Alan wrote:
In message , The
Medway Handyman wrote

Only just spotted this post. I have never said that active smoking
isn't a cause of lung cancer, plenty of sound scientific evidence to
support that claim. However, the 'evidence' concerning passive
smoking is utter bollox.

Yep, the evidence given out by the tobacco companies about passive
smoking is complete bollox. Go back a generation and they were telling
everyone that low tar cigarettes were also safe.

The tobacco companies haven't published anything about the alleged dangers
of passive smoking.

If you want to think about bias, consider the position of the much more
powerful and influential multi national pharmaceutical companies who produce
'give up smoking' products.

In the past 20 years there have been very few new 'wonder drugs' they can
make huge profits from, other than AIDS and Statins.

Consider the marketing power of those companies. Statins for example, the
average manufacturers marketing budget is $1 us billion, more than three
times the development costs. Nicotine patches etc are easier to develop and
therefore have higher margins & bigger marketing budgets.

The evidence against active smoking is clear and concise. The current
hysteria about passive smoking is biased by funding from the pharmaceutical
industry, who only promote data that supports their cause and their huge
profits.

Try getting funding for a fair & neutral study on the effects of passive
smoking - it doesn't exist.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk