We are glad to link to a CAGE article by the title of: “ASH definition of strong evidence and justification of their intrusion in our personal lives and parental authority”. As usual epidemiological trash is being passed off as science.
ASH rhymes with trash – and “scientific” trash is what studies on passive smoking are all about.
We are told there is "consistent and strong" evidence that children exposed to secondhand smoke in early infancy have a higher risk of developing allergies.
There is no such a thing as consistent and strong evidence against secondhand smoke in the first place, so the statement is a lie, either deliberate or based on intellectual incompetemnce, although we lean strongly towards the first possibility.
Correctly, CAGE points out that the increment of Relative Risk is only 1.28, but even assuming that the RR was 10, the study would still be completely worthless, being based on questionnaires on distant memories of exposure, that cannot be verified or quantified. This trash methodology is at the basis of the antismoking scam, and it is the “father” of all other fraudulent “epidemics” such as food-related diseases, alcohol-related cancer, and other of the unending scares. ASH and other antismoking crooks know that perfectly well – nevertheless they knowingly lie to the public to keep the prohibition momentum on and to serve the interests of the pharmaceutical multinationals.
The authors of the study themselves allude to the inadequacy of their methods at the Medscape link:
”Limitations of the study include difficulty in distinguishing the effects of tobacco exposure in utero and postnatally; reliance on questionnaire data on children at age 2 months; possible disease-related or recall bias, or both; lack of objective assessments of smoke exposure; and possible uncontrolled confounding.”
Tobacco smoke itself is not an allergen and there is no credible evidence relating ETS to allergies – none whatsoever, in this and in any other instance. It follows that parents should not feel guilty about their smoking and they should not stop smoking around their children. It also follows that any “health authority” that spreads such unsubstatiated fears is vile and corrupt and deserves no respect or obedience.
Finally, we should also be careful with the belief that “smoking rates continue to decline”, because we risk repeating another fraud of antitobacco. While that is true as a general trend since the US Surgeon General Report of 1964 (which never said that there is scientific proof that smoking kills), it is also true that, in the last ten years the production of cigarettes in the West has stabilized – yet another indicator that antismoking campaigns do not work at the end of the day.
What has decreased is the exposure to passive smoking because of prohibition based on epidemiological fraud – and now we can hook up with CAGE again when they say that allergies seem to have increased in inverse proportion to passive smoking exposure, demonstrating empirically and without any trash science that ETS is totally unrelated to allergies.
Actually, if we were as dishonest as the “public health” authorities are, we could claim that ETS protected children and adults from allergies.