Environmental Tobacco Smoke Danger is Minuscule

Frank Davis drew our attention:


PROPER statisticians (not tobacco control epidemiological cheats) did a ‘meta-analysis’ of studies about SHS (or ETS, if you prefer). The full study is here:


The authors, proper statisticians, looked at all the studies about the effects of SHS and found no evidence of danger from SHS.

I cannot emphasise enough the words ‘proper statisticians’. I have long complained that ‘proper statisticians’, rather than ‘pretend’ statisticians in epidemiology, never seem to get a look in. Perhaps they do not have the funds, or perhaps they worry about their careers, but, in this case, somehow or other, ‘proper statisticians’ have looked at the evidence.

Their findings are that there is no correlation between SHS and lung cancer or heart problems. Let us understand. If there is NO CORRELATION,  there definitely cannot be a ’cause and effect’. You need correlation before you can even begin to think of ’cause and effect’. For example, there seems to be a correlation between the sun rising over the horizon and the appearance of light and heat, which were otherwise absent before the sun climbed over the horizon. There seems to be a correlation between the reduction of light and heat when clouds obscure the sun. That is a reasonable correlation. But suppose that the sun rose and there was no increase in light and heat? If no correlation is found, then there can be no ’cause and effect’. That is, if there is ’cause and effect’, THERE MUST ALWAYS BE the correlation.

Should it surprise anyone that there is no ’cause and effect’ from SHS? It should not, because what Tobacco Control ALWAYS omit is timescales. I suppose that it would be possible for SHS to cause damage, if human beings lived long enough for such damage to occur – maybe 1000 years old, or longer. I say 1000 years old as a low estimate. But what Surgeon Generals, etc, have always done is deliberately insist that there exists a danger. Well, I suppose that, if you lived to the age of 1000, it might be true that accumulated damage from inhaling SHS might kill you. There is that risk. But for ordinary humans who cannot be expected to survive beyond, say, 100 years, the danger is non-existent.

Suppose that I wrote to my MP and drew her attention to this study. What difference would it make? The answer is: none at all. Why? Because she is not the least bit interested. Not even a smidgen of interest; not even an iota of interest. She does not care at all.

She most certainly would not call for a re-think about smoking bans, despite the enormous damage that they have done. She does not give a shit. And yet she is Labour, and supposed to care about the poorer people in her constituency, who are more likely to enjoy tobacco because it costs less than bourbon and does not make you drunk. She votes for things which hurt her constituents. That is persecution.


The importance of this study is not really political – it will have no effect. Too many people have been ‘denormalised’.  It is not smoking or smokers who have been ‘denormalised’ but non-smokers.

We have seen the same sort of ‘denormalisation’ in the Brexit issue. Cameron et al have being trying to paint a picture where control of our nation by ourselves is ‘abnormal’. I don’t understand them. To me, they seem to be amusing themselves. How otherwise can you imagine Plain Packaging? Cameron et al do not give a shit about evidence. They act before the evidence is in.

Those people are clever, but they are stupid. They do not examine the evidence. They are like a jury which does not examine the evidence of guilt or innocence, but which simply does what the Judge tells them to do. TC told our Government to introduce PP so as to support Australia against the World Trade Organisation. That is all. Cameron et al probably knew nothing about it, nor did the care.

‘Nor did they care’ is probably the most important idea.

Smoking bans were already just political manoeuvrings. They never made sense.



2 Responses to “Environmental Tobacco Smoke Danger is Minuscule”

  1. Roberto Says:

    Very useful information. Thanks for sharing. But evidence is the lesser concern for tobacco controllers and their medical “useful idiots”. Those epidemiologists with a gram of brain and that are not threatened to be fired or ostracised are already speaking openly against the ETS lie.

    Geoffrey Kabat (the one in the Enstrom-Kabat study) describes how the ETS issue is a key test for upholding or abusing scientific thought. Obviously, tobacco controllers fail the test, but Kabat regrets that nothing can be done: the notion that ETS is a cause of cancer and coronary disease is too ingrained on public consciousness. See this link:


    Epidemiologists do know that the link between ETS and lung cancer or coronary disease is nil or (at best) weak, but they don’t care. The following link is very illustrative of this. It is a press preview of a recent major cohort study involving tens of thousands of women in the USA :


    The reporter interviews an MD (Dr Jyoti Patel) to review the article. Dr Patel mentions that women who smoked had 13 times more risk to get lung cancer than never smokers. She says that ETS is responsible for “many respiratory diseases’’ (no example is provided) but confirms that it does not produce lung cancer. However, Dr Patel is not impressed: she remarks that the study does not find anything new, and that its results do not imply that anti-smoking regulation should be relaxed. In fact, Dr Patel declares that “The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoking is to change societal behaviour: TO NOT LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHERE SMOKING IS THE NORM” (my emphasis).

    There are other examples. When confronted with the lack of evidence of damage from ETS (not only no cancer risk, but no risk of any disease in healthy individuals), the bulk of organised medics and tobacco controllers and regulators now admit that they don’t care, the aim is social engineering (“de-normalisation”). One day the ETS lie will become a major scandal and the shit will hit the fan. Meanwhile I am enjoying my third daily cigar.

    • junican Says:

      Hello Roberto,

      As I said, it is non-smokers who are being denormalised and not smokers. What used to be a normal state for non-smokers? They went into a pub or restaurant and didn’t even notice tobacco smoke unless it was really thick. That was a ‘normal’ attitude. That attitude has now been destroyed. People walk into pubs and sniff, sniff, sniff, but they still do not notice stale cooking smells. Why? Because their MINDS are already aware of what they should expect when entering a pub. Cooking smells are not noticed, but any whiff of tobacco smoke would be noticed.
      What TC does not want is for non-smokers to be re-normalised. Weird or what?
      Enjoy your cigars. The smell is wonderful. It is coming to my nose through the internet.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: