Ray Johnstone
2007-03-21 15:02:03 UTC
The dishonesty of antismoking
Somebody wanted examples of antismokers being dishonest. I give two
examples.
First, from my part of the world:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/HealthDept20.html
Two announcements from the Western Australian Health Department.
In June 1988, in Western Australia the Health Department in full-page
advertisements in local papers declared: "The statistics are
frightening. Smoking will kill almost 700 women in Western Australia
this year. If present trends continue, lung cancer will soon
overtake breast cancer as the most common malignant cancer in
women". What was frightening was not the statistics but the fact
that a Health Department should lie about them. In 1987 the same
Health Department in its own publications had said: "Suggestions by
some commentators that lung cancer deaths in women will overtake
breast cancer deaths in the next few years look increasingly
unlikely...female lung cancer death rates have fallen for the
last 2 years.("Cancer in Western Australia", May 1987)It was
predicted, correctly, that breast cancer would far outweigh
lung cancer for the next 14 years. ("Cancer Projections", 1987}
One message (false) for the public, another (true) for the
professional. ( HealthDept1) ( HealthDept2)
Second, from the Surgeon General:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
During this same period, in America, the Surgeon General had been
issuing a number of publications about smoking and health. In 1982,
before the final results of the Whitehall study had been published,
the then Surgeon General C. Everett Koop had praised the study for
"pointing up the positive consequences of smoking in a positive
manner".
But now for nearly ten years he fell silent on the subject and there
was no further mention of the Whitehall study nor of the other six
studies, though thousands of pages on the dangers of smoking issued
from his office. For example in 1989 there appeared "Reducing the
Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress". This weighty
work is long on advice about the benefits of giving up smoking but
short on discussion of the very studies which should allow the
evaluation of that advice: you will look in vain through the thousand
references to scientific papers for any mention of the Whitehall study
or most of the other six quit studies. Only the MRFIT study is
mentioned, and then falsely:
"The MRFIT study shows that smoking status and number of cigarettes
smoked per day have remained powerful predictors for total mortality
and the development of CHD [coronary heart disease], stroke, cancer,
and COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]. In the study
population, there were an estimated 2,249 (29 percent) excess deaths
due to smoking, of which 35 percent were from CHD and 21 percent
from lung cancer. The nonsmoker-former smoker group had 30 percent
fewer total cancers than the smoking group over the 6-year follow up."
This was untrue, as the Surgeon General was later to admit.
What the MRFIT authors themselves had to say about their work was
quite different:
"In conclusion we have shown that it is possible to apply an intensive
long-term
intervention program against three coronary risk factors with
considerable success
in terms of risk factor changes. The overall results do not show a
beneficial effect
on CHD or total mortality from this multifactor intervention."
(Multiple Risk Factor
Intervention Trial Research Group, 1982)
Just two examples from dozens I could have chosen. As I tell my
children, who are keen
readers, I don't read many novels. I get more than enough fiction
from the medical
literature.
If the case against smoking were strong or even plausible, there
would
be no need to invent such stories.
***@iinet.com.au
www.iinet.com.au/~ray
Somebody wanted examples of antismokers being dishonest. I give two
examples.
First, from my part of the world:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/HealthDept20.html
Two announcements from the Western Australian Health Department.
In June 1988, in Western Australia the Health Department in full-page
advertisements in local papers declared: "The statistics are
frightening. Smoking will kill almost 700 women in Western Australia
this year. If present trends continue, lung cancer will soon
overtake breast cancer as the most common malignant cancer in
women". What was frightening was not the statistics but the fact
that a Health Department should lie about them. In 1987 the same
Health Department in its own publications had said: "Suggestions by
some commentators that lung cancer deaths in women will overtake
breast cancer deaths in the next few years look increasingly
unlikely...female lung cancer death rates have fallen for the
last 2 years.("Cancer in Western Australia", May 1987)It was
predicted, correctly, that breast cancer would far outweigh
lung cancer for the next 14 years. ("Cancer Projections", 1987}
One message (false) for the public, another (true) for the
professional. ( HealthDept1) ( HealthDept2)
Second, from the Surgeon General:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
During this same period, in America, the Surgeon General had been
issuing a number of publications about smoking and health. In 1982,
before the final results of the Whitehall study had been published,
the then Surgeon General C. Everett Koop had praised the study for
"pointing up the positive consequences of smoking in a positive
manner".
But now for nearly ten years he fell silent on the subject and there
was no further mention of the Whitehall study nor of the other six
studies, though thousands of pages on the dangers of smoking issued
from his office. For example in 1989 there appeared "Reducing the
Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress". This weighty
work is long on advice about the benefits of giving up smoking but
short on discussion of the very studies which should allow the
evaluation of that advice: you will look in vain through the thousand
references to scientific papers for any mention of the Whitehall study
or most of the other six quit studies. Only the MRFIT study is
mentioned, and then falsely:
"The MRFIT study shows that smoking status and number of cigarettes
smoked per day have remained powerful predictors for total mortality
and the development of CHD [coronary heart disease], stroke, cancer,
and COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]. In the study
population, there were an estimated 2,249 (29 percent) excess deaths
due to smoking, of which 35 percent were from CHD and 21 percent
from lung cancer. The nonsmoker-former smoker group had 30 percent
fewer total cancers than the smoking group over the 6-year follow up."
This was untrue, as the Surgeon General was later to admit.
What the MRFIT authors themselves had to say about their work was
quite different:
"In conclusion we have shown that it is possible to apply an intensive
long-term
intervention program against three coronary risk factors with
considerable success
in terms of risk factor changes. The overall results do not show a
beneficial effect
on CHD or total mortality from this multifactor intervention."
(Multiple Risk Factor
Intervention Trial Research Group, 1982)
Just two examples from dozens I could have chosen. As I tell my
children, who are keen
readers, I don't read many novels. I get more than enough fiction
from the medical
literature.
If the case against smoking were strong or even plausible, there
would
be no need to invent such stories.
***@iinet.com.au
www.iinet.com.au/~ray