Ok Charles you want to play it that way. In your first link a marked elevation of inflammatory markers the authors tip their hand and show bias in their opening statement “Besides secondhand smoke exposure, few other risk factors for lung cancer in lifetime never smokers have been identified.” Totally ignoring radon,diet,HPV,Cooking oils,diesel exhaust, etc etc etc all of which have equal or higher odds ratio. The highest odds ratio in this study is 2.69. In just the case of HPV the odds ratio is10.12. The study showed an increase of homocysteine levels which is highly linked to diet.
The last one I am not going to bother with. Yes smoke is an irritant to those with asthma as are perfumes,flowers etc etc. The fact is that ETS exposure is at a historic low and asthma is at an all time high so trying to link asthma to ETS is nothing more then a red herring.
As far as your comment So ask yourself: is this really the way you want to spend your days, defending an industry that addicts and kills? There are so many good things to do. Why choose to do evil?
Guilt, Guilt, nope! I am not defending anything the tobacco companies have done, I am defending the right of freedom of choice. I am attacking a group of activist in scientist clothing that are lying as much as Big Tobacco ever did. Does one study by itself make a drastic difference no. But the vast majority of the studies were statistically insignificant. The only way the activist could show significance was to do meta analysis on cherry picked studies, and in a Meta ignoring the biggest and longest study can make a drastic difference. The fact that publication bias alone can skew the results of a meta analysis drastically, ignoring studies you don’t like just exacerbates the problem. And there are studies that show that when it comes to ETS publication bias does exist.