Scientific Evidence Portal
Defending legitimate epidemiologic research: combating Lysenko pseudoscience | James E Enstrom
Article Published: 2007/10/10
Type: Articles and Dissertations
Published By: Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations 2007, 4:11
"This analysis presents a detailed defense of my epidemiologic research in the May 17, 2003 British Medical Journal that found no significant relationship between environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and tobacco-related mortality. In order to defend the honesty and scientific integrity of my research, I have identified and addressed in a detailed manner several unethical and erroneous attacks on this research. Specifically, I have demonstrated that this research is not "fatally flawed," that I have not made "inappropriate use" of the underlying database, and that my findings agree with other United States results on this relationship. My research suggests, contrary to popular claims, that there is not a causal relationship between ETS and mortality in the U.S. responsible for 50,000 excess annual deaths, but rather there is a weak and inconsistent relationship. The popular claims tend to damage the credibility of epidemiology.
In addition, I address the omission of my research from the 2006 Surgeon General's Report on Involuntary Smoking and the inclusion of it in a massive U.S. Department of Justice racketeering lawsuit. I refute erroneous statements made by powerful U.S. epidemiologists and activists about me and my research and I defend the funding used to conduct this research. Finally, I compare many aspect of ETS epidemiology in the U.S. with pseudoscience in the Soviet Union during the period of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. Overall, this paper is intended to defend legitimate research against illegitimate criticism by those who have attempted to suppress and discredit it because it does not support their ideological and political agendas. Hopefully, this defense will help other scientists defend their legitimate research and combat "Lysenko pseudoscience."
Of course Enstrom’s research is not “fatally flawed,” and of course he did not make "inappropriate use" of the underlying database. That ETS is dangerous simply cannot be demonstrated – scientifically or even epidemiologically. One has to think with the perverted/inverted morality of antitobacco, however, to understand where antitobacco stands.
For antismoking ideology, anything that does not corroborate the notion that any form of smoking and tobacco use is deadly is “fatally flawed,” thus speaking the truth becomes "inappropriate use" of the data. The “appropriate” use is continuing to con the public by misrepresenting the effects of smoking on health, so that people quit smoking, possibly by using the cessation products produced the pharmaceutical industry that pays off the antismoking “scientists” and activists.
It is as simple as that – and yes, to the healthist ideologists Trofim Denisovich Lysenko is a hero, and the prototype of a “socially responsible scientist” because he did what they expect a scientist to do: make his science a serf of their fanatical ideology of fraud and social control while being part of it.
This is mainly an article on the ethics used to attack the James Entrom and Geoffrey Kabat, authors of the huge cohort study Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 that showed, in effect, that the "dangers" of passive smoking are too small to be measured, if they exist at all.
For the incredible story of the ad hominem attacks on these two scientists, and the attempt to intimidate the researchers and suppress this study, visit the web site of the Scientific Integrity Institute.