Wednesday, January 24, 2007

The basis for the "secondhand smoke kills" argument was not just was fraudulent

Thus the later arguments and exaggerations that secondhand smoke kills 38,000 or 65,000 are also fraudulent.

Excerpt from Michael Crichton’s lecture:

In 1993, the EPA announced that second-hand smoke was "responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults," and that it "impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of people." In a 1994 pamphlet the EPA said that the eleven studies it based its decision on were not by themselves conclusive, and that they collectively assigned second-hand smoke a risk factor of 1.19. (For reference, a risk factor below 3.0 is too small for action by the EPA. or for publication in the New England Journal of Medicine, for example.) Furthermore, since there was no statistical association at the 95% confidence limits, the EPA lowered the limit to 90%. They then classified second hand smoke as a Group A Carcinogen.

This was openly fraudulent science, but it formed the basis for bans on smoking in restaurants, offices, and airports. California banned public smoking in 1995. Soon, no claim was too extreme. By 1998, the Christian Science Monitor was saying that "Second-hand smoke is the nation's third-leading preventable cause of death." The American Cancer Society announced that 53,000 people died each year of second-hand smoke. The evidence for this claim is nonexistent.

In 1998, a Federal judge held that the EPA had acted improperly, had "committed to a conclusion before research had begun", and had "disregarded information and made findings on selective information." The reaction of Carol Browner, head of the EPA was: "We stand by our science..there's wide agreement. The American people certainly recognize that exposure to second hand smoke brings.a whole host of health problems." Again, note how the claim of consensus trumps science. In this case, it isn't even a consensus of scientists that Browner evokes! It's the consensus of the American people.

Meanwhile, ever-larger studies failed to confirm any association. A large, seven-country WHO study in 1998 found no association. Nor have well-controlled subsequent studies, to my knowledge. Yet we now read, for example, that second hand smoke is a cause of breast cancer. At this point you can say pretty much anything you want about second-hand smoke.

As with nuclear winter, bad science is used to promote what most people would consider good policy. I certainly think it is. I don't want people smoking around me. So who will speak out against banning second-hand smoke? Nobody, and if you do, you'll be branded a shill of RJ Reynolds. A big tobacco flunky. But the truth is that we now have a social policy supported by the grossest of superstitions. And we've given the EPA a bad lesson in how to behave in the future. We've told them that cheating is the way to succeed.

It's not surprising then that the smoking ban advocates are not interested in the air quality testing which proves secondhand smoke is 15 - 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA air quality standards.........afterall the tests were conducted using sound scientific methodolgy without the fraud.

In other words the air quality testing didn't support their agenda.

Also visit our sponsors at bottom of webpage
  • Why a Non-Smoker Fights the Pro-Smoking Ban Lies
  • Is RWJF, a 501(c)3, violating IRS rules by funding pro-smoking ban lobbyists?
  • RWJF funds and promotes universal healthcare policies which are the basis for and primary objective of Obamacare
  • Boycott these special interests (J & J) who destroyed the hospitality industry & jobs
  • Is the smoking ban movement fueled by pharmaceutical nicotine interests?
  • Now that smoking bans have been implemented, what can be done?
  • How do smoking ban lobbyists profit from smoking bans?
  • Pharmaceutical interests project the alternative nicotine marketplace to be $4.6 billion +
  • WHO report secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? NO
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? Part 2
  • Why does UCSF researcher Stanton Glantz support smoking bans?
  • OSHA standards prove SHS is not a health hazard
  • Tired of the nanny-state, big, socialized, corrupt, government legislation coming out of our state and federal capitols these days? Vote Republican in November 2010 & 2012

    Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


    "Though we may not be able to protect your business property rights, we certainly support your Second Amendment Rights"

    Shop for Aircleaners

    Combustion Engine Emissions Eliminator (CE3)