Pseudoscience and anti-tobacco activism

Few people are interested in the fine detail of the smoking issue. And that's part of the problem. The anti-smoking lobby is winning the propaganda war on tobacco because media-friendly slogans like "passive smoking kills" are difficult to refute in a short press release or a 20-second soundbite.

Three years ago Forest commissioned and later published a substantial 52-page document - Prejudice & Propaganda: The Truth About Passive Smoking - that countered, in painstaking detail, the argument that "passive smoking" is proven to be a serious threat to non-smokers. It included a comprehensive list of studies on the subject and no-one who read it could fail to appreciate that - at the very least - the anti-smoking industry has seriously over-estimated the impact of secondhand smoke.

We launched the report with a briefing at the House of Lords to which we invited MPs, peers and journalists. A PR company was recruited to help 'sell' the event. Three peers (personal friends of our late chairman Lord Harris) turned up, but not a single journalist or member of parliament.

Tens of thousands of people have downloaded the report from our website, but few (if any) were the people who mattered - MPs, civil servants and health and safety officials. We sent them printed copies but I doubt they gave it more than a cursory glance. Why would they? It doesn't support their preconceived prejudice that passive smoking kills thousands of non-smokers every year.

Anyway, my attention has been drawn to a website called Epidemiologic Perspectives and Innovations. It includes some fascinating commentaries and papers which I hope that anyone with a genuine interest in the smoking issue will take the time and trouble to read. Titles include:

• Warning: Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science (Carl V Phillips)
• Is the tobacco control movement misrepresenting the acute cardiovascular health effects of secondhand smoke exposure? An analysis of the scientific evidence and commentary on the implications for tobacco control and public health practice (Michael Siegel)
• Defending legitimate epidemiologic research: combating Lysenko pseudoscience (James E Enstrom)

The above were published in October and are currently the top 10 most accessed articles on the site for last 30 days. If you haven't got time to read all three, I urge you to at least read the article by Carl Phillips. Click HERE. To download Prejudice & Propaganda: The Truth About Passive Smoking, click HERE.

Faking it - Parliament deceived, say MPs

Just fancy that! Hardly had the words "prostitution of science" appeared on this blog (see below) than a press release landed in my inbox. A report produced jointly by the All Party Parliamentary Middle Way Group and the Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management (and published this morning) claims there is no valid scientific evidence to justify the hunting ban.

The report, The Use, Misuse and Abuse of Science in support of the Hunting Act 2004, argues that government, the media and the public have all been "duped by fake and twisted science". According to the press release:

This document provides the first opportunity to scrutinise the reports, submissions and statements made by anti-hunting groups, some scientists and others during the process which led to the passing of the Hunting Act 2004. It shows that the “large body of scientific evidence”, a claim made by the RSPCA, simply does not exist.

Dr Lewis Thomas for the VAWM, which represents over 550 veterinary surgeons, says, "This carefully compiled document comprehensively puts the scientific record straight in respect of the hunting debate and demonstrates that there are not and never were any scientific grounds for banning hunting on the grounds of cruelty.”

The co-chairs of the Middle Way Group (Baroness Golding - Labour, Peter Luff MP - Conservative, and Lembit Öpik MP - Liberal Democrat) - say, "Parliament does not make judgements based purely on science, but science can guide and inform those who create our laws. To invent, deliberately misinterpret or ignore evidence, the results of which are then fed into the legislative process, is a serious charge. This examination of the so-called science put forward to justify the Hunting Act, demonstrates that Parliament, the media and the public were deceived."

Sound familar?

Would you Adam and Eve it?

Dr Luke Clancy is chairman of ASH Ireland. I've met him once or twice and I quite like him. Like many anti-smokers he means well and genuinely wants to improve the health of his nation. Unfortunately, like the good Samaritan who insists on helping the old lady across the road when she is perfectly happy where she is, he and his ilk go too far.

Yesterday it was reported that a study by a team from the Research Institute for a Tobacco Free Society in Dublin, led by Clancy, had found that "the smoking ban in Ireland has cut air pollution in pubs and improved bar-workers' health". (Full report HERE.) The study was (of course) widely reported yet a simple glance at the press release should have alerted even the most gullible health correspondent. By their own admission, the team relied on "volunteers"  whose evidence consisted of "self-reported workplace exposure" and "self-reported health symptoms". And we're supposed to take this study seriously???!!!

It's hardly rocket science to conclude that smoking bans reduce exposure to airborne carcinogens. However it's the dose that makes the poison and although secondhand smoke may increase our exposure to carcinogens, the concentration of particles is usually very small. The best ventilation systems (which tests show can remove up to 90% of all gases and particles from environmental tobacco smoke) reduce it even further.
 
Many people find a smoky environment unpleasant but that doesn't justify a ban on smoking in EVERY pub, club and bar in the country. Luke Clancy's feeble report should be condemned for what it is - junk science designed to justify an unnecessary and authoritarian piece of legislation. Similar "research" has appeared in Scotland. Expect more of the same within six or 12 months of the smoking ban in England.