Comments on: Another flawed attack on passive smoking http://www.bloggernews.net/119715 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:37:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Kevin Tipple http://www.bloggernews.net/119715#comment-974702 Kevin Tipple Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:30:07 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/119715#comment-974702 there isn't any question that second hand smoke/passive smoke, whatever you want to call it, causes problems for folks. Period. there isn’t any question that second hand smoke/passive smoke, whatever you want to call it, causes problems for folks. Period.

]]> By: Paddy Briggs http://www.bloggernews.net/119715#comment-969841 Paddy Briggs Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:20:10 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/119715#comment-969841 All pretty irrelevent stuff for us here in Britain. My life was immeasurably improved when public places/private establishments which employ staff went smoke free. I enjoy my food and drink and entertainment in a pleasant atmosphere at last. In the home obviously personal freedoms apply. If adults smoke in the presence of children they are bad parents anyway and I doubt whether or not passive smoking is harmful they would take a blind bit of difference. All pretty irrelevent stuff for us here in Britain. My life was immeasurably improved when public places/private establishments which employ staff went smoke free. I enjoy my food and drink and entertainment in a pleasant atmosphere at last. In the home obviously personal freedoms apply. If adults smoke in the presence of children they are bad parents anyway and I doubt whether or not passive smoking is harmful they would take a blind bit of difference.

]]> By: CarolT http://www.bloggernews.net/119715#comment-969496 CarolT Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:19:56 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/119715#comment-969496 That junk by Kabat isn't the best evidence, because he peddles the same lifestyle-questionnaire pseudo-science as the anti-smokers. Every smoking ban, everywhere, has been rammed down the public's throat by falsely framing the issue as "freedom versus public health," and CONCEALING ANTI-SMOKER SCIENTIFIC FRAUD. More than 50 studies have implicated human papillomaviruses as the cause of over 22% of non-small cell lung cancers. This equals over 30,000 cases, which is over ten times more lung cancers than the anti-smokers pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, because they are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, are cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. A significant proportion of lung cancers blamed on active smoking are actually caused by HPV as well. Obviously, there is a corrupt, politically-motivated coverup of a far larger cause of lung cancer than radon or secondhand smoke! http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm The anti-smokers lie that smoking bans cause "immediate, dramatic" declines in the number of heart attacks. In the Pueblo study, the death rates from acute myocardial infarction actually increased in the year after the ban, the same time they were boasting that the number of admissions declined! That suggests that people were dying because they weren’t admitted to hospitals when they should have been! And in the Indiana study, they exploited an anomalous spike in acute MIs during the "before" section of the study, to make the "after" part look better! And in the Helena study, the actual death rates from acute myocardial infarction (as opposed to hospital admissions which were the endpoint of the study) were nearly identical in 2001 (before the ban) and 2002 (the year of the ban), and reached their lowest point in 2003, the year after the smoking ban was repealed. http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html If smoking or passive smoking were real causes of asthma, the rates of asthma would have gone DOWN. But the EPA's own report says, "Between 1980 and 1995, the percentage of children with asthma doubled, from 3.6 percent in 1980 to 7.5 percent in 1995." The graph on pdf page 65 boasts of declines in cotinine levels during this same period. http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eermfile.nsf/vwAN/EE-0438A-01.pdf/$file/EE-0438A-01.pdf And the CDC says, "Despite the plateau in asthma prevalence, ambulatory care use has continued to grow since 2000... Increased ambulatory care use for asthma has continued during an era when overall rate of ambulatory care use for children did not increase." http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad381.pdf The government has no right to restrict peoples' liberty without a compelling justification. The anti-smokers have no such justification, so THEY COMMITTED SCIENTIFIC FRAUD TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC. This is a classic example of how the unscrupulous manipulators of public opinion have railroaded Americans into tyranny! That junk by Kabat isn’t the best evidence, because he peddles the same lifestyle-questionnaire pseudo-science as the anti-smokers.

Every smoking ban, everywhere, has been rammed down the public’s throat by falsely framing the issue as “freedom versus public health,” and CONCEALING ANTI-SMOKER SCIENTIFIC FRAUD.

More than 50 studies have implicated human papillomaviruses as the cause of over 22% of non-small cell lung cancers. This equals over 30,000 cases, which is over ten times more lung cancers than the anti-smokers pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers’ studies, because they are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, are cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. A significant proportion of lung cancers blamed on active smoking are actually caused by HPV as well. Obviously, there is a corrupt, politically-motivated coverup of a far larger cause of lung cancer than radon or secondhand smoke!

http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm

The anti-smokers lie that smoking bans cause “immediate, dramatic” declines in the number of heart attacks. In the Pueblo study, the death rates from acute myocardial infarction actually increased in the year after the ban, the same time they were boasting that the number of admissions declined! That suggests that people were dying because they weren’t admitted to hospitals when they should have been! And in the Indiana study, they exploited an anomalous spike in acute MIs during the “before” section of the study, to make the “after” part look better! And in the Helena study, the actual death rates from acute myocardial infarction (as opposed to hospital admissions which were the endpoint of the study) were nearly identical in 2001 (before the ban) and 2002 (the year of the ban), and reached their lowest point in 2003, the year after the smoking ban was repealed.

http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html

If smoking or passive smoking were real causes of asthma, the rates of asthma would have gone DOWN. But the EPA’s own report says, “Between 1980 and 1995, the percentage of children with asthma doubled, from 3.6 percent in 1980 to 7.5 percent in 1995.” The graph on pdf page 65 boasts of declines in cotinine levels during this same period.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eermfile.nsf/vwAN/EE-0438A-01.pdf/file/EE-0438A-01.pdf

And the CDC says, “Despite the plateau in asthma prevalence, ambulatory care use has continued to grow since 2000… Increased ambulatory care use for asthma has continued during an era when overall rate of ambulatory care use for children did not increase.”

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad381.pdf

The government has no right to restrict peoples’ liberty without a compelling justification. The anti-smokers have no such justification, so THEY COMMITTED SCIENTIFIC FRAUD TO DECEIVE THE PUBLIC. This is a classic example of how the unscrupulous manipulators of public opinion have railroaded Americans into tyranny!

]]>