Monday, June 28, 2010

SHS can double risk of fatal heart disease

The headline from a June 16, 2010 article from Reuters states: “Second-hand smoke can double risk of fatal heart disease: study”

Curious? Well, yes . . . considering the fact that the best any other study to date has been able to show for an increased risk due to exposure to secondhand smoke is about 30%. And, that includes the highly controversial 1993 meta-analysis conducted by the US EPA.. Health Canada uses a RR (Relative Risk) of 1.24 to calculate IHD deaths allegedly due to secondhand smoke exposure.

The headline refers to a study conducted by researcher Dr. Mark Hamer, University College London, and published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. There's no doubt it will get attention, but I suspect it's unlikely to win any “truth in advertising” awards.

If this study shows a two-fold risk of dying from heart disease, then it suggests that exposure to secondhand smoke is as great a risk as active smoking.

Also curious is the amount of secondhand smoke exposure required to cause this doubling of risk? Because it takes a lot. Literally. The lead-in to the story claims: “People who breathe in a lot of other people's tobacco smoke are twice as likely to die from heart disease as those exposed to lower levels of "secondhand" smoke, according to a British study.”

Of course, Dr. Hamer and his colleagues don't use the highly speculative terminology (a lot) used by Reuters. They use the much more precise scientific measurements “high” and “lower” as in: “Researcher Dr. Mark Hamer said analyses restricted to never-smokers found that high secondhand smoke exposure was associated with more than a two-fold increased risk of dying from heart disease. A "high" level of exposure, Hamer explained, would be equivalent to living with a smoker and getting exposed to secondhand smoke pretty much every day.” Uh-huh.

So, have these people been smoking something a little stronger than Camel Lights? Or, is this simply another example of blatant fear-mongering from the anti-smoker crowd and their spin-doctoring allies in the media?

Maybe a quick look at the study abstract will throw some light on the subject. But, then again, maybe not.

The results of the study tell us that: “High SHS was associated with . . . CVD death (age-adjusted HR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.73)." Which is close to the RR of 1.24 used by Health Canada in their IHD calculations. Which is not double the risk of CVD. In fact, with a spread of “0.85 to 1.73”, it doesn't even achieve statistical significance. Something which obviously doesn't concern the real scientists in the anti-smoker crowd. If there are any real scientists in the anti-smoker crowd.

So, are “people who breathe in a lot of other people's tobacco smoke” twice as likely to die from heart disease as those exposed to lower levels of "secondhand" smoke?

Readers will have to make up their own minds. But, I'll be filing this one under “Bullshit and Bafflegab”.

Also in the news, this time from the Daily Mail in the UK, “Mother who has never smoked a cigarette has terminal lung disease because of her parents' 60-a-day habit”. Uh-huh.

According to the article, Lynda Mitchell (pictured above), a 52 year old mother of one, is dying from COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), but has always despised tobacco. She blames her illness on her parents who each puffed 60 cigarettes a day. Lynda is quoted in the article as saying: “If I hadn't been surrounded by smoke I think I would have been a lot better. I wouldn't be sat here talking to you about dying.”

The problem here is that, as far as I'm aware, there is no conclusive evidence that secondhand smoke exposure causes COPD. And, I'm fairly sure that, if such evidence existed, Health Canada would have included COPD deaths due to SHS exposure in their smoking attributable body count. They don't. At least not yet.

But, one can expect a plethora of studies to surface, compliments of the anti-smoker zealots, supporting Mitchell's allegations.

According to an article at About dot com, “The American Lung Association estimates that it will be the third-largest cause of worldwide death by 2020. This means that the number of patients who present themselves to the healthcare system with COPD is also increasing.”

So, the incidence of COPD is increasing while smoking prevalence and exposure to SHS are declining. Interesting. And, strange.

Another item to be filed under Bullshit and Bafflegab.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Winnickoff: one smoker pollutes entire building

"Research shows that those living in multiple-unit housing are being exposed to toxins from tobacco smoke. Even if you are not a smoker and don't smoke inside of your own apartment, if you have a neighbour who is smoking inside of his, the entire building is contaminated," says Jonathan Winickoff, lead author of a new “study,”Regulation of Smoking in Public Housing (Published in the New England Journal of Medicine)

Winickoff, if you're unfamiliar with the name, is the inventor of the last great menace to the health and safety of our kids, third hand smoke. When announcing his new invention last January, Winickoff said: “Third-hand smoke is what one smells when a smoker gets in an elevator after going outside for a cigarette or in a hotel room where people were smoking. Your nose isn’t lying, The stuff is so toxic that your brain is telling you: ’Get away.’” Uh-huh.

I wonder why the majority of those actually living in these types of buildings didn't know they were in such mortal danger? 64% of respondents in a Decima research poll conducted for Health Canada said they had never experienced secondhand smoke drifting or seeping into their apartments; another 15% said it happened only rarely.

And, it would be interesting to know how Winickoff reached the conclusion that “if you have a neighbour who is smoking inside of his [apartment], the entire building is contaminated.” I mean, really. The whole fucking building?

Of course, the scary part is that many people will actually believe this drivel. Even more scary is the thought that some of them may be politicians with the power to pass laws based on this propaganda..

I live in a 123 unit, 13 story high-rise co-operative housing complex. I wonder how many cigarettes I'd have to consume to coat the entire building in a film of third hand smoke? Uh-huh. I'd probably need a whole lot of help. Like maybe the entire second battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. If they're not too busy in Afghanistan.

But wait . . . I forgot about the magical, mystical properties of secondhand smoke. “It can move along air ducts, through cracks in the walls and floors, through elevator shafts, and along plumbing and electrical lines to affect units on other floors”. In fact, some say it's been trained to seek out and destroy non-smokers wherever they may be.

No, it is not nonsense. It's been scientifically proven. Hasn't it?

And, if it can do all those things, it could probably breed and multiply while it migrates from a smoker's unit on the first floor, down the hall and up the elevator shaft, depositing offspring on every floor along the way until it runs out of elevator shaft, at which point it envelops the 13th floor in a veritable cloud of deadly secondhand smoke . . . which would then mutate into the even more sinister threat of third hand smoke.

Well, it could! Remember: “Impossible is a word found only in the dictionary of fools.”

The paper by Winickoff also claims that: “Numerous epidemiologic studies show that exposure to tobacco smoke can cause lung cancer and cardiac disease in nonsmokers, and the Surgeon General's report on involuntary smoking concluded that there is no safe level of exposure.”

Wow. Numerous epidemiological studies. I guess that's a lot, huh. I wonder why he doesn't mention that for every study concluding that secondhand smoke is associated with lung cancer and heart disease there are “numerous” studies which find no such association. In fact, the last time I looked, studies finding no correlation between SHS and those diseases outnumbered those which did by roughly 6 to 1. A minor detail, perhaps. No sense letting science interfere with a scientific study.

As for the Surgeon-General's contention that there is no safe level of exposure . . . have I used the catch phrase “bullshit and bafflegab” in this piece yet?

OK. I've been treating this latest propaganda effort by the anti-smoker zealots with a measure of sarcasm and levity; the health hazards of secondhand smoke as presented in this “study” seemed to call for it.

But there are parts of this paper which, if adopted, would seriously impact the welfare of some of the most vulnerable segments of society; the elderly, those on fixed incomes, low wage earners, single parents, etc. who depend on social housing to provide decent housing at a price they can afford.

If you haven't read the document, do so. Especially those parts which appear to have been written by the proverbial Philadelphia lawyer. Or, maybe a John Banzhaf.

“Tenants in multiunit housing have few alternative legal remedies for the problem of tobacco smoke exposure. They can sue their landlords, claiming that tobacco smoke constitutes a nuisance or violates the warranty of habitability and the covenant of quiet enjoyment of housing, but litigation is an unreliable and arduous strategy.”

In other words, those offended by the smell of secondhand smoke or those claiming they are being subjected to a health hazard already have access to legal remedy. But legal action takes both time and money. And, judges have a tendency to make their decisions based on fact, rather than emotion.

And, even if landlords could be intimidated into evicting a smoker under threat of legal action, they would, in turn, have to prove their case in a court of law. This makes it difficult for the anti-smoker crowd to convince landlords, private or public, to adopt and enforce no smoking policies.

“The greatest disincentive for PHAs (Public Housing Authorities) to implement smoke-free policies may be the challenge of enforcement. Effective mechanisms for monitoring and for reporting noncompliance would need to be established, along with sanctions for residents who do not comply.”

What they are attempting to do is deny any legal recourse for those smokers who can't, or won't, give up the habit and who may be evicted for their failure to do so. The study goes to some lengths to justify this morally offensive tactic, directed at some of the most vulnerable members of society.

Co-author of the study, Michelle M. Mello, is quoted in the press release announcing the study. "Rather than prohibiting smokers from inhabiting public housing units, prohibiting the act of smoking on the premises would minimize the ethical concerns relating to a smoking ban. This type of policy would encourage smokers to quit, since only those who continued to smoke on the premises would be required to move out." Uh-huh.

Mello apparently believes that this Hobson's choice will disguise the distasteful ethics and the bankrupt morals inherent in using this kind of strategy against those least able to defend themselves.

Unbelievable. A solitary smoker can contaminate an entire building. Does that mean smokers are weapons of mass destruction?

PS: For those of you who may not be unfamiliar with the term, a “Hobson's choice” is a choice in which only one option is offered in a take it or leave it proposition. In this case, the choice is to quit smoking or not. But, to choose not to give up the habit raises the prospect of sleeping in the street. It's really no choice at all.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Throw smokers into the street say anti-smokers

“[E]thical concerns can be minimized by prohibiting the act of smoking on the premises rather than prohibiting the occupation of public-housing units by people who smoke.”

So reads the latest diatribe by anti-smoker fanatics in the US, trying to convince governments (and the public) that smokers are a sub-human species who are not entitled to even the most basic of human rights. This time their target is smokers living in public housing. They want the government to toss smokers living in public housing into the street. Uh-huh.

A paper produced by Jonathan P. Winickoff, M.D., M.P.H., Mark Gottlieb, J.D., and Michelle M. Mello, J.D., Ph.D., and published in the New England Journal of Medicine, concludes that: “The use of federal regulatory or contractual mechanisms to ensure that PHAs implement no smoking policies in public housing raises ethical concerns and practical challenges; however, it is justified in light of the harms resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke, the lack of other avenues of legal redress for nonsmoking residents of public housing, and the languid pace at which PHAs have voluntarily implemented no-smoking policies.”

The militant misfits in the anti-smoker cult employ semantics like an army employs weapons of mass destruction. They believe mere words can obfuscate the illegitimacy of their demands and hide their true intent.

They're not “prohibiting the occupation of public-housing units by people who smoke,” they're prohibiting smoking. In other words, if the damn smokers will just bow to the great gods of the anti-smoker cult, kiss their collective ass, lick the jackboots of their high priests and give up their smoking habit, all will be well. They'll be allowed to live in public housing, just like normal people.

And, if not . . . well, those foolish smokers will be the authors of their own misfortune and they can damn well lie in the gutter where they belong. What a wonderfully simple, and simplistic, solution to a problem which has not been proven to exist.

The proposals in this paper seek to undermine the very purpose of social housing which was designed, in Canada at least, to provide clean, affordable housing to the most vulnerable members of society; the elderly, the disabled, low income wage earners, those on fixed incomes and the otherwise disadvantaged. The very people who, according to the anti-smoker cult, are most likely to be smokers.

With all the deceit and deception in this paper, it's difficult to know where to begin. So, let's start with the attempt by the authors to define the need and persuade readers of this document that there is strong public support for these proposals.

According to Winickoff et al., “Survey findings indicate that tenants are often bothered by tobacco smoke and that four out of five nonsmokers would prefer a smoke-free building policy.”

First, they may have a survey which shows that “tenants are often bothered by tobacco smoke”. But, they also have a study which claims that third hand smoke is a serious health menace, which does not exactly inspire me with confidence. In fact, it was written by the same anti-smoker zealot as this latest piece of bullshit.

And, although I recognize that polls conducted in Canada may not mirror those in the US, a March 30, 2007 research poll by Decima Research prepared for Health Canada, asks the question:
“In your current residence, how often have you experienced smoke drifting or seeping into your personal living space?”

Almost four out of five responded that they had never (64%) or rarely (15%) experienced secondhand smoke drifting or seeping into their unit. An additional 9% said they “sometimes” experienced secondhand smoke seeping into their units. Only 10%claimed it was a common occurrence (Often – 5%; Very Often - 5%)

These responses were from residents of MURBs (Multi Unit Residential Buildings). But, if 79% had never or rarely experienced the mystical penetration of smoke through solid walls, through toggle switches and wall receptacles, plumbing fixtures, etc., then maybe, just maybe, the problem isn't as bad as they make it out to be.

The fact that 4 out of 5 non-smokers would prefer a smoke-free building policy doesn't really tell me very much. I did a survey at the Legion just this afternoon. I found that 13 out of 13 drinkers said they would prefer to drink in a pub or Legion hall which served free draft between the hours of 12 noon and closing. Hell, even the bar maid was on our side.

The fact that 4 out of 5 (That number, by the way, is similar to the Canadian poll results.) would prefer a smoke free building doesn't mean they support throwing smokers into the street. And, it should also be noted that, when asked if they'd be willing to pay more for the privilege, 69% said no. That suggests support for a smoke free building could be very soft indeed.

In fact, the same Decima Research poll showed that 72% of non-smokers agreed completely, or mostly, with the statement “People who smoke tobacco products should have the right to do so in their home.”

The truth is that the anti-smoker crowd is not responding to a problem, they are trying hard to create one. And, with their “end justifies the means” philosophy, that means the bullshit and bafflegab will be flying fast and furious.

The odour will be intolerable. Likely as bad as the aroma of tobacco smoke. In fact, probably a damn sight worse.

I'll address some of the other issues contained in this propaganda piece in my next post.

Additional Reading:
Check out Christopher Snowdon's article on the latest bullshit from Winickoff, the renowned inventor of third hand smoke, at
Velvet Glove, Iron Fist

Or, read a few of my previous posts on the subject, Thru Solid Walls and The Supernatural Powers of SHS

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Are smoker's lungs fit for transplant?

Men and women are faced with a series of choices on a daily basis; some, obviously, with far greater consequences than others.

For example, a man choosing to wear white sport socks with a black suit will merely look silly. Of course, if he's married his wife will probably not let him leave the house. “Change your socks, Dear, they look silly,” she'll tell him. Whereupon, he will dutifully retire to the bedroom and change his damn socks wondering what all the damn fuss is about.

A married man who chooses to start an illicit office romance is faced with more devastating consequences; castration, for example. Or worse, divorce court which is itself a form of castration. Or so I'm told. Being married to the same woman for forty odd years has, thankfully, shielded me from some of life's more unpleasant experiences.

But, some choices have even more far reaching implications; literally, the difference between life and death.

Lyndsey Scott, 28, a cystic fibrosis sufferer, from Wigan (UK) was put on the transplant waiting list over four years ago. When donor lungs became available in February, 2009, she underwent double lung transplant surgery. There were serious complications from the start, and, tragically, she died of pneumonia in July of last year.

After reviewing her medical notes, her family made the “shocking” discovery that she had been given the lungs of someone who had smoked for 30 years.

The insinuation throughout most of the news media accounts I've read is that she died because the donor was a smoker. The bias is glaringly obvious in statements such as: ”Research has revealed around a quarter of donated organs are classed as higher-risk or ‘marginal’ – double the rate of a decade ago.”

The implication is that the “higher-risk or marginal” organs are those of smokers. Likewise, bias is evident in the claim that: “A shortage of donors is forcing surgeons to consider an increasing number of less healthy organs.” The insinuation, once again, is that the “less healthy” organs are those of smokers.

Of course, no evidence is presented to substantiate that not so subtle argument. And, then again, maybe I'm reading something into these news accounts that isn't there.

At any rate, it's estimated that almost 50% of donated organs come from smokers, despite the fact that they represent only 20% of the population. Chris Watson, vice-president of the British Transplantation Society (BTS), told CNN in an interview in December of last year that ”49 percent of last year's lung donors in the UK were smokers.”

Watson told CNN that data shows that transplants using smokers' lungs are just as effective in the long term as those using lungs from non-smokers. In other words, thousands of Britons are experiencing the benefits of receiving donor organs from smokers. But, as usual, it's the odd failure that gets the press.

Lyndsey's father, Allan Scott, is quoted as saying: “She would have been horrified to have known those lungs were from a smoker and quite definitely she would have refused that operation. She was always anti-smoking because of her condition.”

But, I wonder?

Faced with the prospect of dying on the waiting list (30% of those waiting for a transplant will suffer from such a fate) or taking the opportunity to extend your life for years, possibly decades, which would you choose? Would you really turn down the opportunity to live because you didn't want the lungs donated by a filthy smoker? Really?

From a personal point of view, I'm not particularly afraid of Death. I've had to stare the son-of-a-bitch down a couple of times in my life. And, the next time I may not be as lucky as on previous occasions. The rider on the pale horse is destined to win . . . eventually. But, I will not go quietly into the night. I'll go kicking and screaming every step of the way.

And, I'll likely go out with a fag in one hand and a tumbler full of Gordon Highlanders in the other.

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Extra, read all about it. Anti-smoker bigots say . . .

The Toronto Sun headline claims: “Smoke-free laws keep kids healthy: U.S. study.” But, the article could just as well have been called “How to say absolutely nothing while bashing smokers in 300 words or less.”

According to an article in the June 11, 2010 edition of the Toronto Sun, “Smoke-free laws are helping children stay healthy.” The Sun notes a “new study” from researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health. The study apparently claims that "children living in non-smoking homes in U.S. counties with smoke-free laws had 39% lower prevalence of cotinine in their blood - an indicator of tobacco smoke exposure - compared to those living in counties with no smoke-free laws.”

But, judging from the article in the Sun, exposure to secondhand smoke, or perhaps just the presence of cotinine in the blood, is now a disease in and of itself.

The article states that: “The Harvard researchers examined data from the 1999-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey which monitored the health and nutritional status of the U.S. population. They analyzed the cotinine levels in 11,486 non-smoking youngsters, aged 3-19 years, from 117 counties, both with and without exposure to second-hand smoke in the home.” Uh-huh.

Which proves . . . ?

What the article doesn't say is just how the lower cotinine levels keep kids healthy. Just exactly what is the threshold limit value of cotinine in the blood? How high does it have to go before a kid keels over and expires due to a heart attack or some other smoking related disease? Just how many kids between the ages of 3 to 19 years have dropped dead recently due to the higher concentrations of cotinine in their urine?

Read the carefully crafted study to find out the shocking statistics. Guaranteed to send shivers down your spine.

Lead researcher Melanie Dove is quoted as saying: "The findings suggest that smoke-free laws are an effective strategy to protect both children and adults from exposure to second-hand smoke. In addition, interventions designed to reduce or prevent adults from smoking around children are needed."

Well, there it is! We all know that secondhand smoke kills thousands of Canadian kids every year. OK, maybe not thousands, but hundreds. OK. OK. But, it kills hundreds of adults over the age of 35 who were once kids. Just don't waste a lot of time looking for the bodies. Better off to do something constructive, like searching for Edgar Rice Burroughs' lost land of Pellucidar. I'll bet the anti-smoker madness hasn't reached there yet.

In other news, Errol Povah claims he is not an anti-smoker, but admits that he is an anti-tobacco activist. And, according to Povah: “There is a difference.” Uh-huh. There's also a difference between an alligator and a crocodile, but I don't want to get chomped on by either.

Povah is running across Canada (at least as far as Montreal which is a little more than half-way) to garner support for a Smoke-Free World.

On his way through Duncan (BC), he urged the town council to “bring in the toughest no-smoking bylaw possible,” noting he'd support the measure 110%. Sounds like he went to the same school as most other anti-smoker statisticians.

Povah dismissed personal freedom concerns by claiming: “Addiction eliminates freedom and choice.” He notes “Smoking is not addictive.” Before adding that nicotine is
“the most addictive drug known - and smoking is actually the dirtiest way to get the hit.”

Oh, well. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck . . .

Also in the news, the fight against contraband smokes. The CCSA (Canadian Convenience Stores Association) is in the midst of a 25-city tour, to build [public] support and awareness to have the provincial and federal governments make a more serious effort to curb the trade of illegal cigarettes.

The article in the Niagara Falls Review notes that governments are losing $2.4 billion in lost tax revenue each year, before stating the little known fact that smoking is unhealthy.

Miserable, no good smokers. Don't they understand that refusing to pay extortion is,. . . er, well it's un-Canadian. They should submit meekly to the demands of the extortionists in Ottawa and Queen's Park (and Quebec City and Halifax, etc) and graciously kiss the collective ass of the anti-smoker crowd for their help and encouragement. After all, this persecution is for our own good. Isn't it?

Sometimes I wish I wasn't such a news junkie. It does terrible things to my blood pressure.

Monday, June 7, 2010

Fighting contraband, punishing smokers

According to an article in the Truro Daily News, convenience store owners in the Maritimes are “on a mission”. They want consumers to stop purchasing contraband cigarettes that are crippling their industry and fueling organized crime.

Their new website claims contraband affects the health of young people, the safety of the community, the livelihood of local small business owners and government revenue meant to provide funding for healthcare and education. Uh-huh.

They want smokers to stop buying contraband so the government can provide funding for anti-smoker fanatics to dehumanize and discriminate against . . . smokers. That's about as logical as pissing into a hurricane force wind. You know, the kind of wind needed to clear secondhand smoke from those smoky barrooms.

The major complaint is that convenience stores rely heavily on (legal) tobacco sales to generate a substantial portion of their income. And, it's not just the tobacco sales that are lost when the consumer makes his purchases from the trunk of a car. If the smoker isn't coming into the store to buy his fags, then they're not spending on other corner store staples such as lottery tickets, soda, candy bars, potato chips, etc.

Atlantic Convenience Stores Association president Mike Hammoud. Claims that: “Last year, 285 convenience stores in Atlantic Canada, or 11 per cent, closed their doors.”

And, the loss of tobacco sales was, apparently, “a key component” in the failure of those businesses. Can you imagine?

Frankly, I don't think Mr. Hammoud has much to be concerned about. Any day now, he can expect a relative flood of non-smokers to invade the convenience stores in Atlantic Canada and make up for the lost smoker trade. Everyone knows there is no adverse economic impact due to . . . er, . . . no, that was bars and casinos.

To support their demands that politicians take immediate action to stop the contraband trade, they're ready to play the “save the children” card. Like similar associations in Ontario and Quebec, they commissioned a “study” to make their point. Everybody has a study to support their position these days. It's scientific, you know.

At any rate, they collected cigarette butts from around “schools” and found that 11 per cent of butts found near Cobequid Educational Centre in April were illegal while 15.3 per cent of butts found near the Chignecto-Central Adult High School were also contraband. Huh?

Do you think maybe students in an “adult” high school might be adults. And, if the students are adults, how would that put children at risk? Whoops. The Chignecto-Central Adult High School was once the Princess Margaret Rose Elementary School. Yep. That explains it. Should have known there would be a connection to the kids somewhere.

Can't wait until 40% of the butts are contraband like they were in the "study" conducted in Ontario a year or so back. They'll really be tearing their hair out.

Hammoud wants fines, of $100 to $200, for those caught buying contraband. I save two to three times that much every month on fags for the wife and I.

And, according to the new website dedicated to the fight against contraband, they want the police to rely more “on the public and concerned citizens who may be able to provide useful information for ongoing or new investigations.” Wow. A snitch line! What a novel idea.

I can picture the scene in my mind with almost no effort. A smoker lights up at the local beach under the ever-watchful eye of the local busybody. “Henry,” she screams. “That man is carrying his smokes in a plastic bag. Call the riot squad.” The town busybody is always married to a Henry. Or a Mortimer. If she's married.

The website also notes that: “The majority [of those buying contraband] did not worry at all about being fined, arrested or caught dealing with a dangerous network financed and orchestrated by organized crime”.

And, in that regard, they're probably right. Personally, I'm more concerned about dealing with the dangerous networks in Ottawa and Queen's Park who seem hell bent on turning users of a legal product into felons. And extorting money from smokers to support the criminal activities of the Holy Church of the Anti-Smoker.

Did they really expect dealers in contraband to ignore the billion dollar market which they created? Did they really expect smokers to roll over and play dead?

Can't the impatient oafs just wait until the smoking kills us?

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Does the anti-smoker crowd intimidate critics

A respected scientist and former president of the the prestigious Necker Research Institute in France, expressed for the first time publicly his doubts about the real harm of secondhand smoke. In an interview conducted by Thibault Raissi for leParisien, Professor Phillipe Even said: “Clearly, the harm [of secondhand smoke] is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.”

Professor Even explained in the interview that the only reason he feels free to speak out against the prevarications at this time is because he's now retired. “As an official, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was given the obligation of confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.”

He argues that there is no “solid scientific evidence” that passive smoking is responsible for cardiovascular disease. “In the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, it should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms.” Adding: “But this was never done.”

And, he's right, of course. In fact most of the “scientific studies” done on the hazards of secondhand smoke failed to take these (and other) confounders into consideration. The science has never been as conclusive on the subject as the anti-smoker brigade has led the public to believe.

Professor Even explains that: “The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices had failed, [the anti-smoking lobby] had to find a new way to reduce the number of smokers. By waving the red flag of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: the social pressure.”

Non-smokers, says Even, felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. Secondhand smoke became a public health problem, paving the way for smoking bans in public places (as well as other interventions designed to force smokers to quit). But, he says: “Even if the cause is good, I do not think it is good to pass laws based on a lie. And the worst part is that it's not working; since the smoking ban went into effect, cigarette sales are rising again.”

I've noted on many occasions on this blog that smokers are often their own worst enemy. Although the primary target of the secondhand smoke scare was non-smokers, many smokers were convinced that the extravagant claims of the zealots were supported by the science. They were/are prepared to accept the bogus body counts of the anti-smoker brigade and the guilt trip that goes with them.

Professor Even is not the first in France to criticize anti-smoker prevarications. For several years, French tobacco specialist, Professor Robert Molimard, has denounced a "fight against smoking, which [has] turned into a fight against smokers." Last year, Molimard took issue with an EU report prepared in 2006 which claimed France had 5,863 deaths per year due to passive smoking, claiming they were intentionally inaccurate and deceptive

But, what makes Professor Evens assertions worthy of mention is that he cited the potential consequences of expressing a professional opinion contrary to accepted doctrine as his reason for remaining silent on this issue until after his retirement.

And, there is good reason for his concern. One of the most comprehensive studies to date was published in the British Medical Journal in 2002. The authors, James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat, were harshly criticized when they concluded that no association could be found between secondhand smoke and lung cancer or chronic heart disease mortality among non-smokers in California. Opponents chose to attack the study based on the fact that it was completed with funding from the tobacco industry, rather than its scientific merits.

Their study was ignored both by the press and those responsible for the 2006 Surgeon-General's report. I commented on the attacks on Enstrom and Kabat in a post last February

Dr. Terry Simpson (among many others) noted the vindictive tactics used by the anti-smoker crowd against researchers and medical practitioners who did not adhere to official anti-smoker doctrine.

In an article on his website, he wrote: 'Second hand smoke may be an irritant and an annoyance, but it’s not a cause of death. There are no body bags filled with those who have developed tumors or heart disease as a result of second-hand smoke. The body bags are filled, however, with scientists and physicians who dare go against the anti-smoking lobby and state the obvious; the science isn’t there. As much as they want to ban all smoking in all places, the health risk is grossly overstated. “

Yet, despite the lack of scientific evidence, over 80% of Americans (with similar numbers in Canada and around the world) believe that secondhand smoke is a deadly toxin killing non-smokers by the tens of thousands every year.

And, a large part of the problem is that, like Professor Evens, legitimate researchers, scientists and medical professionals have been bullied into remaining silent. The truth is unlikely to surface while honest scientists are afraid to speak out against the junk science promulgated by the zealots.

By silencing their critics, the anti-smoker zealots are free to distribute their propaganda unopposed and leave a perception in the minds of the public that is simply not supported by the science.

Note: Professor Even's interview with leParisien is in French and my translation is rather liberal. I've tried to convey the nuance of what he was saying rather than providing a strictly literal translation.

Iro Cyr at CAGE (Canadians Against Government Encroachment) has published a proper English translation of the interview with Professor Even. You'll find it here.