SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: The Surgeon General Lied And Misled About Secondhand Smoke.
On Tuesday, Surgeon General Richard Carmona stood up in front of the news media to announce the release of a new report on the effects of secondhand smoke.
The press release explained how the report said that even the briefest exposure to secondhand smoke “increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer.”
And to get everyone good and scared, he said: “Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion. Brief exposure can have immediate harmful effects on blood and blood vessels, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack.”
But none of that is quite exactly true, nor was it what was really in the report.
The Surgeon General’s office certainly did produce a report on the effects of secondhand smoke, but what the report actually said was not what was said in the press release, nor in the so-called “fact sheet,” nor in the Surgeon General’s remarks.
Tobacco researcher and staunch anti-smoking advocate Michael Siegel explains:
The report documents an increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer among nonsmokers who are chronically exposed to high levels of secondhand smoke. However, instead of simply reporting that finding to the public, the Surgeon General distorted the science to communicate to the public that brief exposure to secondhand smoke can increase heart disease and cancer risk. . . .
The rest of the story is that the Surgeon General’s press release distorts the science presented in the report and ends up presenting misleading and inaccurate information to the public. . . .
[The] Surgeon General is publicly claiming that brief exposure to secondhand smoke increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer.
But there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Certainly, no evidence is presented in the Surgeon General’s report to support this claim. And certainly, the Surgeon General’s report draws no such conclusion. . . .
So how could it possibly be that for an active smoker, heart disease takes 25 years of exposure to tobacco smoke to develop, but for a passive smoker, it only takes a single, transient, brief exposure? — Michael Siegel
Siegel believes the actual scientific facts on tobacco smoke are sufficient to be worried about its health effects, and they certainly are. Someone who is chronically exposed to tobacco smoke over a period of years faces health risks, but not someone who just happens to walk by a smoker one day.
Siegel said that the lies and distortions of the anti-tobacco interest groups, which go all the way up to the Surgeon General’s office, is indicative of “a serious scientific integrity problem” which threatens to undermine the anti-smoking movement when people learn that the anti-smoking lobby has been misrepresenting the science on tobacco smoke.
In his speech, Carmona spoke of the “scientific consensus” regarding secondhand smoke. Yet there is no such thing as scientific consensus. When someone says that phrase, they’re about to lie to you. Science does not work by consensus. It works by experiment. Either a hypothesis can be demonstrated to be true, or demonstrated to be false, or when neither is the case, more research is needed.
Siegel doesn’t seem quite ready to come right out and say that the anti-tobacco groups are deliberately lying about it, but it’s pretty clear from the evidence that they have a long history of distorting the facts about smoking and secondhand smoke in order to achieve a very frightening agenda.
In this case, the proposed solution is far worse than the problem.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Karl Marx would love the popular moves among politicians in various state governments and the federal government to ban so-called "junk" food in schools, and to "put healthy food in" convenience stores and on the tables of those they define as poor. It's a very elitist and arrogant mindset that promotes this ideology, and it needs to be addressed.
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Eric
Jun 29, 2006
It’s nice to know that I now have a legitimate reason to growl at the next smoke
nazi who walks by and gives me a dirty look while I’m standing 25 ft away from
an open business in the rain trying to have a smoke. Put THAT in your pipe, etc.
Beth
Jun 29, 2006
Ditto what Eric said.
I just got back from a trip to Tallahassee, and they don’t even have hotel rooms you can smoke in! Why don’t they just be done with it and try to make tobacco illegal already? It’s obviously what they’re shooting for. I’d relish the backlash from THAT.
Scott Christman
Jun 30, 2006
Beth, they would never make tobacco illegel, the government makes way too much money on the taxes. Instead, they are going to just tax it more because people who have the addiction will pay whatever they are forced to pay. Also, I would like to point out another HUGE problem that I have with the Surgeon General. He came right out and said that second hand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Holy Crap!!! Talk about a bold face lie! You know that they really have an agenda when they are, in a round about way, saying that smokers are soley reponsible for the deaths of children! When are we as a socitey going to stop believing everything our government tells us, and start doing some research of our own. This whole story gets under my skin, and the funny thing is that I don’t even smoke! I say that if someone doesn’t like smoke, then tough crap, they can go to a non-smoking establishment then. The government has no business telling anyone that they can’t smoke a LEGAL product anywhere. Richard Carmona can kiss my American ass!
Dana
Jul 01, 2006
CA is now fining people for smoking in the privacy of their car, even if it is parked on private property, if there is a child secured in a safety seat…
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/14928124.htm
Jul 04, 2006
The Unrepentant Individual » Carnival of Liberty LII — The Anniversary Edition
AFD
Sep 18, 2006
To all you complaining smokers GROW UP adn startrnning your own life instead of it being run by a little white stick or big brown stick filled with weeds.
Scott
Sep 18, 2006
AFD,
Nice spelling. How about I send you a book so you can learn to write? With a little bit of help I can get you on your way to being a monkey trainer. (Or maybe a monkey trainee)
Michael
Sep 18, 2006
AFD,
As an avid non-smoker I’m here to tell you that your comment isn’t only horribly mispelled, but completely assinine and misinformed. The FDAs study of second hands smoke was sensationalized, if not completely fabricated. The results found that there was no significant increase in cancer or heart disease in persons subjected to second hand smoke as opposed to those that weren’t. They filed the report anyway and now there is a political and social fiasco surrounding it.
The SG and government’s continued attempts to limit an establishment’s ability to allow smoking withing their place of business is a violation of civil liberties and the concept of free enterpise. Who is the governement to tell a bar owner that his patrons can’t smoke? The only place I support a smoking ban are on planes, because you can’t exactly crack open a window for circulation.
And I have to ask, in your post you wrote “big brown stick filled with weeds”. This confused me, as I don’t know anyone that smokes weeds. If you mean tobacco, than it’s actually categorized as a plant, not a weed.
Mark Greco
Sep 19, 2006
If smoking makes me a baby killer, than I’m proud to be a red blooded American baby killer!
Mark Greco
Sep 19, 2006
There goes my political career. All somebody has to do to defeat me now is make a little negative campaign mailer and get a little creative with their use of ellipsis (A skill I’m sure they could learn, working for the Surgeon General).
I can just see it now:
Independant Nominee Mark Greco a self-confessed babykiller! Sources have uncovered that as a young man, Mr. Greco had been found to have said on the internet “….I’m proud to be a red blooded American baby killer!” Would you want to be the one to blame for putting such a monster in office? We didn’t think so. Punch 666 for Big Brother!”
Dec 21, 2006
Two years of Homeland Stupidity - Homeland Stupidity
Ava Smith
Mar 24, 2007
As a former smoker, I am grateful to be free of that horrible habit. I am currently writing my thesis on the relapse phenomena of postpartum women who actually quit smoking during pregnancy but fall victum to tobacco after delivery. Bonifide research has shown persistent tobacco use during pregnancy resulted in premature labor & delivery, poor weight gain, and fetal hypoxia. This research is valid and reproducible. 90% of all lung cancer is directly related to smoking tobacco. What about fetal exposure? Studies by Yolton, and Otsuka,et al., 2001 studied the effects of 2nd hand smoke and consistently found neurological delays in these children such as reading, and mathematical comprehension. They also found a higher incidence of behavioral problems such as hyperactivity and attention deficit disorder related to both fetal and 2nd hand smoke. Why would you feed rat poison to child but you think its okay to blow poison in their face? If you don’t believe the surgeon general then read the research. You cann’t argue with mutliple studies that are reproducible and their findings are consistent with specific health consequences of smoking and 2nd hand smoke. Whats frightening to me is that people still continue to worship smoking and remain enslaved to its demands. Can you go without a smoke for more than a few hours? I couldn’t, I had to decide that smoking was no longer an option. THere are new drugs out there that really help Wellbutrin is one, and now there is Chantix. Read the research get some help, smoking is killing you and those around you, inch by inch, robbing you of of thousands of dollars annually. Money you could spend on living and playing. I am obviously very pro any legislation that restricts tobacco use, why wouldn’t you be. To me its the equivalent of Crack cocaine, and addicts will tell you its easier to quit crack than quit smoking. What does that indicate. Get help, wake up!!!!
Scott
Mar 24, 2007
Ava,
With all the stress from doing all that research I bet you could really use a smoke about now. So, please feel free to light one up for yourself and all of the unborn children of the world. And while your at it, chase it down with some alcohol. Oh and I’m hoping to get a bill passed to get you bleeding heart liberals to shut the fuck up and stop trying to manage other peoples lives.
Kindest Regards,
Scott
Mark Greco
Mar 28, 2007
To Ava, and the other motherlike figures out there.
Why is it that some people feel the need to inflict their own values and personal choices on everyone else? I respect that you chose to live your life a certain way. Why can’t you show me the same respect?
As far as my second hand smoke killing other people, which I know your reply is before you even read this… save it. You can come back and yell at me when we have clean, pollutionless cars and means to do factory work. There is no way in my lifetime I will even come close to matching the pollution one single car puts out in its comparatively short lifetime. Think about that the next time you’re at the pump.
Until then, please keep your opinions on this to yourself.
Greg
Jul 10, 2007
Feel free to poison yourselves all you want, and line the pockets of the legal death merchants. Just keep it away from me. I would like to have the freedom to be able to go into any public access facility without the threat of being assulted by tobacco smoke. Whose freedom is more important? That debate could go on for ages. At the end of the day I think the decision should come down on the side of least harm. Generalised smoke-free laws have no negative effect on restaurant and bar business, so you can’t say it causes risks to business survival. So all that’s left is whether harm is caused to smokers by requiring them to go outside for a smoke, or refrain from smoking until they get outside, not much harm done there I think. Or whether there is harm done to those who do not smoke and are exposed to second hand smoke by allowing smoking inside to continue. There is good evidence to show second-hand smoke is harmful, therefore the least harm approach is to put a stop to smoking indoor public access premises and workplaces. About the only exception I can imagine is member only places like cigar clubs, where everyone is a smoker and where non-smokers have no interest in going.
And as for the right-wingnut “keep the govt out of our lives” hypocrites: you pull out that phrase when it suits your particular sensibilities (including the non-smokers), but when it comes to other freedoms you are all for govt meddling (gay marriage springs to mind). If its liberal, its bad and the govt needs to squash it, stop deluding yourselves that it has anything to do with freedom vs regulation. I suppose I can respect those secular libertarians who are consistent down the line even if I disagree with their absolutist philosophy. Personally I think freedom in many circumstances is an absolute must, but in others it cannot be sanctioned. Extremism = bad, moderation = good, goes for both freedom and regulation.
Mark Greco
Jul 11, 2007
Cite your sources Sally.
Every story I’ve ever read, even in the criminal liberal media, has said that there is large financial impact on bar owners and restauranteurs when a smoking ban is put into effect. I’ve also read just as many sceintific studies that say that second hand smoke is not dangerous that don’t get the airplay that your studies get because that’s not part of the agenda. Needless to say, you had no comment about my arguments against pollution from cars, because there is no argument against it. I’d like to be able to go outside and not breathe that shit, but we all can’t get what we want, can we?
Freedom to go into a smoke free place to eat is something that I would never hold against you. I want you to be free to go into a smoke free bar or a smoke free restaurant, just as much as I would like to be able to smoke when I go to one. That’s the idea behind “Free Market” buddy. The Government doesn’t get to decide this. The Market does. How can it even be argued that all somebody has to do in a community is open a non-smoking establishment and if everyone is behind that kind of thing they will flourish, and others will follow, eventually leading to a happy balance of what the people want without Government intervention?
Free Market…. what a concept, huh?
Anything else is Unconstitutional and regardless of your view of what is more or less unhealthy, I’ll take lung cancer over fascism any day. Personally, I think this is why my freedom is more important than yours, because you sir, do not understand the underlying value and meaning of the freedoms which you have lucked into at birth and have taken for granted your entire life. The loss of freedom is a slippery slope, my friend, and smoking is just the first step. Trust me…. you dont’ appreciate your freedom now, but you will miss it when you’re gone.
Don’t be a generalizing idiot either. I’m 100 percent against Big Gov banning gay marriages. I just don’t want the Government going into churches and telling them that they have to honor them if they don’t want to. As far as a civil marriage and tax incentives go, I don’t see how your sexuality is anybodies business either, particularly the Government.
I’m done….. You can just go back to being a close minded Government meat puppet now.