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.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Logan13
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.
