Milan - The International Introductory Conference to the Italian Day for Cancer Research was held yesterday in Milan.

The progress reported in the development of the fight against cancer in its many manifestations was remarkable. The attacks to smokers and smoking have not been many, and the few were propagandistic in nature, and of clear American origin. An area of particular interest has been the review of the results concerning the links between foods and the various types of cancer. According to the authoritative speakers, with very few exceptions the mere act of nourishing oneself is almost equivalent to some degree of cancer risk.

This is because of epidemiological studies based on hypotheses and self-reporting, as well as a rigid correlation of one cause to one disease. One could, for example, link lung cancer to brown eyes (the majority of the population has brown eyes) and state that brown eyes CAUSE cancer. Even though such a statement would be laughable because absurd, the example gives an idea of the approximation of this science. ^{( 1 )}

While epidemiology is a formidable weapon when used to examine disease caused by one or two factors, it becomes increasingly inaccurate when the number of causes increases.

It is for this very reason that anti-smoking propaganda is based much more on emotions rather than facts, notwithstanding that many professionals have attached their name to this lurid propaganda. The reasons for this behaviour often transcend science.

There are over forty known causes for lung cancer and smoking is just one - though probably an important one. This sort of balanced statement is, however, anathema to the anti-smoking crusaders. In fact, in this conference, it has been stated: "If there was no smoking, lung cancer would be a very rare disease." Atmospheric and water pollution, food, and genetic predisposition are just a few of the many causes of lung cancer. Yet, when one talks about this terrible ailment, smoking is the first cause mentioned. If the patient is a smoker "there are no doubts" about the cause. And if the patient is a non-smoker? Then, "no doubt, it's because of passive smoking" -- which is one of the greatest frauds in the history of science, authored by the international anti-tobacco cartel.

In fact, of all the studies ever performed on Environmental Tobacco Smoke, only a minor one has ever revealed a statistically significant risk increase for the non-smoker. Notwithstanding that, the anti-smoking propaganda bases the prohibition of public smoking almost exclusively on this absurdity.

The problem of multiple causes applies to cardiovascular disease as well. The known causes for cardiovascular disease are over three-hundred. Yet again, during the conference, some statements about smoking being THE one responsible cause for cardiovascular disease were brought forward.

In both the cases of lung cancer and CVD, clear quantification and clear methodological explanations are blatantly absent from the evidence as presented in the public arena -- and the public is implicitly requested to just believe the emotional propaganda, based on the "authority" of the propagandists. No, thanks. We are convinced that the public would have quite a different opinion on some of these matters if common methodologies (and their limitations) were clearly and honestly explained.

(Example of the type of question used in some survey studies to help establish "links" that are interpreted as causality: "How many cigarettes a day was your grandfather smoking before his death from a heart attack twenty-five years ago? Do you remember well? 20 or 30?" And the conclusion inevitably is: "He died of a heart attack because he was smoking!" - please note: this is not an exaggeration).

Notwithstanding the admirable and indispensable efforts of IARC (International Association for Research on Cancer) and the WHO (World Health Organization) in the cancer research field, one should not forget that a large amount of the funding to support these organizations comes from the USA. Political words must therefore be pronounced in participating countries to appease the great American benefactor -- and its immense agenda of political and fiscal extortion of American smokers.

But all in all, it has been a relief to see that the overwhelming thrust of the conference has been on describing the research to UNDERSTAND the mechanics of cancer, and to focus on efforts to substitute epidemiology with genetics for the purpose of developing a CURE for the terrible killer. That emphasis -- much more than political propaganda, and the dissemination of false information about smoking -- has been the focus of the conference. The Italian political environment (and the Italian people) have little tolerance for puritanical rhetoric, class paternalism, and political junk science, for they had enough of it for this century.

We report a synopsis of the cancer causes that have emerged during the conference. According to epidemiology, very many are foodstuffs. Eaters beware, and prepare yourself for the shock of abandoning all food with the exception, perhaps, of a few fruits and vegetables!

To close, it is interesting to observe that, with all the uncertainty (and ignorance) surrounding cancer, the program "Europe Against Cancer", launched in 1986, has managed to obtain "health warnings" on cigarette packages -- notwithstanding the uncertainty and the political corruption of the evidence, and the total absence of proof. On the other hand, many other products that are confirmed causes of cancer are not mandated to carry any warning either in Europe, or in North America. It is crystal-clear that tobacco, its manufacturers, and its consumers have been chosen as moral, political, and scientific scapegoats, simply because they are politically more "convenient" to deal with than alcohol distillers, and car manufacturers.

FORCES INTERNATIONAL