Second hand smoke (ETS) revisited

jimpeel

jimpeel

Well-Known Member
Secondhand Smoke Revisited!

Defending Legitimate Epidemiologic Research; Combatting Lysenko Pseudoscience
By James Enstrom
Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations 2007, 4:11 doi:10.1186/1742-5573-4-11

Abstract: This analysis presents a detailed defense of my epidemiologic research in the May 17, 2003 British Medical Journal that found no significant relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and tobacco-related mortality. In order to defend the honesty and scientific integrity of my research, I have identified and addressed in a detailed manner several unethical and erroneous attacks on this research. Specifically, I have demonstrated that this research is not "fatally flawed," that I have not made "inappropriate use" of the underlying database, and that my findings agree with other United States results on this relationship. My research suggests, contrary to popular claims, that there is not a causal relationship between ETS and mortality in the U.S. responsible for 50,000 excess annual deaths, but rather there is a weak and inconsistent relationship. The popular claims tend to damage the credibility of epidemiology.

In addition, I address the omission of my research from the 2006 Surgeon General's Report on Involuntary Smoking and the inclusion of it in a massive U.S. Department of Justice racketeering lawsuit. I refute erroneous statements made by powerful U.S. epidemiologists and activists about me and my research and I defend the funding used to conduct this research. Finally, I compare current ETS epidemiology in the U.S. with pseudoscience in the Soviet Union during the period of Trofim Devisovich Lysenko. Overall, this paper is intended to defend legitimate research against illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it because it does not support their ideological and political agendas. Hopefully, this defense will help other scientists defend their legitimate research and combat "Lysenko pseudoscience."" (James E. Enstrom, Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations 2007, 4:11 doi:10.1186/1742-5573-4-11)

Read the full article...
 
The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.

The World Health Organization, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.
-------
The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.
Click to expand...

Oops...now we look silly...

Here is another link.
 
Check out the "Banking Queen"@ 40 secs in..... (......oh, yeah):

01125107.Par.4584.ImageFile.jpg
 
Interestingly enough, nobody commented on the link I posted...except minkey, and his comment was rather lame.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Interestingly enough, nobody commented on the link I posted...except minkey, and his comment was rather lame.
Click to expand...

Well I'm sure its just cuz you are so much smarter than us and we just don't understand. Do you think you could explain to those of us who are not possessed with your super geniosity?

I really don't know about second hand smoke and I'm not sure I care so much. I do find it amusing that all the GW folks, the universal health care proponents, and all the anti tobacco folks all just lie and lie for the sake of misleading people and making profits, where the benevolent insurance companies, producers of pollution and tobacco companies fight the good fight to defend their honor since they are so devoted to the truth and service to the consumer. Obviously innocent companies like that have absolutely no incentive to lie.

We lesser peoples are so lucky we have smart people like you to think for us!

Now would you please set us straight again and explain to us the error of our ways in not seeing the great and life changing truths contained herein oh great one?

:worship:
 
randomJACKASS said:
I really don't know about second hand smoke and I'm not sure I care so much. I do find it amusing that all the GW folks, the universal health care proponents, and all the anti tobacco folks all just lie and lie for the sake of misleading people and making profits,
Click to expand...
Profits, at the expense of the unwilling & coerced taxpayer. If you want, or don't want, this crap, then you should have the right to, or not to, participate.

randomJACKASS said:
where the benevolent insurance companies, producers of pollution and tobacco companies fight
Click to expand...

The fight for profits. Profits in which YOU & those like you may or may not participate, at your own cost.
 
randomJACKASS said:
Well I'm sure its just cuz you are so much smarter than us and we just don't understand. Do you think you could explain to those of us who are not possessed with your super geniosity?

I really don't know about second hand smoke and I'm not sure I care so much. I do find it amusing that all the GW folks, the universal health care proponents, and all the anti tobacco folks all just lie and lie for the sake of misleading people and making profits, where the benevolent insurance companies, producers of pollution and tobacco companies fight the good fight to defend their honor since they are so devoted to the truth and service to the consumer. Obviously innocent companies like that have absolutely no incentive to lie.

We lesser peoples are so lucky we have smart people like you to think for us!

Now would you please set us straight again and explain to us the error of our ways in not seeing the great and life changing truths contained herein oh great one?

:worship:
Click to expand...

Nice. You still don't get it. The study I linked to was done by the same folks who did a meta-analysis and said that ETS was life-threatening. I figured you'd get that right off since you say your IQ is high. Seeing you take the 'low road', though, makes things so much easier...
 
The original text of the UK Telegraph story from 1998.

Source: UK Sunday Telegraph

Headline: Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official
Byline: Victoria MacDonald, Health Correspondent
Dateline: March 8, 1998

The world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks.

The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - inhaling other people's smoke - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer.

The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers. The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.

The summary, seen by The Sunday Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood." A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases."

Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. "It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk."
Click to expand...
 
world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study
Click to expand...

Once you get there, it's time to realize it's politics, not science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top