ANTI-TOBACCO "SCIENCE"
-- AND THE LIKE

As hard as it is to admit for some, politicians are basing most of their decisions on junk science. Politicians are not just incompetent in politics. They are incompetent -- period.

Certainly without trying to compete with junk science master Steven Milloy, we report here a small collection of the most recent junk science, and a few excerpts from "studies" based on statistics -- not on direct research. Yet these statistical studies, usually passed under the name of epidemiology or research, are driving entire nations, persecuting entire categories of people, and used to justify the most indecent taxation.

Don't fool yourself. This is not just applicable to tobacco, though tobacco is certainly the most lucrative fraud created by junk science. Nowadays, junk science applies to anything:

• The food you eat
• The phone you use
• The car you buy
• ... And literally COUNTLESS other aspects of your life.

Sad, isn't it? But let's cheer up with this review of the latest scientific "findings" and conservation policies.

"Prenatal exposure to cigarette smoking is associated with a decrease in arousal in infants" (from JunkScience) The Journal of Pediatrics (July 1999) reports, "Newborns and infants born to smoking mothers had higher arousal thresholds to auditory challenges than those born to nonsmoking mothers." But the authors acknowledge, "We cannot explain why intrauterine exposure to cigarette smoke is associated with a decrease in arousability." Still the accompanying editorial suggests that maternal smoking should be criminalized!

But here is the kicker: When trying to access the "accompanying editorial", the following message appears:

"You have requested an item that requires paid access to Journal of Pediatrics Online."

Paying for this garbage?! They should pay US for the pain of reading it!

The Siegel Effect (State's finding on smoking ban ignites debate - This story ran on page B1 of the Boston Globe on 07/26/99).

"...health experts [... we love the terminology "health expert"... who the hell is a health expert? Who cares, it sounds impressive!...] say the strongest argument for a ban lies with the safety of restaurant workers, who have one of the highest rates of lung cancer of all occupations in the state."

The "study" by Dr. Siegel, "peer-reviewed" by the ubiquitous iniquitous Stanton Glantz (that is, Al Capone ascertaining the integrity of Vito Genovese), did NOT in any way MEASURE the smoke, second-hand, first-hand OR cooking-caused, to which restaurant and bar workers were exposed. It is short on data and LONG on policy recommendations, and has been widely distributed nationally among anti-smokers to push for restaurant and BAR smoking BANS. It was done as part of the work Dr. Siegel did to get his doctoral degree from Berkeley, when he only had an MPH. It is amazing people like that receive degrees. The original data, from which Siegel worked, but did NOT collect, had NOTHING to do with exposure to smoke of ANY kind. But the Boston Globe saw fit to publish this garbage on its pages -- without reporting any dissenting opinion, of course. You can expect it to surface at a Hall of Government near you at any time, if it hasn't yet. Be prepared.

Eating Fish May Reduce Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death (from Heart Information Network)

Here are comments from Terry Niksch, researcher and FORCES supporter:

Several aspects of this story clicked in my head: 1. The threshold for fish was reported to be once a week. This is achieved by the Catholic custom of eating fish on Fridays. "After adjusting for age, beta-carotene intake, and aspirin use, the team found that fish consumption was inversely related to the risk of sudden death from a cardiac event. Consumption of fish at least once a week reduced the risk of sudden cardiac death by 52 percent compared to those who ate fish less than once a month. However, protection from sudden cardiac death did not appear to be strengthened as participants ate more fish - researchers noted a "threshold effect" obtained at one fish meal per week."

2. The Japanese eat more fish, and smoke more than Americans, yet live longer lives on average. "Authors note that about 250,000 people die from sudden cardiac death each year with 55 percent of these deaths occurring in people with NO history of heart disease; most victims die before reaching the hospital"

"HeartInfo Editorial Comment:

This interesting report is based on a large, extremely well performed prospective study of American physicians. The results are provocative: fish intake was associated with a reduced incidence of sudden cardiac death but not of overall heart attacks. This is somewhat at odds with previous studies (most of which were smaller or not as rigorous) which did suggest an association of fish intake with reduction in heart attacks. This remains to be sorted out. The overall body of data does suggest that regular modest (once per week) fish intake might be beneficial for the heart. However, as with all epidemiologic studies, we can't be certain that the benefit is from the fish itself, as people who eat more fish may also do other things more healthfully that weren't measured but might have reduced their risk. Also, the "protective" aspect of fish (if in fact fish IS protective) is not necessarily due to the omega-3 fatty acids and could be due to other components of the fish. It would NOT be appropriate to extrapolate from this study that average persons should begin taking fish oil capsules. Nevertheless, eating one or more helpings of fish per week is probably not a bad idea!"

3. The careful statement above re extrapolation and lack of proof from epidemiologic studies and unmeasured variables is in sharp contrast to the widespread practice of attacking smoking in public statements (the Lalonde Doctrine) at the slightest hint of a possible risk-factor. It's taken on the zeal of a religion. Count me in as one of the heretics - along with Galileo.

Remember h. pylori and ulcers? All kinds of unpleasureable lifestyle changes were widely recommended before the bacteria was found to be the primary, curable cause of ulcers, and the doctor who first proposed it was ridiculed by the medical establishment.

"Toilet flush capacity lowered again" (first reported by Steven Milloy's JunkScience as the Humor of the Day) - A vulgar saying used to go like this: "Now the government is going to tell us how to wipe our ..." , an exaggeration to make a point. Well, we are getting awfully close to the literal meaning now!

The Web Lampoon delights us with this item, "For Americans who have gotten used to the 1.6 gallon toilet in the past few years, there is another adjustment coming - the .8 gallon flush. Beginning January 1 of next year, toilets with the halved-again tank size will be the only ones available." More freedom of choice in the making.

Of course, 0.8 US gallons (only 4.6 litres) is not sufficient to clean the toilet properly when it comes to solid excrements, so the result will be that the toilet will have to be flushed two or three times instead. More intelligent is the European solution of two buttons on the tank, a 5-litre one for "pee", and a 10-litre one for "poo". But that is choice again -- certainly no longer in the vocabulary of the New Order.

Well, we've said for a long time that health nuts, extreme environmentalists, and the US government are full of it.

"Attack of the killer toasters" (from Steven Milloy's JunkScience) - This is a health scare that flopped out. The dishonest scientists went too far. They should have stuck with anti-tobacco, where anything goes. The Washington Times comments, "Call off the scare. It's all right to keep your electric appliances and computers after all. The findings of a study linking electric power to cancer have dissipated under the scrutiny of federal fraud investigators. So as long as you aren't in the habit of taking a shower with your toaster, it's not the killer originally feared." Where are the federal fraud investigators when it comes to anti-tobacco studies?

"Human Impact Triggers Massive Extinctions" (from Steven Milloy's JunkScience) - This should be renamed "Humans to be forbidden". It is clear that humans, like all animals, are having an impact on the planet. In fact, THEY ARE part of the planet. The intelligent solution of developing space technology to put environmentally "unfriendly" industries out there instead of regulating them to death is lingering in limbo. Governments are too busy spending billions pushing anti-tobacco frauds. But then, we hysterics expect to have the small impact of Medieval man on the environment -- but with all the comfort of modern times! Stupidity triumphs.

The Environment News Service reports, "Humanity's impact on the earth has increased extinction rates to levels rivaling the five mass extinctions of past geologic history, transformed nearly half of Earth's land and created 50 dead zones in the world's oceans, according to research being presented this week at the 16th International Botanical Congress."