The Anti-Smoking Lobby and Thirdhand Smoke
Previous Page: Why Freedom to Choose was set up
Next Page: Freedom to Choose's Work
ECD: We've both come across examples of blatant lying by the anti-smoking lobby. What's the worst example you have come across?
David: It's a toss up between Professor Jill Pell's 17% reduction in heart attacks study in Scotland or the third hand smoke story.
ECD: Third hand smoke - that's the big story of the moment.
David: Well, did you know, James, that there is a specific paper out at the moment which goes into third hand smoke and how harmful it is?
ECD: Is this the story where they took tobacco residue and sprayed it with hydrochloric acid?
David: That's the one. It was done in the cab of a lorry driver who smoked, and the study used detection equipment so fine it can measure nanograms.
ECD: And this is the evidence being used to keep children separate from their parents?
David: Exactly, yes. It is hugely divisive, and it really is the epitomy of junk science. It is now beginning to completely insult the intelligence.
ECD: I find it very scary, myself. Some scientists have pointed out that when you are putting all this emphasis on second hand and third hand smoke causing all these illnesses you are ignoring the real causes of illnesses - people are getting lung cancer not just because of smoking but for other reasons and that is being ignored.
David: Well, it now has been proved medically that second hand smoke does not cause lung cancer.
There's been 80 separate cases done nto the connection between passive smoking, lung cancer and heart disease and out of those 16 suggest a raised risk, 14 suggest it is actually protective against lung cancer, and the remainder state that it has no effect.
Now for all the anti-smoking lobby's faults they are correct that smoking does cause lung cancer.
ECD: This is the big danger, isn't it? That with the actual lies that are out there about third hand smoking and so on smokers will stop believing that smoking is actually bad for you?
David: That's correct, I mean 86% of all lung cancer patients are smokers. The reason being is that on chromosome number 11 is what is called the trans protein gene number 53, when you are a smoker - not always but in the case when you do contract lung cancer - your body's continually reproducing its DNA and with the P53 gene it actually starts to mutate.
The purpose of the p53 gene is to fight the growth of cancer cells in your body. With the mutation your body loses the ability to fight the growth of lung cancer. In non-smokers, this does not happen. The P53 gene in non-smokers remains completely intact and completely working. So therefore it is now completely proven that second hand smoke does not cause lung cancer.
ECD: Because there is not enough passive smoke to affect this gene?
David: Because the P53 gene in smokers mutates, but in non-smokers it doesn't mutate.
ECD: This is a very new study?
David: Funnily enough, this work has been around for about three years. The Swedish study which I am referring to came out last year but a lot of the original work goes back to 2007 and is even referenced back to 2001.
ECD: What has the reaction been to this?
David: No one knows about it!
ECD: That doesn't surprise me - but it does bring me on to my next question.
Previous Page: Why Freedom to Choose was set up
Next Page: Freedom to Choose's Work