Where are the deaths from lung cancer from second hand smoke?

A massive hat tip to Junican for taking the trouble to read the massive McTear vs Imperial Tobacco and how the anti smokers are contradicting themselves. This is a straight cut and paste.  In their zeal to prove active smoking causes lung cancer they concede passive smoking does not.


The McTear Case (in which ASH ET AL were thrashed) again.

I am now just about halfway through reading The Judgement. It really is long and difficult.

I’m not sure whether or not I am wasting my time reading through this stuff since ASH ET AL have totally ignored any evidence which does not support their assertions. Tobacco Control is a juggernaut, totally out of control, ploughing on through the seas of science, pushing science aside and leaving a turbulent, destructive wave in its wake. Every science, other than its own cherry-picked ‘surveys’ and ’studies’ is smashed (under the pretext that ANY information which is produced using funds provided by tobacco companies is, de facto, untrue). Since few organisations have the money to pay for ‘studies’ and ‘research’, only their own studies and research (paid for by Government or Big Pharm) actually exist.  But let us look again at what the Judge in the case said about Tobacco Company ‘expert evidence’, the experts of which were paid by Tobacco Companies to do the work necessary to appear as experts:

“I do not accept as an a priori assumption that funding from thetobacco industry is tainted.”

He went on to say that the ‘worth’ of the study depends upon the ‘actuality’.

We can see the effect of ASH ET AL propaganda in the following quote:

“At that time it was not unusual for scientists to receive funding from the tobacco industry. No tobacco company had ever prevented him from publishing his research. It had, however, become unusual in the UK for medical or scientific research to be funded by the tobacco industry and indeed had latterly become impossible because universities and hospitals, in which this type of research was conducted, had formulated a policy not to accept funding from the tobacco industry. Both the Medical Research Council and the Welcome Trust had adopted policies under which they declared that they would not fund research for either a scientist or his institution if he accepted funding from any part of the tobacco industry. In order to accept funding from these bodies, the acceptance of support from the tobacco industry was precluded.”

What does that actually mean? It means, in my opinion, that only those who can afford to pay for research which is anti-tobacco can be allowed to fund research.

There is so much that is pertinent to our thinking and it is so detailed that the mind has difficulty in taking it all in. That is where ASH ET AL have a huge advantage. They can shout, “SMOKING KILLS!!!”, and yet, by any reasonable understanding of that phrase, it ought to mean immediately, in the same way that a bullet in the brain kills, and not some vague ‘contributes to a slightly premature death, depending upon how much you have smoked and for how long – or it may not happen at all’.

Earlier this evening, I picked up my reading of The Judgement again. There were pieces of evidence which I thought that we ought to know about. I decided to copy/paste them into a word doc for the time being. The trouble is that the ‘worthy quotes’ started coming thick and fast. So I now have a doc with lots of lengthy quotes! And some of them are full of medical jargon.

Am I wasting my time? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it is all worth while if people know more, in the sense that it is easier to see why the propaganda of ASH ET AL is lies.

For tonight, I am going to highlight just one thing. This should be interesting. This is the evidence of a Dr Kerr, who gave evidence as an ‘expert witness’ in favour of ASH ET AL:

Table 7-4 gave figures (modified from Rohwedder and Weatherbee 1974) for five histologic subtypes of carcinoma in smokers and non-smokers. For squamous cell carcinomas, 98% were stated to have been in smokers and 2% in non-smokers. Dr Kerr said that it was from this table that he derived his figure of 98%.”

Remember that Dr Karr is a Holy Zealot. You should also be aware that this ‘squamous cell carninoma’ refers to certain specific cells in the ‘breathing tubes’ – the bronchi –  especially, just around where they split into two ‘tubes’, one leading into the left lung and the other into the right.

Read those sentences again ( and there are more such statements regarding the 98% of such cancers being in smokers). Note that only 2% of such cancers are in non-smokers.

QUESTION: WHERE ARE THE SECOND-HAND SMOKERS WHO GET  ’SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA’ (SMOKERS CANCER)? There are none. The non-smokers referred to are people who definitelyhad no contact with tobacco smoke, so they can be excluded. If only active smokers get ‘smokers’ cancer’, then SHS does not cause smoker’s cancer. The statement came from the Holy Zealots themselves! The evidence, produced by the Zealots themselves shows definitely that SHS does not cause ‘smokers’ cancer’. QED.

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

7 Responses to Where are the deaths from lung cancer from second hand smoke?

  1. Junican says:


    I have copied below the reply I made to your comment on the BSC post:

    Hi Dave.

    I don’t think that the lung cancer cases that Dr Kerr was referring to were necessarily dead people. Here is a quote from The Judgement:

    5.343] Dr Kerr said that he had seen thousands of biopsies like this from other patients. Squamous cell carcinoma, he said, was one of two types of lung cancer which were most strongly associated with a history of smoking tobacco. When specimens were submitted to him for examination, he might or might not be told the smoking history of the patient. If he was given any history at all, it would more often be in the unusual situation where such a specimen was sent to him in a non-smoker, simply to highlight the fact that he was being asked whether the patient had lung cancer and ought to know that the patient was a non-smoker. This sort of information was highlighted, though not very often, because it was so unusual that there would be a suspicion of lung cancer in someone who did not smoke. Specifically, with squamous cell carcinoma, 98% of cases were seen in smokers. This was based on the literature, but also his own experience: it was most unusual to see a squamous cell carcinoma of the lung in a non-smoker. He could give a figure of 98% based on his own patients. Lung cancer, he went on, was rare in non-smokers, and when it did occur, the squamous cell type was very infrequent. The pre-invasive squamous dysplasia, the precursor lesion of invasive squamous cell carcinoma, was also frequently found in the bronchi of smokers and much less so in non-smokers.

    We see that he is referring to ‘patients’ – the question being whether on not they may have squamous cell carcinoma or a precursor.

    ASH ET AL could say that the SHS problems are in the remaining 2%, but Dr Kerr is at pains to say that squamous cell carcinoma simply does not appear in non-smokers (except very rarely). This is repeated several times.

  2. Junican says:

    I have added an UPDATE to that post. It is this:

    UPDATE 3.30pm Sunday, 26th February.

    There was another point which slipped my mind as I was writing the above last night which is also important.

    One of the reasons for the emphasis that only smokers contract lung cancer was to exclude the possibility that their cancers could have been caused by other factors. We think of general air pollution and specific exposure to carcinogens at work, among others.

  3. Parmenion says:

    There have been studies done which show that lung cancer in smokers is different from lung cancer in non-smokers. http://www.livescience.com/11090-lung-cancer-disease-smokers-nonsmokers.html

  4. Lung Cancer a Different Disease in Smokers and Nonsmokers

    PHILADELPHIA — Lung cancer that develops in smokers is not the same disease as lung cancer that develops in people who’ve never touched a cigarette, a new study finds.

    There are nearly twice as many DNA changes in the tumors of people who have never smoked than in the tumors of people who smoke, which suggests the cancer of “never-smokers” is different from smokers’ cancer, said Kelsie Thu, a Ph.D. candidate at the BC Cancer Research Center in Canada.

    “We think this finding provides evidence that never-smoker and smoker lung cancers are different, and suggests they arise through different molecular pathways,” Thu told MyHealthNewsDaily. “Never-smokers might be exposed to a carcinogen, not from cigarettes, that causes their tumors to have more DNA alterations and promotes lung cancer development.”


  5. Not enough evidence to link smoking and lung cancer
    Dec 7, 2011—A court in Korea has rejected a civil lawsuit filed by the family of a lung cancer victim against the government and KT&G, according to a story by Lee Hyo-sik for the Korea Times.

    The Seoul Central District Court dismissed the claim by the family of a former police officer who died of lung cancer that the cigarette manufacturer was to blame for the disease.

    It cited a lack of evidence that the disease was directly caused by smoking.

    And it said there wasn’t enough evidence that the cigarette manufacturer intentionally withheld from smokers information about tobacco’s adverse effects on human health.

    ‘There isn’t enough evidence proving that serious defects exist in the design and manufacturing of cigarette products,’ the court said.

    ‘We don’t think KT&G presented false information about its products and or that KT&G did not warn consumers properly about the dangers of nicotine addiction.’


  6. Danish doctor Knud ( aka Canute?) Wilson. I’ve not attempted to correct the translation, as it’s fairly readable.
    Canute Wilson became famous in Denmark in 1984 when he was on TV after having revealed a lung cancer epidemic in the small fishing Strandby at Frederikshavn with approx. thousand inhabitants. Here spread the local asphalt plant through 22 years invisible cancer-causing dust particles into the air as the wind blew cross shopping streets in the city, 600 meters east of the factory.
    Wilson is today over 80 years and retired, but in 1960 he became the city’s general practitioner. In 1964 he asked the authorities shut down the factory because he observed among his patients more lung cancer cases “should not occur.” He was convinced that it was stone dust from the asphalt plant. But the Health Protection Agency would not recommend the closure, the factory went on for 11 years while the disease spread like a regular epidemic, which until today has killed 30 people in the small town life.
    The Health Authority’s refusal did Canute Wilson himself a very thorough study of the epidemic, which he has described in two books,“Mågecanceren”. As early as the first 9 cases of disease had appeared, there was no longer any doubt about the cause and the first part of his study was published in the journal The Lancet.
    But over the years unfolded clinical picture is completely out and revealed a consistent pattern: Lung Cancer hit primarily the residents of Strandby, who had stayed in town, while the factory was driving during working hours. It was often housewives and shopkeepers in the small town. Fishermen, however, which accounted for 90% of men in town, was at sea during the day while the plant was running, and they were completely free of the disease.
    “And among the fishermen, there were many heavy smokers. The smoke actually all together,“says Knud Wilson.“While none of the housewives, who was suffering from lung cancer have never smoked a cigarette.”

    This fact made ​​it difficult for Canute Wilson to penetrate with his knowledge to the prevailing medical opinion in the capital – the one which was founded in 1950 by Richard Doll: That it is smoking, which causes up to 90% of all lung cancer.
    Strandby affair showed that this can not be true – the industrialization and the accompanying air pollution may play a much larger role. Especially in cities, says Knud Wilson.
    Although the factory closed in 1975, there are still new cases of lung cancer in Strandby, because dust particles get, according to Wilson lying in the lungs for many decades.“The last death occurred in 2010 – ie 35 years after the factory’s closure. We have just buried a homemaker lady mid 60s, who was born in Strandby, and who lived here in all the years of the factory,“he says.
    “There is no doubt that it is asfaltbabrikken, which cause lung cancer in this town. It is also recognized by the researchers who have gone through my study, for it is a clear clinical picture: The first cases of lung cancer came in 1968 – it was 15 years after plant start – and we’ve probably not seen the last event yet. One must remember that before 1968 there was no cancer in Strandby.“
    Knud Wilson died last month. I had never heard of either him or Strandby. I wonder why?
    “But Cancer Society hiding the truth about cancer. They run propaganda against the people’s lifestyle by delude them into thinking that cancer is their own fault. And so they earn even big money on it and retain most of the money itself. I’ve been promoting this criticism several times over the years and every time I get many comments from private physicians who agree with me, but who can not – or dare not – tell the meaning of the mountain opposite.“
    The first Doll and Hill study – the London Hospitals study – apparently included questions about asphalt, because at the time it was suspected to be a cause of cancer. But after collecting the data, they never published it. They only published the part about smoking. So nobody has any idea whether they found any link between asphalt and lung cancer. They don’t even seem to have bothered to look. Or perhaps they decided to bury it.
    It’s like a bunch of detectives producing all the evidence showing that their prime suspect was the guilty man, but none of the evidence exculpating the other suspects. It stinks

    The dramatic growth of lung cancer in the 1920s and 1930s was not at first attributed to smoking: the influenza pandemic of 1919 was sometimes blamed, as were automobile exhaust, dust from newly tarred roads, diverse occupational exposures (including tar and diverse polycyclic hydrocarbons), increasing exposure to X rays, exposure to chemical warfare agents during the First World War,..”
    “Automobility was growing even faster than lung cancer rates, which led some to suggest that engine exhausts might be the decisive factor.
    Roads were being paved at an accelerating pace: Günther Lehmann of Dortmund pointed out in 1934 that German road-tar production had increased from 3,000 tons in 1924 to 120,000 tons only five years later, a fortyfold increase.”
    “If physicians came to agee that smoking was such a universal and important cause of lung cancer, even in their work-patients, then liability and compensation suits by workers in the industries that did cause lung cancer in workers, such as coke, chromate, or asbestos production stood in dire jeopardy.”
    Coke Oven Emissions
    “Known to be a human carcinogen
    First Listed in the Second Annual Report on Carcinogens (1981)Carcinogenicity
    Coke oven emissions are known to be human carcinogens based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans that indicates a causal relationship between exposure and cancer in humans.
    Prior to 1950, there were numerous case reports that linked employment in coke production with cancers of the skin, bladder, and respiratory tract. Since then, several cohort studies conducted in the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, and Sweden have reported an increased risk of lung cancer in humans exposed to coke oven emissions.
    Smoking was accounted for in some of these studies and was not found to be a significant confounding factor.”
    A large cohort study of 59,000 steelworkers reported that lung cancer risk increased with increasing duration of exposure to coke-oven fumes or intensity of exposure. Several studies
    of coke plant workers have reported an increased risk for kidney cancer.

    An excess of cancer at other sites (prostate, large intestine, and pancreas) was reported in single studies (IARC 1984, 1987).
    Coke oven emission samples applied weekly to the skin of mice for up to 52 weeks caused malignant skin tumors. These samples also showed tumor-initiating activity in mice. Several inhalation studies, using coal tar aerosols generated by samples collected from coke ovens, caused both benign and malignant lung tumors in rats and mice, and skin tumors in female mice.
    Chemical analyses of coke oven emissions revealed the presence of numerous known carcinogens and potentially carcinogenic chemicals, including several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nitrosamines, coal tar,arsenic compounds, and benzene. In addition to these carcinogens, coke oven emissions contain several agents known to enhance the effect of chemical carcinogens, especially on the respiratory tract.
    The primary routes of potential human exposure to coke oven emissions are inhalation and dermal contact. Occupational exposure may occur during the production of coke from coal or while using coke to extract metals from their ores, to synthesize calcium carbide, or to manufacture graphite and electrodes.
    Workers at coking plants and coal tar production plants, as well as the residents surrounding these plants, have a high risk of possible exposure to coke oven emissions.”
    Angel H Roffo: the forgotten father of experimental tobacco carcinogenesis
    Robert N Proctor
    “Reasoning by analogy from the production of cancer using coal tars, he argued that the carcinogens in tobacco smoke must be the complex, tarry, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, rather than the (chemically simpler) inorganic constituents or the alkaloid nicotine.”
    The Urban Distribution of Lung Cancer Mortality in England and Wales 1980-1983
    “Lung cancer area mortality rates for the period 1980-1983 in England and Wales followed the pattern observed for previous years, with high rates concentrated in urban districts and low rates in remote rural districts”

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s