🚀 go-pugleaf

> "facts" about tobacco provided by Stanton Glantz not supported by
> any scientific studies

Interestingly, asserted without a single example given.

In fact, there's no shortage of data measuring the impact of smoking
on our hearts, lungs, and pocketbooks.  Outside of tobacco industry
flacks, no qualified health professional debates this one any more.
The facts are all too well known.  That smoking causes death and
disease is not controversial.

However, the tobacco industry has adopted the tactic of trying
to create the appearance of controversy where there is none.
How they do this is covered in that same article (Consumer Reports,
Feb. 1995).  A fine case in point is given by:

   "The EPA's conclusion...is disputed by reputable epidemioloigists."

Again, not a single "reputable epidemiologist" is produced.  A pattern
begins to emerge.  When one is produced, another pattern is observed:
he tends to have taken money from the tobacco industry.  His
"research" is then cited by sympathetic editorialists as "science"
supporting their view.  When the overwhelming data on smoking and
health is pointed at, the industry then says "see, the scientific
community is divided on the question."

Of course, real science has a habit of coming to conclusions
the sponsor may not have intended.  For more information on
how the tobacco industry fights science they don't like,
see JAMA, July 19 1995.

-- Jon