Columbia Study on Cigar & Pipe Smoking Corrupt Misuse of Junk Science

Conclusions made by a new study of cigar and pipe smoking by researchers at the Columbia University Medical Center are not supported by the study’s findings, says the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association, a not-for-profit group of premium cigar retailers and manufacturers.

The study, published last month in the Annals of Internal Medicine, was funded primarily by grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institutes of Health. The study concludes that "physicians should… counsel cessation of pipe and cigar smoking…."

"Nothing in the study justifies this erroneous conclusion. It is prejudicial and preconceived, thereby justifying the labeling of the survey as being a corrupt misuse of junk science," said Chris McCalla, legislative director of the IPCPR which is comprised largely of some 2,000 neighborhood mom-and-pop retail stores and family-owned manufacturers of premium cigars, pipes, tobacco and related accouterments.

McCalla cited several features of the study that he said support his group’s position:

* Of 3,528 participants in the study, only 58 had ever smoked cigars or pipes and not cigarettes, and only 428 had smoked pipes or cigars along with cigarettes.

* Only 47 of the subjects were current cigar smokers, of which only 16 were current cigar smokers who had never smoked cigarettes.

* Of the cigar smokers, 95 percent were male, but only 34 percent of non-smokers were men.

* There was no effort in the study to determine the type of cigar smoked – machine-made or premium, hand-made cigars.

* The study showed no clinical effect on lung function in cigar smokers.

* There were no differences in airflow obstruction between cigar smokers and non-smokers.

* Cotinine levels (a form of nicotine) were similar in cigar smokers and non-smokers.

"The study found no clinical differences between cigar smokers and non-smokers and to draw conclusions to the contrary is to participate in a conspiracy of public disinformation and deception," McCalla said.

Keep your cigars fresh with a cigar humidor.

9 Responses

  • How could a “group of premium cigar retailers and manufacturers” be considered non-profit and (though implication) unbiased?

  • Yeah, it’s not like the EPA lied on their original 1993 study of the effects of second hand smoke…

  • Wow, and we want the gov’t to handle our health care. I can’t believe this. And ever since the 1960’s people have always believed that whatever scientists said MUST be true. What hogwash. Like al this snow we had is a result of global warming too.

  • Are these the same scientist that did the global warming studies as well, or did they do the cow flatulation study?

  • There are millions of studies done every year. A common misconception is that just because results from an individual study appear, it proves or disproves something. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. Real science is peer reviewed, published in well known journals, and proven to repeatable time and time again — this is key.
    Remember, don’t blame science — instead look at who is giving the results (the people, not just the institution). Are they trustworthy? Do they have a good track record of accurate data? etc. Then, are the results held to the criteria stated above. In this modern day everyone is so obsessed with balance and free speech. In science, that doesn’t work too well, but the media would distort that. I can imagine had Einstein still been alive today, they would have him on a news show debating some “unknown” about the theory of relativity as if this “unknown” was just as qualified because he wore the title scientist.
    We should never confuse free speech with the qualifications to speak on a certain topic.
    Just some thoughts from a science loving, critical thinking, pipe smoking connoisseur.

  • Greetings from western Canada.
    The claim that smoke, which occurs in nature, is somehow poisonous is completely ludicrous. If it were then nothing would be alive because of the smoke from forest fires.
    What we are actually seeing he is pseudo-science being used as a propaganda tool. The Nazis started using “science” to justify their seizure of tobacco money. They even started an “Institute of Tobacco Hazards Research” at Jena to promote the party line. Note that the conclusion is already in the name of the organization and no real science was possible there.
    If it was really about the well-being of smokers then the money would only be spent on smokers and not given to bigoted anti-smokers.
    Pseudo-scientific funding whores are the largest source of preventable stress and their funding should be completely eliminated for public health reasons.

  • I think that point that their data points show SO MUCH CROSSOVER between cigarette and cigar/pipe smoking, that it could really be thrown out. It’s like trying to say that drinking water is bad for you, when you include drowning victims. Smoke taken into the mouth, perhaps the sinuses 2 or three times per minute is entirely different from cigarette smoking which is intended to be absorbed from the lungs of the person smoking. Then the ADDATIVES/PRESERVATIVES &etc., which to my way of thinking are likely more suspect than tobacco.
    Personally, I’ll continue to enjoy my pipe and fine English tobacco. Besides, the most dangerous ‘thing’ on the planet are politicians. A mass murderer can kill a dozen, maybe two; to murder millions requires a politician.
    Miss Anne Thrope