Smoking imagery in movies causes kids to smoke

A recent press release from Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada (PSY) claims that 44% of Canadian teenagers 15 to 19 years of age who smoke, do so because of exposure to smoking in the movies. Uh-huh. Just seeing Bruce Willis or Sigourney Weaver light up on screen is “causing” tens of thousands of Canadian teenagers to become depraved nicotine addicts; destined for death . . . eventually.

The made for media report, released August 19, estimates that 130,000 teenage Canadians who currently smoke were “recruited” by their exposure to smoking in the movies, and that 43,000 will die prematurely from smoking. The study offered no prognostication for the remaining 87,000, but I think we can safely assume that they too will die . . . eventually.

The report, commissioned by PSY, is titled: “Tobacco Vector: How American movies, Canadian film subsidies and provincial rating practices will kill 43,000 Canadian teens alive today — and what Canadian governments can do about it.”

The anti-smoker cult claims seeing actors smoke in movies sends the message that smoking is normal and even commonplace. This, in turn, encourages young people to have a more positive view of smoking and smokers. And, that is simply unacceptable. Kids must be taught that smokers are filthy, foul smelling degenerates.

The report makes the incredible assertion that: “If young people were not exposed to smoking in movies, there would be about 130,000 fewer Canadian teenagers smoking.” And, of course, 43,000 deaths could be prevented over the next 70 years or so. Uh-huh.

Statistics, properly used, can be a wonderful tool. But . . .

Unfortunately, statistics can also be manipulated to mangle the facts and obscure the truth. Used by the unscrupulous, they can be a deliberately deceptive propaganda tool.

For example, Table 1 (page 1) in the PSY study notes that 13.8% (304,000) of teenagers between 15 and 19 are current smokers. Of that number, 44% (134,000) are caused by exposure to smoking imagery in the movies according to study author Jonathan Polansky.

Both the table and the study itself focus on the 44%, suggesting that a very large percentage of teenage movie goers are corrupted by on screen smoking. But, that's not the case. The data suggests that only 6% of teens will become “established” smokers because they've been “exposed” to smoking imagery in the movies. And even that number is highly speculative.

Think about it! Use a little common sense and don't be buffaloed by the bullshit and bafflegab. Only 13.8% of the teenage population are current smokers and less than half that number (roughly 6% of the total teenage population in that age group) are susceptible to the threat allegedly posed by on screen smoking.

But, that means only 1 in 16 teens exposed to on screen smoking adopted the habit. Does that really suggest the problem is kids seeing someone light up in the movies? Why weren't the other 15 influenced by watching those same movies? Are they somehow immune to smoking imagery? If 1 in 16 drivers who drove red cars ended up in an accident, would it be hailed as proof that red cars caused accidents?

Or, are we expected to believe that the 87% who didn't become smokers, or the 7% who were motivated to experiment with cigarettes for other reasons, were never exposed to smoking in the movies? On television? Were the 6% who took up smoking after seeing actors light up on screen exposed to smoking only in the movies? Did they never see adults or their peers smoking in the real world? Were they never offered a cigarette by friends or relatives?

As is usual with anti-smoker studies of this kind, a careful reading results in more questions than answers.

The Canadian study is not, in fact, a new study. To come up with their estimates, they simply applied the data from studies conducted in the US to the Canadian population. Those studies counted the number of “tobacco incidents” (the appearance of tobacco use, a tobacco product or a brand trademark) in a motion picture. By conducting a survey of what movies teens had seen, they were able to establish a correlation between the number of tobacco incidents and the teens who became “established” smokers. An established smoker is defined as anyone who smoked more than 100 cigarettes in his/her lifetime.

So, we have a study which suggests that 1 in 16 (roughly 6%) teenagers will become established smokers solely through exposure to on screen smoking imagery. The other 94% are apparently unaffected by seeing people smoke in films. There can be no comparison done to to determine how many teenagers who have not been exposed to smoking in the movies or on television will become established smokers, because no such animal exists.

In fact, we have a bunch of anti-smoker fanatics demanding censorship of film based on little more than idle speculation.

Seeing actors smoke on screen may cause kids to view smoking as normal or even common place. But, then again, the reality is that roughly 20% of the population smoke. And, removing smoking scenes from movies denies that reality.

But, I wonder . . .

If smoking imagery in the movies can entice kids to smoke, how many slasher movies would a teenage boy have to see before donning a mask and chasing girls with a butcher knife a la Michael Meyers? Or go berserk with a chain saw?

Enstrom (and science) under attack . . . again

In 2003, a study published in the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) declared no association was found between secondhand smoke and lung cancer or chronic heart disease mortality among non-smokers.

The findings of James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat were highly controversial because they contradicted the existing consensus (the popular view) that secondhand smoke caused lung cancer and chronic heart disease. In fact, the study was greeted as heresy by anti-smoker crusaders.

The BMJ was flooded with letters from anti-smoker activists criticizing the journal for publishing the study. Enstrom and Kabat were assailed because their research had been completed with funding from the tobacco industry. Treated as traitors to the cause, they were attacked on a personal, rather than a scientific level. The relative merits of the scientific evidence presented by these two reputable and respected researchers were barely discussed.

So fierce was the attack on Enstrom and Kabat that it prompted two researchers, Sheldon Unger and Dennis Bray, to write a paper entitled “ Silencing the Science”. They concluded that scientific debate is being stifled for political motives rather than the advancement of science.

And, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that Unger and Bray have a solid case; that legitimate research is being suppressed when it does not conform to commonly held theories. In fact, there is evidence that some research is being squelched, not by contesting its scientific validity, but by ad hominem attacks on those who conduct the research.

Some scientists appear fearful of publishing or otherwise expressing public opposition to the general consensus for fear of retribution from vindictive colleagues who will not tolerate dissenting opinion.

For example, in May of this year, Professor Phillipe Even, former president of the reputable Necker Research Institute in France, publicly expressed his doubts about the real harm of secondhand smoke, saying: “Clearly, the harm [of secondhand smoke] is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.”

When asked why he had not spoken out earlier, Professor Even noted: “As an official, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was given the obligation of confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I had to pay the consequences.”

And, the consequences can be severe: loss of research funding, character assassination and loss of reputation, difficulty having research published and even dismissal from employment. If well-respected scientists like Professor Even can be intimidated into remaining silent on such matters, it suggests that significant pressure is being brought to bear to stifle legitimate scientific debate to advance political goals.

Recently, Professor Enstrom was dismissed from his position at UCLA School of Public Health; a position he has held for 34 years. Officially, his firing had nothing to do with the 2003 study by he and colleague Geoffrey Kabat on the alleged hazards of secondhand smoke. The primary reason given for his firing was that his research was “not aligned with the [Environmental Health Sciences] department's mission” to explore the relationship between environmental exposures to toxic air contaminants and human health.

Enstrom published a paper in 2005 that showed no evidence of premature deaths in California due to exposure to PM 2.5, microscopic specks of particulate matter thought to kill thousands in California each year. CARB (California Air Resources Board) is in the process of setting stringent regulations covering diesel exhaust for the trucking industry. The rationale for the regulations is numerous studies which claim PM2.5 from diesel exhaust is life threatening.

Once again, Enstrom's research conflicts with the commonly held (popular) view. And, once again, he is under attack for publicly iterating those views. In his own defense, Dr. Enstrom stated: “My work isn't about being politically correct, it's about honest research and being faithful to the science."

In an article on his blog, Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health, notes: “Dr. Enstrom was denied the opportunity to present his side of the story to the faculty. He was not permitted to present his research on fine particulate matter and mortality. He was not permitted to testify in his own defense. This is a breach of both due process and justice.”

In fact, several who have written articles commenting on this case have noted that a secret vote, taken among faculty members in his department, resulted in Enstrom's removal.

But, it should not be forgotten that Enstrom has been under attack since his 2003 study on secondhand smoke was published in the BMJ. Despite his strong anti-smoking sentiments, he has been branded a lackey of the tobacco industry and efforts have been made to have some funding sources (yes, the tobacco industry) refused at UCLA.

And, there was a rather telling comment from one his colleagues.

Beate Ritz, a leading air pollution scientist at UCLA, has apparently admitted that she hadn't even read Enstrom's latest report on air pollution. But, based on his 2003 findings that second-hand cigarette smoke doesn't kill people, she said she knows him "for letting his interpretations go beyond the data and his personal biases to be strong enough to not allow for a balanced and appropriately cautious interpretation of the numbers."

It is neither unfair, nor unreasonable to suggest that Enstrom's 2003 study on secondhand smoke was partially responsible for his dismissal; that some petty dictators were simply waiting for an excuse to punish Enstrom for breaking ranks with the anti-smoker element at UCLA and the wider academic community.

I know what you're thinking. Just why in hell should anyone give a rat's ass that some highbrow research scientist got the sack? The political machinations within the scientific community don't mean jack to the man in the street.

Wrong.

Scientific research is increasingly being exploited by special interest groups and politicians as the basis of public policy formation. This is especially true in the case of public health policy. And, if the science isn't open to debate; if legitimate research is dismissed simply because it doesn't conform to popular theory, then society as a whole suffers.

And, if pressure, no matter how subtle, is being applied to researchers to tailor their findings to popular theory as espoused by those with power and influence, then the science becomes corrupted; scientific credibility is diminished.

Bad science results in bad public policy. And that affects everyone. Ask any smoker as he/she stands outside, exposed to the cold and damp, to enjoy a fag.

SHS can double risk of fatal heart disease

The headline from a June 16, 2010 article from Reuters states: “Second-hand smoke can double risk of fatal heart disease: study”

Curious? Well, yes . . . considering the fact that the best any other study to date has been able to show for an increased risk due to exposure to secondhand smoke is about 30%. And, that includes the highly controversial 1993 meta-analysis conducted by the US EPA.. Health Canada uses a RR (Relative Risk) of 1.24 to calculate IHD deaths allegedly due to secondhand smoke exposure.

The headline refers to a study conducted by researcher Dr. Mark Hamer, University College London, and published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. There's no doubt it will get attention, but I suspect it's unlikely to win any “truth in advertising” awards.

If this study shows a two-fold risk of dying from heart disease, then it suggests that exposure to secondhand smoke is as great a risk as active smoking.

Also curious is the amount of secondhand smoke exposure required to cause this doubling of risk? Because it takes a lot. Literally. The lead-in to the story claims: “People who breathe in a lot of other people's tobacco smoke are twice as likely to die from heart disease as those exposed to lower levels of "secondhand" smoke, according to a British study.”

Of course, Dr. Hamer and his colleagues don't use the highly speculative terminology (a lot) used by Reuters. They use the much more precise scientific measurements “high” and “lower” as in: “Researcher Dr. Mark Hamer said analyses restricted to never-smokers found that high secondhand smoke exposure was associated with more than a two-fold increased risk of dying from heart disease. A "high" level of exposure, Hamer explained, would be equivalent to living with a smoker and getting exposed to secondhand smoke pretty much every day.” Uh-huh.

So, have these people been smoking something a little stronger than Camel Lights? Or, is this simply another example of blatant fear-mongering from the anti-smoker crowd and their spin-doctoring allies in the media?

Maybe a quick look at the study abstract will throw some light on the subject. But, then again, maybe not.

The results of the study tell us that: “High SHS was associated with . . . CVD death (age-adjusted HR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.73)." Which is close to the RR of 1.24 used by Health Canada in their IHD calculations. Which is not double the risk of CVD. In fact, with a spread of “0.85 to 1.73”, it doesn't even achieve statistical significance. Something which obviously doesn't concern the real scientists in the anti-smoker crowd. If there are any real scientists in the anti-smoker crowd.

So, are “people who breathe in a lot of other people's tobacco smoke” twice as likely to die from heart disease as those exposed to lower levels of "secondhand" smoke?

Readers will have to make up their own minds. But, I'll be filing this one under “Bullshit and Bafflegab”.

Also in the news, this time from the Daily Mail in the UK, “Mother who has never smoked a cigarette has terminal lung disease because of her parents' 60-a-day habit”. Uh-huh.

According to the article, Lynda Mitchell (pictured above), a 52 year old mother of one, is dying from COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), but has always despised tobacco. She blames her illness on her parents who each puffed 60 cigarettes a day. Lynda is quoted in the article as saying: “If I hadn't been surrounded by smoke I think I would have been a lot better. I wouldn't be sat here talking to you about dying.”

The problem here is that, as far as I'm aware, there is no conclusive evidence that secondhand smoke exposure causes COPD. And, I'm fairly sure that, if such evidence existed, Health Canada would have included COPD deaths due to SHS exposure in their smoking attributable body count. They don't. At least not yet.

But, one can expect a plethora of studies to surface, compliments of the anti-smoker zealots, supporting Mitchell's allegations.

According to an article at About dot com, “The American Lung Association estimates that it will be the third-largest cause of worldwide death by 2020. This means that the number of patients who present themselves to the healthcare system with COPD is also increasing.”

So, the incidence of COPD is increasing while smoking prevalence and exposure to SHS are declining. Interesting. And, strange.

Another item to be filed under Bullshit and Bafflegab.

Anti-smoker propaganda from Harvard professor?

To help compensate for declining cigarette sales, RJ Reynolds Tobacco introduced several new smokeless tobacco products. They include Camel Orbs, which come in the form of a pellet designed to “melt in the mouth", Camel Sticks, a twisted stick the size of a toothpick and Camel Strips, a dissolvable film strip which is placed on the tongue. All include various concentrations of nicotine. And, sales are restricted to adults.

Advertised as a cigarette substitute which can be enjoyed “anywhere, anytime and anyplace”, these new nicotine delivery products have raised the ire of hypocritical anti-smoker bigots who claim the new products are being marketed to children. Dr. Jonathan Winickoff contends: “the tobacco industry was creating novel products partly to entice and addict a new generation of smokers to replace those who die”. Dr. Winickoff had his first fifteen minutes of fame as the inventor of third hand smoke.

The anti-smoker brigade also claims that Orbs pose special risks to young children who may be poisoned by ingesting the pellets and the nicotine which they contain. And, of course, they have a scientific study to prove it.

The study was conducted by Gregory N. Connolly, a professor with the Harvard School of Public Health and was published on-line by Pediatrics (The official journal of the American Association of Pediatrics).

But, Connelly's peer reviewed and published study is a masterpiece of misdirection and propaganda.

From the study abstract: “This study examines child poisonings resulting from ingestion of tobacco products throughout the nation and assesses the potential toxicity of novel smokeless tobacco products, which are of concern with their discreet form, candy-like appearance, and added flavorings that may be attractive to young children.”

From the beginning, there is an attempt to link Orbs with accidental child poisonings from the ingestion of “tobacco products”. The inference is that a substantial number of these child poisonings resulted from ingestion of Orbs or similar “novel” products because of their “candy-like” appearance. But, the study itself shows nothing of the kind.

The study continues its effort to link child poisonings with Orbs, with the “results” of the study: “Smokeless tobacco products were the second most common tobacco products ingested by children, after cigarettes, and represented an increasing proportion of tobacco ingestions with each year of age from 0 to 5 years (odds ratio: 1.94 [95% confidence interval: 1.86 –2.03]). A novel, dissolvable, smokeless tobacco product with discreet form, candy-like appearance, and added flavorings was found to contain an average of 0.83 mg of nicotine per pellet, with an average pH of 7.9, which resulted in an average of 42% of the nicotine in the un-ionized form”. Huh?

First, they cite statistics on child poisoning due to smokeless tobacco products, then follow immediately with a scientific analysis of the nicotine content of Orbs. A deliberate attempt to link the two?

But, the study data could not possibly include Orbs or any of the other recent smokeless products. The study was based on data retrieved from 2006 to 2008, before RJ Reynolds began to test market their new product line in 2009. Linking the study data on child poisoning with the nicotine content of Orbs is deceptive and misleading. It deliberately infers that one is the cause of the other. And that is simply not true.

Child poisoning from the ingestion of tobacco products broke down like this: cigarettes – 77% (10,573); smokeless tobacco products – 13% (1,768); cigars -1% (167); other/unknown – 9% (1,197). No deaths were reported. Just to put those numbers into context, in 2006, poison control centers in the US reported about two million unintentional poisoning or poison exposure cases with 703,702 emergency department (ED) visits. And, In 2005, there were 23,618 unintentional deaths from poisoning.

And, smokeless tobacco products are not defined in the study? Are they talking about chewing tobacco? Snuff? Snus? Why is the reader misled to believe that it includes Camel Orbs and other “novel” products? And, what in hell is the other/unknown category? If it's unknown, how do they know the poisoning was caused by a tobacco product?

The study concludes: “In light of the novelty and potential harm of dissolvable nicotine products, public health authorities are advised to study these products to determine the appropriate regulatory approach.” Uh-huh.

But, the only evidence that “dissolvable nicotine products” like Camel Orbs represent a hazard is this: “At least 1 case of ingestion of Orbs by a 3-year-old child (Oregon Poison Control Center, personal written and oral communication, July 27, 2009) and 2 cases of mild poisonings in children 2 and 3 years of age resulting from ingestion of snus . . .”

That's right folks. Only one reported case of child poisoning from Orbs since it's release a year ago. (And, since they singled out two cases of child poisoning from snus, should we assume snus was not included under smokeless tobacco products in the study data?)

The study notes that Orbs come in “child-proof” containers, but dismisses the fact as irrelevant ” . . . adults might take multiple pellets out of the container for convenience and unknowingly leave them where infants or children might find and ingest them.” Uh-huh.

But, they ignore similar pharmaceutical products like the Commit lozenge and the new Nicorette Mini Lozenge which also come in flavoured, candy-like form and contain similar amounts of nicotine. Are these somehow less hazardous because they're sold by the drug companies?

Why blame the tobacco companies for the empty-headed behaviour of a few parents? Like leaving cigarettes or ashtrays full of butts around where inquisitive toddlers and young children can get at them. Are they equally nonchalant about common household cleaning agents and prescription (or over-the-counter) medications?

Connelly is quoted in the New York Times as saying: “Nicotine is a highly addictive drug, and to make it look like a piece of candy is recklessly playing with the health of children.”

He may be right. But . . . disguising bullshit and bafflegab as legitimate science is no less disingenuous or dangerous.

Climategate: objective science or fraud?

There was an Interesting article (Nov 26) by Lorrie Goldstein in the Toronto Sun on Climategate. He opined that: “Big Government, Big Business and Big Green don't give a shit about "the science”, before concluding, “They never have."

Said Goldstein: “What "climategate" suggests is many of the world's leading climate scientists didn't either. Apparently they stifled their own doubts about recent global cooling not explained by their computer models, manipulated data, plotted ways to avoid releasing it under freedom of information laws and attacked fellow scientists and scientific journals for publishing even peer-reviewed literature of which they did not approve. “

Goldstein also had some criticism for the press: “Now they and their media shills -- who sneered that all who questioned their phony "consensus" were despicable "deniers," the moral equivalent of those who deny the Holocaust -- are the ones in denial about the enormity of the scandal enveloping them.”

What struck me was the similarity between Goldstein’s appraisal of global warming and the science used to promote it, and my own evaluation of the anti-smoking cartel comprised of government, the drug companies and the anti-smoker industry (also known as tobacco control and/or public health).

For example, earlier this year, anti-smoker activists published an article in the European Journal of Public Health accusing those who do not accept the causal relationship between secondhand smoke and lung cancer/heart disease of being “denialists”. It equated those guilty of such scientific heresy to those who deny the Holocaust.

Authors publishing studies which are not in complete harmony with anti-smoker consensus are often subjected to attacks designed to discredit them on a personal basis, rather than an honest evaluation of the science they produce. Disagreeing with the “consensus” makes them tobacco company “lackeys” and their science suspect.

And, like Climategate, there is evidence the science surrounding secondhand smoke has also been manipulated; the EPA study from 1992 being a blatant example.

Another Toronto Sun columnist, Michael Coren, wrote in relation to Climategate: “What is extraordinary is how few other columns and articles have appeared in the press and how little attention this story is receiving on television and radio.”

The same comment could have been made about the complacency (complicity) of the press in parroting the claims of anti-smoker extremists who insist that: “The debate is over, secondhand smoke kills.”

It's become a matter of routine for the media to refer to anti-smoker claims as fact, with no effort made to verify the integrity of those claims. Earlier this year, the press hyped claims of a new-found threat called third hand smoke. The “scientific study” turned out to be a telephone survey soliciting public opinion.

Studies claiming that smoking bans prevent heart attacks are given widespread coverage. But, in many instances, the studies have not been peer reviewed or published. In some cases, the studies haven't even been completed (some never will be). Criticism of these studies is ignored, regardless of the credentials of those proffering a contrary viewpoint.

But, the media is apparently satisfied to accept the conclusions of such studies without question. As far as secondhand smoke is concerned, investigative journalism is dead. If journalists would do a little research, they would find that the debate on SHS as a health hazard is far from over, except in the mainstream media.

Whether the issue is global warming or secondhand smoke, the public has a right to be fully informed of the facts; all the facts, not just those which support a particular or popular position.

Lorrie Goldstein closed his column with the line: “What about saving the planet, you ask? This was never about saving the planet. This is about money and power. Your money. Their power.” Uh-huh.

The parallels between Climategate and the hoax of secondhand smoke are unmistakeable.

Outside influences, politics, industry profits and the concerns of special interest groups should not be permitted to corrupt the scientific process. The public should not be manipulated into believing something which is still open to debate in the scientific community.

Unfortunately, they have. The objectivity, and credibility, of science in general is now in question.

Smoking & heart attacks, another suspect study

According to a meta-analysis conducted by Dr. David Meyers and his team at Kansas University Medical Center, smoking bans have an immediate impact on heart attacks, reducing admissions to hospital by as much as 26%. In addition, Meyers claims a nationwide smoking ban could prevent as many as 154,000 heart attacks annually.

Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health disagrees with the conclusions of Meyers' study. In fact, he suggests that both the meta-analysis and the individual studies used to compile it are badly flawed junk science. Siegel is an anti-smoking advocate who strongly supports smoking bans. But, even he notes: “Nevertheless, I believe they should be supported based on valid scientific conclusions, not on junk science conclusions such as those in this article.”

As a smoker, and admittedly prone to bias in my interpretation of these “scientific studies”, I believe most of what is passed off as science by the anti-smoker crowd these days is junk; propaganda, pure and simple.

For example, one troublesome aspect of Meyers' study is the use of heart attack admissions as a gauge of the beneficial aspects of smoking bans. According to study authors, heart attacks were used as a measuring stick because, unlike cancer, they don’t take years to develop.

But, why measure only admissions to hospital?

The National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) website claims: “Of the people who die from heart attacks, about half die within an hour of the first symptoms and before they reach the hospital.”

If Meyers and his team counted only admissions, then they didn't account for the true incidence of heart attacks since roughly half would be DOA (Dead On Arrival). There would be no need to admit them for treatment. Was this a simple oversight; or a deliberate attempt to mislead? Was the possibility accounted for in some other way in the study?

Again, why measure only admissions?

The same NHLBI website claims: “Each year, about 1.1 million people in the United States have heart attacks, and almost half of them die. CAD (Coronary Artery Disease), which often results in a heart attack, is the leading killer of both men and women in the United States.”

The Womens Health Foundation sets the number of heart attacks at 1.5 million each year with 500,000 deaths.

But, if one-third to one-half of those experiencing a heart attack will die, why not simply count the number of deaths from heart attack? Wouldn't this give a far more meaningful statistic than admissions? After all, if smoking bans can prevent as many as 154,000 heart attacks annually, as claimed by Meyers, wouldn't that mean that one-third to one-half that number of heart attack deaths would also be prevented?

Is it really plausible that smoking bans could reduce the number of heart attack deaths by 50 to 75 thousand annually? Wouldn't that eliminate all deaths currently attributed to secondhand smoke?

Smokers, according to the anti-smoker cult, will die from heart attacks as a result of their smoking. Logic dictates that they will die whether they smoke in public or private, since it is the habit that allegedly kills and not the location where the habit is practiced.. So, is it logical to expect a decline in heart attack incidence among smokers without a corresponding decrease in smoking prevalence?

And, if a decrease in heart attack admissions can't be linked directly to either smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, how can it be attributed to smoking bans?

According to study authors: "Heart attacks are caused in large part by blood clots. With 20 minutes or so of tobacco smoke exposure, people’s blood becomes hypercoagulable and sticky and clots easily, and bam, you have a heart attack."

That's right folks. Twenty minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke and non-smokers start dropping like flies. Can't you remember the bodies being removed en masse from bars, restaurants and the local legion hall before the smoking bans? Aren't non-smokers keeling over from the effects of exposure to SHS in those jurisdictions where bans have not yet been implemented?

Dr. Siegel points out that brief secondhand smoke exposure is likely to trigger a heart attack only in people with severe existing coronary artery disease, saying: “The same hypercoagulability and endothelial dysfunction is also caused by eating high-fat foods and even by mental stress. It doesn't follow that you are going to prevent this person from having a heart attack merely by asking them to avoid exposure to secondhand smoke.”

David Meyers says the research should put to rest the debate about the health benefits of smoking bans. “The argument — that this is bad science — has now been put definitively to rest.”

And, therein lies the problem.

If (when) this story is picked up by the national media, it is not likely to include a rebuttal from Dr. Siegel (or anyone else for that matter). In fact, media coverage is unlikely to contain any dissenting opinion on the study. The public will be left with the perception that it has been scientifically proven that smoking bans reduce the incidence of heart attacks. Dr. Siegel, and others who contest the findings of Meyers' study, will be branded denialists; their voices silenced.

The perception rather than the reality will become entrenched in the public mind. Which, I suspect, is exactly what was intended by the authors of the study. For it appears that this study is not simply bad science, but a propaganda effort deliberately designed to mislead the public. The anti-smoker cult wants desperately to justify the growing number of smoking bans around the world.

Concludes Dr. Siegel: “The rest of the story is that anti-tobacco researchers and groups are making ridiculous, highly exaggerated, and scientifically unsupported claims in order to try to justify smoking bans.”

Just one more question before I sign off. If researchers are willing to use this kind of dishonesty and deception to convince the public of the hazards of smoking and SHS exposure, just why in hell should anyone believe anything the public health community has to say on the subject?

The bullshit and bafflegab is coming thick and fast.

Quitting smoking with NRT, 1.6% success rate

The tobacco industry has been roundly condemned for alleged unethical research conduct for decades. As the association between smoking and lung cancer began making news back in the fifties, some tobacco companies conducted their own research which showed contradictory results. Shame on those nasty tobacco companies, the money grubbing bastards.

They sponsored scientific conferences and published their studies in medical journals. And, it was not uncommon for members of the medical profession to lend their support to one particular brand of cigarettes or another. Shame on those nasty doctors, the money grubbing bastards.

That’s all changed now. Nowadays, it’s more likely to be the pharmaceutical industry that’s fudging the facts on the “scientific” evidence. And, the drug companies can put more spin on a study than a Nolan Ryan fastball. Shame on those nasty drug companies, the money grubbing bastards.

And, shame on the anti-smoker cult for promoting useless interventions on behalf of their puppet masters in the pharmaceutical industry.

Every anti-smoker group in the country is pushing smoking cessation drugs and nicotine replacement therapy; Physicians for a Smokefree Canada, the Canadian Lung Association, the Non-Smokers Rights Association, etc. Doctors push the product on patients and even government health agencies like the Ontario Ministry of Health Propagan . . . er, Promotion endorse the use of the stuff.

And, it’s not just in Canada. It’s a worldwide phenomena, with drug company shills in the anti-smoker brigade pushing pharmaceutical nicotine from Montreal to Madagascar; Toronto to Timbuktu.

Wouldn’t it be funny if the stuff turned out to be as useless as teats on a bull? Do you think anybody would be embarrassed? No? OK, so you’re right. They know no shame.

Now, the anti-smoker cult is quick to tell us that the vast majority of smokers really want to quit. Unfortunately, they are often less than honest in the information they provide to the public. And, I’ve read some of their studies and their math often leaves something to be desired . . . like a sixth grade education.

But, I have no doubt that there are, indeed, many smokers who would like to quit. Some might want to quit for health reasons; others may be growing weary of the de-normalization campaign of the anti-smoker cult and the social exclusion it represents. Smoking is banned in most social settings, and in most workplaces. Even smoking outdoors is becoming a hassle.

In fact, smoking bans are interfering with more and more aspects of a smoker’s life. So, it’s not surprising that some would rather switch than fight and start waving the white flag.

However, human nature dictates that we look for the easiest, least painful means of accomplishing any goal, including any decision to quit smoking. So, those smokers become easy targets for the marketing strategies of the pharmaceutical industry and their sales representative in the anti-smoker brigade.

But, just how effective is nicotine replacement therapy in accomplishing the objective?

Well, according to one study, it isn’t. Effective that is. Well, OK, it’s more effective than sugar pills or gummy bears, but . . . OK, OK. So, it wasn’t tested against gummy bears, but you get the point, right?

The study was called: “Effectiveness and safety of nicotine replacement therapy assisted reduction to stop smoking: systematic review and meta-analysis”. Hasn’t that got a nice ring to it? Very . . .er, scientific.

The study reviewed several trials which enrolled a total of 2,767 smokers given either nicotine replacement therapy for 6 to18 months or a placebo.

The percentage of smokers who managed to stay off cigarettes for six months with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) was 6.75%, compared to 3.28% for those given a placebo. Uh-huh. 3.28% managed to quit using a sugar pill. (I wonder how many heroin addicts could give up their habit using a placebo.)

The percentage still not smoking at final follow-up after one year was 1.6% for the NRT group, compared to 0.4% for the placebo group.

From this, the authors of the study conclude: “Available trials indicate that nicotine replacement therapy is an effective intervention in achieving sustained smoking abstinence for smokers who have no intention or are unable to attempt an abrupt quit. Most of the evidence, however, comes from trials with regular behavioural support and monitoring and it is unclear whether using nicotine replacement therapy without regular contact would be as effective.”

Hmmm. Does that mean nicotine replacement therapy would be even less effective without “behavioural support and monitoring”? Might the placebo have actually out-performed NRT?

Just how hard were the authors of this study laughing when they wrote the part that says “nicotine replacement therapy is an effective intervention?” Was it a little chuckle, a rumbling guffaw or were they actually rolling on the floor laughing their asses off? Shame on the money grubbing bastards..

Oh, yeah, one of the study authors, Paul Aveyard, admits to receiving compensation from the Swedish drug company (McNeil) which sponsored the initial trials used in their report. But, conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived, are par for the course these days. Although the claim that NRT is an effective intervention does suggest some bias might be present.

I wonder if Health Canada will make the makers put a disclaimer on their packaging. You know, something simple, like: “Warning: This product is totally useless 98% of the time.”

Yeah, you’re right. It’ll never happen. You pay your money and you take your chances, folks.


PS You can read more about the study on Dr. Michael Siegel’s blog, Tobacco Analysis.

Lose weight, quit smoking & take little green pills

I’m not sure exactly which commercial got me to thinking about it. Maybe it was one of those drugs designed to deal with “erectile dysfunction”. Or maybe it was the one for the drug which “extends” that most intimate part of the male anatomy, prompting a smile from an attractive young woman who proclaims: “Yeah. That could be fun.”

Then again, it might have been the one where a woman hikes her dress shocking a poor old man into a state of apoplexy while she steals his Nicorette gum to satisfy her “craving”..

But, the exact commercial isn’t really important. The point is that there are an ever-increasing number of these television ads promoting drugs as the solution to every ailment known to man, and a few, I’m sure, which haven’t been invented yet. Just take the little green pill folks, it’ll cure all your worries and have you grinning like a Cheshire cat. Don’t forget to ask your Doctor.

And, there’s probably a scientific study to support the claims of every single one of them. The question is: How reliable are the studies? And, apparently, in a growing number of cases, the answer is “not very”.

Sandy Szwarc wrote an article on Junkfood Science last week detailing what she calls “One of the biggest cases of academic fraud in medical history”.

Her article follows revelations in a medical journal, Anesthesiology News, which indicate that a leading medical researcher, Scott S. Reuben, M.D., of Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts, had fabricated much, if not all, of the data in his research. Dr. Reuben, apparently made up and falsified data in at least 21, and possibly more, studies published since 1996.

Much of Dr. Reuben’s research efforts centred on pain medication; evaluating drugs and conducting clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industry, most notably Pfizer, although it should be noted that Pfizer has not been accused of any wrondoing in relation to Dr. Reuben’s suspect research.

The allegations arose following a year long investigation by the Baystate Medial Centre. Dr. Hal Jenson, M.D, of Baystate, told media that in many cases “there was no clinical trial because there were no patients,” before noting, “the conclusions (of the investigation) are not in dispute.”

Now, many laymen will respond to this news with a shrug of the shoulders, and wonder why this is such a big deal. A researcher cheated, got caught and will likely suffer the consequences.

But, Dr. Reuben worked for a respected institution and he (and his work) is well-known among his colleagues who have trusted the results of his fabricated studies. His colleagues’ reliance on these studies may have, unwittingly, put their patients at risk.

But, perhaps the most troubling aspect of all is that for years his falsified studies went unquestioned. They passed the peer review process and were published in respectable journals as a matter of course.

As Szwarec says in her article: “[I]t is hard to imagine that not one of his medical colleagues ever noticed anything amiss in nearly two decades. Or, more troublingly, did they notice or suspect and decide to look the other way, not one professional willing to speak out?”

She’s makes a valid point; one that should be heeded by laymen and doctors alike. The public relies heavily on the advice of doctors as to what treatment is best for any medical condition which might present. If that advice is based on faulty studies or influenced by a financial association with drug companies, patients may not get the best treatment or advice. In addition, prescribing drugs manufactured by those companies with which they have an association could add an unnecessary financial burden to the health care system.

But, Dr. Reuben is not the only case in point.

US Senator Charles Grassley is also investigating what he perceives as a growing incidence of conflict of interest between the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry, and the failure of some researchers and doctors to disclose those conflicts. An article by Alexandra Andrews in ProPublica suggests such conflict may be widespread.

And, Marcia Angell, a former editor for the New England Journal of Medicine, was also highly critical in an article published in The New York Times Book Review. The article, entitled “Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption”, reviews several books on the subject, concluding: “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

That’s a pretty damning indictment of the medical profession, researchers, and the pharmaceutical industry which offers the financial incentives that encourage this type of behaviour.

Szwarc concluded her piece saying: “Patients may have been needlessly put at risk and healthcare resources may have been wasted on unsound or potentially dangerous treatments. But the public has sadly lost even more. Whether or not it's warranted, this misconduct is another chip in their trust of the entire medical profession and in medical professionals to practice ethical and science-based medicine.”

And, once again, she’s right. Although the number of researchers submitting falsified or biased studies may be small, the entire medical and scientific establishment is likely to be tarred with the same brush and ridden out of town on the same rail. And, they can’t afford to ignore any impropriety on the part of their colleagues.

Is there anyone out there who doesn’t understand why I question the research studies conducted by, or on behalf of, the anti-smoker brigade and their partners in the pharmaceutical industry?

PS: Dr. Michael Siegel wrote an article on his blog yesterday about the smoking cessation drug Chantix. He claims a number of tobacco control researchers and authorities on an expert panel made recommendations for the treatment of nicotine dependence, “despite having significant financial conflicts of interest by virtue of their financial relationships with Big Pharma”. (Tobacco Analysis)

Interesting.

SHS, smoking bans and suspect studies

Another “study” showing a decline in heart attacks due to smoking bans. Another headline, this time from the Boston Globe: “Smoking ban tied to a gain in lives.” Uh-huh. Smoking bans no longer just save lives, they “gain” lives. Of course, since these people were alive before they didn’t die, it can’t honestly be said that their not dying was a gain in lives.

The Globe article refers to a study conducted by the state Department of Public Health and the Harvard School of Public Health. It claims there have been 577 fewer deaths from heart attacks every year since a statewide smoking ban was implemented in mid-2004.

Massachusetts banned smoking in most restaurants, bars, and other workplaces four years ago. Anti-smoker crusaders are determined to show that smoking bans save lives to justify the adverse social and economic consequences which usually follow.

Dr. George Philippides, a cardiologist from Boston Medical Center, had this to say: “Secondhand smoke is an insidious killer. As a cardiologist, I’ve witnessed secondhand smoke’s harmful effects on my patients. This study shows how a public policy to eliminate secondhand smoke exposure can save lives on a large scale.”

Over the past few years, many studies have attempted to link smoking bans with declines in heart attacks. Helena (Montana), Pueblo (Colorado), Bowling Green (Kentucky), Scotland, England, France, etc. All previous studies were shown to be unreliable and were panned by critics and smoking ban supporters alike.

Dr. Michael Siegel, a Boston University School of Public Health expert in tobacco control has been highly critical of these studies. But, Siegel is quoted in the Globe article as saying: "This is the strongest study yet done of the effect of smoking bans on heart attacks. You can no longer argue that these declines would have occurred simply due to medical treatment."

Is Siegel right? Is this study legitimate?

The anti-smoker crowd is claiming the people who never died were people who never smoked, protected from secondhand smoke because of the smoking ban. Ergo, smoking bans save the lives of non-smokers by reducing their exposure to secondhand smoke.

But, anti-smoking activist Siegel says: “Moreover, the observed decline in heart attack mortality is likely due to the sharp reduction in the number of smokers. It likely has little to do with reduced secondhand smoke exposure.” Ergo, smoking bans save the lives of smokers by forcing them to quit.

But how many of those 577 were non-smokers saved from the indignity of exposure to SHS? How many were smokers who saved themselves by quitting? Is there any way to tell?

Actually, there may be a way to estimate the number of deaths among smokers and non-smokers. We can use the same technique used by the anti-smoker brigade, a Smoking Attributable Fraction (SAF).

For example, StatCan notes there were 40,607 deaths due to Ischemic Heart Disease, which includes Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI or heart attacks), in 2002. Health Canada applies an SAF to the total number of deaths to estimate the number of IHD deaths attributable to secondhand smoke exposure annually.

Although the data from Canada is unlikely to be directly applicable to the US, it should serve to provide a rough estimate as to the number of deaths which could be expected due to heart attacks as a result of exposure to SHS.

Health Canada uses an SAF of 1.6% for males (1.2% for females) multiplied by the total number of deaths from IHD to estimate the number of deaths related to SHS exposure. If the same SAF (we’ll use the higher fraction of 1.6%) were applied to the heart attacks that never happened, you get roughly 10 deaths out of 577 that could be expected due to SHS exposure.

The authors of this study are suggesting that at least a majority of these 577 heart attacks that didn’t happen were non-smokers who might have been exposed to SHS had it not been for the smoking ban? But, the numbers just aren’t there. At least, not without a little fiddling.

But, what about Dr. Siegel’s contention that the precipitous drop in heart attack deaths was the result of “a sharp decline in the number of smokers”? While Siegel’s assertion is the more plausible of the two, it raises a few questions of its own.

The SAF used by Health Canada, if applied to the total number of deaths (577) which never happened, can estimate (supposedly) the percentage of smokers who would otherwise be expected to die of heart attacks. Since details are unavailable as to age or sex, we’ll use the SAF for the group with the largest number of smoking related IHD deaths.

In Canada, this occurs in the population aged between 45 and 59 years of age. The SAF for males is 42.2%; for females, it’s 37.3%. We’ll use the highest percentage across the board since gender has not been established. So, again using Canadian SAFs, we can estimate the number of smokers expected to die at 42.2% of 577 or 244 deaths among smokers.

And, the SAF declines dramatically for those 60 to 69, and again between 70 and 79 until it bottoms out at 8.9% for males and 5.1% for females in those 80 years of age and older. In Canada, over 52% of the deaths due to IHD occur in the population over the age of 80 (mean age 87). This means the estimated deaths attributed to smoking will likely be overstated for this exercise.

Without the ban in place, the 577 deaths that might have occurred would have broken down like this: smokers = 244; nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke = 10; and non-smokers never exposed to SHS = 323.

As stated previously, the Canadian SAFs likely cannot be directly applied to the US study. But they do provide a rough estimate as to how many deaths might be apportioned in each category: smoker, non-smoker exposed to SHS and never exposed non-smoker.

But, even these rough estimates raise serious concerns about the conclusion of the study authors that the smoking bans protect the public from death due to SHS exposure. These rough estimates suggest the majority of lives “saved” following the smoking ban would have been never-smokers never exposed to secondhand smoke.

Siegel’s contention, that the reduction was due to smokers who had been coerced into quitting by the smoking ban, is more credible. But, the portion of the 577 who didn’t die from smoking would have been roughly 244, who may, or may not, have escaped death by quitting.

The fact that heart attack deaths (along with smoking prevalence) had been declining steadily for many years prior to the ban, suggests that something other than the ban has contributed significantly to the decline in heart attack mortality.

I suspect this study will prove as inconclusive as the rest in demonstrating a direct correlation been smoking bans and a reduction in heart attacks or heart attack deaths. But, of course, there'll be another day, another study and another opportunity for the anti-smoker crusade to prove smokers are murderous scum.


Count on it.

SHS, suspect science & a complacent press

Throughout history there have been periods where fear, born of ignorance, clouded the judgment of normally rational, tolerant men and women. And, more often than not on such occasions, there were individuals ready to exploit that fear, often with fanatical zeal, to further their own interests.

The McCarthy era back in the fifties is one example of a modern day witch hunt. An irrational fear of communism, fueled by political opportunists, led to the persecution of alleged communist sympathizers. The threat posed by those accused was often non-existent or greatly exaggerated; the evidence, at best, inconclusive or dubious

No one was burned at the stake. But, the lives of many were irrevocably changed as victims of the anti-communist crusade suffered loss of employment, destruction of their reputation, and even imprisonment.

Another example of a modern day witch hunt is the war on smokers.

Anti-smoker crusaders, by associating secondhand smoke with dread diseases such as lung cancer, have created a climate of fear using flimsy, inconclusive, and possibly manufactured, evidence. Their crusade has turned into a campaign to harass and persecute smokers. Many activists have used public health as a vehicle to enhance their personal power, prestige and financial well-being.

Science has been distorted to ridiculous levels, with more and more outlandish “scientific” studies being released on a regular basis. Two recent studies deserve special mention for their attempts to heighten the level of anxiety parents already feel for their children.

Dr. Krassi Rumchev is the author of a study published in the June issue of Indoor Air. The study concludes that even smoking outside the home poses a major health risk to children. Rumchev claims, “they (smokers) still breathed out smoke that contaminated the air enough to cause damage. They also brought particles inside on their body and clothes”

Rumchev is telling the public that breathing on children after smoking a cigarette adversely affects their health.

But, Dr. Michael Siegel, an anti-smoking advocate at Boston University, believes the study is flawed. And, except in the most extreme situations, he doesn’t think smoker’s breath represents a health hazard to children. “No, I don't believe that it represents a serious health hazard to nonsmokers or to children.”

Dr. Siegel noted on his blog: “the study in question actually provides no evidence that smoking outside the home is not adequate to protect children from substantial exposure to tobacco smoke inside the home.”

But, in their article reporting the study, the HeraldSun (Australia), claimed: “Smoking outside does not stop children being exposed to high levels of dangerous tobacco chemicals, research shows.”

Clearly, the article was intended to present the conclusions of the flawed study as fact.

In another article, published in The Calgary Herald, Jennifer O'Loughlin, a professor at the University of Montreal, is quoted as saying: “Increased exposure to second-hand smoke, both in cars and homes, was associated with an increased likelihood of children reporting nicotine dependence symptoms -- even though these kids had never put a cigarette in their mouths."

The basis of those claims was a study headed by O'Loughlin, an epidemiologist, in which they asked a group of 1488 kids aged between 10 and 12 years of age to fill out a questionnaire. The questions included “the number of persons who smoke inside the home, number of days exposed to SHS in a motor vehicle in the past week, number of parents, siblings, and friends who smoke, and ND (nicotine dependency) symptoms.”

According to the study, “Sixty-nine of 1488 never-smokers (5%) reported one or more ND symptoms.”

It goes on, “exposure to SHS in a motor vehicle was independently associated with ND symptoms (OR, 95% CI = 1.2, 1.0–1.4).”

The conclusion reached by the study: “SHS exposure in motor vehicles may be associated with ND symptoms among young never-smokers. If replicated, this finding provides support for interventions that promote non-smoking in motor vehicles.”

But, even to the untrained eye, there are serious credibility problems with this study.

For instance, the relative risk (OR) is given as 1.2 with a confidence interval of 1.0 to 1.4 making the OR statistically insignificant since it includes the baseline (1). Secondly, the abstract makes no reference to a control group against which these numbers could be compared. It appears to be little more than a poll of 10 to 12 year olds.

But, most significantly, the study draws its conclusions, not on any evidence of actual nicotine dependence, but on observations by 10, 11 and 12 year olds as to whether they were experiencing symptoms. What symptoms? Depression, anxiety, trouble concentrating? Couldn’t these same symptoms be caused by any number of factors, such as dealing with schoolyard bullies or poor self-image?

But, it doesn't matter that these studies are seriously flawed; all that matters to the anti-smoker crusaders is that the public believe secondhand smoke is jeopardizing children’s health. For this, they have been able to rely on the power of the press to relay their message to the public. And, these studies are, almost without exception, reported in the press as unambiguous and incontrovertible, without a single dissenting voice.

The headline of the September 30 Calgary Herald article by Charlie Fidelman, for example, read: “Smoking parents can hook kids on nicotine,” despite the fact that “Researchers did not make a direct link between cause and effect.”

The press, by failing to publish any opposing point of view, has been derelict in their duty to inform the public. In fact, the press has become little more than a cheering section for anti-smoker fanatics in their attempts to de-normalize smokers.

The failure of the press to present balanced, unbiased coverage of these studies has contributed significantly to the fear and ignorance which drives this particular modern day witch hunt.

Update:
Anti-smoking activist Dr. Michael Siegel comments on the second of these studies on his blog, saying: “This is an example of biased and shoddy science. Unfortunately, this is what tobacco control research is gradually deteriorating into.”

Smoking related deaths plummet in Canada

Health Canada has slashed the number of deaths attributed to smoking by roughly 21%. And they’ve done it with a simple stroke of the pen. And, even better, they’ve done it retroactively. Uh-huh. The new estimate of smoking attributable deaths is based on StatCan mortality tables from 2002. Some pundits estimate that 60,000 lives have been saved since 2002. Others point out that they're still just as dead, just not from smoking.

For years now Health Canada has been “estimating” the number of Canadians who die annually from smoking related deaths as a direct result of smoking. Until a month or so back, the estimate given on their web site stood at 47,000 annually.

The Smoking Attributable Deaths (SAM) estimate has been used by Health Canada to support their contention that smokers have been dying in epidemic proportions. But, the estimates have also been used by anti-smoker crusaders like the Non-Smokers Rights Association, Physicians for a Smoke Free Canada and Action on Smoking and Heath Alberta (ASH), to name just a few.

In fact, those estimates have been used as a scare-mongering tactic by anti-smoker zealots for a decade or more. The figures were quoted at every opportunity, in newspaper articles, press releases, television interviews, etc. They’ve been spouted by politicians of every political persuasion to support the imposition of draconian smoking bans across the country and impose punitive levels of taxation on smokers.

Now, Health Canada is reporting on their web site that smoking related deaths in Canada have dropped by 21%, from 47,000 a month or so back to just 37,000 today.

Well, actually, they don’t tell you that smoking related deaths have declined, at least not on their web site. They just announce that tobacco kills 37,000 Canadians each and every year. For, the explanation, you have to search around for a report published in 2007.

So, just how was this miracle accomplished?

Apparently, the computer generated estimates used by Health Canada were based on the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II). But, the direct application of the US survey to the Canadian population was deemed inappropriate. So, Health Canada simply made a few adjustments to data, and bingo, 10,000 fewer deaths from smoking.

Health Canada explains the change in their report: “The total Smoking Attributable Deaths (SAM) was estimated to be 47,581 (21% of all deaths, age ≥ 35). However, the CPS-II has been criticized for not being generalizable to the entire US population. When compared to the general population, participants in CPSII tend to over represent the middle class and have more education. As well, a disproportionate number of them are white. Thus, direct application of a large US survey to the Canadian population may not be appropriate.”

But, to keep the estimated death toll high, they added a few more diseases from which Canadians may be dying as a result of their smoking habits: “In 2004, the Surgeon General (SG) added several diseases to the list of those for which evidence is sufficient to conclude a causal relationship between smoking and disease: stomach cancer, renal cell carcinoma, uterine cervical cancer, pancreatic cancer and pneumonia.”

So, what’s the big deal? They made a mistake and now they’ve corrected it.

Well, there’s a little more to it than that. The inflated figures have been used by the anti-smoker brigade in their march to tobacco prohibition since the previous Health Canada study conducted in 1998.

And, it’s not just the guesstimate of smoking attributable deaths that have been used to manipulate the public. All data which was based on those estimates will also be artificially inflated. Estimates of health care costs, for example, and Possible Years of Life Lost (PYLLs) were also calculated on the inaccurate SAM numbers from a decade ago.

There have already been considerable social and economic costs attached to the smoking bans and ever-increasing levels of sin taxes imposed by senior levels of government in response to the alleged smoking epidemic. These include job loss in the tobacco and hospitality industries, lost tax revenue and increased policing costs to deal with smuggling and contraband

Smokers are now social outcasts, open to blatant discrimination in housing, employment and medical care, thanks to a campaign of de-normalization initiated by anti-smoker fanatics at the Non-Smokers Rights Association, ASH Alberta, the Canadian Cancer Society, and a host of other activists receiving funding from Canada’s two senior levels of government.

The death toll from tobacco use, exaggerated beyond reason, was used to persuade a naïve public and gullible government to impose the draconian legislation demanded by the anti-smoker fanatics.

And, wait until you see what they’ve done with the estimates of death due to secondhand smoke.

To be continued . . .

Now, SHS on your breath is hazardous to kids

The anti-smoker brigade has declared that there is no such thing as a smoke free home as long as there is a smoker living in it. That’s the latest from the land down under.

“If parents would like to provide a smoke-free home environment they have to stop smoking”, says Dr. Krassi Rumchev, author of a recently released study on the effects of secondhand smoke on children. “Smoking outside just isn't providing the protection that many Australian smokers believe it does".

The study, published in the June issue of Indoor Air, concludes that even smoking outside the home poses a major health risk to children inside the home. Rumchev explained that, “they (smokers) still breathed out smoke that contaminated the air enough to cause damage. They also brought particles inside on their body and clothes”

That’s right; toxic smoke constituents in your breath. When you smoke outside, your children may be protected from the firsthand risk of secondhand smoke, but they’re still susceptible to the hazardous effects of third hand smoke constituents which you carry back into the house on your breath . . . and your clothes. Follow me?

One possible way to mitigate the dangers to children inside the home is to take a shower and gargle with Listerine before going back inside after smoking your Putter’s Light outside. And don’t forget to change your clothes after every smoke. Yes, I understand what that will do to the laundry expense, not to mention the water bill, but it’s for the good of the kids.

Or, if you’re the smoker in the family, you could simply throw the pack of Putter’s Light into the street. But, that would mean capitulating to the coercive pressure tactics of the anti-smoker brigade and their suspect scientific studies. No, there has to be a better way.

Of course, if your spouse is the smoker in the family, you could always throw him/her into the street. This, however, is not the recommended course of action. Winters can be cold and harsh in the Great White North. No sense making them lonely too.

If you both smoke you’ll have to throw . . . no, we’d better not go there; it’s the kids we’re trying to protect in the first place. Besides, it’s against the law.

But, before we start tearing our hair out trying to find a solution to a problem that may or may not exist, maybe we should ask a few questions.

Dr. Michael Siegel is an anti-smoking MD and a professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University School of Public Health. He also writes a blog. And on his blog, he has written two critical articles regarding the Australlian study, pointing out obvious deficiencies in methodology and the conclusions of the study.

According to Dr. Siegel: “This article demonstrates what I predicted yesterday: that anti-smoking advocates will use this flawed study to send the message that parents need not bother to try to refrain from smoking inside the home. It is all or nothing. Either quit smoking completely or you might as well just puff in the faces of your children”.

You mean breathing on my grandkids (as opposed to blowing smoke in their face) is not a hazard, Doctor?

“No, I don't believe that it represents a serious health hazard to nonsmokers or to children. There may be a few very isolated circumstances where a person is exquisitely sensitive to smoke and this could present a problem, but as a general matter, no”.

Did these people honestly expect us to believe that breathing on our kids after smoking a cigarette could have a detrimental effect on their health?

The answer is: yes, they did. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have said it. Let's face it, they’ve got a lot of people believing that secondhand smoke is a serious health hazard, haven’t they?

It doesn't matter if the study is flawed; all that matters is that people believe it's the truth and direct their anger at smokers for jeopardising the health of the kids. It called propaganda.

These non-smokers are a gullible bunch, they’re ready to believe anything they’re told.

Smoking kills 47,000 a year in Canada?

It doesn’t matter which anti-smoker web site you visit. They all claim similar numbers for the number of annual deaths caused by tobacco. Some may infer that most of the damages are caused by smoking cigarettes specifically, others don’t bother.

In Canada, for example, Health Canada and the Non-Smoker’s Rights Association claim that 47,000 Canadians are killed every year by tobacco.

But, have you even wondered just how they manage to arrive at that figure.

Is each death certificate in Canada accompanied by a cause of death investigation? Does some team of experts investigate the lifestyle choices of every single Canadian who dies of lung cancer, for example, to determine his/her exposure to everything associated with lung cancer? How much cooked meat did they eat during their lifetime? Did they cook with shortening? Was there a genetic predisposition to lung cancer? What industrial carcinogens were they exposed to in their working life? How much did they smoke?

Such a survey or report would, of course, be both time consuming, costly and impractical, considering that almost a quarter of a million people die in Canada each year. So, smoking related deaths are estimated. Uh-huh.

The numbers, in Canada at least, are generated by a computer. The exact formula is unknown. It’s a secret. It’s so secret that even the people who know the secret, are kept secret.

There’s a little more information available in the United States. Not much, but a little. But, there are still a lot of secrets.

Recently, I read an article called “Calculating the Big Kill” by Brad Rodu of the University of Louisville, which claims CDC estimates of smoking-related deaths do not add up.

So, how do they do it? Well, in the US, an annual survey (National Health Interview Survey), designed to be representative of the U.S. population, is used to estimate the number of smokers and former smokers in the US. The survey defines current smokers as those who have smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and who were smoking at the time they completed the survey. Former smokers are those who smoked 100 or more cigarettes in their lifetime and who managed to kick the habit.

The Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in the US then uses these estimates to estimate how many people died of smoking related diseases. Uh-huh. That’s a lot of estimates.

Now, 100 cigarettes in a lifetime is not a lot of cigarettes; I smoke twice that much in a week. Based on my own secret formula, I estimate that using these definitions of smokers and former smokers artificially and significantly inflates the number of smoking related deaths in both Canada and the US every year. Consider the following two scenarios.

Old Bill Jones is a smoker. Last year he began to collect his old age security. He has been smoking since he was 15, just over half a century ago. If old Bill dies of heart disease, cancer or anything else remotely attributed to smoking, he will become a statistic of the anti-smoker brigade; a statistic used to browbeat, badger and belittle his fellow smokers; a smoking related death.

For just over 50 years, old Bill has smoked two cigarettes a year; one on his birthday in June, the other to usher in the New Year. That makes old Bill a current smoker.

Even if old Bill had merely flirted with the smoking habit, smoking a pack a week for six weeks in 2002, then he’s a former smoker, even if he never took another drag in his life. He’s still eligible to become another smoking related statistic.

But, how can anyone have any faith in estimates based on such illogical, er . . . estimates. No wonder the formula, and much of the data, is secret.

Suggested Reading:
Calculating the Big Kill

Conflict of interest & tobacco control

In a recent post ( Smoking, drugs & hypocrisy, May 24, 2008), I pointed out the self-serving hypocrisy of the anti-smoker brigade. On the one hand they routinely dismiss evidence from any individual or group with even the slightest hint of contamination by big tobacco; on the other hand, they rely heavily on funding, both directly and indirectly, from the pharmaceutical industry.

The big drug companies stand to make a lot of money from the “de-normalization” of smokers and the efforts of the tobacco control crazies to introduce outright tobacco prohibition.

The conflict of interest created by anti-smoker fanatics who receive huge sums of money from drug companies introduces an element of bias that tends to cast suspicion on all studies and reports funded by the pharmaceutical industry. This trend, which has been apparent for many years, is beginning to worry even those in the public health community.

Dr.Michael Siegel is an ardent anti-smoking activist and a professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University School of Public Health.

Recently, Dr. Siegel posted an article on his blog (The Rest of the Story, May 27, 2008) on one such particularly blatant conflict of interest. The chair of a panel of experts convened by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) was found to have a substantial, undeclared conflict, and had received a good deal of money from “big pharma”. Eight other members of the panel also had conflicts which were apparently reported.

What made this particular conflict so galling was that the panel made a recommendation to physicians across the US that they recommend use of smoking cessation products such as Nicoderm, Nicorettes, etc. to all patients wanting to quit. That recommendation had a direct bearing on the financial bottom line of the drug companies, especially GlaxoSmithKline who manufacture most of the products recommended.

Dr. Michael Fiore, the chair of the panel, had done consulting work for the pharmaceutical industry, including ClaxoSmithKline, within the past five years. He also holds an endowed chair at the University of Wisconsin. In other words, GlaxoSmithKline was (is) providing direct support for both the professor's career and his academic endeavors to the tune of $50,000 per year.

Readers may judge for themselves whether the tens of thousands of dollars in consulting fees and the endowed chair at the University of Wisconsin may have swayed Dr. Fiore’s decision to recommend smoking cessation drugs to physicians across the country.

On a website called whyquit.com, I found the following: “The law of physiological addiction states that administration of a drug to an addict will cause reestablishment of the dependence on that substance”. The article also noted that according to some leading drug addiction experts, nicotine might be more addictive than either cocaine or heroin.

It is curious that Dr. Fiore and his panel of experts would recommend use of drugs that contain nicotine, if indeed it is addictive, since the addiction would continue. Patients would simply become dependent on the new delivery system (Nicorettes or the patch, for example) for their daily fix or return to smoking. The only beneficiary to such a recommendation would be the drug companies who market stop smoking aids.

Also of note is the fact that one of the drugs recommended by Dr. Fiore’s panel, Chantix, has been associated with severe and fatal side effects. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration banned the use of Chantix by anyone seeking a commercial motor vehicle license. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has also banned use of the drug by airline pilots.

The simple facts are that, in large measure, the drug companies have bought and paid for a substantial amount of the evidence used by the anti-smoker brigade in their march to tobacco prohibition. And their evidence is no more reliable than that provided by big tobacco.

Or, to put it another way, the public is being misled.

Smoking, drugs & hypocrisy

It should not come as any surprise that the biggest beneficiary, monetarily speaking, of the war being waged against smokers is the pharmaceutical industry. The more smokers who can be “encouraged” (or forced) to quit, the greater the sales of smoking cessation products like bupropion SR, nicotine gum, nicotine inhalers, nicotine lozenges, nicotine nasal spray, nicotine patches, and varenicline.

This represents a serious problem of which the public is largely unaware.

The public has been told that “big tobacco” is not to be trusted; that their only objective is to increase revenues from the sale of tobacco products. Tobacco control “experts” foster the belief that any organization or individual accepting funding from the tobacco industry is tainted by their association with big tobacco and should be dismissed out of hand.

Dr. Michael Siegel, himself an anti-smoking advocate, makes the point succinctly in an April 29, 2008 to his blog, The Rest of the Story: Right From the Anti-Smoking Playbook: When You Don't Like Something Someone Says, Accuse Them of Being a Big Tobacco Shill.

The question which has to be answered is whether scientific studies conducted, directly or indirectly, with funding from the pharmaceutical industry are any more reputable or reliable than those conducted with funding from big tobacco. Both aspire to generate income from increased sales of their respective products.

According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), total expenditures on prescribed and non-prescribed drugs in Canada reached $21.8 billion in 2004. Obviously, there’s a lot of money to be made from the manufacture, distribution and sale of both prescription and over-the-counter drugs, including smoking cessation drugs.

And, the anti-smoker brigade, to a greater and greater degree, is being funded by big pharmaceutical interests. They have a vested interest in imposing restrictions on smoking, via bans and punitive taxation on tobacco products. The more smokers forced to quit, the greater the profits of the drug companies.

And financial support from pharmaceutical interests may well be influencing the decisions of those receiving the funding. This was illustrated in another post by Dr. Siegel: “Press Release on Smoking Cessation Guidelines Fails to Disclose Financial Conflict of Interest of Expert Panelists”, published on May 8, 2008.

Dr. Siegel notes in his post: “A press release issued by the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ) to publicize the findings of a review by an expert panel of the role of clinicians in smoking cessation fails to disclose the significant financial conflicts of interests of the panelists.”

Dr. Siegel remarks that the press release lists drugs approved by the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration) as smoking cessation treatments that “dramatically increase the success of quitting”, including those NRT drugs listed above. He also points out that, “The press release fails to also mention that other research indicates that the overwhelming majority of smokers who quit successfully for the long-term do so via a cold turkey and not a medication-based approach”.

But, the most troubling acknowledgement in the post is that: “Nowhere, however, does the press release mention that 9 of the members of the expert panel, including its chair, have financial conflicts of interest by virtue of having received money from Big Pharma. Most of the companies from which funding was received are precisely those which manufacture or distribute smoking cessation medications and which therefore stand to gain financially from the panel's recommendations”.

He goes on: “While allowing conflicted individuals to serve on the panel is itself questionable, the failure to disclose the conflict in reports of the findings of the panelists is indefensible”.

The hypocrisy of the situation is undeniable. The science and statistics of studies funded by the tobacco industry can be summarily dismissed because they are motivated by profit and personal gain. Studies by organizations and individuals funded by the pharmaceutical industry are accepted without question, despite being motivated by profit and personal gain.

Of course, the drug companies are acting in our best interests, aren’t they? Uh-huh.

And if you buy into that little bit of wisdom, a friend of a friend of mine has some prime ocean front property available on the Saskatchewan/Alberta border. I’d be happy to put in a good word for you.

Faulty science from EPA

The EPA “Study” on secondhand smoke

Most dictionaries define hoax as an act intended to deceive or trick; something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means. The secondhand smoke frenzy is largely a hoax inspired by anti-smoker fanatics and tobacco prohibitionists. Unable to “encourage” sufficient numbers to quit smoking by educating them about the very real dangers of smoking, or to coerce them through steadily escalating and usurious levels of taxation, they devised a new strategy.

They managed to convince people that smokers were not only hurting themselves, but those around them; their spouses, their co-workers, their children.

The hoax, in North America at least, has been perpetuated by a press dedicated to the sensational rather than the truth. Wild, and erroneous, accusations about the dangerous effects of secondhand smoke are printed daily, unchallenged, with neither serious investigation nor comment.

The US Environmental Protection Agency’s 1993 report has been the basis for most of the smoking bans implemented across North America. The EPA study has been used by the Non-Smokers Rights Association (NSRA) and others to generate public hysteria over the dangers of secondhand smoke (aka ETS).

It's assumed by the public that the EPA report is the unvarnished and universally accepted truth. But that’s an incorrect assumption. There has been a great deal of controversy in the scientific community, the US Congress and the courts, over the EPA report.

In 1994, a Congressional inquiry into the EPA and its methods, specifically as they related to the EPA study on ETS, concluded: "The process at every turn has been characterized by both scientific and procedural irregularities. Those irregularities include conflicts of interest by both Agency staff involved in the preparation of the risk assessment and members of the Science Advisory Board panel selected to provide a supposedly independent evaluation of the document."

And, the EPA conclusion that ETS was a Group “A” carcinogen wound up in court. After four years of testimony a federal (anti-tobacco) judge invalidated their conclusion, calling the report an outright "fraud".

In his final judgment, Justice Osteen said: "The Agency disregarded information and made findings based on selective information... deviated from its own risk assessment guidelines; failed to disclose important (opposing) findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers."

Among those important (opposing) findings that the EPA failed to disclose was the largest existing study ever done up to that point, funded by the National Cancer Institute.

But if the United States Congress and a US federal judge found that the study lacked scientific integrity, why is it still being cited by the prohibitionists as the definitive study on secondhand smoke.

And, why does the media allow the hoax to continue?

For more facts on the EPA study, visit: The Hittman Chronicles