes by the end of the night, I guess you'll have to go along quietly with those nice men in the shiny ambulance.
Hands?
Oh, that's beautiful! What side of the world are YOU living on!
BLOOMBERG? DID YOU SAY BLOOMBERG??!!
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.