(Foreword by CG)
This is another powerful investigative piece by Martin. A word of warning to those who cannot stand the truth: do not read this report.
A word of warning to ASH, CRUK and HMG: with each day that passes we get a little closer, we uncover a little bit more. The corruption, the lies, the fraud? They have a tendency to bite back.
You are on notice. The wheels are coming off. And so are the gloves.....
Over to Martin.
Under the Spotlight - ASH, CRUK and HM Government
The Truth exposed.
On Tuesday I explored the first of many false statements publicised by ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) in my article entitled Listen Up ASH! We Have Questions I examined their claim that the leisure sector can expect an increase in trade following the introduction of smoke-free policies. That claim was FALSE
Today I provide regular readers with a critical examination of another questionable claim - Lung cancer is the commonest cancer in Scotland. 90% of lung cancer is caused by tobacco use. ASH source document
My starting point is to refer you to a Telegraph article dated 6th July 2005 – Revealed for the first time: the cancer map of Britain This very helpfully shows the male and female mortality rates of lung cancer in the UK. Surprisingly a mortality rate of 50% above the national average is shown for the Clydebank area of Western Scotland. I recommend our online readers to examine this carefully before reading further.
I ask:- What is the official explanation offered to explain this anomaly?
In Smoking statistics - Smokers by geographical region Cancer Research UK claimed that -
In the UK, Scotland has the highest smoking prevalence rate at 27%, followed by Northern Ireland (26%), England (24%) and Wales (22%).
Similarly, in Cigarette smoking and male lung cancer in an area of very high incidence. II. Report of a general population cohort study in the West of Scotland it was reported that
Comparison of the lung cancer rates found in this cohort with those observed in other cohort studies in the literature (UK doctors, US Veterans, and American Cancer Society volunteers) suggested that the West of Scotland rates were substantially higher at all levels of cigarette exposure.
Having decided not to blindly accept the above statements I chose to research other causation factors: Asbestos and airborne pollutants.
Asbestos
Asbestos and lung cancer in Glasgow and the west of Scotland by H De Vos Irvine, D W Lamont, D J Hole, and C R Gillis West of Scotland Cancer Surveillance Unit, Greater Glasgow Health Board, Ruchill Hospital concluded by stating that -
A considerable proportion of cases of lung cancer in men in Glasgow and the west of Scotland from 1975 to 1984 were asbestos related. Most of these may not have been considered for compensation by the Department of Social Security. Given the very small annual number of recorded cases of asbestosis this condition is probably not a prerequisite for the development of asbestos related lung cancer.
The article Lethal Work: A History of the Asbestos Tragedy in Scotland by Ronald Johnston and Arthur McIvor, published in 2000, examines detail by graphic detail the history of Scotland’s asbestos tragedy unfolds as its authors explain how and why the country came to top the UK league table for asbestos-related disease. Although the Scottish incidence rates of asbestos-related disease are high, the rates in the West of Scotland are higher, with the rates in the Clydebank district being off the scale.
Airborne pollutants.
The potential damage caused to individuals by airborne pollutants such as petrol and diesel fumes is one regularly cited by pro-choice organisations with little evidence of its consideration by HMG and the anti-smoking lobby.
It would appear that Fear of political embarrassment led to government cover up of link between air pollution and lung cancer according to information release by the London School of Hygeine and Tropical medicine in 2002. It stated that -
Delegates attending an international conference in London to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Great London Smog of 1952, which caused an estimated 12,000 deaths, heard how governments from the late 50s onwards deliberately downplayed the huge threat to public health caused by air pollution, and sought to shift the blame firmly onto cigarette smoking instead.
In 1953, Dr Guy Scadding, speaking on the television programme Matters of Medicine, had expressed a belief that air pollution was as much a factor in whether someone developed lung cancer as smoking, citing the significantly higher number of deaths from the disease among those living in polluted cities, as opposed to the countryside, and assuming that rates of smoking were likely to be similar in both populations.
A committee was appointed by the Royal College of Physicians in 1959 to consider both the connection between smoking and air pollution, and to produce a report. But when it met on 17 March 1960, it decided to publish a separate report, giving smoking priority [after] it was pointed out that individuals could avoid the dangers of smoking but not those of pollution. In Adverse Health Effects of Chronic Exposure to Petroleum Combustion Products. On November 18, 1994, the first-ever conference on "Air Pollution: Impacts on Body Organs and Systems"
was held in Washington, D.C. by the National Association of Physicians for the Environment. Jaffe and Badman at the same conference summarized the effects of polluted air :
"Blood perfuses all of the body's organs and can carry toxic substances as well as beneficial substances, such as oxygen, to them. Air pollution is the source of many materials that may enter the human bloodstream through the nose, mouth, skin, and the digestive tract. Chemicals known to be harmful, such as benzene, lead and other heavy metals, carbon monoxide, volatile nitrites, pesticides, and herbicides. These substances have been shown to produce harmful effects on the blood, bone marrow, spleen, and lymph nodes.
In the Guardian, August 2004 an article entitled Taking the Oxford air adds up to a 60-a-day habit informed the reader that –
Wandering round Oxford and breathing the city's air is equivalent to smoking three packets of cigarettes a day, according to research into air quality statistics. The work done by Calor Gas, which produces liquefied petroleum gas, found that despite the enormous pollution from London traffic, people in three other cities - Oxford, Bath and Glasgow - suffered more damage to their lungs than Londoners.
Even the British Lung Foundation, in their fact-sheet Air pollution and your lungs
concede that Cars are a major source of air pollution in our Cities…If air pollution is to be controlled we need to adopt strict air quality standards”. They recommend that “people exposed to urban pollution for any length of time should consider protecting their lungs with a mask”
The propaganda campaign against tobacco enthusiasts failed to fool the judge in the negligence case of Mrs. Margaret McTear v Imperial Tobacco Limited Outer House Court of Session [2005] CSOH 69 Lord Nimmo Smith stated that –
Given that there are possible causes of lung cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a non-smoker, it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an individual's cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer.
In February this year ASH Scotland welcomed the publication of the Scottish Government’s Better Cancer Care - A Discussion document and Chief Executive Sheila Duffy re-stated that:
Smoking is a key factor in Scotland’s poor health record and a major cause of cancers, but it is something we can take action to change. 89.5% of all lung cancer deaths in Scotland are attributable to smoking.
As recently as June 2005, the minister for public health, Caroline Flint, admitted, that doctors would be disappointed by the failure to introduce an outright ban on smoking in enclosed public places. But she added, “clearly there are people in the medical profession who would prefer an outright ban, but when we undertook consultations as part of the Choosing Health white paper it was clear that people felt government should act but that there should be exemptions as smoking is legal. Government research showed that just 20% of people favour an outright ban in pubs, she added. UK stops short of outright smoking ban in enclosed public places
In the same month “The Government denied reports that it would opt for an outright ban on smoking in public places when Health Minister Caroline Flint told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that weekend newspaper reports suggesting that the government might go for a total ban were “false, speculation, anonymous briefings”.
Government denies smoking ban press reports
Having already established this week that ASH’s claim that the leisure sector can expect an increase in trade following the introduction of smoke-free policies was FALSE, I submit today that the evidence that I have considered above clearly indicates that the claims that Lung cancer is the commonest cancer in Scotland [and] 90% of lung cancer is caused by tobacco use are also FALSE. Additionally, the claim made by Caroline Flint In 2005 that The Government denied reports that it would opt for an outright ban on smoking in public places was also FALSE.
The challenge
I therefore challenge ASH, CRUK, their partners and Caroline Flint to issue a public apology immediately and to retract their misleading statements.
Perhaps by banning smokers from public places we have in effect banished the TRUTH from those locations. If we need any bans at all I would recommend that we start by banning Charity directors and Politicians who are caught ‘red handed’ misleading the public.
The evidence against their propaganda claims is accumulating rapidly. Any sensible Charity or Politician whose publicity campaigns are built upon the quicksand of half-truths and deliberate misrepresentation would recognise when their time is up. Will they fall or will they need to be pushed?
Martin Hensman M.Inst.L.Ex, LLB (Hons)
