Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:


Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98

BMJ 2003; 326 doi: (Published 15 May 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:1057

Rapid Response:

The news for anti smoker movement gets worse

I will do my usual disclaimer that I accept most of the evidence on
active smoking, after all that it is one of the conclusions of the
Enstrom/Kabat paper, or is it another "flaw" in the report Professor
Glantz and Dr. Michael Thun? (1)

Climate-Gate has come at an opportune moment when the Climate
Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia has been caught with
its hands in the cookie jar, manipulating and cherry picking data for its
own agenda, for funding and influence purposes. We I guess have had this
from 1975 when Sir George Godber the British Chief Medical Officer
(Surgeon General) said at the World Health Organization "...{to} foster an
atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those
around them, especially their family and infants or young children who
would be exposed involuntarily to the smoke in the air." (2)

One fact that has recently come to my attention is the November 1994
Congressional Health Sub-Committee report into SHS/ETS. It was headed up
by Henry Waxman an anti smoker and its conclusions were:

"•the statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion
that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking;
•it is possible that very few or even no deaths can be attributed to ETS;
•if there are any lung cancer deaths from ETS exposure, they are likely to
be concentrated among those subjected to the highest exposure levels...
primarily among those nonsmokers subjected to significant spousal ETS.
•‘Even when overall risk is considered, it is a very small risk and is not
statistically significant at a conventional 95% level." (3)

This comes on the heels of Judge William Osteen destroying the 1993
EPA report, best summed up here.(4)

“Yes, it's rotten science, but it's in a worthy cause. It will help
us to get rid of cigarettes and become a smoke-free society" so said Alvan
Feinstein, Yale University epidemiologist writing in Toxological Pathology
in 1999 on passive smoking."

I have also recently discovered this paper published in the NEJM on
how much non smokers consume exposed to smokers. (5)

In the paper attached, exposed non smokers, "smoke" the equivalent of
between 0.009 of a cigarette an hour in a packed bar, to 0.001 if at a bus

The bar worker, working 40 hours a week, takes 111.11 hours or nearly
3 weeks to have one cigarette. The person at the bus stop would assuming
they were sat there 24 hours a day would be there for 41.67 days to
consume one cigarette.

BTW if a room had air conditioning the bar worker would need to be
exposed to an infinite number of smokers, i.e all the smoke is taken out.

Sir Richard Doll who in the 1950s made the link between lung cancer
and active smoking also those who smoked </= 3 cigarettes a day had no
raised risks in lung cancer and heart disease. Therefore passive smoking
cannot cause lung cancer or heart disease. (6) Page 8

In Historian Chris Snowdon's book, Velvet Glove Iron Fist a History
Of Anti Smoking the 2006 Neuberger paper on "Factors For Lung Cancer in
Iowa Women" was included an the paper says "A significant inverse
association was found for those with some college education (OR=0.63, 95%
CI=0.48-0.81) and for those with adult passive smoke exposure at home
(OR=0.37, 95% CI=0.26-0.54). (7)

It actually suggests it is protective, and statistically
significantly too.

I would suggest too that anti smokers look at the "Reference Guide on
Epidemiology" and I quote "The threshold for concluding that an agent was
more likely than not the cause of an individual’s disease is a relative
risk greater than 2.0. Recall that a relative risk of 1.0 means that the
agent has no effect on the incidence of disease. When the relative risk
reaches 2.0, the agent is responsible for an equal number of cases of
disease as all other background causes. Thus, a relative risk of 2.0 (with
certain qualifications noted below) implies a 50% likelihood that an
exposed individual’s disease was caused by the agent." Hence an RR of 1.25
implies that there is an 80% chance is was not ETS in lung cancer for
example that caused the disease. (8, page 384)

As well as the science I particularly object to the way the anti
smoking movement has strived to demonise, denormalise and marginalise
smokers. If we were an identifiable group of people like African-
Americans, Latinos, Jews or gays there would be a justifiable world wide
outcry at the way we have been treated.

Sir Liam Donaldson the current Chief Medical Officer in the UK who
said, "But if we want to go further we have got to reinforce all these
other tobacco measures and denormalise smoking completely." (9)

"I feel free to go anywhere I want. My self-esteem has also improved.
I no longer feel like a "second-class citizen" because I'm a smoker. I
don't get dirty looks from non-smokers anymore." (10)

"Now we know it’s a dirty, smelly habit that only really weak people
indulge in and nobody in the entire state you’re in has a right to do it
in that state. Shame on smokers! Dirty, dirty smokers! Now here they are
getting all this free time to go along with their emphysema and lung
cancer." (11)

On civil liberties dictating legal past times on private property I
find an abomination as a libertarian. I see the bullying tactics of the
anti smoking lobby a disgrace for those scientists who are prepared to
debate the truth. You only see how Seffrin and Thun tried to get Professor
Enstom removed from UCLA on the basis of "Scientific Misconduct." (12)

In conclusion I will be in words of Sir Winston Churchill, fighting
the anti smoking movement on the landing grounds, the beaches, the hills
et al. When you have misled millions on the science, feel democracy and
free speech is an add on to society, and try to bulldoze all dissent in
your way, the world must know.



report for congress redhead rowberg"


of nicotine tobacco smoke in public places








Competing interests:
Director: Freedom2Choose a smoker's rights group. We receive no funding or expenses from pharmaceutical or tobacco companies.

Competing interests: No competing interests

19 December 2009
David C Atherton
Computer Services Salesman