TICAP conference on despite sabotage

A conference, scheduled to be held in the parliament of the European Union (EU), has been cancelled only days before it was scheduled to open. The conference, planned by The International Coalition Against Prohibition (TICAP), had a monkey wrench thrown into the works when the EU Bureau decided to withdraw an agreement for use of the parliament building which had been approved as the venue for the conference months ago.

Permission to use the EU parliament was withdrawn after a letter from an anti-smoker group, the Smoke Free Partnership, was sent to the EU President. The decision to rescind permission was made "in camera" (read "in secret") and was apparently not relayed to organizers of the conference until several days after the fact.

Florence Berteletti Kemp, director of the anti-smoker group, claimed that: “The TICAP conference purports to develop methods and strategies to end 'the use of pseudo-science' in relation to tobacco control, in contrast the WHO FCTC* recognizes 'that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke cause death, disease and disability'.”

In other words, we don’t want scientists with opposing views disputing our facts in public, it might be embarrassing.

But, if the scientific evidence is so unequivocal, why are they afraid of an open debate on its merits? Why the deceitful, underhanded methods employed to deny opposing voices an opportunity to be heard? Why the attempt to curb the most basic of human rights in any free society; freedom of speech.

Scientists from around the world, including some notable members of the tobacco control movement, were scheduled to address the first ever TICAP conference planned for January 27/28 in Brussels. And, the two day event was attracting a lot of attention; too much, apparently, for the anti-smoker brigade.

Anti-smoker activists do not tolerate legitimate scientific debate. In fact, they don't tolerate any opposition whatsoever for that matter.

But, if the science behind their message of intolerance and hatred towards smokers is so strong, why are they afraid of a few speeches regarding the hoax of secondhand smoke? Why the sly tactics to block the event?

A press release issued by TICAP says: “For decades the anti smoking industry has grossly perverted science for their own ideology; it comes as no surprise to us whatsoever that they are now perverting democracy and freedom in the very heart of the EU.”

Fortunately, the organizers of the TICAP conference, “Smoking Bans and Lies”, were prepared for the scheming, devious tactics of the antismoker fanatics, and a contingency plan has now been put into motion. The British Delegation of the Independence/Democracy Group in the European Parliament has launched the “Thinking Is Forbidden” Conference.

All scientists and other participants to the cancelled conference are invited to attend. Live satellite links for those unable to attend in person will also be available at the alternate site directly across from the parliament.

The original conference, under the patronage of Godfrey Bloom, MEP (Member of European Parliament), was called to discuss health policy as it relates to smoking, smoking bans and the issue of secondhand smoke. Among the issues on the agenda: the economic impact of smoking bans, epidemiology and the passive smoking fraud, toxicology and ventilation, and public health ideology and the pharmaceutical industry.

Simply put, the TICAP conference sought to present the truth about the use of pseudo-science to establish and justify anti-smoker policies, political actions and laws and make the public aware of the influence of pharmaceutical and other commercial lobbies on political decision-making.

This attempt, by anti-smoker activists, to thwart the democratic process and deny opposing points of view to be openly discussed and debated, is nothing short of reprehensible. Smoking may be a nuisance to many non-smokers, but the attempt by anti-smoker activists to suppress such basic rights as free speech and freedom of association are a threat to freedom itself.

If they’ve been open and honest with the public, the press and the politicians, they should have nothing to fear. On the other hand . . .

Smoking kills a busload of kids every day?

The Butt Ugly program is “an interactive drama/comedy and small group workshop” which uses “recognizable slice of life and fantasy play styles” to deliver an anti-tobacco message. It’s geared to middle schools and high schools.

It’s supposed to be an educational program dealing with tobacco related issues such as experimenting with tobacco, health effects of immediate and prolonged use and strategies used by tobacco companies to target teens.

They’ve been around since 1995, delivering a “peer-led education and intervention anti-tobacco program for middle schools”.

I should make it clear that I’ve never seen the presentation, so my criticism is based on information found on their web site, not on the presentation itself. I should also make it clear that educating young people about the potential hazards of tobacco use, both short term and long term, is a good idea.

The key word, of course, is “educate”. But . . . education should not be confused with indoctrination. And misinformation, a deliberate misstatement of the facts, has no place at any stage of the educational process. Educate and inform the kids, but keep it honest and avoid the fear-mongering. And, outright deception is to be avoided like the plague to maintain any credibility. These youngsters are a damn sight smarter than you might think.

The Butt Ugly web site makes the following claim: “In Alberta, tobacco kills the equivalent of a school bus full of children everyday.”

That’s a pretty remarkable statement. And, what makes it even more remarkable is that it’s stated so matter-of-factly. It’s not a little white lie, and it’s not just an exaggeration; it’s a whopper of a lie.

And, although many adults wouldn’t bat an eye before accepting it as fact, especially the way it’s phrased, it can’t possibly be true. Think about it.

If a school bus holds 40 children, that’s 40 kids a day; 14,600 children dying in Alberta every year. To claim that many children are dying from tobacco in the whole damn country every year would be preposterous.

But, let’s be a little generous in making our calculations. School buses come in different sizes. So, let’s say that, out in Red Deer, a school bus holds 10 children. Yes, I know. That’s a very small school bus. But, I want to be fair. So, multiply 10 by 365, the number of days in a year, and you get 3,650 deaths per year.

That’s better isn’t it? Well, no; not really.

Looking at the 2002 mortality tables from Statcan, we find that only 3,612 Canadians between birth and 20 years of age, died in that year. Uh-huh. Butt Ugly is claiming more children died from tobacco in Alberta than died in the whole damn country from all causes.

But, it gets worse. 1,597 of those deaths occurred in infancy, at less than one year old. Cause of these deaths was listed as congenital malformation, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities (427), certain conditions originating in the perinatal period (918), abnormal clinical findings not elsewhere classified (171) and, all other diseases (81).

None of these conditions, to the best of my knowledge, are linked to tobacco.

Removing these deaths from the 3,612 total deaths recorded by Statcan leaves 2,005 deaths. Subtracting a further 899 deaths due to accidents and homicide, and 215 more from suicide, none of which can be attributed to tobacco, leaves 881 deaths from all other causes for the whole of Canada.

For a busload of kids to die every month, let alone every day, is a statistical impossibility. Alberta is home to only 12% of Canada’s population.

According to the Butt Ugly website, students participating in the program will learn to “research an issue thoroughly, and evaluate the credibility and reliability of information sources as they prepare for the delivery of the program”.

Although the web site claims that students present the program and apparently write some of the material, their supervisory board should be responsible for ensuring the information they provide is accurate and reliable.

And, the supervisory board did a piss poor job of evaluating the credibility and reliability of this particular piece of information. They deserve a slap on the wrist.

And, the web site uses the same biased spin in their anti-tobacco message as adult sites. Arsenic, found in a miniscule amount in tobacco, is “rat poison”. No mention that arsenic is quite common in the environment, including tap water.

Nicotine, they say, is highly toxic and a single drop of liquid nicotine can kill you. That’s true.

But liquid nicotine is not readily available to the public and is used only in controlled situations such as lab experiments. And, nicotine is found, not only in cigarettes, but in Nicorettes, Nicoderm and other nicotine replacement products. It’s also found, in smaller amounts, in potatoes, tomatoes, eggplant and a host of other common fruits and vegetables.

Are these people educating our children about the possible health hazards of tobacco or indoctrinating them into the anti-smoker cult?

Where in hell did they find such a statistic?

Smoking related deaths, not just for smokers

It’s nice to be retired. You have so much time to consider existential philosophy and the many mysteries of life. Do we really live in a world without meaning? Is life really some absurd joke?

And, just where in hell did the term “smoking related disease” come from? What makes a disease a smoking related disease? Do only smokers die from smoking related diseases? Does anyone remember when the anti-smoker crowd first started using the term?

While reading about yet another smoking ban the other day, it dawned on me that I hadn’t really given much thought to the concept. I’d simply accepted the term, like many people, knowing that it referred to diseases ostensibly caused by smoking.

But, what really makes a disease a smoking related disease? What makes Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD), for example, a smoking related disease? Is it simply because some smokers die of heart attacks?

It simply doesn’t make sense that, because someone who smokes dies of a heart attack, IHD is a smoking related disease, or that his or her death was “smoking related”.

After all, if a smoker dies in an automobile accident, his death is not considered smoking related. And, if a smoker steps off the roof of a ten storey building, it doesn’t make his almost certain demise a smoking related death. So, if a smoker dies of IHD, why is it a smoking related death?

So, I did what I usually do in such circumstances, I looked it up on the internet. It sure beats browsing through those big, heavy books.

Health Canada is a great place to go to find out about things like smoking related disease and smoking related death. They know a lot about smoking and health. So, I checked it out . . . and came away more confused than when I started.

In 2002, according to Statcan, there were 40,607 deaths from Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD). Of those 40 thousand plus deaths, 5,343 were estimated by Health Canada to be smoking related deaths and were therefore, presumably, smokers.

But, if only 13% of IHD deaths (5,343) were smokers, doesn’t that mean the other 87% (35,264 deaths) were non-smokers? And, if the vast majority of those who died (87%) were non-smokers, how can IHD be considered a smoking related disease?

According to Physicians for a Smokefree Canada (PSC), 21% of the population (5.377 million) smoked in 2002. But, if 21% of the population was smokers, wouldn’t you expect 21% of those who died from IHD to be smokers, reflecting their numbers in the general population?

In fact, if smoking created a greater risk of IHD, as the anti-smoker crowd claim, shouldn’t the percentage of smoking related deaths due to IHD be greater than the percentage of the smoking segment of society they represent? Shouldn’t the numbers be out of proportion to those in the general population in the other direction?

That’s apparently not the case. As noted previously, 5,343 of those IHD deaths were allegedly caused by smoking. This means that one in every 1006 smokers died of IHD in 2002. By contrast, the non-smoking segment of the population, 20.228 million, had 35,264 deaths from IHD. That’s one in every 574 non-smokers who died of IHD.

If non-smokers are dying of IHD at almost twice the rate of smokers, why is the anti-smoker brigade pressuring smokers to quit? According to their own figures, smokers are less susceptible to IHD than non-smokers.

Does it make sense that so many non-smokers are dying of a smoking related disease?

I’m neither an epidemiologist nor a statistician, so it should come as no surprise that I find numbers such as these confusing. But, they do make you think.

And, right now, I’m thinking of something I was told in an accounting class forty odd years ago.

“Two plus two always equals four. If the numbers don’t add up, one of three things has happened. You’ve made a mistake, someone has fudged the numbers . . . or you’re dealing with statistics.”

Anyway, I’m confident there’s a perfectly plausible, scientific explanation to account for this little anomaly. I’d ask Health Canada, but I’m still waiting for their “subject matter expert” to respond to my last question.

Killers: SHS is debateable; smog is not

While surfing the web, looking for something interesting to talk about, I came across an article on smog. The article, on 50Plus.com, pointed out that the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) was claiming smog killed over 9,500 people in Ontario (Canada) in 2008.

The estimate used by the OMA in 2000 was 1900 deaths, and that had been increased to 5,800 deaths for 2005. Now, in 2008, only a few years later, the estimate had grown to 9,500 in the province of Ontario. It seems that smog is killing a lot of people across Canada. And, not all that many people seem to be aware of it.

Checking out their website, we find the OMA explaining the 2005 increase in deaths by claiming that, “The most significant change though is that we now have reliable cohort-based studies for PM2.5 which show the premature deaths that result from the long-term effects of exposure.”

Dr. Ted Boadway, Executive Director of Health Policy at the OMA said at that time: "Unfortunately, new evidence that uncovers the cumulative impact of smog on our bodies has forced us to increase our earlier estimates of the negative effect smog has on our communities."

What struck me was that OMA estimates for annual premature deaths (2130) due to smog in Toronto alone, were almost three times the number of deaths (831) Health Canada attributes to secondhand smoke exposure for the whole of Canada.

In August 2008, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) released a study which suggested that: “Up to 21,000 Canadians will die this year due to air pollution."

But, despite the appalling annual death toll from exposure to smog and air pollution, these stories made a splash in the media, then, as the sensationalist impact dissipated, the press quickly lost interest and the public followed suit.

Also, in August of last year, Louisiana scientists announced that a previously unrecognized group of air pollutants, known as persistent free radicals (PFRs), had adverse effects remarkably similar to tobacco smoke.

H. Barry Dellinger, Ph.D., Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge, said. "Based on our work, we now know that free radicals similar to those in cigarettes are also found in airborne fine particles and potentially can cause many of the same life-threatening conditions. This is a staggering, but not unbelievable result, when one considers all of diseases in the world that cannot currently be attributed to a specific origin."

Once again, there was a brief splash in the media, then, the issue was abandoned both in the press and the public consciousness.

Smoking and secondhand smoke, on the other hand, remain in the news thanks to an unrelenting barrage of press releases from anti-smoker crusaders. It’s nothing short of a sophisticated propaganda campaign, of course, intended to demonize and de-normalize smokers.

But, the constant and repetitive nature of the anti-smoker campaign tends to focus public awareness on the subject of secondhand smoke. Yet, although the estimated death toll from smog dwarfs that attributed to secondhand smoke, the public, the press and the politicians are inclined to ignore those deaths as alarmist and, seemingly, inconsequential.

Make no mistake, the campaign to vilify smokers has diverted attention from other very serious risks to the health and well being of society. That’s problematic, and it should be of concern to smokers and non-smokers alike.

And, it raises another question concerning the alleged harmful effects of secondhand smoke.

Most of the new studies on smog, the discovery of persistent free radicals and a host of other scientific findings are fairly recent. How would they impact the studies done on secondhand smoke which did not consider the true health risks of smog as a confounder (an alternative explanation) in establishing the relative risk of secondhand smoke?

Remember, the evidence that secondhand smoke creates a risk of cancer or heart disease in non-smokers is flimsy at best. And, we’ve known for a fact that smog has been killing people since the Great Smog in London back in 1952.