Scientists and scholars dissent on the harm of passive smoking.

I am deeply grateful to Mr A who has collated a number of quotes from leading academics disagreeing with the harm of passive smoking.

http://mr–a.blogspot.com/2009/07/at-last-scientists-come-out-against.html

“Junk science has replaced honest science and propaganda parades as fact. Our legislators and judges, in need of dispassionate analysis, are instead smothered by an avalanche of statistics—tendentious, inadequately documented, and unchecked by even rudimentary notions of objectivity.”

 Robert A. Levy, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, The Cato Institute; Adjunct Professor of Statistics for Law, Georgetown University Law Center and Rosalind B. Marimont, former mathematician and scientist with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (formerly the Bureau of Standards) and the National Institute of Health.
From: Lies, Damned Lies and 40,000 Smoking-Related Deaths. Regulation 21 (4)
/regv21n4/lhttp://www.cato.org/pubs/regulationies.pdf 

“I am sorry, I know that is what you would like to be given, but the point is that these risks are small and difficult to measure directly…. I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers…, but what does one make of them? …These hazards cannot be directly measured.

– Sir Richard Peto, Epidemiologist, Oxford University, speaking at UK House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, which was inquiring about government policy on the management of risk, including the claimed risks of ets.
Cited in: From: Stoking the Rigged Terror of Second Hand Smoke, Regulation, Spring 2007.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv30n1/v30n1-5.pdf

“Data torturing of epidemiological studies concerns the many responsible scientists and public health researchers who work honestly, openly and willingly in the service of sound science. We are seeing an enormous diversion of funds and talent from truly important health risks – and the real possibility that anxiety raised by false health scares is in itself a health risk.”

 Michael.R. Fox, Phd. Chemist, Richland W.A (1999) Toxic Toxicology: Putting Scientific Credibility at Risk. Littlewood & Fennell: Independent Public and Health Policy Research.
https://hawaiismokersalliance.com/uploads/Toxic_toxicology.pdf

“Are there 450,000 smoking-related deaths per year in America? Maybe…but no human beings are ever studied to find out”.

 Dr. Bernard M. Wagner, editor of Modern Pathology
– Cited in Colby (1999) http://www.lcolby.com/colby.htm 

“The plain truth is that no credible measure of ETS exposure has ever been possible. Therefore, epidemiologic studies of ETS have produced statistical estimates of risk based not only on improper exposure data, but also on exposure data that are illusory.”

– Dr Gio Batta Gori, Former Deputy Director of the National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Causes and Prevention, Acting Associate Director, Carcinogenesis Program, Director of the Diet, Nutrition and Cancer Program, and Director of the Smoking and Health Program
From: Stoking the Rigged Terror of Second Hand Smoke, Regulation, Spring 2007.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv30n1/v30n1-5.pdf

“The scare-mongering that has passed for science is appalling. Not only is tobacco far less pernicious than Americans are led to believe, but its destructive effect is amplified by all manner of statistical legerdemain—counting diseases that should not be counted, using the wrong sample as a standard of comparison, and failing to control for obvious confounding variables. To be blunt, there is no credible evidence that 400,000 deaths per year—or any number remotely close to 400,000—are caused by tobacco.”

– Robert A. Levy, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, The Cato Institute; Adjunct Professor of Statistics for Law, Georgetown University Law Center and Rosalind B. Marimont, former mathematician and scientist with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (formerly the Bureau of Standards) and the National Institute of Health.
– From: Lies, Damned Lies and 40,000 Smoking-Related Deaths. Regulation 21 (4)
– http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf
– 

“The available evidence suggests that, far from being a significant health risk, secondhand smoke is little more than a nuisance–and one that is being dealt with effectively by private action.”

– W. Kip Viscusi, Economist, Duke University
From Cato Institute Policy Report, Jan/Feb 1996.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-jf-rg.html

“The influential 1993 EPA report “Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders” was as phony as a three-dollar bill. State officials and private businesses that believed that ETS was a public health danger (and not just a nuisance) were completely misled by the EPA.”

– Dominick Armentano, Professor Emeritus, Economics, The University of Hartford; Adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute
From: The Second-Hand Smoke Charade; The Cato Institute.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5811http 

Please note that the late Alvan Feinstein was a sceptic on the harm of SHS and was quoting a colleague form the World Health Organization.

On the 1993 EPA Report: “Yes, it’s rotten science, but it’s in a worthy cause. It will help us to get rid of cigarettes and become a smoke-free society”.

 Alvan Feinstein, Yale University epidemiologist writing in Toxological Pathology.
– Cited in Colby (1999) http://www.lcolby.com/colby.htm

“The actual damage from smoking is neither known nor knowable with precision. Responsible statisticians agree that it is impossible to attribute causation to a single variable, like tobacco, when there are multiple
causal factors that are correlated with one another. The damage from cigarettes is far less than it is made out to be.”

– Robert A. Levy, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, The Cato Institute; Adjunct Professor of Statistics for Law, Georgetown University Law Center and Rosalind B. Marimont, former mathematician and scientist with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (formerly the Bureau of Standards) and the National Institute of Health.
From: Lies, Damned Lies and 40,000 Smoking-Related Deaths. Regulation 21 (4)
– http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf

“NTP (National Toxicology Program) implies that even the tiniest exposure to toxic or carcinogenic substances somehow constitutes a life-threatening risk. This is patently absurd – contravening a basic tenet of toxicology: the dose makes the poison.”

– Michael.R. Fox, Phd. Chemist, Richland W.A (1999) Toxic Toxicology: Putting Scientific Credibility at Risk. Littlewood & Fennell: Independent Public and Health Policy Research.
https://hawaiismokersalliance.com/uploads/Toxic_toxicology.pdf

“The EPA was determined to prove that ETS was a serious carcinogen that justified stringent regulation. To do that, it simply set aside 19 of the original constellation of 30 ETS studies and then, defying all scientific standards, simply changed the “confidence levels” in the statistical analysis from 95 percent to 90 percent. When the highly manipulated smaller sample finally “confessed” that passive smoking was a health risk, the EPA proudly announced it had “proven” its preconceived conclusions. And the sordid tale gets worse. The EPA chose to omit entirely from its analysis two recent U.S. ETS studies that had determined that passive smoking was NOT a statistically significant health risk. Worse for the EPA, including those studies with the “cherry-picked” 11 produces a result that shows no statistically significant health risks associated with passive smoking, even at reduced confidence levels. In short, even employing the EPA’s own corrupt methodology, ETS was simply not a “Group A Carcinogen,” as the agency had boldly asserted.”
 Dominick Armentano, Professor Emeritus, Economics, The University of Hartford; Adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute
From: The Second-Hand Smoke Charade; The Cato Institute.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5811http

“Of the 75 published studies of ETS and lung cancer, some 70 percent did not report statistically significant differences of risk and are moot. Roughly 17 percent claim an increased risk, and 13
percent imply a reduction of risk. Thus, reported studies do not offer consistent results, and overall cannot be interpreted for or against risk.”

 Dr Gio Batta Gori, Former Deputy Director of the National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Causes and Prevention, Acting Associate Director, Carcinogenesis Program, Director of the Diet, Nutrition and Cancer Program, and Director of the Smoking and Health Program
From: Stoking the Rigged Terror of Second Hand Smoke, Regulation, Spring 2007.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv30n1/v30n1-5.pdf

“Of those chemicals present in ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) only a very few can be classified as toxons or carcinogens. Some basic physics, a bit of chemistry and a series of rather simple mathematical calculations reveal that exposure to ETS is hardly a dangerous event. Indeed, the cancer risk of ETS to a non-smoker appears to be roughly equal to the risk of becoming addicted to heroin from eating poppy seed bagels.”

– Michael.R. Fox, Phd. Chemist, Richland W.A (1999) Toxic Toxicology: Putting Scientific Credibility at Risk. Littlewood & Fennell: Independent Public and Health Policy Research.
https://hawaiismokersalliance.com/uploads/Toxic_toxicology.pdf 

“The world must protest the ongoing deceit and the squandering of public monies for rigged and incompetent ETS studies. And people should feel offended by the complicity and sham paternalism of health authorities and of profitable tax exempt charities. Such an officially imposed tyranny has no
place in countries that claim and presume to be free, enlightened, and just. We are not children, nor bumbling simpletons who need to be deceived for our own good — a deceit that is doubly grating when the wilfully flawed surgeon general’s report on ETS runs against statutory requirements of “ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information (including statistical information) disseminated by a government agency.”

– Dr Gio Batta Gori, Former Deputy Director of the National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Causes and Prevention, Acting Associate Director, Carcinogenesis Program, Director of the Diet, Nutrition and Cancer Program, and Director of the Smoking and Health Program
From: Stoking the Rigged Terror of Second Hand Smoke, Regulation, Spring 2007.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv30n1/v30n1-5.pdf

“As we prepared our comments earlier this year on the 9th RoC subcommittee’s decision regarding ETS, we dug into the original risk assessment proceedings of the EPA. It became absolutely clear that the so-called “independent scientific bodies” were not independent at all. Rather these groups – Scientific Advisory Boards – were pressurised by a wide variety of political and procedural forces to cast their weight (quite reluctantly in several cases) on the side of ETS as a carcinogen.”

 Michael.R. Fox, Phd. Chemist, Richland W.A (1999) Toxic Toxicology: Putting Scientific Credibility at Risk. Littlewood & Fennell: Independent Public and Health Policy Research.
https://hawaiismokersalliance.com/uploads/Toxic_toxicology.pdf

“Indeed, the carcinogenic mechanisms of tobacco smoking “are not well understood.” What is more cancers once “associated” with smoking are being quietly removed from the official lists. Stomach cancer – which is likely caused by undetected H. pylori, is one example; cervical cancer – in which fresh evidence suggests that human papillomavirus (HPV) may be the sole cause – should soon meet the same fate […] How many hundreds of millions of dollars are being wasted on senseless, useless – and quite possibly harmful – “Blame ETS” research? How much more time and talent is being diverted from useful research into chronic infections from bacteria and viruses that are major causes of cancer worldwide? How many more absurd “risk alerts” will it take before the public laughs scientists out of a position of trust altogether?”

 Michael.R. Fox, Phd. Chemist, Richland W.A (1999) Toxic Toxicology: Putting Scientific Credibility at Risk. Littlewood & Fennell: Independent Public and Health Policy Research.
https://hawaiismokersalliance.com/uploads/Toxic_toxicology.pdf

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Lung cancer, Smoking and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s