Las Vegas Sun

February 21, 2017

Currently: 61° — Complete forecast

User profile
harleyrider1978

Joined
Aug. 23, 2009

Contact harleyrider1978 (log-in required)

Recent Comments

Total Comments: 17 (view all)

Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?

The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.

Why not speak up earlier?

As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.

Le Parisien

May 2010

(Suggest removal) 12/14/10 at 7:07 a.m.

They have created a fear that is based on nothing''
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he's convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.

What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?

PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic " compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.

It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...

I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.

Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?

They don't base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!

The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?

Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.

(Suggest removal) 12/14/10 at 7:04 a.m.

Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger

Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
Published In: Environment & Climate News
Publication Date: July 1, 2008
Publisher:

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/resul...

myth-of-second-hand-smoke

http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the...

BS Alert: The 'third-hand smoke' hoax

http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-in......

Surgeon General's Office Again Misrepresents and Distorts the Science in Report Press Release; Why the Need to Lie to the American Public?


http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2010...

(Suggest removal) 12/14/10 at 7:03 a.m.

dirk would you care to provide your supposed conclusive evidence as you can see even the sg report found nothing you stated as conclusive.
suggestive means it aint happening!

The Heartland Institute serves as a shill for big oil companies and is a de facto arm of the party of "No." Second hand smoke causes between 150,000 and 300,000 new cases of severe breathing disorders every year, and this has been conclusively proven. I hope the Cancer Society wins its lawsuit because what LVCVA is doing is illegal, and then we can go about correcting Judge Herndon's ridiculous ruling that thwarted the will of the voters in order to do a favor for his contributors.

(Suggest removal) 5/12/10 at 2:23 a.m.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and an increase in the risk of adenoidectomy or tonsillectomy among children.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and the risk of immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy in their children.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke.

Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall thickening, are suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

And finally.....

The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance.

Source: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/se......

(Suggest removal) 5/11/10 at 5:20 p.m.

(view all 17)

Items submitted by harleyrider1978

  • Photos
  • Videos
  • Stories/Blogs

harleyrider1978 has not submitted any photos to Las Vegas Sun

harleyrider1978 has not submitted any videos to Las Vegas Sun

harleyrider1978 has not submitted any stories to Las Vegas Sun