---

You should be ASHamed!

Here are excerpts from ASH articles:

On the subject of a study on smoking and breast cancer in women:

"More women die of breast cancer than from any other cancer. It is now the second leading cause of death in American women. [...] But it wasn't always this way. [...] Just 50 years ago barely one out of every 28 women got breast cancer. Today the rate has skyrocketed to one in 8! What has changed? Obviously one of the most important changes in women's lives has been the tremendous increase in smoking by American women."

Obviously?!? Did the study alluded to by ASH keep into account atmospheric pollution concentration? Fifty years ago the U.S. did not dump into the atmosphere 58 million tons (megatons) of pollutants a year as they do today (over 530 pounds per capita). Of these 530 pounds per capita, about 140 are carcinogenic hydrocarbons, and 120 are nitrogen oxide gas, that melts lung tissues. Most of the rest is carbon monoxide, linking to the blood's haemoglobin and displacing oxygen. Not to mention super-carcinogenic formaldehyde, and benzene. The mathematical comparison with the sum of direct pollutants intake of an individual smoking one pack a day is 0.44 grams, versus the daily per capita national average of 659 grams available to his/her lungs!

What about family history of breast cancer? Lifestyle? Fifty years ago women mainly stayed home as housewives, sheltered from the grinding stress of today's world. A lot of things have changed in 50 years.

And again:

[Title: Smoking In Condo Triggers Suit; Smoking Stops (07/08)] "People who own condos or rent apartments are increasingly complaining about being forced to breathe other tenants' smoke which either circulates through the common vent system or comes in through their windows. [follows a quotation from the LA Times 07/05]: Platt complains he's breathing smoke--cigarette smoke that drifts through his open windows from the condominium below. He finds the odor intolerable, the health risk alarming. [...] To Platt, there's no doubt about it: his neighbor's smoking, he said, made him sick. It also triggered bad memories, as both his parents died of lung cancer. [...] ".

At one point Banzhaf is quoted as saying, "What's that old adage? My right to swing my fist ends at your nose?"

Out of respect for politeness, we will not even comment on Mr. Platt's case (was Platt advised by ASH, by any chance?), and his problem with bad memories and open windows. As far as the old adage goes, how true! ASH's fist has gone far beyond any nose, and it is time to punch back!

The latest "blitz" of this organization is its exploitation of a recent study (what else?) that seems to have discovered yet another negative link between the enjoyment of tobacco and a medical occurrence.

The title of the page is, of course, an accusatory tabloid headline: Smoking Parents Are Killing Their Infants.

The study in question refers to SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). "If we could remove all smoking from a baby's environment, we estimate that cot deaths would fall by 61 percent", said Joyce Epstein of the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths at a news conference.

What better opportunity for ASH to add gasoline to the fire of smokers' persecution? Here is an excerpt from the piece:

"A new study shows that smoking by parents is a major cause of death among infants from SIDS, and at least one researcher has suggested that persons seeking to adopt infants be questioned about their smoking habits."

Get a life!

The fact is, one study does not an iron-clad truth make. Even the British Medical Journal (BMJ), in an editorial comment on the study, pointed out some qualifications that should be made when examining the study's findings.

"The findings of relative risks greater than three and a dose-response relation in these studies support the inference that this [the smoking] is causal [to SIDS]. However, lingering doubts remain that the association may be due, in part, to the association of parental smoking with other infant care practices, which might vary by socioeconomic status." (BMJ Editorial, BMJ No. 7051 Volume 313, Saturday 27 July, 1996)

Statistical studies are indications pointing science to investigate in a certain direction. Over time, additional studies and the peer review process may confirm or undermine the results of initial studies. Manipulative politics and simplistic media reporting may, however, succeed in giving one study the appearance of being the final, irrefutable word.

In our opinion, what ASH is trying to do against smoking parents and smokers in general and with this study in particular, is beneath contempt, as the accusatory title of its report, "Smoking Parents are Killing their Infants", demonstrates. ASH provides an outstanding example of the direction the antismoking agenda has taken. If this is not stopped, the liberties of all will be in danger.

Perhaps the best answer to date to ASH's sensationalistic exploitation of the SIDS study comes from Barry S. Brokaw, SIDS Alliance board of Directors, Sacramento, in a letter published by the Los Angeles Times (Washington Edition) on August 2, 1996. In it, Mr. Brokaw cautions against an ignorant pillory-the-parent stance in response to a complicated and still mysterious medical phenomenon :

"Re.: 'Smoke Makes SIDS Risks Soar, Study Finds', July 26. Recent reports of research studies on sudden infant death syndrome conducted in the United States and Britain hailing the success of 'Back to Sleep' campaigns in reducing the SIDS rates (placing the baby on its back rather than on its stomach) and linking smoking and other environmental factors to an increased 'risk' for SIDS seem to underplay or leave out entirely the most fundamental point about the status of SIDS research efforts.

Researchers don't know what causes this leading killer of babies between the ages of 2 weeks and 1 year. Because the underlying causes of SIDS remain unknown, all newborn infants are potentially at risk for SIDS. Babies placed on their back to sleep still die of SIDS. Babies not exposed to cigarette smoke still die of SIDS. Babies who are breast fed, who have had wonderful prenatal care, who were full term and of normal birth weight, who have parents who have not abused drugs, in short, who have no known risk factors, still die of SIDS.

As the result of the way these research studies are presented, the public may come to view SIDS as somehow "preventable" if we simply alter the child's environment. Of even greater concern to me is the effect of those reports on families who have lost a child to SIDS, and they still number around 500 a year in California, and between 4,500 and 5,000 nationally.

The last thing we need to do to parents who suffer this tragedy is to stigmatize or marginalize them The simple truth is that SIDS can, and does, claim any baby, in spite of parents doing 'everything right' ".