“Distortion” of passive smoking evidence provokes controversy in Israel
BMJ 2000; 320 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7238.826/e (Published 25 March 2000) Cite this as: BMJ 2000;320:826
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The disinformation contained in the outrageous Ha'aretz article
serves the interests of the tobacco industry, which has attacked the
science of passive smoking for at least a generation. A Wall Street
Journal article in April 1998 began, "Determined to keep reports about
second-hand smoke from mushrooming, the tobacco industry mobilized a
counterattack in the mid-1980s to systematically discredit any researcher
claiming perils from passive smoke."(1)
An official for BAT Industries in 1983 listed as a strategy: "Conduct
research to anticipate and refute claims about the health effects of
passive smoking." In a 1981 Philip Morris document, an executive suggests
funding studies "with the intent to publish data which refutes specific
assertions by the anti-smoking forces." Contrast these statements with
what a company truly devoted to honest scientific research would have
said: "Conduct research to learn the truth about the health effects of
passive smoking." Because smoking bans hurt Big Tobacco's profits, Big
Tobacco's massive disinformation campaign about secondhand smoke continues
worldwide.
(1) Hwang S. Tobacco Memos Detail Passive-Smoke Attack. Wall
Street Journal, 28 April 1998; B1, B8.
Competing interests: No competing interests
If research found a connection between the amount of tobacco
advertising in newspapers and the manner and amount that the papers write
about cigarettes, then the writing against smokers, smoking, and the
tobacco industry should also be positively correlated with the amount of
government-funded anti-smoking and anti-tobacco industry "research" and
propaganda. (3)
Israeli public health experts and health minister, Shlomo Benizri,
much like their American alcohol-temperance-era counter-parts, are staunch
supporters of a "therapeutic state," a state where medicine and government
are united in much the same way church (synagogue) and state in theocratic
states are. (8) Doctors and "public health" officials replace priests and
rabbis. Moral management masquerades as medicine. The distinction
between behavior and disease is obscured. Questioning the faith (science)
is heresy. (6)
The term "health Nazis," is taboo because it is apt: The Nazis
conducted the largest anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaign of the 20th
century. (2) The similarities between the discrimination against smokers,
the tobacco industry, and capitalism 70 years ago and today are striking.
(1) However, what is more disturbing is when government gets into the
business of calling ethical issues medical issues: Smoking is a behavior.
Cancer is a disease. (4,5) The therapeutic state is far more dangerous
than smoking could ever be. (7)
References:
1. J.R. Gusfield. 1998. The social symbolism of smoking and
health. In R. L. Rabin and S. Sugarman (Eds.) Smoking Policy: Law,
Politics, and Culture, pp. 49-68. 1993. London: Oxford University
Press.
2. R.N. Proctor. 1999. The Nazi War on Cancer. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
3. J. Siegel-Itzkovich. 2000. British Medical Journal;320:826 ( 25
March )
4. J.A. Schaler. 2000. Addiction Is a Choice. Chicago: Open Court.
5. J.A. Schaler and M.E. Schaler (Eds.). 1998. Smoking: Who Has the
Right? Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
6. T.S. Szasz. 1976. Ceremonial Chemistry: The Ritual Persecution of
Drugs, Addicts, and pushers. With a new preface. Holmes Beach, FL:
Learning Publications, 1985.
7. T.S. Szasz. 1963. Law, Liberty, and Psychiatry: An Inquiry into the
Social Uses of Psychiatry. With a new preface. Syracuse University
Press, 1989.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Irresponsible journalism
The report denying any risk from passive smoking by the daily
newspaper "Haaretz" clearly misquoted the recent BMJ analysis by Copas
(1). Moreover, it reported blatantly wrong information: e.g., a quotation
from a prominent cardiologist saying, "years of work have been destroyed
by the new evidence" (he denied to me having said that or even having been
interviewed!). A recent study by the Channing Laboratory of Harvard was
also quoted to deny the risk of passive smoking. Since I couldn't find
such a study and the journalist couldn't remember her source, I asked
Prof. D. Kasper, Head of the Channing Laboratory, who replied: "I am not
aware of what article is being referred to. As you are aware, we have
published a great deal on passive smoking and in every case I can remember
the results have been associated with some health effects."
Barnes (2) showed that the only factor associated with concluding
that passive smoking is not harmful was whether an author was affiliated
with the tobacco industry (odds ratio 88.4, p<_0.001. one="one" can="can" only="only" speculate="speculate" _3="_3" on="on" the="the" motives="motives" of="of" newspaper="newspaper" to="to" publish="publish" an="an" article="article" that="that" has="has" increased="increased" asymmetry="asymmetry" information="information" between="between" physicians="physicians" and="and" consumers.="consumers." misinformation="misinformation" tactic="tactic" tobacco="tobacco" industry="industry" _-="_-" doubt="doubt" is="is" our="our" product4-="product4-" certainly="certainly" been="been" nicely="nicely" served.="served." according="according" a="a" report="report" in="in" todays="todays" lancet="lancet" _5="_5" describing="describing" sophisticated="sophisticated" powerful="powerful" campaign="campaign" by="by" subvert="subvert" scientific="scientific" processes="processes" shape="shape" public="public" opinion="opinion" might="might" expect="expect" see="see" more="more" attempts="attempts" manipulate="manipulate" media.="media." p="p"/> (1) Copas JB, Shi JQ. Reanalysis of epidemiological evidence on lung
cancer and passive smoking. BMJ 2000;320:417-8
(2) Barnes DE, Bero LA. Why review articles on the health effects of
passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA 1998;279:1566-1570
(3) Cohen JE, Ashley MJ, Ferrence R, Brewster JM, Godstein AO.
Institutional addiction to tobacco. Tob Control 1999;8:70-74
(3) Smith GD, Phillips AN. Passive smoking and health: should we
believe Philip Morris's "experts"? BMJ 1996;313:929-933
(4) Ong EK, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry efforts subverting
International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study.
Lancet 2000;355:1253-59
Competing interests: No competing interests