Thursday, 19 December 2013

Passive smoking? There's no such thing

Can't smoke in public buildings, outside railway stations and airports - and it will be in parks and inside your own car soon. It's all a test to see how much the authorities can control us, so that we can be exploited more thoroughly in future (like putting up with being swamped by even more imported cheap labour) - and a test based on the lie that "passive smoking" is harmful. The Telegraph's James Delingpole spells out the facts behind the propaganda -

Passive smoking doesn't give you lung cancer. So says a new report publicised by the American Cancer Institute which will come as no surprise whatsoever to anyone with a shred of integrity who has looked into the origins of the great "environmental tobacco smoke" meme.

It was, after all, a decade ago that the British Medical Journal, published the results of a massive, long-term survey into the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke. Between 1959 and 1989 two American researchers named James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat surveyed no few than 118,094 Californians. Fierce anti-smoking campaigners themselves, they began the research because they wanted to prove once and for all what a pernicious, socially damaging habit smoking was. Their research was initiated by the American Cancer Society and supported by the anti-smoking Tobacco Related Disease Research Program.

At least it was at first. But then something rather embarrassing happened. Much to their surprise, Kabat and Enstrom discovered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ie passive smoking), no matter how intense or prolonged, creates no significantly increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer.

Similar conclusions were reached by the World Health Organisation which concluded in 1998 after a seven-year study that the correlation between "passive smoking" and lung cancer was not "statistically significant." A 2002 report by the Greater London Assembly agreed. So too did an investigation by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee.

Click here and also here for some past posts on anti-smoking fascism. And here too.


  1. "General-Purpose Powder Diffractometer" or mistyped "good"?

  2. aargh, I dunnp what happened thprp.

  3. Really a great blog with a best thoughts and ideas are shared thanks for sharing such an interesting article.
    pro tank


Keep it clean.....