A Corrupted Study On Corruption -- By The Corrupted

FORCES - Evidence by topic - Back to: Proving the lies of the anti-tobacco cartel: The Evidence


The political prostitution of science and medical profession, and the arrogant insults to the intelligence of people cannot find a better example than in this "study".

Here the authors "explain" why there is disagreement in the scientific conclusions about secondhand smoke. They proceed with the analysis, and they discover that most of the scientists who concluded that secondhand smoke is not dangerous -- guess what" -- have/had contact with the tobacco industry!

That may be, but let's stop a moment here -- and think.

If the dangers of secondhand smoke would be as definite as the anti-tobacco cartel claims, there would be no dispute whatsoever. Nobody argues anymore on how AIDS is transmitted, or about the causes of tuberculosis, no matter who he/she works for.

This is because those diseases are an established fact, and 2 + 2 = 4, no matter who says it. The fact that JAMA takes the time to analyze the reasons of dissent not only proves its political and moral corruption -- that's a given, in consideration of the total sell-out of the American Medical Association to the anti-tobacco cartel. What this piece really PROVES is that at least there are no solid grounds on which the anti-tobacco cartel can justify its claims on ETS, hence the need for an explanation -- and the need to slander dissent by "exposing" the scientists who had contact with the industry, since no real arguments can be brought forward. Insecurity is the name of this game.

But nested here there is another game with a different name: dishonesty.

Nowhere in this piece there is mention of the contacts that the scientists claiming there is danger in ETS had with the pharmaceutical industry for example, or the American Cancer Society, or the rest of the firmament of organizations dispensing tax dollars to finance anti-tobacco "studies."

Why" What makes a scientist funded by RWJF more objective (thus credible) than one funded by Philip Morris" What makes the ACS morally superior to the tobacco industry" The millions of dollars they make with anti-tobacco" Their admittedly false information on the "death number" of secondhand smoke" Is tobacco prohibition more moral than freedom of choice" Says who"

Why don't Deborah E. Barnes and Lisa A. Bero (see below) "study" the funding of anti-smoking scientists, and make a data extraction/synthesis/conclusions on them as well" They would make quite interesting discoveries. Who knows, perhaps they would find their own names among the "paid out" ones!

The answer is very simple: as in Italy all roads lead to Rome, in anti-smoking all roads lead to the money dispensed by the anti-tobacco cartel.

So much for the neutrality of political "science," on which we are asked to "commit" an act of faith.


The Journal of the American Medical Association

Abstracts - May 20, 1998

Why Review Articles on the Health Effects of Passive Smoking Reach Different Conclusions

Deborah E. Barnes, MPH; Lisa A. Bero, PhD

Objective. - To determine whether the conclusions of review articles on the health effects of passive smoking are associated with article quality, the affiliations of their authors, or other article characteristics.

Data Sources. - Review articles published from 1980 to 1995 were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE and from a database of symposium proceedings on passive smoking.

Article Selection. - An article was included if its stated or implied purpose was to review the scientific evidence that passive smoking is associated with 1 or more health outcomes. Articles were excluded if they did not focus specifically on the health effects of passive smoking or if they were not written in English.

Data Extraction. - Review article quality was evaluated by 2 independent assessors who were trained, followed a written protocol, had no disclosed conflicts of interest, and were blinded to all study hypotheses and identifying characteristics of articles. Article conclusions were categorized by the 2 assessors and by one of the authors. Author affiliation was classified as either tobacco industry affiliated or not, based on whether the authors were known to have received funding from or participated in activities sponsored by the tobacco industry. Other article characteristics were classified by one of the authors using predefined criteria.

Data Synthesis. - A total of 106 reviews were identified. Overall, 37% (39/106) of reviews concluded that passive smoking is not harmful to health; 74% (29/39) of these were written by authors with tobacco industry affiliations. In multiple logistic regression analyses controlling for article quality, peer review status, article topic, and year of publication, the only factor associated with concluding that passive smoking is not harmful was whether an author was affiliated with the tobacco industry (odds ratio, 88.4; 95% confidence interval, 16.4-476.5; P BACK TO FORCESMAIN PAGE

FORCES is supported solely by the efforts of the readers. Please become a member or donate what you can.

Contact Info
Forces Contacts
Media Contacts
Links To Archived Categories

The Evidence
Inside Forces
About Forces
Book case