Hi Mark,
Just a few observations first.
You have a pub owner who apparently has been turfed out of his bar.
We had the same thing happen here in Ontario last year. A gentleman
opened up a Smokers' Club and obtained waivers from his employees
stating they had no problem working in his venue. Pressure was placed
on the building owner, who then pressured the bar owner, who then
changed his bar into a non-smoking venue. While the bar owner was
prepared to fight any fines in court, he was not prepared to lose his
livelihood.
It appears you also have a SHS martyr in the U.K. Sorry, if this
sounds a little crude. Our SHS victim was a waitress named, Heather
Crowe. She had worked in restaurants for 40 years. Her lung cancer
was said to be caused by a "smokers tumor". This tumor apparently
appears in 1% of smokers with lung cancer. Well. 10 - 15% of smokers do
not get lung cancer. If she had been a smoker, her chances of her lung
cancer being caused by this tumor is about 1 in 10,000. More
importantly, this tumor does not appear in medical dictionaries. It
does, however, appear in the vocabulary of her handlers, the Physicians
for a Smoke Free Canada. Heather was well versed in the SHS nonsense a
she had attended council forums intended to make Ottawa smoke free.
In an earlier e-mail, I stated members of MYCHOICE had sent out
27,000 letters to politicians. The number has increased to 37,000. We
are in the middle of an election. Encourage your members to write to
their politicians. Remember that members of ASH handed out pamphlets to
your politicians as they walked to the Commons to vote on a Smoke Free
U.K. This activity of influencing the vote immediately prior to it
being taken has been quite popular and effective in the U.S.
The reason for my e-mail can be found in the two letters below.
Feel free to use them in any manner you see fit.
Dear Sir/Madam;
We have a problem in this province! Secondhand smoke is not dangerous!
A Congressional Committee in the U.S. studied the research on SHS
and concluded that it was not dangerous. Health and Safety in the U.K.
wrote a pamphlet for its Tobacco Inspectors and in its original version
stated that SHS was not dangerous to employees. The House of Lords when
forced to ratify a Smoke Free U.K. commented that they couldn't
understand why so much fuss was being made over something with so little
risk. The EPA research on SHS was presented in an Australian court.
The judge, after studying the work, dismissed it as evidence and
concluded that SHS was nothing more than an irritation. Judge Osteen in
Illinois was also given the EPA report. After recognizing the
inconsistencies and manipulations present, he condemned the work as a
blatant attempt to defraud the American people. While this ruling was
overturned on jurisdictional grounds, Osteen's claims of fraud were
never challenged. When intelligent people are given the opportunity to
study the science, "unbullied" by NGO's, they come up with the same
conclusion: SHS is not dangerous.
The American Heart Association presented a study which showed the
levels of smoke chemicals found in a number of bars, restaurants, and
bingo halls. When compared to the standards set for these chemicals by
the OSHA, the levels were 525 to 25 000 times safer than what what was
deemed acceptable. For obvious reasons, Safety and Health had withdrawn
its support for the dangers of SHS a few years before.
The Toxicolligists of America commissioned an independent study of
the epidemiological research supporting the "dangers" of SHS. This work
was presented at their annual conference. It showed that 75 % of the
research concluded that SHS was of little risk, 23% of the demonstrated
a risk but not dangerous, and 2% of the studies were so poorly done,
they shouldn't have been published anywhere.
There are 4000 chemicals in tobacco smoke. Scientists can only
identify 40 of them. Of these, only 7 are considered to be human
carcinogens. Arsenic (rat poison) can be found in our water. If you
drink the recommended 8 glasses of water a day, then you are consuming
the arsenic equivalent of 32.5 *cartons* of cigarettes. As it takes 20
years for cancer to develop, then everyone should have some form of
cancer after a period of 20 *days*. Any credible scientist will tell
you that the *danger is in the dosage. *Needless to say, there are no
studies in the Surgeon General's report to support his claim of a "whisp
of smoke" being dangerous. Take the time to read the over 700 pages
that follow the introduction. You'll reach the same conclusion. You
don't need negative air flow ventilation, just open a window.
A professor at the University of Wisconsin has stated that the
science behind the dangers of SHS will not stand up in court.
There have been two court cases, one in Scotland (2005) and one in
Japan (2006) in which smoking was the focus. Families entered each
court room armed with a wealth of information and experts intent upon
proving that smoking had caused the lung cancer deaths of their
relatives. They were both unsuccessful.
Statements from the case are quite revealing. Population studies
which have been used for decades to create fear were not acceptable when
diagnosing an individual. No animal study has ever concluded that
tobacco causes lung cancer. In fact, many of them show inverse
results with smoking animals living longer than nonsmoking animals.
The science supporting the dangers of smoking does not demonstrate
cause, only risk. Even when the risks are high, mortality studies don't
support the findings. More ex-smokers die of lung cancer than smokers
(Health Canada). Many of these people quit smoking 10 - 20 years prior
to their deaths (doctor at Princess Margaret Hospital). Most of the
experts (doctors included) appearing in these cases could not explain
the science they were quoting from. Sir Richard Doll (the father of
the smoking causes lung cancer theory) appeared in the Scottish
Courtroom. He became quite agitated when challenged as to why all of
his research failed to include any other confounding factors. This was
probably the most damning evidence presented in this case. Lung cancer,
like heart disease, has many associations or "causes". There are, in
fact, 40 links to lung cancer and nearly 300 "causes" of heart
disease. Diseases are multifactural. The next time you hear someone
has died of lung cancer ask if there was a family history. Ask if
he/she was prone to long periods of anxiety or depression, Ask if they
were alcoholic. Ask about their work environment. Ask about their
eating habits.
Tobacco companies can, in fact, prove that no one has died of a
"smoke related illness". It would be far easier for the families of
ex-smokers who have died of a smoke related disease to gain compensation
in the courts proving that their loved ones were deceived into quitting
smoking. Diseases invariably have more than one "cause".
A recent German study on air pollution shows that living within
100m of a busy road is two and a half times more dangerous than tobacco
when it comes to heart disease. In order to arrive at this conclusion a
person must realize that there is actually a weak association between
smoking and heart disease. The Framingham Heart Study, which is
considered the Bible of heart research having been quoted in 800 other
papers, gives the increased risk of smoking to heart disease as 30%.
This risk is applied to individuals who smoke over 40 cigarettes a day
and reduces with age. The German work gives a risk increase of 80%.
Neither of these results are considered to be dangerous in
epidemiology. They are merely associations. The notorious EPA won't
look at studies until the increased risk appears as 100%. The former
director of the New England Journal of Medicine used increases of 200%
(RR=3.0) as a benchmark for a reliable study.
The HPV virus has been linked to lung cancer. There have been nearly
60 studies (mainly Asian) dating back to 1989. It's estimated that 20%
of lung cancer deaths are caused by this virus. In the U.S., this would
account for 35 000 deaths annually. Recent studies (2006) show that the
virus is twice as dangerous as tobacco when it comes to an association
with lung cancer (RR=8.00 compared to
RR=4.00).....................(www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm)
In a recent television interview, a professor from McGill University
stated that viruses are linked to many cancers. Cancers of the mouth,
throat, esophagus, liver, colon, and , of course, cervix can all be
traced to viruses.
These other factors tend to explain why mortality studies don't
support the science of risk. More ex-smokers die of lung cancer,
emphysema, and heart disease than smokers. Nunavut, for instance, has a
smoking population of 46%, a senior population of 30%, and the lowest
mortality rate in the country. British Columbia, on the other hand, has
one quarter the smoking population of Nunavut, one half the senior rate,
yet a higher death rate. The state of California has experienced
smoking bans of various kinds for about 15 years now. It has one of the
lowest smoking rates in the U.S. The incidence of cancer has risen to
be 22% above the national average. Heart Disease has climbed to be 27%
above the national average. Shockingly, the incidence of stroke has
risen to be 350% above the national average. (Is this the future for
this province?)
Any criticism of the dangers of smoking or SHS is normally met with
the comment: It's a plot of Big Tobacco. It's true tobacco companies
sold their product as not being dangerous. If, however, these companies
can be blamed for what is good about smoking, then it is the
pharmarceutical companies that can be accused of creating what is bad.
The first health announcements connecting smoking to lung cancer
appeared in the British Media in the 70's. The research was funded by
drug companies. In 1978 Nicorette Gum was registered in the U.S. The
overwhelming evidence supported by pharmaceutical money grew condemning
the use of cigarettes. NGO's became popular as fronts to hide the
advertising strategy of drug companies. As government funding was
withdrawn in the field of research, pharmaceutical companies have jumped
in to fill the void (when it suits their purpose). Pharmaceutical
companies fund courses offered in our medical schools thereby creating a
bias in our doctors. Drug Companies fund Medical and Tobacco
conferences. In these cases, neither the doctors or politicians who
attend these seminars cannot help to leave without a bias. Initiatives
of the WHO receive a lot of pharmaceutical money. The WHO, ultimately,
contradicts its own research that shows not only is SHS not dangerous to
adults, but is also protective when it comes to lung cancer in their
children when grown.
Drug Companies have used the same strategies for high cholesteral,
transfats, and obesity as they did with tobacco. How do you counter a
science which uses the idea of increased risk and significance and can
be used by others to deceive? The answer, of course, is found in other
sciences. Mortality studies show that 60% of lung cancer deaths (non
plus ex-smokers) are non-smoke related. (More money should have been
provided to discover why this occurs.) Seniors with high cholesteral
live longer than seniors with low cholesteral. Obese people live longer
than people of normal weight. All of these statements are easily proven
with quick searches on line.
It's time our politicians woke up and stopped being deceived just
because NGO's have created this false notion of political correctness.
A Commission is needed to study the research on SHS and smoking. A
Commission is needed to discover why so many tax dollars have been spent
on condemning one of many factors linked to an array of diseases. Far
too many dollars have been wasted and far too many people have died
needlessly fooled into believing they were safe from illnesses.
Sincerely,
Graham Harrison
***********************************************************************************
Dear Sir/Madam;
For years, politicians and government funded NGO's have been stating
that smoking causes lung cancer, emphysema, and heart disease.
Unfortunately, this statement is misquoting the science upon which it
relies. Epidemiology uses phrases like "may cause", "is related to",
"is linked to", or "is associated with". The science deals with risk,
not cause. More ex-smokers die of these diseases than smokers. Many of
these individuals quit smoking 10 to 20 years before they died. These
people didn't die of lung cancer,emphysema, or heart disease because
they stopped smoking, they died because the diseases are multifactural
in nature. In other words, there are many "causes". These ex-smokers
died thinking they had prolonged their lives by removing *the cause*.
In fact, there are 40 "causes" of lung cancer and almost 300 links to
heart disease.
Another phrase used in the anti-smoking program is "Smoking is the
leading preventable cause of...." Thirty percent of lung cancers are
"caused" in the workplace (EPA). 20% of lung cancers are linked to
radon gas (ACA). 10 % of lung cancers are attributable to air
pollution. The HPV virus accounts for another 20 % of lung cancers.
Viruses are traced to cancers of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver
(70%), colon (89%), and cervix (70%). Then you have carcinogenic
materials in the home such as cooking oils, fire retardant cloth,
cleaning fluids, nonstick pans, perfumes, deodorants, after shave
lotions, and nail polish. You have to include family histories, long
periods of anxiety or depression, alcoholism, and diet (not just the
absence of antioxidants, but the excessive consumption of cooked
meats). There is a growing body of evidence that bacteria is a
significant "cause" of heart disease. Living within 100m of a busy
road increases the risk of heart attack more than double that of
tobacco. There is actually very little room left for smoking to "cause"
anything.
A professor once introduced his work on the myths of high
cholesteral with the statement: "The nice thing about mortality studies
is that they have no bias." Nunavut has a smoking population of 46%, a
senior population of 30%, yet has the lowest mortality rate in the
country. In comparison, British Columbia has one quarter the smoking
rate, one half the senior rate, but a higher mortality figure than
Nunavut. The Japanese, Spanish, Greeks, and Italians are heavier
smokers than North Americans, yet they all appear near the top when it
comes to life expectancy. The European nations mentioned, all have much
lower mortality rates due to heart disease than North Americans. The
Japanese are among the lowest in the world when it comes to the
incidence of lung cancer. The state of California has a lower
percentage of smokers than most other states. Since the introduction of
smoking bans, it has seen the incidence of cancer climb to 22% above
the national average. Heart disease has increased to be 27% above the
national average and stroke has jumped to be 350% above the average for
the rest of the country. These figures represent actual people and are
not just an analysis of possible risk tainted by the bias of the researcher.
The anti-smoking agenda, over the years, can be characterized by one
sentence: Tell a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth. _*It's the
real truth, however, that saves lives!
*_ Politicians can be forgiven for creating policy pressured by well
financed special interest groups or misled government agencies.
Politicians, however, cannot be forgiven for not correcting their errors
faced with the growing body of evidence that disputes their policies.
It's time a Commission was created to assess the nature of the
evidence on smoking and secondhand smoke. Far too many individuals
have died because adequate funding hasn't been provided to
research all of the factors responsible for diseases mistakenly
classed as smoke related. The tax dollars that could have saved lives
were mistakenly funnelled into only one factor of an array of very
dangerous diseases.
Sincerely,
Graham Harrison
P.S. Please take the time to visit the link below. The HPV/lung cancer
connection was first discovered in the same year as the HPV/cervical
cancer association, 1989. Thanks to advances in technology, a very
strong association has been found between the virus and lung cancer.
Recent research (2006) shows the risk to be twice that of tobacco. The
only time people will hear of this "cause" is when a pharmaceutical
company come up with a new vaccine. By then, it will be too late for
thousands of individuals.
www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm
Labels: Myths and lies-the SHS story
