Return to Previous Page

The Misinformation Age

Were you to spend, as I have, weeks of hours on the Internet looking up, reading and printing out studies and articles from multiple sources regarding secondary smoke, you would conclude that we, the public, have been misled. You would also have more than 1,000 pages of evidence to support this conclusion.

Since 1993 and the release of the EPA's flawed 1992 report on passive smoking, anti-smoking forces have harassed businesses and public entities into creating ever more restrictive anti-smoking policies while shaming smokers into silence and intimidating into compliance those who believe in freedom of choice and the American free-enterprise system.

This is the United States of America – land of the free, home of the brave. Or, at least, it was when I was growing up. Now we are on a slippery slide down a dangerous slope into a pit of governmental regulations that extend into private businesses and will, if not stopped, dictate individual behavior at home, at work and at politically correct play.

If you doubt this statement, do the research I have. Get on the Internet. Go to smokers sites and anti-smokers sites. Go to PubMed and print out the studies that show the actual relative risk factors and learn how to read the studies. Read the court cases. Find out who the players are in this tragic game of control.

Both sides refer to this as the tobacco wars. When I was taking international relations at Texas Tech University for my degree in government, the professor said there never has been and never will be a war fought on the face of the earth as long as man is alive that is about anything but money and marketplaces. He said wars have a stated cause that inspires citizens to fight for their country, but behind the cause is the reality of money and marketplaces (i.e. real estate). With this in mind, who has the most to gain in the tobacco war? Not U.S. citizens whose choices are being selectively eliminated. Not the tobacco industry, whose product is being restricted and whose opinion has been discredited.
Then who?

Money and worldwide marketplace winners include:

1. The pharmaceutical industry. This industry has "the largest lobby in Washington, D.C." said Marcia Angell, M.D., former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, in her book "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It " (ISBN: 0-375-508465/Random House hardback). Their employees have served on the decision-making entities of government agencies responsible for creating reports to the public and suggesting legislative action.

2. A number of so-called charitable non profits. The pharmaceutical industry has funded programs of non-profits such as the American Cancer Society, The American Heart Association, the American Medical Association -- need I name more? -- that foster the idea that secondhand smoke is harmful to those exposed to it. Did you know that the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, an avid participant in the anti-smoking campaign, receives most of its funding from its parent company, Johnson & Johnson?

3. Anti-tobacco researchers. Studies in the field of secondhand smoke (a.k.a. environmental tobacco smoke/ETS) have been conducted by researchers paid by funding from the pharmaceutical industry, ch paid by funding from the pharmaceutical industry, charitable non-profits and the federal government through the monies acquired from the tobacco settlement.

Two leaders in the anti-smoking cartel Stanton Glantz and James Repace have become rich off of their efforts. Any report their name is attached to must be read with the idea that they come to the study with a known bias -- their own pocketbooks. Neither is an M.D.

4. Big business. When smoking is banned in a city or state, it isn't the large restaurant chains that usually pay the price. It is the small businesses, the family restaurants, that lose. Many have closed. This pleases big business because it means less competition. Many waitresses, waiters and bartenders have reported lost revenue. Their tips have decreased.

This reminds me of the first "gasoline crises" in the 1970s. Prior to the crises, a number of service stations across the United States were owned by independents. Afterwards, the major oil companies controlled most of those stations. You might still see the same people working there, but those controlling the station behind-the-scenes had changed. That was true for my father-in-law, who worked for an independent operator in Irving, Texas, prior to the crises. He was still there afterwards, as was his former boss, who no longer owned controlling interest in what had been his service stations.

My research on the Internet took me to smokers sites, anti-smokers sites, PubMed and other medical sites, liberal and conservative watchdog sites, federal government sites, charitable non-profit sites, university sites, and news gathering sites, among others. I have spoken with individuals on both sides of the so-called "health" issue. An attorney read the court cases to make sure I correctly understood the rulings. A medical doctor read the studies mentioned in the following report with the same goal in mind. Both saw more supportive evidence in said documents than I did.

Conclusion: We, the public, have been and are being told a whopper. When it comes to second-hand smoke, this appears to be the age of misinformation.

My philosophy professor at Texas Tech University ran afoul of the psychology department when, at the latter's request, he addressed the group. I remember what he told them that so upset the psychology professors. He said that when they removed the soul from their discipline, they lost their science.

Now we have pseudo-science where computers generate reams of meaningless statistics for opportunists of every persuasion to use to further their own agendas.

I have prepared a report that backs up my statements, and I am calling upon the city council members and the mayor NOT to be swayed by pseudo-science and a health cartel determined to get rich at the price of individual freedom.

Report: The Misinformation Age

FACT:

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) in its 1995 report to Congress found flaws in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) report as did William L. Osteen, United States District Judge, who, on July 17, 1998, said in his decision: "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the (Radon Research) Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the agencies' public conclusion, and aggressively used the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiff's products and to influence public opinion.

"The Court is faced with the ugly possibility that EPA adopted a methodology for each chapter, without explanation, based on the outcome sought in that chapter.

"Using its normal methodology and its selected studies, EPA did not demonstrate a statistically significant association between ETS (secondhand smoke) and lung cancer. This should have caused EPA to re-evaluate the inference options used in establishing its plausibility theory. A risk assessment is supposed to entail the best judgment possible based upon the available evidence. (See Ethyl, 541 F.2d at 24.) Instead, EPA changed its methodology to find a statistically significant association."
(See Exhibit A)

FACT:

The EPA fought this ruling, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Court vacated Judge Osteen's decision on Dec. 11, 2002, ONLY on the grounds that NO court had jurisdiction over the EPA report. The Court of Appeals also questioned the EPA excluding any industry representative from the advisory committee.
(See Exhibit B)

FACT:

Some anti-smoking advocates cite the following number: 53,000 deaths a year from secondary smoke (ETS). This number, considered high even by the EPA, was traced in 1994 by the Congressional Research Service(CRS) to an article by A. Judson Wells, "An Estimate of Adult Mortality in the U.S. from Passive Smoking," published in Environment International in 1988.

The CRS stated that the editorial in the issue containing the Wells article was directed at Wells' article and said in summary: "The editorial indicated that the study received mixed reviews from reference – two recommended publication after revision and the third recommended against publication on the grounds that it was too speculative ... In the following three years, there were a series of critiques and rejoinders related to this paper."

The CRS report concludes with: "In sum, this analysis suggests that the Wells estimates are so high relative to measures of the physical exposure that they seem implausible. It also suggests that the absence of controls or the inability to control for other factors may be a major problem in relying on epidemiological estimates of the health effects of passive smoking."
(See Exhibit C)

FACT:

After being accused by the London Telegraph of withholding the study from publication because its results were not what the World Health Organization wanted, the WHO inaccurately presented the results of its seven-year study conducted in 12 research centers in seven European cities under the leadership of its cancer research branch, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

In what can only be called a misinformation press release regarding the study, WHO totally ignored the following statement made in the study about childhood exposure to ETS: "Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk," as well as a statement regarding ETS and public indoor settings: "Vehicles and public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure."
(See Entire Study, Exhibit D)

FACT:

The conclusion of a study – begun by the American Cancer Society and concluded by the University of California at Los Angeles – "Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Tobacco Related Mortality in a Prospective Study of Californians, 1960-1998," by James E. Enstrom and Geoffrey C. Kabat, published in May 2003 stated: "The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."
(See Entire Study, Exhibit E)

FACT:

The goal of an epidemiological study is to determine Relative Risk (RR). Relative Risk is determined by first establishing a baseline, an accounting of how common a disease or condition is in the general population. This general rate is given a Relative Risk of 1.0, no risk at all. An increase in risk would result in a number larger than 1.0. A decrease in risk would result in a lower number and indicates a protective effect.

When Robert Temple was director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration, he said: "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it."
(See Exhibit F, Page 23)

The National Cancer Institute has said: "Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident."
(See Exhibit F, Page 34)

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said: "Relative risks of less than 2.0 may readily reflect some unperceived bias or confounding factor."
(See Exhibit F, Page 34)

Dr. Kabat, IARC epidemiologist, said: "An association is generally considered weak of the odds ratio – relative risk – is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer."

FACT:

Meta-analysis is commonly used in ETS studies (as in the EPA report). Samuel Shapiro, Professor of Epidemiology and Director of Slone Epidemiology Unit, Boston University School of Medicine, concluded his report "Is Meta-Analysis a Valid Approach to the Evaluation of Small Effects in Observational Studies?", presented in a meeting on small risks, sponsored by the Robert Kock Institute, and held at Potsdam, Germany in October of 1995 by stating:

"What is likely to be the future of meta-analysis? It appears that it is unlikely to go away, and for that reason some epidemiologists have argued that, rather than oppose it, a better approach might be to contain its excesses.

" I disagree. I think there is something profoundly amiss in the uncritical way in which epidemiologists, and indeed the medical profession as a whole, have allowed themselves to be seduced by the numerological abracadabra of meta-analysis. Perhaps the technique will succumb to its own absurdity, but if not, the next step in this surrealistic evolution will be the meta-analysis of meta-analysis, in which the meta-analyst will be totally divorced from reality, and totally surrounded by numbers without context.
"If anyone in this audience believes that development is far off, he should familiarize himself with the latest fashion of so-called ‘evidence-based medicine' and ‘systematic review' now playing on the Internet. I would like to conclude by quoting Alvan Feinstein (Sterling Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology at Yale). Feinstein and I have had our differences from time to time, in this instance we are in total agreement: ‘The meta-analysis of non-randomized observational studies resembles the attempt of a quadriplegic person to climb Mount Everest unaided.'"
(See Exhibit G)

NEWS:

"There is nothing more powerful than a lie whose time has come," wrote Sidney Zion, New York Daily News, July 23, 1998. Zion went on to say: " Throughout history, tyrants understood this, and so worked up the populace. In this bloodiest of centuries, we've seen it all from Hitler to McCarthyism. And now we have the truth about the anti-smoke fascists. Last week, a federal judge wiped out the entire basis of all this business about the danger of secondhand smoke, a lie that has transformed our culture, from saloons to our homes."

Zion, along with other writers, including John Schwartz, the Washington Post, an editorial in the Washington Times, Kathleen Parker, the Chicago Tribune, Joseph Perkins, the Ventura County Star, Charley Reese, the Orlando Sentinel, and an editorial in Investor's Business Daily referred to the public being hoodwinked by the EPA's 1993 report.
(See Exhibit H, copies of all stories mentioned)

The editorial "EPA: Environmental Propaganda Agency," in Investor's Business Daily stated: "The Environmental Protection Agency jiggered the facts to push its notion that passive smoke causes cancer. The EPA's dishonesty was recently laid bare in court. But it was too late for thousands of businesses and towns that responded to the EPA's junk science by passing anti-smoking measures."

The editorial went on to say: "Even with this callous disregard for the truth, the Environmental Propaganda Agency still found that the relative risk associated with ETS and lung cancer is 1.19 – far below the accepted minimal standard of 3 to 4. For comparison, the relative risk of premature death associated with drinking three cups of coffee per week is 1.3. Drinking whole milk and lung cancer? 2.14."

(The 2.14 relative risk figure can be found on PubMed: "Milk Drinking, Other Beverage Habits, and Lung Cancer Risk," Department of Cancer Control and Epidemiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY)
(See Exhibit I)

The editorial asks: "How do you go back and undo what the EPA did? You can't. The myth is enshrined. The lie is fact."
Or as Paul Joseph Goebbels, propaganda minister for Nazi Germany, said, "If repeated often enough, a lie will become the new truth."

FACT:

The Nazi anti-tobacco movement was the world's strongest anti-smoking campaign in the 1930s and early 1940s, said Robert N, Proctor, Department of History, Pennsylvania State University. His report, "The Anti-Tobacco Campaign of the Nazis: A Little Known Aspect of Public Health in Germany, 1933-1945," was funded by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, D.C.
(See Exhibit J)

FACT:

The anti-tobacco campaign in Nazi Germany strongly resembles the campaign going on now in the United States and around the world via the World Health Organization.

A LARGE LONG TERM WORK-RELATED STUDY
FACT:

"We found a rather remarkably low SMR (standardized mortality ratio) for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group. Smoking during airplane flights was permitted in Germany until the mid-1990s and smoking is still not banned on all charter flights," stated the study, "Mortality from Cancer and Other Causes Among Airline Cabin Attendants in Germany, 1960-1997," from the Department of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, School of Public Health, World Health Organization Collaborating Center, University Bielefeld, Germany, accepted for publication May 1, 2002 and published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. The study claimed to be the first to have reported mortality risk estimates for cabin crews working in commercial aviation. It included approximately 16,000 female and 4,500 male cabin attendant and was larger than all previous studies of cabin attendants combined. "In terms of specific causes, we noted reduced risks for all cancer deaths and for cardiovascular disease deaths."
(See full study, Exhibit K)

A VENTILATION STUDY
FACT:

"The ETS levels in the nonsmoking area were compared with those in similar restaurants/pubs where indoor smoking is altogether prohibited. The results indicate that ETS component concentrations in the nonsmoking section of the facility in question were not statistically different (p<0.05) from those measured in similar facilities where smoking is prohibited. The regulatory implications of these findings are that ventilation techniques for restaurants/pubs with separate smoking and nonsmoking areas are capable of achieving nonsmoking area ETS concentrations that are comparable to those of similar facilities that prohibit smoking outright," stated the study conducted in Ontario, Canada, "environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Nonsmoking Section of a Restaurant: A Case Study," published online Nov. 20, 2001, Elsevier Science.
(See full study, Exhibit L)

A FACT OF TOXICOLOGY:

"A well-known toxicological principle is that the poison is in the dose," said Roger Jenkins, Chemical and Analytical Chemistry Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. "It's pretty clear that the environmental tobacco smoke dose is pretty low for most people."
(See articles and study, Exhibit M)

ANOTHER FACT OF TOXIOLOGY:

Association is NOT causation. "Relative risks are only statistical associations. They represent only an apparent relationship between exposure and disease. The relative risks ETS and lung cancer vary from extremely weak to non-existent," stated Littlefield & Fennell, Independent Public and Health Policy Research, Austin., in "Environmental Tobacco Smoke, No Convincing Evidence of Carcinogenicity.)
(See Exhibit F, Page 40)

FACT: DRUG COMPANIES:

In her book, "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It," published by Random House in 2004, Marcia Angell, M.D., senior lecturer in the Department of Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School and former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, is quoted by reviewer John Hoey, M.D., as stating the following: Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the pharmaceutical industry's trade association has "the largest lobby in Washington," which in 2002 employed 675 lobbyists, including 26 former members of Congress, at a cost of more than $91 million. The result has been above average growth in corporate profits during both Republican and Democratic administrations. The most recent and perplexing lobbying effort caused Congress explicitly to prohibit Medicare from using its huge purchasing power to get lower prices for drugs, thus opening up a dollar pipeline, in the form of higher drug prices, directly from taxpayers to corporate coffers. The overall effect has been a corruption not only of science but also of the dissemination of science.

By Angell's account, the current slide toward the commercialization and corruption of clinical research coincided with the election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980 and the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act, a new set of laws that permitted and encouraged universities and small businesses to patent discoveries from research sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Research paid for by the public to serve the public instantly became a private, and salable, good, one that is producing drug sales of more than $200 billion a year.

Angells reminds us of the increasingly cozy relationships between big industry and the facilities of universities. Not only are narcissistic donors renaming the medical schools; they are buying access to the best minds of their facilities. Angell's examples of the large consulting fees paid by industry to individual faculty members and to NIH scientists and directors are astonishing.
(See Exhibit N)

FACT: NON-PROFITS:

How independent is the non-profit American Cancer Society?

NEWS:

According to a story in the New York Times, "The American Cancer Society . . . has endorsed Florida orange juice . . . ." (8/13/97) . See also World Tonight News With Peter Jennings (8/13/97); The Osgood File, CBS News (8/13/97). An editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine stated: "And why should the American Cancer Society endorse only SmithKline Beecham's antismoking products?" Jerome P. Kassirer & Marcia Angell (9/4/97, p. 700) See also, Los Angeles Time (8/13/97). The ACS, however, denies that its actions are endorsements. Rather, it characterizes such transactions as a license for the "nonexclusive use of its logo on Florida orange juice and SmithKline Beecham's antismoking products" in "exchange for monetary grants and other considerations used for the fight against cancer." (e-mail to CSPI from William J. Dalton, Chief Counsel, ACS, 5/30/01) The ACS's "Cancer Facts & Figures - 1998" acknowledges on the front and back cover "a generous grant" by Glaxo Wellcome drug company. According to Advertising Age, the ACS was involved in a deal with General Mills to include information on packages of Wheaties (1/17/00; p. 54).

How independent is the American Heart Association?

NEWS:

American Heart Association was paid $450,000 by the Florida grapefruit growers for exclusive grapefruit use of the association's heart-healthy endorsement. (Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/7/97) American Heart Association has received $1.1 million (and an annual renewal potential of about $300,000) from food manufacturers as license fees to use the "heart check mark." (Philadelphia Inquirer, 5/7/97) AHA charges $2,500 (plus a yearly renewal charge of $650) for a company to put the association's heart-check symbol on a package. Florida Dept. of Citrus paid $450,000 for exclusive promotion and advertising contract from 1994 until early 1997. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association paid $25,000 for its arrangement with the AHA to promote lean cuts of beef. For an agreement with ConAgra in 1992-93, the AHA received $3,500,000 for a TV program on nutrition. For companies that want an exclusive agreement with the AHA like that of the Florida citrus growers, the cost is $55,000 a quarter or $200,000 a year. Without exclusivity the cost is $25,000 a quarter or $90,000 a year. (New York Times, 10/22/97)

National Livestock and Meat Board gave $189,000 to the AHA to sponsor the HeartRide cycling series. AHA says the program will help ensure that people don't think that AHA recommends abstaining from meat. (IEG Sponsorship Report) Merck is spending $400,000 to finance an AHA program teaching 40,000 doctors to treat cholesterol according to guidelines. (Wall Street Journal, 6/14/98) American Heart Association has endorsed only Bayer aspirin. (NEJM 9/4/97, p. 700) According to Kramer Laboratories, Inc. (Miami), "Bayer, as we understand it, contributes over $500,000 a year to the American Heart Association." (Letter to AHA, 9/23/96) Web site is sponsored by Pfizer, Campbell, ConAgra (Healthy Choice), and Hoechst (Tufts Nutrition Navigator web site).

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (Johnson & Johnson Company) was $100,000 plus Excalibur Contributor to the American Cancer Society in 2000.

What about the American Medical Association (AMA)?

NEWS:

AMA planed a campaign to remind doctors of ethical guidelines limiting their acceptance of gifts from pharmaceutical companies. The campaign was to be sponsored by Eli Lilly Corporation. (USA Today, 4/27/01, "Drugmakers bankroll ethics guidelines on 'freebies'")

According to a New York Times story, the AMA made a deal with Sunbeam to endorse the company's health products in return for royalties. Publicity scotched the deal in 1997. Sunbeam is suing the AMA for breach of contract. (NYT, 8/13/97 and subsequent weeks)

The Chicago Sun-Times reported that in early 1996 Procter & Gamble/olestra, through its PR agency, gave the AMA a check for $900,000 in partial support of an AMA fitness program; the check came after the AMA issued a statement endorsing the FDA's approval of olestra. (AMA press release, Jan. 1996; Chicago Sun-Times, 11/26/97, p. 70)

What about Breast Cancer Awareness Month?

NEWS:

According to the Progressive Magazine, this event ". . .happens to be sponsored by Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), one of the world's largest manufacturers of organochlorines. ICI has approved — or vetoed — every poster, pamphlet, and advertisement used for Breast Cancer Awareness Month from the beginning. And BCAM literature has never mentioned the link [sic] link between breast cancer and organochlorines..." (Molly Ivins, Progressive, January, 1998, p. 46)
(See Exhibit O as the source for the above non-profit listings)

The above are examples of the close association many of the non-profit health organizations share with the pharmaceutical industry. In her book, "The Truth About the Drug Companies," Marcia Angell, M.D. exposes the incredible links between the medical profession, research facilities and the pharmaceutical industry. I purchased her book and am reading it. The truth is shocking. The profits made by the pharmaceutical industry are astronomical and the influence the industry has on Congress, medical institutions and physicians is appalling.

FACTS: QUESTIONABLE MOTIVES:

The claim has been made by those in favor of a "Smoke-Free America" that the epidemiological studies done that show little to no relative risk are sponsored by the tobacco industry. What about the studies where the pharmaceutical industry, non-profits and U.S. government agencies have worked together, often using public money, to promote a "Smoke-Free America" through studies, public health announcements and advertising, which are too often taken as the truth without investigation by the media , public health programs and days, such as a smoke-free day. Let's look at some of the major financial winners of such an agenda:

Drug Companies Involved With "Cessation" Products in 2000: Johnson & Johnson; GlaxoSmithKline: Pharmacia (also Pharmacia & Upjohn)Hoechst Marion Roussel; Novartis; and Pfizer.
(See Exhibit P)

And in looking at the financial winners we must not overlook some of those who are making a pretty penny out of this campaign:

Stanton A. Glantz:

Stanton A. Glantz gave the keynote address at the 7th World Conference on Tobacco and Health, Perth, Australia, 1990. Glantz said: "The main thing the science has done on the issue of ETS, in addition to help people like me pay mortages, it has legitimized the concerns that people have that they don't like cigarette smoke. And that is a strong emotional force that needs to be harnessed and used. We're on a roll, and the bastards are on the run. And I urge you to keep chasing them."

Glantz's educational background: 1961 graduated from the University of Cincinnati's Aerospace Engineering School. 1973, received a PhD in Applied Mechanics and Economics from Stanford. 1977, completed a postdoctoral Fellowship in Cardiology at the University of California, San Francisco. He is a professor of medicine at the same institution, UC, San Francisco.
Glantz has received numerous federal grants.

In a 1996 letter to Science magazine, Rosalind B. Marimont, (retired mathematician and scientist, having done research and development for the Bureau of Standards for 18 years until 1960 and NIH for another 19 until her retirement in 1979) said:

"No money will corrupt an honest scientist and federal money – Stanton Glantz's speciality – will corrupt a dishonest scientist as thoroughly as tobacco money. The war on smoking has obviously become part of political correctness, of the American form of Lysenkoism. Lysenkoism, the subjugation of science to ideology, is named for Trofim Lysenko, Stalin's favorite scientist, who suppressed all genetic research in the Soviet Union and damaged Soviet science and agriculture for decades.

"It is easy to see why genetic research should be anathema to Stalinists, but can anyone enlighten me as to why smoking is the abomination of the politically correct?

"Russell Baker, in his Observer column on the anti-smoking crusade – NY Times, May 31, 1994 – noted that crusades typically start by being admirable, proceed by being foolist, and end by being dangerous.

"In my opinion, the stages of the anti-tobacco crusade were: 1. Admirable – demonstrating the relationship of primary smoking to lung cancer. 2 Foolish – claiming that ETS is a serious health hazard. Dangerous – stifling dissent by defaming the opposition.

"Defaming one's critics is a durable technique of crusaders, from Lysenko in the USSR to our own Salem witch hunters, Senator Joe McCarthy, and now Stanton Glantz and his fellow ASCs.

"If Glantz's lucrative and effective propaganda has been able to harm the career of so distinguished an epidemiologist as Theodore Sterling, I can see why young scientists are afraid to protest.

"But where are the leaders of the AAAS, or other retirees, like me, who are free to speak out? For 37 years I was proud to be a federal government scientist, first at NBS – now NIST – and then NIH.

"The 1993 EPA report was merely embarrassing, but the current surrender to Lysenkoism is shameful and frightening."
(See Exhibit Q, for this and additional information on Glantz)

James L. Repace:

Repace Associates, Inc. Secondhand Smoke Consultants. International Consulting Services. (Source: Repace's own Web site)
Source for the following, Repace's own resume, February 2004:

Education: 1962: Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn, BSc. 1968: same institution, Msc. Physics. 1969: University of Maryland, Post-masters study in physics. 1970-72, Catholic University, post-masters study in physics.

Work: EPA, 1979-1986. 15 years prior: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C. Under major accomplishments:

Identified ETS as a major source of indoor air pollution.

Initiated EPA's policy interest in indoor air pollution in 1979. Funded the 1986 National Academy of Sciences report on environmental Tobacco Smoke, inspired the 1986 Surgeon General's Report on Involuntary Smoking, and initiated a study by EPA's Office of research and development which resulted in the 1992 EPA Risk Assessment of Passive Smoking which concluded that ETS is a Class "A" or "known human carcinogen."
(See Exhibit R, for full resume, Exhibit F, Pages52, 54-57)

Obviously, Repace has been a major player in creating a market he is making money off of. He charged a county more than $7,800 to testify before the board of health.
(See Exhibit R)

FACT:

Studies have NOT proved that secondhand smoke causes any diseases.

This report could go on and on marking the cozy deals between the pharmaceutical industry, private non-profits believed by many to be pure and charitable, yet shown through research to be otherwise, and federal government agencies acting supposedly in the public's best interest. It could also show a number of articles by the national media that clearly demonstrate the reporter or publication's bias when compared with the actual study done that is being reported on in the story.
(See Exhibit N for lists of grants, people and their associations and pharmaceutical profits and products that relate to smoking cessation)

FACT:

Anti-smoking advocates see the tobacco industry as a cash cow. Occasionally, thinking minds prevail. In February of this year, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia declared that the government may not seek the taking of illicit profits in civil suits filed under the racketeering statute known as RICO. The government was hoping to wrest $280 billion from the tobacco industry.

Norman E. Kjono puts the money amount into perspective in a February 6, 2005, article, "To get a handle on the economic hubris and sheer financial chutzpah of tobacco control advocates, consider that the $280 billion in alleged damages sought by the federal government through this lawsuit in its War on Tobacco is greater than funding requested to date by the Bush administration or appropriated by Congress for the War in Iraq. Putting that sum together with Governor Gregoire's 1998 MSA (master settlement) there would be enough money in the anti-tobacco war chest to fund two Iraq wars."
(See Exhibit R for full article)

Again, I suggest that if you have any doubts about my report that you spend your time looking at both sides of the issue with an open mind. TRACE THE MONEY. Look at the pharmaceutical industry , the non-profits, the federal government, the court actions. Learn how to read an epidemiological study. Read everything. Not just one side. Draw your own conclusions as I have drawn mine.

TAXES: THE PRACTICAL MATTER:

Anti-smokers: Are you ready to pay increasing individual taxes if the United States becomes smoke-free and tobacco is no longer a legal substance? Almost all of the money paid on a package or carton of cigarettes is tax. Taxes, once levied, don't vanish. State taxing entities and the national government will be dipping into your pockets to make up the lost revenue.
The same holds true for alcohol. If you know anything about U.S. history, you may recall the damage prohibition caused and the illegal activities it promoted. Tobacco is no different, except the pharmaceutical industry has found a way to make a huge profit off smoking and smokers and is aided in doing so by the FDA, EPA, the Surgeon General, some members of Congress, a number of charitable non-profits and fanatical anti-smokers who care not a whit about your pocketbook or your rights.

Anti-smokers: Are you aware your actions now are setting the precedent for increasing individual restrictions in all areas of our lives? Is this the legacy you want to leave for your children and grandchildren: a nation of think alikes, look alikes and do alikes with individual liberty forgotten in the quest for health?
These are serious questions. The answers will define whether liberty and freedom and the pursuit of happiness survive the 21st century

CONCLUSION:

We are in trouble in this country. Our liberties and freedoms are being erased in the so-called cause of public health. Secondhand smoke is only the beginning. Other issues on the agenda that will also feed the pharmaceutical industry, the non-profits, some medical institutions and physicians, members working within the federal government, and various special interest groups are obesity, alcohol consumption and high cholesterol, to name a few.

Sound far-fetched?

Do the research.

Exhibit List for The Age of Misinformation

Exhibit A: The United States Federal Court Decision: Judge Osteen, July 17, 1998

Exhibit B: The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: December 11, 2002

Exhibit C: 1. Questioning the Rationale for the Smoking Ban: The Congressional Research Service reports on the questionable origin of the 53,000 number so often used by anti-smoking interests.
2. American Cancer Society Admits Mistake in Ad. Wanda Hamilton challenges newspaper and ACS on its false advertising.

Exhibit D: The study, "Multicenter Case-Control Study of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe," conducted by The World Health Organization's (WHO) research branch, the International Agency for Research on Cancer. 12 centers, 7 European countries.

Exhibit E: The study "Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Tobacco related Mortality in a Prospective Study of Californians, 1960-1998. Begun with funding from the American Cancer Society, continued with funding from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, a University of California research organization funded by the Proposition 99 cigarette surtax.

Exhibit F: Report by Littlewood & Fennell, Austin, Independent Public & Health Policy Research titled "Environmental Tobacco Smoke: No Evidence of Carcinogenicity," February 9, 1999. (Enclosed disclaimer to the National Toxicology Program stating no association in any way with the tobacco industry.) I have highlighted pages 23, 34, 40, 52, 53, 54, 56, 63 and 64, but the entire study is a must read for those wanting an accurate picture of the EPA's tactics.

Exhibit G: "Is Meta-Analysis a Valid Approach to the Evaluation of Small Effects in Observational Studies?" Samuel Shapiro. Presented at a meeting on small risks, Potsdam, Germany, 1995.

Exhibit H: News articles/editorials on Judge Osteen's decision and the invalidity of the EPA 1993 report.
1. Sidney Zion, Judge Smokes Out Tobacco Lie, New York Daily News, July 23, 1998.
2. Editorial, "EPA: Environmental Propaganda Agency," Investor's Business Daily, July 29, 1998.
3. John Schwartz, "Secondhand Smoke Finding Struck Down," The Washington Post, July 19, 1998.
4. Editorial, "Sound Science Up In Smoke," The Washington Times, July 21, 1998.
5. Kathleen Parker, "Betrayal by Government Should Have Us Smokin'," Chicago Tribune, July 22, 1998.
6. Joseph Perkins, "Has EPA Been Promoting One Big Secondhand Smoke Screen?" Ventura County Star, July 29, 1998.
7. Charley Reese, "It's a Shame That Americans Can't Trust Their Own Government," The Orlando Sentinel, July 30, 1998.
8. Editorial, "EPA: Smoke and Mirrors," The Detroit News, August 7, 1998

Exhibit I: 1. Abstract, "Mike Drinking, Other Beverage Habits, and Lung Cancer," published in PubMed.

2. Page 11 and 12 of 19 page document "The Milk Letter: A Message to My Patients," by Robert M. Kradjian, M.D., cite British Medical Journal entry about 3.5 relative risk from drinking milk. March 1990.

3. McDougall Newsletter citing dangers of coffee, particularly Starbucks.

Exhibit J: Article by Robert N. Proctor, Pennsylvania State University, on "The Anti-Tobacco Campaign of the Nazis: A Little Known Aspect of Public Health in Germany, 1933-45."

Exhibit K: Study,: "Mortality from Cancer and Other Causes Among Airline Cabin Attendants in Germany, 1960-1997," printed in the American Journal of Epidemiology, 2002. A huge study.

Exhibit L: Study, "Environmental Tobacco Smoke in the Nonsmoking Section of a Restaurant: A Case Study," published online November 20, 2001, Elsevier Science.

Exhibit M: 1. Abstract, "Personal Exposure to Environmental Tobacco: Salivary Cotinino, Airborne Nicotine, and Nonsmoker Misclassification," July-August 1999, PubMed.

2. Article: Ellen Rogers, "The ‘Truth' About Tobacco Smoke," Oakridger.com

3. Article: Ron Walli, "Exposure to Second-hand Smoke Lower Than Believed, ORNL Study Finds," Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Exhibit N: 1. Review of Marcia Angell (former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine), "The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It." Article is entitled "New England Journal of Medicine Exposes Drug Company Deceit." Review by John Hoey, M.D. The book may be purchased at Barnes & Noble.

2. List of Selected Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Grants, 1992-99 (Johnson & Johnson) Compiled by Wanda Hamilton.

3. Article: "Anti-Tobacco Advocates & Researchers," in larger section entitled "Pharmaceutical Multinationals: Buying Governments, Selling AntiSmoking." Compiled by Wanda Hamilton.

4. "List of Organizations, Institutions, Companies & Groups Funded by Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Grants & Contracts," in larger section entitled "Pharmaceutical Multinationals: Buying Governments, Selling AntiSmoking." Compiled by Wanda Hamilton.

5. "The Feds and the Pharms: An Unhealthy Alliance," by Wanda Hamilton, July 13, 2001.

6. Article: "The Feds and the Pharms, Pt. 2: The FDA," by Wanda Hamilton, July 2001.

7. Article: "The Pharms and Doctors: Corrupting Medicine," by Wanda Hamilton, July 2001.

Exhibit O: Partial list of "Non-Profit Organizations with Ties to Industry." Found on cspinet.org. Full list 91 pages.

Exhibit P: "Pharmaceutical Players: Drug Companies Involved With ‘Cessation' Products," by Wanda Hamilton, July 2001.

Exhibit Q: 1. Information on Stanton A. Glantz, from The Tobacco Dance. Found online.

2. Information on Stanton A. Glantz, found on forces.org, (Forces: Articles from Other Sources."

3. Stanton Glantz, Animal Experiments (including those he performed on rabbits, lambs, cats, dogs and pigs), forces.org. (In one case, 64 New Zealand rabbits were divided in groups where different levels of ETS were pumped in after feeding them a cholesterol diet. After 10 weeks, Glantz killed them all and extracted their organs for study. After much examination, tabulating and comparisons of their entrails, the rabbits appear to have died in vain.)Studies found on forces.org.

4. Biography of Glantz on the University of California at San Francisco site includes the following: "He serves as an advisor to numerous NIH, NSF, and Veterans' Affairs scientific review groups and is a consultant for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on secondhand smoke as well as a member of the California State Scientific Review Panel on Toxic Air Contaminants." No mention of his educational credentials.

Exhibit R: 1. Article: "Legal Reality Tsunami Sweeps Away Anti-Tobacco Damage Claims," by Norman E. Kjono, February 6, 2005.

2. Repace Associates Inc. Web site home page

3. Repace resume

$. Note: pages 52, 54, 56 and 63 from the report by Littlewood & Fennell, Austin, Independent Public & Health Policy Research titled "Environmental Tobacco Smoke: No Evidence of Carcinogenicity," February 9, 1999, refer to Repace.