Father of antismoking "science" exposed as paid shill
nightlight
"science" out of thin air, after his "discovery" of tobacco smoke as a
cause of lung cance, is finally exposed in the mainstream media, after
his death, as a paid shill for the chemical industry, working hard for
decades to deflect the blame for cancers from his paymasters:
----- quotes:
BBC: Industry 'paid top cancer expert'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6220440.stm
The scientist who first linked smoking to lung cancer was paid by a
chemicals firm while investigating cancer risks in the industry, it has
emerged.
Professor Sir Richard Doll held a consultancy post with US firm Monsanto
for more than 20 years.
During that time he investigated the potential cancer causing properties
of the powerful herbicide Agent Orange, made by the company.
...
Professor Sir Richard Peto, a fellow expert in cancer, said there were
no rules governing disclosure of consultancies of this type 20 years ago.
...
The BBC has seen private letters which show that Sir Richard, who died
in 2005 aged 92, received a US$1,500-a-day consultancy fee from Monsanto
in the mid-1980s.
During that period, Sir Richard wrote to an Australian commission on the
results of his investigation into whether Agent Orange, famous for its
use by the US during the Vietnam War, caused cancer.
He argued in his letter that there was no evidence that Agent Orange
caused cancer.
...
Further documents obtained by The Guardian newspaper allegedly show that
Sir Richard was also paid a £15,000 fee by the Chemical Manufacturers
Association, and chemicals companies Dow Chemicals and ICI for a review
of vinyl chloride, used in plastics, which largely cleared the chemical
of any link with cancers apart from liver cancer.
...
Sir Richard's views on the chemical were used by the manufacturers'
trade association to defend it for more than a decade, The Guardian said.
------ endquotes
How convenient that Sir Richard Doll uncovered the "true" cause of lung
cancer, tobacco smoke, instead of the products of his paymasters. First,
he was paid by the UK government to deflect the blame for the
astronomical rise in lung cancer rates in 1950s from the obvious
culprit, their atmospheric nuclear tests:
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/173601742/m/7541044041?r=5841016571#5841016571
and luckily, he "discovered" that it was actually the ancient medicinal
plant, tobacco, that was to blame, yeah, that's it. His "study" was
debunked as fraudelant early on by R. Fisher:
Fisher's papers on tobacco & cancer
http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/smoking.htm
http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher274.pdf
This amusing episode of the scientific fraud that started the whole
antismoking "science" was recounted by Johnstone & Finch in their review
article "The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking":
-------- quote --------
These strong opinions for and against smoking were not supported by much
evidence either way until 1950 when Richard Doll and Bradford Hill
showed that smokers seemed more likely to develop lung cancer. A
campaign was begun to limit smoking.
But Sir Ronald Fisher, arguably the greatest statistician of the 20th
century, had noticed a _bizarre anomaly_ [euphemism for 'gross
scientific fraud'] in their results. Doll and Hill had asked their
subjects if they inhaled. Fisher showed that men who inhaled were
significantly less likely to develop lung cancer than non-inhalers. As
Fisher said, "even equality would be a fair knock-out for the theory
that smoke in the lung causes cancer."
Doll and Hill decided to follow their preliminary work with a much
larger and protracted study. British doctors were asked to take part as
subjects. 40.000 volunteered and 20,000 refused. The relative health of
smokers, nonsmokers and particularly ex-smokers would be compared over
the course of future years.
In this trial smokers would no longer be asked whether they inhaled, in
spite of the earlier result. Fisher commented: "I suppose the subject of
inhaling had become distasteful to the research workers, and they just
wanted to hear as little about inhaling as possible". And: "Should not
these workers have let the world know not only that they had discovered
the cause of lung cancer (cigarettes) but also that they had discovered
the means of its prevention (inhaling cigarette smoke)? How had the MRC
[Medical Research Council] the heart to withhold this information from
the thousands who would otherwise die of lung cancer?"
http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
-------- endquote --------
Tobacco smoke being protective against cancerogenic effects of radiation
and industrial toxins exposures (e.g. see on stimulation of glutathione
production in smokers:
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/613606642/m/4851097471?r=6421028571#6421028571
),
it was natural that people exposed to such damages would pick up
smoking, hence the smoking was statistically correlated with the same
cancers that radiation and industrial cancerogens cause reliably in
animal experiments (while tobacco smoke, even at 1000s of cigarettes per
day couldn't cause those 'smoking related' cancers). This is no
different kind of correlation that one would find between headaches and
aspirin consumption. Even the statistical method of epidemiology, when
comparing people with the similar exposures, has shown strong protective
effects of tobacco smoke against radiation and industrial cancerogens
(asbestos, chloromethyl etc):
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_news&Number=295060804&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=-1#Post295060804
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=oti58d00&fmt=pdf&ref=results
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/liars.htm#lung
Naturally, Dr. Doll, shilling first for the government polluters then
for the chemical industry, inverted upside-down the causality of the
cancers, between their real causes (radiation & industrial toxins) and
the traditional herbal remedy, tobacco, that those the most exposed (and
genetically the most susceptible) instinctively used to alleviate the
symptoms of toxicity. So he blamed the folk remedy alleviating the toxic
effects of the exposures, hence, which will by necessity statistically
correlate with the same cancers, as being actually the cause of those
cancers. Ingenious old chap, that Sir Richard Doll. He struck a gold
vein with this flip-flop between the cause and the remedy, that served
beautifully his "research" (and his wallet) throughout his whole
"scientific" career. Amazing what few bucks from the devil mixed with
plenty of chutzpah can do for human creativity.
Although the few bits from the dark side of Sir Richard Doll is now
being "discovered" by the mainstream media after his death, his real
Faustian character was exposed more fully in an obscure journal years ago:
SIR RICHARD DOLL: A QUESTIONABLE PILLAR OF THE CANCER ESTABLISHMENT
by Martin Walker, The Ecologist, Vol 28, No. 2, March/April 1998.
http://www.familiesagainstcancer.org/?id=129
nightlight
analysis and critique of Sir Richard Doll, the father of antismoking
"science", by the organization Injurywatch which performed the research
(echoed in the short BBC article I posted earlier, which in retrospect
looks like a lame attempt at apologetics).
Sir Richard Doll was shown to be a complete scientific fraud of the most
deprived kind imaginable, as close to the the real life Dr. Faustus as
one can possibly be. None of that will surprise, of course Johnstone,
Finch, Colby, Whitby,... and others who have been saying the same about
his work and about the rest of antismoking "science" for years, since
Sir Doll struck his first deal with the 'dark side' in 1950s. It is one
Big Lie piled on top of the other, mile high, and that's the whole of
their so-called 'mountain of evidence' about the harmfulness of tobacco.
The full article and the complete report (PDF) are available at the
Injurywatch site:
--- Article:
Sir Richard Doll: the industry man: A consistent history of publicity
and payment-induced scientific perversion
Injurywatch discovers secret payments for anti-smoking cancer-link
Oxford academic Sir Richard Doll by asbestos and chemical industry
Injurywatch has found a series of secret payments from environmental
polluters to the leading Oxford University cancer researcher Sir Richard
Doll may have compromised his integrity. By shaping the epidemiological
evidence to fit the requirements of his paymasters and failing to
stimulate adequate health warnings, Doll's paid-for "evidence" may have
protected his proven paymasters in the chemical and asbestos industries
and led to the premature deaths of millions of people worldwide.
Cancer research hero Sir Richard Doll was lauded for being instrumental
in discovering the connection between smoking and lung cancer. With a
knighthood, an Oxford University building devoted to cancer research
named after him within his lifetime, freedom of the city of Oxford, a
seemingly unassailable reputation and international awards falling to
him much as apples fall from trees, Doll dominated the UK cancer
epidemiology scene for more than 50 years.
But two scientific papers, “The Causes of Cancer: Quantitative Estimates
of Avoidable Risks of Cancer in the United States Today,” (Journal of
the National Cancer Institute 66 (1981) which he wrote with Professor
Richard Peto and Effects of exposure to vinyl chloride. An assessment of
the evidence. Scand J Work Environ Health 14(2):61-78. Doll R. 1988.
which he wrote alone have long been regarded by leading scientists in
Sir Richard Doll's field of using skewed evidence which massively
underplay the risks and using parameters which are obviously wrong.
Perversely the 1981 US study which was supposed to cover all
environmental and work-related cancers, Doll specifically excluded
African Americans and anyone aged over 60 from the statistics when the
incidence is known to be higher among, manual workers, the poor and the old.
In Doll's 1998 study into vinyl chloride the same policy was followed:
Older workers (with heavy exposure) and plants regarded as particularly
dangerous were excluded, while young workers (with little/no exposure)
were included with the effect of downplaying the risk.
Now documents obtained by injurywatch from Doll's personal archive
reveal that Doll personally, and Green College, the Oxford college he
founded and where he installed his wife as warden, were receiving
substantial payments from both Turner and Newall, the notorious asbestos
company, Monsanto the American chemicals giant, and from the industry
body, the Chemical Manufacturers Association.
Specifically we can show:
* payments of £50,000 to Doll's Green College from Turner and
Newall, the asbestos company
* a thirty year financial relationship between Turner and Newall
and Sir Richard Doll
* payments of between £12,000 and £15,000 to Sir Richard Doll from
the Chemical Manufacturers' Association
* from 1976 to 2002 (and possibly later) payments to Sir Richard
Doll of between $1000 (increasing to $1500 a day in 1986) from Monsanto
Asbestos scandal
In 1982, following a television exposé which laid bare the dangers of
asbestos, Doll was wheeled out by T&N at factory meetings with workers
across the UK to reassure their staff that their asbestos exposure
danger was what he termed "a pretty outside chance."
In fact using Turner and Newall/Doll's own figures at the time, the
cancer risk incidence was 1 in 40 (2.5%) which is very high. But now the
incidence has been shown to be much higher. In the UK, between 1900 and
2000 people die each year from mesothlioma, a cancer solely caused by
exposure to asbestos fibre. The figure is doubled by other lung cancer
deaths caused by asbestos. The annual incidence is expected to escalate
with the yearly death rate rising until at least 2012.
Perhaps because of his financial relationship with Turner and Newall,
Doll consistently refused to testify on behalf of dying asbestos
plaintiffs or their bereaved families in civil litigation against
asbestos industries and indeed filed a sworn statement in U.S. courts in
support of T & N.
Indeed Doll expressed that the £50,000 payment was in "gratitude from
Turner and Newall for work I had undertaken on their behalf."
A year after Sir Richard Doll's death and only after a five year delay
in which many potential claimants died, a settlement was agreed on
thousands of Turner and Newall claims earlier in 2006. Many people with
a valid claim against the company will recieve as little as 10-20p in
the pound.
Monsanto
Furthermore injurywatch has discovered that Sir Richard Doll was
receiving $1000 a day from US chemical giant Monsanto from 1976 which
was increased to $1500 a day (£1000 a day at the then exchange rates) in
1986. Other documents reveal that Doll was paid this fee by Monsanto
until at least 2002.
The Health and Safety Executive still quotes the Doll/Peto 1981 study as
the basis for their "current best estimate of the proportion of cancer
deaths in Great Britain due to occupational exposures over the last few
decades as 4%, with an associated uncertainty range of 2% to 8%1 and
only now is work underway to seek to update it.
Doll/Peto was viewed as groundbreaking at the time in that it seemed to
prove that environmental and occupational causes of cancer represented
only 4% of total cancer mortality, when even consultants to the American
Chemical Council (previously known as the Chemical Manufacturer's
Association) had admitted that the incidence was probably 20%.
A further Doll article in 1988 Effects of Exposure to Vinyl Chloride,
reported that there was no significant risk associated with vinyl
chloride other than in the liver. It made no reference to payments he
was receiving at the time from the Chemical companies but has since been
frequently quoted in industry documentation. According to the ACC in
2001 in reference to the paper: "The world's leading researchers have
studied vinyl chloride and brain cancer and concluded that the evidence
does not support a link between brain cancer and vinyl chloride." They
did not add that the article had been reviewed by Ted Torkelson, medical
advisor to Dow and Geoffrey Paddle, another chemical industry funded medic.
"At the time many scientists were suspicious that the reports seemed to
be too pro-Industry" says Swedish cancer expert Dr Lennart Hardell ".
Many wondered if he had close links with Industry and were concerned
with some of his findings. Because his conclusions formed the basis for
health and safety guidelines and legislation many people have died
unnecessarily in my opinion"
Maybe people like the workers at the Vinatex PVC plant in Derbyshire. A
joint venture between US company Conoco and a now defunct British
company called Staveley Chemicals Ltd it opened in 1969 and converted
Vinyl Chloride Monomer to PVC.
By 1984 when the company went out of business dozens of Vinatex workers
exposed to Vinyl Chloride were either dead or dying. While Doll
concluded there was no significant risk associated with vinyl chloride
the reality was quite different. Research by Trade Unions in Derbyshire
estimate that about 40% of the 280 workers at the factory during its
fifteen year history are now dead, many from rare forms of cancer.
It is now emerged that the cost of Doll's 1988 review into the effects
of Vinyl Chloride had been paid by the Chemical Manufacturers
Association, with a significant part of the fee coming from ICI, then
the UK's largest vinyl chloride producer.
Significantly both Doll's 1981 research with Peto and his own work in
1988 continues to shape the cancer establishments' view: the now
somewhat jaded advertising slogan "Let's cure cancer in the Eighties"
was the ultimate embodiment of the Doll legacy which has seen millions
of pounds of taxpayers money and charitable donations poured into
seeking cancer "cures" when only minimal funding has been spent on
raising awareness of the need to prevent environmental and workplace
exposure.
Sir Richard Doll was closely connected with both the Imperial Cancer
Research Fund and Cancer Rearch and indeed the two, now merged, have
located their Cancer Research UK Epidemiology Unit (CEU) along side part
of the Department of Public Health and the University’s Clinical Trial
Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU) in the Richard Doll
Building.
On the basis of Doll/Peto's 4% figure the number of deaths attributable
to occupational/environmental cancer in the UK would be around 6,000 - a
significant number at double the number of annual deaths on the road and
twenty times those killed in workpace accidents. But from the time of
the release of the original paper the research appeared low to other
researchers in the area.
Doll/Peto admitted their researches were only based on best guesses,
noting that it was "impossible to make any precise attempt at the
proportion of cancers that are attributable to hazards at work."
But from the outset researchers expressed surprise at some of the
methodology used in the study.
Researchers noted that the Doll/Peto estimates were based on mortality
(deaths), rather than morbidity (diagnosis) and were limited to analysis
of those under 65 when cancer is primarily a disease of the old (recent
figures showing that cancer deaths under 60 amounted to only 26% of the
total). The long latency of several environmental diseases - most
notably the asbestos cancer mesothelioma - which can take 50 years to
develop were thus largely excluded from the study. It currently kills
1,900 people a year in the UK - almost a third of Doll/Peto's estimate
of likely total cancer deaths each year.
Furthermore Doll/Peto only took into account 16 carcinogenic substances
when the International Agency on Research on Cancer classifies 89
substances as definite carcinogens, 64 as probable carcinogens and 264
as possible human carcinogens.
The study excluded African Americans from analysis, despite their being
over-represented in hazardous trades, and women were excluded by
concentrating on male career sectors, when increasingly women were
present in the workplace.
Dr James Brophy, Executive Director of OHCOW, a Canadian occupational
cancer clinic, sais of the study "Companies were ecstatic because it
posed the whole cancer thing politically as a matter of lifestyle. That
had consequences for prevention in that it effectively ended any chance
of a structured and well resourced strategy to combat cancer worldwide."
Another major review of the environmental and occupational causes of
cancer produced in 2005 concluded "it is difficult to estimate the
difficulty of Doll and Peto's views but their 1981 article had been
cited inover 440 other scientific articles by 2004. More importantly, it
has been cited repeatedly by commentators who argue that 'cleaning up
the environment' is not going to make much difference in cancer rates."2
The study, co-authored by Dr Richard Clapp of the University of Boston
Medical School estimates that the occupational cancer incidence figure
given by Doll/Peto probably underestimates the real figure by a factor
of between 2 and 4, suggesting the real figure for occupational cancer
is between 8% and 16%.
...
Dr Clapp says “I believe occupational lung cancer is the leading
work-related cancer followed by bladder cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma,
and leukaemia. Our review paper gives the scientific studies which back
this up, along with the various exposures that cause these cancers.
“For example, for lung cancer, we review the evidence that metals,
solvents, ionising radiation, reactive chemicals like BCME,
environmental tobacco smoke, air pollution, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, pesticides and fibres like asbestos and silica cause lung
cancer. This adds up to a substantial burden, and some of these
exposures - like asbestos and ionising radiation in underground miners -
act synergistically with cigarette smoke and vastly increase lung cancer
risk.”
He added “there is no way to put a precise number on this because cancer
is such a ‘multifactorial’ disease and even small exposures can be a
critical piece of the pie when lots of people are exposed. The reason we
have so much cancer is because we are exposed to so many carcinogens; we
need to turn that around both by producing and using fewer carcinogenic
materials and not exposing workers and others to them.”
Dr Samuel Epstein, emeritus professor of environmental and occupational
medicine at the University of Illinois at Chicago and Chairman of the US
based Cancer Prevention Coalition, puts the occupational figure in the
Clapp range, saying “based on minimal estimates” occupational
carcinogenic exposures are responsible for 10 per cent of overall cancer
mortality adding that for certain occupational exposures, mortality
rates are much higher.
He said “lifestyle academics” including Sir Richard Doll “have
consciously or unconsciously become the well-touted and enthusiastic
mouthpiece for industry interests, urging regulatory inaction and public
complacency”, adding the “puristic pretensions of ‘the lifestylers’ for
critical objectivity are only exceeded by their apparent indifference to
or rejection of a steadily accumulating body of information on the
permeation of the environment and workplace with industrial carcinogens
and the impact of such involuntary exposures on human health.”
According to Epstein, any adherence to the Doll/Peto figures is folly
because their paper “excluded from analysis people over the age of 65
and blacks, just those groups with the highest and increasing cancer
mortality rates. Not content with such manipulation, they claimed that
occupation was only responsible for 4 per cent of all cancers, without
apparent consideration of a wide range of recent studies dealing with
the carcinogenic effects of such exposures… The wild 4 per cent guess
was matched by ‘guesstimates’ that diet was determinant in some 35 per
cent of all cancers.”
HSE's reaction
More than 35 years on, and despite a plethora of scientific studies
showing the extent of hazardous environmental and chemical cancer risks,
HSE still broadly accept the Doll/Peto findings and have failed to push
the danger in the workplace message.
Occupational cancer remains a low priority, a position in the nation’s
public health priorities that can be traced back to Doll/Peto. And it is
a low priority also reflected in the approach of health organisations
other than the Health and Safety Executive. Cancer Research UK notes on
its website: “Most known occupational carcinogens are either banned or
well regulated within the UK and the majority of occupation related
cancers diagnosed in the UK today are the result of people being exposed
more than ten years ago”.
In fact, regulation has not been a cancer cure. Unlike the case of
infectious diseases, where a response is frequently swift and draconian,
there are typically long delays between the identification of a
carcinogenic agent and adoption of adequate measures of prevention. Even
then, measures are usually late and incomplete, and will leave a
generation to await their fate as a result of prior exposures. Asbestos
and ionising radiation are two clear examples. Contrast the decades of
occupational health inaction to the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in
2001, where the army was deployed and a national campaign was mobilised
to deal with a non-fatal animal disease because it posed a commercial
but absolutely no human health risk.
Instead, the assumption that it is “the dose the makes the poison” has
been behind a piecemeal and slow, incremental reduction in workplace
exposure limits, for workplaces where carcinogens are handled, quite
literally, in industrial quantities. For many substances this presumed
dose-response relationship is dangerous flawed.
The asbestos related cancer mesothelioma is a case in point, occurring
now in people who had only incidental exposure to asbestos. Only a
handful of workplace substances have ever been banned on grounds of
carcinogenicity. A UK ban on asbestos - the most prolific ever
industrial killer which may claim 10 million lives before it is banned
worldwide - only took effect in 1999. An early, precautionary move to
safer alternatives would have saved millions. Commercial interests
ensured that did not happen.
Injurywatch's reaction
• Occupational cancer prevention should be recognised by the government
as a major public health priority and should be allocated resources
accordingly.
• A national occupational cancer and carcinogens awareness campaign
should be launched as a matter of urgency.
• The Health and Safety Executive should convene a tripartite working
party, including representatives of unions, health and safety campaign
organisations and occupational disease victims’ and advocacy
organisations, to review its occupational cancer strategy.
• Wherever possible, IARC Group 1 and Group 2A carcinogens should be
targeted for “sunsetting”, a phase out within a designated timeframe, to
be replaced by safer alternatives.
• Toxics Use Reduction legislation, already used successful in some US
jurisdictions, should be introduced to encourage the use of the safest
suitable substances and processes. The precautionary principle should be
applied to substances suspected of causing cancer in humans.
• A national system of occupational health records should be developed
to ensure adequate recording of workplace exposures and other
occupational cancer risk factors. Employers must have a duty to inform
any workers of their exposures to known or suspected workplace cancer
risks and carcinogens.
• A National Exposure Database should be created.
• The Health and Safety Executive should provide resources for training
of union safety reps in “lay epidemiology”, techniques for the early
recognition of work-related diseases, including cancer.
• The UK should implement properly the European Union law requiring
workers to have access to occupational health services.
• The government Industrial Injuries Benefit Scheme should be revised
and extended to include a wider range of occupational cancers in it
scope. There should be a consideration of the introduction of a
“rebuttal presumption” of work-causation for cancers with an established
association with work.
--- side column chronology:
Sir Richard Doll: the industry man: A consistent history of publicity
and payment-induced scientific perversion
* In 1976, in spite of well-documented concerns on the risks of
fluoridation of drinking water with industrial wastes, Doll declared
that it was "unethical" not to do so.
* In his 1981 report on causes of cancer mortality in the U.S, in
the absence of any scientific evidence, Doll trivialized the role of
environmental and occupational causes of cancer. He claimed that
occupation was responsible for 4% of mortality rather than at least 20%,
as previously admitted by consultants to the American Industrial Health
Council of the Chemical Manufacturer's Association.
* In 1982, as a longstanding consultant to Turner & Newall (T&N),
the leading U.K. asbestos corporation, Doll gave a speech to workers at
one of their largest plants. This speech was in response to a TV exposé
that forced the Government to reduce occupational exposure limits to an
allegedly low level (1f/cc). Doll reassured the workers that the new
exposure limit would reduce their lifetime risk of dying from cancer to
"a pretty outside chance" of 1 in 40 (2.5%). This, however, is an
extremely high risk. Doll also declined to testify on behalf of dying
plaintiffs or their bereaved families in civil litigation against
asbestos industries. Furthermore, Doll filed a sworn statement in U.S.
courts in support of T & N
* In 1983, in support of U.S. and U.K. petrochemical companies,
Doll claimed that lead in petroleum vehicle exhaust was not correlated
with increased blood lead levels and learning disabilities in children.
Doll's research had been generously funded by General Motors.
* In 1985, The U.K. Society for the Prevention of Asbestos and
Industrial Disease (SPAID) criticized Doll for manipulating scientific
information in order to assure us that only 1/100,000 people working in
an office containing undamaged asbestos risked disease and death.
* In 1985, Doll wrote to the judge of an Australian Royal
Commission, investigating claims of veterans who had developed cancer
following exposure to the herbicide Agent Orange in Vietnam, in strong
support of the defence claims of its major manufacturer, Monsanto. He
stated that, "TCDD (dioxin), which has been postulated to be a dangerous
contaminant of the herbicide, is at the most, only weakly and
inconsistently carcinogenic in animal experiments". In fact, dioxin is
the most potent known tested carcinogen, apart from confirmatory
epidemiological evidence. Doll's defense, resulting in denial of the
veterans' claims, was publicized by Monsanto in full-page advertisements
in worldwide major newspapers. Injurywatch has established payments of
$1000 a day (increased to $1500 a day in 1986) were made by Monsanto to
Doll for more than thirty years.
* In 1987, Doll dismissed evidence of childhood leukemia clusters
near 15 U.K. nuclear power plants. Faced with evidence of a 21% excess
of lymphoid leukemia in children and young adults living within ten
miles of these plants, Doll advanced the novel hypothesis that "over
clean" homes of nuclear workers rendered their children susceptible to
unidentified leukemia viruses.
* In 1988, Doll claimed that the excess mortality from leukemia and
multiple myeloma among serviceman exposed to radiation from atom bomb
tests was a "statistical quirk". Doll revisited this study in 1993 and
eliminated the majority of cases which developed within two years of
exposure, claiming that such short latency disproved any possible causal
relation.
* In a 1988 review, on behalf of the U.S. Chemical Manufacturer's
Association, Doll claimed that there was no significant evidence
relating occupational exposure to vinyl chloride and brain cancer (62).
However, this claim was based on an aggregation of several studies, in
some of which the evidence for such association was statistically
significant.
* In a 1992 letter to a major U.K. newspaper, Doll pleaded the
public to trust industry and scientists and to ignore warnings by the
"large and powerful anti-science mafia" of risks from dietary residues
of carcinogenic pesticides.
* In a January 2000 deposition, Doll admitted to donations from the
chemical industry to Green College, Oxford, where he had been the
presidential "Warden". He also admitted that the largest "charitable"
donation (£50,000) came from Turner & Newall, U.K.'s leading asbestos
multinational corporation, "in recognition of all the work I had done
for them."Documents obtained by injurywatch document a single payment
from Turner and Newall to Green College of £50,000. Other documents show
Doll enjoyed a personal financial relationship with Turner and Newall
which lasted more than thirty years.
• Many cancers were missed entirely from their analysis or
designated not work-related, including melanoma and breast cancer, the
most common cancer among women.
• Overall risks to women would be under-estimated because of their
relatively late entry to the industrial workforce in large numbers.
• Prostate cancer, the most prevalent cancer among men, was only
considered a risk for cadmium-exposed workers. Studies have linked
prostate cancer to exposure to pesticides, metalworking fluids and other
occupational exposures.
• The study only included 16 substances or industries thought to be
carcinogenic to humans, a small fraction the true number.
• The report only considered mortality (deaths) and not morbidity
(number of cases), which is a considerably higher figure – in the UK
even Doll/Peto’s 4 per cent figure would indicate around 11,000 cases a
year.
• Excluding cancers in those over 65 years of age drastically
top-sliced the number of cancers considered, this measure alone possibly
reducing the work cancer toll to less than half the true figure.
• Cancers in those working in small industries were excluded.
• The analysis excluded African-Americans, a group over-represented
in high risk jobs and with higher and increasing cancer rates.
• The analysis missed out those with indirect exposures to
carcinogens, for example maintenance workers in contact with asbestos.
These jobs are now among the highest risk for asbestos cancer in the UK.
• The study only considered human evidence – but for some
substances and industries in the rapidly expanding job market the
studies hadn’t be done, and for many newer exposures and industries
conclusive human evidence just wasn’t yet available, but there was
strong suggestive evidence from the more readily available toxicological
and animal studies. As a result many cancers caused or related to
workplace exposures would have switched columns to lifestyle, smoking or
other causation categories.• The report acknowledged but failed to
account for the interaction of exposures, for example the greatly
increased risk of lung cancer in smokers who are also exposed to
asbestos. Most cancers are likely to result from a combination of
exposures or circumstances.
• Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, thought to be one of the most common
work-related cancers, was classified as having only a slight risk
association impacting on relatively few workers.
---------
Citations
---------
1. http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/cancer.htm
2. Richard Clapp, Genevieve Howe, Molly Jacobs Lefevre. Environmental
and cccupational causes of cancer: A review of recent Scientific
literature. Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, University of
Massachusetts Lowell, September 2005.
• Executive summary
http://www.sustainableproduction.org/cancer-summary.shtml
• Full report [pdf]
http://www.sustainableproduction.org/downloads/Causes%20of%20Cancer.pdf
shakenbake
> even Doll/Peto's 4 per cent figure would indicate around 11,000 cases a
> year.
>
> · Excluding cancers in those over 65 years of age drastically
> top-sliced the number of cancers considered, this measure alone possibly
> reducing the work cancer toll to less than half the true figure.
>
> · Cancers in those working in small industries were excluded.
>
> · The analysis excluded African-Americans, a group over-represented
> in high risk jobs and with higher and increasing cancer rates.
>
> · The analysis missed out those with indirect exposures to
> carcinogens, for example maintenance workers in contact with asbestos.
> These jobs are now among the highest risk for asbestos cancer in the UK.
>
Babs, Bitch;
What do you say to this?
Go drink another coffee and watch your liver get cancer, according to
the 'experts'.
shakenbake
shakenbake wrote:
> >
> Babs, Bitch;
>
> What do you say to this?
>
> Go drink another coffee and watch your liver get cancer, according to
> the 'experts'.
Actually, it was other forms of cancer that are caused by drinking
coffee. At least, I am MAN enough to admit any mistakes I may make,
unlike yourself.
here is the link.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1986413,00.html
Enjoy your acrylamides, Babbsy
teenpen...@lycos.com
THE LEGENDARY QUEEN OF THE ASC, THE FAV.
A GREAT DAY IN NYC, SO PERFECT THE WEATHER.
SO HELP ME ENJOY WITH A APPROPRIATE SONG.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbXnoneLnGY
Home in the city
Home in the city
Home isn't pretty
Ain't no home for me
Home in the darkness
Home on the highway
Home isn't my way
Home will never be
Burn out the day
Burn out the night
I can't see no reason to put up a fight
I'm living for giving the Styleman his due
And I'm burning, I'm burning, I'm burning for you
I'm burning, I'm burning, I'm burning for you
Teen is the essence
Teen is the season
Teen ain't no reason
Got no Teen to slow
Teen everlasting
Teen to play besides
Teen ain't on my side
Teen I'll never know
Burn out the day
Burn out the night
I'm not the one to tell you what's wrong or what's right
I've seen signs of what (freezing their eyes) went through
Well I'm burning, I'm burning, I'm burning for you
I'm burning, I'm burning, I'm burning for you
Burn out the day
Burn out the night
I can't see no reason to put up a fight
I'm living for giving the Styleman his due
And I'm burning, I'm burning, I'm burning for you [repeat]
shakenbake
> even Doll/Peto's 4 per cent figure would indicate around 11,000 cases a
> year.
>
> · Excluding cancers in those over 65 years of age drastically
> top-sliced the number of cancers considered, this measure alone possibly
> reducing the work cancer toll to less than half the true figure.
>
> · Cancers in those working in small industries were excluded.
>
> · The analysis excluded African-Americans, a group over-represented
> in high risk jobs and with higher and increasing cancer rates.
>
> · The analysis missed out those with indirect exposures to
> carcinogens, for example maintenance workers in contact with asbestos.
> These jobs are now among the highest risk for asbestos cancer in the UK.
>
Babs, Bitch;
What do you have to say about this? Are you still going to give us
that line about posting all the links we want?
Why don't you go and have another coffee, addict, and watch your liver
and pancreas deteriorate with the caffeine and all the other nice stuff
in your coffee?
nightlight
> Babs, Bitch;
>
> What do you have to say about this? Are you still going to give us
> that line about posting all the links we want?
>
> Why don't you go and have another coffee, addict, and watch your liver
> and pancreas deteriorate with the caffeine and all the other nice stuff
> in your coffee?
>
It appears some nerve was tocuhed in some posts here, since the Pharma
shills are sending in their pedophile troops to stink up the place.
Since this thread got hit 1 minute before the other three, it must be
the exposure of that fraud Sir Richard Doll, the father of antismoking
"science" and Dr. Faustus wannabe (may his Master keep him very warm),
that ticked them off.
Robert
wrote:
>Sir Richard Doll was shown to be a complete scientific fraud of the most
>deprived kind imaginable, as close to the the real life Dr. Faustus as
>one can possibly be. None of that will surprise, of course Johnstone,
>Finch, Colby, Whitby,... and others who have been saying the same about
>his work and about the rest of antismoking "science" for years, since
>Sir Doll struck his first deal with the 'dark side' in 1950s. It is one
>Big Lie piled on top of the other, mile high, and that's the whole of
>their so-called 'mountain of evidence' about the harmfulness of tobacco.
>Injurywatch has found a series of secret payments from environmental
>polluters to the leading Oxford University cancer researcher Sir Richard
>Doll may have compromised his integrity. By shaping the epidemiological
>evidence to fit the requirements of his paymasters and failing to
>stimulate adequate health warnings, Doll's paid-for "evidence" may have
>protected his proven paymasters in the chemical and asbestos industries
>and led to the premature deaths of millions of people worldwide.
It is ironic and tragic that while antismokers were using junk science to prevent 3,000
deaths from second-hand smoke, a complete fiction, the same junk science was causing
100,000 real deaths from synthetic chemicals and radioactivity. Both are caused by
misusing science to CONFIRM a desired conclusion rather than CHALLENGE its truth. Junk
scientists are the same as faith healers, who kill people by telling them what the want to
hear. That's not science; that's magic.
damanwi...@lycos.com
Marc Schneiderman
<nightli...@skip.omegapoint.com> wrote:
>
>Sir Richard Doll, the British "scientist" who created the antismoking
>"science" out of thin air, after his "discovery" of tobacco smoke as a
>cause of lung cance, is finally exposed in the mainstream media, after
>his death, as a paid shill for the chemical industry, working hard for
>decades to deflect the blame for cancers from his paymasters:
As if the NIH scientists aren't paid shills. Brother.
CigarBaron
Marc Schneiderman
wrote:
>
>Actually, it was other forms of cancer that are caused by drinking
>coffee. At least, I am MAN enough to admit any mistakes I may make,
>unlike yourself.
Actually coffee, despite it's potential, hasn't ever been implicated
in the development of any cancer. There are anecdotes and substances,
i.e., acrylamide that have been implicated in animal studies, no
human studies have ever emerged to associate coffee and human cancer.
And, BTW, many have tried.
CigarBaron
Robert Broughton
>
> It is ironic and tragic that while antismokers were using junk science to
> prevent 3,000 deaths from second-hand smoke, a complete fiction,
Fortunately, deluded addicts like you don't have much influence over public
policy.
--
Bob Broughton
http://broughton.ca/
Vancouver, BC, Canada
"It should be legal for a private maternity ward to permit smoking."
- Chuck Wright, May 22, 2006
nightlight
Sorry, this thread is about health benefits and joy of tobacco smoking,
not poetry.
Love the teens
Marc Schneiderman
<rbro...@broug8hton.ca> wrote:
>Fortunately, deluded addicts like you don't have much influence over public
>policy.
>
>--
>Bob Broughton
Unfortunately deluded people like you do.
CigarBaron
teenpen...@lycos.com
TO THE FAV, 12 DAYS TILL OUR 26TH TOGETHER.
She was only fifteen, only fifteen
But I loved her so
But she was young to fall in love
And I was too old to know
We'd laugh and we'd sing, and do funny things
And it made our hearts glow
But she was young to fall in love
And I was too old to know
I give my heart so fast, it never will happen again
But I was a mere man of twenty six, I've aged a year since then
She was only fifteen, only fifteen
Oooh with eyes that would glow
But she young to fall in love
And I was too old to know
So why did I give my heart so fast, it never will happen again
But I was a mere man of twenty six, I've aged a year since then
Now she was only fifteen, only fifteen
Oooh but I loved that girl so
But she was so young to love
And I was too old to know
Yes she was young to fall in love
And I, I was too old, I was much too old to know
nightlight
Sorry, but this thread is about the therapeutic effects
and many other wholesome properties of the sacred medicinal
herb tobacco, the gift of gods. For details see:
== Dr. W. T. Whitby "Smoking is Good for You" (online book)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/34b73a743b424abe
== Lauren A. Colby "In Defense of Smokers" (online book)
http://www.lcolby.com/
== J.R. Johnstone, P.D. Finch "The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking"
http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
== Father of antismoking "science" Sir Richard Doll exposed as
scientific fraud and a master of blame-the-victim strategy
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/a5941dd832b3c36d
== Tobacco and other herbal & traditional remedies under attack
of pharmaceutical industry
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/7b173004cc986af1
== Money trail behind antismoking swindle
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/18ce47ecd9c15eda
== Robert Wood Johnson Foundation buying antismoking "science"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/b3b77660aec7b2ca
== Effects of antismoking on human brain
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/a27152b2c0797b36
== Antidotes for toxic "death curse" of antismoking "science"
* Smoking is Protective Against Lung Cancer
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/173601742/m/7541044041
* Getting Organized
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/866605742/m/2771083571
* Yellow Star Armbands
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/992603742/m/3921025671
* Red pill for antismoking propaganda matrix
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/613606642/m/4851097471?r=7751075571#7751075571
* Smoking as immune system exercise (glutathione production)
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/613606642/m/4851097471?r=6421028571#6421028571
nightlight
Sorry, but this thread is about the therapeutic effects
and many other wholesome properties of the sacred medicinal
herb tobacco, the gift of gods. For details see:
== Dr. W. T. Whitby "Smoking is Good for You" (online book)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/34b73a743b424abe
== Lauren A. Colby "In Defense of Smokers" (online book)
http://www.lcolby.com/
== J.R. Johnstone, P.D. Finch "The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking"
http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
== Father of antismoking "science" Sir Richard Doll exposed as
scientific fraud and a master of blame-the-victim strategy
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/a5941dd832b3c36d
== Tobacco and other herbal & traditional remedies under attack
by pharmaceutical industry
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/7b173004cc986af1
== Money trail behind antismoking swindle
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/18ce47ecd9c15eda
== Robert Wood Johnson Foundation buying antismoking "science"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/b3b77660aec7b2ca
== Effects of antismoking on human brain
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/a27152b2c0797b36
== Antidotes for toxic "death curse" of antismoking "science"
* Smoking is Protective Against Lung Cancer
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/173601742/m/7541044041
* Getting Organized
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/866605742/m/2771083571
* Yellow Star Armbands
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/992603742/m/3921025671
* Red pill for antismoking propaganda matrix
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/613606642/m/4851097471?r=7751075571#7751075571
* Smoking as immune system exercise (glutathione production)
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/613606642/m/4851097471?r=6421028571#6421028571
style...@lycos.com
On the first day of Christmas,
Styleman sent to me
A law to marry a teen.
nightlight
effects and many other wholesome properties of the sacred
== Dr. W. T. Whitby "Smoking is Good for You" (online book)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/34b73a743b424abe
== Lauren A. Colby "In Defense of Smokers" (online book)
http://www.lcolby.com/
== J.R. Johnstone, P.D. Finch "The Scientific Scandal of Antismoking"
http://members.iinet.com.au/~ray/TSSOASb.html
== Father of antismoking "science" Sir Richard Doll exposed as
scientific fraud and a master of blame-the-victim strategy
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/a5941dd832b3c36d
== Tobacco and other herbal & traditional remedies under attack
by pharmaceutical industry
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/7b173004cc986af1
== Money trail behind antismoking swindle
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/18ce47ecd9c15eda
== Robert Wood Johnson Foundation buying antismoking "science"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/b3b77660aec7b2ca
== Effects of antismoking on human brain
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.smokers/browse_frm/thread/a27152b2c0797b36
== Antidotes for toxic "death curse" of antismoking voodoo "science"
* Smoking is Protective Against Lung Cancer
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/173601742/m/7541044041
* Getting Organized
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/866605742/m/2771083571
* Yellow Star Armbands
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/992603742/m/3921025671
* Red pill for antismoking propaganda matrix
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/613606642/m/4851097471?r=7751075571#7751075571
* Smoking as immune system exercise (glutathione production)
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/613606642/m/4851097471?r=6421028571#6421028571
* Antismoking scientists trying to figure out why is tobacco so healthy:
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/992603742/m/3921025671?r=6291068771#6291068771
* Smoking protects against Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, schizophrena
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB19&Number=13834&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1#Post13964
* Lung cancer thread
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.stop-smoking/browse_frm/thread/fe07df9886765230/4d5f096d22874e7c?hl=en#4d5f096d22874e7c
styl...@lycos.com
On the first day of Christmas
Styleman sent to me
A law to marry a teen.
On the second day of Christmas
Styleman sent to me:
2 style filled cities
and Hutch and Lee making love in a Tree