second-hand smoke DOES NOT cause cancer?

[Logan13]

While we are on the topic of junk science: This is a new story.
Tobacco companies financed a study that concluded that second-hand smoke DOES NOT cause cancer. The EPA has recently issued a statement debunking this, but the media seems to have escalated the story, especially in Europe.
http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm
How “public health”, media and the University of Minnesota con you about passive smoke "dangers" – once again - January 5, 2004 -- The ink was not yet dry on the latest piece of trash science on passive smoke, and a few days ago the mass media had already rushed to spread the disinformation all over the world. We refer to the latest “study” by the University of Minnesota on passive smoking, which is reported like this in the first lines of the ABC News article we are linked to: “Researchers at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, found elevated levels of a cancer-causing agent, NNAL, in the urine of nonsmokers after they spent just four hours in a commercial casino. Researchers also found elevated levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine, in the samples. Both NNAL and cotinine are specific to tobacco and were not found in the nonsmokers' urine before their casino visit.”

You need to go no further, as this is already sufficient: the rest is more of the usual anecdotal and rhetorical hate trash, without foundation. Let’s see how “public health”, the mass media and the University of Minnesota con you about passive smoke “dangers” once again. Like most of the productions of the “industry of hate & fear”, this “study” is based on false and distorted information.

Here is, in scientific detail, how mass media and the University of Minnesota conned the public. It is preposterous that those “scientists” who promote junk science studies such as this one are not exposed for the charlatans they really are. Instead, they pass as if they were “scholars” dedicated to saving humanity, and they get big dollars and media credence! The devastating part is that this incredible distortion is not an isolated case, but today it is almost the standard used for the most disparate issues, from pesticides, to plastic toys, to passive smoke, to food. Short of massive financial support from already politically prostrated and fearful target industries, therefore, the only weapon against this perversion is education and political awareness – and we at FORCES are proudly doing our best to perform this long-forgotten public service.

NEW, ENORMOUS STUDY UNMASKS THE ANTISMOKING FRAUD: Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 - May 19th, 2003 - "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."
Smears and Media Cover Up
Commentary On The Study

DID YOU KNOW?... - Enormous German study on passive smoke, cancer and cardiovascular disease says: >NO CONNECTION< - April, 2003 -- Dating back one year, this milestone study published by the American Journal of Epidemiology has been so thoroughly ignored by the public health gangs and its media servants - it has escaped even our attention! The enormous study covers 37 years, during which thousands of filght attendans have been followed and monitored for cancer. Furthermore, this is not a study based on questionnaires asking whether uncle Jack smoked more or less in 1956, as it's the case for most antismoking junk science -- nor it is something started and finished in a few months. Finally, it is neither financed by the tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry, nor is it supported by "public health" funds allocated to produce scientific frauds to support public health's frauds on smoking. All that explains the results. Here is an excerpt that says it all:

"We found a rather remarkably low SMR [standardized incidence ratio] for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group. Smoking during airplane flights was permitted in Germany until the mid-1990s, and smoking is still not banned on all charter flights. The risk of cardiovascular disease mortality for male and female air crew was surprisingly low (reaching statistical significance among women)."

The word "surprisingly" even betrays the expectation of the researchers that passive smoke hurts - quite indicative of today's superstitions induced by the antismoking frauds: but the results betray politics. In spite of all the USSR-like suppression of positive information by the "public health" gangsters, therefore, more evidence that the nearly universal smoking bans on passenger airlines is unjustified comes from researchers who examined the specific health risks associated with working in commercial aviation. Banning smoking on airlines makes no more sense than banning smoking in a restaurant or office building. None of the studies on secondhand smoke have ever demonstrated the epidemiological existence of a risk.

[mcpeepants]

the fact the study in paid by the tobacco industry explains it all

[Tock]

http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm

That website belongs to some organization in Virginia, named Forces, INC. From their website:

FORCES, Inc. is a non-partisan, Educational organization which has been granted the 501(c)(3) non profit designation by the United States Internal Revenue Service, organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, USA. Your contributions are deductible as allowed by law. FORCES, Inc. is dedicated to fighting scientific, government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life. FORCES, Inc. does not support or oppose existing politicians, judicial members or candidates for public office.


These "Forces" people sure are anxious to make sure that folks have every possible advantage to smoke -- and their interest extends beyond the confines of the USA to every other country on the planet.

Kinda makes ya wonder where their $$$ comes from, and what the real motivation is, eh?


I'm all for the gov't keeping their restrictions off of informed adults who want to smoke. However, when the companies that make big $$$ from people's nicotine addictions masquerade like this, it reeks of dishonesty, deceit, and slime.

[spywizard]

Minnesota is currently passing a state wide no smoking law.... should be in effect by summer...

[Prada]

I wouldnt trust some study backed by anyone involved with the tobacco industry. Regardless I find cigarettes and the smoke repugnant. Also I find it abhorrent that they remain elusive to tax payers who foot their medical bills

[juicedOUTbrain]

Taking that study seriously is like listening to a study financed by energy companies that says global warming doesnt exist, or by an alcohol company that says driving drunk is perfectly safe...These are the same people that financed studies in the 40's and 50's that said smoking was good for you...

[Kärnfysikern]

Did anyone se the episode of bullshit where they talked about second hand smoking. They took the same position as the article. I have to say I was suprised.

Either way Im glad smoking is banned from public places But I hear talks about banning cigaretes alltogheter in the EU. That is utter bullshit. I dont care if people smoke, aslong as they arent blowing that shit on me.

[Logan13]

Did anyone se the episode of bullshit where they talked about second hand smoking. They took the same position as the article. I have to say I was suprised.

Either way Im glad smoking is banned from public places But I hear talks about banning cigaretes alltogheter in the EU. That is utter bullshit. I dont care if people smoke, aslong as they arent blowing that shit on me.

agreed!

[juicedOUTbrain]

agreed!

Yea, these activists that are trying to ban smoking are out of control...if you dont want to smoke, dont...but who the **** are you to tell me what i can do to my own body...Some of these movements are gaining steam and have to be stopped, IMO...

[mcpeepants]

Did anyone se the episode of bullshit where they talked about second hand smoking. They took the same position as the article. I have to say I was suprised.

Either way Im glad smoking is banned from public places But I hear talks about banning cigaretes alltogheter in the EU. That is utter bullshit. I dont care if people smoke, aslong as they arent blowing that shit on me.

I have that episode of bullshit on my computer. I think Penn and Teller were arguing more on letting people have the right to smoke than an the health effects. There both pretty libertarian and Penn if wants people to be allowed to carried gun on planes.

Why did you change you log in name?

[Kärnfysikern]

99% of the time I agree completely with Penn and Teller. Except some wierd shows that realy didnt make any point at all.

I was just bored with my old unsername. Time for a change. But I still have the biggest nuts on AR

[spywizard]

Yea, these activists that are trying to ban smoking are out of control...if you dont want to smoke, dont...but who the **** are you to tell me what i can do to my own body...Some of these movements are gaining steam and have to be stopped, IMO...

so cool... if i want to take steroids to the point where i damage my kidneys and can't work, i want you to not only foot the medical bill, i want you to pay for my home, food, and entertainment for the next 40 yrs

that's what smokers and morbidly obese people are forcing healthy people to do, thankfully the only saving grace is they will die sooner than later, thus paying into social security and not receiving benefits..