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."

[SheLion]

I don;t care what this study says - no one can ever tell me that Passive smoke does not cause cancer!

Hell! Life causes cancer! Fried greasy foods cause cancer of the pancreas. Unprotected sex causes cancer of the genital areas. Alcohol causes cancer of the liver and/or stomach. I could go on and on.

Just stay away from passive smoke. What can I tell you? We all make our way through this life.

[SheLion]

I suspect the fish story is to make it easier to shut down fisherman.

Hey! Don't laugh. But the government is making it VERY hard on our Maine fishermen today. It's really bad.

[Evil Inc]

If they spit on me I'd introduce them to some bodily fluids of my own.

[SheLion]

If they spit on me I'd introduce them to some bodily fluids of my own.

Oh! LOL! You can do that! It's easier when your a man. hehe!

[VRWC_minion]

no statistical evidence

Do you understand what this means ?

[per loin]

Yes, it means that they found no correlation between "second hand" smoke and lung cancer. That is entirely different than calling the results "statistically insignificant", which would mean that no conclusion could be drawn, either for a correlation or against one. In this case the statistics were sufficiently significant to find that no correlation exists.

Again: ...the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.

[Great Dane]

It sort of makes me a bit annoyed with those who are too selfish.

Feel free to ignore us.

[commish]

Just stay away from passive smoke

And that is exactly what I do. My 23 year old son smokes - outside - my house my rules hehe.

Don't get me wrong - I think the lawsuits were a bunch of croc. I think all the anti-smoking laws are a bunch of bull. if you or my son or anyone chooses to indulge, that is your prerogative and no one should tell you if you can or cannot smoke.

I personally choose not to, and I choose to dine etc in a smoke-free environment. But I also know that if I choos4e to go to a bar or a casino, etc - then I am making the conscious decision to enter a smokefilled area.

Don't confuse my belief that cigarette smoke caused my cancer as a statement that I support any and all anti-smoking crap. All I was saying is that i know what happened to me, no matter what this study says - heck maybe I am that "Statistically insignificant" person - LOL!

[American Soldier]

You missed the point - I had no inherent physical shortcomings. I was basically ill during that time. That's why (though I had no intention of being one) I made such a good "test case," if you will. Because the households I moved between were in the same neighborhood with the same air and water supply and with the same diet from the same distributors, chance of a spurious correlation is cut down to insignificance. The literature on the effects (besides cancer, assuming you believe this report) of second hand smoke is considerable and I'm not quite going to buy that physicians making $150K to $250K per year have all been bought off by some vast anti-tobacco wing conspiracy. See, for example, the statements of Dr. Martha White, Director of Research, Institute for Asthma and Allergy: "Smoking as well as exposure to second-hand smoke are both triggers for asthma. It can also increase the risk of developing asthma."

Now what are the odds any particular person's kids are going to get it? Not that high. I guess they just have to make a decision based on exactly how much pleasure it gives the person and how much of a risk it's worth.

In the end though you are right as it is for individual parents to make the right choice. Any allusion to government involvement I made was absolutely ill-conceived and in conflict with my otherwise consistent suspicion of government intervention.

[per loin]

I applaud your stance on government intervention. Cheers.

[Leonard210]

We do NOT insist on smoking anywhere we want. We just want our own space. Especially with recreation hours where we spend our own money to enjoy ourselves.

That's fine, but it is not what the smokers here are suggesting.

The anti-smokers have turned US into a MOB defending our rights to smoke a legal product

The word MOB was used to help one of the other posters understand that no one is "mobbing" them. We have a right to VOTE, as do you. Some have proposed to take your right to SMOKE a legal product. I have not. Vote against them. If you lose, will you form a real mob as one poster suggested?

and we are defending the rights of a business owner to protect his business to run it the way HE/SHE sees fit.

The business owner has no right to run his/her business in the way they SEE FIT. They have a right to conduct a business within the confines of the LAWS that govern their particular business. The argument some have posed has been that the state has no RIGHT to regulate business AT ALL, which I don't believe has ever been true. They're trying to use an argument from theory in order to avoid the realities of self-government.

[Max McGarrity]

When I tried to find this article earlier in the year, I couldn't find it on the newpaper's web site. More important, we do not HAVE the actual study, so this smacks of a false report.

Posting this before reading the next 200+ messages, I know I'm running a big risk of being redundant, but yes, we DO have the actual study.

This article was published in 1998 when the results of the IARC study were leaked to the reporter. The honchos in the anti movement (Glantz, Repace, Daynard, et al) came out swinging. Since they hadn't seen the study they had only this article to go on, but they screeched "This is garbage science!" "The science is obviously flawed..." "the study sample was obviously too small" and on and on and on.

A couple of weeks later, WHO sent out its own press release, attempting to heal the rift between themselves and their cheering section. The headlines screamed: PASSIVE SMOKING DOES CAUSE LUNG CANCER--DO NOT LET THEM FOOL YOU! in huge black type in virtually every major paper in the country.

Bear in mind, the actual statistics of the study didn't change at all, from the Telegraph's first publication to the final sweep by WHO. But the very same anti-smoker gurus suddenly began to tout the study to the skies!

Interestingly, on WHO's own website is an allegedly compelling list of studies purporting to PROVE the harm done by environmental tobacco smoke, but their very own IARC study was conveniently omitted.

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!

Now the press release about that "report" is being used as "proof," even though the meta-analysis won't be released until next year and even the Abstract isn't yet available. Can you say "conclusions without foundation," children?

And they wonder why those of us with the curiosity to search for the truth and the intelligence to understand it have no faith in the establishment.

[Max McGarrity]

X, I'm going to attempt to be civil since you've probably still got some of that dastardly democrapism running through your veins, but much more of your nico-Nazi insults and I may lose my cool.

Your experiences are yours, and don't parallel those of many of the smokers and nonsmokers (not antis) you'll find here. You don't like smoking, fine. Stay away from smokers. Believe me, we don't want anti-smokers like you around anyway. There are many doctors here, and whether you want to believe it or not, many of them realize that the War on Smokers is not about health, it's about power and money. Try to get past your hatred and think clearly (e.g., non-democrat) and you'll see that insults and abuse get you nothing but in-kind responses and ADULTS have the right to engage in risky behaviors if they so desire.

Cigarette smoke washes off; bigotry is to the bone.

[Max McGarrity]

I really can't understand why so many of you addicts think it's so bad for me to spit on you, but you should be able to suck on a poison weed, draw the smoke inside you mucous filled, tar coated lungs and then expel it into my nose, mouth and lungs.

See, now I tried to help you, and you just go and shoot yourself in the ass again. Stop spouting fascist propaganda and learn to THINK! Oh, wait, I forgot, you're a dummycrat in conversative's clothing. Thinking's not a prerequisite.

just what would an old woman or 15 yr old do to an ex viet nam vet, black belt instructor packing heat?</p?

That just might depend on who else is around when you do your spitting, son. Some of US pack heat, too, and we've had a hell of a lot longer to practice our marksmanship than you have.

[Leonard210]

There are many doctors here, and whether you want to believe it or not, many of them realize that the War on Smokers is not about health, it's about power and money. Try to get past your hatred and think clearly (e.g., non-democrat) and you'll see that insults and abuse get you nothing but in-kind responses and ADULTS have the right to engage in risky behaviors if they so desire.

Gotta jump in here Max. First of all, what kind of conspiracy are you trying to launch? There's money on both sides. The posters here have, for the most part, been debating health as well as rights. If there are "doctors" here, and they're honest, they'll point to studies and avoid the conspiracy theories. And why in the name of Billy Bob did you refer to "risky behavior"? What's risky about smoking? What's "adult" about smoking?

[Max McGarrity]

have been told that my granddaughter-to-be cannot visit at my house. Oh well...

chnsmok, wait until she rebels against her parents' tight hairnets, and she will, and she'll be coming over to smoke with you!

[Max McGarrity]

When they make tobacco illegal, then that will be the day we quit smoking.

SheLion, you lie like a rug (said affectionately and with humor). When they make tobacco illegal, you'll do the same thing I will. Tell them to stick it in their ear or another part of their anatomy and continue to smoke.

[Max McGarrity]

And once again minnie comes through, showing the way to civil discourse! "abusive to children," "forcing them to breathe their smoke," "playing Russian roulette with their health," and throwing in "rationalize," "selfishly indulge" and "addictions" for good measure. Wonder why he didn't trot out the "d" word? Saving it for later, no doubt.

[Max McGarrity]

I know this is off the subject, but this smoldering thread needs a little more gasoline thrown on it.

Amazin', ain't it? Some of these threads founder after three or four posts, but with an onslaught of antis, the discussion gets hot. (That's the only thing they're good for.)

Most adults have little interest in "honoring" (I can't believe you said that) your children or their interests.

I can't believe I MISSED that. Yes, minnie is one of those lib parents who believe adults should cater to the little darlins' whims. I've been known to mutter "frickin' freaks" about such children--and parents--myself.

[Max McGarrity]

You and I have a right to carry bleach into a restaurant to disinfect environmental surfaces.

I guess this concept is just too hard for mean-spirited, closed-minded, fuzzy-headed nico-Nazis to grasp, but I'll say it again. And again. And again. As often as necessary.

If the restaurant owner doesn't mind that you carry bleach into HIS/HER restaurant, why the hell should I care? It's not MY business. AND, I would exercise my RIGHT to stay out of that bleach-friendly restaurant. Just like you should exercise your absolute right to stay out of restaurants that welcome smokers.