Profile
Channel Views:
4,727
Total Upload Views:
48,610
Joined:
Apr 30, 2009
About Me:
The World Health Organization is a sham, corrupt? scientifically illiterate. Its budget is provided by pharmaceutical companies that are interested in selling nicotine aversion products like the patch and nicotine gum.
The largest most comprehensive study ever conducted on the issue of secondhand smoke and lung cancer was in fact carried out by WHO. The study is called "Multi-center case-control study of exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe, 1998." The WHO has tried to suppress it, but it was leaked to the London Times and London Daily Telegraph and can be seen in full here.
What began five years of the study and came up with nothing. To quote the study itself:
"ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer."
"No clear dose-response relationship could have been demonstrated cumulative exposure to ETS marriage."
"Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk."
After this report was leaked, the WHO issued a press release on the first link you sent me.
In this press release that actually says the following:
"The study had found that 16% of the increased risk of lung cancer among non-smoking spouses of smokers. For exposure in the workplace increased risk was estimated at 17%. However, due to small sample size, nor the increase in risk was statistically significant. " (Italics mine).
They are counting on the ignorance of a reader to ignore that last bit?
Read this statement in the Washington Times this ridiculous press release. It is also important to note that the results of the study "proving" the link of cancer, which according to the WHO were not disclosed because "according to accepted scientific practice, [they] had been sent to a reputable scientific journal for peer review before publication. .. "have not yet been released, after five years. Who, exactly, they're telling? When?
In an act of desperation, a few months ago, WHO sister organization, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued a press release of your second link, claiming an increase of 20% risk of getting lung cancer from smoke secondhand. The world's media, with the exception of BBC Online and The Washington Post, which buried itself in the back pages, ignored him. The reason was because it was "junk science." "Junk science" is the science that is manipulated by a political agenda.
Bear with me here. Knowledge is power, and knowledge more powerful does not come in the form of a byte of sound or baseless idiocy of a message board.
Epidemiology - the branch of medicine that deals with the cause, spread and control of diseases - results of causality comes in numbers. Anything with the number 2 means that there is a causal relationship. Numbers 3 and 4 show a slight casual relationship. Figures 5 and 6 show a causal relationship. The number 7 is a certainty. Simply put, if I were drinking milk and lactose intolerant, my risk of being sick would be 7 - a certainty. If I drink water, I would not expect adverse effects - 2 or less.
There are over a hundred epidemiological studies on passive smoking and lung cancer. The IARC did in the link you sent is to have more than 50 studies, and then ignore the rest of statistical tricks to reach a 20% increased risk.
On average, the number of risk is between 1.15 and 1.20. Anything below 2 does not register as a cause. Some studies have reached a level slightly less than 1, which means that passive smoking can actually prevent lung cancer in nonsmokers. anti-smoking propagandists have tried to suppress many of these studies. More than one hundred studies, taken together, show no cancer causing effects of secondhand smoke.
Much of the "research" that supposedly links propagandist secondhand smoke to cancer is a joke. Chances are that 100% of patients with lung cancer at one point of their lives in a smoky bar. Does that mean that secondhand smoke caused his cancer? Of course not. But we could launch an alarming press release stating "100% of patients with lung cancer spent time in smoky bars!" This is an exaggeration of the type of credits from WHO, IARC and EPA.
Another propaganda tactic is to say that secondhand smoke contains carcinogens and chemicals. Certainly not. A cup of coffee also contains carcinogens and chemicals. That does not mean a cup of coffee is dangerous or will give you cancer. Broccoli contains carcinogens. Sunlight contains carcinogens. Millions of things that contain carcinogens, but the important thing is the dose.
Subscriptions
(92)
