‘Borstkanker door meeroken’ is onzin

‘Meeroken veroorzaakt borstkanker’ kopten vele Amerikaanse media vorige week. Het bericht was gebaseerd op een annoncering van de EPA, het Amerikaanse RIVM. Het onderzoek waarop de annoncering was gebaseerd was echter nog niet af, niet peer-reviewed en niet eens gepubliceerd.

Het is bovendien complete onzin, schrijft Elizabeth Whelan, president van de American Council on Science and Health in de New York Post. Er zijn duidelijke aanwijzingen dat roken de kans op borstkanker juist verlaagt. Het is dan ook hoogst onwaarschijnlijk dat niet-rokende vrouwen van meeroken borstkanker zouden krijgen.

Haar introductiezin liegt er niet om. Dit is erg slecht voor de reputatie van de epidemiologie, schrijft ze:

“ENVIRONMENTAL activists this week brought the credibility of the noble science of epidemiology (the study of the cause of human disease) to another low.”

The Air Resources Board of the California EPA declared that exposure to second-hand smoke upped a woman’s risk of breast cancer. Nevermind that the “study” was preliminary and was neither peer reviewed nor published.

The national media picked up its scary conclusions in a generally uncritical manner, most scientists remained silent on the travesty and the California regulatory exorcists who are committed to removing all “toxins” from the air, pondered even more legislation to “protect” women from breast cancer by eliminating exposure to second-hand smoke.

But there is no persuasive evidence that smoking, no less second-hand exposures, cause breast cancer. In fact, there is some evidence that women who smoke may have a reduced risk of breast cancer given that smoking reduces the body’s natural estrogen levels. Commonsense suggests that if a woman smoking a pack a day is not at increased risk of breast cancer, then a nonsmoking woman transiently exposed to second-hand smoke would not be either.

Indeed, why do anti-smoking advocates need to exaggerate their claims when there is already overwhelming scientific evidence of the dangers of smoking? Because the anti-smoking movement is driven by a zeal to regulate cigarette smoking out of existence and the ends justify the means.

They seem unaware that their baseless health claims threaten the acceptance and credibility of legitimate public health initiatives as facts and hype get tangled.

Let’s not give the tobacco industry fertile grounds for claiming all smoking and health claims are based on junk science.