Here is a study the EPA and other Anti Smoking Groups had no control
over
Please read it in full.
fuofcu Thursday 10 May 2007
Here is a study the EPA and other Anti Smoking Groups had no control
over. Please read it in full. Thank You.
Enormous German study on passive smoke, cancer and cardiovascular
disease says: >NO CONNECTION
this milestone study published by the American Journal of
Epidemiology has been so thoroughly ignored by the public health
gangs and its media servants - it has escaped even our attention! The
enormous study covers 37 years, during which thousands of filght
attendans have been followed and monitored for cancer. Furthermore,
this is not a study based on questionnaires asking whether uncle Jack
smoked more or less in 1956, as it's the case for most antismoking
junk science -- nor it is something started and finished in a few
months. Finally, it is neither financed by the tobacco industry, the
pharmaceutical industry, nor is it supported by "public health" funds
allocated to produce scientific frauds to support public health's
frauds on smoking. All that explains the results. Here is an excerpt
that says it all:
"We found a rather remarkably low SMR [standardized incidence ratio]
for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for
male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to
passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this
group. Smoking during airplane flights was permitted in Germany until
the mid-1990s, and smoking is still not banned on all charter
flights. The risk of cardiovascular disease mortality for male and
female air crew was surprisingly low (reaching statistical
significance among women)."
The word "surprisingly" even betrays the expectation of the
researchers that passive smoke hurts - quite indicative of today's
superstitions induced by the antismoking frauds: but the results
betray politics. In spite of all the USSR-like suppression of
positive information by the "public health" gangsters, therefore,
more evidence that the nearly universal smoking bans on passenger
airlines is unjustified comes from researchers who examined the
specific health risks associated with working in commercial aviation.
Banning smoking on airlines makes no more sense than banning smoking
in a restaurant or office building. None of the studies on secondhand
smoke have ever demonstrated the epidemiological existence of a risk.
REVISITING THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE
EXPOSURE AND LUNG CANCER RISK
"Mortality from Cancer and Other Causes among Airline Cabin Attendants in
Germany, 1960
I'm afraid the war has already been lost. The propaganda war has been won by the other side and they're not interested in any evidence to the contrary. The organs of power and influence in the country, Department of Health, newspapers, health organizations, etc., have beaten it into everyone's head that anyone who breathes SHS is going to die, maybe immediately. That's the line and they're sticking to it. Sad.
Yes, it was a large study, with a large sample size. At first blush, 18,500 participants seems impressive.
But at the time of publication, only 1.5% had died.
Isn't it a little premature to suggest that conditions in cabin had no effects on cause of death when 90% of your sample is still alive and kicking?
If you say it differently "A study of 311 deaths..." it doesn't sound so impressive...
Whatever helps you sleep at night shane....
Pete - sadly, you're right. The lies have been told so long they all believe them.
I came across this story that could probably go for the US as
well as the UK. I thought it was pretty good for all of us too read
anyways.
Luke
http://www.guardian.co.uk/smoking/Story/0,,2079734,00.html#article_con
'I smoke for my mental health'
Following our G2 special on the smoking ban, artist David Hockney
offers a personal view on why he will always be devoted to cigarettes
Tuesday May 15, 2007
The Guardian
On July 1 2007, the most grotesque piece of social engineering will
begin in England: the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces,
imposed easily by a political and media elite. They think it will
lead to healthier people and a cleaner atmosphere. They believe they
can change people easily. The science of marketing has been absorbed
by them and they think they can control everybody. I don't think they
can. People will stay at home and do drugs instead - legal and
illegal.
I have lived in California for a number of years. They started
smoking bans, but they didn't affect smokers that much. In California
you move around in your own private space. If one goes to a public
space, say the opera or Disney Hall, then because the climate is
ideal the smoker can just step outside, at all times of the year.
Many restaurants have gardens and the bans have never really bothered
me. But something else has happened in California since the bans came
in, unreported by the media, and it took me a while to notice because
I have spent the past seven years working in England.
The amount of drugs advertised on television tells me what has
replaced tobacco (although 20% still smoke): painkillers, Prozac and
antidepressants, mostly prescription drugs - you just tell the doctor
what you need. When prescription drugs are advertised in the press
there is always a lot of small print listing side effects, and on
television you get a speedy talking voice listing the side effects.
You perhaps hear one word in four - paralysis, diarrhoea, death,
headaches. I expect it all to come here. Drugs (legal and illegal)
are the world's largest business, and one can understand why, since
they make us feel better.
I know about fanatical anti-smokers - my father was one of the first
(although his eldest son has outlived him and smoked until he was 70,
and I'm still smoking at almost 70 - indeed, my birthday is nine days
after the ban). I smoke for my mental health. I think it's good for
it, and I certainly prefer its calming effects to the pharmaceutical
ones (side effects unknown).
Well, you say, smoking has dreadful side effects. Certainly on some
people, but not on all. So we should ask the British Medical
Association to explain Denis Thatcher smoking Senior Service
(unfiltered) and dying at 88, or Kurt Vonnegut living till 84 after
smoking Pall Mall cigarettes for 70 years. What is the explanation?
Nobody seems to ask and no one gives any explanation.
In the late 90s the ex-mighty New York Times was very anti-tobacco. I
kept writing letters to them. None was published. When Deng Xiaoping,
the Chinese leader, died at the age of 92, there was an obituary in
the New York Times. Three days later there was the most foolish
letter which said that Mr Deng was a very bad example to the young
because he always had a Panda cigarette in his hand or mouth.
I was appalled that they had printed this, and wrote to them
suggesting Mr Deng had lived a very long life - how long do you
expect people to live? - and the logic of his argument would be that
Adolf Hitler was a very good example for the young as he didn't
smoke. It wasn't published, and I began to realise the New York Times
was no longer a serious newspaper. After that I was sceptical about
everything I read in newspapers.
Meanwhile in England, the press, without tobacco advertising, sided
with the anti-smokers. The BBC made itself "smoke-free" and I
realised how sinister this was. The BBC's problem, which won't go
away, is that there is no neutral viewpoint. Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle is part of the basis of the mathematics that led to the
computer, but it also stated that the observer affects the observed -
no one is neutral. The BBC used to claim that it was neutral, but now
it is part of a massive social engineering project paid for by its
listeners and viewers. It is against a group of 12 million people who
choose to smoke - not very fair.
The British press might be quite lively, but it is also pathetically
childish. I take little in it seriously, and when I am in Bridlington
I only glance at newspapers. They are not sceptical enough, which is
why I see them now as part of the social engineering. No one asks
what the consequences will be - all will be good, they childishly
think.
The Guardian says that the ban has been a "success" in Scotland. What
do they mean by "success"? Pub takings have gone down, some pubs have
closed. But surely the ban would only have been a "success" if the
non-smokers had been flocking to the pubs. They have not.
What do I think? You're living in a madhouse, David ... Actually,
I've always thought that, but I have a love for the surface of the
Earth that is an escape from the mean-spirited and dreary people who
seem to have taken over England.
The ban won't affect me much. I live very privately. I'm not very
social - I'm too deaf, and in the world I have created I will smoke.
I've no wish to meet politicians - most of them have the most odious
ideas about people. England is full of big pushers of the coming pill
society, and we've lost a sense of messiness - no longer any Delight
in Disorder here (a careless shoestring in whose tie/ I see a wild
civility/Do more bewitch me than when art/is too precise in every
part, Robert Herrick).
Two months ago I started the largest painting I've ever done: 15ft x
40ft. The moment I began I found myself running up the stairs (with a
fag) and realised some people are more in tune with a life force than
others.
I can't be the only voice like this. In England people should speak
up more, defend themselves, but it's hard against all the forces at
work. Two million anti-smoking signs are going up on July 1,
including inside Westminster Abbey. The uglification of England is
under way by people with no vision. I detest it.
Thanks for posting the link, neighborhood_concerns, I appreciate it!
I read the article through re: airline cabin crew. It is not an article examining effects of smoking on cabin crew - it is looking at general mortality rates of cabin crew vs. the german population as a whole. The quotes are grossly taken out of context, and misleading. As a matter of fact, I will finish the paragraph from which the aforementioned "cardiovascular effects" line was lifted:
The risk of cardiovascular disease mortality for male and
female air crew was surprisingly low (reaching statistical
significance among women). This is a clear indication of a
healthy worker effect, wherein selection for employment and
ongoing monitoring lead to a very low prevalence of cardio-
vascular disease risk factors such as obesity and hyperten-
sion.
So what it says is that through selective processes of employment, the cabin-crew may not be very reflective of the overall population. That great care is taken to prevent cardiovascular disease in cabin crew, perhaps moreso than you find in the general population.
This was not a paper about the effects of passive smoking ~ in fact, it was more interested in the effects of dosing of cosmic radiation and AIDS, being mentioned much more frequently than really any other potential causal factor. (the passive smoking line is only three lines in the whole darn paper!) The applicability of this type of paper in trying to prove that secondhand smoke does not increase mortality rates is barely non-zero, at best - that's not what the design of this experiment is exploring!
The author of the post above (I know, it's not you Starling,and I don't mean to indicate it is, but I dont' know where the text came from) is trying to dramatically twist, distort, and miscontrue the results of the research above. It's taking a scientific paper and misinterpreting its findings grossly. Please, do take time to look through these postings - their confrontational words and assurances that the scientific world is trying to suppress the truth about passive smoke smacks of the same crud you see on late-night infomercials.
"confrontational words and assurances that the scientific world is trying to suppress the truth about passive smoke smacks of the same crud you see on late-night infomercial" - jeez, that sounds pretty much like what the shs propaganda sounds like. Like crud spewed on an infomercial. And yet, the masses bought it, just like they buy crappy jewelry, wrinkle cream & the "be a millionaire with our real estate investment books" promises.
Don't make fun because I am the proud owner of a floabie and a food vacuum sealer. Investments in my future, they are ;)
I won't go round and round about the evidence. We've done that dance before. You're right in that SmokeFree Ohio and other groups have exaggerated some of the effects of SHS, but that does not minimize the scientific research that underlies the overall damaging effects of SHS.
And Darkseid, before you tell me to go back and read Pete's comment and dismiss me as being a mindless memeber of the masses, I HAVE read the primary literature. (Read many of Starling's links, too) As have many doctors, researchers, and other health care professionals. What I find re: refutations of the evidence of damage of SHS are links to newspaper articles, op-ed stories, blog entries, etc. Not all evidence is created equal, just because it is written on blog does not make it so. Um, unless it's my posting?!?!? ;)
go back to Pete's comment.
----------------------
BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
Why should one more drop of our soldiers blood be spilled on foreign soil? Why fight/die for 'freedom' anymore when our citizens are pissing it away at the voting booth?