And Then, There
Were None . . .

By Norman E. Kjono

London, England - March 8, 1998, The Daily Telegraph, an article headlined "Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official", byline Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent:

"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 even have a protective effect."

This article from The Daily Telegraph reports on a study commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) involving twelve centres and seven European countries.

Considering the nationwide anti-tobacco feeding frenzy here in the USA, as escalated to a $368 billion dollar special interest feast on lower income and ethnic minority pocketbooks by EPA "science" regarding secondhand smoke, disclosing how false the secondhand smoke claims of anti-tobacco are should be very big news.

Rather than news, the truth about secondhand smoke seems to be something that WHO suppresses. Well, that's typical of anti-tobacco: "prove" your case by looking exclusively at studies that support one's agenda, then refuse to consider, in fact hide, legitimate science which proves self-serving theories to be wrong.

We are, however, dealing with public health policy that affects everyone when discussing anti-tobacco. We are addressing public health policy that affects millions of families, including parent-child relationships in households with parents who smoke. And the issues we are addressing concern hundreds of billions in new taxes, taxes specifically levied on a state-defined "target group" of persons who choose to smoke.

Those family budget and parent-child relationship realities say that the truth about secondhand smoke is of compelling and immediate importance. Beyond disappointing, it is, to my mind, outright fraudulent that WHO chooses to suppress material public health information determined by its own studies. It seems that WHO and anti-tobacco activists regard family budgets and parent-child relationships as disposable encumbrances, an inconvenience to be ignored in their pursuit of bucks and clout.

Well, it's my family, too. Butt out, WHO.

The Daily Telegraph article goes on to report information that all honest citizens should be very deeply concerned about:

"The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums of money on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.", and;

"The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoking having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by the Telegraph, also states: 'There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.'"

Anti-tobacco is rapidly running out of excuses for their anti-family and anti-smoker agenda. There is a point where there are no excuses left to continue the blatant special interest looting of family relationships and family budgets by anti-tobacco. We are approaching the point where we look at the last excuse for anti-tobacco and simply conclude there are none.

This reality of no more excuses is emphasized by a UK News article six months ago:

London, England - October 19, 1997 UK News, an article headlined "Cancer alert on passive smoking `is false alarm'", byline Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent:

"THE debate over `passive' smoking is about to flare into further controversy with new research pointing to a very low risk of lung cancer among those living with smokers.

The findings to be published next month - based on 35 international studies of lung cancer rates among women married to smokers - suggest that the extra risk is 60 per cent lower than that claimed by scientists last week and that the additional risk may be negligible."

Six months ago the European press was carrying stories that questioned blindly-accepted medical "conclusions" that Environmental Tobacco Smoke causes lung cancer.

The reporter for UK News also addressed extensive work by Dr. Geof Givens and his colleagues at the University of Colorado. Dr. Givens' team has re-evaluated several ETS/lung cancer studies, taking into account several studies that have been excluded from the body of "science" that allegedly supports the EPA's claims.

Dr. Givens' team also reviewed the 1992 EPA report on secondhand smoke. Their finding were that the EPA had overstated the risks from secondhand smoke, concluding that the risks of lung cancer from secondhand smoke were 60% less that stated by the EPA.

Bear in mind that the 1992 EPA report found a very weak, tenuous, risk factor of 1.19 in the first place, and that they had to reduce the statistical level of confidence from 95% to 90% to achieve that. The EPA based its 1992 "conclusion" that ETS caused lung cancer in 3,000 nonsmokers each year on a risk factor of 1.19 at a 90% level of confidence, compared to the customary risk factor of 2.0 to 3.0, at a 95% level of confidence normally required to find any true risk when applying legitimate scientific standards.

When one factors in the excluded studies, the risks of lung cancer from ETS plummet to virtually, and perhaps actually, none.

The international press has picked up on the story about false claims regarding the risks of secondhand smoke:

Vancouver B.C. - March 8, 1998, Page A2, The Province, an article headlined "Second-hand smoke/cancer said unrelated", byline a staff reporter with News Services:

"There is no link between passive smoking and lung cancer, says a report commissioned by the World Health Organization."

According to The Province, the WHO passive smoking and lung cancer study was coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is located in Lyon France. The Province also reports that the WHO study is the largest ever to examine the alleged link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer.

So what is the anti-tobacco secondhand smoke fuss all about? It seems that it is, and always has been, much ado about nothing.

The problem is that the consequences of the anti-tobacco secondhand smoke fuss are not "nothing". Families have been disrupted, "target groups" taxed, workers discriminated against, and in many cases people assaulted and battered. The costs of anti-tobacco have been enormous in terms of dollars and our cultural environment.

It is time to start asking who should be held legally responsible for the anti-tobacco public health disaster.

The need to start addressing anti-tobacco accountability is further emphasized by another news article that appeared in the UK News, January 13, 1998, headline "Smoking by young men rises to 39% , byline Celia Hall, Medical Editor:

"A rise in smoking by young men, to nearly 40 per cent, has been disclosed by a Department of Health Survey, published yesterday.

The 1996 Health Survey for England shows a six percent rise in smoking in men aged 16 to 34 since 1993, from 33 to 39. Women smokers increased from just over 33 per cent to just under 35."

This works out to an 18% increase (from 33% to 39%) in the number of young men smoking, and a 6% increase (from 33% to 35%) in the number of young women who smoke.

Those UK figures are consistent with the negative impact that anti-tobacco has had on teen smoking rates here in the USA, as reported in e-mail statements to the "Stan Glantz Announcement List," dated December 26, 1997:

"For a summary of why the failure to reduce adult smoking was totally predictable, see my editorial, `The youth access trap' (Am J. Pub. Health, 1996;86:158-158).", and;

". . . when the [anti-smoking] campaign was focused on kids, youth smoking went up 30% and progress in adults stopped."

It is worth noting that England has had its own anti-tobacco programs going for some time, just like the USA. And, like the USA, UK anti-tobacco has also focused on kids. We see the same phenomenon: more kids are lighting up today than before anti-tobacco started operating.

Enough is enough. It now appears that two of the greatest incentives for promoting anti-tobacco - that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmokers, and that anti-tobacco programs will save the kids - are blatantly false, if not outright lies from the beginning.

I sincerely doubt that these realities will make any difference in how the antis conduct themselves. It now appears that they knew their data was jimmied in order to support their agenda, to begin with. But what anti-tobacco believes or wants is becoming irrelevant.

The material question is: what are responsible public health officials and members of the US Congress going to do about anti-tobacco? There are few, if any, excuses left to permit anti-tobacco to continue wreaking its havoc.

We have survived the "anti" rallies of "Nuremberg 1934". There are no more excuses, we have arrived at the crimes against science and humanity trials of "Nuremberg 1946".

Let the fraud trials begin.

Redmond WA March 9, 1998