Re: Letter to the editor published

On 11 Jul 2006 16:10:29 -0700, "mary" <maryapp2@xxxxxxx> wrote:



Thanks for a super letter - I have printed it out for my doc, but think
i'll print up some studies too. won't work cuz the "antis" refuse to
believe evidence, and the other guys (Docs)keep their mouths shut -
except for Marc ! !

Drinking a Chateau Gloria for you (and roast beef sammiches)... Mary App

Thanks Mary. And, in case you missed Michael's post:

FORCES International
PASSIVE SMOKE: AN INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM
Fabricated risks attributed to passive smoke
The case against passive smoke (environmental tobacco smoke or ETS) is
mainly based on statements that it causes lung cancer or
cardiovascular disease in non-smokers. This short analysis examines
what is considered the strongest evidence, that on lung cancer. What
follows applies equally to the risk for cardiovascular disease and for
any other disease attributed to ETS, as the methodologies of the
studies
are essentially the same.

The possible risk of ETS for lung cancer could be determined if the
frequency of lung cancer is greater in non-smokers exposed to ETS.
Because it is impossible to find persons never exposed to ETS, the
only real possibility is to observe if the frequency of lung cancer is
higher or lower in non-smokers that are more or less exposed. A study
would then require a reliable measurement of both the extent of
individual exposure and of the frequency of lung cancers in different
groups of non-smokers. Because there are
many other proven risks for lung cancer, a study also must find
whether individual lung cancers in nonsmokers might be linked to other
risks and not to ETS.

The following analysis reveals that no study of ETS and lung cancer
has met these simple requirements, and therefore was not capable of
determining risk.

1. Nonexistent Measurements - Because lung cancer is a disease that
develops slowly and manifests itself for the most part at an advanced
age, the exposure to ETS needs to be measured over the lifetime of
non-smokers. This is what ETS studies claim to have done, even though
it could not have been a measure of exposure starting from any
person's birth through the 60-70 years needed for lung cancer to
develop, nor a backwards reconstruction of a person's exposure from
old age to birth, both tasks being obviously impossible. So
impossible, in fact, that ETS exposure has never been measured at all.
Instead of an independently objective measure, 60-to-70-year-old
non-smokers have been asked to recall what their personal exposure to
ETS might have been during their lifetime. Typically, such people were
asked to recall how many cigarettes, cigars or pipes had been
smoked in their presence since early childhood. Their reveries -
elicited in a few minutes usually over the phone, or even provided by
proxy recalls of the relatives of deceased persons -- were recorded by
the studies as precise numbers devoid of error and uncertainty.

It is well known how difficult it is to remember what one ate one week
ago, never mind 20 years ago or during childhood; how could it be
possible to remember, with an absurd expectation of precision, the
total exposure to smoke over the 50-60 years of a prior lifetime? The
only compelling conclusion is that without dependable measures of
exposures, the ETS studies produced statistical estimates of risk that
are illusory.

2. Fatal Flaws -According to summaries conducted by groups that have
an interest in finding elevated risks for ETS, the average of all
studies on lung cancer and passive smoke published up to May 2006
(about 75) claims a risk elevation of some 20 per cent. Such a
relatively low elevation is not credible because the studies have not
accounted for a whole series of other known risks of lung cancer, and
prejudices and biases that are inevitably present. Here a few
examples.

It is known that people with lung cancer are more prone to amplify
their recall of exposure (recall bias) than those who are not so
affected, and for obvious emotional reasons.

Another example is that some declare of being non-smokers without
saying they have been smokers, and therefore contaminate and bias the
results (misclassification bias).

Yet another one: there are over 30 risk factors for lung cancer
reported in the professional literature - over 300 of them for
cardiovascular diseases - and their very likely interference in ETS
studies has never been credibly measured and corrected for. It is
therefore exceedingly probable that the small risk elevation of 20 per
cent is fictitious because of interferences that are not and cannot be
calculated. Singly or combined, these considerations are sufficient to
explain the glaring inconsistencies of different studies, and erase
the credibility of the claimed risk of ETS.

3. The Absurd Methodology - The overwhelming majority of ETS studies
does not define risk on the necessary basis of higher or lower
frequency of cancer in function of higher or lower exposures to ETS,
as it should be done. Rather, self-declared non smokers all with lung
cancer and exposed to ETS have been compared to self-declared
non-smokers without lung cancer, the latter also exposed to ETS
because it is impossible to find never exposed people. To illustrate,
studies may have found that nonsmokers without lung cancer recalled
ETS exposure at a 100 rate, while non-smokers with lung cancer
recalled exposure at a 120 rate. With an absurd logic, the studies
presume that having remembered 20 per cent more represents 20 per cent
more risk!

Such presumption also implies the equally absurd reasoning that a 20
per cent excess exposure - which is impossible to verify or measure in
the first place - had been responsible for all the lung cancers of the
non-smokers with the disease, while non smokers who remember only a
little less exposure remain totally immune from lung cancer.

Conclusion - No study of ETS and lung cancer has provided a credible
and accurate measurement of ETS exposure. The overwhelming majority of
the studies has not measured different frequencies of lung cancer in
different groups. Lacking reliable measurements, the statistical
analyses of the studies are illusory. No study can guarantee that some
of the non-smokers studied were in fact smokers or had been smokers.
No study could exclude that the lung cancers observed might have been
caused by other risks and not by ETS. The overwhelming majority of
studies adopted improper and absurd methods of risk calculations. The
majority of studies did not report differences of risk, and many
claimed a reduction of
risk.

Independently or combined, these considerations negate the
credibility of claimed ETS risk for lung cancer, and are equally
applicable to ETS studies of cardiovascular and other diseases.

The statement of the US Surgeon General is based solely on the studies
discussed above. All smoking bans are also based solely on this body
of evidence.
-- The FORCES International Board of Directors

CigarBaron

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Yes, we all know
    ... The case against passive smoke (environmental tobacco smoke or ETS) is ... what is considered the strongest evidence, that on lung cancer. ... The possible risk of ETS for lung cancer could be determined if the ... individual exposure and of the frequency of lung cancers in different ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: ETS ban: Justified or No?
    ... that show elevated risk from adult exposure. ... The point isn't that ETS genuinely shows a protective effect, ... - most people are moderate, most moderate people are put off by hysteria ...
    (soc.culture.irish)
  • Re: another war lost
    ... Unfortunately the ETS issue is based on ... No study of ETS and lung cancer has provided a credible ... methods of risk calculations. ... negate the credibility of claimed ETS risk for lung cancer or heart ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: another war lost
    ... Unfortunately the ETS issue is based on ... No study of ETS and lung cancer has provided a credible ... methods of risk calculations. ... Marc J. Schneiderman, M.D. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: another war lost
    ... Marc Schneiderman wrote: ... Unfortunately the ETS issue is based on ... No study of ETS and lung cancer has provided a credible ... methods of risk calculations. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
Loading