Professor Peto

It seems that Professor Peto is in the news again, this time the Daily Express, where he makes the following statements:

One of the world's leading experts on the effect of tobacco said the ban could prevent up to half a million deaths a year.

Professor Sir Richard Peto made the forecast based on the experience of the Republic of Ireland, where cigarette sales fell by around 17% after its ban.

A similar trend in England could lead to 1.5 million people quitting smoking, he said, adding: "Half of all smokers are going to be killed by tobacco. If a million people stop smoking who wouldn't otherwise have done so then maybe you'll prevent half a million deaths."

Joe Jackson I believe has done his research well, and I have copied a relevant portion for you to read.

Lung cancer is the disease most strongly associated with smoking, though even this is a statistical rather than a causative link. In other words, it has been statistically shown that smokers are more likely to get lung cancer, rather than scientifically shown that the cancer is specifically caused by the smoking. This is a more important distinction than it might seem. Much of the antismokers’ case is based on statistics, and statistics is not science. It does make sense - so long as you don’t mind bullying people out of their pleasures - to try to bring down the rate of lung cancer by getting people to quit smoking. But the evidence linking smoking with lung cancer is much less convincing than we are led to believe. For one thing, there is much disagreement about what the actual risk factor is.

The general consensus seems to reflect the pioneering studies of Professor Sir Richard Doll in the 1950s and 60s, which are still regarded as ‘benchmarks’. Doll reckoned that about 160 in 100,000 smokers developed lung cancer as opposed to 7 in 100,000 nonsmokers; so you have about a 24 times greater risk if you smoke. This can also be expressed as ‘2,400%’. But beware of estimates of ‘increased risk,’ especially when expressed in percentages; they’re a good sign that someone is trying to frighten, rather than to inform. If you buy 25 lottery tickets instead of one, your chances of winning go up by 2,500%. But though the number sounds impressive, your actual chances of winning are still minuscule.

Likewise, if Prof Doll was right, you still have a 99.8% chance of not getting lung cancer. This is nothing more or less than a re-presentation, or re-packaging, of the same data. But it immediately sounds a lot less scary. Especially if smoking is something you love.

For a fuller picture please go to his site here!

For those that wish to know how Mr Howitts stand on the smoking ban, the Blackpool Gazette has a small piece.

Smoking again !!!

The majority of people reading these comments are obviously online, I would ask them to read and research upon the supposed effects of passive smoking. Use the internet in the way I believe it should be used, to inform and enlighten!

There is or appears to be little correlation between passive smoking and illness, they (anti smoking campaigners) have tried and tried to find a link. They cannot, all there is, is statistics, which as everyone knows are not reliable and can be changed to suit ones way of thinking.

I find it rather strange that Professor Robert West, who is vehemently against smokers, who produces article after article, has had his work funded by the NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) manufacturers, now I am not suggesting he has done anything wrong, but surely, any investigations and research, should not be paid for by companies that have an agenda.

LORD WAKEHAM of the Economic Affairs Committee has made the following comments:

"The foremost authority in this area - Sir Richard Peto, professor of medical statistics at Oxford - told the Committee that the risks from passive smoking are small and difficult to measure.

"Given the miniscule level of risk, the blanket ban on smoking in public places is a case of using the proverbial sledgehammer to obliterate, rather than crack, a rather small and insignificant nut.

"As the risks from passive smoking are tiny, the direct impact on public health is likely to be so small as to be immeasurable.

Yet the same Professor Peto, quoted by Lord Wakeham, has released a statement

"Cigarette smoke is the most important cause of cancer in the world and so the exposure of non-smokers to it is going to cause some risk of death.

"But there is reasonable disagreement as to how big that risk is: smokers kill more smokers than non-smokers.

"However, if this ban helps people who want to stop to manage to do so then it could save a lot of lives and prevent a lot of premature deaths.

"Smoking is still responsible for about 20-25% of all deaths in middle age, and most smokers who die in middle age wouldn't have died if they hadn't smoked.

"Half of all smokers are going to be killed by tobacco. If a million people stop smoking who wouldn't otherwise have done so then maybe you'll prevent half a million deaths.
Now if he made both statements, which one is true, or is he doing as most of the other researchers do, jumping on the band wagon to ensure his funding, ie. towing the party mantra? Or maybe it is as I suspect, he is scaremongering, he doesn't know, has no idea, and he will be long dead and buried before any conclusive evidence comes to light!

I would ask that people go and read a very good piece written by Joe Jackson, who has some interesting views on the smoking debate!