Evidence

Forces International has done a excellent job of analyzing all the studies on second hand smoke (ETS). For in depth analysis we suggest the following links: THE LIST OF ALL THE STUDIES ON LUNG CANCER BY CATEGORY UPDATED TO 2006 ON PASSIVE SMOKE: NO DANGERS ... And they call this science! THE QUESTIONNAIRES OF THE EPIDEMIOLOGICAL FRAUD COMPLETE LIST (2006) OF STUDIES ON LUNG CANCER AND CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE IN AGED NON-SMOKERS WHO HAVE BEEN ASKED TO GUESS THEIR EXPOSURE TO PASSIVE SMOKE THROUGHOUT THEIR ENTIRE LIVES THE LONG LIST OF METHODOLOGICAL ERRORS IN THE JUNK SCIENCE OF PASSIVE SMOKE From Forces International In only 13 minutes understand the greatest epidemiological fraud ever perpetrated!   THE LIST OF ALL THE STUDIES ON LUNG CANCER BY CATEGORY UPDATED TO 2006 ON PASSIVE SMOKE: NO DANGERS The Smokers Club has a wealth of information and provides weekly newsletter,  forums and chat rooms. Clean Air Quality  Another great source of clean air studies by OSHA.   The Facts, by Dave Hitt  Provides a quick crash course on Statistics so you will be able to understand what is statically significant. We constantly hear about the dangerous chemicals in tobacco, how about the chemicals in our food?  The Environmental Working Group has provided us with data on common vegetables.  Environmental Working Group || foodnews.org This is just a small example.   October 17, 2009  Tobacco Free Kids is taking the lead based on a recent meta-analysis by the Institute of Medicine.  A meta-analysis chooses a number of small studies which may or may not have made adjustments for other confounders or compares data before a smoking ban to after a smoking ban is in place.  It allows them to pick and choose the studies they wish to include and reject.  They did not include the Enstrom and Kabat study which studied 118,094 individuals in smoking households over 40 years and could not prove a correlation between second hand smoke from coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease related to smoking in spouses and active cigarette smoking.   What does the study say?  The study states “While the committee found strong evidence of this association, the evidence for determining the precise magnitude of the increased risk—that is, the number of cases of disease that are attributable to secondhand-smoke exposure—is not as strong. The committee therefore did not estimate the size of the effect. “The committee reviewed 11 key studies that showed decreased heart attacks after the implementation of smoking bans. Of these, the two studies that analyzed changes in the hospitalization rate for nonsmokers showed a reduced risk of a heart attack in nonsmokers that could be attributed to a decrease in secondhand-smoke exposure fol­lowing the implementation of smoking bans. Nine other studies examining smoking bans provided indirect evidence of an association between secondhand-smoke expo­sure and heart attacks. Given the small amount of data for nonsmokers, however, the committee could not determine how much of the positive effect of bans is attributable to nonsmokers as compared to smokers” “However, none of the studies included information on how long or how often individuals were exposed to secondhand smoke before or after implementation of smoking bans”. Further research is recommended “The committee recommends additional research on the effect of indoor smoking bans and secondhand-smoke exposure on acute coronary events. Such studies should be designed to examine the time between an intervention and changes in the effect and to measure the magnitude of the effect. Future studies should examine the time from initiation of a ban to observation of an effect and that include follow-up after initia­tion of enforcement, taking the social aspects into account. They should include direct observations on individuals—including their history of cardiac disease, exposure to other environmental chemicals, and other risk factors for cardiac events—to assess the impact of those factors on study results. Further, studies that examine whether decreases in hospital admissions for acute coronary events are transitory or sustained would be informative. Assessment of smoking status is also needed to distinguish between the effects of secondhand smoke in nonsmokers and the effects of a ban that decreases cigarette consumption or promotes smoking cessation in smokers”.  “A large prospective cohort study could be very helpful in more accurately estimating the magnitude of the risk of cardiovascular disease and acute coronary events posed by secondhand-smoke exposure.” The study is inconclusive but Tobacco Free Kids has yet again twisted the results to further their agenda of a smoke free America.  Don’t let them win!