‘Defending legitimate epidemiologic research: combating Lysenko pseudoscience’ is something that all FORCES visitors and all concerned citizens should read.
Downloads are available on this page. This powerful article hammers home once again the level of degradation and corruption antismoking epidemiology in particular, and the antismoking movement in general, has sunk to. The ad hominem attacks on the reputation and credibility of James Enstrom are known to most of our readers, but the incredible story can be reviewed on James Enstrom’s Scientific Integrity Institute website. His new article at Bio-Med Central is a must.
"To put a historical perspective on the tactics that have been used against me, I conclude by making an analogy with the pseudoscientific practices of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. Hopefully, my defense will encourage and/or help other honest scientists to defend their research against unwarranted and illegitimate criticism.
"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 aspects of ETS epidemiology in the U.S. with pseudoscience in the Soviet Union during the period of Trofim Devisovich 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.’"