posted May 20, 2021 10:49 PM
The EPA's ETS Lies
The EPA's report on secondhand smoke was written via illegal passthroughs to handpicked anti-smoker stooges, under the political protection of a crony of former President George H.W. Bush. They committed scientific fraud to lie that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmokers - and the media have covered it up.
The mechanisms by which certain infections cause cancer are KNOWN -- in stark contrast to the health establishment's speculations about chemical carcinogens, where a mechanism has still not been definitively identified after more than 50 years. Yet the anti-smokers simply ignore them! This is deliberate and egregious scientific fraud. The anti-smokers use all the same tricks of confounding by infection that they use to falsely blame active smoking, to falsely blame passive smoking as well. Because people exposed to secondhand smoke are more similar to smokers socially and economically than those not exposed, their exposure to pathogens is more like smokers' exposure as well. This is why the supposed passive smoking risks are so vastly disproportionate to the small amount of cigarette smoke they breathe compared to smokers, and why there are discrepancies between studies.This is the fundamental and inexcusable flaw of every single ETS study to date, and hyping quality differences between them is merely distinguishing between bad and worse. Studies based on lifestyle questionnaires are not good science, period. The best that can be said for any of them is that they implicate confounding by infection as the cause of positive results, but they are worthless to identify the specific confounder. Only studies on the role of infection are likely to do this, and trumping up defective studies as supposedly definitive proof instead of insisting on these kind of studies just allows the health establishment to get away with using fraudulent studies. The known potential infectious confounders include human papillomavirus, adenovirus, and Epstein-Barr virus.
Confounding By Infection False smoking risks are generated by ignoring the role of infection.
HPV Causes Lung Cancer HPV DNA has been detected in 24.5% of 4508 lung cancers [2009] and the same high risk types implicated in other squamous cell cancers have been identified. If HPV is the true cause of just 20% of lung cancers, this would equal over 30,000 US cases, or ten times the number of pretended secondhand smoke deaths.
Adenoviruses Are Implicated In Lung Cancer Via "hit-and-run" transformation, even tumors that lack any detectable virus-specific molecules may be of viral origin.
EBV Causes Lymphoepithelioma-like Lung Carcinoma It has a predeliction for young nonsmoking Asians.
The Lie That p53 Mutations Are the Mechanism Behind Lung Cancer Viruses can disable its function without mutations.
The EPA's ETS page, "Setting the Record Straight: Secondhand Smoke is a Preventable Health Risk," (EPA Document Number 402-F-94-005, June 1994) fixates on the tobacco industry's weak so-called criticisms because these are an anti-smoker straw man. The tobacco industry has been controlled by the anti-smokers all along, with anti-smoker stooges on the Board of Directors of Philip Morris (The "Power Elite" Controls Both Sides), and anti-smokers directing the research funding of the Council for Tobacco Research (The CTR Was A Lasker Loot-A-Thon). At all times, the tobacco industry has slavishly adhered to the health establishment's dogmas of the primary emphasis on blaming lifestyle and chemical carcinogenesis, and its hostility to the infection hypothesis.
"Setting the Record Straight" / US Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA report reviewers were a stacked deck
It should come as no surprise that the 18 members of the Science Advisory Board and consultants who reviewed and approved the Environmental Protection Agency's infamous report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders," were a stacked deck of Lasker syndicate true believers. Their published work encompassed only non-infectious etiologies such as air pollution, particulates, ozone, fibers, radon, aerosols, diet, dust and miscellaneous chemicals, with a pharmacologist, a toxicologist, a statistician, and a building engineer thrown in. Not one of them demonstrated any qualifications or even interest in the role of infection in the diseases they were intent on blaming upon secondhand cigarette smoke.
The reviewers (Referred to by the EPA as "Members of the SAB's Indoor Air Quality and Total Human Exposure Committee")
Acknowledgements / US Environmental Protection Agency (pdf, 20 pp)
Morton Lippmann (Chairman)
Dr. Morton Lippmann, Professor of Medicine, Chief, Division of Clinical Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics, University of California - San Francisco
Search Lippmann M / PubMed
Jan AJ Stolwijk (Vice Chairman)
Dr. Jan Stolwijk, Professor, School of Medicine, Dept. of Epidemiology & Public Health, Yale University. Stolwijk was associate director of the John Bartlett Pierce Laboratory at Yale University from 1974 to 1989. He was a member of the anti-smokers' "National Council for Clean Indoor Air" that was set up in 1986.
Stolwijk said, "I might say that the committee had no dissenting elements in it. It was a unanimous decision to go along and recommend the acceptance of the second version of the document as it now exists." (EPA Scientific Advisory Board Experience, by Jan Stolwijk. Panel on "Environmental Tobacco Smoke," chaired by Ernst L. Wynder of the American Health Foundation, July 15, 1993, pages 7-11.) Of course that is because these flunkies were picked because they all thought the same way and could be counted on to go along in the first place.
Stolwijk 1993 / UCSF (pdf, 32 pp)
Joan M. Daisey
Senior Scientist, Indoor Environment Program, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Search: Daisey JM / PubMed
Timothy Larson
Dr. Timothy Larson, Environmental Science and Engineering Program, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Washington - Seattle
Search: Larson TV / PubMed
Victor Laties
Dr. Victor Laties, Prof. of Toxicology, Environmental Health Science Center, Univ. of Rochester School of Medicine
Search: Laties VG / PubMed
Paul Lioy
Dr. Paul Lioy, Dept. of Environmental & Community Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson School of Medicine. He was also a member of the anti-smokers' "National Council for Clean Indoor Air" in 1986.
Search: Lioy P / PubMed
Jonathan M. Samet
Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, Prof. of Medicine, Dept. of Medicine, Univ. of New Mexico School of Medicine
Samet was a member of the clique behind A. Judson Wells, whose claims that passive smoking caused 46,000 deaths in nonsmokers were published in Environment International 1988; in 1998, he was the anti-smokers' star perjuror at the Minnesota tobacco trial; in 2002, he was Chairman of the committee which concocted IARC Monograph 83 on smoking and passive smoking; in 2004, he was Senior Scientific Editor of the Surgeon General Report; and in 2005, he testified for the government in the US Department of Justice lawsuit against the tobacco industry. The attorneys for the tobacco industry never challenged Samet even about obvious lies, such as blaming tobacco smoke for cervical cancer that is caused by HPV, or for ulcers and stomach cancer caused by Helicobacter pylori.
Jerome J. Wesolowski
Dr. Jerome J. Wesolowski, Chief, Air & Industrial Hygiene Laboratory, California Dept. of Health
Search: Wesolowski JJ / PubMed
James E. Woods, Jr.
Dr. James E. Woods, Jr. is listed as Professor of Building Construction, College of Architecture and Urban Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He was also a member of the Science Advisory Board of the tobacco industry's Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR), along with EPA SAB Chairman Morton Lippmann.
Consultants
Neal Benowitz
Dr. Neal Benowitz, Prof. of Medicine, Chief, Div. of Clinical Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics, Univ. of California - San Francisco
Search: Benowitz NL / PubMed
William J. Blot
Dr. William J. Blot, National Cancer Institute
Search: Blot WJ / PubMed
David Burns
Dr. David Burns, Assoc. Prof. of Medicine, Dept. of Medicine, Univ. of California - San Diego Medical Center. Burns also testified for the government in the US Department of Justice lawsuit against the tobacco industry.
Search: Burns DM / PubMed
Delbert Eatough
Dr. Delbert Eatough, Prof. of Chemistry, Brigham Young University
Search: Eatough D / PubMed
S. Katherine Hammond
Dr. S. Katherine Hammond, Assoc. Prof., Environmental Health Sciences Program, Dept. of Family & Community Medicine, Univ. of Massachusetts Medical School
Search: Hammond SK / PubMed
Hammond CV, 1994 (redacted) / UCSF (pdf, 18 pp)
Geoffrey C. Kabat
Dr. Geoffrey Kabat, Senior Epidemiologist, American Health Foundation
Search: Kabat G / PubMed
Michael Lebowitz
Dr. Michael Lebowitz, Prof. of Internal Medicine, Univ. of Arizona College of Medicine, Div. of Respiratory Sciences
Search: Lebowitz MD / PubMed
Howard Rockette
Dr. Howard Rockette, Prof. of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Univ. of Pittsburgh
Search: Rockette H / PubMed
Scott T. Weiss
Dr. Scott T. Weiss, Channing Laboratory, Harvard Univ. School of Medicine
And, in 1989, Samet, Leaderer, Lioy and Weiss all worked together on a project for the Health Effects Institute.
The Environmental Tobacco Smoke Review Panel Meeting of the Indoor Air Quality and Total Human Exposure Committee of the EPA Science Advisory Board, July 21, 1992.
Jennifer Jinot of the EPA whines, "I, personally, resent the implication that we perverted science for political purposes. If this were the case, it wouldn't have taken 4 years to do this report, and I know we took great pains to do a good job." (Panel on Environmental Tobacco Smoke, chaired by Ernst L. Wynder of the American Health Foundation, July 15, 1993.) Well, Jenny, I personally resent having mentally inbred hand-picked flunkies rubber-stamp a corrupt report that was actually written by other hand-picked flunkies, falsely accusing smokers of killing nonsmokers so you can take away our freedom by fraud and deceit.
Jinot, 1993 / UCSF (pdf, 32 pp)
1984: Anti-smoker corruption at EPA begins: James L. Repace
Before the ETS risk assessment had even begun, the New York Times proclaimed that "A study by the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 500 to 5,000 nonsmokers die each year of lung cancer caused by others' cigarettes. The study says that 'passive' tobacco smoke is the country's most dangerous airborne carcinogen, even if the lower figure of 500 deaths is used." The "study" was conducted by James L. Repace, "a physicist and policy analyst in the environmental agency's Office of Air and Radiation, and Alfred H. Lowrey, a research chemist in the Laboratory for the Structure of Matter at the Naval Research Laboratory." Both were incompetent ideologues. Surgeon General C. Koop had proclaimed the 'evidence' to be "very solid" back in May. It was based on a 1980 study of Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, and Hirayama's studies in Japan. William D. Toohey of the Tobacco Institute called it a "house of cards." (E.P.A. Study Links Deaths Of Nonsmokers to Cigarette. By Irvin Molotsky. New York Times, Nov. 3, 1984.) The level of Repace's incompetence was demonstrated by his belief that incinerator emissions were an important cause of stomach cancer. (Letter. Sludge and Health, by James L. Repace. Washington Post, Times Herald, Apr. 20, 1973.) Repace was a member of GASP (Group Against Smokers' Pollution), who testifed in favor of smoking bans in Prince George County, Maryland, and Arlington, Virginia. (Heated Debate in P.G. On Bill to Ban Smoking. By Simon Conway. Washington Post, Apr. 6, 1978; Smoking Ban Is Approved In Arlington. By Sandra Boodman. Washington Post, Apr. 30, 1978.) The New York Times used Repace as its "science expert" on the subject of secondhand smoke. (Questions, Science Times. New York Times, Nov. 30, 1993.) Lowrey also testified for a Maryland smoking ban. (Smoking Ban. Washington Post, Feb 28, 1980.) Repace is responsible for lying that it would require "tornadolike conditions" to adequately remove secondhand smoke from buildings at Albany, N.Y. smoking ban hearings. (Albany Notebook. By Erik Kriss. Syracuse Post-Standard, Mar. 17, 2004.)
"Numerous recent reports indicate that there is considerable activity regarding indoor air quality occuring in a number of Federal agencies, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency. These activities are in the form of a variety of studies, some in the planning stages and others currently being conducted. Most significantly, it appears that passive cigarette smoke as a principal air contaminant is becoming a point of commonality throughout all of these efforts. This is of considerable importance to our industry because it appears that these discussions and studies of indoor air are likely to become major, highly visible fora for the condemnation of public smoking, and carry the potential for enabling industry opponents to stir up the issue in a dramatic fashion through the national media. I have been informed that several members of the EPA Air and Radiation staff, including James Repace, who is employed as a policy analyst in the EPA Office of Air and Radiation, is the author of a study on the effect of passive smoking which was the subject of a recent CBS news report, and his superior, Joseph Cannon, are very sympathetic to the anti-smoking crusade. I was also informed that there have been several meetings between Mr. Cannon, Surgeon General Koop and the Department of Energy and Office of Smoking and Health officials to discuss areas of mutual interest, including passive smoking. I have been unable.to confirm a statement that was made by my source identifying both Repace and Cannon as members of GASP. The purpose of this memo is to review certain evidence which shows that even without a clear mandate to study indoor air quality, EPA is proceeding with activity in this area. It is important to note that whereas EPA indoor air activists allegedly had EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus' blessings, the Office of Management and Budget has consistently opposed indoor air funding provisions within authorizations bills claiming that the issue was 'not an appropriate Federal responsibility.' Now that Ruckelshaus has resigned as EPA Administrator, (effective January 5, 1985), it can be expected .that OMB will have more control over the activities within this agency." (Memo from Amy Millman of Philip Morris, for general distribution; Dec. 5, 1984.)
The mass media issued a continuing stream of anti-smoking lies to brainwash the public, citing Repace and Lowrey. (Scientist says tobacco smoke is one of deadliest indoor air pollutants. UPI. Syracuse Herald-Journal, Feb. 5, 1985.) Repace's "science:" "The largest source of death from active smoking is, of course heart disease. We know the arteries of smokers get plugged up very rapidly, and it is very possible that these same effects could occur in passive smokers." [Liar - deaths of smokers merely occur a few years earlier, which is consistent with earlier exposure to infection. Furthermore, since the 1960s, the death rates of smokers declined as much as non-smokers - cast.](Cigarette pollution: Threat to non-smokers worse than suspected. By Paul Raeburn. AP. Frederick, MD Post. July 14, 1989.)
The tobacco industry complained to Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) circa 1985 about Repace's violations of federal law governing conflict of interest: "He has not, contrary to the requirements of CFR § 3.500, ensured that his outside activities may not reasonably be construed as implying official EPA endorsements;" "His private activities as an expert witness and an author have created the appearance of using his public office for private gain, and created the appearance of a conflict of interest." "His activities and advocacy against smoking indoors, while he is an employee of the EPA, which has jurisdiction over matters involving clean air, certainly has resulted in, or created the reasonable appearance of, "giving preferential treatment to any organization or person" and "losing independence or impartiality of action" as proscribed by CFR §§ 3.103(d)(2) and 3.103(d)(4) respectively." (James L. Repace, ca. 1985.)
(Testimony of James L. Repace in the matter of Senate Bill 1440, The Nonsmokers' Rights Act of 1985. Before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Civil Service, Post Office and General Services, Committee on Governmental Affairs. Washington, D.C. September 30, 1985.)
CV of the insufferably smug James L. Repace, who fancies himself a veritable God of Scientific Enlightenment for his role in shoving deliberate and systematic scientific fraud down America's throat: 1963 Sr. Laboratory Technician Radioisotope Laboratory, Grasslands Hospital, N.Y.; 1964 Jr. Physicist Dept. of Physics, New York City Dept. of Hospitals, New York, NY; 1965-1968 Research Associate Insulator Physics Group, RCA David Sarnoff Lab., Princeton, NJ; 1969-1971 Research Physicist Ocean Science Division, Naval Research Lab, Washington, DC; 1971-1979 Research Physicist Electronics Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC; 1979-1986 Policy Analyst Science Policy Staff ; Office of Air & Radiation, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC; 1986-1993 Policy Analyst Indoor Air Division, Office of Radiation & Indoor air; U.S. EPA, Washington, DC; 1993-1994 Physicist Exposure Assessment Group, Office of Research & Development, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC; 1994-1995 Policy Analyst Health Standards Division, OSHA, U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C.; 1995-1997 Policy Analyst Indoor Air Division, Office of Radiation & Indoor air; U.S. EPA, Washington, DC; 1998- present, Scientific Consultant Repace Associates, Inc., Secondhand Smoke Consultants. He was technical advisor to the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Passive Smoking, and a contributor to the International Agency for Research on Cancer monograph on sidestream smoke - which was held at the American Health Foundation in 1983. He was executive secretary of the Indoor Air Quality of the Air Pollution Control Association, and a member of the Interagency Technical Working Committee, and a member of a National Institutes of Health special study committee to review grant proposals on passive smoking and lung cancer. He was an expert witness at House hearings on passive smoking and a consultant to the World Health Organization and the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Airliner Cabin Air Quality, and of the 1984 Surgeon General Report on Smoking and Lung Disease chapter on Involuntary Smoking. And it's based upon the fraud of using political connections to create an artificial reality, where only chemicals and particulates exist, and the anti-smokers have never in the history of their corrupt and putrid movement, been forced to confront the existence of carcinogenic viruses.
International Agency for Research on Cancer, "Passive Smoking" Manual, Author Profiles. Information Services Division, June 1984.
"Alfred H. Lowrey, 56, a Naval Research Laboratory research chemist for the last 30 years, died Sept. 3 in Silver Spring. A Montgomery County Police spokesman said he felt from the Northwest Branch bridge over Interstate 495. A spokesman for the Maryland medical examiner's office said the death was a suicide. Dr. Lowrey, a resident of Greenbelt and the District, was a native of Glenview, Ill. A Stanford University graduate, he received a doctorate in theoretical physics from Yale University. He was the author of more than 50 technical works on such subjects as molecular structure and the public health risks of environmental tobacco smoke. He served as an expert witness on such smoke exposure in legal actions." (Alfred H. Lowrey, Government Chemist. Washington Post, Sep. 18, 1995.)
Alfred H. Lowrey obituary, 1995 / UCSF (pdf, 1 p)
The 1990 Draft Report Leak
Anti-smoker Stanton Glantz leaked a copy of the 1990 draft of the ETS report to the Los Angeles Times, and the anti-smoker-controlled media eagerly helped the anti-smokers spew hysteria and lies.
(Risk Assessment on Passive Smoke. The Today Show, NBC Network. Station WRC-TV, Washington DC, May 10, 1990 7:09 A.M.) DEBORAH NORVILLE: On Closeup this morning, the dangers of passive smoke. Nonsmokers, for years, have adamantly declared their health has been put at risk by breathing the dirty air of smokers. Well, they're about to get some pretty powerful ammunition to help make their case when the EPA releases a risk assessment on passive smoke. Preliminary conclusions are that smoking causes 3800 cases of lung cancer in nonsmokers every year. It's a figure that strikes Northeastern University Law Professor Richard Daynard as low. He's the Chairman of the Tobacco Liability Project, and joins us from our Boston Bureau this morning. Good morning, sir. RICHARD DAYNARD: Good morning. How are you? NORVILLE: Fine, thank you. The dangers of secondhand smoke have been reported on before. How is this EPA study going to change the debate? DAYNARD: Well, it's the first time that an official government agency that has the responsibility for classifying different substances, as to whether they really cause cancer or not, actually set its mind to the issue and decided this one really does. Not only does it cause cancer, apparently their conclusion is that it's a Class A carcinogen, which means that it's been proven to cause cancer in human beings. NORVILLE: And by being a Class A carcinogen, it is keeping company with products like arsenic, asbestos, benzene and chromium." [Which is exactly why the real EPA scientists, who got their jobs on merit instead of political connections, were against labelling secondhand smoke a carcinogen!]
(Secondhand Smoke Called a Carcinogen. CBS Evening News. Station WUSA--TV, CBS Network, Washington DC, May 9, 1990 7:00 P.M. CST Washington, D.C.) DAN RATHER: A draft report circulating today from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is fueling concern that secondhand cigarette smoke is a first-class health danger. Medical correspondent Susan Spencer has the latest on the cancer risk from other people's smoke. SUSAN SPENCER: The country's tobacco giants are bracing for what may be their toughest challenge yet, an as yet unreleased EPA report that recommends classifying secondhand smoke, smoke from other people's cigarettes, as a carcinogen, a cancer-causer just like benzene, radon and asbestos. STAN GLANTZ [University of California, San Francisco]: It says that if you apply the same standards to cigarette smoke as any other outdoor pollutant, that it's a very, very serious pollutant. SPENCER: The Surgeon General linked secondhand smoke to lung cancer years ago, but the EPA draft is far more specific, blaming it for 3800 lung cancers a year among nonsmokers. DR. LEE REICHMAN [American Lung Association]: There is no scientific doubt that this is a cause of a cancer. SPENCER: Having defined the risk, sources say the EPA will recommend ways to protect employees from inhaling other people's smoke. Forty-five states already restrict smoking in public; but fewer, only 34, extend restrictions to workplaces. MATT MYERS [Coalition for Smoking or Health]: It would be my expectation that this report would serve as a catalyst for those states who haven't yet acted to seriously consider restrictions. SPENCER: In a preemptive strike, the tobacco industry days ago began circulating a three-year-old thesis done at Yale which concluded, that the dangers of passive smoke may be over- blown. JOHN NELSON [Philip Morris USA]: It is very unlikely that EPA, if it is fair and impartial and sticks to the science, will come out with any recommendation that would be damaging to the tobacco industry. SPENCER: The anti-smoking side doesn't think it's unlikely at all, predicting that despite intensive political pressure from the industry, the EPA will stick to its guns when it releases its final report in just a few weeks. Susan Spencer, CBS News, Washington." [That crap about "intensive political pressure from the industry" is a Black Lie to purposely deceive the public, because it's the anti-smoker vermin who installed THEIR political flunkies in the EPA in order to corrupt science and perpetrate this scam.]
(EPA Concludes Secondhand Smoke Causes Cancer. ABC World News Tonight. Station WJLA-TV, Washington DC, ABC Network, May 9, 1990 6:30 P.M.) PETER JENNINGS: It looks like the Environmental Protection Agency is gearing up for another damning report on smoking. A preliminary version has this to say to nonsmokers: Just being exposed to other smokers can kill you. Here's ABC's Bettina Gregory. BETTINA GREGORY: The EPA has concluded that inhaling someone else's cigarette smoke causes 3800 Americans to die of lung cancer each year. And the draft report on passive smoking proposes that tobacco smoke be labeled a carcinogen. That could lead to more severe restrictions on where people can smoke. Anti-smoking advocates say it's about time the EPA declared tobacco smoke the most hazardous pollutant in the air. JOHN BANZHAF [Action on Smoking and Health]: Going in a room where anybody is smoking is more dangerous than going in a room with asbestos, going in a room with radon or any other air pollutant. GREGORY: The tobacco industry does not acknowledge that cigarette smoking causes cancer, much less passive smoking. WALKER MERRYMAN [The Tobacco Institute]: Well, there really isn't a scientific consensus on whether or not passive smoking is in fact harmful to those who don't smoke..."
(Draft EPA Report Indicts Secondhand Smoke. NBC Nightly News. WRC-TV, Washington, DC, NBC Network, May 9, 1990 7:00 P.M.) TOM BROKAW: YOU don't have to be a smoker to get lung cancer from cigarettes. There is a serious risk in just breathing smoky air. New evidence tonight in a preliminary report of government scientists who have studied the effects of so-called passive smoke. NBC's Robert Hager has more now. ROBERT HAGER: Three years ago the Surgeon General first concluded that smoke inhaled by nonsmokers from other people's cigarettes caused lung cancer, but couldn't say how great the danger might be. Now the Environmental Protection Agency has calculated that passive, or secondhand, smoke causes 3800 lung cancer deaths a year. As a result, to a select EPA list called Class A carcinogens, substances such as arsenic, asbestos, benzene, chromimum, and others for which the link to cancer is believed to be the most thoroughly documented, EPA plans to add secondhand smoke. The EPA scientists also say that the dangerous second- hand smoke comes from the lit end of the cigarette, whether in the smoker's mouth or hand or in an ashtray. The study finds that what's exhaled by the smoker is not dangerous to others because the cancer-causing substances have already been absorbed by the filter and the smoker's lungs. EPA will also issue guidelines for a smoke-free environment, including a recommendation that smoking lounges should vent smoke directly to the outside, where it's diluted in the air. The agency will warn that if smoke is simply sucked into a building's normal air-circulating system, it may be transported to rooms where there's no smoking. The tobacco industry takes issue. Jack Nelson of Philip Morris. JACK NELSON: Well, a thorough review of the science in the scientific literature would indicate that there's insufficient evidence to make an argument that environmental tobacco smoke is a risk to the nonsmoker. HAGER: Philip Morris argues that one big Yale University study conflicts with EPA's findings. But researchers who worked on the Yale study deny that. Other Class A carcinogens are regulated to protect health. But EPA won't propose federal restrictions on smoking. An official acknowledges one reason is to avoid a showdown with tobacco-state lawmakers. Robert Hager, NBC News, Washington.
And the print media followed exactly the same formula and parrotted all the same lies: EPA Plans Guide On Smoking Restrictions. Investors Daily, May 10, 1990; Passive Smoke Deadly. USA Today, May 10, 1990 p. A1; EPA: Victims Not Just Smokers. The Washington Times, May 10, 1990 p. A1; High Death Toll Seen From Passive Smoking. The New York Times, May 10, 1990 p. A14; EPA Will Link Second-Hand Smoke, Cancer. The Los Angeles Times, May 9, 1990 p. A1.
Articles re May 1990 Draft Leak / UCSF (pdf, 18 pp)
The Real Background
"In the spring of 1990, a consultant (Kenneth Brown) for EPA's office of Health and Environmental Assessment (OHEA) completed preparation of a preliminary draft document on health risks reportedly associated with ETS. The draft advocated classification of ETS as Group A ("known human") carcinogen, purportedly under the EPA's Risk Assessment GuideLines. 8. Kenneth Brown was the principle author of the Draft Risk Assessment, and in fact prepared the initial draft. (See Draft Risk Assessment; transcript of December 4, 1990 IAQTHEC hearing, testimony of Steve Bayard.) However, one Dr. David Burns reviewed the early versions of the Draft Risk Assessment and may have participated in revising the ETS Draft Risk Assessment. 19. In May 1990, ICF, Inc. was engaged to perform some work with respect to the ETS Draft Risk Assessment. (EPA contract with ICF.) 20. In May 1990, the Draft Risk Assessment was leaked to the media before any copies were available to the public and was the subject of a Los Angeles Times article. (See Attachment C.) Interestingly, at approximately the same time, the staff in the Office of Air and Radiation developed and distributed in internal EPA communications strategy outlining media plans for the draft ETS documents." (Background for EPA article, Judge or Advocate, ca. 1991, pp. 8-9. From Denise Keane Office Area, Philip Morris. Keane was a PM trademark lawyer in 1980, and now an executive vice president and general counsel.)
Indoor Air Facts Environmental Tobacco Smoke No. 5. United States Office of Environmental Protection Air and Radiation Agency (ANR-445), June 1989. This was mailed by the EPA to Samuel D. Chilcote of the Tobacco Institute in July 1989.
"On October 23-24, 1990, the SAB selected nine additional individuals to serve as members of the IAQTHEC... to assist in analyzing the EPA's Draft Risk Assessment on ETS. None of the candidates suggested by the Tobacco Institute was appointed to the IAQTHEC. In fact, none of those persons was even contacted by the SAB. To the contrary, one third of the newly appointed members were selected from lists submitted by anti-smoking organizations... The IAQTHEC, as reconstituted also did not meet the representational requirements of the Radon Act. On October 23-24, 1990, the SAB Executive Committee meeting was conducted as a closed meeting at which the public was denied the prior notice and denied access contemplated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, U.S.C. App. 2 § 10. During the course of this closed meeting, Dr. David Burns was appointed a consultant of the IAQTHEC. This occurred despite the fact that just the previous day, Dr. Donald Barnes of the EPA acknowledged that Dr. Burns was not suitable for membership because of his demonstrated bias. Dr. Donald [sic] Burns was then a long-recognized anti-smoking advocate who had publicly stated his intention to see smoking behavior disappear from society." (Background for EPA article, Judge or Advocate, ca. 1991, pp. 12-13.)
The Associated Press smeared that members of the SAB who served on the review panel of the Center for Indoor Air Research, including arch anti-smoker Jonathan M. Samet, were tainted by ties to the tobacco industry, and claimed that Geoffrey C. Kabat, an author of ETS studies who was affiliated with the American Health Foundation, had been recommended by Philip Morris. This actually demonstrates control of the tobacco industry's research money by the anti-smokers. (6 Members of Panel on Smoking Have Ties to Tobacco Group. AP, Nov. 10, 1990.)
6 Members of Panel on Smoking Haves Ties to Tobacco Group, Nov. 10, 1990 / New York Times
Rep. Bliley's letters to EPA Administrator William Reilly
Rep. Thomas Bliley pointed out James L. Repace's extensive record of anti-smoking activism, including trial testimony. Repace proposed himself as author of numerous chapters of the ETS policy guide. (Bliley's letters to EPA Administrator William Reilly, draft, July 11, 1990).
Rep. Bliley's questions to EPA Administrator William Reilly, May 9, 1991.
Reply to Rep. Bliley's Dec. 22, 1992 questions to EPA Administrator William K. Reilly, by EPA Acting Assistant Administrator Gary J. Foley, March 4, 1993. "Question 1: Why was the decision made to perform the work on the Risk Assessment by a contractor rather than by EPA personnel? Please furnish any analysis supporting the decision to contract out this work rather than using EPA personnel. Response: Dr. Steven Bayard, an ORD staff scientist and ETS project manager, made the decision to use a contractor rather than EPA personnel to perform the work on the Risk Assessment. Dr. Bayard, with the concurrence of his supervisor Charles Ris, determined that in order to complete the Risk Assessment in a reasonable time, technical assistance from a contractor was needed. No written analysis supporting this decision exists." In other words, they gave the job to a hand-picked accomplice whom they knew would produce the preordained conclusion that the anti-smokers wanted.
Foley to Bliley, March 4, 1993 / UCSF (pdf, 7 pp)
The authors of key chapters were hand-picked, in violation of federal law
Furthermore, the key chapters on lung cancer were written via illegal pass-through contracts to hand-picked cronies of Robert Axelrad, Chief of the Indoor Air Division. From Rep. Thomas Bliley's memorandum to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Health and Environment Subcommittee, July 21, 1993 (the Waxman Hearings), "EPA AND ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE: SCIENCE OR POLITICS?" (Serial No. 103-51, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. (July 21, 1993).
"Under federal regulations, an agency may not specify the use of a certain subcontractor without competitive bidding. In the case of the policy guide, EPA staff first solicited the Smoking Policy Institute for the job and then sought to funnel the work through the main contractor, ICF Incorporated. In fact, Robert Axelrad telephoned SPI's Rosner in mid-1988, before getting ICF involved, and told Rosner that EPA had $30,000 to spend on the project for that fiscal year and also would provide funding the following year..." (Page 33)
With $300 million in contracts, ICF is one of the EPA's largest contractors, and has been used before as a "vehicle to provide subcontracts" to recipients illegally selected beforehand. "SPI is in the business of counselling employers on the implementation of smoking policies and operating smoking cessation clinics. This organization therefore had a vested financial interest in conveying the impression in the policy guide that employers without smoking policies or smoking cessation programs were at risk of lawsuits or worse."
"An arrangement was made in August 1988 that SPI would be paid by making SPI a subcontractor to ICF. The 'justification' memo that ICF wrote to support the sole-source subcontract stated that SPI was uniquely qualified. There was no support for that claim, however, nor any indication that ICF had made any evaluation of SPI. The drafts of the policy guide written by SPI were not even copied to ICF but went straight to Mr. Axelrad at EPA... The documents from ICF's files recently turned over to me suggest that, far from commenting on 'various drafts,' ICF's first opportunity to comment on the policy guide occurred when the document was released for public comment."
"The record clearly shows, first, that EPA staff hand-picked SPI to prepare documents that would advocate workplace smoking restrictions long before any assessment of the science had been completed; second, that EPA arranged for SPI to be signed up as a subcontractor to ICF to circumvent applicable federal procurement requirements; and finally that, in this way, taxpayer funds helped produce what is essentially a marketing and promotion aid for SPI's business."
"...EPA has reversed its earlier public position that the SPI contract was awarded properly. At the July 8 hearing, the Agency's own Chief Financial Officer acknowledged that 'this might very well be an improper contracting practice. It may be a pass-through and the designating of the $30,000 may also be improper.' Mr. Reilly's most recent letter to me dated July 31, 1992, attaches a memorandum from Mr. Axelrad to his supervisor at EPA, Eileen Claussen. Mr. Axelrad's memorandum acknowledges that his decision to contact SPI outside normal procurement procedures was inappropriate and that his recommendation 'probably' caused ICF to select SPI as the subcontractor."
"In March 1993, the Inspector General sent me a letter setting forth his findings. In that letter, the Inspector General states as follows:
We believe the award [of the contracts to SPI] was tainted in how it was processed. First, there was no attempt by ICF to seek competition. Second, the actions by an EPA program official gave the appearance that he, rather than ICF, selected the subcontractor.
The Inspector General also found that the EPA believed that "it may have been 'unauthorized action' under the EPAAR [EPA Acquisition Regulations]." The Inspector General also indicated that "the procurement should not have proceeded on a non-competitive basis."
"EPA's contracting improprieties in connection with the preparation of the four ETS documents are not confined to the policy guide. In June 1993, the Inspector General reported to me that similar abuses had occurred in connection with several of the ETS risk assessment subcontracts. The most egregious of these appears to be the subcontract between ICF, once again the prime contractor, and Kenneth G. Brown, Inc., which drafted most of the critical sections on lung cancer. The Inspector General states that in the case of the Brown subcontract, 'EPA program personnel and ICF simply circumvented the contracting officers' altogether, clearly a violation of proper procedures. Like the SPI subcontract, the Brown subcontract also was awarded on a non-competitive basis, and the only justification for that decision that could be found was an undated and unsigned 'sole source justification' file memorandum." (Page 39)
Bliley, July 21, 1993 / UCSF (pdf, 71 pp)
Robert A. Rosner and the Smoking Policy Institute
In a previous incarnation as head of the Institute for Occupational Smoking Policy in 1985, Robert A. Rosner attended the First World Conference on Nonsmokers' Rights in Washington, D.C., which was sponsored by anti-smoker lawyer John F. Banzhaf's group, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). The event drew about 200 activists, including Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. (Nonsmoking Business Can Mean Money In Bank. By Marcia Slacum Greene. Washington Post, Oct. 6, 1985.) William Weis, one of Rosner's partners, was the author of a report claiming that smokers increase costs to employers by up to $4600 per year. The consulting firm's largest client was Pacific Northwest Bell. (Who Tells Smokers to Put It Out? By Sarah Oates. Washington Post, Jul. 28, 1985.) "Prior to the formation of the Smoking Policy Institute or its predecessor, Robert Rosner began a career of consulting with businesses on developing a smoke-free policy. His first client was Group Health Cooperative of Seattle whose policy went into effect in early 1984 after ten months of planning... In November 1984 the three men appeared with others as speakers at a seminar offering advice to Los Angeles business leaders on how to create a smoke-free work place. Mr. Weis is identified as 'an expert on thee cost o.f smoking to employers.' Mr. Lowenberg is said to be a 'nationally recognized authority on smoking and the law.' Robert Rosner is a 'frequent media speaker on smoking in the work place and veteran smoking policy implementation specialist'... By September 1985, Robert Rosner was identified as the executive vice president of the Institute of Occupational Smoking Policy at Seattle University's Albers School of Business. Rosner, at the time, was a keynote speaker at three seminars scheduled in New Jersey to discuss compliance with the state's new smoking laws... When the state of Washington established a public benefit nonprofit corporation designation in 1989, the Smoking Policy Institute applied for the designation... On November 30, 1988, the Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, presented his office's highest award to Robert Rosner of the Smoking Policy Institute. At the time of the award, Rosner was in Washington to consult with officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. He reportedly accepted Koop's invitation to drop by for what he thought was a courtesy call. Instead, Rosner discovered a television crew ready to film the presentation of the Surgeon General's medallion to him. Rosner credited Koop for encouraging him to form the Institute after the two had worked together on some anti-smoking videotapes in 1985. According to Rosner, the Institute exists mostly on foundation grants and contributions and has worked with about 400 private companies to develop plans to eliminate smoking in the work place." (Smoking Policy Institute Incorporation and Stated Purpose. [Produced for the Oklahoma tobacco lawsuit].
Profile of Smoking Policy Institute / UCSF (pdf, 57 pp)
Smoking Policy Institute Incorporation and Stated Purpose / UCSF (pdf, 338 pp)
Kenneth G. Brown was a Front Man for A. Judson Wells
Kenneth G. Brown was the supposed author of the key chapters on lung cancer: Chapter 5, Hazard Interpretation II: Interpretation of Epidemiologic Studies on Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer; Chapter 6, Population Risk of Lung Cancer from Passive Smoking; Appendix C, Lung Cancer Mortality Rates Attributable to Spousal ETS in Individual Epidemiological Studies; and Appendix D (with Neal R. Simonson as co-author), Statistical Formulae.
"Biographical information regarding Dr. Kenneth G. Brown is scant. He received his B.A. degree in 1962 from Duke University, his M.A. from American University in 1969 and earned a Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins in 1972. From 1972-1978 there is no information available. In 1978-1985, he is listed as an Associate Professor in the Department of Mathematics at the University of Maine. It appears that in the year 1985, he worked at NIEHS and in 1989 formed his own consulting firm in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. He has published a few articles." (Summary of Information on Kenneth G. Brown, Ph.D. Memorandum from George Patskan office area, March 18, 1994.)
Brown co-authored several animal bioassay studies between 1983 and 1987 with David G. Hoel, who had been in charge of biometry at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences from 1973 to 1993, as well as a statistician at Oak Ridge National Laboratories 1968-70, and Westinghouse Research Laboratories, 1967-68.
In a statement before an OSHA informal public hearing on proposed rulemaking vis-a-vis Indoor Air Quality, est. date April 5, 1994, A. Judson Wells said that "From 1989 to 1993 I was an unpaid consultant to Kenneth G. Brown, Inc., a subcontractor to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in their work leading up to the publication of their report: Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. I am a coauthor of that report." Wells was a longtime anti-smoking activist and a consultant to the American Lung Association. He began concocting estimates of supposed passive smoking deaths in 1986, and published such an estimate in Environment International in 1988, with assistance from other anti-smoking activists.
Frederic V. Malek, a crony of President George H.W. Bush who put George W. Bush on the board of directors of Caterair as a favor, and whose wife was on the National Cancer Advisory Board of the National Cancer Institute, was on the board of directors of the pass-through company, ICF, from 1989 to 1997. Malek was also a director since 1978 of ADP Inc., the company founded by anti-smoker Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), who was one of the co-sponsors of the Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research Act of 1986, under whose auspices the EPA action was taken.
A background and followup of ICF, including its continuing history of corrupt practices.
ICF Kaiser International contributed to Sen. Thomas Bliley's campaign in 1998 (also Blue Cross Blue Shield and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America).
Bliley / Center for Responsive Politics
The media committed the most outrageous travesties of "journalism" ever perpetrated against the American people.
The media conspired to brainwash Americans with lies - in such a crude and heavy-handed manner, reminiscent of a Nazi dictatorship, that no intelligent person should fail to be outraged.
David Brinkley and Sam Donaldson of ABC News
The media conspiracy to conceal official wrongdoing from the public
"On July 21, 1993, at a time scheduled to coincide with a subcommittee hearing at which testimony critical of the EPA Risk Assessment on ETS was heard, Representative Henry Waxman (D-Cal.), scheduled a hearing before a House subcommittee on health and the environment, which he chairs. Among those testifying at the Waxman hearing were EPA Administrator Carol Browner, Dr. Morton Lippmann and representatives of the American Lung Association. At the hearing Waxman said he planned to introduce legislation to banish smoking from all buildings open to the public except in designated, separately ventilated smoking rooms. During her testimony, Administrator Browner defended the EPA Risk Assessment on ETS and summarized its conclusions before announcing the release of a new brochure, titled What You Can Do About Secondhand Smoke." (Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Report on Recent Ets and Iaq Developments, July 23, 1993.)
(Memorandum from Samuel D. Chilcote Jr. to members of the executive committee of the Tobacco Institute, July 22, 1993.) "I am enclosing for your information a selection of the coverage by the major media of yesterday's Waxman and Rose hearings. The Environmental Protection Agency's release of its information booklet was treated as the lead in virtually all of the print and broadcast pieces that we have seen to date. As soon as the transcript and videotape of the Rose hearing is completed -- by early next week -- Institute staff will make yet another round of contacts to reporters and columnists that have covered this issue." The media included the Wall Street Journal (staff reporter), The Washington Times (Joyce Price), the Washington Post (AP), the New York Times (Philip J. Hilts), CNN TV (Reid Collins and Rhonda Rollin), WTTG-TV, Washington (Cynthia Steele), CBS Evening News (Dan Rather and Linda Douglass), ABC Good Morning America (Morton Dean and Bettina Gregory), NBC Nightly News (Tom Brokaw and Robert Hager), WETA-FM of NPR Network (Robert Siegel), CNBC MoneyWheel (Ron Insana). Other media coverage was the same - the Los Angeles Times (Melissa Healy), Atlanta Constitution (Staff and News Services). Newsday carried the Reuter story, and the Chicago Tribune, Las Vegas Review, and Rocky Mountain News carried the AP version by Rita Beamish. NOT ONE MENTIONED THE CORRUPT CONTRACTS WITH THEIR ANTI-SMOKER RECIPIENTS.
Chilcote to Executive Committee, July 22, 1993 / UCSF (pdf, 72 pp)
Los Angeles Times, July 22, 1993 / UCSF (pdf, 3 pp)
Atlanta Constitution, July 22, 1993 / UCSF (pdf, 2 pp)
The Real EPA Scientists Opposed Labeling ETS a Group A Carcinogen
Subject: Review of "Lung Cancer Hazards and Other Respiratory Effects Due to Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke" From: Chris De Rosa, Acting Director, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office - Cincinnati. To: William H. Farland, PhD, Director, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment" Apr. 27, 1990: "In particular, we question the use of meta analysis to support the classification as a weight-of-evidence Group A carcinogen. On an individual level, these studies more appropriately reflect limited evidence of human carcinogenicity and, therefore, support the conclusion that ETS be classified as a Group B1 carcinogen. Given this viewpoint, we are recommending that this document is 'acceptable after major revision.' Please note that this recommendation does not reflect major problems of changes within the body of the document but is meant to reflect our concern with the classification of ETS as a Group A carcinogen."
Review of the 1990 Internal Draft Document "Lung Cancer Hazards and Other Respiratory Effects Due to Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke." Reviewer: Larry Glass, Toxicologist, Chemical Mixtures Assessment Branch. "In line with the 'Workshop Report on EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment: Use of Human Evidence' (Sept. 1989) it is recommended that the evidence be summarized as being limited (i.e., '...a causal association is more credible than nonrandom error, although [confounding] cannot be entirely ruled out as an explanation...'). This would classify ETS into a weight-of-the-evidence B1."
Subject: Review of the Report on Respiratory Effects From ETS. From: Richard C. Hertzberg, MEDS. To: Pat Murphy, Review Coordinator, MEDS. March 21, 1992.
Subject: Requested review of OHEA document on Passive Smoking Health Risk Assessment. From: Patricia A. Murphy, Epidemiologist, MEDS. To: Lynn Papa, Acting Chief, MEDS. March 23, 1992. "Although we were asked to review specific portions of this document, it is our collective opinion that this is a scientifically inadvisable means of approaching the issue. We found that we were repeatedly forced to either accept certain statements at face value or go back in the previous chapters to seek out the information needed for a thorough assessment of the validity of some of the analytical approaches which were taken. Our Office has had no involvement in the development of this important document and as such we are not aware of the rationale for selecting the chosen means of data analysis and presentation, nor are we aware of any scientific deliberations that have taken place in relation to previous reviews of the document."
Regarding Chapter 3: "Some parts of this chapter bear a rather striking resemblance to an article by Brian Leaderer (1990). Risk Analysis, Vol 10 pp. 19-26. In some cases, the wording is identical. It may be that this person also authored this chapter. If not, this could be a source of embarassment as there are surely many people familiar with this article who will also be reading this EPA document in some capacity. This should be looked into by the authors."
"In the last part of Chapter 5, I feel that the case for a clear causal relationship between lung cancer and ETS is somewhat overstated. Specifically, there is what seems to be a misinterpretation of the criterion 'specificity.' The only studies which were looked at in this review involved lung cancer so this is not 'specific' to the ETS issue. Specificity would involve, e.g., the finding of the same histological type of lung cancer in all the studies... This issue should be better addressed before a causal relationship is 'confirmed.'"
Subject: OHEA-C-361 - Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. From: Terry Harvey, D.V.M. To: Linda Bailey-Becht, Technical Information Staff, OHEA (RD-689). March 24, 1992. "As you will note from the comments, no one liked the 11 day time allotted for review and thus a very quick product is attached as the best we could accomplish in the time available. I suggest the document manager(s) consider more time for evaluation to balance the seriousness of this document as applied to the public health and the intrinsic value of doing it right on this key health topic."
"To be technically accurate and avoid confusion, the document summary Pg. 1-1) should not use the generic term 'cancer' unmodified as to the type the causal effects have been clearly shown based on histological malignancy type, e.g., squamous cell carcinoma vs. adenocarcinoma. Great confounders will emerge if this is not carefully articulated (see Pat Murphy, Pg. 5). If you can technically show causal association, do; where you can't, don't infer it."
"I suggest a full discussion of carcinogen category A vs B, based on the absence of definitive data of PETS in humans. Like it or not, EPA should live within its own categorization framework or clearly explain why we chose not to do so. You may wish at some point to present this assessment to CRAVE to obtain Agency consensus and assure wider peer review. ECAO-CIN will be most happy to spend further time improving the quality of this document. Let us know how we can be of further help."
"...It is revealing that some of the harshest criticism of the EPA's classification of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) as a Group A carcinogen has come from scientists within the EPA. Representative Tim Valentine, chairman of the environmental subcommittee of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, has released a bunch of internal EPA documents showing how the political operators there tried to ignore the criticisms..." (They Don't Embarass Easy." National Review, Sep. 20, 1993 pp 21-22.)
National Review, Sep. 20, 1993 / UCSF (pdf, 2 pp)
The Osteen Decision
The reviews of the real scientists were cited in the lawsuit of the Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Defendants. Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition to EPA's Motions for Partial Summary Judgement and for a Protective Order. Civil Action No. 693cv370 (Appendix), 1994. Their lawsuit resulted in the order vacating Chapters 1-6 and the Appendices to EPA's Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and other Disorders, EPA/600/6-90/006F (December 1992), by United States District Judge William L. Osteen (July 17, 1998.) This includes the classification of ETS as a Group A carcinogen. "It is clear that Congress intended EPA to disseminate findings from the information researched and gathered. In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded industry by violating the Act's procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiffs' products and to influence public opinion. In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA's conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, EPA produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer" (pages 89-90).
Here's how the lying anti-smoker vermin in the media responded to the Osteen ruling: The Boston Globe smugly pretended to speak on behalf of the public, whom they had systematically lied to and kept ignorant of official corruption, while censoring informed dissent, and threatened that "If tobacco companies try to use the case as a battering ram for repealing smoking bans around the country, they will engender more ill will from the public," meaning THE MEDIA. (The Public's Clear Stand on Tobacco. The Boston Globe, July 24, 1998.) "Judge Osteen's ruling is a blatant example of politics trying to trump science — to the detriment of public health." {This was uttered on behalf of a report written via illegal passthroughs to longtime anti-smoking activists, with a crony of the anti-smoker senator who introduced the act under which it was written, who also managed the Bush-Quayle election campaign, on the board of directors of the pass-through company!) They smeared Judge Osteen as "a former lobbyist for tobacco farmers." They dismissed the scientific irregularies as "two technicalities," and summarily dismissed them as "specious." (Big Tobacco blows smoke - again. (editorial). St. Louis Post Dispatch, July 24, 1998.) The Seattle Times admitted that the science of the EPA report was corrupt, but also arrogantly denied that smoking bans ramrodded through by the media's own conspiracy, fraud, and racketeering ought to be vacated for this reason. (Having second thoughts on secondhand smoke. The Seattle Times, July 22, 1998.) "In time, the ruling by a federal judge that a government's report linking secondhand smoke to cancer was seriously flawed probably will merit little more than an asterisk. That's because there isn't any sentiment to turn back the clock and a plethora of rules and laws banning smoking in airplanes, restaurants, movie theaters and public buildings." (They refer only to sentiment within the corporate-controlled anti-smoker mass media, who smugly expect that the public will never learn of their crimes and turn against them.) (No turning back. Arizona Republic, July 24, 1998.)
Newspaper editorials, July 22-24, 1998, start page 15 / UCSF (pdf, 33 pp)
The missing chapter on radon
Memo from PM scientific director Tom Borelli to Amy Millman, June 7, 1990: "In 1984, when the NAS (NRC) issued its report on ETS, it listed three kinds of scientific information as 'missing.' The third missing category was described as: '3. The interaction between ETS and radon exposure, which can increase risk of lung cancer, is worth examining further.' The NAS and the EPA both concluded that an investigation of a possible combined effect of ETS and radon was warranted. When the EPA designed and contracted out the current Risk Assessment, it did so under a general agreement with Battelle. The EPA engaged Kenneth G. Brown (a consultant to the SAB) to do the Risk Assessment. Ken Brown sub-contracted with Douglas Crawford-Brown to do sections on lung cancer and a chapter on the 'interaction of ETS with radon progeny' (see attached). No such chapter appears to be part of the current draft. What happened? Their assumptions about ETS and radon appear to have been wrong. Apparently their investigation did not find a negative combined effect." So, the radon chapter was dropped like a hot potato, and a chapter on non-cancer respiratory effects was tacked on instead.
ETS Report Project Manager Steven Bayard's "Presentation before the Science Advisory Board on the Health Risks of Passive Smoking," Dec. 4-5, 1990, continued to list Douglas Crawford-Brown as a chapter author.
Crawford-Brown eventually published thusly: "The net effect of ETS on human health is suggested to be a complicated function of the initial housing conditions, the concentration of particles introduced by smoking, the target generation considered, and the smoking status of exposed populations. This situation precludes any simple statements concerning the role of ETS in governing the incidence of lung cancer in a population." (Modeling the modification of the risk of radon-induced lung cancer by environmental tobacco smoke. DJ Crawford-Brown. Risk Anal 1992 Dec;12(4):483-493.)
Philip N. Lee's Notes on the Meeting of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) to consider the External Review Draft held at Crystal City, Washington DC on 4 and 5 December 1990. Page 2: "Although EPA has no regulatory power to limit exposure to ETS, the document, when finalized, would carry great weight when attempting to bring in new laws in US states. The main purpose of the meeting in Crystal City was for the EPA to receive public comments and comments from the SAB on the draft so that they could either finalize the documents or perhaps resubmit a further draft to go through the comment procedure. Apparently EPA were under no obligation to ask for the SAB's advice or to act on it, but in practice they usually did take account of it. The documents could in fact not be finalized until they had been approved by a higher Committee (which met 3-monthly) after which they would become official EPA publications...
Page 5, "A red herring. Before the meeting there had been allegations in the press that members of the Board had been 'bought' by the industry. Some of these allegations arose out of the fact that some SAB members had conducted peer reviews for the CIAR (The Centre [sic] for Indoor Air Research set up a couple of years ago by inter alia parts of the tobacco industry) and had received money for this. The net result of all this was that the 100 or so of us who were present had to waste an hour while every board member related all his work on tobacco and ETS and who had provided funding and to whom. There was in fact no indication that the SAB were biassed toward industry, rather the reverse as one of the members, Dr. David Burns, was well known for his militant anti-smoking beliefs. It was a pity that no one made the simple point that when considering an industry's problems it helped to have scientists who actually knew something about the subject. As most research on an industry's problems was generally paid for by that industry, one really had to ask whether restricting attention to squeaky-clean ignorami, however intelligent, was really desireable...
Pages 6-7: "Bayard noted their estimate of 3800 deaths was incorrect due to a typographical error! The correct figure should have been 3700!! His discussion on the difficulties of interpreting the ETS epidemiology and the meta-analysis was rambling and incoherent (at one stage Lippmann told him to speed up and get to the point). Amazingly he cited evidence from a 1990 paper by Wu-Williams and Samet (an SAB member) of a significant dose-related trend from the overall data as proving a cause and effect relationship!"
PN Lee Notes on EPA SAB Meeting, 1990 / UCSF (pdf, 25 pp)
The lie that ETS causes 53,000 passive smoking deaths
This lie was concocted by Stanton Glantz and accomplice(s) within the EPA, who fraudulently wrapped Stanton Glantz's heart disease claims in a cover with EPA markings, while Glantz lied that EPA reviewers had accepted it for inclusion in the report.
The Lie That Secondhand Smoke Causes Heart Disease
The lie that secondhand smoke causes respiratory disease in children
Not even the author of the EPA ETS report chapters on asthma, Dr. Fernando Martinez, believes in the garbage that he wrote any more. Recently he said, "Like most people, I assumed tobacco smoke and pollution were the problem -- this was the politically correct way to think. But these factors turned out not to play a major role." (Does Civilization Cause Asthma? By Ellen Ruppel Shell. The Atlantic Monthly, 2000 May;285(5):90-100, page 94.) Martinez was the author of the 1992 EPA ETS report Chapter 7, Passive Smoking and Respiratory Disorders Other Than Lung Cancer, and Chapter 8 (with co-author Steven P. Bayard), Assessment of Increased Risk for Respiratory Illnesses. New Views About Asthma Causes. Chlamydia pneumoniae infection has also been implicated as a cause of asthma. Infections Cause Asthma.
Shell, The Atlantic Monthly, May 2000 (partial) / UCSF (pdf, 2pp)
Shell, May 2000 / The Atlantic Monthly
More of the Rose Hearings on the EPA ETS Report
Specialty Crops and Natural Resources Subcommittee review of the EPA ETS Study, July 20-21, 1993; Chairman, Rep. Charlie Rose, D-NC. No one raised the crucial issue of confounding by infection.
Tape 1 transcript: Representatives Lewis and Charlie Rose; Drs. Steven Bayard (misspelled "Baird"), Project Director; and William H. Farland, Director of the Office of Health & Environmental Assessment, Office of Research & Development, USEPA.
Rose Congressional Hearing Tape 2 transcript: Reps. Scott Baesler, Barlow, Bishop, Goodlatte, Inslee, and Kingston; Drs. Steven Bayard and William H. Farland of the EPA.
Rose Congressional hearing Tape 3 transcript: Rep. Baesler; Dr. Bayard and Dr. Farland of the EPA; Dr. Alvan R. Feinstein of Yale University; Michael Guerin of O.R.N.L.
Rose Congessional hearing Tape 4 transcript: Reps. Scott Baesler and Charlie Rose; Dr. Douglas Dockery of the Harvard School of Public Health, representing the American Lung Association; Dr. Alfred Munzer, President of the American Lung Association.
Rose Congressional hearing Tape 5 transcript: Reps. Scott Baesler, Lewis, and Charlie Rose; Drs. Gio Gori and Maurice Levois.
Rose hearings Tape 5 transcript / UCSF (pdf, 29 pp)
EPA ETS Study Funding
From a report prepared by Carol Hrycaj of the Tobacco Institute Information Center, Nov. 4, 1987: "It is not surprising that the major sources of funding for ETS-related research in the U.S.A. is the National Cancer Institute (NCI) [Mary Lasker's own flagship -cast.] NCI funds 15 of the U.S. passive smoking studies. Other Department of Health and Human Services grantors are: Public Health Service (one study), National Institutes of Health (three studies), National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (five studies), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (three studies), and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (one study). The Veterans Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency also sponsor ETS-related projects.
"Interestingly, certain institutions involved in ETS-related research also participate in NCI anti-tobacco activities. They include two participants in NCI's 'heavy smokers' community intervention trial: the American Health Foundation, New York, and the Kaiser Foundation Research Institute, Oakland, California.
"Private-sector organizations provide the financial support for several projects, e.g., American Lung Association, Health Effects Institute, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. The funding is often in conjunction with governrment grants. Universities which figure prominently in ETS-related related research are: University of Arizona, University of New Mexico and University of Arkansas."
Complete list of studies on lung cancer and cardiovascular disease in aged non-smokers who have been asked to guess their exposure tom passive smoke throughout their entire lives. Financial ties. FORCES, 2005. [Caveat: FORCES is on the side of anti-smoker junk science, because they let the anti-smokers get away with ignoring the role of infection. Their criticisms are limited to nit-picking about confidence intervals, etc., and they want to misdirect blame for the anti-smoking movement onto "Big Pharma" instead of onto the corrupt Lasker Lobby that controls the health establishment, where it belongs.]
The anti-smokers and their media accomplices always sneered off any study that failed to find a risk from secondhand smoke by claiming that it was "funded by the tobacco industry." LET'S SEE THE SLIMEBAGS AT EPA "SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT" ABOUT THIS, TOO.
The Technical Compendium
"Environmental Tobacco Smoke: A Compendium of Technical Information," was entirely concocted by the anti-smoker infection-denial lobby. Contributing authors included Thomas E. Novotny, Donald Shopland, William S. Cain, Jonathan M. Samet, Brian P. Leaderer, John McCarthy, Elizabeth Miesner, John D. Spengler, James L. Repace, Dietrich Hoffman, Klaus D. Brunnemann, Nancy J. Haley, Glen Bennett, and Ruth Behrens.
Repace's earlier publication, "An estimate of nonsmokers' lung cancer risk from passive smoking," with Alfred M. Lowrey (manuscript).
Repace & Lowrey / UCSF (pdf, 51 pp)
Tobacco Institute comments on earlier draft of the EPA's ETS report
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Tobacco Smoke: A Compendium of Technical Information. Comments of the Tobacco Institute, Feb. 5, 1990. Reviewer's Statements.
Letter from Samuel D. Chilcote Jr. of The Tobacco Institute to EPA Administrator William Reilly, Jan. 16, 1991.
Chilcote to Reilly, 1991 / UCSF (pdf, 4 pp)
Assorted literature on the EPA ETS Report
"Safeguarding the Future: Credible Science, Credible Decisions," by the "Expert Panel on the Role of Science at EPA," a supposed independent advisory committee established by William Reilly (Raymond C. Loehr, Bernard D. Goldstein, Anil Venode, and Paul G. Risser), which used "interviews and meetings with knowledgeable individuals" to produce assorted generalities that were no threat to the corrupt science, March 1992.
Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination. A research report conducted by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Aug. 11, 1994.
de Tocqueville Institution, 1994 / UCSF (pdf, 70 pp)
ETS Issues Binder
ETS Issues Binder. ETS and Lung Cancer In Nonsmokers, Volume 1 (Philip Morris, 575 pages) There are numerous related links to the same or other ETS documents, in separate format.
A newer edition of the issues binder.
cast 02-10-15
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
posted May 19, 2021 07:39 PM
posted May 20, 2021 04:22 PM
posted May 20, 2021 08:37 PM
posted May 20, 2021 09:41 PM
posted May 22, 2021 03:12 PM
posted February 04, 2022 07:02 PM