Re: OT:Thanksgiving


"Robert" <no@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tt77l3dug6t4ssd7r567bi56s8s65ofbkd@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 20:48:20 -0500, "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@xxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
As for neutrality, I began my study January 1, 1992, with
the single notion that "smoking causes lung cancer" was
something my research had to confirm. I ended my study
February 24, 2003, in utter shock and disbelief at how
weak the case was. If I seem to lack neutrality now, it is
because of what I found and didn't find during those
eleven years and not because I smoke.

Other studies that found the same weakness have been censored.

1. The World Health Organization sponsored a very large (n=2,000)
case-control study on
second-hand smoke, known as Boffetta. When results came out wrong i.e. it
did not cause
increased risk to innocents, WHO dropped its sponsorship, tried to stop
publication, and
issued a statement saying the opposite of its own study's finding.

Even the report's abstract contradicts its own finding when it says "ETS
exposure during
childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds
ratio [OR] for
ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64- 0.96)." The
correct
interpretation of that statistic, if one were neutral, is that childhood
exposure has a
protective effect.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/19/1440)

2. The American Cancer Society sponsored a large (n=35,000) 40 year cohort
study on
second-hand smoke, known as Enstrom & Kabat. When it appeared the results
were coming out
wrong, ACS dropped its sponsorship. When Enstrom & Kabat sought to
publish, no journal
would touch it. It took four years to get the report published in BMJ.
That sparked a
firestorm of ad homina against the authors. Enstrom, one of the foremost
epidemiologists
in the US and a brave man, wrote this in reply to his critics.

"Owing to the charged atmosphere surrounding the issue of passive smoking,
our paper
provoked strong reactions on bmj.com. The most disturbing reactions have
come from the
enforcers of political correctness who pose as disinterested scientists
but are willing to
use base means to trash a study whose results they dislike. They have no
qualms about
engaging in personal attacks and unfounded insinuations of dishonesty
rather than judging
research on its merits.1 The resulting confusion has misled many readers
and diverted
attention from the facts of the study."

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/327/7413/504

"In recent months the campaign against me has escalated because of the
actions of
activists who dislike my research and want me silenced. First, the Regents
of the
University of California are now considering a University-wide ban on
tobacco industry
funding, as summarized in a January 26, 2007 Science news article [5].
Hopefully, this ban
will never be implemented because it would have a chilling effect on
academic freedom and
would make virtually impossible the type of research that I published in
my BMJ paper.
Second, the University had to conduct an investigation of "scientific
misconduct"
allegations against me contained in October 12, 2006 and January 24, 2007
letters from the
ACS. Fortunately, a March 22, 2007 letter from the University about this
investigation
completely exonerated me and concluded that the ACS allegations "provide
no evidence of
scientific misconduct." This investigation was discussed in a March 30,
2007 commentary
entitled "Enstrom Cleared of Scientific Misconduct Charges; American
Cancer Society Owes
Him An Apology" [6].

This campaign is not going to silence me and is not going to stop me from
doing honest,
high quality epidemiologic research. On the contrary, this campaign is
going to help me
get out the message that my BMJ results are entirely consistent with other
US
epidemiologic evidence relating ETS to mortality. One major piece of this
evidence is the
199-page 1995 Emory University dissertation, "Environmental Tobacco Smoke
and Lung Cancer
Mortality in the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study II"
[7]. This
dissertation was approved by Michael Thun, the top ACS epidemiologist. The
dissertation
abstract concluded: "This study found no evidence of an association
between self-reported
ETS and lung cancer risk among nonsmokers. However, using spousal smoking
habits to assess
exposure, we found ETS is only weakly, and not statistically
significantly, related to
lung cancer risk among nonsmoking women in seven years of follow-up of the
CPS II cohort."
A second major piece of evidence is the new Western New York State study,
published in the
October 9, 2006 Archives of Internal Medicine [8]. This study found "After
adjustment for
covariates, exposure to secondhand smoke was not significantly associated
with an
increased risk of myocardial infarction." Indeed, if all peer-reviewed
epidemiologic
evidence is fairly and fully evaluated, the relationship between ETS and
lung cancer and
coronary heart disease mortality in the US is very weak and is consistent
with my
findings."


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Enstrom_in_his_own_words

For the benefit of those who didn't spend the time to research
the claim "smoking causes lung cancer", the explanation for
the results, above, regarding ETS is:

1. Dr. Wynder's experiment showed that the residue of
tobacco smoke, making contact over an extended period
with mouse skin, resulted in cancer.

2. The cilia lining the lungs and throat prevents the formation
of the residue of tobacco smoke.

For those who smoke, it takes about twenty years for the
residue to begin to form. It would be rare for a non-smoker
to have any formation of residue; but such a formation might
occur in a non-smoking spouse, given enough time.

Simply stated the survey results confirm: no residue--no cancer.

This "no residue--no cancer" does not fit the model for
chemical-causation of cancer; there being many chemicals
where simple exposure is sufficient to lead to the development
of cancer. The implications are huge because, if tobacco
smoke does not fit the model for chemical-causation, there is
no current scientific explanation to support the claim "smoking
causes lung cancer".

Thus, neither WHO nor ACS can accept the survey results
without also accepting the possibility that long-standing claims
about smoking are in error.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A letter to a statistician. Emailed and airmailed and no reply
    ... that smoking indeed is the cause of many cancers came from ... The "proof" that smoking causes cancer and other diseases comes ... from trials of the kind Fisher had condemned - uncontrolled, ... On "Smoking and Lung Cancer" ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Cancer alert for smoking parents
    ... "Cancer alert for smoking parents", BBC News, January 28, 2005, ... Children regularly exposed to smoking are three times more likely to ... They told the British Medical Journal that the link between lung cancer ... and passive smoking was "significant". ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)
  • *Links: Latest News & Bloggings From Ciggyfree (8/16/06)
    ... Smokers don't have to choose between "low riders or lung cancer," "bikinis or bronchitis," or a "size 8 or heart disease," according to TV and Web ads for Commit nicotine lozenges. ... Smoking Pill The Newest Way To Quit ...
    (alt.support.stop-smoking)
  • *Article: 100 Reasons to Stop Smoking
    ... Quitting decreases the overall risk of death by 50% ... More than 50 of the 4,000-odd substances are known to cause cancer. ... Smoking is responsible for over 50 different medical conditions. ... Men who smoke may suffer impotence. ...
    (alt.support.stop-smoking)
  • Re: A letter to a statistician. Emailed and airmailed and no reply
    ... See this article on Fisher by Sir Walter Bodmer who was a student of his and ... On "Smoking and Lung Cancer" ...
    (sci.stat.math)