“For the children” has been the mantra for modern day prohibitionist for quite some time, and why not? IT WORKS! Who would dare not make sacrifices in the name of “the children”.
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
The question is does the science back up their claims? Not really! A recent report shows childhood asthma rates are skyrocketing!
SPRINGFIELD, Mo.— Asthma nationwide is at an all-time high. About 1 in 12 people in the U.S. now have asthma, an increase of more than 4 million in the last decade, and what’s most concerning is experts don’t know why.
Not only are there more people with asthma, but its costing those people billions of dollars more to treat the condition that’s not merely uncomfortable; it can be deadly.
Of course those of us fighting for freedom of choice and property rights have been using the following graph for years!
Then there is this new study on allergies.
MedWire News: Parental smoking during childhood and personal cigarette smoking in teenage and early adult life lowers the risk for allergic sensitization in those with a family history of atopy, according to the results of a study from New Zealand.
Writing in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Robert Hancox (University of Otago, Dunedin) and colleagues explain that “the findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the immune-suppressant effects of cigarette smoke protect against atopy.”
They go on to say.
The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
“These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”
They conclude: ”
The harmful effects of cigarette smoke are well known, and there are many reasons to avoid it.
“Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”
How can this be, you ask?
Well to understand that you would have to look at the rational behind a vaccine.
A vaccine is a biological preparation that improves immunity to a particular disease. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism, and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe. The agent stimulates the body’s immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and “remember” it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters.
But they say that there is no safe level of second hand smoke!
Well, they ignore the first rule of toxicology.
EVERYTHING IS TOXIC, DOSE MAKES THE POISON.
A substance can produce the harmful effect associated with its toxic properties only if it reaches a susceptible biological system within your body in a sufficient concentration (a high enough dose). The toxic effect of a substance increases as the exposure (or dose) to the susceptible biological system increases. For all chemicals there is a dose response curve, or a range of doses that result in a graded effect between the extremes of no effect and 100% response (toxic effect). All chemical substances will exhibit a toxic effect given a large enough dose. If the dose is low enough even a highly toxic substance will cease to cause a harmful effect. The toxic potency of a chemical is thus ultimately defined by the dose (the amount) of the chemical that will produce a specific response in a specific biological system.
So where do they get this no safe level from?
NONE of the studies on second hand smoke have a linear dose response curve, NONE! So that is an out and out lie! As a matter of fact they have no real dose response curve period. All they have is statistics taken from “observational studies” (surveys) and even the vast majority of them showed no statistical significance. The only way they could come up with any meaningful numbers was to cheat and use META-ANALYSIS which I have written
But what about lung cancer, isn’t exposing children to second hand smoke increasing their chance of lung cancer?
We’ll, the fact is there was only one study that included children, yup just one. It was commissioned by the WHO (World Health Organization) and guess what, they came to the same conclusion as the above study. IT MAY HAVE A PROTECTIVE EFFECT!
No you say! Well first you have to learn a little on how to read a study, in particular you need to understand CI’s (Confidence Intervals) This from Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics
How to Interpret a Confidence Interval
When you see a confidence interval in a published medical report, you should look for two things. First, does the interval contain a value that implies no change or no effect? For example, with a confidence interval for a difference look to see whether that interval includes zero. With a confidence interval for a ratio, look to see whether that interval contains one.
Here’s an example of a confidence interval that contains the null value. The interval shown below implies no statistically significant change.
Here’s an example of a confidence interval that excludes the null value. If we assume that larger implies better, then the interval shown below would imply a statistically significant improvement.
Here’s a different example of a confidence interval that excludes the null value. The interval shown below implies a statistically significant decline.
Remember “ONE” OR 1 IS THE NULL POINT
Now to WHO’s study.
If you notice they don’t mention the protective effect. But the numbers don’t lie. The entire CI is less then one, meaning a protective effect. As a matter of fact children exposed to second hand smoke have a 22% lesser chance of getting lung cancer. As a matter of fact that was the only statistically significant finding of the study. No wonder they tried to hide it.
So if there is research showing positive effects, why don’t we hear about it? Why isn’t there more research done?
For that you have to know about the players involved and the role that “Big Pharma” plays, that alone would take dozens of posts. Here is but one example.
Stanton Glantz started a group for non-smokers rights back in the 70’s. He was a key player in the 1992 EPA report(Which they got caught faking) and every subsequent Surgeon General’s Report. Here is his philosophy on doing research.
“…that’s the question that I have applied to my research relating to tobacco: If this comes out the way I think, will it make a difference [toward achieving the goal]. And if the answer is yes, then we do it, and if the answer is I don’t know, then we don’t bother. Okay? And that’s the criteria.”
– Written Transcript Of 3-Day Conference Called “Revolt Against Tobacco,” L.A., 1992
He is not the only one. Much has been written on the “Scientific McCarthyism” within the neo-prohibitionist movement.
The funding an the ties between the movement and “Big Pharma” have also been well documented. Perhaps the person who has written the most on it is Dr Epstein from Prevent Cancer. Another who points to the influence of “Big Pharma” on the neo-prohibitionist movement is former tobacco control trainer Dr Michael Siegel. Mark from Clean Air Quality blogspot has written a lot on the subject. Here is just one and here in Wisconsin I exposed a bit of astroturfing they did here. Suffice it to say they stand to make billions from the smoking cessation industry. Well the rise in the asthma rates was an unexpected bonus for them, or was it?
So to you prohibitionist out there, ready to inoculate your kids? Come on! SPARK ONE UP. . . Remember . . . “IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN”