The questionnaires of the Epidemiological Fraud |
Article Published: 1998
Published By: International Agency Research on Cancer
This revealing document repudiates the anti-tobacco orthodoxy by exposing the cruel joke foisted on the entire world by the anti-tobacco establishment. Reproduced herein in original letterhead is the questionnaire devised by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, agency of the World Health Organization, to fabricate "studies" on passive smoke. This specific questionnaire is what has been used for the Multicenter Case–Control Study of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe of 1998 which, by the way, turned out to be negative on the "dangers" of passive smoking. This questionnaire represents the typical model (and perhaps the best of the abysmal lot) on which ALL the studies that fabricate risk and statistical death from ETS are based.
It does not take any skill to read the questionnaire, and to understand that it has nothing to do with science.
The questionnaire merely records vague memories, then converts them into numbers with intimidating mathematical formulae (at the end of the document), that need no understanding because the data entered are, as you shall see, just supposings and incredible guess-work. In short, the formulae process imagination.
More than any other scientific discussion or discourse on freedom or the economy, this document should be an eye-opener because it is self-explanatory. It must be noted and understood that very similar methodology is used for the production of a great number of other health scares diverting billions of public dollars from productive use to "prevention,” regulation, restrictions, and prohibition.
The division instigated between non-smokers and smokers comes from the fear of the former being damaged by the "emissions" of the latter. This fear has its basis in years of relentless campaigns and in the words of authorities stating that scientific studies have "demonstrated" that passive smoking damages the health of the non-smoker. We all have heard of the trite "mountain of evidence" against passive smoke now and then.
However, nobody ever shows you how the information is collected. Here it is. This questionnaire represents a prime example of the common base for ALL the studies on passive smoking. After reading this document, it becomes clear that it does not take special qualification to realize that the public all over the world is the victim of one of the greatest statistical frauds ever conceived.
One very important observation is that the studies and the questionnaires simply talk about exposure to passive smoking, but not about the far more important question concerning the real dose of passive smoke the subjects of the studies have actually inhaled. It is clear that the actual dose is the real factor to be used for a reliable analysis of possible risks. If you agree on this elementary fact, try now to imagine how impossible it is to measure the dose when the exposure itself is simply an illusory conjecture.
When we hear about scientific studies, people imagine scientists at work dissecting cells, handling test tubes, and peering into microscopes, while following the rigorous discipline of science to arrive at the most true and objective results possible. Nothing is further from what passes as "science" concerning passive smoking.
To fully appreciate the scientific joke that this questionnaire represents (and, once again, it must be emphasized that this would be considered one of the best questionnaires in existence), it is necessary briefly to put the document into context.
The questions are asked of non-smokers with lung cancer (cases) or of their offspring and relatives if the case subjects are too infirm or dead. The same questions are asked of a comparison group of non-smokers (controls) who do not have lung cancer.
It takes no skills or imagination to understand that:
In this social, mental and emotional context to the patient or his survivors, the following questions are posed. Those affected by lung cancer know that their survival chances are few, and that the life that remains is usually short. It is only human that they try to find a reason to explain their disease. Thanks to the huge amount of propaganda and misinformation administered daily by mass media and even scientific journals in the last couple of decades, both doctors and patients have a ready-made diagnosis: if the patient smoked or was exposed to tobacco smoke, then
smoking is the cause. People affected by lung cancer, therefore, have the natural tendency to inflate the memories of their exposure. With such a mental posture, there is an irreparable basic flaw from the statistical point of view: the absence of objectivity.  The same applies when offspring and relatives are interviewed, often long after the death of the patient. If the emotional ties with the diseased were strong, the need for an explanation that "makes sense" (and the search for a scapegoat) is also very strong. Once again, this makes the answers to the questions unreliable.
Social stigma, often veering towards contempt for smokers, regarding lung cancer created by years of relentless propaganda induces many of the interviewed to lie about whether they smoked in the past. In order to hide what they believe is the "real" cause of their disease, they represent themselves as non-smokers and they explain their disease with exposure to passive smoking. This form of lie/error is called
misclassification. The binomial smoking/lung cancer has become the ideological/emotional/political basis of a way of thinking that is unchangeable and unarguable (perhaps just because it is not demonstrable) of anti-smoking "science," thus the absolute postulation of studies and politics. Furthermore, it has been deeply lodged in our culture. Studies by definition should not have cultural, ideological, emotional or political bases if they were truly scientific. However it should be noted that, at this point in time, these "studies" do not intend to establish whether passive smoke is damaging. Their purpose has become to establish
how much passive smoke is damaging. One can easily imagine the bias when the interviewers solicit the desired answers, then reduce the answers of the subjects to numbers, and finally when the researchers interpret the results. Too often those who finance the studies are entities that have a strong political and economic interest that the studies produce the "right" results, namely condemning smoking as much as possible. It has come to the point that scientific journals, strongly influenced by pharmaceutical giants with an obvious anti-smoking interest, refuse to publish studies that are financed by the tobacco industry. That is to prevent information that could be contrary to the prescriptions of the social engineering that is being implemented.
 Once again, ALL studies on passive smoke that compute risk and mortality invariably use this methodology to "measure" exposure to passive smoke. The questions may change a little and the studies may change in type and definition (case-control, cohort, meta-analysis), but not the questionnaire-based system. With this methodology passive smoke has been statistically associated to all kinds of disease and not just lung cancer. To mention just a few, cardiovascular disease, childhood tooth cavities, autism, a large number of types of cancer, gum recession, pnemonia, bronchitis, SIDS, leukaemia, bad marks at school, estrogen imbalances, otitis, colitis, psychiatric problems — and so on
ad infinitum. The more, it seems, the merrier — as anything goes to convince people that “tobacco kills in any form”.
For further information on the absud methodology used by studies on passive smoking, click here.
 The importance of objectivity for science (and thus for the politics and laws stimulated by that science) is perhaps better understood if we think of a jury. Would you trust a murder trial where the jurors have been bombarded for years by the media on who the guilty party is, and thus have already largely formed an opinion on the guilt of the accused? Certainly not. In fact, the selection of jurors who are unaware of the case they have to render a decision on is an essential requirement in almost all juridical systems. Yet, this is exactly the prejudice that has surrounded smoking for a very long time. To take that example further, in today’s “trial by science (and press release)” of smoking only the jurors who have openly declared their conviction on the guilt of the accused are allowed into the jury!
 Furthermore those researchers and the scientific journals that do produce and publish the "wrong" results are burned at the stake of public opinion, as was the case of Enstrom and Kabat and of the British Medical Journal for their study Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Tobacco Related Mortality in a Prospective Study of Californians, 1960-98. This enormous study, which lasted 40 years and examined 118,000 subjects, demonstrated conclusively that the effects of passive cannot be measured. Nearly the entire cost of the study, several million dollars, was funded by the California Department of Health and Human Services and the American Cancer Society. When it became clear that the conclusions reached by the study would not have produced the desired anti-smoking result, the original donors abruptly cut off the funding. Needing $75,000 to compile the data and bring the study to a close, the two authors turned to the Center for Indoor Air Research, financed by the tobacco industry. Using the paltry tobacco financing as an excuse, ALL scientific journals refused to publish this important study, except the British Medical Journal, which was mercilessly castigated by anti-tobacco special interests.