| FORCES - Evidence by topic - Back to: Proving the lies of the anti-tobacco cartel: The Evidence Related Topics: |
THE EPA ETS FRAUD
THE PASSIVE SMOKE WHOPPER
MORE EVIDENCE ON SECOND HAND SMOKE
THE U.S.-CONTROLLED WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION HAS WITHHELD THE TRUTH FROM THE WORLD TO FURTHER ITS LUCRATIVE AGENDA
- ANTISMOKING CARTEL FRANTIC
"PASSIVE SMOKING DOESN'T CAUSE CANCER - OFFICIAL"
Finally, some truth is coming out on the secondhand smoke scam. An article in the Telegraph from the U.K. published on Sunday, March 8 breaks the news:"The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could have even a protective effect."
UPDATE MAY 8, 1998
WHO'S "NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT" THEN
This article published in the March-April issue of Free Choice, the bi-monthly publication of FOREST, the British pro-choice on smoking organization, describes the data manipulation and the political "memory losses" of the World Health Organization when their own major study on passive smoke failed to find any statistically significant link with lung cancer. It is amusing as well as painful to see that this Organization, once responsible for many benefits to humanity, has now become the marionette of the US-driven antismoking mafia. But we keep hoping that one day the antismoking gangsters will be made to pay dearly for the corruption they have brought to the scientific world as well.
ETS: THE DEFINITIVE WORD
Lord Harris of High Cross comments on the findings (or should we say "non-findings?") of the WHO study: "In short, 'passive smoking' is a hoax inspired by anti-smoking pressure groups (ASH, etc),obligingly invented by militant medicos, and unwittingly spread by passive thinking! It is driven byfamiliar political imperatives and orchestrated by media scare stories. Forall the effort to prove their point, the anti-smokers' ETS claims vanish in a puff of smoke."
UPDATE APRIL 10, 1998
THE ANSWER OF FORCES TO THE MISLEADING ASH BRIEFING ON THE WHO STUDY
In its effort to minimize the blow of the WHO study on passive smoking, ASH has published an "explanation" on their site which, in pure antismoking doctrine, is a distortion of facts. The irresponsible alteration of reality to pursue a political agenda is an earmark of this organization, which through the decades has elevated misrepresentation to a fine art. The issue here is only one:
THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT RISK IN THE INHALATION OF PASSIVE SMOKE. PERIOD.
Because of that, legislation against smoking in public places is unjustified, contrary to the rights of citizens, and must be repealed. Moreover, the EPA and the enablers of public smoking prohibition must be investigated and convicted upon presentation of evidence of wrong doing and data falsification.
Here we publish our answer.
UPDATE APRIL 9, 1998
THE DATA THAT WENT UP IN SMOKE
" After all, the WHO study casts doubt on the Environmental Protection Agency's ''meta-analysis'' that called passive smoke a carcinogen and led to personal injury lawsuits. In effect, WHO found that nonsmokers breathing in a smoke-filled room are at no greater risk of developing lung cancer than they are breathing in a clear room." - We link with Steven Milloy's Junk Science
UPDATE MARCH 24, 1998
BAN ANTI-TOBACCO ACTIVISTS
"When it comes to riding the coattails of junk science ... the anti-tobacco industry knows few peers," notes Globe and Mail Report on Business columnist Terence Corcoran in his commentary on the World Health Organization IARC second-hand smoke study. And anti-tobacco has one of the oldest reasons in the world to keep on riding: "For governments collecting new taxes, for activists mounting campaigns, for agencies receiving state funding, for the U.S. lawyers collecting billions in contingency fees, tobacco has turned into a river of gold paid for by taxes on smokers."
UPDATE MARCH 19, 1998
PUBLIC RELATION OFFICERATTEMPTS TO DENY WITHHOLDING FINDINGS, AND SPIN-DOCTORS THE CONCLUSIONS
Desperation is the watchword as the health poobahs try to minimize the devastating impact of the latest ETS study. Witness this Spin Physician's attempt to bend the facts: "No increased risk was found for lung cancer in adults who were exposed to passive smoking during childhood but other studies have shown that passive smoking by children worsens asthma and may cause several disease conditions, including bronchitis and pneumonia," says Dr. Nicolas Gaudin, Public Relations Officer. And note that the 16-17% increase in risk claimed by Dr. Gaudin, even if true, is a ridiculously small increase in statistical risk. ... Sorry guys, your lies still do not fly. Read the entire press release inside, and a short commentary by Carol Thompson.
SMOKING OUT BAD SCIENCE
The medical demographer for the Cambridge-based European Science and Environment Forum speaks out on the secondhand smoke study outrage
"...it is now obvious that the health hazard of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has been knowingly overstated. The only large-scale definitive study on ETS was designed in 1988 by a WHO subgroup called the International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC). It compared 650 lung-cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people in seven European countries. The results were expressed as "risk ratios," where the normal risk for a non-smoker of contracting lung cancer is set at one. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the home raised the risk to 1.16 and to smoke in the workplace to 1.17. This supposedly represents a 16% or 17% increase. But the admitted margin of error is so wide -- 0.93 to 1.44 -- that the true risk ratio could be less than one, making second-hand smoke a health benefit." We link to the junkscience website.
UPDATE MARCH 17, 1998
ARTICLE FROM THE ECONOMIST
"Is the body that wiped out smallpox and has done so much to promote mass vaccination losing its way? In recent weeks the reputation of the World Health Organisation (WHO) has suffered a number of blows, as critics have accused it of bowing to political pressures rather than publishing unpalatable research findings." These are the words of The Economist. Polite to put it mildly. But in the straight language of clarity, we may add that when an international organization is controlled by a nation, it has to sing the tune of the guy who issues the payroll. For a long time, the WHO has been a vehicle to propagate the US politics around the world. And we all know what the agenda of the White House is, and it cannot be farther from the truth when it comes to smoking. As far as The Economist stating that "smoking is the fastest growing killer after AIDS," the journalists of that paper need to be informed on how SAMMEC works, and then they would have another nice scandal to talk about. (Link to Steven Milloy's Junk Science page)
ARTICLE FROM THE TELEGRAPH
NO 'SIGNIFICANT' RISK IN PASSIVE SMOKING
"Leading cancer experts have conceded that the World Health Organisation's study of the link between passive smoking and lung cancerfailed to find any statistically significant extra risk, as exclusively revealed by The Telegraph last week. The experts include Prof. Sir Richard Doll, the world's leading authority on the link between direct smoking and cancer, who said that the rejection was on the grounds that the results were simply yet more evidence of the kind produced by dozens of earlier studies, which have also usually failed to give conclusive results."
UPDATE MARCH 11, 1998
ANTISMOKING CARTEL SPEWS OUTRIGHT LIES IN A DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO BALANCE THE BLOW
The Ottawa Citizen publishes a rebuttal, the introduction of which is: "Activists, scientists united in opposition to controversial report - Experts have blasted a study purportedly from the World Health Association that suggests second-hand smoke does not cause lung cancer." WHAT SCIENTISTS and EXPERTS, Ottawa Citizen? Are we talking about Mr. Sweanor, lawyer of the Nonsmokers Rights Association, the Canadian antismokers hate group? Or Mr. Repace, producer of junk science extraordinaire, who makes a living on mass-production of reshuffled studies? Come on! Is this science, or religion? Or is this ideology? Can we publish something honest about this issue, for a change?
And by the way, the statement about the EPA: "...But of 30 studies that had been done by 1992, 24 did [find a link with cancer]" is A PLAIN, OUTRIGHT LIE - (click here for reference).
UPDATE MARCH 11, 1998
UN DEFENDS DANGERS OF PASSIVE SMOKE
RED ALERT! An uncorrupted study has leaked out of the information control system! Quick, perform damage control! ``Passive smoking does cause cancer. Do not let them fool you,'' the WHO says with grave paternalism. But even in the most tight criminal organization information eventually leaks out, or somebody turns stool pigeon. It is interesting to see how the media in general still try to keep this information from the public. Even though slowly, public opinion is starting to turn on this issue, and the dam erected to contain the lies is beginning to overflow.
THE FORCES CANADA PRESS RELEASE
"We have said for the longest time that the dangers of secondhand smoke are a hoax designed for political purposes. Now, finally some of the evidence about this mountain of exaggerations and unfounded allegations about ETS is making it through to the press."