Electronically autodated 08/18/99 9:38 AM -
Sent to address: http://www.bbc.co.uk/talk/?mailto=health@bbc.co.uk
Re: Smoking and Health.
To Whom It May Concern:
Gentlemen,
I have just a few simple questions.
The overwhelming amount of evidence indicates NO RELATIONSHIP between passive smoking and disease. With the exception of the latest, and still to be validated, New Zealand study (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_421000/421686.stm) ALL studies on passive smoking have indicated, clearly, that there is either a very weak association or no association at all between passive smoking and disease. Yet you rush to say, "Cigarette smoke is a health hazard to all." According to the present, overwhelming evidence, IT IS NOT.
In all the tobacco issue, there is no one single PROOF that smoking causes disease and huge amount of scientific evidence on this can be found at the site of FORCES INTERNATIONAL:
http://www.forces.com/evidence/index.htm
http://www.forces.org/ evidence/index.htm
http://www.forces-cdn.com/ evidence/index.htm
Why has BBC become yet another instrument of propaganda based on lies or assumptions? All the statements of the anti-tobacco cartel propaganda can be easily challenged of even disproved. Why then BBC, like most of the mass media nowadays, is totally deaf to those who beg for equal exposure? Why have you become so irresponsible and "irresponsive"?
Do you think that you are performing a social service by partially informing or even misinforming the public? If your function is to truly inform the public without paternalism, why there is no information that differs from the dictates of the anti-tobacco cartel? There is a tremendous, world-scale fraud going on here, and you are simply missing it.
As an informed citizen who is not fooled by the propaganda you are propelling, I really would like to know what's in it for you.
Though, like all the press and entities who are sold to the anti-tobacco quasi-religion, I either expect no reply from you, or the usual standard reply quoting unsubstantiated statistics by "authoritative" sources who are enjoying the financial and political rewards of their dishonesty.
But as a person, I thought I had to ask.
Sincerely,
Gian Turci
