Regarding Epidemiology

The following are professional definitions of epidemiology, its biases, its limits, and a guide as to how to read an epidemiological study:

Regarding Scientific Integrity

This document that Dr. James Enstrom published on September 30, 2006   in his own defense and in the defense of scientific integrity clearly illustrates the unethical means and extents that the anti-tobacco dogmatists (including prestigious associations) will go through to dismiss findings that do not meet with their political or financial agendas. 

On the same date and in the same journal, Dr. Michael Siegel published a paper highlighting the McCarthyism in the tobacco control movement:

http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/pdf/1742-5573-4-12.pdf

On October 22, 2007, yet another epidemiologist, Carl Phillips from the University of Alberta, speaks out on unethical anti-tobacco activist tactics, via his article,  Warning: Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science, in the Epidemiologic Perspectives and Innovation journal.

   
This article addresses the questions of research integrity and illustrates the problems of bias on the part of the researchers themselves:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1773690,00.html

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=2879

From the Canadian Government’s own website – Positive Result Bias and "Hot topic bias"

Through this biased process, an investigator can almost always "prove" something out of nothing. results of such an unsystematic, non-population-based approach would likely focus efforts in certain narrow areas, ignoring some other major and real issues. While sample-based studies have provided a tremendous amount of knowledge, their limitations due to false positive research cycles must be recognized.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/19-4/b_e.html   Or see our C.A.G.E. summary under Junk Science news.

Scientific Fraud

Intentional scientific fraud can distract politicians and citizens, resulting in far greater harm and should be criminally actionable.  Sir Richard Doll, the British scientist who first adopted the Nazi-German crusade against smoking may have been paid specifically to deflect attention away from the real causes:

http://www.injurywatch.co.uk/news-and-groups/news/workplace-illness/exposed-workplace-cancer-naysayer-was-secretly-being-paid-by-drug-companies-231161138

Known Causes of Lung Cancer

This web page puts forth a very easy to read, but extremely frightening theory that explains, among other things, why the countries with the highest rates of adult smokers also have the lowest incidences of lung cancer. This theory is supported by the tens of thousands of lab animals that were sacrificed by scientists, on behalf of politicians with agendas but without scruples.

http://www.joevialls.co.uk/transpositions/smoking.html

Regarding TOBACCO

Much of this documentation was made available to us thanks to the tireless efforts of the activists at FORCES.  Many thanks in particular to Gian Turci of FORCES Italy for his time and dedication.

THE SCOTTISH COURT DECISION ON ACTIVE SMOKE.

This is the famous 2005 decision in the McTear vs. Imperial Tobacco case where Ms. McTear tried to prove that the death of her heavy smoking husband was caused by tobacco. A careful analysis of the evidence and of the science illustrated the following facts:

1. There was no proof that smoking caused Mr. McTear’s lung cancer;
2. It would be scientifically impossible to prove that Mr. McTear’s lung cancer was caused by smoking as opposed to any of the hundreds of other cofactors that cause cancer in non-smokers;
3. Despite 40 years of focused effort and millions of dollars of grant money, there is no credible scientific evidence that intense primary and secondary smoke has ever caused tumors in lab animals;
4. There are, for obvious reasons, no efforts to demonstrate the link between tobacco and tumors in lab "humans";
5. The only evidence hinting at a link between smoking and lung cancer is that resulting from multifactoral epidemiology;
6. Such epidemiology is sufficient to suggest a theory which must then be scientifically proven, but not sufficient to establish a causal link;
7. Such a causal link must be proven by science, but as mentioned above, despite tremendous international effort, science has to date utterly failed to prove such a link.

We invite you to download the judgement at: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005CSOH69.html#disc

Please pay particular attention to paragraphs 6.149 to 6.185.

This case is excellent for highlighting the interplay of politics, greed and media bias.

Summary of the case: Bank employee dies. Newspapers all over the country say that passive smoke kills, and she has been killed by passive smoke. The headlines look as if WWIII started. First instance trial goes in favour of antis; the exhibition of the scientific evidence is barred by the court. Second instance: the court allows scientific evidence. The bank is absolved from the accusation, as it cannot be established that passive smoke kills anyone. Further interrogation of expert witnesses demonstrates that the lady suffered from strong food allergy, and she died of allergy shock after eating at a restaurant - a reality that was known all along by the suing party and by the health authorities (who in our opinion should be prosecuted for criminal fraud). As long as this fact was hidden, the case was useful for antismoking propaganda. Only ONE newspaper in the country reported the true outcome and cause of the death. This case put an end to any and all lawsuits for passive smoke in this country, but still left the uninformed public with misconceived notion that second hand smoke kills.

We hope you will enjoy reading these two newspaper articles:

http://www.forcesitaly.org/italy/archivio/18_marzo_2005.htm and the original newspaper article:

http://www.forcesitaly.org/italy/archivio/18_marzo_2005.htm

An excellent summary of the situation:

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/deaths.htm , and finally, if your Italian is not too rusty, please do take a look at the actual decision:

http://www.forcesitaly.org/italy/download/dirciv_trib_roma_fumo_2005.pdf

In this extremely harsh 1998 decision, a district judge in North Carolina demolishes the EPA for its blatant fraud and extreme bias in representing absolutely baseless junk science as established fact. This decision is a must read for many reasons. The most interesting point about the whole episode is that anti-tobacco activists and organizations continue to refer without shame to these completely discredited scientific studies when powering up their very powerful propaganda machine. To their equal discredit, our politicians and media listen with an uncritical ear.

http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/980717osteen.html

The Osteen Decision

http://www.lpconline.com/Osteen_decision.html

YUKON BAR OWNERS

The main conclusion that comes out of it is that as long as second hand smoke will be considered a public menace, governments will continue to have the unchallenged right to institute laws for the "public good" no matter how unreasonable and discriminating these laws may be, unless it is proven that the law was brought about in bad faith and without justified reason, it discriminates one person or group over the other. This is blatantly obvious in our Quebec legislation that allows cigar lounges and chicha bars for no apparently justified reason and against the public and cigar lounge employees’ good. Anyway we look at it the key still remains to debunk the second hand smoke myth with everything we have to fight it. Only then will the so-called "public good" justification no longer be usable as the primary reason for these devastating bans.

http://www.canliiorg/yk/cas/yksc/2005/2005yksc37.html

The State of Florida class action suit is an excellent example of greed and politics trumping even the law if not properly restrained. Please find herein a number of links, all courtesy of FORCES.

An old, general chronicle will give you an idea of the progression of the case: http://www.forces.org/articles/files/flortot.htm , http://www.forces.org/articles/art-fcan/frenzy2.htm, and http://www.forces.org/disgust/files/florid03.htm.

Specifics on the Florida legal manoeuvre:

An example of reversing of decisions (that media always report sottovoce - if they report it at all):

http://www.data-yard.net/10f1/engle.htm

http://www.lpconline.com/Osteen_decision.html

GLOBAL LISTING OF CASES

If you are interested to document yourselves on all law-suits concerning the tobacco industry, tobacco use, challenges etc. this "Anti" site seems to have them all under one roof.

http://www.tobacco.org/articles/category/lawsuits/

This link will take you to a FORCES page with numerous annotated links to major cases of scientific research, sponsored by the worlds largest and most powerful anti-smoking organizations, which completely fail in proving the sought after links between smoking and the diseases in question.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/heart.htm

These pages and links, also courtesy of FORCES, detail many of the problems with the scientific studies on smoke, list all of the significant studies ever published across the world, and highlight important principles of scientific analysis which are blatantly ignored in many of these studies. This page is a must read for anyone wishing to formulate their own opinion based on a solid, logical foundation.

http://www.forces.org/evidence/prologue.htm

FEDERAL SPENDING

How much is our government wasting in the battle against what is turning out more and more to be a minor problem of personal choice? We have the feeling that the amounts show here on federal spending only begin to scratch the surface. With all the emphasis on smoking, they are ignoring the far greater and more dangerous problems of people being poisoned against their will by really dangerous substances produced by all the other "Big" corporations.

http://www.smoke-free.ca/factsheets/pdf/Investment%20in%20Tobacco%20Control.pdf

This article is one of the better ones to address the issue. ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers) used to have a standard for ventilating places where smoking occurred, based on smell and comfort. They were made to drop that, as "antis" claimed there was "no safe level" of ETS. ASHRAE’s latest 2005 statement on the issue says that "until cognizant authorities" (meaning health ministries and the like) determine an acceptable level of ETS exposure, there is none achievable by ventilation (kind of self-evident). Of course, "cognizant authorities" will never make such a determination, since that would allow for indoor smoking and also because their existing studies on ETS risks are no good. Nice little Cath-22. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BPR/is_4_19/ai_84902810

A new study published in this month’s issue of The Journal of Nuclear Medicine reports that coronary blood flow is not reduced in young smokers, throwing into severe doubt the claim by 38+ anti-smoking groups that passive smoking reduces coronary blood flow (see: Morita K, Tsukamoto T, Naya M, et al. Smoking cessation normalizes coronary endothelial vasomotor response assessed with 15O-water and PET in healthy young smokers. The Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2006; 47:1914-1920). (Thursday, December 14, 2006)

http://jnm.snmjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/47/12/1914  Or read what Dr. Siegle says about the implications of this study on C.A.G.E.'s Hear our Allies under Communications.

LAW 112

The anti-tobacco law 112 is rather difficult to understand, with unending references and modifications to other documents. The leading anti-tobacco organization in Québec was kind enough to put together this little document to clarify some questions regarding awnings, tents, parasols etc. The document is in French.

http://www.cqct.qc.ca/Documents_docs/DOCU_2006/BULL-06-04-10-BulletinInformationPatio.pdf