Once again a story (from the Associated Press) appears in the Philadelphia Inquirer about yet another "finding" about smoking. Once again there's a University of Pennsylvania connection--in this case, the study's lead author. No one mentions where the funding comes from, but if it's not from some chlorine or other toxics interests (thus creating suspicion of falsified data and conclusions) then the cause of significant oversights must be gross incompetence.

"Exercise may cut smokers' risk" (Dec. 13, 2006, www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/nation/16225926.htm) reported a study that tested older women smokers who exercised and found lower lung cancer rates. One consideration was that those who exercised were less likely to be overweight, but it was said that it was "unclear" if that had any bearing.

"Unclear"? Yes, "unclear" because researchers apparently threw a sheet over any information about chlorine in typical (not all) cigarettes that produces cancer-causing dioxin in the smoke. "Unclear" because the researchers plugged their ears and covered their eyes to ample established material about dioxin being bioaccumulative in fatty tissues and that, therefore, those with less fat have less of this immune-damaging, cancer-promoting industrial pollutant in their systems (see www.greenpeace.org.nz/toxics-map/deadly.htm).

Did these fine researchers test any of the subjects for dioxin levels? Did they bother to examine any of the cigarettes for chlorine content (from still-legal pesticide residues and still-legal bleached paper) and resultant dioxin emissions? Did they separate those who may smoke chlorine-free natural tobacco from those using typical "Dioxin Dowels" (or "Pesticide Pegs")? Did they take into account the women's other dioxin sources, such as pesticides in the home or office, chlorine cleansers and disinfectants, exposure to vehicle emissions, or chlorine-contaminated coffee filters, tampons, etc.? Did researchers take note of the women's diet regarding dioxins found in some fatty foods? And, did they keep in mind that typical (not all) cigarettes may be contaminated with the now-notorious Polonium-210 from the still-legal use of certain phosphate tobacco fertilizers? After all, those rads are known to get to the furthest reaches of the lung and to be carcinogenic.

Other studies, easily found, have gone as far as saying that most "smoking-related" respiratory cancers may be attributed to this Po 210 radiation. All news stories now saying that Po 210 is "very rare" are less than truthful in their ignorance of typical cigarettes. According to Lenntech, a water treatment and air purification company, "Polonium-210 is the only component of cigarette smoke that has produced cancer by itself in laboratory animals by inhalation... during the same period, the level of polonium-210 in American tobacco had tripled. This coincided with the increase in the use of phosphate fertilizers by tobacco growers..." (see www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart-elements/Po-en.htm)

It's as if researchers working for Colt Firearms Company examined shooting victims and found it "unclear" what caused all the holes--or that faster, more exercised or smaller victims had fewer holes, not taking into account that faster or smaller victims provide more difficult targets for shooters.

To all appearances, these "researchers" had the assignment of blaming the victims while simultaneously protecting and hiding the complicity of the cigarette makers, the pesticide and paper suppliers, the chlorine industry as a whole by implication, the phosphate fertilizer industry, all of their insurers and investors, and many levels of public officials. These officials, including even medical professionals, were and are those who a) allowed this situation for many decades, b) refused to even warn anyone about such unavoidably deadly cigarette adulterants, c) collected campaign funds and "sin taxes" from the industries, and d) now stand on their heads to blame (and even prosecute!) the victims. Tobacco itself, the other prime scapegoat, may have some inherent risk factors, as everything does, but chlorine-funded "science" has not yet gotten around to comparing effects of plain tobacco to the clearly deadly effects of industrially-contaminated cigarettes.

With this kind of medical "research" being tolerated at the highest levels, we are all in big trouble, smokers or not. Everyone's health care and protection seems to be in the hands of "Company Doctors" working for the very industries that cause so many health problems.