🚀 go-pugleaf

Jon Krueger (jpk@firefly.incog.com) (Jon Krueger) wrote:

> > SOURCE: The CSR Report, Newsletter of Californians for Smokers' Rights,

> The source of this "health information" and "science" is useful in
> evaluating its accuracy and objectivity.

Actually, it appears "useful" for the standard ad hominem (see
below).

> In fact, most "smoker's rights" organizations aren't even primarily
> smokers, but tobacco industry fronts -- recruited, organized, and
:

> If you just want to cut to the chase and get the facts on tobacco
> related death and disease, see Consumer Reports, February 1995.
> Unlike the tobacco industry, they don't have $billions at risk if
> accurate information on smoking and health is presented.

Consumer Reports has published a wide range of accurate information.
Their reporting on tobacco just doesn't happen to be one of them. 
They have, in the past, published "facts" about tobacco provided by 
Stanton Glantz not supported by any scientific studies but merely
his authority. They wouldn't BE publishing Glantz's views if they 
had any pretense of presenting an objective and dispassionate picture.
You seem to believe that money is THE only force which can color
one's views. Not so. This is a political issue and these so-called
facts are like the facts in ANY political argument -- taylored to
stack the deck towards one and only one conclusion.

However, for another magazine's view, try Forbes (August 14, 1995)
"Lies, damned lies and medical statistics". Philip E. Ross uncovers
the truth behind current health scares and calls the "[o]utrageous 
campaign against 'passive' smoking" "bunk". "The EPA's conclusion
that 3,000 people a year die from secondhand smoke [note: NOT 50,000
as Glantz says] is disputed by reputable epidemioloigists."