This blog is an off-shoot of my main site http://www.smokescreens.org which has information and previews of my book Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco
You can follow me on twitter @richwhite08
Theme by nostrich.
Text
Report of TICAP
Here is Michael McFadden’s summary of the TICAP (The International Coalition Against Prohibition) conference. For those who don’t know, McFadden is the author of Dissecting Anti-smokers’ Brains and he was also fortunate enough to edit my book ;) Check out his website at www.antibrains.com
March 16, 2010
The Conference was a great success! We had participants from Pennsylvania and California, and from Wales, Scotland, England, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, Holland, France, and perhaps one or two other countries I’ve lost track of.
The facility was impressive and sported high tech video cameras that automatically zoomed in on people as they spoke. The courtyard outside was reserved for our breaks and was surrounded by towers from, I believe, the 16th century. The tea and coffee service was superb… although the tray of crackers left a bit to be desired… at least to my tastes (There were NO chocolate cookies!) The room was perfect: we had planned to be comfortable with anywhere from 25 to 100 and we ended up with about 50 which fit comfortably and allowed for inter-session discussions which were productive without being overwhelming!
From 8:30 to 9:30 conference participants were warmly welcomed by the Chairman of TICAP, John Gray. We started up promptly at 9:30 with Mr. Maessen delivering the Welcome Address with a PowerPoint presentation. Michael Marlow presented an incredibly detailed presentation also assisted by PowerPoint on the economic effects of bans and covered some of the twistings and turnings of antismoking propagandists with regard to the after-ban health claims they like to conjure up with cherry picked studies. Patrick Basham followed with a carefully prepared spoken presentation showing the dangers ahead for the hospitality industry after their fall to the smoking bans and demonstrating why this particular fight is so important to wider freedoms everywhere. Maryetta Ables was faced with the daunting task of trying to summarize a detailed 21 page report on threat of UN and WHO “advisors” as they relate to individual governments that seem to have been all too willing to give up claims to fundamental principles of sovereignity in signing the FCTC (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control) treaty. While they would never have signed away such rights on issues like arms control or fundamental human freedoms, the “tobacco issue” appeared harmless enough to them that they opened their doors to a future where many of them may be sadly surprised. Maryetta boiled her 21 pages down to a well-organized extemporaneous presentation that included having a few conference participants come up front to link arms in various positions showing the growing influence of international interests over national directions. We had a welcome unscheduled addition to the conference after Maryetta in the person of Gawain Towler, press officer of UKIP, who offered his strong support and belief that our work will pay off legislatures around the world.
Their presentations were followed by a lively question and answer session and then a lunch break at a wonderful outdoor cafe where we were all trying to order in different languages while bicyclists pedaled by. While it’s a bit uncertain whether we all got what was ordered, everyone seemed happy when we arrived back at the conference.
The afternoon session started out with a prensentation by a Dutch MP of the VVD, Halbe Zijlstra,
a spokesman for their Public Health and a nonsmoker who nonetheless sees the threat to our freedoms as being worthy of more concern than whatever slight or imaginary threat may be posed by wisps of smoke in businesses that desire to allow smoking on their premises. Zijlstra was warmly applauded and was then followed by a 20 minute pre-recorded video by Dave Goerlitz, “The Winston Man” who once worked for Big Tobacco, then worked for the Antis, and then left the Antis when he got disgusted with their interest in money more than the kids he was trying to communicate with. Dave had been hit by debris from a truck in a highway accident early this year and had just had an unexpected operation that kept him from coming to the conference but he made a noble effort to boil his ideas down into a video presentation and I believe he was successful and appreciated. Dave was followed by a detailed presentation from Kamal Chaouachi on how the hookah culture has been unjustly attacked and on the corruption of science by Antismokers hell-bent on stamping out ALL forms of smoking… even if they have to discredit legitimate research and researchers while creating brand new excuses to lump hookah smoking in with their arch-enemy of cigarette smoking. Kamal was followed by myself with another PowerPoint presentation with my main thrust being the need to hit the Prohibitionists at their weakest point: their lies.
After a break we came back for a final Q&A session chaired quite ably and helpfully (as was the first) by author-historian Christopher Snowdon. Some interesting questions were asked and answered and several of the day’s presenters added a bit to their formal presentations. As the day’s session ended Maryetta Ables gave a warm eulogy for Gian Turci, remembering his history and efforts, perfectly capped by his success in bringing about the creation of TICAP and the first TICAP conference held last year in Brussels. Gian worked tirelessly for no gain in any personal sense at all other than satisfaction in knowing that he was fighting against something that was huge and was wrong. He was a Don Quixote fighting against truly dark windmills that were fueled not by breezes but by immense amounts of money, and TICAP is carrying on his vision in our fights around the world!
After the formal conference we retreated to one of The Hague’s “Dens of Defiance” where participants were able to exchange thoughts and camaraderie in a more informal atmosphere well into the evening.
To the future… We have the truth and the facts on our side, while the power of the antismoking industry is based only on money and lies. We CAN beat them! Keep on fighting!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens Freedom Alliance
Board of Directors, The International Coalition Against Prohibition
Text
Finally! A journalist with integrity
I was very surprised a couple of days ago to pick up my local newspaper to find a small column entitled “Yet another victim of the draconian smoking ban”. I have typed the piece up below for your reading pleasure:
“Three years on and the ripples from the draconian legislation of the public smoking ban are still being felt, with another fine drinking establishment disappearing off the supping map in Chichester.
How sad I was to hear about the demise of the Coach & Horses. There had been a hostelry on the St Pancras site since the 18th century, but now another slice of history will disappear as permission has been granted to turn this top boozer into three flats.
After ten months and no takers, brewers Hall & Woodhouse have, reluctantly, gained planning permission and put the site up for sale with the intention of selling the site for housing.
A Hall & Woodhouse spokesperson cited the smoking ban as the reason the pub has had to close.
For the uninitated, the Coach & Horses was a drinks-only pub. A good selection of ale, convivial company and plentiful social activities are what the establishment offered. It did not specialise in food or wine - it didn’t need to.
It carved its own niche for local drinkers and was suitably rewarded with a loyal set of regulars.
However, when the smoking ban in public places came into force in July 2007, pubs like the coach took a battering. Anyone fancying a puff with their pint had to stand outside, like a social leper.
Licensees of my acquitance can reel off a list of pubs that have closed across the country since the smoking ban kicked in.
Those that survived were able to keep trade buoyant by focusing on food, and those were the lucky ones.
Take a look around your part of West Sussex (or any part of the country - RW) and compare how many pubs you have left compared to four years ago. You have less choice than ever before.
Ironically, choice could have been the key to avoiding this situation in the first place - if the government had considered the rights of ten million smokers in this country.
I have still yet to hear a convincing argument as to why legislation could not have been brought in that created smoking and non-smoking venues. Chichester could have had just one or two boozers that allowed smoking, with the rest being non-smoking premises.
Drinkers would then be able to vote with their feet and the market would decide which businesses survived. Instead, the heavy cosh of government came crashing down on smokers’ rights and has irretrievably damaged the UK pub trade for good.
Chichester has lost a historic traditional pub, people have lost jobs and a mini-community has been decimated as a result of the smoking ban. But I guess that’s the price we pay for living in a so-called democracy.
Video
Many anti-smokers, and non-smokers, often say that all doctors are in agreement that smoking is harmful and offer the challenge to us to find a doctor who disagrees with that. I have found a number of doctors and other health professionals who disagree, such as Dr. Ken Denson, Philip Burch, Dr. Whitby and others. There is now a more recent doctor who has uploaded his thoughts to youtube. The video is only about 5 minutes long and is well worth a watch. Take a look, enjoy, and add it to your arsenal to fight the tobacco control brigade.
Text with 2 notes
Correspondence with the Department of Health
To my letter to the Prime Minister I received a response from the Department of Health. Very underwhelming to say the least. Their second letter explains their refusal to comment further, or in other words avoidance of answering my questions. Clearly they know their reports are not as bullet-proof as they claim and their silence speaks volumes. I will post the next reply if and when I receive it. This page includes the correspondence between myself and the DofH as it stands.
——————————————————————————-
Dear Mr. White,
Thank you for your letter of 17 December to Gordon Brown about smokefree legislation. As I am sure you will appreciate, Mr Brown receives a large amount of correspondence and it is not always possible for him to answer all of his letters personally. As the issues you raise are health related, your letter has been forwarded to the Department of Health. I have been asked to reply.
Firstly, as any statistics that the Government publishes are put under close scrutiny, they are the most accurate and up to date available and provided by sources that are appropriate, reliable and independent.
Some of the statistics you quoted were from the Local Government Analysis and Research organisation’s data which was collected from local authorities on their smokefree compliance inspections. However, all sources of data relating to smokefree legislation can be found in the report on the impact of the legislation during the first year following its implementation at: www.smokefreeengland.co.uk.
Smoking is the largest single cause of preventable illness and premature death in the UK. It kills 106,000 people every year and costs the British taxpayer more than £1.7billion a year in treatment bills alone. It causes 84% of deaths from lung cancer and 83 per cent of deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease, including bronchitis. Faced with this terrible toll of disease and disability, the Government is taking action to support smokers who want to give up and to help people not to start.
England’s smokefree law was introducted to create a healthier environment for everyone to work, socialise, relax, travel and shop in, free from secondhand smoke. The legislation was introducted following the Government’s extensive consultation with the public about the legislation. The fact that a large majority of the public favoured smokefree legislation was showin in a number of published independent opinion surveys and in the responses to the wider public consultation which the Department of Health carried out in 2005, when 49,000 of the 57,000 responses favoured comprehensive smokefree legislation.
The Department ran a full 12-week consultation on draft smokeree regulations. The consultation was well publicised and around 550 responses were received from a range of stakeholders from the NHS, local government, trade and industry bodies, as well as responses from companies and individualss. The Department published an analysis of the consultation responses together with the final regulatory impact assessment for smokefree regulations.
Throughout this process there was extensive private, public and political debate and consultation on the most appropriate policy response. As a result of taking account of peoples views the Government put forward proposals to a free vote of the House of Commons on 14 February 2006. The Commons voted by a very large majority across parties to end smoking in virtually all enclosed public places and workplaces.
This decision on the principle of smokefree pubs and restaurants was endorsed by a similarly large majority of after extensive debate at the various stages of scrutiny in the House of Lords.
The smokefree provisions in the Health Act 2006 were carried on free votes across parties by large majorities in both Houses of Parliament. This Parliamentary support for smokefree legislaton reflected the very widespread public support.
With regard to the impact of smokefree legislation on the hospitality industry, it is too soon to make any definitive statements.
However, we can say that since implementation on 1 July 2008 the smokefree law in England has been very effective and has received wide popular support. It has been welcomed by the vast majority of people and businessses. Importantly, it protects people from the harm done to health by secondhand smoke. It has been described by medical experts as the single most important public health initiative for a generation.
In preparing the smokefree legislation, Ministers considered the possible economic impact of taking action on second hand smoke. A Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) was published alongside the Health Bill. The RIA contains estimates of cost and benefits of legislation to end smoking in enclosed public places and workplaces. A copy is available on the Department of Health website at www.dh.gov.uk.
Closures in the pub industry and general hospitality sector were covered at the time of Parliament’s consideration of the legislation in 2005/2006 and the RIA includes the following statement (paragraph 323 on page 10, final sentence):
Given the evidence from other countries, as well as in England, the Department of Health understands that it is likely to be prevailing economic, structural and cultural issues, rather than the introduction of smoke-free legislation, which will be the primary causes of any significant decline in the sector.
Data indicate there has been a smooth transition to smokefree public places and workplaces in England, with high levels of support from the geeral public and businesses.
Survey data, anecdotal evidence and reports in the media seem to indicate that the impact on the hospitality trade as a whole has been at worst neutral and in many cases positive. The Department has seen no significant evidence to date that implies that smokefree legislation, either in this country or in others where it has been in place for some years, will create any long-term economic problems for pubs or the hospitality trade in general.
The Department of Health has commissioned independent research to evaluate the impact and this will be peer reviewed and published in due course. The Department will continue to monitor the impact of the smokefree law which is due to be reviewed in 2010.
You also raise doubts about the dangers of secondhand smoke.
The evidene base that secondhand smoke harms health is substantial, and has been reviewed extensively, both in this country by the Government’s independent Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) and overseas.
In 2004, SCOTH concluded that exposure to secondhand smoke contributes to a range o serious medical conditions, including:
- lung cancer;
- heart disease;
- asthma attacks;
- childhood respiratory disease;
- sudden infant death syndrome; and
- reduced lung function.
In June 2006, the US Surgeon General published a report that examined a great deal of evidence and found that even brief secondhand smoke exposure can cause immediate harm. The report says that the only way to protect non-smokers from the dangerous chemicals in secondhand smoke is to eliminate smoking indoors and that exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer.
The US Surgeon General concluded that:
- secondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in children and adults who do not smoke;
- children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in children;
- exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer; and
- the scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
The Surgeon General said on the publication of the report that
The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death.
In 2005, research published in the British Medical Journal estimated that over 600 deaths each year in the UK are due to exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has classified tobacco smoke as a known human carcinogen. The US Environmental Protection Agency classified secondhand smoke as a “class A” human carcinogen, along with asbestos, arsenic, benzene and radon gas.
In 2004, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer’s report Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking reviewed the evidence of the health risks associated with smoking and secondhand smoke.
I realise that this is not the reply you were hoping for, but I hope it clarifies that Governments position on this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Cameron Gordon.
————————————————————————————————————————-
Dear Mr Gordon,
Firstly, thank you for acknowledgement of my letter and taking the time to respond. However, whilst I appreciate the response I am not satisfied with the content of your letter for multiple reasons.
It would appear that many of the points in my original letter were entirely ignored. For instance, I purposefully included independent studied on secondhand smoke to highlight that not all findings are supportive of the notion it is harmful – something that makes it absolutely impossible to say the evidence is conclusive that passive smoke is harmful, as in order for something to be ‘conclusive’ it must be demonstrated time and time again positively – but this is not the case.
You mention the SCOTH report, which is not particularly scientifically viable and I personally find it insulting that such a report is used as evidence to convince the public at large that passive smoke is a killer. First and foremost, the report was not a new study, it merely reviewed existing studies – and cherry picked ones at that, something you are certainly aware of. Secondly, the report focuses mainly on active smoking and the effects this has on smokers, not non-smokers.
A further problem with the SCOTH report is its categorisation, as middle age is defined as being between 35 and 69 years old. Bearing in mind the life expectancy is less than 80 for both men and women, how exactly is 69 still middle age? In keeping with this theme, the report also ignored the fact that almost 40% of the 120,000 deaths attributed to smoking occur in males and females who are above the life expectancy. How can something so deadly as tobacco smoke kill people above the life expectancy?
In addition to the above, point 2.7 of the ETS section makes a reference to a report by the Australian National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) from November 1997. This report was blocked from release by an Australian court because the NHMRC had failed in discharging its statutory duty of public consultation. In April 1997 Simon Chapman, of the working party on the report, stated that the calculations of risk to non-smokers who were exposed to secondhand smoke were so low that journalists “will be hard pressed to write anything other than ‘Official: passive smoking cleared-no lung cancer”.
My final point on the SCOTH report is that the majority of scientists named in it are well known within the anti-smoking movement. How can this be called objective research? It is blatantly evident that the report was produced solely as a means to determine and dictate future government legislation, rather than a genuine piece of scientific work.
In view of this, why is the SCOTH report so highly regarded? I would like to know why the WHO study, and indeed the Enstrom and Kabat study, are hushed and pushed aside. Is it because the results are too embarrassing to the cause? The Enstrom and Kabat study is most probably the single largest study ever conducted on passive smoking, and so we would expect it to be the most valid. Yet the results show no harm to non-smokers from secondhand smoke – so why are these results not making the news? Why is the government not using these figures to determine laws on smoking?
Similarly, the results from the WHO study were widely anticipated, with members of ASH expressing their eagerness to receive them as it was believed the study would give unequivocal evidence that secondhand smoke killed. When the results came in, though, they showed the opposite – no statistical increase to non-smokers, with a 22% decrease of lung cancer in children with smoking parents. The latter point is very important – if one of the biggest studies ever conducted finds that smoking may offer a protective effect, why is this not being studied further? And, equally important, why are these studies ignored? How can these studies come back with these results and the government simultaneously state that the evidence is ‘conclusive’ and there is no safe level of secondhand smoke? This is a clear and evident lie.
You mention the 2006 Surgeon General’s Report – yet notably omitted the fact that he was thereafter out of office for being bias. You also neglect to mention some of the other points mentioned in the report (perhaps because they directly conflict with the SCOTH report?), which are written in Chapter 1, pages 13-16:
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy
The evidence is not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.
The evidence is not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke.
Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall thickening, are not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis.
The evidence is not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.
The evidence is not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence of a causal relationship between chronic secondhand smoke exposure and an accelerated decline in lung function.
The evidence is not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.
You also raise the point that the 2006 Surgeon General’s Report claims SIDS can be caused by second hand smoke. There is, in truth, no evidence of this. In fact, it is still unknown what actually causes SIDS. In fact, in June 2001, Wake Forest University researchers reported SIDS may be related to a genetic deficiency, citing new research as showing that the absence of a particular muscle enzyme allows fatty acid products to accumulate, producing a toxic effect causing heart arrhythmias and respiratory arrest
There are also other theories of what causes SIDS. One such theory is that babies who die from the syndrome may have brain abnormalities that prevent them from when waking up when they don’t get enough oxygen during sleep, which suggests that an ‘immaturity’ of the central nervous system is a likely cause of SIDS.
A 2002 study published in Acta Neuropathologica[1] found that inadequate nutrition left some babies without all their bran neurons, thus leaving them at risk of SIDS by not being able to develop appropriate heart and lung control, with the researchers stating:
“we hypothesized that infants without the full complement of neurons and neuropil (ARCn hypoplasia) are at risk for SIDS because they are unable to develop appropriate cardioventilatory control during this crucial developmental period.”
If we look at the smoking rates and SIDS rates we see it does not make sense to claim secondhand smoke is a causative agent, as smoking rates have been declining for decades.
In your letter you also claim that 84% of deaths from lung cancer are a result of smoking, and 83% of deaths from COPD are from smoking. This, again, is not true. At best all that can be said is 84% and 83%, respectively, were smokers and contracted the disease. However, this does not indicate a causal relation, and it also does not take into account the fact that any smoker – or, fraudulently, ex-smoker – who contracts the disease goes down as another smoking-related death. Well, this is junk science. Unless it can be proven that they would not have contracted the disease(s) were they non-smokers then the claim cannot be made. In fact, in the court case Mrs Margaret McTear vs Imperial Tobacco Lord Nimmo concluded:
It is not within judicial knowledge that cigarette smoking can cause lung cancer: this is an issue which I am duty-bound to approach with an open mind and to decide on the basis of the evidence led before me; and the burden of proving it is on the pursuer… Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a non-smoker, it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
Regarding COPD, emphysema rates have been increasing all the while smoking rates have been decreasing. There is also scientific proof that emphysema is caused by a genetic gene deficiency. Howard Buechner, M.D., explains that a significant number of the people with the disease lack a gene that controls the liver’s production of a protein called alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT), and it is this protein which controls or degrades as enzymes known as neutrophilelastase, produced by the white blood cells. When this enzyme is left unchecked, it destroys alveolar tissue. The fact that this is caused by a missing gene proves that no amount of cigarette smoking is to blame. In fact, a 2004 book entitled α1-antitrypsin deficiency 3: Clinical Manifestations and Natural History states that the deficiency of A1AT causes emphysema or COPD in adult life of virtually every person with the condition. There is also the proteinase/antiproteinase hypothesis, which says that normally the locally synthesised proteinase inhibitors, especially the aforementioned AAT, permeate the lung tissue, thus preventing proteolytic enzymes from digesting structural proteins of the lungs. Accordingly, lung destruction results from either an excess of proteinase release in the lungs, a reduction in the antiproteinase defence within the lung, or both.
There is not a shred of evidence that smoking causes COPD, and while saying 83% of COPD sufferers are smokers this is a misleading number. In America emphysema alone has increased from 2.3 million cases in 1982 to 3.1 million in 2002 – all the time smoking rates have been dropping. In 2007, approximately 75,250,000 people smoked, including cigars and pipes, yet only 3 million suffer from emphysema, with the annual death rate from lung disease, excluding lung cancer, being just 120,000. How can tobacco smoking be labelled a ‘cause’ for a disease which affects not even a quarter of smokers?
Another point raised in your letter is that many businesses support the ban. This is a result produced by asking surviving businesses, the result would be very different if all the businesses that had to shut down were asked. I am certain that of the five pubs closing daily, not one proprietor would claim to be pro-ban. You also mention how smokers cost £1.7 billion annually, however you fail to acknowledge firstly how many billions drinking alcohol costs (which is far more than smoking) and also how much smokers pay into society – over £9 billion a year, which far outweighs anything smokers take out in healthcare costs.
Finally, regarding the votes you speak of, I mentioned in my original letter how the votes used were closed-ended questions, whereby people could only answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’. In these votes the majority of people did indeed say they would like a ban. However, in the open-ended questions the clear majority wanted restrictions on smoking, not a blanket ban. Yet this was ignored and no other opportunities were explored, such as ventilation, smoking and non-smoking pubs or any other possibility. You say the smokefree legislation would end smoking in ‘virtually’ all enclosed public places and workplaces, yet in reality it has resulted in all enclosed public places, to the point that smoking on an open railway platform is not permitted. In fact, the only exemption seems to be the House of Commons, which serves as a clear divide between the public and the law-makers.
I look forward to your response.
Yours Sincerely,
Richard White
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12070659?dopt=Abstract
—————————-
Dear Mr White,
Thank you for your further letter of 20 January about secondhand smoke.
There is nothing that I can add to the Department’s previous replies.
The scientific and medical evidence that you have decided not to accept is accepted by the World Health Organization and governments and medical experts all over the world.
I am afraid that, as you have raised no new issue, the Department can add nothing further to the matter. Any further correspondence you wish to send will be treated as for information only and a response cannot be guaranteed.
I hope tihs clarifies the Government’s position on this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Cameron Gordon
——————————
<!— /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:”Cambria Math”; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-520092929 1073786111 9 0 415 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:”“; margin-top:0cm; margin-right:0cm; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} p {mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0cm; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”,”serif”; mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} —>
Dear Mr Gordon,
I am more than a little perplexed at your last letter. I am afraid I neither agree nor accept that there is nothing more to be said from you regarding SCOTH, given that I asked specific questions to which I expected relevant answers. Your silence on these questions does, in all honesty, speak more than your response ever could and for that reason I feel it is undoubtedly in the best interests of the Department of Health to respond to them – if for no other reason than as a matter of integrity. As I stated in my previous letter, many of my first points and questions were ignored in your response, my reply to you asked for answers to the original questions and so this matter has by no means reached a conclusion or a point where you can legitimately say there is nothing else to add. I believe if the SCOTH report is as convincing and conclusive as you claim then there is no reason to dodge my questions.
Following on from my previous letters I have more to add. Of the 16 person panel of SCOTH four are members of the Labour Party, two work for ASH, one for the WHO, one employed by a pharmaceutical company and three have enjoyed grants or hospitality at the hands of pharmaceutical companies. Given this, objectivity was clearly not central. Furthermore, the report also stated that “In most studies considered individually the observed odds ratios failed to reach statistical significance.” So despite your claims the report actually found that the majority of studies looked at found second hand smoke to not be a health concern.
In addition to this, you also claimed that the conclusions were accepted around the world. This may well be true, but it does not mean that each and every researcher and scientist agrees. Indeed, Dr. Ken Denson studied smoking studies for over a decade and found that smokers who exercised moderately outlived non-smokers, and that what we are really seeing is smoker-related diseases rather than smoking-related diseases. In other words, as cigarette smokers typically come from a poorer background and have generally unhealthy lifestyles compared to non-smokers what the data really shows is the consequences of these unhealthy lifestyles rather than the smoking itself.
I would greatly appreciate a proper response to my letters so that this matter can reach an end. As the Department of Health is responsible for the information on public health matters I assume you have the relevant data and information to provide me with the answers I request. I see no reason for you to continually dodge or ignore my questions, and feel that as I am taking the time to contact you to ask for the information the least you can do is provide it. The information is such that it should be made available to the public and there is no reason for it not to be provided.
Yours sincerely,
Richard White
Text
It’s Started - Outside Smoking Ban
The following was written by Michael Siegel on his blog.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
It is now official. The mainstream tobacco control movement is now pushing for an extension of smoke-free protections to the outdoors and specifically — to sidewalks. The American Lung Association of California has released its 2008 State of Tobacco Control report, and one of its criteria in grading the strength of anti-smoking laws is “smoking restrictions on sidewalks in commercial areas.” Another criterion is “smoking restrictions at parks, beaches, trails, sports fields, and other similar recreation areas.”
Following this advice, the Nova Scotia town of Truro recently banned smoking on a downtown street. Earlier, the town of Bridgewater in Nova Scotia had banned smoking on “all public property, including streets, parks, and other recreational areas. The bylaw was softened from a previous proposal to ban smoking outdoors in the whole community.”
The Rest of the Story
The importance of this story is that the push to extend smoking bans to widespread outdoor areas where nonsmokers can easily avoid substantial exposure to secondhand smoke and where there has not been scientific documentation of any serious public health problem is now officially a part of the mainstream tobacco control movement, not simply the whim of an extremist outlying organization. While it was my feeling that these policies were being supported by many tobacco control groups, this is the first official documentation of an organized movement to promote such policies.
Apparently, there has been an official shift in the goal of the nonsmokers’ rights movement (unbeknownst to me). Rather than simply trying to protect nonsmokers from the serious health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke, the movement is now trying to protect nonsmokers from having to even see a smoker.
The movement has gone too far, and in doing so, it has crossed the line from being a public health movement to being a moral crusade. It has gone beyond the science and instead of controlling exposure to secondhand smoke, it is now attempting to control lifestyle
Text
Smokers Need Not Apply
The Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health, an anti-smoking organisation, has exposed just how bigoted and uncompromising the anti-smoking movement is - by refusing to employ smokers. The group is looking for a webmaster, but only a non-smoker [1]
They are offering two very weak reasons for this: 1) to set good examples, in being an anti-smoking organisation they do not want to employ someone who smokes 2) to protect other employees from third-hand smoke.
As any sensible person is aware, third hand smoke is not only unproven but is a fabrication of researcher Dr. Winickoff’s mind. But as I keep stating, there is a vast difference between tobacco control and tobacco analysis, with tobacco analysis being the objective study of any effect tobacco may have on the body whether it be positive or negative. Tobacco control is the exact opposite: devising ways to convince people that tobacco is detrimental to health and needs strict measurements to protect the public from the harmful effects. Third hand smoke is a perfect example of this. No study was conducted, no science was undertaken and the researcher has admitted it is just ‘smell’ - yet reading the papers would lead us to believe that it is a potentially deadly substance.
As for the other excuse of setting a good example, this is a flimsy argument because, quite simply, smoking is not permitted in offices anyway. The issue here is not smoking at work because that is not allowed except outside the office - in which instance provisions can be made of where smoking is permissable. Besides, a webmaster could very easily do most of the work from his/her own home, as there are now programs allowing file transfers to the internet from any computer in the world.
This is, unquestionably, discrimination. No matter how the Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health try to dress it up or justify it the fact remains that they are discriminating against people operating within the law for their personal lifestyle choices. If they openly admitted they won’t hire coloured people, fat people or disabled people they would, quite rightly, be taken to court and/or punished for their actions. Yet for some reason it is socially acceptable to refuse to employ smokers.
Furthermore, if the most highly qualified webmaster who applies for the job happened to smoke they would be rejected. The organisation, then, is willing to sacrifice the quality of their website over their pathetic discrimination.
If other companies and organisations follow suit then how long will it be before we see smokers being rejected from all jobs? How long before overweight people or people who eat too much salt are unemployable?
Arminda Mota, president of mychoice.ca, a website dedicated to smokers’ rights, said “They get at least $3 million a year from the government — from taxpayers who are non-smokers, and smokers like me — and they are openly discriminating” So the group has its wages paid by the tax-payers, and smokers pay more tax than non-smokers, meaning that the anti-smoking group is funded in part by smokers.
In short: smokers partially fund a group who in turn refuse to employ them and set out to ostracise them from society.
[1] http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/01/22/mtl-smokefreejob-cp-0122.html
Text
Who’s Really Lobbying Congress?
The December 2008 edition of Reader’s Digest [1] has a compiled list of the top 10 lobbyists in America of the past decade, from 1998 to 2008 - and with all the attention anti’s give to tobacco lobbyists you may well be surprised at their positioning.
The list is as follows:
2. Insurance - $1.1 billion
3. Electric Utilities - $1 billion
4. Computers/Internet - $820 million
5. Business Associations - $745 million
6. Education - $727 million (excludes money from teachers’ unions)
7. Real Estate - $696 million
8. Oil and Gas - $687 million
9. Hospitals/Nursing Homes - $649 million
10. Miscellaneous Manufacturing and Distributing - $613 million
So what took the number one spot? If we listen to the anti’s then there’s no question the tobacco industry has spent over $1.1 billion in the past ten years…..right? Actually, the number one spot goes to the pharmaceutical industry, who have spent a staggering $1.5 billion dollars in ten years. Many of you are familiar with the fact that the pharmaceutical industry spends vast amounts of money funding anti-smoking studies, developing smoking cessation products, mimicking the properties of tobacco leaves to develop new drugs, and marketing new drugs - in fact, the pharmaceutical industry spends more money marketing drugs than researching them. So, it probably comes as no surprise that they are top of the list, and it is a sure sign of the times when our “healthcare” system spends so much time and money lobbying Congress - it certainly makes you wonder what they’re lobbying.
So what does this mean? Well, it means the anti’s are yet again guilty of misinformation. They regularly purport that the tobacco industry heavily relies on lobbyists, yet they have spent less than $613 million in a decade.
No matter how unsurprising it is that the pharmaceutical industry topped the list, it still is a staggering sum: one and a half billion dollars in ten years. The pharmaceutical industry is a tricky beast and they are working incredibly hard to make us, the public, feel wholly dependent on their products. Amongst the ‘achievements’ they made as a result of their lobbying were:
- Blocking the importation of inexpensive drugs from other countries
- Protecting pharmaceutical patents both within the United States and abroad
- Ensuring greater market access for pharmaceutical companies in international free trade agreements
- Succeeded in ensuring the Prescription Drug User Fee Act was extended
The Prescription Drug User Fee Act allows the FDA to collect money (known as ‘user fees’) from the drug companies so they can get more drugs approved and on the market quicker. The result? Higher profit revenues for the pharmaceutical industry, and less thorough drug safety reviews. In short: the industry can churn out drugs without thorough testing, and get paid for doing so. What a world we live in. And to think this is known as the “health” industry…
How does that $1.5 billion break down? According to The Center for Public Integrity [2] from 2005 to June 2006 the pharmaceutical industry spent $155 million lobbying the federal government. $155 million, in one year, which is a record-setting amount. Further to this, they also spent more than $19 million in political contributions to candidates during the 2006 congressional election.
So the pharmaceutical industry is still up to its old tricks and hardly anyone takes any notice - and when someone does pluck up the courage to say something they are shot down for attacking the health industry, and who would be so heartless as to criticise an industry saving lives? No one, but the sad part is the industry isn’t saving lives but rather churning out more and more drugs, raking in bigger profits, and relying on deceit and deception to get there. Whilst some of their drugs do undoubtedly help people, the majority of them unfortunately do not and are unnecessary, harmful brews of toxic cocktails designed for profit.
In the meantime, ‘Big’ Tobacco is once again getting the blame for almost everything, with no evidence to require such attacks. Is that the state of our society now? Evidence means we do nothing, no evidence means we attack.
So the next time you hear someone spout about the tobacco industry’s lobbying, be sure to remind them of the true figures.
[1] http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/lobbyings-long-arm/article108833.html
[2] http://projects.publicintegrity.org/rx/report.aspx?aid=823
Text with 1 note
Scottish Heart Attack Rate Increase After the Ban
The following article comes from Christopher Snowdon of www.velvetgloveironfist.com.
What is most crucial about this news is that it marks the first time in many years that the rates of heart attacks have increased, as they have been steadily declining.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Official: Scotland sees large rise in hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome in second year of smoking ban
Data released this week by the Scottish government show that emergency hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) rose sharply in the second year of the country’s smoking ban.
Much was made of an apparent reduction in the number of patients being diagnosed with the life-threatening heart condition after the smoking ban came into effect in 2006, including a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine which claimed that the ban had caused emergency ACS admissions to fall by 17%.
However, official statistics show that the decline in hospitals admissions for acute coronary syndrome has been greatly exaggerated. The real decline in the first year of the smoking ban was just 7.2% - not 17% - and the rate then rose by 7.8% in the second year, cancelling out the earlier drop.
In the last 12 months before Scotland enacted its smoking ban (April 05 to March 06) there were 16,199 admissions for acute coronary syndrome*. In the second year of the smoking ban (April 07 to March 08) there were 16,212 admissions, slightly more than there had been before the legislation was enacted.
Hospitalisations for acute coronary syndrome in the last 10 years.
Source: ISD Scotland
Hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome have been declining in Scotland for many years. The new data show that the well-publicised fall in admissions following Scotland’s smoke-free legislation was in line with the existing downward trend and was significantly less steep than has previously been claimed.
The belief that the number of cases of acute coronary syndrome fell by 17% after the smoking ban stems from a study of volunteers in a selection of Scottish hospitals between 2005 and 2007. The study - ‘Smoke-free Legislation and Hospitalizations for Acute Coronary Syndrome’ - has since been criticised for its limited scope and for excluding data from several key months before and after the ban.
If the 2006-07 decline had really been the result of the smoke-free legislation, it would be expected for rates to remain low in subsequent years. The fact that Scottish hospitals have seen an unusually sharp rise - despite the smoking ban being rigorously enforced - suggests that whatever lay behind the 2006-07 dip, it was not the smoking ban.
Hospital data from England and Wales has failed to show a significant reduction in incidence of acute coronary syndrome since going smoke-free in 2007. This new evidence from Scotland casts serious doubts on the theory that smoking bans have a measureable impact on incidence of acute coronary syndrome.
Christopher J. Snowdon is the author of Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: A History of Anti-Smoking
* The World Health Organisation defines Acute Coronary Syndrome as being acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (ICD-10 code I21-22) and angina (ICD-10 code I20).
Timeline
17.02.06: STOPIT (STudy Of Public place Intervention on Tobacco exposure) announce the decision to conduct a study designed to “test the hypothesis raised by the Montana study that a reduction in ETS [Environmental Tobacco Exposure] exposure is accompanied by a rapid reduction in the incidence of acute coronary syndrome (ACS).” The study is to be led by Dr Jill Pell.
10.9.07: Dr Pell and her team announce their findings at a conference in Edinburgh. The Scottish government marks the occasion by issuing a press release titled ‘Smoking ban brings positive results’ saying: “A study of nine Scottish hospitals has found a 17 per cent fall in admissions for heart attacks in the first year after the smoking ban came into force.”
11.9.07: International media, including The Times, The Guardian and The Daily Mail report the news that, as the latter put it:
“Further dramatic evidence emerged last night to show that banning smoking in public reduces the rate of heart attacks. Hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped by 17 per cent in the year after the legislation was introduced in Scotland. If the pattern is repeated throughout the UK, there would be almost 40,000 fewer heart attacks a year.”
14.11.07: The BBC publish an article (online) titled ‘When the facts get in the way of a good story’. The author noted that data from ISD Scotland showed that the real drop in heart attacks was just 8%. He added: “What appeared to be hard medical evidence now looks more like over-hasty and over-confident research, coupled with wishful political thinking and uncritical journalism.”
22.12.07: The Times includes the study in its list of ‘The worst junk stats of 2007’.
30.7.08: On the eve of the study’s publication, the international media report the findings again. USA Today writes: “Scotland’s smoking ban appears to have prevented hundreds of heart attacks in its first year, a study shows. The number of people admitted to the hospital for heart attacks fell by 17% in the year after Scotland’s smoking ban took effect in March 2006.”
Tom Glynn of the American Cancer Society calls the study “virtually flawless’.
31.7.08: The study is finally published in the respected New England Journal of Medicine titled ‘Smoke-free Legislation and Hospitalizations for Acute Coronary Syndrome’.
19.09.08: Velvet Glove author obtains additional hospital data under the Freedom of Information Act. Provisional data suggests that acute coronary syndrome admissions fell by 9.3% in the 12 months following the ban.
25.11.08: Scottish government quietly releases final figures for hospital admissions since the smoke-free legislation. Acute coronary syndrome admissions fell by just 7.2% in year one - in line with the long-term downward trend - before rising by 7.8% in year two.
Text
Dr Ken Denson and the Truth About Smoking
For years the medical community has rammed the notion that smoking is a killer, and that there is no safe level of tobacco smoke. It is refreshing, therefore, to hear a well known and respected doctor speak out against that.
Dr. Ken Denson invented the INR and discovered Factor X. He was not funded by, or received money from, any tobacco company. Joe Jackson has written an essay on smoking, which is available from the Freedom 2 Choose website, and in it he speaks of Dr Denson:
“Dr Denson had devoted ten years to researching smoking, and published several medical journal articles eloquently arguing that the evidence, if looked at impartially and in total, was equivocal. He had unearthed countless studies showing that changes in diet could offset any risks, that moderate smokers who exercised had less disease than nonsmokers, and so on, and simply wanted to know why such studies were ignored while anything appearing to show the slightest risk was trumpeted from the rooftops. In Dr Denson’s view, doctors were failing smokers by preaching zero-tolerance instead of balance and moderation. He also suggested that we talk about ‘smokers-related,’ rather than ‘smoking related’ diseases, since a majority of smokers have tended to have overall unhealthy lifestyles.”
So here is an impartial doctor explaining that if we look at the studies without bias, they prove nothing at all. He also mentions something I have written in the book - cigarette smokers tend to have poorer lifestyles than non-smokers, and that a healthy diet appears to offset any risk associated with smoking. Another interesting point is that moderate smokers who exercise seem to have less disease than non-smokers. I whole-heartedly agree with the final point in the above quote: we see ‘smokers-related’ illness and not ‘smoking related’ illness. The difference is crucial - ‘smoking related’ means that the smoking caused the illness, whereas ‘smoker related’ means the smoking was a correlation, it was the lifestyle and diet that was the causative agent.
Dr Denson is also had this to say:
“Smokers across the board have a higher intake of total and saturated fat, lower HDL cholesterols, a lower intake of poly and mono unsaturated fat, fruit, vegetables, folate and fibre, and take less exercise (p<0.00001)…”
“In the British doctors study, women doctors who smoked less than 14 cigarettes per day had no increased risk for heart disease or lung cancer, and in the cornerstone Framingham study people who smoked less than 10 cigarettes per day had no increased risk for heart disease…”
“Then there are the geographical studies where some 300 million people in Japan and Southern Mediterranean countries have a lower incidence of heart disease, lung cancer and COPD and yet the highest incidence of smoking in the developed world…”
(after a long intellectual anecdote)”I relate this anecdote because it required some thought, unlike the efforts of the academic pygmies who jump on the anti-smoking bandwagon…”
“Smokers have the most atrocious lifestyles, but otherwise healthy smokers in my opinion live longer than non-smokers. What a terrible mistake the medical establishment has made”
In this quote he touches upon a few things that I have explained in Smoke Screens, such as the world data contradicting the notion that smoking kills, and that smokers statistically belong to the lower classes, thus are at higher risk of disease and early death by the myriad of factors in their life - stress, poor diet, poor healthcare etc, plus the fact that smokers are less likely to take as much interest in their health as non-smokers - after all, if they smoke believing it will kill them, why would they be otherwise healthy?
The Guardian newspaper ran a small - and underwhelming - article on Dr Denson, viewable online[1]. It is testament to the current thought to smoking, both politically and medically, that the journalist who authored the article had very little to say on the matter, and the only people contending what Dr Denson has to say are an ASH spokesperson and Professor Peto, a man who has spent his working life demonising smoking and sending out falsified figures on the dangers of tobacco. Peto worked with Sir Richard Doll in the 1950’s, when Doll was shaping the future of the tobacco witchhunt by intentionally setting out to prove smoking killed - not objective science by any means. It is a curious point that no respectable or objective scientists were asked to speak about Dr Denson’s comments.
It is becoming more of a trend that scientists and doctors not associated with anti-tobacco groups are speaking out in a more defensive way about tobacco, claiming that the risk is grossly exaggerated and the studies fatally flawed. I recently had the opportunity to speak to a Canadian Licensed Practising Nurse, who confirmed that it is not possible from surgery to tell whether or not a person smoked and that in his opinion smoking is a correlation in statistics, rather than a causative agent. Chapter 1: The Black Lung Myth contains more of the information provided by that kind nurse.
Hopefull Dr Denson’s words will reach a wider audience. We are already seeing the turning of the tide for the anti-smoking movement, with even the most extreme non-smokers finally noticing that the ‘information’ and legislation is going much too far. It won’t be too long before they implode, and hopefully it will be the words of people like Denson that will help people overcome the unjustified fear of tobacco.
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/1999/nov/21/smoking.tracymcveigh
Text
Like Savages, They Attack Their Own
To those of you who do not know who Michael Siegel is, he is a prominent anti-smoker who wholeheartedly agrees with bans and other tobacco control. Unlike the rest of the anti-smoking brigade though, Mr Siegel speaks out against ridiculous lies and notions put forth from the movement, such as a new outcry over the labelling of ‘slim’ cigarettes - where the anti’s claim that this will lead women to think of the cigarettes as glamourous in lieu with the media fascination of women having a slim physique. The mind truly boggles.
On November 18th 2008, Michael Siegel wrote on his website how he had been attacked by an anti who wrote a “blatantly inaccurate and distorted biography” on SourceWatch. The author of the biography goes under the screen name of “truthteller” - ironically enough - and said Mr Siegel’s primary role is to campaign against tobacco control measures, that he issues “tobacco-industry soundbytes” and that he aides with the “tobacco industry’s efforts to create a ‘doubt’ campaign” and assisting the tobacco industry in it’s fight “to return to smoky areas”.
Anyone who knows anything about Mr Siegel will know this is as far from the truth as it can get - he and I most certainly differ in our opinions of smoking and tobacco, and he believes the habit is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in America annually, and causes disease in countless others. Clearly, then, not a person who particularly likes Big Tobacco.
I found his article interesting because it shows that the anti’s not only attack anyone who is pro-smoking or, indeed, not anti-smoking, but they also attack anti-smokers who do not agree with everything they claim. As Mr Siegel himself stated of the movement “It continually fascinates me how there is no room for nuance in tobacco control. Everything is black and white. Either you approve of all tobacco control measures or you are a traitor to the cause. Either you approve of all tobacco taxes or you are working to promote the tobacco industry. Either you support all smoking bans or you are trying to return to smoky areas. Either you support every scientific statement that tobacco control groups make or you are participating in the tobacco industry’s doubt campaign.”
What else I found interesting about the article is that Mr. Siegel also states how the tobacco industry have only ever attacked him not only publicly (in courtrooms) but also on facts and in a manner that he may respond - in other words, not a sly, back-stabbing way.
If the members of the anti-smoking brigade can’t keep it together enough to respect each other and that other people have differences then it certainly won’t be long before it crumbles on itself. Once a group starts to rot from within the end is nigh, and when it’s own members and supporters question the motives and claims then something is very, very wrong.
Page 1 of 2
