Hello! New Visitor here! :)
- I must confess... I am not a pipe smoker... just cigarette smoker.
Ahhh welll... I think I can qualify as Christian though, courtesy of
the Christian Brothers De La Salle of Manhattan College and 16 years
of Catholic School. :)
I'm new here, and again I'll be honest, will probably not be a
regular contributor. I am an activist and have been fighting the
Antismoking Lobby tooth-and-nail (although peacefully so!) for many
As pipe smokers, most of you have always been subject to exile after
dinner if you chose to indulge while eating out at most places, but
recently the Antismokers have even begun invading people's homes.
ASH encourages neighbors to mount lawsuits against "smells"
of "deadly toxic tobacco smoke" from next door. Foster children are
being taken from smoking foster parents and even birth children are
being grabbed from smokers on basis of parental smoking during
Your pipe smoking, always limited, is becoming even more
threatened... and your families are being told that you're killing
This is a time you can fight back if you care to. Read the press
release below and do what you can. I'll carry on any discussion you
might like, here or in email, but I won't come back uninvited to hit
your gathering with more "political" messages.
Smoke in peace!
Michael J. McFadden
Press Release: 12/05/05
As you're probably aware, there are very important ban fights in
several places this week, most notably in Chicago and D.C. The
Antismokers are pushing VERY hard for bans in both places and we have
mounted strong fights against them in both places.
At this critical juncture, something important has come up. Dave
Kuneman and I have just released a new study that completely and
totally shoots down one of the major pillars that they rest
their "urgent need for bans" on. That pillar is made of the Helena
study and its clones: studies that have looked at heart attack rates
in selected small towns and claimed dramatic decreases immediately
after bans were implemented.
This new study, based on a database literally 1,000 times larger than
these small ones, DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS their findings: NO effect at
all from bans. If this news can get spread quickly enough and far
enough, particularly if it garners anywhere near the massive
attention that the press lavished on Helena in the first place, it
could make a massive difference for all of us. Get the below press
release to any contacts you have, particularly political or media
contacts. Scour your online newspapers over the past week or two
for any articles or editorials that mention the Pueblo Study or the
Helena study and send them a STRONG letter to the editor: those
studies have now been completely invalidated and the press should
make up for its earlier reporting of them.
As you'll see from the press release below and the links at its end,
we stand a good chance of making a major impact here, but it depends
on all of you getting the word out to the politicians, to the media,
and to anyplace you travel on the web.
Keep your fingers crossed and best of luck to all of us!
For Immediate Release: December 5 , 2005
Do Smoking Bans cause a 27 to 40% drop in admissions for myocardial
infarction in hospitals?
December 5, 2005
Antismokers claim that studies have shown that bans bring about an
immediate and drastic decrease in heart attacks among nonsmokers
exposed to smoke at work.
This claim was never true to begin with - the cited studies never
separated and analyzed nonsmokers as a separate group - and it has
now been pointed out in the pages of the BMJ that even the claim of
saving lives among the combined population of smokers and nonsmokers
might be worthless.
While many making that claim may have believed their information to
be accurate, it is now obvious that its basis has been thrown
strongly into question. As Jacob Sullum noted in a December 1st
reaction to the announcement, "An effect this dramatic (i.e. an
immediate and pronounced drop of hospital admissions for heart
attacks) should have been noticed all over the country..."
Just a week before the Chicago Aldermen were due to vote on a
citywide smoking ban, two independent researchers working together,
David W. Kuneman and Michael J. McFadden, unveiled a new study
covering a population base roughly 1,000 times as large as the
previous town-based studies. The new study indicates strongly that
rather than a 30% decrease in heart attacks, statewide smoking bans
seem to have literally NO EFFECT AT ALL on heart attack rates.
Incredibly the data even indicates that California's statewide heart
attack rate went UP by 6% in the first full year of their total
The data for the study and the basis of its design have been backed
up and expanded by well-known antismoking researcher Michael Siegel
who has come out in support of the researchers' approach as
providing "compelling evidence that brings into question the
conclusion that smoking bans have an immediate and drastic effect on
heart attack incidence." His observation is echoed by researcher
Kuneman who asks, "Ever wonder why you didn't hear about post ban
heart attack declines in New York City? Or in Minneapolis or Los
Angeles? Now you know!"
On December 4th the British Medical Journal entered the fray with the
online publication of a Rapid Response by Mr. McFadden outlining the
new research and posing sharp criticisms of the earlier studies and
of the refusal of the authors of those studies to respond to previous
criticisms and questions. McFadden points out that the data in the
Kuneman/McFadden study are fully open for public examination and far
less selective than the data in the earlier studies and notes with
pride that he and his co-researcher have been quick to respond to all
queries posted about their methodology on Dr. Siegel's web blog.
He also poses the wider ranging question of whether studies
commissioned by the "Antismoking Industry" should begin to receive
the same cautious reception accorded those commissioned by "Big
Tobacco." The current study, as well as an earlier one by the duo,
were unfunded and neither researcher receives grants for their work
from either interest group. Kuneman sharply asks the question, "Why
the difference between the studies? For one thing we weren't
dependent on antismoking-targeted grants!"
At this point there appears to be very little, if any, real
scientific support for the claim that protecting nonsmokers from
normal levels of exposure to secondary smoke prevents any heart
attacks. And it is this claim that has always provided the impressive
numbers upon which ban advocates have pressed legislators to pass
Without those numbers proponents of extreme bans are left with little
other than the widely discredited EPA figures relating ETS to lung
cancer and a few isolated instances of hospitality workers who have
come to believe that their own cancers were caused by working in
smoking establishments. Samantha Phillipe, editor of the
longstanding smokersclubinc.com newsletter, notes that while it's
always a cause for sadness when someone becomes ill that it's even
more sad when they are misguidedly advised to blame family and
friends for their illness.
Without a compelling body of scientific evidence backing them up,
smoking bans are an unnecessary and overbearing intrusion of
government into the spheres of free choice, private property and free
enterprise. And the Kuneman/McFadden study points up just how
uncompelling even some of the strongest and most publicised evidence
2)Mike Siegel's blog analysis and followup comments:
3) BMJ Response:
4) Jacob Sullum's REASON column:
Hit and Run
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
Mid-Atlantic Regional Director of SmokersClubInc.com
web page: http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/