Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar
My apologies re your point on "Campaigners"- I thought I had made it clear I deliberately avoided any "campaigning" sites - those links are researchers, not campaigners. They are reporting their findings, not their feelings. Cui bono?
|
No apologies necessary. I understood what you meant. Perhaps I didn't make clear what I meant. The WHO and the BMJ do "campaign" against smoking; they are therefore campaigners, and in the WHO's case, better financed than most. I think they may well only employ researchers who look to support their campaign to end passive smoking. Researchers have had their work discarded when they haven't supported the anti-passive smoking case.
Quote:
|
Re your point about "passive smoking", I thought link 1 and link3 were fairly unequivocal about that?
|
Persuasive ... yes. Unequivocal ... no. As before, campaigners make equally persuasive arguments about other issues, and I'm not convinced.
Quote:
|
Sir Richard Doll did say what you quoted, but what is almost always missed out when that is stated is the fact "he had just published a study from 12 European countries suggesting the opposite: it was estimated that non-smokers exposed to second-hand smoke are between 20 and 30 per cent more likely to develop lung cancer". Guardian
|
I've seen the Guardian's report. He didn't actually say he agreed with the findings of that study. And he still said, "
The effect of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me," which is a damn sight more unequivocal than the quote you chose.
Quote:
|
He also said in that interview "Find out what the tobacco industry supports and don't do it, and find out what they object to and do it." , but strangely enough, that doesn't seem to get quoted as much.
|
Good advice, but I think it's prudent to also question what everyone else says. Bit silly to only question the side you disagree with, wouldn't you agree? Was the quote taken out of context, for instance? I'm trying to find a transcript of the programme.
I'm always happy to agree to disagree with you. And thanks for pointing out the error. After you've read the link I'd like you know what you think, if you're still interested.
Link fixed
Here's another excerpt:
Quote:
When I interviewed her in 2004, Amanda Sandford of Ash acknowledged unintentionally that much secondary smoking science is unscientific. She said: "A lot of the studies that have been done on passive smoking produce results that are not statistically significant according to conventional analysis." In plain English, that means that if secondary smoking were not already the focus of a torrent of moral sanctimony, few reputable scientists would dare to assert that it causes lung cancer, heart disease or any of the other life-threatening conditions with which it is routinely associated.
|
It would be sensible to ask whether her comments were taken out of context too. I'd imagine Ms Sandford and her bosses would have demanded the right to reply had she been misrepresented.