Why Do Researchers Tell Lies About Smoking and Health?
Scientists like to have new ideas and results.That is how science
makes progress. But the ideas and results must not be too radical.
They must be compatible with orthodox science. For the question of
smoking and health that means they must be consistent with the belief
that smoking is overall harmful to health.This poses a serious but not
insurmountable problem for scientists studying diseases which appear
to be prevented by smoking. This includes ulcerative colitis,
pre-eclampsia, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, allergic lung disease and
dementia. Papers describing such work usually include a statement such
as: "Conclusions - These findings suggest an inverse association
between smoking and Alzheimer's disease, although smoking cannot be
advocated for other health reasons." (van Duijn and Hofman, 1991) It
is like a protective mantra: Yes, smoking seems to prevent some
disease but this has not shaken our faith. It is like a devout
Christian who finds himself in the presence of evil and makes the sign
of the cross. This gesture both protects him from the evil and at the
same time asserts his unwavering and steadfast faith.
But there is one part of smoking and health which is much more
troublesome and that is smoking and cancer. For fifty years this has
been the cornerstone of the antismoking movement. Without it the
entire edifice might crumble. The vast financial enterprise of the
antismoking movement might collapse, and with it its well-heeled
propagandists. The scientist who finds for example that smoking does
not cause lung cancer or, far worse, that it prevents lung cancer, is
in an invidious position. He cannot say "we have shown that cigarette
smoke prevents lung cancer, although smoking cannot be advocated for
other health reasons." That would appear ludicrous.   This was the
problem faced by Boffetta et al (1998) in their case-control study of
passive smoking and lung cancer conducted for the World Health
Organization, the largest ever conducted. Their dilemma is revealed in
the abstract of their paper: "Results: ETS [PS] exposure during
childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer
(odds ratio for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval = 0.64
0.96"
and
"Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood
exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk."
To anyone familiar with scientific prose this is grotesque. The
authors state their results as numbers and then in words deny they
found any such thing. It seems that Boffetta et al found their own
results so disturbing they could not bear to mention them in words and
indeed felt obliged to lie about them. Furthermore, just as they could
not confront their own results nor could they mention the work of
Brownson et al (1992) who had found a similar significant protective
effect.
  This is not nit-picking or pedantry. The history of science is
replete with examples of surprising, even paradoxical results which
have proved far more productive than results which were expected.
The work of Boffetta et al is quoted in about 40 other PS papers. I
have yet to find even one which mentions their only significant
result. Like Boffetta, their attitude seems to be "Don't mention the
nasty bogeyman and he might go away."
Why do researchers tell lies about smoking and health? Because some
things are too disturbing to admit and their existence must be denied.

Boffetta et al (1998): http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/WHO1.mht
Brownson et al (1992): http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/b.html
Van Duijn and Hofman (1991): BMJ, 302, 1491-1494

ray@iinet.com.au
www.iinet.com.au/~ray