Home
Summary
If you are in a room with people smoking almost little or none of that toxon or posion will enter your system. If you sat in a room with people smoking for a year you would only consume 3 cigarettes. Wait so we only consume less than .1 a year so how is that leadable to lung cancer. Then it says studys show no relation to SHS to lung cancer at all.
This is taken from another debate site.
The general public has been told for years, that 2nd hand smoke (SHS) is harmful, causes cancer, is a great concern for society, etc... It's propaganda. Nazi Germany's Paul Joseph Goebbles said it best...
"If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth."
Paul Joseph Goebbles, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany
The problem we see with this lie, is that it has affected the legal system. It's absurd, based on lies and horrible research, and the general public is none-the-wiser. That SHS is harmful to warrant such attention and legal action, is the result of lies, misinformation, propaganda, and junk science.
"Mere exposure does not equate to toxicity; it's the dose that makes the poison." - Basic principle of toxicology
"If you were to be strapped down on a surgical table while four guys exhaled smoke directly into your mouth and nostrils for thirty years, you might get lung cancer forty years after they stopped--but it's not likely. - from article linked below
Let's get started with the facts, shall we?
In December of 1992 the EPA released it's now famous report on second hand smoke. The report claimed that SHS causes 3,000 deaths a year, and classified it as a class A carcinogen.
Is SHS really deadly? Let's examine the facts carefully.
Fact: In 1993 the EPA issued a report which claimed that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) caused 3,000 deaths per year.
Fact: ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The two terms are interchangeable.
Fact: The EPA announced the results of the study before it was finished.
Fact: The study was a Meta Analysis, an analysis of existing studies.
Meta Analysis is very difficult to do accurately, and is the easiest kind of study to fake and manipulate. With a disease as rare as lung cancer, leaving out just a few important studies can skew the results considerably.
The term "Meta Study" is often used to describe this type of report, but the word "study" is inaccurate. The EPA has never conducted nor financed a single ETS study. They have only analyzed the studies of others. It is more accurate to refer to it as an analysis, and to its publication as a report.
Fact: The first step in a meta analysis is identifying all of the relevant studies. The EPA located 33 studies that compared ETS exposure to lung cancer rates.
Fact: The EPA selected 31 of the 33 studies. Later they rejected one of their chosen studies, bringing the total to 30.
Fact: On page 3-46 of the report the EPA estimates, based on nicotine measurements in non-smokers blood, "this would translate to the equivalent of about one-fifth of a cigarette per day."
Fact: Studies that measured actual exposure by having non-smokers wear monitors indicate even this low estimate is exaggerated. Actual exposure (for people who live and/or work in smoky environments) is about six cigarettes per year. (See also the study by Oak Ridge National Laboratories.)
Fact: In 1995 The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a review of the EPA report. The CRS was highly critical of both the EPA's methods and conclusions.
Fact: According to the CRS "The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control members, or their surrogates, the determine EST exposure and other information pertinent to the studies." In other words, some of the information was unverified hearsay.
Fact: The CRS pointed out that "from a group of 30 studies, six found a statistically significant (but small) effect, 24 found no statistically significant effect and six of the 24 found a passive smoking effect opposite to the expected relationship."
Fact: Three other large US studies were in progress during the EPA's study. The EPA used data from one uncompleted study, the Fontham study, and ignored the other two, Brownson and Kabat.
Fact: The Fontham study showed a small increase in risk. The CRS report referred to it as "a positive risk that was barely statistically significant." (p. 25)
Fact: The CRS report said the Brownson study, which the EPA ignored, showed "no risk at all." (p.25)
Fact: The "scientists" who conducted the Fontham study refused to release their raw data for years. Philip Morris recently won a lawsuit to gain access to it.
Most researchers routinely make their raw data available after studies have been published. Does Fontham's refusal to make the data available make them more credible, or less credible?
Fact: The EPA based their numbers on a meta analysis of just 11 studies. The analysis showed no increase in risk at the 95% confidence level.
Fact: Even after excluding most of the studies, the EPA couldn't come up with 3,000 deaths, but they had already announced the results. So they doubled their margin of error. Let me repeat that, because it may seem hard to believe: After failing to achieve their pre-announced results by ignoring half of the data, they doubled their margin of error!
Would any legitimate epidemiologist keep their job if they were caught doubling their margin of error to support a pre-announced conclusion?
Fact: After juggling the numbers, The EPA came up with an RR (Relative Risk) of ETS causing lung cancer 1.19. In layman's terms that means:
Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 19%.
Where you'd usually see 100 cases of cancer you'd see 119.
Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually written off as and insignificant result, most likely to be due to error or bias. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable.
Facts: In review: The EPA ignored nearly two-thirds of the data. The EPA then doubled their margin of error to come up with their desired results. Even with all this manipulation, the numbers are still far too low to be considered statistically significant
Fact: Although the EPA declared ETS was a Class A carcinogen with an RR of 1.19, in analysis of other agents they found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to justify a Group A classification.
Fact: In 1998 Judge William Osteen vacated the study - declaring it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision was 92 pages long.
Fact: Osteen used the term "cherry-picking" to describe he way the EPA selected their data. "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines."
Fact: Osteen found other deep flaws in the the EPA's methodology. In his judgment he stated: "The record and EPA's explanations to the court make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies. Analysis conducted with a .05 significance level and 95% confidence level included relative risks of 1. Accordingly, these results did not confirm EPA's controversial a priori hypothesis. In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90%. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. EPA's conduct raises several concerns besides whether a relative risk of 1.19 is credible evidence supporting a Group A classification. First, with such a weak showing, if even a fraction of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding study selection or methodology is true, EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer."
Sources:
PASSIVE SMOKE - Junk Science
Second-Hand Smokescreens
The EPA Report - The Facts
Health Canada, Breast Cancer and Second-Hand Smoke
The Second-Hand Smoke Charade
Junkscience.com - Second-Hand Science
Skepticism.net - Second Hand Smoke
NCPA - Up In Smoke
Washington Times: Second-hand science
Second-hand Smoke Screen
The WHO Scandal: WHO's Tobacco Free Initiative
The Facts
If you are in a room with people smoking almost little or none of that toxon or posion will enter your system. If you sat in a room with people smoking for a year you would only consume 3 cigarettes. Wait so we only consume less than .1 a year so how is that leadable to lung cancer. Then it says studys show no relation to SHS to lung cancer at all.
This is taken from another debate site.
The general public has been told for years, that 2nd hand smoke (SHS) is harmful, causes cancer, is a great concern for society, etc... It's propaganda. Nazi Germany's Paul Joseph Goebbles said it best...
"If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth."
Paul Joseph Goebbles, Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany
The problem we see with this lie, is that it has affected the legal system. It's absurd, based on lies and horrible research, and the general public is none-the-wiser. That SHS is harmful to warrant such attention and legal action, is the result of lies, misinformation, propaganda, and junk science.
"Mere exposure does not equate to toxicity; it's the dose that makes the poison." - Basic principle of toxicology
"If you were to be strapped down on a surgical table while four guys exhaled smoke directly into your mouth and nostrils for thirty years, you might get lung cancer forty years after they stopped--but it's not likely. - from article linked below
Let's get started with the facts, shall we?
In December of 1992 the EPA released it's now famous report on second hand smoke. The report claimed that SHS causes 3,000 deaths a year, and classified it as a class A carcinogen.
Is SHS really deadly? Let's examine the facts carefully.
Fact: In 1993 the EPA issued a report which claimed that Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) caused 3,000 deaths per year.
Fact: ETS is commonly referred to as Second Hand Smoke (SHS). The two terms are interchangeable.
Fact: The EPA announced the results of the study before it was finished.
Fact: The study was a Meta Analysis, an analysis of existing studies.
Meta Analysis is very difficult to do accurately, and is the easiest kind of study to fake and manipulate. With a disease as rare as lung cancer, leaving out just a few important studies can skew the results considerably.
The term "Meta Study" is often used to describe this type of report, but the word "study" is inaccurate. The EPA has never conducted nor financed a single ETS study. They have only analyzed the studies of others. It is more accurate to refer to it as an analysis, and to its publication as a report.
Fact: The first step in a meta analysis is identifying all of the relevant studies. The EPA located 33 studies that compared ETS exposure to lung cancer rates.
Fact: The EPA selected 31 of the 33 studies. Later they rejected one of their chosen studies, bringing the total to 30.
Fact: On page 3-46 of the report the EPA estimates, based on nicotine measurements in non-smokers blood, "this would translate to the equivalent of about one-fifth of a cigarette per day."
Fact: Studies that measured actual exposure by having non-smokers wear monitors indicate even this low estimate is exaggerated. Actual exposure (for people who live and/or work in smoky environments) is about six cigarettes per year. (See also the study by Oak Ridge National Laboratories.)
Fact: In 1995 The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a review of the EPA report. The CRS was highly critical of both the EPA's methods and conclusions.
Fact: According to the CRS "The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control members, or their surrogates, the determine EST exposure and other information pertinent to the studies." In other words, some of the information was unverified hearsay.
Fact: The CRS pointed out that "from a group of 30 studies, six found a statistically significant (but small) effect, 24 found no statistically significant effect and six of the 24 found a passive smoking effect opposite to the expected relationship."
Fact: Three other large US studies were in progress during the EPA's study. The EPA used data from one uncompleted study, the Fontham study, and ignored the other two, Brownson and Kabat.
Fact: The Fontham study showed a small increase in risk. The CRS report referred to it as "a positive risk that was barely statistically significant." (p. 25)
Fact: The CRS report said the Brownson study, which the EPA ignored, showed "no risk at all." (p.25)
Fact: The "scientists" who conducted the Fontham study refused to release their raw data for years. Philip Morris recently won a lawsuit to gain access to it.
Most researchers routinely make their raw data available after studies have been published. Does Fontham's refusal to make the data available make them more credible, or less credible?
Fact: The EPA based their numbers on a meta analysis of just 11 studies. The analysis showed no increase in risk at the 95% confidence level.
Fact: Even after excluding most of the studies, the EPA couldn't come up with 3,000 deaths, but they had already announced the results. So they doubled their margin of error. Let me repeat that, because it may seem hard to believe: After failing to achieve their pre-announced results by ignoring half of the data, they doubled their margin of error!
Would any legitimate epidemiologist keep their job if they were caught doubling their margin of error to support a pre-announced conclusion?
Fact: After juggling the numbers, The EPA came up with an RR (Relative Risk) of ETS causing lung cancer 1.19. In layman's terms that means:
Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 19%.
Where you'd usually see 100 cases of cancer you'd see 119.
Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually written off as and insignificant result, most likely to be due to error or bias. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable.
Facts: In review: The EPA ignored nearly two-thirds of the data. The EPA then doubled their margin of error to come up with their desired results. Even with all this manipulation, the numbers are still far too low to be considered statistically significant
Fact: Although the EPA declared ETS was a Class A carcinogen with an RR of 1.19, in analysis of other agents they found relative risks of 2.6 and 3.0 insufficient to justify a Group A classification.
Fact: In 1998 Judge William Osteen vacated the study - declaring it null and void after extensively commentating on the shoddy way it was conducted. His decision was 92 pages long.
Fact: Osteen used the term "cherry-picking" to describe he way the EPA selected their data. "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines."
Fact: Osteen found other deep flaws in the the EPA's methodology. In his judgment he stated: "The record and EPA's explanations to the court make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies. Analysis conducted with a .05 significance level and 95% confidence level included relative risks of 1. Accordingly, these results did not confirm EPA's controversial a priori hypothesis. In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90%. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. EPA's conduct raises several concerns besides whether a relative risk of 1.19 is credible evidence supporting a Group A classification. First, with such a weak showing, if even a fraction of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding study selection or methodology is true, EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer."
Sources:
PASSIVE SMOKE - Junk Science
Second-Hand Smokescreens
The EPA Report - The Facts
Health Canada, Breast Cancer and Second-Hand Smoke
The Second-Hand Smoke Charade
Junkscience.com - Second-Hand Science
Skepticism.net - Second Hand Smoke
NCPA - Up In Smoke
Washington Times: Second-hand science
Second-hand Smoke Screen
The WHO Scandal: WHO's Tobacco Free Initiative
The Facts
Last edited by King of Sting on Fri Jul 25, 2008 5:24 pm; edited 2 times in total
