Fraudulent science does not serve the public interest – or end the debate over secondhand smoke.
Secondhand smoke debate "over."
That’s the message from the Surgeon General’s office, delivered by a sycophantic media. The claim is that the science has now overwhelmingly proved that smoke from others’ cigarettes can kill you. Actually, “debate over” simply means: “If you have your doubts, shut up!”
But you definitely should have doubts over the new Surgeon General’s report, a massive 727-page door stop. Like many massive reports on controversial issues, it’s probably designed that way, so that nobody (especially reporters on deadline) will want to or have time to read beyond the executive summary – or maybe even the press release. That includes me; if I had that much time I’d reread War and Peace. Twice. But the report admits it contains no new science, so we can evaluate it based on research already available.
First consider the 1993 EPA study that began the passive smoking crusade. It declared such smoke a carcinogen based on a combined analysis (meta-analysis) of 11 mostly tiny studies. The media quickly fell into line, with headlines blaring: “Passive Smoking Kills Thousands” and editorials demanding: “Ban Hazardous Smoking; Report Shows It’s a Killer.”
But the EPA’s report had more holes than a spaghetti strainer. Its greatest weakness was the agency’s refusal to use the gold standard in epidemiology, the 95 percent confidence interval. This simply means there are only five chances in 100 that the conclusion came about just by chance, even if the study itself was done correctly.
Curiously, the EPA decided to use a 90 percent level, effectively doubling the likelihood of getting its result by sheer luck of the draw.
Why would it do such a strange thing? You guessed it. Its results weren't significant at the 95 percent level. Essentially, it moved the goal posts closer to the kicker, because the football kept falling short. In scientific terminology, this is known as “dishonesty” or “fraud.”
Two much larger meta-analyses have appeared since the EPA’s. One was conducted on behalf of the World Health Organization and covered seven countries over seven years. Published in 1998, it actually showed a statistically significant reduced risk for children of smokers, though we can assume that was a fluke. But it also showed no increase for spouses and co-workers of smokers.
The second meta-analysis, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in 2002, likewise found a statistical significance when 48 studies were combined. Looked at separately, though, only seven showed significant excesses of lung cancer. Thus 41 did not.
Meta-analysis, though, suffers from such problems as different studies having been conducted in different ways – the apples and oranges conundrum. What was really needed was one study involving a huge number of participants over a long period of time using the same evaluation.
We got that in the prestigious British Medical Journal in 2003. Research professor James Enstrom of UCLA and professor Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York, Stony Brook presented results of a 39-year study of 35,561 Californians, which dwarfed in size everything that came before. It found no “causal relationship between exposure to [passive smoke] and tobacco-related mortality” – adding however that “a small effect” can’t be ruled out.
The reason active tobacco smoking could be such a terrible killer, while passive smoke may cause no deaths, lies in the most fundamental dictum of epidemiology: "the dose makes the poison." We are constantly bombarded by carcinogens, but in tiny amounts that the body usually fends off easily.
A New England Journal of Medicine study found that even back in 1975 – when having smoke obnoxiously puffed into your face was ubiquitous in restaurants, cocktail lounges, and transportation lounges – the concentration was equal to merely 0.004 cigarettes an hour or 0.1 cigarettes a day. That’s not quite the same as smoking two packs a day, is it?
But none of this has the least impact on the various federal, state and city agencies, or organizations like the American Lung Association, for a very good reason. They already know they’re scientifically wrong. The purpose of the passive smoking campaign has never been to protect non-smokers. Instead, it is to cow smokers into giving up the habit, expand bureaucratic turf, and fatten agency and pressure group coffers.
It’s easy to agree with the ultimate goal of reducing teen and adult smoking. But inventing scientific outcomes and shutting down scientific debate as a means is as intolerable as it was when Nazi Germany “proved” eugenics is a valid “science” and certain races were truly inferior.
I’ve never believed that secondhand smoke is as deadly
as smoking. If that were true, then we would all be safer
to take up smoking! But every time I read the tripe from
the anti-smoking lobby, I am tempted to take up smoking
in protest. The only reason I do not is that to do so
would harm my credibility as a Smoker’s Rights advocate.
And yet, that report has already become a rallying cry. Here in Oregon, soon after the “new” report was released, the papers were filled with editorials pushing for more legislation to ban smoking in public places, and even in your persoanl vehicle (in case a child rides with you.) This, despite what the real studies have shown – children in a house with smokers have LESS change of getting cancer.
The author’s reasoning is specious. He does not even address the report in question. Instead, he attacks a report issued 13 years ago! Apparently, he is relying on guilt by association — not a particularly compelling logical technique.
Moreover, his analysis of previous studies is flawed. He condemns a British meta-study because it determined that only 7 out of 48 studies found an effect. But the 41 studies that Mr. Fumento touts did not in any fashion absolve secondhand smoke — they failed to establish a connection. This was not a matter of 41 studies finding secondhand smoke safe and 7 studies finding it dangerous. 41 studies were unable to establish a statistically significant conclusion and 7 studies were able to establish a statistically significant conclusion. That’s 41 “we don’t know” results against 7 “we do know” results. The fact that 41 studies weren’t able to find a result does not in any way challenge the 7 studies that did. It is the combination of the studies that matters — and the BMJ meta-study found the combination statistically significant.
Mr. Fumento’s accusation that the Surgeon General’s report is “fraudulent science” is without merit. It is his own criticism that is fraudulent.
Rev. Hammers, I would appreciate seeing a reference to the studies you cite that show that children in a house with smokers have less chance of getting cancer.
You see, this is the trouble with “lies, damn lies, and statistics.” In the wrong hands, one may use ‘statistics’ to magically conjure false support of patently biased hypotheses.
The epidemiologic pillars of establishing a biostatistical cause-effect relationship are as follows: 1) Biological plausibility (tobacco carcinogens should and do cause harm to human cells in a petri dish, animal models . . .), 2) Strength of association, 3) Dose-Effect, 4) Positive temporal relationship, and 5) Reproducibility. All five have been more than satisfied regarding tobacco smoke and asthma; emphysema; cardiovascular/cerebrovascular disease; cancers of the lung, bladder, oral cavity, esophagus, stomach, colon and rectum. It’s rare that these events manifest within a few years of the onset of smoking. This is the rational for using prospective cohorts rather than case-control studies that are cross sectional in time.
Now, all that epidemiology aside, lets be intellectuals and use the brains God gave us. Is there some thing that occurs to the smoke that makes it SAFE after being exhaled? Hmm, some of the carcinogens are absorbed, and when spewed out, the ETS is diluted. Other than that it’s the same group of carcinogens displacing useful oxygen that would otherwise occupy its space. No, I cannot conclude that ETS is a benign gas (or even beneficial, Rev).
Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is unlikely to greatly increase one’s risk of cancer or mortality. What it does increase is the ‘morbidity’ especially in kids, for example: exacerbations of childhood asthma and the increased incidence of upper respiratory infections and middle ear infections. If you want to see these studies, go to ‘pubmed.’
#2) Rev, if someone is riding around forcing their ETS upon a minor, that person should be taken out and flogged within an inch of his or her life. Perhaps our friend Fumento would argue that’s just the Nazi in me.
Smokers have every right to suffer and die from soking so long as they can cover their own health care costs without imposing their risks upon us physically or finacially.
Sorry, I forgot to attach my name. Also, I misspelled “smoking” in the last paragraph – I’ll use spell check next time.
The campain against second hand smoke and tob. in general is a easy way to tax one group for for the benefit of another group. we could use this for other revenue needs.politicans could pay for home repairs for the needy. Being a few decades old I have still to hear of a doctor report that states that the cause of death was second hand smoke .If second hand smoke is killing so many then every smoker should be dead long before the second hand VICTIM .before it was us blacks that were the cause of evil now it is smokers . the worst anti-s are the ex-smokers (the quilt is killing them)
I believe that, in tax revenue terms, the taxpayer has been subsidizing the smoker for a long time. Those subsidies have taken the form of health care for smokers, and have been huge. The settlements of the last few years go a long way towards redressing this income redistribution, but most of the payments remain in the future.
As to your comment that “I have still to hear of a doctor report that states that the cause of death was second hand smoke”, that reminds me of the line in the movie where the bad guy says, “I didn’t kill him, the bullet did.”
Your statement, “If second hand smoke is killing so many then every smoker should be dead long before the second hand VICTIM” overlooks the statistical nature of the toxic effects of smoking. Smoking does not create a 100% probability of death for the smoker. It depends, of course, on a great many factors, but it’s well below 50% in almost all cases. Let’s walk through some hypothetical numbers. Let’s say that smoking kills 10% of all smokers. Let’s say that second-hand smoke is only one-tenth as dangerous — it kills only 1% of all affected people. That means that, even though smoking is ten times more dangerous to the active smoker than to the passive smoker, there are still going to be a lot of passive smokers who die. This is the source of the objection to smoking.
Get over yourselves! When I was a child one of my parents smoked like a chimney. I would walk into our living room in the evening and not be able to see over to the other side because of the dense smoke. As a result neither my siblings or I ever took up smoking.
The fact is that there is an extraordinarily strong link between smoking and lung cancer, and even if there wasn’t passive smoking is still an unpleasant thing to have to put up if you are a non-smoker. The issue here is choice. Should people be allowed for instance to bring a boom box into a restaurant and play loud music against the wishes of the other patrons? It is exactly the same issue. Smoking in confined spaces is intrusive to non-smokers, there are no two ways about it.
I bet you all think man-made climate change isn’t happening either. I am amazed that humanity has gotten as far as it has with so many conservatives in the mix.
Cris Craford, my information is based on the WHO study, which can be found at http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html. The whole site is informational, including what each type of study is, and an explination of certain things.
The exact quote was based on, “…Fact: The study found no statistically significant risk existed for non-smokers who either lived or worked with smokers.
Fact: The only statistically significant number was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer among the children of smokers….”
Thank you for the reference link, Rev. Hammers. I was disappointed by the polemicism of the piece; it engages in intellectual sleight-of-hand that I should point out to you.
First, the author analyzes one study out of many. There are dozens of studies, many of which find no statistically significant effect of ETS. That’s why we do meta-studies, which combine the results of many small studies to produce results that are more statistically reliable — and the meta-studies do indeed find statistically significant effects of ETS. Here, let me explain how this is done.
Suppose that you do a study with 1,000 subjects and find a 16% increase in lung cancer deaths, but your margin of error is 30%. Since the 16% falls within your margin of error, you have no statistically significant result.
But suppose that somebody else does another study and gets exactly the same results: 1,000 subjects, 16% increase, 30% margin of error. If you combine the two studies, you’ll end up with 2,000 subjects, 16% increase, but your margin of error will have decreased. How much will it decrease? That depends critically on the details of the study, but a quick-and-dirty rule of thumb is that it will decrease by the inverse of the square root of two, or about 70%. Thus, in this example, the margin of error would be reduced from 30% to 21% — still too large to produce statistically significant results. But if you combine more studies, you can end up with a great many subjects and a much smaller margin of error, and the studies as a group can yield a statistically signficant result.
The author of your reference looked at one study in isolation. Big deal. It’s the metastudies that give the most reliable information, and they’re quite clear that ETS does produce statistically significant increases in morbidity.
One other dirty trick the author pulled: he cited the result that children of smokers have a statistically significant decrease in the risk of lung cancer. The trick, of course, is that the effects of ETS on children involve a wide range of detrimental health effects, not just lung cancer. Indeed, lung cancer may well be a minor effect of ETS on children because their lungs are growing and renewing rapidly. My hunch is that the greatest effects would be on brain development. It would be interesting to learn what other studies have found about the effects of ETS on lung cancer in children.
Tobacco in itself is harmless. The preservatives they add to essentially a plucked leaf are the agents of cancer. The filter is also a carcinogen depot as well. The nicotine they add to tobacco is an evil, dastardly practice. Genetics are the greatest determinants of disease. If it runs in your family, your predisposed to it, and so it’s important to take steps to lower your risk. You may smoke for 90 years and be quite content. “Smoking” is the only “evil” taught in schools. To liberals, the only thing a child can not take into his body, if he freely chooses is a cigarette. Human appendages, sex toys, pornography, and the Abortionists vacuum & scalpel are just fine. In fact, children should be free to make these choices apart from their parent’s consent, even if 10 or 11. Someone said once the Godless sweat the small stuff, but the Wise rise up against the greater evils. There are greater hills to die on.
As an individualist and former smoker (quit twenty-some years ago before nicotine gum and patches, the only alternative I had was “cold turkey”), I must stand up for the rights of smokers to do what doesn’t harm anyone but themselves. I oppose the government telling restaurant owners that they must prohibit smoking in their establishments. I prefer non-smoking restaurants and other businesses because I now find cigarette smoke to be nausious, however, the right to decide if an establishment allows smoking should be up to the owner, not the government. Studies that attempt to convince us of the myth that second hand smoke is nearly as harmful as smoking itself is just an excuse for the socialists to interfere further into our lives. As an individualist, senior citizen, I am glad that during most of my life people had the freedom to do pretty much as they pleased without government interference. As an individualist, it saddens me that so much freedom is being taken away from individuals by the socialists (liberals.)
Will Mattison
Will, I am in total agreement with you about leaving people alone to do whatever they choose, so long as they don’t hurt anybody else. Both sides of the political spectrum seem to want to intrude onto other people’s freedoms (yes, both sides: conservatives want to tell gays what they can’t do in the bedroom).
What makes this such a messy issue is the problem of health care. We as a society have decided that nobody bleeds to death. If you come into the hospital dying of lung cancer, and you can’t pay for the treatment, society will take care of you. Exactly what society should do about indigent patients is long debate in itself, but this society has made a decision that such patients should be covered with public funds. And since the government is paying for the treatment, that gives government a right to nag people about their health. We see this in seat belt laws, helmet laws, and anti-smoking laws. Perhaps we should change these rules (I think we should), but so long as we have them in place, the logic behind government as health-nag is sound.
But with ETS, our problem is different: the smoker IS most definitely harming other people. If smokers take proper care to insure that their emissions don’t bother other people, then I’m happy to let them engage in their risky behavior.
Your dismissal of the scientific results out of hand strikes me as antirational. If you have a reasoned criticism of the Surgeon General’s Report, let’s hear it.
Some facts boy and girls. Direct links have been shown between smoking and an increase in all kinds of illnesses. What magical process takes place to that carcinogenic poison when it is exhaled or drifts upwards as it sits in an ashtray that would lead any rational person to suggest that it is suddenly harmless? It is diluted poison but it is still poison. Of course in life one is free to make all sorts of unhealthy lifestyle choices about what they do or don’t put in their body, whether it be Big Macs or Marlboros. Ours is a world of decisions about the quality of life we retain. What pisses me off more than anything is the sick hypocrisy I see when people get up and denounce smoking and them reccomend a new tax on it. If it is a killer, ban it or accept the fact that people don’t mind putting unhealthy substances in their bodies. Don’t single out smokers for economic punishment. Don’t mandate that a privately owned business cannot allow smoking. Smokers need accept the fact that it is harmful and protect others from its effects be they neighbors or their own children.
I think Max’s story about his experiences as a child has given you the statistical data about the brain damage you were speculating on Chris.
If the case for the dangers of second smoking were true then there would be a huge number of the various illnesses as described because most of us grew up with our parents smoking. Is that the case? I myself am a perfectly healthy adult who grew up with two heavy smokers, same for my wife. By the way despite growing up around it I never started and hate cigarette smoke same goes for my wife. Most of my family smoked yet all lived to be in their 80 and 90s dying of age related diseases. Same for my wife’s family. Just ancedotal I realize and doesn’t mean a thing when compared to the oh so important studies which purport to show how smoking and banning the second hand stuff somehow benefits us.
Dean, you provide us with half a dozen data points and then declare your own data points more meaningful than the thousands of data points established in the studies. Are we really to decide such issues by comparing personal anecdotes? Isn’t it better to gather as much data as possible and make our decision based on the largest possible data sample?
Chris, you forgot one (minor)little detail. Dean’s antecdote is only one of millions just like it. I’ll trust real life antecdotes over bias data any day of the week. Speaking of millions, why don’t you put your energy into a cause that is supported by real facts. For instance, did you know that abortion is the leading cause of death among infants around
the world, yet it has a 100% cure rate. (That includes backalley abortions.) Did you also know that Aids is the leading cause of death in homosexuals, and it also has a 100% cure rate. (And don’t even get me starte on the dangers of second hand aids. At least I know when I’m in the same room as a smoker.)
Ain’t the truth refreshing!!
I have nothing against people smoking, in fact I would recommend that conservatives in general (who seem very taken with the habit) sit at home and do nothing but light up.
However, in certain circumstances I find breathing other people’s smoke extremely irritating, as do millions of non-smokers everywhere. I do not see why my right to breath clean air is less important than someone else’s addiction.
It is almost as if those who have the self-discipline not to smoke are being punished in favor of those who cannot help but indulge their drug habit.
Incidentally the same principles hold for industrial polluters. Why is my right to breath relatively clean air less important than a big corporation’s profit margin? Why should I be punished for a big corporation’s inability to compete in a safe and efficient manner? The truth is that I should not, so why then do conservatives say I should have to pay for the failings of others?
On a different note, what about the parallel idea of noise pollution? Should I be allowed to go into your neighborhood and play loud music? Surely you wouldn’t seek to limit my individual freedom to party!
What about nudity? Surely I should be allowed to walk around without wearing any clothes. Seeing a person nude will not give you cancer, you can take my word for it, and nothing is more individual than the sight of a human body in all its glory. So would you seriously try and take away my freedom to roam around nude?
In fact why the hell shouldn’t I have the freedom to do exactly what I like, wherever I like, no matter who it affects? (Note: this is a rhetorical question that you should all be able to answer for yourselves, though I know that is hoping for a lot.)
Less harmful things than smoking in a public place are considered socially unacceptable, why should smokers be given a free pass?
chris, you are amazing, I said (rather sarcastically) that my story was anecdotal to begin with (you know what that means?). Second you are the one ingoring the fact that millions of Americans not including billions world wide live just fine with second hand smoke to ripe old ages.
Also, you yourself ignore studies mentioned in the article that equally oppose your position.
You sound just like the liberals in assuming the exceptions are the rule when it comes to ruling our lives.
Lastly, chris, you seem kinda young and maybe naive, don’t fall for any study the gov. does purporting to support its mission in life. Invariable it is flawed and it’s only purpose is to keep the people working for said agency emloyed and continue a growing budget. That is it! Whether its the military, HUD, FDA, FAA, IRS, EPA or any of the other millions of other alphabet soup oxygen wasters working for our big brother their sole purpose nowdays is to grow themselves and rule our lives by converting private money to federal money and pork.
Sue, you declare that you’ll trust “real life antecdotes over bias data any day of the week”. But how do you know that the data is biased? You have presented nothing in the way of analysis of the data to demonstrate any bias. If you have information demonstrating that the data is biased, by all means present it. But if you fail to support for your claim, surely you cannot ask us to accept it.
As to your comments about other sources of death, I’ll point out that smoking kills far more people than either abortion or AIDS, and it too has a cure that is 100% effective.
Dean, I criticized the anecdotal evidence because one data point is not as reliable as many data points. It’s fine to use anecdotal evidence when there’s nothing else available, but to use anecdotal evidence to refute a large body of evidence is illogical.
As to your entirely correct observation that lots of people endure secondhand smoke without ill effect, I agree. Secondhand smoke is a toxin with much less than 100% morbidity. The concern here is not that billions of people survive secondhand smoke, it is that thousands or possibly even millions die from it. Again, if smokers wish to risk their lives, that’s their own business, but imposing the risk of secondhand smoke upon others is morally repugnant.
You refer to “exceptions to the rule”. This is binary thinking, when the problem is statistically gray, not black and white. It’s not a matter of “either you die or you don’t”. The issue is that some people will surely die, and most people won’t. This isn’t an exception, it’s a statistical fact.
As to your conspiracy theory that the government is making all this up, let me remind you that the Surgeon General’s report is based on many, many studies carried out by a large number of institutions all over the world. It’s not just the US Government at work here; it’s other governments, private hospitals, doctors, academic researchers, and many others. If you really believe that this is a grand conspiracy to take your cigarettes away from you, perhaps you should check under your bed. You never know what might be lurking under there… ;-)
Chris, actually you are wrong. The truth is they have not been able to link one single death directly to smoking much less second hand smoke. But even if they could, the number would not even come close to the 1.3 million babies who die from abortion every year, and that’s only in the United States. When a smoker dies as a result of lung cancer, it’s an assumption that smoking caused the cancer. No one would be able to say difinitively that that was the case. But I can say difinitively that 1.3 million babies died last year as a result of abortion. Same argument goes for aids. But I like the way you tried to skirt the issue. When a homosexual with aids is serving up my food in a restaurant or cutting up my meat, I’d say that’s a whole lot scarier than breathing in a little smoke. Your clean air argument is so old, get over it. My whole point was that nobody seems to be bothered by the real issues, you’re all just like a bunch of little cry babies who want smoking to go away forever because you don’t like it. Dean made an excellent counter argument to yours, and you came right back at him with the data crap. For the record, “WE DON’T BELIEVE YOUR DATA”.
Chris, millions of smoking related deaths? I think not. They can’t even relate one death difinitively to smoking much less to second hand smoke. I on the other hand can say difinitively that 1.3 million babies died as a result of abortion last year, and that was just in the United States. I can also say difinitively that more people died from second hand aids, than those who supposedly died from second hand smoke. Worry about the big stuff and quit sweating the little things.
and for the global warming debate; the only real cause of global warming has been from the natural cycles of the earth. Nothing else. There! this comment should spark 10 more posts of wild a$$ needs for more gov. minimum…
Sue, you reject the data regarding millions of smoking-related deaths. That’s fine with me — but I make my decisions on the evidence, not my opinions, and the evidence is solid that millions of people die every year from smoking-related health problems. In the end, the evidence is the only objective measure we have to work with.
Dean, the debate on global warming is complex, but the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences are the best guide here. I suggest that you consult them.
Sounds like Chris believes everything he/she reads.
Sue, if you have some information to offer, by all means, please do so! I’ll read it, and if there’s a solid foundation to it, I’ll believe it! ;-)
THIS IS FOR CHRIS, YOU NEED TO GO HAVE SOME LIFE EXPERIENCES, YOUNG MAN.
I say that because you believe what the experts say. You seem to want to have other people find the info for you, find it yourself, “prove them wrong”.
Also prove them wrong on the statement,”they have not been able to link one single death directly to smoking much less second hand smoke.”
Show us/the smoking dumb-ass world,
where and who, yes WHO, died from second hand smoke.
Also, if smoking is that bad, and I agree that it is not good, than ban the tobacco leaf. That you will not see in your lifetime. Government made more money from cigs than the manufacturer,
what is that info worth, I dont’ know myself why dont’ you tell me what I am missing. Also the gov is using the taxes for childrens health, are they going to stop that. Looks to me like we have a bad offset by a good, wierd huh?
So this surgeon general call is just blather.
P.S. Did he also say that there is no new science in his revelation, massaged numbers, took awhile to get the kinks out.
PAULB SMOKER
Paul B. Smoker, I repeat my request that we avoid getting personal. You have no idea what my age is, and my age is irrelevant to the issues we face.
You choose to reject the conclusions of the experts. I can respect such an approach if it is consistent. If you wish to tell me that you are a cynic and you accept nobody’s claims — not the Surgeon General’s, not President Bush’s, not the Bible’s, not your best buddy’s — then I respect your position. If, however, you are selective in your cynicism, accepting what you want to hear and rejecting what you don’t want to hear, I cannot respect that. So tell me, are you consistent in your cynicism? Is there anybody whose claims you accept?
I think we should give Chris the last word. He’s so outnumbered that he needs all the help he can get.
Sue, thank you for the left-handed graciousness. ;-)
I’ve decided that I’m going to have the last word!