Why Anti-Smoking Groups Providing Inaccurate Health Information is Unethical

United Pro Smoker's Newsletter ^ | March 17, 2006 | Michael Siegel

[Mr. Rational]

This is my standard response to leftists. The major damage caused by their irrationality is that they are making all data suspect. They are no longer "liberal" which is an honorable if misguided position. The democrat party is run by leftist anarchists. (The foundation of Western Society is the scientific method. A juvenile anarchist would attack a building - the current crop of leftists attack the foundation of all buildings.)

Not only can't they have a rational discussion - they are affecting the ability of others to do so.

When I read information now, I find myself looking at the author block first. If it looks suspect - I don't even read it - or I treat it as propaganda.

Note that "suspect" category now includes almost all universities, government agencies - especially international ones - NGOs and leftist feel good groups etc.

The MSM has lost basically all credibility in my eyes -

The politicization of science is a huge crime.

[SheLion]

do you have a link? I would love it if you do.

A link for what?  The WHO study?

[SheLion]

My $.02, I do not smoke but is just another example of the libs trying to suck the fun out of life.

Well, the Road War on the Smokers is paved with Money!

[satchmodog9]

Sorry. Yes, do you have a link or a file you can share on the who study?

[SheLion]

So is it sarcasm, or an early warning? ;)

I gotcha.  :)

[SheLion]

The politicization of science is a huge crime.

It sure is.  And I find I no longer believe everything the once-reputable coalitions used to put out.  I don't trust any of them when their main goal is to restrict and control people who use a legal product.  It's become their life's work.  And I no longer believe anything they say.

[SheLion]

The politicization of science is a huge crime.

It sure is.  And I find I no longer believe everything the once-reputable coalitions used to put out.  I don't trust any of them when their main goal is to restrict and control people who use a legal product.  It's become their life's work.  And I no longer believe anything they say.

[SouthTexas]

"If a man is born, it is a certainty that he will die." Kwai Chang Caine

Haven't heard that in a while.

[RandallFlagg]

My $.02, I do not smoke but is just another example of the libs trying to suck the fun out of life.

You got it!

"Wow! It's like smoking brings a lot of people just a little bit of joy, and you get to take that away from them. You are so awesome."

[SheLion]

Sorry. Yes, do you have a link or a file you can share on the who study?

I usually know right where to go for it.  I am preoccupied.  NASCAR starts in 25 minutes and I am getting ready to go RACING. hehe

Try this one.  I will keep looking for anything else that I have in here.

Here's the abstract to the WHO study

Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe.

BACKGROUND: An association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer risk has been suggested. To evaluate this possible association better, researchers need more precise estimates of risk, the relative contribution of different sources of ETS, and the effect of ETS exposure on different histologic types of lung cancer. To address these issues, we have conducted a case-control study of lung cancer and exposure to ETS in 12 centers from seven European countries.

METHODS: A total of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects up to 74 years of age were interviewed about exposure to ETS. Neither case subjects nor control subjects had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime. RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.

"Weak Evidence" I'd say, 1.16 & 1.17 is not a significant risk, especially considering at the low range of the CI (0.93 & 0.94) it's actually offering a protective effect

(If you don't know what these numbers mean see here for an intro)

Now compare SHS to Milk

Milk drinking, other beverage habits, and lung cancer risk.

The reported beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569 control patients admitted to Roswell Park Memorial Institute (RPMI) were studied, 355 male cases and 214 female cases being matched to controls within strata of age and residence. Smoking history and an index of vitamin A from vegetables had significant, dose-response associations with risk. Animal fat intake as measured by an index of animal fats from meats showed elevated risks which were not significant. Three vegetables rich in vitamin A and 3 meats contributing to the animal fat index were, individually, associated with lung cancer risk. Frequency of consumption of milk, coffee, tea, soft drinks and alcoholic beverages was studied in multiple logistic regression analyses which controlled for smoking history, intake of vitamin A from vegetables and education level. Subjects reporting consumption of whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold increase in lung cancer risk compared to those who reported never drinking whole milk (RR = 2.14). The same frequency of intake of reduced-fat milk was associated with a significant protective effect (RR = .54). Significant risk variations were observed for other beverages but, with the exception of frequencies of reported diet cola and decaffeinated coffee intake, dose-response patterns were not evident.

Risk from whole milk 214%
Risk from SHS 17%

So MILK is 12.6 TIMES DEADLIER THAN Second Hand Smoke

Sorry. Yes, do you have a link or a file you can share on the who study?

I usually know right where to go for it.  I am preoccupied.  NASCAR starts in 25 minutes and I am getting ready to go RACING. hehe

Try this one.  I will keep looking for anything else that I have in here.

Here's the abstract to the WHO study

Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe.

BACKGROUND: An association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer risk has been suggested. To evaluate this possible association better, researchers need more precise estimates of risk, the relative contribution of different sources of ETS, and the effect of ETS exposure on different histologic types of lung cancer. To address these issues, we have conducted a case-control study of lung cancer and exposure to ETS in 12 centers from seven European countries.

METHODS: A total of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects up to 74 years of age were interviewed about exposure to ETS. Neither case subjects nor control subjects had smoked more than 400 cigarettes in their lifetime. RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.

"Weak Evidence" I'd say, 1.16 & 1.17 is not a significant risk, especially considering at the low range of the CI (0.93 & 0.94) it's actually offering a protective effect

(If you don't know what these numbers mean see here for an intro)

Now compare SHS to Milk

Milk drinking, other beverage habits, and lung cancer risk.

The reported beverage habits of 569 lung cancer patients and 569 control patients admitted to Roswell Park Memorial Institute (RPMI) were studied, 355 male cases and 214 female cases being matched to controls within strata of age and residence. Smoking history and an index of vitamin A from vegetables had significant, dose-response associations with risk. Animal fat intake as measured by an index of animal fats from meats showed elevated risks which were not significant. Three vegetables rich in vitamin A and 3 meats contributing to the animal fat index were, individually, associated with lung cancer risk. Frequency of consumption of milk, coffee, tea, soft drinks and alcoholic beverages was studied in multiple logistic regression analyses which controlled for smoking history, intake of vitamin A from vegetables and education level. Subjects reporting consumption of whole milk 3 or more times daily had a 2-fold increase in lung cancer risk compared to those who reported never drinking whole milk (RR = 2.14). The same frequency of intake of reduced-fat milk was associated with a significant protective effect (RR = .54). Significant risk variations were observed for other beverages but, with the exception of frequencies of reported diet cola and decaffeinated coffee intake, dose-response patterns were not evident.

Risk from whole milk 214%
Risk from SHS 17%

So MILK is 12.6 TIMES DEADLIER THAN Second Hand Smoke

[SouthTexas]

I try and tell the antis that my father in law had lung cancer and he was a non smoker. Of course, they always turn this into 'proof' of the second hand smoke dangers.

Remember, this is info brought to you by the same bunch that created GLOBAL COOLING WARMING.

[SouthTexas]

CONCLUSION: Hospitality workers are exposed to ETS levels related to a very high excess lung cancer mortality risk. These data confirm that ETS control measures are needed to protect hospital workers.

Yeah right, very valid study.

[satchmodog9]

thanks a buch. enjoy the race

[satchmodog9]

bunch

[SouthTexas]

How about this:

These measurements were used to estimate the excess lung cancer mortality risk associated with ETS exposure

Estimates are not documented data.

[SouthTexas]

But the word "estimate" does not mean guess.

Sort of, but there is a great bearing on what parameters are used, how the data is input, what weight each entry is given, and how those correlations are interpreted. All leave major room for error and a proof/theory relationship instead of theory/proof, which IS what real science is based upon.

[SheLion]

thanks a buch. enjoy the race

Thank you.  I am back and forth. :)