Second-hand Smoke is Harmful to Science

Scripps Howard News Service/www.fumento.com ^ | 11 SEPT 03 | Michael Fumento

[historian1944]

Seeing all the stuff lately on smoking, I thought I would post this.

[facedown]

Bump; ping.

[Vigilantcitizen]

Puff.

[facedown]

Original publication:

Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98

[Puppage]

It more harmful to stand on the corner of 5th Avenue in NYC & inhale the bus, truck & car exhaust than second hand smoke.

[Ronin]

A puffing bump!

Not that this will convince anyone who has got the anti-tobacco religion. Smokers are evil, doncha know. Devil's weed. Unclean!!!

[facedown]

At this writing there have been over 140 responses on www.bmj.com, and if made into a movie they would be called "The Howling."

These are found after the "cited by other articles" section.

Direct Link: Rapid responses

[aruanan]

BUMP against moronic use of phony health issues to expand the power of government.

[facedown]

A puffing bump!

Puff back at'cha.

I'd plug the site where I get my "stuff", hint, hint, but we're not supposed to advertise on the board.

[historian1944]

I'm always amused when factories that do welding and other metal fabrication don't allow smoking on the production floor due to "health concerns" as if the smoke from the process couldn't possibly be harmful in itself.

[Publius6961]

That's what research professor James Enstrom of UCLA and professor Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook discovered last May. That's when they reported in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) that their 39-year study of 35,561 Californians who had never smoked showed no "causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and tobacco-related mortality," adding, however "a small effect" can't be ruled out.
...
At this writing there have been over 140 responses on www.bmj.com, and if made into a movie they would be called "The Howling." Many are mere slurs several grades below even sophomoric.
...
Some demanded the BMJ retract the study because, as one put it, the "tobacco industry will use it." (It didn't). Another made the rather draconian call to ban all use of statistics in science, lest they be put to such wicked purposes as this.

The next study really really needed is to determine the percentage of Americans of all ages whose mental state borders on the criminally insane.
Why should they even be allowed to run loose, let alone vote?

[historian1944]

I'd plug the site where I buy my pipe tobacco too. I'm opting for potential mouth and throat cancer instead of lung cancer. But my Russian wife likes the smell, and she said that it makes me look "repectable" (I think she meant "distinguished.")

[Conspiracy Guy]

I like second hand smoke because it is cheaper than the first hand smoke I usually consume. I will not consume second hand food since that is Bill Clinton's favorite dish.

[Puppage]

I know, doesn't make sense. I heard a commercial recently that said over 10 thousand people a year are rushed to hospitals because of second hand smoke.

That's one of the most redicules things I have ever heard.

"Rampart, we're on our way to Mercy Hospital with a second hand smoke victim, vital signs are.....".

[Publius6961]

"Why take seriously a study that contradicts what everyone already knows?"

Megalomania trumps reality.
Temporarily, that is.

Patholgical perception increasingly is becoming reality for all practical purposes. That so many laws have been adopted nationwide speaks to this.
The lunatics, through government, are making slaves of us all.

Try an experiment: walk through a whole day with an unlit cigarette in your mouth. The reaction from the aliens disguised as normal-looking people is a riot!

[Gabz]

Unable to find significant faults in the UCLA study itself, critics repeatedly harped on what Enstrom and Kabat had clearly stated – that some of the funding was from the tobacco industry. As they explained, this became necessary when the University of California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, which was specifically set up to support this type of research, stopped their funding and no other sources were available.

And the reason the funding was yanked out just 2 years before completion of the study was because the preliminary findings were already showing results the anti-smoker cartel DID NOT want.

As the article states - there has been no questioning of the science and scientific methods of the study so they had to find some reason to cover their behinds and so they attack the funding.

What the media fails to acknowledge when reporting stuff like this is that 95% of the funding of this study came from the American Cancer Society and subsequent anti-smoker organizations. Only 5% came from tobacco interests - and that occurred only AFTER the research was nearly complete and preliminary results already determined.

[Publius6961]

Yes, eventually I expect to see signs: possession of tobacco producs in this store (warehouse, restaurant, sports store, whatever) is prohibited.

[E Rocc]

These are found after the "cited by other articles" section.

Direct Link: Rapid responses

A particularly interesting quote:

We have seen for years that anti-tobacco research has been funded by Big Pharma and all anti-smoker organisations accpet it. More than a quarter of a billion dollars has been invested in anti-tobacco research through the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a 'charitative' daughter company of Johnson&Johnson, the ones who sold Nicotine Replacement Therapy products, so being the competitor of the tobacco industry on the nicotine market

-Eric

[Publius6961]

And the reason the funding was yanked out just 2 years before completion of the study was because the preliminary findings were already showing results the anti-smoker cartel DID NOT want.

Well their tired cliche that studies always reflect the position of the entity paying for it remains unchallenged. Isn't that cute?
Clarifies the abuse of statistics perfectly.

We can't allow the continued abuse of science!

[Savage Beast]

Before a scientific study can be conducted, "Liberals" insist that the conclusions must be established.