Candy flavoured smokes – here's the truth

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein

Apologies for the lack of posts recently, but other commitments have been demanding a great deal of my time. Things should settle back to a more regular routine in the next few weeks.

According to Canadian MP (Member of Parliament) and New Democratic Party health critic Megan Leslie. "Health experts agree that flavoured tobacco [products] are consumed by young Canadians as a stepping stone to consuming non-flavoured tobacco products . . . these things target young people." Uh-huh.

The inference, of course, is that little cigars are being marketed to children, which is a gross misrepresentation of fact. Because, whether flavoured or not, little cigars and other tobacco products are not being marketed to children. In fact, it's against the law to sell tobacco products to anyone under 19 years of age.

In most provinces in Canada, as in many other jurisdictions, 19 defines the age at which children legally become adults. And, that status allows them to sit in a bar and have a beer with friends who have also reached the age of majority. At 19, young adults can enter into legally binding contracts, serve in the Canadian Forces . . . and legally purchase tobacco products. It's quite legal for the kids of any age to lift a smoke from mom's purse and smoke it in front of the local high school.

Ms. Leslie's euphemistic use of the term “young people” to infer that little cigars are being marketed to children is disingenuous at best. Bullshit and bafflegab at its political best.

At any rate, Ms. Leslie has introduced a private member's bill to tighten the rules around the sale of flavoured little cigars.

By “tightening the the rules”, Ms. Leslie is referring to a federal ban on the sale of flavoured little cigars, passed in October, 2009 by Stephen Harper's Conservatives. The manufacturers of little cigars merely changed the product, altering the size slightly and removing the filters, to comply with the new law.

But, the facts are that the bill approved by the Harper government was based on lie. And the bill recently introduced by Ms. Leslie is being sold to the public based on the same litany of lies.

In announcing her bill, Ms. Leslie used a campaign slogan from a new anti-tobacco advocacy group, “cancer shouldn't come in candy flavours”. Catchy little shibboleth. "It's marketing to kids," she said.

But, let's look at the bill, and its intent, logically, without the emotionalism of the 'save the children' argument, to determine if the claim that these products are being marketed to children has any merit in the real world.

With few exceptions, advertising of tobacco products is almost non-existent in Canada. No cigarette (or little cigar) commercials on TV or radio. No billboards on the lawn of the junior high school proclaiming the joys of smoking cherry flavoured little cigars. No tobacco sponsors of sporting events or rock concerts.

You will, however, find lots of advertising for alcoholic beverages, especially beer, the perennial favourite of “young people” across Canada. In fact, I suspect many “young” Canadians are as familiar with some beer commercials as they are with the national anthem. There are even some young people who think a beer commercial is the national anthem.

And, there's lots of advertising for drugs, especially smoking cessation products that carry a warning to consult a doctor immediately if you should start thinking about throwing yourself in front of a fast moving train. Of course, jumping in front of a fast moving train will likely guarantee that you'll kick the smoking habit and remain smoke free for the rest of your life. The downside is that the rest of your life may be limited to a few brief minutes.

The point is, without advertising, it's pretty damn difficult to market anything to anybody.

In September, 2008, Harper promoted his bill to ban candy flavoured little cigars by holding up colourfully packaged little cigars. "These products are packaged as a candy, and this is totally unacceptable," Harper was quoted as saying. "This can't continue." Huh?

What the fuck does it matter how products are packaged? It's illegal to sell tobacco products to children, no matter how pretty a package they come in. And, children are not likely to see the pretty packages at any rate.

At the end of May, 2008, months prior to the passage of the bill banning flavoured cigars and their pretty packages, convenience stores and other retail outlets selling cigarettes and tobacco products were required to have those products hidden from view. Tobacco displays, referred to as "power walls" by anti-smoker zealots, had to be covered so that neither children nor adults are subjected to the sight of those ugly cancer sticks in the pretty packages.

So the only time the children are exposed to the pretty candy-like packages is when some politician holds them up for the TV cameras to show the public how much the pretty packages look like candy wrappers. Unless, of course, the kids are digging the pretty packages out of the garbage when adult smokers are through with them.

"Despite the ban, you can still find flavoured cigarillos on store shelves today." Leslie told the CBC. And, she's absolutely right.

But, she forgot to mention that children can't see them; it's illegal. Children can't buy them; that's also illegal. So banning little cigars because they come in pretty packing which might appeal to children is just plain stupid. Because the only people permitted to see, or buy, the pretty fucking packages are adults.

So, banning the legal sale of little cigars to adults, whether they come in pretty packages or not, will do nothing to prevent underage children from experimenting with tobacco products.

Sometimes (often), it seems that the anti-smokers zealots are overly eager to prove Einstein's observation that human stupidity is infinite.

SHS: little white lies or scientific fraud

A report prepared by a European group called the Smoke Free Partnership, completed in 2006, examined mortality allegedly due to secondhand smoke exposure in 25 nation states of the European Union. The report, titled “Lifting the smokescreen: 10 reasons for going smokefree”, concluded that “Second-hand smoke exposure kills and harms health”, noting that “Every worker has the right to be protected from exposure to tobacco smoke”.

The conclusions, of course, were not unexpected. The report was intended to convince politicians and policymakers in individual states in the European Union to commit to comprehensive smoking bans and other smoke free policies. And, the EU report was indeed used to justify the smoking bans recently imposed throughout Europe, including the ban implemented in France.

For years, anti-smoker zealots have used the “threat” of secondhand smoke to support the need for smoking bans in the workplace, including restaurants and bars.

Mortality statistics, deaths allegedly due to secondhand smoke, are frequently quoted in anti-smoker propaganda released through the main stream media. As often as not, the news stories appear to be written directly from the press releases issuing forth from the fanatics in the anti-smoker movement. The extravagant, often outrageous, claims made by the zealots are seldom challenged by the media.

Robert Molimard is professor emeritus of physiology and coordinator of the DIU of Tabacologie to the Faculty of Medicine Paris-South in France. A renowned tobacco researcher (tabacologist), Molimard took note of some discrepancies in the report which highlighted the number of deaths in France attributed to passive smoking.

Of particular concern to Professor Molimard were two tables presented in “Lifting the smokescreen”. The first asserted that there was a total of exactly 5,863 deaths allegedly due to secondhand smoke exposure in France in 2002. (identified as Table 6 in the report)

That's the figure most often used by anti-smoker zealots and their allies in the media, often rounded off to 5,000 or 6,000 passive smoking deaths. And, the inference is that these passive smoking deaths are among those who have never smoked.

However, Professor Molimard was quick to see the subterfuge; that the majority of those deaths occurred among smokers. “But what do we see when we revisit this study? We see that these 5,863 deaths include a majority of smokers!” he maintained in one interview. Uh-huh. Smokers are killing themselves with their own secondhand smoke, apparently after first having killed themselves by smoking. Or, perhaps they were killed by smoking after having already being killed by secondhand smoke.

At any rate, it's this frightening distortion of reality which clearly demonstrates the extent of the deceit perpetrated by the extremists.

This grossly inflated statistic points out another deception of the zealots. Looking at the chart we can see that, of those 5,863 deaths, it's apparent that only 314 of the alleged deaths occurred in the workplace, and only 25 in the hospitality sector.

But, there's more to the deception. Table 7 in the report estimates that deaths attributable to passive smoking among non-smokers is only 1,114, of which only 113 are allegedly due to passive smoking in the workplace. And, only six of those are ascribed to the hospitality sector.

But, the deception doesn't stop there. As noted by Professor Molimard: “And since ex-smokers represent approximately 40% of people who don’t smoke -- 48% and 52% [of non-smokers] are never smokers -- we then realize that the number of true non-smokers, who have never smoked, who will have a risk because of passive smoking in bars, hotels, restaurants, discotheques, these places where it is absolutely imperative to stop smoking because of the risks to the staff -- estimated using a scoop as a measuring tool -- is 2. ” Uh-huh.

So, the passive smoking deaths, as estimated in the EU report, included both smokers and former smokers. In addition, the vast majority, 5,574 of the 5,863 deaths allegedly due to secondhand smoke in the workplace, occurred not in the workplace, but from exposure in the home environment. Incredibly, only six were attributed in the hospitality sector. And, rough calculations by Professor Molimard suggest that fewer than half of those were never smokers.

France is a country of roughly 62 million people, with a smoking prevalence rate of between 21% to 27%, depending on who's quoting the figures. Yet, the anti-smoker zealots managed to convince their politicians that extremely restrictive anti-smoker legislation, which focused primarily on bars and restaurants, was needed to protect workers in the hospitality industry from secondhand smoke.

It's difficult to determine who is most at fault, the anti-smoker zealots who manufacture these fraudulent statistics to support their utopian goal of a smoker free society, or the brain dead politicians who blindly accept them without question.

And, the misrepresentation is not limited to France or the European Union.

It is a scenario being played out throughout the developed world. The economic costs, the loss in revenues experienced by restaurants, night clubs, bars, etc., occasioned by smoking bans, is ignored. The loss of jobs in the hospitality industry is ignored. The stigmatization of smokers, their social exclusion, and the blatant discrimination directed at them, is routinely ignored.

In France Professor Molimard, an anti-smoking advocate, is publicly trying to bring the deception to an end. But, as he notes in his interview: “My chances of success are very limited. “

And, he has a point - as long as the lies and deceit of the anti-smoker zealots go unchallenged in the main stream media, whether it's in France, the US, Canada, Great Britain or elsewhere around the world.


Notes:
The English version of an interview with Professor Molimard, translated by Iro Cyr, is available on the CAGE (Canadians Against Government Encroachment) website. The charts used in this blog entry came from the CAGE blog.

There's also a a second article by Molimard, discussing the same subject matter, on the CAGE blog. Beliefs, Manipulation and lies in the Tobacco Issue

Are electronic cigarettes safe? A health risk?

The press release declares: ”Electronic Cigarettes Are Unsafe and Pose Health Risks, UC Riverside Study Finds”.

The headline suggests the findings of a scientific study, conducted at UC (University of California) Riverside’s Stem Cell Center, are both definitive and unequivocal. “Electronic cigarettes are unsafe and pose health risks.” That's an explicit statement which leaves little room for doubt. The sub-heading, however, goes on to note that: “Safety evaluation of e-cigarettes is urgently needed, researchers say.” Huh?

Safety evaluation is urgently needed? That's not quite as clear cut or conclusive as the assertion that e-cigs are unsafe. So which claim is true? Do e-cigs pose health risks or not? And, the answer is . . . maybe yes, maybe no.

The press release quotes Kamlesh Asotra, a research administrator at UC TRDRP (Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program) which funded the study: "Justifiably, more information about the potential toxic and health effects of e-cigarette vapors is necessary before the public can have a definitive answer about the touted safety of e-cigarettes. Hopefully, in the near future, scientists can provide firm evidence for or against the claimed 'safety' of e-cigarettes as a nicotine-delivery tool."

But, if more research is needed, how did the scientists who conducted the study reach the conclusion that “Electronic cigarettes are unsafe and pose health risks.” Well, actually, they didn't.

The press release quotes Prue Talbot, whose lab conducted the research. "However, there are virtually no scientific studies on e-cigarettes and their safety. Our study – one of the first studies to evaluate e-cigarettes – shows that this product has many flaws, which could cause serious public health problems in the future if the flaws go uncorrected."

So, in summary, the study concluded only that flaws had been identified in the product which could cause unidentified public health problems at some future date if the flaws went uncorrected. And what “flaws” were identified by this scientific study.

The study concluded that “batteries, atomizers, cartridges, cartridge wrappers, packs and instruction manuals lack important information regarding e-cigarette content, use and essential warnings; E-cigarette cartridges leak, which could expose nicotine, an addictive and dangerous chemical, to children, adults, pets and the environment; Currently, there are no methods for proper disposal of e-cigarettes products and accessories, including cartridges, which could result in nicotine contamination from discarded cartridges entering water sources and soil, and adversely impacting the environment; and the manufacture, quality control, sales, and advertisement of e-cigarettes are unregulated.”

However, on closer inspection, the actual “hazards” identified appear to be rather trivial and easily remedied. In fact, some appear to be somewhat fatuous.

For, example, the contention that e-cig cartridges leak and could expose children to “nicotine, an addictive and dangerous chemical.” I've had only limited experience with the e-cig; Health Canada confiscated the additional cartridges I ordered, so I said to hell with it and went back to buying the real thing from the local First nations reserve. Much to the chagrin of my cardiologist, I might add.

But, in my brief experience, I've never had a cartridge leak. I suspect that some could leak, especially those designed to be refilled manually by the user. But the study seems to suggest that all cartridges leak which I firmly believe may be a misrepresentation of the facts.

At any rate, even the most innocuous of drugs, such as common aspirin, can be hazardous to children. And, responsible parents should not leave any hazardous material within reach of inquisitive youngsters. And that includes prescription and over the counter medications, household cleaning supplies, e-cigs and accessories and, yes, tobacco products, including matches and lighters.

The claim that “there are no methods for proper disposal of e-cigarettes products and accessories, including cartridges”, seems equally silly. How do you dispose of any other battery? How do people dispose of prescription medications when they're of no more use? What about pharmaceutical nicotine products, like gum or the patch? Do e-cigs really represent a unique challenge when it comes to putting them in the garbage?

Should quality control and safety standards be developed? Yes, by all means. Should further studies be done to consider the long term health effects? Yes, unequivocally. But, regulation should be based on science, not the fear-mongering propaganda which this “scientific study” represents.

The simple fact is that the anti-smoker brigade, led by the WHO (World Health Organization), has entered a partnership with the pharmaceutical industry. The drug companies provide financial support for anti-smoker initiatives and the fanatics protect the profits of the drug companies by ensuring they're the only available resource for smokers who want to cut back or quit.

“The strength of the Partnership Project lies in the fact that it has brought together three major pharmaceutical companies, Glaxo Wellcome, Novartis Consumer Health and Pharmacia & Upjohn, all manufacturers of treatment products for tobacco dependence, to support a common goal that will have a significant impact on public health.”

Clearly, it's in the best financial interests of the anti-smoker lobby (and big pharma) to ensure the drug companies maintain their monopoly on the NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) market. And, one way to do that is to discredit, and demand prohibition of, products which offer competition to their partners in the pharmaceutical industry.

Some prominent physicians and researchers, including many who are vehemently opposed to smoking, believe e-cigs have the potential to save lives, by helping smokers cut back, or perhaps quit entirely. Anti-smoking activists, like Dr. Michael Siegel, consider e-cigs safer and more healthy than conventional cigarettes.

As Siegel noted in a recent article: “I truly believe that the WHO is blinded by an ideology that views the very act of doing something that looks like smoking as evil, regardless of its actual safety. Electronic cigarettes could potentially save millions of lives throughout the world, since they appear to be much safer than cigarettes and to be an effective tool for smoking cessation .”

Yet anti-smoker zealots, including the WHO, are doing everything in their power to dissuade use of a product which might be of great benefit to smokers looking to give up the habit.

Of course, it's not about the money

Note:
For more information on electronic cigarettes visit the Tobacco Harm Reduction website operated by Carl V. Phillips and his research group.

Asthma rates decline due to less cigarette smoke?

There was an interesting headline in the Globe and Mail on Wednesday; it read: “Asthma rates decline among children; Statscan cites less cigarette smoke “

The article, by Jill Mahoney, claims that: “So few parents now smoke that there were not statistically significant differences in asthma rates between kids in smoking and non-smoking households between 2006-07 and 2008-09,” before going on to quote from the StatCan article: "This suggests that . . . adult smoking rates have become low enough that parental smoking has ceased to be [a] major cause of asthma in young children." That's quite a leap in logic.

But, there are a few problems with this “suggestion”. For example, according to the Asthma Society of Canada, the causes of asthma remain unknown. “Asthma is not contagious. While its causes are still unknown, researchers have determined that asthma can be caused by both hereditary (inherited) and environmental factors.”

So, in fact, parental smoking has never been identified as a “major” cause of asthma. Even the last US Surgeon General's report stated that evidence implicating secondhand smoke as a cause of asthma is merely suggestive.

And, the truncated quote from the StatCan article omits the claim by study author, Eleanor Thomas, that “reduced exposure to cigarette smoke contributed to declines in asthma over time.”

The full quote from the Statcan article reads: “Again, this suggests that reduced exposure to cigarette smoke contributed to declines in asthma over time, and that adult smoking rates have become low enough that parental smoking has ceased to be major cause of asthma in young children.”

That's two misleading claims based on that single quote, because Thomas is saying simply that the evidence suggests SHS exposure may have contributed to the alleged decline in asthma rates. But to do so, she ignores decades of previous data.

Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada has a chart showing that smoking prevalence began to decline in 1965 for men and about ten years later for women. Smoking prevalence rates have continued to fall for both men and women since 1975.

A “ fact sheet” from the Asthma Society notes that there was a dramatic increase in the incidence of asthma, beginning in 1980, which didn't level off until sometime after 2000. The Globe and Mail article points out this increase: “Researchers in western countries have generally found that asthma rates among children increased steadily for several decades before levelling off or even declining.”

The Asthma Society fact sheet also notes a dramatic increase in asthma rates during this period: “The prevalence of asthma among adults (15 years of age and over) has been increasing over the last 20 years. 1979 asthma incidence was 2.3 per cent, in 1988 it was 4.9 per cent, and by 1994 it had increased to 6.1 per cent of the population. “

Just to make it clear, asthma rates had been steadily increasing at the same time that smoking prevalence had been falling. And, declining rates of smoking prevalence, coupled with smoking bans in public places, including public transportation, should have resulted in reduced exposure to SHS beginning around 1975. Shouldn't we have seen at least some slight decline in asthma rates during that time frame, rather than such a sizable increase (roughly 165%).

Yet we have a claim by the study author that her study “suggests” that reduced exposure to cigarette smoke contributed to declines in asthma over time.

The real question is why the incidence of asthma went up in the first place. Smoking can't be tagged as the cause of the phenomenal increase in asthma rates between 1979 and 2000/2001; smoking prevalence was declining during that same period.

And, claiming that Thomas was only considering asthma rates for children ages 2 to 7 won't justify the claim that reduced exposure to SHS contributed to the recent decline. As noted in her article, “The prevalence of asthma among children aged 2 to 7 rose steadily until 2000/2001 and then fell.” Asthma rates were increasing across the board, in all age groups.

The Globe and Mail article includes another quote from the study: "A wide range of environmental factors, including reduced exposure to cigarette smoke, may have contributed to these trends."

That's an accurate quote from the study summary.

However, there's another quote in the body of the StatCan article which elaborates: “A number of environmental factors may be related to the recent declines in childhood ear infections and asthma: changes in the population structure; changes in diagnostic practices; decreases in the prevalence of respiratory allergies; improvements in air quality; changes in hygiene practices (particularly, in child care settings); and reductions in children’s exposure to cigarette smoke at home. An investigation of most of these factors is beyond the scope of this paper, but the possible role of exposure to cigarette smoke can be considered.”

So, the evidence, as related by Thomas and the Globe and Mail, is only one of many potential factors which may have contributed to the decline. What should we make of this study and the blaring headline that declining rates of asthma in children are the result of reduced cigarette smoke?

No investigation was made to explain the tremendous increase in asthma rates at the same time smoking prevalence was declining. No investigation was conducted to determine the role of the numerous other factors which may have contributed to the apparent decline among children between 2 and 7 years old. They were “beyond the scope of this paper”.

No comparison was made between asthma rates pre-1980, when smoking prevalence was high and almost all kids would have been exposed to SHS. The comparison was made between rates of asthma in 2000/2001, when the increase in asthma rates had apparently peaked, and 2006/2007 when the first downward trend was noted.

It's difficult to believe that the decline in smoker prevalence from 1975 onwards had no affect on the incidence of asthma until 2006/2007, and then, only among those aged 2 to 7.

Objective science? Or a blatant attempt to justify smoking bans and smoker denormalization? You be the judge.

Obesity as an “infectious” disease . . . serious science?

It appears that obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the US and could infect 42% of the population sometime within the next 40 years. Yes, the key word is infect. "It looks like obesity is becoming more infectious," said Alison Hill, a graduate student at the Harvard-Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Sciences and Technology, during an interview with Reuters. Uh-huh.

And, of course, they have a “scientific study” to support their prognostications, the findings of which are reported in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS Computational Biology.

According to an article in Reuters, “U.S. government researchers in January said 68 percent of U.S. adults are considered overweight, having a body mass index or BMI of 25 or higher, and a third are obese, having a body mass index of 30 or higher.”

The Reuters article, by Julie Steenhuysen, notes that: “Being overweight or obese raises the risk of heart disease, diabetes, some cancers, arthritis and other conditions,” before going on to note that: “Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10 percent of medical spending in the United States or an estimated $147 billion a year.”

What's that you say? It's nobody's business if some overweight junk food junkie wants to eat themselves into an early grave.

But, that's where you're wrong, friends and neighbours. What about the economic burden placed on the rest of society? That $147 billion will likely triple in size when lost productivity, caused by fatties calling in sick after eating too much the night before, is taken into account. And, weren't you just told that your fat friends could infect you with their, er . . . fat contaigon?

Did you think this was a joke?

Another scientific study, also from Harvard, reported in 2007 that if someone's friend becomes obese, that person's chances of becoming obese increase by more than half. According to Hill, the study is based on the idea that obesity can spread like an infectious disease and people can catch it from their friends. Huh? An infectious disease? Like swine flu or typhoid, maybe? And they have a scientific study to prove it?

Isn't science grand? And, I'll bet you dollars to donuts (preferably from Tim Horton's) that Ms. Hill made the infectious disease claim with a straight face.

But, this must be serious stuff. US First Lady, Michele Obama, noted at the launch of her “Let's Move”, multi-billion dollar anti-obesity campaign, in February, 2010, "The physical and emotional health of an entire generation and the economic health and security of our nation is at stake."

The economic health and security of the nation?

OK. I believe maybe she over-stated the case just a trifle.. But, I think the First lady was recommending school programs to encourage healthy eating and promote physical activity, thereby reducing the number of kids (”nearly one in three children in America”) thought to be overweight or obese.

However, I don't believe she intended to advance the proposition that the kids should drop their plump friends for fear of becoming infected with the “fat virus”. Unfortunately, when the fanatics start churning out their questionable scientific studies, legitimate public health concerns often take a back seat to gross exaggeration, sickening silliness and outright bullshit.

The lunatic fringe is always ready to climb aboard the bandwagon promoting the latest public health scare. They just love to tell other people how to live their lives. For their own good, of course.

Recently, San Francisco became the first major U.S. city to pass a law that prohibits giving away free toys with unhealthy meals for children. The idea is to “promote healthy eating habits while combating childhood obesity”. No more Happy Meals, lest the kids start putting on the pounds and infecting their friends and classmates.

Earlier this summer, the Center for Science in the Public Interest threatened to sue McDonald's if it didn't stop using Happy Meal toys to “lure” children into its restaurants.

A couple of weeks back, Ontario's Minister of Health Propaganda, Margaret Best, threatened to have KFC's new sandwich, the “Double Down” prohibited in Ontario because of it's high fat, high sodium content.

The Robert Wood Johnston Foundation is reducing the amount they spend on denigrating and demeaning smokers. Instead, they've committed $500 million to combatting obesity. And, they probably won't stop until the kids are hunkered down behind a dumpster, surreptitiously gorging themselves on black market Twinkies and washing them down with contraband Coca-Cola.

The pharmaceutical industry will be laughing all the way to the bank as demand grows for appetite suppressants and anti-fat vaccines in the wake of the new war on obesity.

But, if the science proves that obesity is a communicable disease . . .

Obesity may well be a legitimate public health concern. But suing fast food joints and banning happy meals is not going to resolve the problem. Neither is junk science.

Enough of the bullshit and bafflegab; time to add “scientific credibility” to the long list of oxymorons.

Bloomberg's smoking ban and his lies of omission

New York City mayor, Michael Bloomberg, and city health officials are proposing a smoking ban in city parks and other outdoor areas. A Globe and Mail article, announcing the proposed ban notes: “Officials cited a May, 2007, Stanford University study that found a person sitting within three feet of a smoker outdoors can be exposed to levels of secondhand smoke similar to indoor levels.”

The Stanford study has been identified by WeHo, a West Hollywood news organization, as the first peer reviewed, scientific study on detecting outdoor secondhand smoke levels in exposed persons. Outdoor Tobacco Smoke, or OTS, is a phrase apparently coined by the authors of the Stanford study to refer to secondhand smoke in an outdoor environment.

The study noted that there was a “lack of empirical data on outdoor tobacco smoke (OTS) levels” which impeded OTS exposure and risk assessments. Simply put, there was no scientific evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke in an outdoor environment represents any significant health hazard. Without accurate data, there can be no reliable assessment of the health risks posed by exposure to OTS. The ridiculous claim that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS has no credibility.

Still, despite the lack of data, the study concluded: “Based on our results, it is possible for OTS to present a nuisance or hazard under certain conditions of wind and smoker proximity.”

But, those “certain” conditions were never mentioned by the mayor, or city councilwoman, Gale Brewer, the sponsor of the proposed ban. And, those conditions strongly suggest that there's no need, from a public health standpoint, to ban smoking outdoors. The study notes:

“The overall average OTS respirable particle concentration for the surveys of public places during smoking was approximately 30 g/m3. OTS exhibited sharp spikes in particle mass concentration during smoking that sometimes exceeded 1000 g/m3 at distances within 0.5 m of the source. Some average concentrations over the duration of a cigarette and within 0.5 m exceeded 200 g/m3, with some average downwind levels exceeding 500 g/m3.”

Distances within a half metre (0.5m) of the source? That means a non-smoker would have to be within 20 inches of a smoker to be exposed to the highest amounts of particle mass concentration, or the average concentrations noted in the study. How many people would feel comfortable allowing a stranger in such close proximity in a park setting, whether that stranger was smoking or not?

Why would a non-smoker remain in such close proximity to a smoker long enough to increase risk? And, remember, the alleged risks associated with secondhand smoke exposure are based on prolonged daily exposure over several decades.

And, it has to be noted that those spikes in particulate matter were not only confined to a space within 20 inches of the source, but they existed only when downwind of the smoker. For, the study also notes that: “OTS levels in a constant upwind direction from an active cigarette source were nearly zero.”

In other words, if a non-smoker was within kissing distance of a smoker, and the prevailing wind was blowing in his/her direction and the smoker was exhaling smoke directly in his/her face, they might be exposed to volumes of secondhand smoke similar to those found indoors.

In addition, the Stanford study actually points to the means by which a non-smoker could avoid any exposure to secondhand smoke. “OTS levels also approached zero at distances greater than approximately 2 m from a single cigarette.” Uh-huh.

Two metres is roughly six and a half feet. To avoid any exposure to the particulate matter in secondhand smoke, all a non-smoker would have to do is take a few paces in the opposite direction. That's right. The non-smoker could simply walk away.

So, although the study concluded that, “During periods of active smoking, peak and average OTS levels near smokers rivaled indoor tobacco smoke concentrations,” it's clear those levels could be reached only if the non-smoker is in extremely close proximity to, and downwind from, a smoker.

And, even then, there is little or no data to suggest that the amount of exposure would be sufficient to actually cause harm. A similar study, published by University of Georgia Athens (UGA) researchers in November, 2009 found “increased levels of SHS in the study subjects, but not levels considered to be risky”.

So, the New York City health department's claim that “57 per cent of nonsmoking New Yorkers have elevated levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine, in their blood” means absolutely nothing. Elevated levels can only determine that a non smoker was exposed to secondhand smoke at some time during the past two to three days; not that the levels of exposure are prolonged or sufficient to demonstrate a legitimate health concern.

It's clear that the evidence does not support the contention that exposure to secondhand smoke in an outdoor environment represents any kind of health hazard to non-smokers. Which means the proposed ban in New York City parks, and those in other jurisdictions which have already imposed similar bans, have absolutely nothing to do with public health.

But, that's not really surprising.

The WeHo news article referenced above, notes: ”Half a dozen LA County municipalities have banned smoking near their outdoor dining facilities, with a few banning it from publicly-owned property - sidewalks, medians etc. - across their city entire. All did so citing public health concerns, but none did so based on scientific evidence that secondhand smoke (SHS) near an outdoor area poses a health risk.”

The Stanford study used to support New York's proposed outdoor ban provides very flimsy evidence on which to base such an intrusion on personal liberties. It does not support the theory that secondhand smoke in an outdoor environment is a health hazard, except possibly under the most extreme scenarios. And, even then the potential risk is negligible.

But, smoking bans in parks and on beaches have been passed, and are being promoted, in jurisdictions across the US and Canada despite the lack of any relevant scientific evidence.

Instead, they're based on the same bullshit and bafflegab employed by anti-smoker fanatics for decades. Propaganda by any other name . . .

Lung cancer, smoking & statistical chicanery

The Lung Cancer Alliance (LCA), as noted in my last post, claims the majority (60%) of new lung cancer cases in the US occur among former smokers, with roughly 21% occurring in current smokers and 18% among those who have never smoked. The information is provided in a neat little chart on their website.

I noted in a previous post that the same site claimed that former smokers (45 million) in the US now outnumbered current smokers (40 million), suggesting this was a recent phenomenon in the US. I really didn't give the numbers much thought. If 35% of lung cancer cases occurred in an estimated 21% of the population (smokers), and only 15% among never smokers (55% to 60% of the population), then it still indicated a strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer.

But, these latest figures from LCA gave me pause. The gap between lung cancer cases among current smokers and never smokers appeared to be narrowing as the number among former smokers increased.

And, although the fact that former smokers outnumber current smokers may be a recent phenomenon in the US, (is that possible?) it certainly isn't in Canada. Data from Health Canada's last report on smoking attributable mortality clearly shows that former smokers far outnumber current smokers in every age bracket.

But, Health Canada data doesn't tell us how many current, former or never smokers die from lung cancer. They speak only of smoking attributable deaths and those ostensibly from other causes.

To be sure, extrapolating data from the US to Canada can be a hazardous proposition, as Health Canada found out a couple of year ago. In 2008, they were forced to revise their smoking attributable deaths downwards from roughly 47,000 to 37,000 because the US data they were using was not appropriate for the Canadian population.

Still, I thought it might be interesting to apply the numbers from the Lung Cancer Alliance to the Canadian mortality data from StatCan to see if a reasonable estimate could be made as to the number of lung cancer deaths in each of the three smoker classifications in Canada.

Not surprisingly, applying the Lung Cancer Alliance estimates to the Canadian mortality data paints an entirely different picture than the one presented by Health Canada's smoking attributable mortality figures, as noted in Chart 1.

It's not that the total smoking attributable deaths varied by a huge amount In fact, using the Lung Cancer Alliance percentages actually increases the estimates given by Health Canada by roughly 4%. Of course, the LCA calculations would be reduced somewhat since a small portion of those current and former smokers would be expected to die whether they smoked or not, reflecting the numbers expected in a never smoking population.

But, what was most perplexing was the ratio between deaths among current and former smokers when using the LCA percentages. In fact, those ratios practically eliminated the strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer. The number of lung cancer deaths among current smokers would be only slightly higher than the number among never smokers, despite similar population sizes. Which, in turn, brings into question the anti-smoker claim that “men who are current smokers are 23 times more likely to die of lung cancer than men who have never smoked.”

And, it also suggests that quitting smoking is not the deterrent to lung cancer the anti-smoker crowd claims.

I know what you're thinking. That's ridiculous. But, before dismissing this possibility as unrealistic balderdash, perhaps we should have a look at the smoking attributable mortality report from Health Canada and what it shows.

Almost 99% of all lung cancer deaths in Canada (2002 data) occur after the age of 45. But, at no time after the age of 45 is the percentage of former smokers less than double the number of current smokers. And the ratio between former smokers and current smokers increases cumulatively as the population ages. You may be a smoker for 5, 10 or 20 years, but you're a former smoker for life.

Looking at the male component in the age group between 45 and 59, we see that former smokers already outnumbered current smokers by roughly 2 to 1, as can be seen in Chart 2. In the age group between 60 and 69, where 28% of lung cancer deaths occur, the ratio between former smokers and current smokers is almost 4 to 1. In the age group between 70 and 79, where 36% of lung cancer deaths occur, the ratio is 7 to 1. And, in the age group 80 and over, where 20% of lung cancer deaths occur, the ratio is a whopping 9 former smokers for every current smoker.

The ratios are only slightly less for the female population, ranging from almost 2 to 1 between the ages of 45 and 59 to a high of roughly 6.5 to 1 in the population 80 and over.

Given these high ratios between former and current smokers, is it really unreasonable that former smokers might account for 50% to 60% (and, possibly more) of lung cancer deaths in Canada? Think about it.

In 2002, roughly 56% of lung cancer deaths were among the population aged 70 or older. In that same population, former smokers outnumbered current smokers by at least 7 to 1 for men, over 4 to 1 for women, and in the over 80 crowd, the ratio was 9 to 1, for men and 6.5 to 1 for women.

Common sense would suggest that the vast majority of those deaths occurred among former smokers, many of whom would have quit decades earlier.

So, just what conclusions can be drawn from this highly speculative foray into the maddening world of smoking attributable mortality.

And, the answer is: absolutely none. I'm neither an epidemiologist nor a statistician. And, this little exercise, as previously noted, is highly speculative. It is also postulated on the belief that smoking related statistics are grossly exaggerated and manipulated to the point where they're totally unreliable, which may introduce an element of bias.

But, it sure as hell raises a lot of questions which deserve answers. And, unfortunately, I don't expect that any will be forthcoming from either Health Canada or the rest of the anti-smoker crowd.

Of course, that's just the opinion of a rapidly aging old rambling man.

Yet another smoking ban miracle study

According to a study published by the CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) and distributed widely by the Canadian news media, hospitalizations for cardiovascular and respiratory conditions dropped significantly after a restaurant smoking ban came into effect. The claim is that there was a 17 per cent drop in hospitalizations due to heart attacks in Toronto and a nearly 40 per cent decrease in hospitalizations for cardiovascular events in general.

Imagine that. Another smoking ban miracle . . . right here in my own back yard.

At any rate, according to study authors: “We calculated crude rates of admission to hospital in Toronto, Ontario, from January 1996 (three years before the first phase of a smoking ban was implemented) to March 2006 (two years after the last phase was implemented.”

That may not be entirely correct. The ban implemented in 1999 was meant to integrate already existing by-laws which were in effect when Toronto and five surrounding municipalities were amalgamated to form the new mega-city of Toronto.

And, as noted by the study authors, the smoking ban was implemented in stages. Effective 1999, smoking was restricted in public places, including restaurants, bars, billiard halls, bingo halls, bowling alleys, casinos, slots, etc. But, DSAs (Designated Smoking Areas) occupying maximum 25% of floor space were acceptable.

In June, 2001, more stringent rules were implemented in restaurants and bowling alleys with only designated smoking rooms (DSRs) permitted. Then, in June, 2004, following the anti-smoker tactic of incrementalism, the DSR rule was applied to all venues; restaurants, bars, billiard halls, bowling alleys, casinos, slots, etc. DSRs were restricted to a maximum 25% of seating area/floor space. In bingo halls, DSRs were restricted to a maximum 50% of floor space.

That right, folks, under the no smoking by-law enacted in 1999, right up until 2006, smokers were still being allowed to come in from the cold.

So what does this study actually show? If the partial bans were working so well, why was it necessary to toss smokers into the street?

Study authors note that “crude rates of admission to hospital because of cardiovascular conditions decreased by 39% and admissions because of respiratory conditions decreased by 33% during the ban period affecting restaurant settings. No consistent reductions in these rates were evident after smoking bans affecting other settings.”

But, these declines took place over a 10 year period. So, the average annual decrease in hospital admissions was 3.9%, 3.3% and 1.7% for cardiovascular disease, respiratory conditions and myocardial infarction respectively.

The study also notes that it has not proven a causal relation and acknowledged that the type of study used could not be restricted to the non-smoking population. “However, the ecological design of this study prevents the delineation of individual smoking status and other individual-level information, such as actual exposure to second-hand smoke and other risk factors (e.g., prior acute myocardial infarction and other comorbidities).”

The authors are quite frank in admitting that the study has its limitations; that smoking bans are only one factor involved in the observed decline in hospital admissions. Additional factors include increases in taxes on tobacco, tightened restrictions on advertising, the addition of graphic warnings to cigarette packaging and removal of smoking-related products from point-of-sale displays.

The point is simply that the decrease in hospital admissions may have resulted from factors other than the smoking ban.

But, as usual in these kinds of studies, the very real inadequacies in methodology and interpretation become all too apparent when they come under the scrutiny of knowledgeable experts in the field. And, the experts aren't convinced that the study has merit.

For example, anti-smoking advocate Dr. Michael Siegel notes on his blog that: “There are huge problems with this study.”

Siegel notes on his blog that similar declines in admissions for cardiovascular disease occurred in both cities used as controls in the study (Thunder Bay and Durham Region).

Hospital admissions for angina in Durham dropped by 53% between 2001 and 2004. A similar trend was evident in Thunder Bay where admissions for angina dropped by 43% between 2000 and 2006. Quipped Siegel: “The same reasoning used by this paper to conclude that the smoking ban led to the observed decline in angina in Toronto would also argue that the 53% decline in angina admissions in Durham Region was attributable to the absence of a smoking ban.”

Also ignored in the study was the fact that stroke admissions in Durham declined by 47% from 2000-2006. And, from 2003 to 2006, there was a 28% decline in heart attack admissions in Thunder Bay. So we have similar declines in hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease in the Lakehead and Durham, despite the fact that neither community had smoking bans in effect.

According to Siegel: “The rest of the story is that we have yet another study purporting to show a dramatic and immediate effect of smoking bans on acute cardiovascular event admissions which turns out to be severely flawed. In this case, the data presented in the paper (or at least in the appendix) not only fail to support the study conclusion, but they actually refute that conclusion.”

Yet few media accounts commented on these aspects of the study. They largely ignored the limitations noted by the study authors themselves, and focused on the more sensational, seemingly larger numbers over the ten year period of the study, concluding that “smoking bans may be paying big health dividends.” They simply ignored evidence suggesting that they may not do anything of the kind.

What this study points out is that the anti-smoker brigade is desperate to show that smoking bans have a significant beneficial impact on public health.

And, this one, like so many others in recent years, just doesn't cut it.

Secondhand smoke & asthma - a definite maybe

If you visit any website dedicated to the control of asthma and asthma symptoms, you will usually find reference to the fact that asthma has been increasing at an alarming rate over the past three decades.

A report released by the EPA in 2003 reported that “the percentage of children getting asthma has doubled in two decades, rising from 3.6 percent in 1980 to 8.7 percent, or 6.3 million children by 2001.”

According to an article from the Associated Press at that time: “Researchers don’t know exactly why asthma is increasing among children, but a number of factors in air quality, both outdoors and indoors, have been studied. Those range from exposure to dust mites, cockroaches and pesticides to tobacco smoke, ground-level ozone from cars and soot from diesel engines.”

Early on, the anti-smoker crowd were quick to pounce on secondhand smoke as a major factor in both the onset of asthma, and the exacerbation of asthma symptoms, especially among children. But, the rapid increase in the incidence of asthma at a time when smoking prevalence was declining should have been cause to re-evaluate the strength of the association between smoking and the onset of asthma. Of course, it wasn't.

Instead, a report entitled “ Passive smoking and children” was recently released by the Tobacco Advisory Group of the RCP (Royal College of Physicians) in the UK. Under a section with the heading, “The costs of passive smoking in children”, this august body of health scare professionals claims that: “The cost of providing asthma drugs for children who develop asthma each year as a result of passive smoking up until the age 16 in the UK is approximately £4 million.”

That's a pretty definitive statement. And, it's presented with such authority that people could almost be forgiven for believing it. After all, the public has been conditioned by anti-smoker propaganda to accept the most outrageous claims without question. And, it does come from a reputable body of health care professionals.

Still, the claim raises a few questions.

For example, to determine even an approximate value of drugs provided to children who develop asthma as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke, you have to know how many children will actually develop asthma from passive smoking. And, to do that, they would have to know how many children were exposed to secondhand smoke and what percentage of new asthma cases could be attributed to passive smoking.

And, that's something they can't know.

Even the “experts” aren’t entirely sure why some people develop asthma and others do not. The most they can say is that asthma, a chronic respiratory condition, is partly caused by an individuals genes. Studies involving twins suggest that 50% to 80% of a child’s asthma risk is due to genetic factors.

And, a visit to several web sites dealing with asthma suggests there is no evidence whatever that secondhand smoke causes asthma. In fact, most sites are pretty forthright and openly admit that the causes of asthma are unknown. Even the US Surgeon-General, in his 2006 report, admits that: “The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.” Uh-huh.

The Surgeon-General's 2006 report also notes: “The evidence is not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma”.

So how could those learned gentlemen at the Royal College of Physicians calculate the cost of providing drugs for SHS induced asthma if they can't even show, with any degree of certainty, that asthma is caused by exposure to secondhand smoke?

The numbers are purely speculative; they have no basis in fact. They would be no more or less accurate if they had simply been plucked from somebody's posterior.

The RCP report also claims that: “Passive smoking in children costs at least £9.7 million each year in UK primary care visits and asthma treatment costs, and £13.6 million in UK hospital admissions.”

But, on what evidence do they base these figures?

Just how does a doctor determine that secondhand smoke, and not another of the numerous triggers, caused an asthma attack? Do parents of asthmatic children bring their kids to hospital claiming their children are having difficulty breathing due to an asthma attack caused by Mom or Dad forcing them to inhale secondhand smoke? Really?

There are likely asthmatics out there, both children and adults, who have a strong reaction to secondhand smoke. But, most parents, including smokers, will come to know what triggers cause a child's adverse reaction and seek to avoid them. The inference that smoking parents are somehow less caring or more irresponsible than non-smoking parents is pure unadulterated bullshit.

These wild, exaggerated claims are little more than blatant fear-mongering meant to score a few cheap political points. They're intended to support the anti-smoker contention that smoking in private homes needs to be banned to “protect the children.”

I wonder if the RCP can tell us how many hospital admissions for asthma are caused by exposure to pet dander, household cleaners, dust mites, automobile exhaust, etc? Can they tell us the annual drug costs associated with those asthma triggers?

Yeah. I doubt it too.

PS By the way, responsible parents should not allow their asthmatic children to watch too many comedies on TV . Old reruns of the 3 Stooges and the Roadrunner should also be avoided. Laughter is major asthma trigger.

SHS, multi-unit dwellings & anti-smoker deceit

I'm retired. But, for the last sixteen years I've been involved with a volunteer board of directors charged with the administrative and financial oversight of the housing co-op in which I live. For 13 years of those years, I've been president of the board. No big deal.

I go into the office two or three times a week to see if there's anything which requires my attention or the attention of the board. Sometimes I even go into the boardroom to check my mail. Important stuff, from our auditors, the government, etc. comes directly to my home. So, mostly what finds its way into my mail slot is flyers and newsletters from an assortment of housing organizations and salespeople.

Like the flyer announcing the “2010 Winter Education Event” sponsored by CHFT (The Co-operative Housing Federation of Toronto). The front page invited members to “Join us for an exciting and informative day of workshops and networking opportunities.”

The flyer listed a number of workshops on such issues as: Dealing with Conflict, Financial Checklist for Boards, Preventing Fraud, etc. Through the years I'd attended similar workshops on most of the topics and I saw no need for a refresher on any of them. But, there was one that looked interesting. It was called “Smoke-Free Buildings”. Uh-huh.

According to the flyer, the workshop was to include information on the health effects of secondhand smoke, relevant Ontario legislation, how to adopt a non-smoking policy, etc. The facilitator was not named, merely identified as someone from the Non-Smokers Rights Association. Registration for the one-day event was only $75.00 for two workshops of your choice (plus lunch). I decided to attend.

Damn.I really should check my office mail on a more frequent basis. I'd missed the registration date. I missed a perfect opportunity to learn first-hand how this anti-smoker organization cons people into believing that “many [non-smokers] are unwillingly exposed [to secondhand smoke] in their own homes.”

It would be interesting to know how many is “many”? And, to just how much secondhand smoke are the “many” exposed? Can secondhand smoke really penetrate solid walls? Go through standing water? Travel against the wind? Do they really expect to prove that there is “no safe level” of exposure to secondhand smoke in a court of law?

The anti-smoker element would have the public believe that secondhand smoke is a major health hazard in multi-unit dwellings; that non-smokers are dropping like flies after being subjected to a whiff of secondhand smoke from smoking neighbours. They would have the public believe that there is a huge public outcry against smoking in multi-unit buildings.

And, they rely on the irrational fears of some non-smokers to perpetuate the myth. Fear generated by their own anti-smoker campaigns of deceit and deception. They offer no evidence that secondhand smoke represents a serious health hazard in MUDS (Multi-Unit Dwellings). They ignore any and all potential solutions except smoking bans.

So, just how great is the demand for smoke-free housing?

A survey commissioned by Health Canada in 2007, and conducted by Decima Research, notes that “When it comes to smoke actually seeping or drifting into personal living spaces, almost two-thirds (64%) indicate they have never experienced this, and 15% say it rarely happens. Residents of condos are the most likely to say they never experience seeping or drifting smoke (85%).” Residents of basement apartments are most likely to experience smoke seeping into their unit (12%).

That's right. Four in five residents of MURBS (multiple unit residential buildings) have rarely or never experienced smoke drifting or seeping into their unit.

Of course, nobody wants to live in a building where people are allowed to smoke in their unit. Right?

Well, no! According to the Decima survey, “Only about one in twenty indicate they’d prefer to live in a building that did not allow smoking in any residential units (6%); in some residential units (6%); or in outdoor common areas (5%.) Finally, a fraction of respondents (roughly 2%) said they’d prefer to live in a building where smoking is not allowed on balconies or patios.”

In fact, “Almost three quarters of Canadians agree that people who smoke tobacco products should have the right to do so in their own home. Close to one half (44%) of Canadians indicate they completely agree that smokers have the right to smoke in their own home, and a further 30% mostly agree.”

It appears the Non-Smokers Rights Association is not responding to a problem; they are actively engaged in creating a problem, or more appropriately, creating the perception of a problem.

And, they're being ably assisted by Health Canada in their propaganda activities.

A brief article on the CAGE (Canadians Against Government Encroachment) website notes that the Non-Smokers Rights Association recently received $656,666.00 in funding from Health Canada for, among other things, “hosting smoke-free multi-unit dwellings (MUDS) workshops and consultations with housing providers and tenants; developing a Quebec specific smoke-free MUDS website; researching municipal by-laws and provincial legislation on second-hand smoke; and, developing fact sheets for outreach with the public.”

So, Health Canada is actually using taxpayer dollars (including my tax dollars) to support a campaign of discrimination against 20% (including me) of Canada's population.

$656,666.00 in public funding. With little or no public accountability.

Note: For other articles on this issue, see:
Secondhand smoke goes thru walls
Secondhand smoke and MUDS

The nicotine patch; new study finds limited value

According to anti-smoking advocate, Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health, “a generally accepted value for long-term one-year abstinence with unaided quitting is somewhere around 3% or 5%.”

In other words, for every 100 smokers who try to quit cold turkey, only 3 to 5 will go without a cigarette for a year or more. Of course, that doesn't mean they won't relapse and go back to smoking at some point beyond the year. So, while I don't subscribe to the theory that nicotine is as addictive as cocaine or heroin, there's no disputing that smoking is a habit that's hard for many people to shake.

Presumably, that's why the anti-smoker crowd, including doctors, are so keen on pushing NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy). The nicotine patch, nicotine gum, nicotine lozenges, etc, ostensibly offer a greater chance of success in smoking cessation than going cold turkey. Or, at least, that's what they'd have you believe.

Every anti-smoker group in Canada (and around the world, it seems) touts the benefit of NRT for smoking cessation. The Non-Smokers Rights Association, Physicians for a Smokefree Canada, The Canadian Lung Association, they all push NRT products as if they were not only the best way to quit smoking, but the only way.

Even government agencies like Health Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Health Propaganda are acting like pitchmen for the pharmaceutical industry. But, is it true? Does NRT offer a better chance of success to those who want to quit? Or, are the high priests of the anti-smoker cult foisting off yet another lie on an unsuspecting public?

In a recent post on his blog, Tobacco Analysis, Dr. Siegel claims: “New study shows that even extended Nicotine Replacement Therapy is extremely ineffective; unaided quitting rates are far better.” In fact, his analysis of the study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, concludes that: “even with continuous use of the nicotine patch for six months, very few smokers were able to stay off cigarettes long-term.”

So, just how many of the 568 subjects in the study of nicotine patch therapy were able to achieve continuous one-year abstinence? Only five; a dismal 0.8%. Less than one in a hundred were able to go without a cigarette for a full year using the patch.

The success rate of NRT, or lack of it, has been a matter of debate for many years. That's why the new ads for the patch recommend that it be used in combination with nicotine gum, or some other NRT product, to increase the chances of success.

And, in the past, the patch has usually been recommended for an eight week course of therapy. But, since the success rate has been so disappointing, the drug companies are looking to extend that period to six months. Of course, they'd need a “scientific” study to demonstrate that prolonged drug therapy would actually deliver on their promise of greater efficacy.

And, not surprisingly, their latest study does just that. “Transdermal nicotine for 24 weeks increased biochemically confirmed point-prevalence abstinence and continuous abstinence at week 24, reduced the risk for smoking lapses, and increased the likelihood of recovery to abstinence after a lapse compared with 8 weeks of transdermal nicotine therapy.” Huh?

What that means, after wading through the bullshit and bafflegab, is that 24 weeks of NRT was more effective than eight weeks in keeping subjects smoke free over 24 weeks. Ignored was the fact that less than one per cent of the study subjects were able to remain smoke free for a year or more and that NRT is far less effective than quitting cold turkey.

As a matter of fact, Dr. Siegel notes in his analysis that the research shows that NRT is “terribly ineffective” in achieving smoking cessation ”and is probably a waste of time and money on a population basis.”

So, not only is the patch less effective in bringing about smoking cessation than quitting on your own, it can be a damn sight more expensive.

Consider this. A package of 14 Nicoderm patches sells for roughly $50. Over 24 weeks, that comes out to about $600 per quit attempt. And, there are 5 million smokers in Canada. If all the smokers in Canada developed a sudden urge to quit, using the patch, the total cost would be in the neighbourhood of 3 billion dollars. But, only 40 thousand of those smokers would manage to give up the habit for a year or more. The remaining 4.96 million become repeat customers for the patch and other NRT products. Of course, you won't see those statistics in drug company ads.

But, if the patch and other NRT products are so inefficient in inducing smoking cessation, why is the anti-smoker crowd, including government agencies, so intent on foisting these relatively useless products off on the public? Do they want smokers to quit? Or simply to switch their nicotine habituation from cigarettes to the patch, gum and lozenges?

There's no denying that using the patch over an extended period of time will enhance the already substantial profits of the drug companies from the sales of NRT. And, the pharmaceutical industry provides a great deal of funding for the anti-smoker cult, including doctors and researchers.

And, Siegel also points out on his blog that: “The senior author of the study has a severe financial conflict of interest as she has served as a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline, one company that manufactures the nicotine patch. She has also served as a consultant or has received research funding from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Novartis.”

Maybe the anti-smoker crowd has grown dependent on pharmaceutical funding. Just like the lead author of this latest propaganda effort masquerading as science.

Smoking is addictive; get help to quit?

It's said that, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will eventually believe it. And, the bigger the lie, the more likely people will be to accept the falsehood as the truth. Nowhere is this bromide more apparent than in the Alice in Wonderland world of the anti-smoker.

For example, one of the common myths perpetuated by the anti-smoker crowd is that smoking is addictive, and that smokers are simply incapable of quitting on their own. They need help to quit. The concept of nicotine as addictive is re-invented with every incarnation of the holy crusade against smoking.

To be sure, the concept has been embellished upon, and exaggerated, through the years, but it's still the same old lie.

Nowadays, the anti-smoker crowd will tell you that nicotine is as addictive a substance as cocaine or heroin. Of course, to prove their theory, they had to redefine addiction. And, they've had to ignore (or conceal) all evidence to the contrary. But, because the public has been conditioned to believe the lie, through many decades of repetition, it was easy to sell them on the idea that smoking was as addictive as mainlining or snorting hard drugs.

To understand just how pervasive the lie has become, take the following statement: “Trying to quit the tobacco habit unaided is a losing fight against heavy odds, and means a serious shock to your nervous system. So don’t try it! Make the tobacco habit quit you. It will quit you if you just take Tobacco Redeemer according to directions.” Uh-Huh.

So, what is “Tobacco Redeemer”? A brand new smoking cessation product from Pfizer or Glaxo-Smith-Kline to add to their list of nicotine replacement therapies and anti-smoking drugs? Well, to be honest, I've been unable to find out much about the stuff. You see, the assertion comes from an ad in the December,1919 issue of Popular Mechanics. According to one source, it was a medicine manufactured by the Newell Pharmaceutical Co. of St. Louis, Missouri.

Surprising, isn't it, how long the anti-smoker fanatics have been with us? And, the snake oil salesmen peddling smoking cessation products are even more likely to be working for the pharmaceutical industry as they were ninety years ago.

And, the reason is simple. The pharmaceutical industry profits handsomely from the sale of smoking cessation products such as Zyban, Chantix and NRT products (or Tobacco Redeemer). Or, to reiterate another cliché: “Follow the money.”

I suspect that a full page ad in Popular Mechanics was just as expensive ninety years ago as the blurbs for smoking cessation products you see several times a night on TV. And, the manufacturers of Tobacco Redeemer were no more interested in public health than they are today. Their motivation then, as now, is profit.

To be sure, the pharmaceutical companies are riding the coattails of another growth industry – the anti-smoker cartel, but their motivation is the same; turn a profit and keep the shareholders happy. The massive funding of the anti-smoker movement by the drug companies is simply another marketing tactic. It's an investment they hope will pay off in increased sales.

The anti-smoker cartel created the need, quitting smoking, and the pharmaceutical industry is prepared to fill that need . . . and to fill corporate coffers at the same time.

Anti-smoker advocate Simon Chapman, noted in a recent article that: “In 2006, the global nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) market was estimated at $1.7 billion. The pharmaceutical industry places more messages about quitting in front of smokers than any other source: in the USA, smokers see 10.37 pharmaceutical cessation advertisements per month compared with 3.25 from health agency messages. The constant megaphoning of the idea that quitting requires drugs is causing a rather spurious tail to wag a large banished dog carrying an important message.”

That's a lot of advertising. And, $1.7 billion is a lot of sales.

But, as Chapman also points out in his article, “studies repeatedly show two thirds to three quarters of permanent ex-smokers stop unaided and about half find it easier than anticipated.” In other words, the vast majority of smokers who quit, did so without drugs.

Or, as Chapman says: “The good news on cessation is treated almost like a state secret. There are no campaigns highlighting that most ex-smokers quit unaided despite globally hundreds of millions having done so. Among my colleagues, unassisted cessation is rarely researched, instead framed in studies often funded by the pharmaceutical industry as a challenge to be eroded by persuading more to use drugs.”

But, the efficacy of smoking cessation products is even more dismal than Chapman admits. The failure rate of smoking cessation products has been estimated by some at more than 95%. (Quit Smoking)

Yet, the belief that it is difficult, if not impossible, to quit without help is being fraudulently perpetuated by the the anti-smoker cartel. The Canadian Cancer Society, Non-Smokers Rights Association, Physician for a Smokefree Canada and even government agencies like Health Canada, maintain the myth and actively promote the use of smoking cessation drugs.

It's a situation which can, and does, carry with it some serious negative consequences. The message, constantly repeated, is that giving up the habit requires medical intervention in the form of drug treatment. The message betrays the truth; the vast majority of quitters can do so on their own.

And, the constant repetition of the anti-smoker mantra makes it all the more difficult, for those who wish to do so, to quit. The message subverts their confidence in their own inner strength, forcing them into an unnecessary drug regimen.

Unfortunately, the truth also undermines the marketing strategies of the pharmaceutical industry. And, any drop in sales of smoking cessation drugs jeopardizes the funding of the anti-smoker industry. So . . .

The myth lives on.

More anti-smoker hysteria! third hand smoke

There's a sucker born every minute.
Each time the second hand sweeps to the top,
Like dandelions up they pop,
Their ears so big, their eyes so wide.
And though my tale is bonafide baloney,
Just let me spin it,
And ain't no man who can resist me, wait and see..
Cause there's a sure-as-shooting sucker born a minute,
And friends the biggest one excluding none is anyone
Who buys the bullshit and bafflegab of the anti-smoker crowd.
Author Unknown

OK. So, I modified the last two lines, and it doesn't rhyme, but I'm sure you get my point. What else could you call someone who takes third hand smoke seriously. OK. So maybe we could call them gullible for starters. Simpleton might be a valid descriptor, or buffoon.

Unfortunately, some of the people buying into this nonsense are actually well educated. Some of them need more than their fingers and toes to calculate their IQ. Like the doctor who, when asked how long third hand smoke clung to the furniture and draperies, responded with scientific precision, “A long time.” Uh-huh.

God forbid I should ever have to rely on her for medical care for anything more severe than a hangnail.

The latest third hand smoke insanity . . . er, study, reportedly cost over $700,000. This incredibly expensive piece of propaganda was conducted at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. The experiment involved impregnating cellulose substrates with pure nicotine vapour, then applying nitrous acid to see if the reaction created carcinogens in the form of tobacco-specific nitrosamines. These refugees from a loony bin in Berkeley weren't interested in testing a hypothesis, they were hell bent on supporting the contention that third hand smoke was a health hazard.

At any rate, they found that nicotine, when combined with nitrous acid, produced TSNA's (Tobacco Specific Nitrosamines). The main indoor sources of nitrous acid are from unvented combustion appliances such as gas stoves or wood fireplaces. So modest levels of nitrous acid are likely to be present in many homes. Smoking, of course, can also produce nitrous acid because it is a product of combustion.

But, to produce TSNA's of even microscopic proportions, they had to use concentrations of nicotine and nitrous acid which far exceeded anything likely to be found in the average home. And, as author Chris Snowdon notes in an article in the Free society, “if your house or car is full of nitrous acid then you have more to worry about than it reacting with absorbed nicotine.”

The study is being heavily reported in the main stream media, along with suitable comments from health scare professionals. “Third-hand smoke found in hair and on clothes can be as dangerous as the fumes billowing directly from a cigarette – particularly to babies and children.”

But, the study did not prove anything remotely resembling harm to anyone, including children.

They proved that sufficient quantities of pure nicotine vapour (not tobacco smoke residue) when mixed with sufficient quantities of nitrous acid caused a chemical reaction which produced barely measurable levels of some TSNA's. And, since the quantities of both nicotine and nitrous acid were magnified far beyond normal, all they really proved was that there was a chemical reaction when the two were combined.

They did not show that secondhand smoke residue was found in significant quantities in the homes of smokers, that so called third hand smoke was hazardous without the influence of nitrous acid, or that there was a degree of risk posed to toddlers licking floors which are, apparently, never cleaned. Just how many square feet of floor does a toddler have to lick to make him ill?

Yet, according to most news accounts, it's third hand smoke and the multiplicity of allegedly deadly chemicals they contain, which are the danger. And, they're already burying our kids, figuratively speaking.

The real solution to any potential hazard of third hand smoke will be denied by the anti-smoker crowd and ignored by a gullible public. Just keep the kids to hell away from research facilities while they're conducting their fraudulent experiments. That way, they'll never be exposed to a quantity of third hand smoke sufficient to do them any harm.

The only real worth of this particular study is in its propaganda value. It allows the anti-smoker cult to link secondhand smoke residue (now called third hand smoke) with the safety and well-being of children. It allows the cultists to twist and distort the reality and instill an irrational fear of smokers in the minds of parents in particular, and the public in general. It will allow the cultists to justify otherwise unjustifiable discrimination against smokers.

Just like the studies on secondhand smoke, it is meant to create the perception of harm while ignoring the reality of the science.

I'll finish with a quote purloined from the pages of The Smoker's Club Newsletter. Elizabeth Whelan, M.D., President, ACSH (American Council on Science and Health) and anti-smoking advocate: "There is such a phenomenon as third-hand smoke. There's no evidence whatsoever that it's hazardous to health, but as an aesthetic matter, it's quite noticeable if you're sitting next to someone on a bus who reeks so badly of smoke that you are nauseous. Still, being able to smell something doesn't mean it will give you cancer or any other disease."

"I can't believe we've reached the phase in anti-smoking hysteria that we're now worried about carcinogenic effects of third-hand smoke. When are we going to get to fourth-hand smoke?"

Dr. Whelan should check out the latest rambling from Leg Iron over at Underdogs Bite Upwards. We're way past fourth hand smoke.

New data on smoking prevalence & consumption

In a previous post (OK, in several previous posts), I commented on government's refusal to admit that their tax-gouging policies have been an abject failure. They were not accomplishing the stated goal of reducing cigarette consumption, especially among young people.

Instead, with the growing availability of contraband, young people have greater access to cheap smokes than ever. Tobacco retailers are unable to compete with the cheaper product and suffer serious economic harm. And, despite the highest levels of tobacco taxation in Canadian history, governments at both senior levels lose billions in tax revenue.

Confiscatory tax policies create a climate which allows the black market to flourish, increasing policing costs and introducing unregulated, potentially contaminated product to the market. Smuggling, theft, hijacking, the participation of organized crime; all accompany punitive taxes imposed by governments.

Anti-smoker activists have convinced governments around the world that a policy of high taxes is the best way to reduce smoking prevalence. They've been warned repeatedly, by economists and policy analysts, that escalating tobacco taxes can quickly become ineffective and actually do more harm than good.

In 1994, the Canadian government was forced to confront the issue when high tobacco taxes encouraged a thriving black market. The federal government lowered taxes to a more reasonable level and five of Canada's ten provinces introduced similar tax reductions.

The burgeoning market in contraband quickly ground to a halt.

The anti-smoker fanatics, displeased with Ottawa's decision, immediately began lobbying to re-instate the punitive taxes. Lower taxes would cause smoking prevalence to skyrocket, they claimed. And, first to be hurt would be the children who, encouraged by the lower cost, would take up the habit in significant numbers.

The lobbying efforts of the anti-smoker brigade appear to have paid off. By 2000, governments at Queen's Park and Ottawa had begun the steady escalation of sin taxes . . . and the contraband problem, once again, became a serious issue.

Last September, Ontario MPP (Member of Provincial Parliament) Toby Barrett introduced a private member's bill to lower tobacco taxes in Ontario. He was shot down Said Revenue Minister John Wilkinson: "We are with those who believe that we need to get our smoking rates down (and) that taxation is an effective deterrent.”

But, is Wilkinson's claim supported by the facts?

Michel Gadbois, Executive Vice-President of CCSA (Canadian Convenience Stores Association).claims it is not. And, he claims he has the evidence to prove it. Said Gadbois: “Let’s stop pretending that lowering excessive taxes encourages smoking: it is absolutely false and plain to see in the Statistics Canada survey done at Health Canada’s request.”

He was referring to a report prepared by HEC Montreal for the CCSA. The report is based on data in “the biggest study in the country to date examining the effects of decreased tobacco taxes, namely the 1994-1995 Statistics Canada Survey on Smoking in Canada.”

Apparently, following the reduction in sin taxes in 1994, Health Canada commissioned a study by StatCan to explore the issue of whether lowering taxes would significantly impact smoking prevalence rates. They were obviously anticipating a significant increase in smoking prevalence following the tax reduction, likely assuming the data would support that contention.

Because Health Canada wanted data collection to begin immediately, it was decided that the survey would focus on cigarette smoking only. The HEC Report claims the idea was ”to get into the field as quickly as possible and be able to measure any changes in smoking resulting from the decrease in taxes on cigarettes which took place in early February [1994] in certain provinces.” Among the major objectives was to measure the effect of price on prevalence and on amount smoked, and to measure these items in ways that were “consistent with past surveys and planned future surveys.”

But, the StatCan survey data, apparently, did not support anti-smoker claims that lower taxes would increase consumption or smoking prevalence and the survey was buried.

It's unclear how HEC came into possession of the StatCan data. But a press release was issued on January 13, 2010, announcing the report from HEC Montreal.

It is customary for the anti-smoker crowd to dismiss contradictory evidence as the work of the tobacco industry or their “front groups”. But, it will be difficult for them to question the HEC Report on those grounds. It was prepared by Jean-François Ouellet, a well qualified associate professor at HEC Montreal, which is, in turn, a highly regarded business school independently affiliated with the University of Montreal.

And, it will be even more difficult to explain why the StatCan survey data was never made public, given its potential impact on government policy in this area.

The HEC study, entitled “The failure of tax policies to curb tobacco consumption: Results of the 1994 Statistics Canada Survey on Smoking”, observes that: “A statistical test on smoking patterns conducted in some provinces having lowered tobacco taxes and others who did not, does not reveal a statistically significant link - smoking patterns were not significantly lower in the provinces that did not decrease taxes compared to the provinces that did (in fact, the opposite shows a link).”

Also noted in the HEC Report was the fact that, among the five Canadian provinces which reduced taxes, three, including Canada's most populous province (Ontario), had quit rates above the Canadian average.

Another excerpt from the report: “Repeating this comparison while looking at the effects of the tax system on the difference in the number of cigarettes smoked per day during the survey period, the same results appear: no significant difference is observed in the provinces where taxes are decreased and those where they are not.”

In a not so surprising twist, the completed StatCan survey has never been acknowledged or published by Health Canada.

And, if the conclusions of the HEC Report are dependable (there is no cause to suspect otherwise), the reason Health Canada kept the StatCan study under wraps becomes clear. Because it seems to demonstrate, quite convincingly, that higher tobacco taxes do not effectively force adults to quit or deter young people from adopting the habit.

That fact demonstrates, quite clearly, that penalizing taxes are not about public health. It is about punishing smokers and filling government coffers. It shows that Health Canada is not interested in studies which contradict or question the rhetoric of the anti-smoker cult. They will publicize only research that favors anti-smoker doctrine.

And, Canadian tobacco consumers are expected to pay the price.