So far, I have said nothing new.

But did you ever stop to think how this mountain of evidence is created? On the pages of FORCES Canada we have recently published information on how the enormous numbers said to be the "death toll" of smoking are generated. The numbers come from an astute (and expensive) piece of computer software called SAMMEC (Statistically Attributed Mortality, Morbidity, and Economic Costs), that has already filled the pockets of many antismoking "experts" thanks to the government's generosity.

The destiny of public health policy, as well as the freedom of citizens, are all contained in a few diskettes.

SAMMEC has greatly served the cause of antismoking, for the more absurd the assumption you throw in the machine, the more sensationalistic is the trash the machine spews out. The very latest piece of garbage to this effect is the new slogan of the B.C. Ministry of Health which, in the spirit of democracy and personal choice, all tobacco resales are mandated to post in their stores, disagreement not even being an issue: "Smoking kills one of every two smokers." Of course, like every petty dictator, the Ministry and its supporting gang does not feel obligated to explain how they got to this ludicrous figure, but -- what the hell -- citizens are not supposed to know, just to pay taxes. On the other hand, British Columbians don't seem to ask, either. Indeed B.C. citizens are the perfect stereotype of Canadian society: obey, believe, and fear authority. All it takes is to be a doctor, a bureaucrat, or wear a uniform, and every turd can rule: what a perfect haven for an absolute monarchy!

But I don't want to talk about SAMMEC, or the problems concerning conflict of interest, disinterested science and the funding of a great many "anti-smoking" studies. Many will argue back that -- differently from studies funded by the tobacco industry -- these studies are true and unbiased. Such statement or conviction should make it into the Guiness Book of Records under the Gullibility category, but the unfortunate part is that too many people really believe it.

But I digress.

What I want to talk about is the ever-increasing mountain of studies which seem to support the notion that ETS is a significant danger to people.

Let's have a closer look at that mountain.

In actuality, the base studies are very few, and in most cases not even showing a statistically significant link between disease and ETS, as Dr. John Luik thoroughly explains in "A Response to "Towards Healthier Communities in Nova Scotia". Why then do we hear about a new study coming out almost every day?

This deluge of "new" information is due to a technique called meta-analysis, where studies of a similar nature are combined and cross-referenced. In the case of ETS studies, data are cherry-picked to fit the political agenda of the political body that financed the new meta-analytical "study" in the first place. It's a card shuffling game played by card sharks.

The reader can appreciate that very many "studies" (and pay cheques) can be generated by relatively few base studies. While the "experts" of SAMMEC multiply deaths, the "experts" of meta-analysis (click here for a definition of meta-analysis) multiply "associations", better known as "links". Who says Christ had a monopoly on magical multiplication? Of course, it is essential that you have some title before your name for added effect, for credibility is important, you know!

Science writer Steven Milloy explains the mechanics of meta-analysis, its politics, and its ability to fool the health establishment while creating immense revenues in his wonderful book "Science Without Sense".

But exactly how many studies can be generated out of few? There is only a finite number of combinations of these base studies, then we are going to run out, right?

As an engineer, I love specifics, so I put the question to a mathematician friend, Rosalind Marimont: "If we have 10 base studies, and we combine them in any possible way, how many possible combinations can we have?".

The small formula she provided me with really stunned me, and I felt the need the share it with our readers. Let us arm ourselves with a common household calculator, and let's have some fun; I promise, this is easy!

The number of all size combinations, from 1 to N, of N things is 2^N -1.

Your X is the (Nth power of 2) -1.

This sounds difficult, but it is not. Let's write down our example. If we have 10 base studies, how many new "studies" can we generate?

(2 to the tenth power) - 1, or 2¹⁰ - 1, or (2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2) - 1=1024 - 1=1023, minus the 10 original studies, = 1013. So, ten studies can generate 1,013 new "studies"! In the case of ETS research, we are talking about a grand total of perhaps 40 base studies (though, again, most of them clearly reveal no statistical association between ETS and increased incidents of disease -- but spin doctoring is the name of the game), so the actual potential number of combinations approaches 11 billion!

As you can see, the antismoking leeches can easily bankrupt the U.S. Treasury long before they run out of options, and even if they produce one new "study" a day (which is not too far from what's happening) they could go on for about 30 million years. What a media feast!

To add insult to injury, we could even consider the possible combinations between all the newly-generated studies, but that would keep us busy until the next Big Bang.

The explosive increase of meta-analytical garbage being paid for by us taxpayers can only be stopped by us taxpayers.

To use a famous buzz phrase from the Regan administration, we have to "Just Say No" to the present U.S. government's unscrupulous practice of turning meta-analysis into a propaganda tool which paves the way to rich new tax-revenue sources.

Gian Turci