🚀 go-pugleaf

Jon Krueger (jpk@firefly.incog.com) (Jon Krueger) wrote:
> > So when the anti-smoking funds are passed out to various researchers
> > (e.g., Glantz), the facts change accordingly too?

> Interesting point.  Well, when scientific, medical, and health
> organizations pay the research bills, 

And they expect results if there's to be another grant. And what
kind of results would be expected when funds are passed out by
agencies and groups advocating against smoking?

Read the book Betrayers of the Truth and tell me that politics
(grants, fame, power, etc.) never affects results.

> the results have sometimes
> been different from those coming out of tobacco company sponsored,
> lawyer-supervised "research".  You're welcome to believe which ever
> you find most credible.

I try to make up my own mind, thanks. I'm not claiming smoking is
harmless, however, just that it's not harmful to you, the non-smoker.

> Apropos of Joe's point, CU (Consumer Reports) accepts no funding from
> either Glantz or Philip Morris.  Forbes cannot make the same statement.

If money changes results, why not political views? Why not the
competition for the next grant? Why not beliefs? Science WANTS
to be a self-policing institution but does not always succeed --
look at the AIDS virus discovery for a modern example. Or have you
ever heard of Piltdown Man? Electro-magnetic waves causing cancer?
Cold fusion? Alcohol going from bad to good? Tell me how many papers
there are which actually show that lowering cholesteral will REDUCE
human risk of heart attack? 

Simply because CU accepts no advertising doesn't mean that they're not 
picking people with political agendas for source material. It doesn't
mean they don't have a political agenda. CU, in fact, has traditionally 
been anti-smoking, defines smoking as "anti-consumer", and wrote of the 
so-called risk from ETS when the amount of data was next to nothing. 
They aren't reviewing this material, only doing what they believe in.