Thursday, March 15, 2012

Dr. Gori On The Passive Smoking Fraud.

 ..a hat tip to Andrew Philips for posting this:

If you haven't read any of Dr. Gori's books on active and passive smoking, this video provides a brief summary on what this man has been trying to express (as a result of a lifetime of work and research) for the last four decades. I wish that the media would listen. We should have had access to reduced risk cigarettes many moons (and many lives) ago.


Dr. Gori On The Passive Smoking Fraud. - YouTube

7 comments:

  1. Hello, J.

    I enjoyed watching Dr Gore - thanks for the link.

    Did you notice, in the middle, his exposure of a typical epidemiological bodge? It concerned how researchers arrive at an increased risk of lung cancer if some people are exposed to more SHS than others. It can be tricky to understand clearly.

    They take a group of non-smokers who are exposed to SHS. These people do not have lung cancer. Let us say that this group number 100 people. Then they take a group of people (also non-smokers) who DO have lung cancer, and ask them to what extent THEY were exposed to SHS. If they find that the group who have lung cancer were 121 in number, then they ascribe the fact that the extra 21 have lung cancer to the fact that they were more exposed than the first group by an extra factor of 0.21. That is, that there were 121 people with lung cancer while there were only 100 without. The fallacy lies in the fact only magic could explain why the 100 lower exposed group were, somehow, IMMUNE from lung cancer! Why did the lower exposed group have no lung cancer at all?

    Of course, the whole point is that epidemiology is not real life. Non-exposed non-smokers often get lung cancer, and exposed non-smokers, more often than not, do not get lung cancer.

    The whole thing is a statistical trick, based upon minor variations. The differences observed could just as easily have another of the hundreds of other risk factors; also, and perhaps more importantly, it seems that people with lung cancer EXAGGERATE their former exposure to SHS. That is, they want to find something or someone to blame for their lung cancer (it is not necessarily deliberate - it is called 'recall bias').

    Erm...I'm not quite sure that I understand that...........

    ReplyDelete
  2. He also mentioned that more than 70% of the studies were proven to be inconclusive, or in other words, there was no statistical risk of increased mortality found.

    Of the remaining studies, almost as many showed a protective effect as those showing a slight risk of 1.2. In the field of epidemiology it is common practice (or at least it has been..according to what I have read up on the subject) to render anything that falls under a RR 2.0-3.0 irrelevant and of no relation to the disease or harm being studied.

    If one is to add up all of the studies on ETS ever conducted in aggregate as Dr. Gori has clearly done, we come pretty close to 0.00. Now, active smoking is another story all together, and even with that there is a threshold (a few smokes a day, according to Gori) before risk sets in. His books are fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Since 1981 there have been 148 reported studies on ETS, involving spouses, children and workplace exposure. 124 of these studies showed no significant causal relationship between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Of the 24 which showed some risk, only two had a Relative Risk Factor over 3.0 and none higher. What does this mean. To put it in perspective, Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration said “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.” The National Cancer Institute states “Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to mere chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.” Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist states “An association is generally considered weak if the relative risk is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer. Therefore, you can see any concern of second hand smoke causing lung cancer is highly questionable.” Note that the Relative Risk (RR) of lung cancer for persons drinking whole milk is 2.14 and all cancers from chlorinated water ranked at 1.25. These are higher risks than the average ETS risk. If we believe second hand smoke to be a danger for lung cancer then we should also never drink milk or chlorinated water.
    ...

    ReplyDelete
  4. "In the field of epidemiology it is common practice (or at least it has been..according to what I have read up on the subject) to render anything that falls under a RR 2.0-3.0 irrelevant and of no relation to the disease or harm being studied."

    That was a long standing principle until the last few years. The anti tobacco industry has attempted to rewrite history by claiming that it was the tobacco industry which first stated that relative risks of less than three should be ignored. This was the only way they could justify the publication of their passive smoking junk science.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "That was a long standing principle until the last few years."

    I wonder what this means for every other substance that's known to man...now that the bar has been lowered to such a great extent.....For example, I once read somewhere that there was a RR of 1.2 for lung cancer amongst those who eat cheese.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A couple of clarifications/corrections on my part:

    "If one is to add up all of the studies on ETS ever conducted in aggregate as Dr. Gori has clearly done, we come pretty close to 0.00."

    I meant to say 1.0, which in the field of epidemiology equates to zero risk:-)

    "I once read somewhere that there was a RR of 1.2 for lung cancer amongst those who eat cheese."

    I stand corrected by anonymous above:

    "Note that the Relative Risk (RR) of lung cancer for persons drinking whole milk is 2.14 .."

    I am going to have to remember where exactly I read that...I do believe (?) that it may have been in Kabat's book "Hyping Health Risks".

    ReplyDelete
  7. ...and another hat tip to Andrew Philips for posting this as well:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aGoZ-b1OaW4#!

    ReplyDelete

There was an error in this gadget