Smoke scams: attempts by obsessed controllers to impose their will on others. Regardless of the mask they wear, where they work or their educational background, their agenda is the same: making others over in their own image.
In 1778 Benjamin Franklin designed the first coin minted in the United States. It carried the phrase "Mind your own business." If today's politicians were only half as wise, our society would certainly be in better shape.

Report on Epidemiological Studies, Court Cases

FACT:

The Congressional 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 opinion.

"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.
(Click here for Judge Osteen's decision)

FACT:

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.
(Find PDF file of court ruling at:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/
opinion.pdf/982407.P.pdf)

FACT:

Anti-smoking 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 smoking."
(Click here for Congressional Research
Service's Report on 53,000)

FACT:

After being accused by the London Telegraph of withholding the study from publication because its results were not what the World Health Organization (WHO) wanted, 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 (IARC).

In reporting on the study, WHO totally left out 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."
(Click here for abstract & url to full study: Click here: Report on the Who Study Click here: News on WHO Study)

Report: Continued

FACT:

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 believed."
(ENORMOUS STUDY UNMASKS THE ANTISMOKING FRAUD: Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 - May 19th, 2003)

FACT:

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."
(http://www.forces.org/
evidence/download/fennel.pdf
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."
(http://www.forces.org/
evidence/download/fennel.pdf
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 confounding factor."
(http://www.forces.org/
evidence/download/fennel.pdf
Page 34)


Dr. Kabat, IARC epidemiologist, said: "An association is generally considered weak if 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 cancer."

FACT:

Meta-analysis is 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 without context.

"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.'"
(http://tobaccodocuments.org
/pm/2063633260-3266.html)

Report: Continued

PRESS REACTION:

"There is 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 homes."

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.
(Click links below for articles:
Zion, New York Daily News
Schwartz, Washington Post
Editorial, Washington Times
Parker: Chicago Tribune
Perkins: Ventura County Star
Reese, Orlando Sentinel
Editorial, Investor's Business Daily)


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 bare in court. But it was too late for thousands of businesses and towns that responded to the EPA's junk science by passing anti-smoking measures."

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)

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."

FACT:

The Nazi 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, Washington, D.C.
(Click here to read report)

FACT:

The practices in Nazi Germany strongly resemble the practices now.

THE MONEY TRAIL:

Questionable statistics have not stopped anti-smokers groups, the EPA, the pharmaceutical companies (who are making a fortune from smoking cessation aids like Nicorette) and research groups representing various illnesses eager to cash in on the money allocated from the tobacco settlement for studies to help pay for their existence. They still cite a study that was vacated by the district court without mentioning the controversy surrounding the study. And some, such as the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association, have cited 53,000 in their advertisements, first claiming the EPA as its source, then attributing the number to Stanley Glantz, Ph.D., a founder of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights (who has used the questionable number often and was among the first to do so). In recent years, antismoking forces have continued to inflate the number of deaths attributed to secondhand smoke without mentioning that the numbers they cite were generated by computers and don't reflect what's happening to real people living in the real world. Ask yourself: If the antismokers case is so strong, why do they hang on to faulty studies and statistics, citing them time and again and often inflating the numbers?

The Misinformation Age

Home

Report 1 | Report 2