|For the power of
man to make himself what he pleases means, as we
have seen, the power of some men to make other
men what they please." C.S. Lewis,
"The Abolition of Man"
The Misinformation Age
Were you to spend,
as I have, weeks of hours on the Internet looking
up, reading and printing out studies and articles
from multiple sources regarding secondary smoke,
you would conclude that we, the public, have been
misled. You would also have more than 1,000 pages
of evidence to support this conclusion.
Since 1993 and the release of the EPA's flawed
1992 report on passive smoking, anti-smoking
forces have harassed businesses and public
entities into creating ever more restrictive
anti-smoking policies while shaming smokers into
silence and intimidating into compliance those
who believe in freedom of choice and the American
This is the United States of America land
of the free, home of the brave. Or, at least, it
was when I was growing up. Now we are on a
slippery slide down a dangerous slope into a pit
of governmental regulations that extend into
private businesses and will, if not stopped,
dictate individual behavior at home, at work and
at politically correct play.
If you doubt this statement, do the research I
have. Get on the Internet. Go to smokers sites
and anti-smokers sites. Go to PubMed and print
out the studies that show the actual relative
risk factors and learn how to read the studies.
Read the court cases. Find out who the players
are in this tragic game of control.
Both sides refer to this as the tobacco wars.
When I was taking international relations at
Texas Tech University for my degree in
government, the professor said there never has
been and never will be a war fought on the face
of the earth as long as man is alive that is
about anything but money and marketplaces. He
said wars have a stated cause that inspires
citizens to fight for their country, but behind
the cause is the reality of money and
marketplaces (i.e. real estate). With this in
mind, who has the most to gain in the tobacco
war? Not U.S. citizens whose choices are being
selectively eliminated. Not the tobacco industry,
whose product is being restricted and whose
opinion has been discredited.
Money and worldwide marketplace winners include:
1. The pharmaceutical industry. This industry has
"the largest lobby in Washington, D.C."
said Marcia Angell, M.D., former editor-in-chief
of the New England Journal of Medicine, in her
book "The Truth About the Drug Companies:
How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It
" (ISBN: 0-375-508465/Random House
hardback). Their employees have served on the
decision-making entities of government agencies
responsible for creating reports to the public
and suggesting legislative action.
2. A number of so-called
charitable non profits. The pharmaceutical
industry has funded programs of non-profits such
as the American Cancer Society, The American
Heart Association, the American Medical
Association -- need I name more? -- that foster
the idea that secondhand smoke is harmful to
those exposed to it. Did you know that the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation, an avid participant in
the anti-smoking campaign, receives most of its
funding from its parent company, Johnson &
3. Anti-tobacco researchers. Studies in the field of
secondhand smoke (a.k.a. environmental tobacco
smoke/ETS) have been conducted by researchers
paid by funding from the pharmaceutical industry,
ch paid by funding from the pharmaceutical
industry, charitable non-profits and the federal
government through the monies acquired from the
Two leaders in the anti-smoking cartel Stanton
Glantz and James Repace have become rich off of
their efforts. Any report their name is attached
to must be read with the idea that they come to
the study with a known bias -- their own
pocketbooks. Neither is an M.D.
4. Big business. When smoking is banned in
a city or state, it isn't the large restaurant
chains that usually pay the price. It is the
small businesses, the family restaurants, that
lose. Many have closed. This pleases big business
because it means less competition. Many
waitresses, waiters and bartenders have reported
lost revenue. Their tips have decreased.
This reminds me of the first "gasoline
crises" in the 1970s. Prior to the crises, a
number of service stations across the United
States were owned by independents. Afterwards,
the major oil companies controlled most of those
stations. You might still see the same people
working there, but those controlling the station
behind-the-scenes had changed. That was true for
my father-in-law, who worked for an independent
operator in Irving, Texas, prior to the crises.
He was still there afterwards, as was his former
boss, who no longer owned controlling interest in
what had been his service stations.
My research on the Internet took me to smokers
sites, anti-smokers sites, PubMed and other
medical sites, liberal and conservative watchdog
sites, federal government sites, charitable
non-profit sites, university sites, and news
gathering sites, among others. I have spoken with
individuals on both sides of the so-called
"health" issue. An attorney read the
court cases to make sure I correctly understood
the rulings. A medical doctor read the studies
mentioned in the following report with the same
goal in mind. Both saw more supportive evidence
in said documents than I did.
Conclusion: We, the public, have been
and are being told a whopper. When it comes to
second-hand smoke, this appears to be the age of
My philosophy professor at Texas Tech University
ran afoul of the psychology department when, at
the latter's request, he addressed the group. I
remember what he told them that so upset the
psychology professors. He said that when they
removed the soul from their discipline, they lost
Now we have pseudo-science where computers
generate reams of meaningless statistics for
opportunists of every persuasion to use to
further their own agendas.
I have prepared a report that backs up my
statements, and I am calling upon the city
council members and the mayor NOT to be swayed by
pseudo-science and a health cartel determined to
get rich at the price of individual freedom.
The Misinformation Age
Research Service (CRS) in its 1995 report to
Congress found flaws in the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) report as did William
L. Osteen, United States District Judge, who, on
July 17, 1998, said in his decision: "EPA
publicly committed to a conclusion before
research had begun; excluded industry by
violating the (Radon Research) Act's procedural
requirements; adjusted established procedure and
scientific norms to validate the agencies' public
conclusion, and aggressively used the Act's
authority to disseminate findings to establish a
de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict
Plaintiff's products and to influence public
"The Court is faced with the ugly
possibility that EPA adopted a methodology for
each chapter, without explanation, based on the
outcome sought in that chapter.
"Using its normal methodology and its
selected studies, EPA did not demonstrate a
statistically significant association between ETS
(secondhand smoke) and lung cancer. This should
have caused EPA to re-evaluate the inference
options used in establishing its plausibility
theory. A risk assessment is supposed to entail
the best judgment possible based upon the
available evidence. (See Ethyl, 541 F.2d at 24.)
Instead, EPA changed its methodology to find a
statistically significant association."
(See Exhibit A)
The EPA fought
this ruling, and the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Court vacated Judge
Osteen's decision on Dec. 11, 2002, ONLY on the
grounds that NO court had jurisdiction over the
EPA report. The Court of Appeals also questioned
the EPA excluding any industry representative
from the advisory committee.
(See Exhibit B)
advocates cite the following number: 53,000
deaths a year from secondary smoke (ETS). This
number, considered high even by the EPA, was
traced in 1994 by the Congressional Research
Service(CRS) to an article by A. Judson Wells,
"An Estimate of Adult Mortality in the U.S.
from Passive Smoking," published in
Environment International in 1988.
The CRS stated that the editorial in the issue
containing the Wells article was directed at
Wells' article and said in summary: "The
editorial indicated that the study received mixed
reviews from reference two recommended
publication after revision and the third
recommended against publication on the grounds
that it was too speculative ... In the following
three years, there were a series of critiques and
rejoinders related to this paper."
The CRS report concludes with: "In sum, this
analysis suggests that the Wells estimates are so
high relative to measures of the physical
exposure that they seem implausible. It also
suggests that the absence of controls or the
inability to control for other factors may be a
major problem in relying on epidemiological
estimates of the health effects of passive
(See Exhibit C)
accused by the London Telegraph of withholding
the study from publication because its results
were not what the World Health Organization
wanted, the WHO inaccurately presented the
results of its seven-year study conducted in 12
research centers in seven European cities under
the leadership of its cancer research branch, the
International Agency for Research on Cancer
In what can only be called a misinformation press
release regarding the study, WHO totally ignored
the following statement made in the study about
childhood exposure to ETS: "Our results
indicate no association between childhood
exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk," as
well as a statement regarding ETS and public
indoor settings: "Vehicles and public indoor
settings did not represent an important source of
(See Entire Study, Exhibit D)
The conclusion of
a study begun by the American Cancer
Society and concluded by the University of
California at Los Angeles
"Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Tobacco
Related Mortality in a Prospective Study of
Californians, 1960-1998," by James E.
Enstrom and Geoffrey C. Kabat, published in May
2003 stated: "The results do not support a
causal relation between environmental tobacco
smoke and tobacco related mortality, although
they do not rule out a small effect. The
association between exposure to environmental
tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung
cancer may be considerably weaker than generally
(See Entire Study, Exhibit E)
The goal of an
epidemiological study is to determine Relative
Risk (RR). Relative Risk is determined by first
establishing a baseline, an accounting of how
common a disease or condition is in the general
population. This general rate is given a Relative
Risk of 1.0, no risk at all. An increase in risk
would result in a number larger than 1.0. A
decrease in risk would result in a lower number
and indicates a protective effect.
When Robert Temple was director of drug
evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration,
he said: "My basic rule is if the relative
risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it."
(See Exhibit F, Page 23)
The National Cancer Institute has said:
"Relative risks of less than 2 are
considered small and are usually difficult to
interpret. Such increases may be due to chance,
statistical bias, or the effect of confounding
factors that are sometimes not evident."
(See Exhibit F, Page 34)
The International Agency for Research on Cancer
(IARC) said: "Relative risks of less than
2.0 may readily reflect some unperceived bias or
(See Exhibit F, Page 34)
Dr. Kabat, IARC epidemiologist, said: "An
association is generally considered weak of the
odds ratio relative risk is under
3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is
the case in the relationship of ETS and lung
commonly used in ETS studies (as in the EPA
report). Samuel Shapiro, Professor of
Epidemiology and Director of Slone Epidemiology
Unit, Boston University School of Medicine,
concluded his report "Is Meta-Analysis a
Valid Approach to the Evaluation of Small Effects
in Observational Studies?", presented in a
meeting on small risks, sponsored by the Robert
Kock Institute, and held at Potsdam, Germany in
October of 1995 by stating:
"What is likely to be the future of
meta-analysis? It appears that it is unlikely to
go away, and for that reason some epidemiologists
have argued that, rather than oppose it, a better
approach might be to contain its excesses.
" I disagree. I think there is something
profoundly amiss in the uncritical way in which
epidemiologists, and indeed the medical
profession as a whole, have allowed themselves to
be seduced by the numerological abracadabra of
meta-analysis. Perhaps the technique will succumb
to its own absurdity, but if not, the next step
in this surrealistic evolution will be the
meta-analysis of meta-analysis, in which the
meta-analyst will be totally divorced from
reality, and totally surrounded by numbers
"If anyone in this audience believes that
development is far off, he should familiarize
himself with the latest fashion of so-called
evidence-based medicine' and
systematic review' now playing on the
Internet. I would like to conclude by quoting
Alvan Feinstein (Sterling Professor of Medicine
and Epidemiology at Yale). Feinstein and I have
had our differences from time to time, in this
instance we are in total agreement: The
meta-analysis of non-randomized observational
studies resembles the attempt of a quadriplegic
person to climb Mount Everest unaided.'"
(See Exhibit G)
nothing more powerful than a lie whose time has
come," wrote Sidney Zion, New York Daily
News, July 23, 1998. Zion went on to say: "
Throughout history, tyrants understood this, and
so worked up the populace. In this bloodiest of
centuries, we've seen it all from Hitler to
McCarthyism. And now we have the truth about the
anti-smoke fascists. Last week, a federal judge
wiped out the entire basis of all this business
about the danger of secondhand smoke, a lie that
has transformed our culture, from saloons to our
Zion, along with other writers, including John
Schwartz, the Washington Post, an editorial in
the Washington Times, Kathleen Parker, the
Chicago Tribune, Joseph Perkins, the Ventura
County Star, Charley Reese, the Orlando Sentinel,
and an editorial in Investor's Business Daily
referred to the public being hoodwinked by the
EPA's 1993 report.
(See Exhibit H, copies of all stories mentioned)
The editorial "EPA: Environmental Propaganda
Agency," in Investor's Business Daily
stated: "The Environmental Protection Agency
jiggered the facts to push its notion that
passive smoke causes cancer. The EPA's dishonesty
was recently laid bare in court. But it was too
late for thousands of businesses and towns that
responded to the EPA's junk science by passing
The editorial went on to say: "Even with
this callous disregard for the truth, the
Environmental Propaganda Agency still found that
the relative risk associated with ETS and lung
cancer is 1.19 far below the accepted
minimal standard of 3 to 4. For comparison, the
relative risk of premature death associated with
drinking three cups of coffee per week is 1.3.
Drinking whole milk and lung cancer? 2.14."
(The 2.14 relative risk figure can be found on
PubMed: "Milk Drinking, Other Beverage
Habits, and Lung Cancer Risk," Department of
Cancer Control and Epidemiology, Roswell Park
Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY)
(See Exhibit I)
The editorial asks: "How do you go back and
undo what the EPA did? You can't. The myth is
enshrined. The lie is fact."
Or as Paul Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister
for Nazi Germany, said, "If repeated often
enough, a lie will become the new truth."
anti-tobacco movement was the world's strongest
anti-smoking campaign in the 1930s and early
1940s, said Robert N, Proctor, Department of
History, Pennsylvania State University. His
report, "The Anti-Tobacco Campaign of the
Nazis: A Little Known Aspect of Public Health in
Germany, 1933-1945," was funded by the
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum,
(See Exhibit J)
campaign in Nazi Germany strongly resembles the
campaign going on now in the United States and
around the world via the World Health
A LARGE LONG TERM
"We found a
rather remarkably low SMR (standardized mortality
ratio) for lung cancer among female cabin
attendants and no increase for male cabin
attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure
to passive smoking may not play an important role
in mortality in this group. Smoking during
airplane flights was permitted in Germany until
the mid-1990s and smoking is still not banned on
all charter flights," stated the study,
"Mortality from Cancer and Other Causes
Among Airline Cabin Attendants in Germany,
1960-1997," from the Department of
Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, School of
Public Health, World Health Organization
Collaborating Center, University Bielefeld,
Germany, accepted for publication May 1, 2002 and
published in the American Journal of
Epidemiology. The study claimed to be the first
to have reported mortality risk estimates for
cabin crews working in commercial aviation. It
included approximately 16,000 female and 4,500
male cabin attendant and was larger than all
previous studies of cabin attendants combined.
"In terms of specific causes, we noted
reduced risks for all cancer deaths and for
cardiovascular disease deaths."
(See full study, Exhibit K)
A VENTILATION STUDY
levels in the nonsmoking area were compared with
those in similar restaurants/pubs where indoor
smoking is altogether prohibited. The results
indicate that ETS component concentrations in the
nonsmoking section of the facility in question
were not statistically different (p<0.05) from
those measured in similar facilities where
smoking is prohibited. The regulatory
implications of these findings are that
ventilation techniques for restaurants/pubs with
separate smoking and nonsmoking areas are capable
of achieving nonsmoking area ETS concentrations
that are comparable to those of similar
facilities that prohibit smoking outright,"
stated the study conducted in Ontario, Canada,
"environmental Tobacco Smoke in the
Nonsmoking Section of a Restaurant: A Case
Study," published online Nov. 20, 2001,
(See full study, Exhibit L)
A FACT OF TOXICOLOGY:
toxicological principle is that the poison is in
the dose," said Roger Jenkins, Chemical and
Analytical Chemistry Division, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory. "It's pretty clear that the
environmental tobacco smoke dose is pretty low
for most people."
(See articles and study, Exhibit M)
ANOTHER FACT OF
Association is NOT
causation. "Relative risks are only
statistical associations. They represent only an
apparent relationship between exposure and
disease. The relative risks ETS and lung cancer
vary from extremely weak to non-existent,"
stated Littlefield & Fennell, Independent
Public and Health Policy Research, Austin., in
"Environmental Tobacco Smoke, No Convincing
Evidence of Carcinogenicity.)
(See Exhibit F, Page 40)
FACT: DRUG COMPANIES:
In her book,
"The Truth About the Drug Companies: How
They Deceive Us and What to Do About It,"
published by Random House in 2004, Marcia Angell,
M.D., senior lecturer in the Department of Social
Medicine at Harvard Medical School and former
Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of
Medicine, is quoted by reviewer John Hoey, M.D.,
as stating the following: Pharmaceutical Research
and Manufacturers of America, the pharmaceutical
industry's trade association has "the
largest lobby in Washington," which in 2002
employed 675 lobbyists, including 26 former
members of Congress, at a cost of more than $91
million. The result has been above average growth
in corporate profits during both Republican and
Democratic administrations. The most recent and
perplexing lobbying effort caused Congress
explicitly to prohibit Medicare from using its
huge purchasing power to get lower prices for
drugs, thus opening up a dollar pipeline, in the
form of higher drug prices, directly from
taxpayers to corporate coffers. The overall
effect has been a corruption not only of science
but also of the dissemination of science.
By Angell's account, the current slide toward the
commercialization and corruption of clinical
research coincided with the election of President
Ronald Reagan in 1980 and the passage of the
Bayh-Dole Act, a new set of laws that permitted
and encouraged universities and small businesses
to patent discoveries from research sponsored by
the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Research
paid for by the public to serve the public
instantly became a private, and salable, good,
one that is producing drug sales of more than
$200 billion a year.
Angells reminds us of the increasingly cozy
relationships between big industry and the
facilities of universities. Not only are
narcissistic donors renaming the medical schools;
they are buying access to the best minds of their
facilities. Angell's examples of the large
consulting fees paid by industry to individual
faculty members and to NIH scientists and
directors are astonishing.
(See Exhibit N)
independent is the non-profit American Cancer
to a story in the New York Times, "The
American Cancer Society . . . has endorsed
Florida orange juice . . . ." (8/13/97) .
See also World Tonight News With Peter Jennings
(8/13/97); The Osgood File, CBS News (8/13/97).
An editorial in the New England Journal of
Medicine stated: "And why should the
American Cancer Society endorse only SmithKline
Beecham's antismoking products?" Jerome P.
Kassirer & Marcia Angell (9/4/97, p. 700) See
also, Los Angeles Time (8/13/97). The ACS,
however, denies that its actions are
endorsements. Rather, it characterizes such
transactions as a license for the
"nonexclusive use of its logo on Florida
orange juice and SmithKline Beecham's antismoking
products" in "exchange for monetary
grants and other considerations used for the
fight against cancer." (e-mail to CSPI from
William J. Dalton, Chief Counsel, ACS, 5/30/01)
The ACS's "Cancer Facts & Figures -
1998" acknowledges on the front and back
cover "a generous grant" by Glaxo
Wellcome drug company. According to Advertising
Age, the ACS was involved in a deal with General
Mills to include information on packages of
Wheaties (1/17/00; p. 54).
independent is the American Heart Association?
Heart Association was paid $450,000 by the
Florida grapefruit growers for exclusive
grapefruit use of the association's heart-healthy
endorsement. (Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/7/97)
American Heart Association has received $1.1
million (and an annual renewal potential of about
$300,000) from food manufacturers as license fees
to use the "heart check mark."
(Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/7/97) AHA charges
$2,500 (plus a yearly renewal charge of $650) for
a company to put the association's heart-check
symbol on a package. Florida Dept. of Citrus paid
$450,000 for exclusive promotion and advertising
contract from 1994 until early 1997. The National
Cattlemen's Beef Association paid $25,000 for its
arrangement with the AHA to promote lean cuts of
beef. For an agreement with ConAgra in 1992-93,
the AHA received $3,500,000 for a TV program on
nutrition. For companies that want an exclusive
agreement with the AHA like that of the Florida
citrus growers, the cost is $55,000 a quarter or
$200,000 a year. Without exclusivity the cost is
$25,000 a quarter or $90,000 a year. (New York
National Livestock and Meat Board gave $189,000
to the AHA to sponsor the HeartRide cycling
series. AHA says the program will help ensure
that people don't think that AHA recommends
abstaining from meat. (IEG Sponsorship Report)
Merck is spending $400,000 to finance an AHA
program teaching 40,000 doctors to treat
cholesterol according to guidelines. (Wall Street
Journal, 6/14/98) American Heart Association has
endorsed only Bayer aspirin. (NEJM 9/4/97, p.
700) According to Kramer Laboratories, Inc.
(Miami), "Bayer, as we understand it,
contributes over $500,000 a year to the American
Heart Association." (Letter to AHA, 9/23/96)
Web site is sponsored by Pfizer, Campbell,
ConAgra (Healthy Choice), and Hoechst (Tufts
Nutrition Navigator web site).
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Johnson &
Johnson Company) was $100,000 plus Excalibur
Contributor to the American Cancer Society in
about the American Medical Association (AMA)?
planed a campaign to remind doctors of ethical
guidelines limiting their acceptance of gifts
from pharmaceutical companies. The campaign was
to be sponsored by Eli Lilly Corporation. (USA
Today, 4/27/01, "Drugmakers bankroll ethics
guidelines on 'freebies'")
According to a New York Times story, the AMA made
a deal with Sunbeam to endorse the company's
health products in return for royalties.
Publicity scotched the deal in 1997. Sunbeam is
suing the AMA for breach of contract. (NYT,
8/13/97 and subsequent weeks)
The Chicago Sun-Times reported that in early 1996
Procter & Gamble/olestra, through its PR
agency, gave the AMA a check for $900,000 in
partial support of an AMA fitness program; the
check came after the AMA issued a statement
endorsing the FDA's approval of olestra. (AMA
press release, Jan. 1996; Chicago Sun-Times,
11/26/97, p. 70)
about Breast Cancer Awareness Month?
to the Progressive Magazine, this event ". .
.happens to be sponsored by Imperial Chemical
Industries (ICI), one of the world's largest
manufacturers of organochlorines. ICI has
approved or vetoed every poster,
pamphlet, and advertisement used for Breast
Cancer Awareness Month from the beginning. And
BCAM literature has never mentioned the link
[sic] link between breast cancer and
organochlorines..." (Molly Ivins,
Progressive, January, 1998, p. 46)
(See Exhibit O as the source for the above
The above are examples of the close association
many of the non-profit health organizations share
with the pharmaceutical industry. In her book,
"The Truth About the Drug Companies,"
Marcia Angell, M.D. exposes the incredible links
between the medical profession, research
facilities and the pharmaceutical industry. I
purchased her book and am reading it. The truth
is shocking. The profits made by the
pharmaceutical industry are astronomical and the
influence the industry has on Congress, medical
institutions and physicians is appalling.
claim has been made by those in favor of a
"Smoke-Free America" that the
epidemiological studies done that show little to
no relative risk are sponsored by the tobacco
industry. What about the studies where the
pharmaceutical industry, non-profits and U.S.
government agencies have worked together, often
using public money, to promote a "Smoke-Free
America" through studies, public health
announcements and advertising, which are too
often taken as the truth without investigation by
the media , public health programs and days, such
as a smoke-free day. Let's look at some of the
major financial winners of such an agenda:
Drug Companies Involved With
"Cessation" Products in 2000: Johnson
& Johnson; GlaxoSmithKline: Pharmacia (also
Pharmacia & Upjohn)Hoechst Marion Roussel;
Novartis; and Pfizer.
(See Exhibit P)
And in looking at the financial winners we must
not overlook some of those who are making a
pretty penny out of this campaign:
Stanton A. Glantz:
Stanton A. Glantz gave the keynote address at the
7th World Conference on Tobacco and Health,
Perth, Australia, 1990. Glantz said: "The
main thing the science has done on the issue of
ETS, in addition to help people like me pay
mortages, it has legitimized the concerns that
people have that they don't like cigarette smoke.
And that is a strong emotional force that needs
to be harnessed and used. We're on a roll, and
the bastards are on the run. And I urge you to
keep chasing them."
Glantz's educational background: 1961 graduated
from the University of Cincinnati's Aerospace
Engineering School. 1973, received a PhD in
Applied Mechanics and Economics from Stanford.
1977, completed a postdoctoral Fellowship in
Cardiology at the University of California, San
Francisco. He is a professor of medicine at the
same institution, UC, San Francisco.
Glantz has received numerous federal grants.
In a 1996 letter to Science magazine, Rosalind B.
Marimont, (retired mathematician and scientist,
having done research and development for the
Bureau of Standards for 18 years until 1960 and
NIH for another 19 until her retirement in 1979)
"No money will corrupt an honest scientist
and federal money Stanton Glantz's
speciality will corrupt a dishonest
scientist as thoroughly as tobacco money. The war
on smoking has obviously become part of political
correctness, of the American form of Lysenkoism.
Lysenkoism, the subjugation of science to
ideology, is named for Trofim Lysenko, Stalin's
favorite scientist, who suppressed all genetic
research in the Soviet Union and damaged Soviet
science and agriculture for decades.
"It is easy to see why genetic research
should be anathema to Stalinists, but can anyone
enlighten me as to why smoking is the abomination
of the politically correct?
"Russell Baker, in his Observer column on
the anti-smoking crusade NY Times, May 31,
1994 noted that crusades typically start
by being admirable, proceed by being foolist, and
end by being dangerous.
"In my opinion, the stages of the
anti-tobacco crusade were: 1. Admirable
demonstrating the relationship of primary smoking
to lung cancer. 2 Foolish claiming that
ETS is a serious health hazard. Dangerous
stifling dissent by defaming the opposition.
"Defaming one's critics is a durable
technique of crusaders, from Lysenko in the USSR
to our own Salem witch hunters, Senator Joe
McCarthy, and now Stanton Glantz and his fellow
"If Glantz's lucrative and effective
propaganda has been able to harm the career of so
distinguished an epidemiologist as Theodore
Sterling, I can see why young scientists are
afraid to protest.
"But where are the leaders of the AAAS, or
other retirees, like me, who are free to speak
out? For 37 years I was proud to be a federal
government scientist, first at NBS now
NIST and then NIH.
"The 1993 EPA report was merely
embarrassing, but the current surrender to
Lysenkoism is shameful and frightening."
(See Exhibit Q, for this and additional
information on Glantz)
James L. Repace:
Repace Associates, Inc. Secondhand Smoke
Consultants. International Consulting Services.
(Source: Repace's own Web site)
Source for the following, Repace's own resume,
Education: 1962: Polytechnic Institute of
Brooklyn, BSc. 1968: same institution, Msc.
Physics. 1969: University of Maryland,
Post-masters study in physics. 1970-72, Catholic
University, post-masters study in physics.
Work: EPA, 1979-1986. 15 years prior: Naval
Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C. Under major
Identified ETS as a major source of indoor air
Initiated EPA's policy interest in indoor air
pollution in 1979. Funded the 1986 National
Academy of Sciences report on environmental
Tobacco Smoke, inspired the 1986 Surgeon
General's Report on Involuntary Smoking, and
initiated a study by EPA's Office of research and
development which resulted in the 1992 EPA Risk
Assessment of Passive Smoking which concluded
that ETS is a Class "A" or "known
(See Exhibit R, for full resume, Exhibit F,
Obviously, Repace has been a major player in
creating a market he is making money off of. He
charged a county more than $7,800 to testify
before the board of health.
(See Exhibit R)
Studies have NOT
proved that secondhand smoke causes any diseases.
This report could go on and on marking the cozy
deals between the pharmaceutical industry,
private non-profits believed by many to be pure
and charitable, yet shown through research to be
otherwise, and federal government agencies acting
supposedly in the public's best interest. It
could also show a number of articles by the
national media that clearly demonstrate the
reporter or publication's bias when compared with
the actual study done that is being reported on
in the story.
(See Exhibit N for lists of grants, people and
their associations and pharmaceutical profits and
products that relate to smoking cessation)
advocates see the tobacco industry as a cash cow.
Occasionally, thinking minds prevail. In February
of this year, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia declared that the
government may not seek the taking of illicit
profits in civil suits filed under the
racketeering statute known as RICO. The
government was hoping to wrest $280 billion from
the tobacco industry.
Norman E. Kjono puts the money amount into
perspective in a February 6, 2005, article,
"To get a handle on the economic hubris and
sheer financial chutzpah of tobacco control
advocates, consider that the $280 billion in
alleged damages sought by the federal government
through this lawsuit in its War on Tobacco is
greater than funding requested to date by the
Bush administration or appropriated by Congress
for the War in Iraq. Putting that sum together
with Governor Gregoire's 1998 MSA (master
settlement) there would be enough money in the
anti-tobacco war chest to fund two Iraq
(See Exhibit R for full article)
Again, I suggest that if you have any doubts
about my report that you spend your time looking
at both sides of the issue with an open mind.
TRACE THE MONEY. Look at the pharmaceutical
industry , the non-profits, the federal
government, the court actions. Learn how to read
an epidemiological study. Read everything. Not
just one side. Draw your own conclusions as I
have drawn mine.
TAXES: THE PRACTICAL
Anti-smokers: Are you ready to pay
increasing individual taxes if the United States
becomes smoke-free and tobacco is no longer a
legal substance? Almost all of the money paid on
a package or carton of cigarettes is tax. Taxes,
once levied, don't vanish. State taxing entities
and the national government will be dipping into
your pockets to make up the lost revenue.
The same holds true for alcohol. If you know
anything about U.S. history, you may recall the
damage prohibition caused and the illegal
activities it promoted. Tobacco is no different,
except the pharmaceutical industry has found a
way to make a huge profit off smoking and smokers
and is aided in doing so by the FDA, EPA, the
Surgeon General, some members of Congress, a
number of charitable non-profits and fanatical
anti-smokers who care not a whit about your
pocketbook or your rights.
Anti-smokers: Are you aware your
actions now are setting the precedent for
increasing individual restrictions in all areas
of our lives? Is this the legacy you want to
leave for your children and grandchildren: a
nation of think alikes, look alikes and do alikes
with individual liberty forgotten in the quest
These are serious questions. The answers will
define whether liberty and freedom and the
pursuit of happiness survive the 21st century
We are in trouble
in this country. Our liberties and freedoms are
being erased in the so-called cause of public
health. Secondhand smoke is only the beginning.
Other issues on the agenda that will also feed
the pharmaceutical industry, the non-profits,
some medical institutions and physicians, members
working within the federal government, and
various special interest groups are obesity,
alcohol consumption and high cholesterol, to name
Do the research.
Exhibit List for The Age of
Exhibit A: The United States Federal Court
Decision: Judge Osteen, July 17, 1998
Exhibit B: The United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit: December 11, 2002
Exhibit C: 1. Questioning the Rationale for the
Smoking Ban: The Congressional Research Service
reports on the questionable origin of the 53,000
number so often used by anti-smoking interests.
2. American Cancer Society Admits Mistake in Ad.
Wanda Hamilton challenges newspaper and ACS on
its false advertising.
Exhibit D: The study, "Multicenter
Case-Control Study of Exposure to Environmental
Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe,"
conducted by The World Health Organization's
(WHO) research branch, the International Agency
for Research on Cancer. 12 centers, 7 European
Exhibit E: The study "Environmental Tobacco
Smoke and Tobacco related Mortality in a
Prospective Study of Californians, 1960-1998.
Begun with funding from the American Cancer
Society, continued with funding from the
Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, a
University of California research organization
funded by the Proposition 99 cigarette surtax.
Exhibit F: Report by Littlewood & Fennell,
Austin, Independent Public & Health Policy
Research titled "Environmental Tobacco
Smoke: No Evidence of Carcinogenicity,"
February 9, 1999. (Enclosed disclaimer to the
National Toxicology Program stating no
association in any way with the tobacco
industry.) I have highlighted pages 23, 34, 40,
52, 53, 54, 56, 63 and 64, but the entire study
is a must read for those wanting an accurate
picture of the EPA's tactics.
Exhibit G: "Is Meta-Analysis a Valid
Approach to the Evaluation of Small Effects in
Observational Studies?" Samuel Shapiro.
Presented at a meeting on small risks, Potsdam,
Exhibit H: News articles/editorials on Judge
Osteen's decision and the invalidity of the EPA
1. Sidney Zion, Judge Smokes Out Tobacco Lie, New
York Daily News, July 23, 1998.
2. Editorial, "EPA: Environmental Propaganda
Agency," Investor's Business Daily, July 29,
3. John Schwartz, "Secondhand Smoke Finding
Struck Down," The Washington Post, July 19,
4. Editorial, "Sound Science Up In
Smoke," The Washington Times, July 21, 1998.
5. Kathleen Parker, "Betrayal by Government
Should Have Us Smokin'," Chicago Tribune,
July 22, 1998.
6. Joseph Perkins, "Has EPA Been Promoting
One Big Secondhand Smoke Screen?" Ventura
County Star, July 29, 1998.
7. Charley Reese, "It's a Shame That
Americans Can't Trust Their Own Government,"
The Orlando Sentinel, July 30, 1998.
8. Editorial, "EPA: Smoke and Mirrors,"
The Detroit News, August 7, 1998
Exhibit I: 1. Abstract, "Mike Drinking,
Other Beverage Habits, and Lung Cancer,"
published in PubMed.
2. Page 11 and 12 of 19 page document "The
Milk Letter: A Message to My Patients," by
Robert M. Kradjian, M.D., cite British Medical
Journal entry about 3.5 relative risk from
drinking milk. March 1990.
3. McDougall Newsletter citing dangers of coffee,
Exhibit J: Article by Robert N. Proctor,
Pennsylvania State University, on "The
Anti-Tobacco Campaign of the Nazis: A Little
Known Aspect of Public Health in Germany,
Exhibit K: Study,: "Mortality from Cancer
and Other Causes Among Airline Cabin Attendants
in Germany, 1960-1997," printed in the
American Journal of Epidemiology, 2002. A huge
Exhibit L: Study, "Environmental Tobacco
Smoke in the Nonsmoking Section of a Restaurant:
A Case Study," published online November 20,
2001, Elsevier Science.
Exhibit M: 1. Abstract, "Personal Exposure
to Environmental Tobacco: Salivary Cotinino,
Airborne Nicotine, and Nonsmoker
Misclassification," July-August 1999,
2. Article: Ellen Rogers, "The Truth'
About Tobacco Smoke," Oakridger.com
3. Article: Ron Walli, "Exposure to
Second-hand Smoke Lower Than Believed, ORNL Study
Finds," Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Exhibit N: 1. Review of Marcia Angell (former
editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of
Medicine), "The Truth About the Drug
Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do
About It." Article is entitled "New
England Journal of Medicine Exposes Drug Company
Deceit." Review by John Hoey, M.D. The book
may be purchased at Barnes & Noble.
2. List of Selected Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation Grants, 1992-99 (Johnson &
Johnson) Compiled by Wanda Hamilton.
3. Article: "Anti-Tobacco Advocates &
Researchers," in larger section entitled
"Pharmaceutical Multinationals: Buying
Governments, Selling AntiSmoking." Compiled
by Wanda Hamilton.
4. "List of Organizations, Institutions,
Companies & Groups Funded by Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation Grants & Contracts,"
in larger section entitled "Pharmaceutical
Multinationals: Buying Governments, Selling
AntiSmoking." Compiled by Wanda Hamilton.
5. "The Feds and the Pharms: An Unhealthy
Alliance," by Wanda Hamilton, July 13, 2001.
6. Article: "The Feds and the Pharms, Pt. 2:
The FDA," by Wanda Hamilton, July 2001.
7. Article: "The Pharms and Doctors:
Corrupting Medicine," by Wanda Hamilton,
Exhibit O: Partial list of "Non-Profit
Organizations with Ties to Industry." Found
on cspinet.org. Full list 91 pages.
Exhibit P: "Pharmaceutical Players: Drug
Companies Involved With Cessation'
Products," by Wanda Hamilton, July 2001.
Exhibit Q: 1. Information on Stanton A. Glantz,
from The Tobacco Dance. Found online.
2. Information on Stanton A. Glantz, found on
forces.org, (Forces: Articles from Other
3. Stanton Glantz, Animal Experiments (including
those he performed on rabbits, lambs, cats, dogs
and pigs), forces.org. (In one case, 64 New
Zealand rabbits were divided in groups where
different levels of ETS were pumped in after
feeding them a cholesterol diet. After 10 weeks,
Glantz killed them all and extracted their organs
for study. After much examination, tabulating and
comparisons of their entrails, the rabbits appear
to have died in vain.)Studies found on
4. Biography of Glantz on the University of
California at San Francisco site includes the
following: "He serves as an advisor to
numerous NIH, NSF, and Veterans' Affairs
scientific review groups and is a consultant for
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
on secondhand smoke as well as a member of the
California State Scientific Review Panel on Toxic
Air Contaminants." No mention of his
Exhibit R: 1. Article: "Legal Reality
Tsunami Sweeps Away Anti-Tobacco Damage
Claims," by Norman E. Kjono, February 6,
2. Repace Associates Inc. Web site home page
3. Repace resume
$. Note: pages 52, 54, 56 and 63 from the report
by Littlewood & Fennell, Austin, Independent
Public & Health Policy Research titled
"Environmental Tobacco Smoke: No Evidence of
Carcinogenicity," February 9, 1999, refer to