Talk:Passive smoking

Request for comment on POV

• Remove POV tag now. The current version of the article does not have a POV problem serious enough to require a tag.

• I see that the POV tag got reinstalled about an hour ago by an IP address without comment. I suggest that the article be semi-protected to avoid this sort of problem.
• Disclaimer: as far as I can recall, I have not edited the article. I am not an expert on the subject.
• Method I used to come up with a "Remove" opinion:

• I independently did a search (as per WP:MEDRS # Search) for reliable sources on the subject. I generally read just the abstracts, but occasionally dipped further into the articles.
• I then read Passive smoking and this talk page.

• Passive smoking seems to pretty fairly summarizes mainstream scientific and medical opinion on the topic.
• By the way, in the process I found some sources not currently cited by the article, which other editors may find useful. They are listed in #Possibly-useful sources below.

Eubulides (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has no POV problem, except that it is inflated in the direction of the "controversy" (i.e. towards the views of passive smoking denialists). The issues being challenged by anonymous editors or single purpose editors have been settled long ago and truly reflect the consensus of all long-term editors of this page. See for example:

• "Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability"
• SHS Causing Death

The motivations presented for changing the previous consensual version have nothing to do with new and/or more authoritative sources which would propose new formulation of some aspects of the subject. They are driven by the desire to give a voice to the "other side", such as FORCES, i.e. to the denialist view. Just have a look at the [FORCES website], and you will see for yourself. FORCES is apparently a microscoipic group, driven by a philosophy that has the characteristics of denialism/negationnism. It falls short of fullfilling any of the Wikipedia criteria of reliable source. A striking characteristic is that is full of hatred-oriented language, making it completely inappropriate as a valid source for Wikipedia. For example, the former US Surgeon General Everett Koop is assimilated to a nazi, and the no-smoking sign to the swastika of the Third Reich. This is an incredible "normalization" of nazism and an insult to the memory of victims of the holocaust (see [[1]]). This is also a case of the reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy typical of denialism.

Clearly, this article is under attack, and the reference to FORCES gives good indication of where the attack comes from.

--Dessources (talk) 14:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I always knew Godwin's Law would eventually come into play on this talk page (lol). Looks like I was right about that. Nonetheless, I would have to disagree--I do not think the article is biased toward the "denialists" any more so than the global warming article. Uncertainty about the magnitude (or even existence) of some particular effects of passive smoking still remains, due to relatively weak and/or inconsistent associations. In fact, even those dangers of second-hand smoke that are part of the "consensus," while they have do some public health implications, are often exaggerated to the point of absurdity. So, a modicum of skepticism is often justified, and the "other side" ought not be simply written off as Big Tobacco shills, flat-earthers, or extremists. Just my 2 cents.Ajax151 (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Uncertainty about the magnitude (or even existence) of some particular effects of passive smoking still remains, due to relatively weak and/or inconsistent associations." Well, this statement captures the problem quite well - it is pure point of view, backed by no serious source, the "weak association" being the old leitmotiv of the tobacco industry (even Philip Morris now is no longer saying it), with no foundation at all - actually a federal court found the US tobacco companies guilty of racketeering for manufacturing and propagating such disinformation. To learn about the mechanisms used by the denial industry, see for example Doubt is their product by David Michaels, which covers denial about the science of second-hand smoke in quite some detail. The current attack on the passive smoking article is nothing but the continuation of such tactics. They should not be accepted on Wikipedia.

--Dessources (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I said some, not all. If uncertainty exists about a particular effect of smoke exposure, it should be stated in the article. That is not denialism. That's SCIENCE. That's why the "third-hand smoke" section is no longer a topic of discussion on this talk page--it admits uncertainty. Just so you know, I am not a "denialist" myself (a la FORCES), but do think that the risk is grossly exaggerated by the ideologues. There's a difference. Remember, it's the dose that makes the poison, and the assertion that there is absolutely no safe level of exposure to a substance (even radioactive ones) should immediately make one's antennae go up. I am simply saying that not all skeptics are "denialists" and the little weight skepticism is given in this article is not excessive. In fact, it is insufficient IMO.Ajax151 (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It is your right to "think" that the problem is grossly exaggerated by the "ideologues". This is clearly your point of view. However, if you really want to challenge the current text, it's always possible, but you will have to show that the new wording you propose is backed by references at least as authoritative and reliable as the four indicated at the end of the lead paragraph of this article. You also need to exhibit equally trustable sources that support your statement concerning "ideologues", i.e. indicate which sources meeting the WP:RELIABLE criteria say that the expert committee of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the US Surgeon General, the experts who participated in the elaboration of the CalEPA report, and finally the governments of over 160 countries which have ratified the WHO FCTC are "ideologues" which have "grossly exaggerated" the risk. If you produce such references, I will be pleased to engage in a fruitful discussion with you, and I'm sure the other editors will too. If, on the other hand, the only evidence you have is simply that you "think" the problem is "grossly exaggerated" by the "ideologues", please understand that I am not prepared to accept this as a valid consideration for amending the current text and as a basis on which a constructive discussion can be build. The choice is yours.

--Dessources (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My comment would be that there is really not much opportunity for different points of view on this subject. There's really no scientific disagreement. The original Harvard study (Kawachi et al, 1997 - which I don't see referenced here) set off alarm bells all over the medical field, and since then all the studies have converged on the same conclusion - second hand smoke has severe medical effects. Under most industrial standards, it would have to be considered an environmental hazard similar to airborne arsenic dust or asbestos fibers, requiring the use of respirators and protective clothing. People can debate if it should be allowed in bars or restaurants, but in petrochemical plants and nuclear facilities smoking, has to be banned because it violates their internal air quality standards and sets off the alarms on all the monitors.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at this article, both of you. Take it or leave it. It pretty much sums up the gross exaggerations made by the anti-smoking establishment.Ajax151 (talk) 15:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I did. The basis of the dispute revolves around the fact that the author, Dr. Carl V. Phillips, received a $1.5 million grant from the Smokeless Tobacco Company, and perhaps unsurprisingly he is strong promoter of smokeless tobacco as a safer alternative to the smokey kind. Despite his complaints, he and his university have lots of money, are politically safe in conservative, oil-rich Alberta, and can afford to ignore their detractors regardless of complaints from other academics that his research may not be totally unbiased. The other academics may be particularly upset because they don't get nearly as much money for their research.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The irony of it all is that smoking bans he rails against would actually help the cause of the Smokeless Tobacco Company more than hurt it. Smokeless tobacco (of any kind) does not produce any secondhand exposure, and snus (even Marlboro makes it now) is increasing in popularity in the USA in part due to emerging smoking bans. So I fail to see how the grant has anything to do with the validity of what Philips is saying about the science concerning secondhand smoke.Ajax151 (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. It's pretty hard to say that grants from smokeless tobacco would generate any bias favoring smoking tobacco. But some people will find a way. Coming soon.Chido6d (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, note that Dr. Phillips is not saying that second hand smoke is safe, he's actually saying it's quite dangerous. He just wants to be able to take money from smokeless tobacco companies, and then say that smokeless tobacco is safe, without being criticized for it. Apparently many of his fellow faculty members disagree on that point.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What he said was much more nuanced than that (but unfortunately not terribly specific). His exact words were, "There is little doubt that inhaling smoke is unhealthy, but equally clear evidence shows that we can only demonstrate disease risk from ETS for those at the highest level of exposure. The evidence about health effects of smoke and the legitimate aesthetic objection to involuntary ETS exposure are quite sufficient to justify prohibiting indoor smoking in public places, though clearly insufficient to justify public policies that prohibit voluntary low-level ETS exposure." (emphasis mine) This pretty much sums up how I feel about the issue as well, with well-ventilated bars qualifying as "voluntary low-level exposure" IMO.Ajax151 (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with Dr. Phillips on that point. The data in the studies cited in this article seems to indicate a rather startling level of toxicity at extremely low levels of exposure. Why that is so seems to be the main topic for debate. From what I can gather from the studies, the researchers seem to be making progress, as in the studies indicating that the smoke coming off the lit end of the cigarette is much more toxic than what the smokers are inhaling, and other studies indicating that second-hand smoke becomes even more toxic as it ages. What I would conclude is that there still needs to be a lot of work done to clarify the problem, but it clearly it is a serious problem. The bottom line, as the ASHRAE position paper states, is that ventilation is not an adequate solution to making smoke-filled air safe for the public. A prudent government would ban it until the situation is clarified.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"A prudent government would ban it until the situation is clarified." I suppose a prudent government would invade a foreign country suspected of having WMD until the situation is clarified. I'm not trying to make a political statement here. My point is that this is not a debate about politics. Politics is about what we do with our current knowledge. Science is about obtaining knowledge. And I believe that science needs to stay totally objective. If we let ideology or politics skew the results of research, even for the public good, we destroy the validity of science.

Hell, I just read that less than half of Americans don't believe in evolution. We're all taught it in school, it is extremely rational with tons of evidence, there is no other competing scientific theory, but most Americans who don't know much about science are distrustful of the scientific community's conclusion. Why do you suppose that is? Because this country has a long history of fudged science which furthers a political agenda. If you doubt me, investigate why marijuana (which I don't even touch because I don't enjoy it) is illegal. Scientific consensus in the 30s suddenly became that it was a deadly drug that would drive users mad. Everyone who hasn't spent most of their life in a cave on Mars knows that's completely ridiculous. And yet, even today, there are people out there getting millions in grants to do research on the dangers of marijuana.

I don't think that anybody has done serious scientific research on the effects of marijuana, especially not in the United States. The politics and laws preclude it. Based on an analysis of the chemicals coming off the cigarettes, I would expect marijuana smoke to be somewhat more toxic than tobacco smoke, because it contains the same kinds of chemicals, but in higher concentrations. However, that would be theoretical because I haven't seen a serious, unbiased study on the subject.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The point myoclonic was making was that it was outlawed based on dubious "evidence" and specious political arguments in 1937. You are right that studies of cannabis (at least in the USA) are seldom unbiased. There is a lot of junk science out there (Dr. Heath's brain-damaged monkeys comes to mind). But at the risk of being off-topic for a moment I want to point out for the reader a few differences between the two smokable substances. Yes, most of the chemicals (including carcinogenic PAH's) are in fact identical, and these will be produced by any burning plant material. Some (but not all) of these are in higher concentrations in cannabis smoke compared with tobacco smoke. The method of inhalation is also deeper for cannabis and (unnecessarily) held in the lungs longer. Those are the exacerbating factors. Remember that filters don't make tobacco significantly safer, so the unfiltered nature of joints is a moot point. But tobacco contains unique, tobacco-specific nitrosamines (from nicotine), as well as polonium-210 and lead-210 from radioactive phosphate fertilizers. Nicotine is not a carcinogen, but is co-carcinogenic with other substances in tobacco smoke. And the average cigarette smoker smokes 20 or more cigarettes a day while the average joint smoker smokes a few joints a week. So it's kind of like comparing apples and oranges. That's probably why Dr. Tashkin (by no means a hippy-dippy) found no increased risk of lung cancer or head and neck cancer (actually a slight decrease) from cannabis smoking contrary to his prediction but did find up to a 20-fold risk for tobacco smoking.[2] And again, the dose makes the poison. By the way, cannabis need not be smoked, it can also be vaporized or eaten.Ajax151 (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, this stuff about the smoke off the tip being worse, I'm sure it's true. But keep in mind that the smoker is also inhaling that between puffs, so it contributes to the active smokers risk. Actually, that is probably why I have chosen lately to smoke outside, even though it's my apartment, and I could smoke in here if I wanted to. That and I just don't want it to smell too bad. Although I can't do much about the smell of garlic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The myoclonic jerk (talk • contribs) 10:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with myoclonic on this one. Well said. RockyMtnGuy's version of the precautionary principle, which is its strongest formulation, can easily be misused and is better termed the "paralyzing principle." This is starting to turn into a forum IMO, let's get back to the article shall we?Ajax151 (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Logically speaking, it's not the precautionary principle, because the scientific consensus as documented in the 120-odd citations is that harm does ensue from exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke; and hence the burden of proof falls on those who disagree - i.e. the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry apparently did conduct its own studies of it, but the evidence is that they destroyed the results of those studies, so there's no legitimate counter-evidence available. What is available is a lot of misleading writing with a lot of logical fallacies in it. (Citing the precautionary principle would be a classic example.) Myclonic has been persistently trying to put a POV tag on the article, despite having been shot down several times, so it's worthwhile bringing the facts to his attention. Eventually a discussion of the rules of logical reasoning might ensue as well.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is the precautionary principle when specifically promoting a blanket indoor smoking ban instead of ventilation or other alternatives, though. That is still controversial. That is what I was really referring to (I can't read myoclonic's mind.)Ajax151 (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was my point. That is exactly what I think the health community is doing here. The scientists haven't concluded to what extent SHS is dangerous, but the doctors all want to embrace, and even exaggerate, every finding that shows any danger. Why? Because smoking bans encourage active smokers to quit. [3] Great for public health, but dishonest and underhanded. They don't care if they accomplish their goal honestly or not(and it is a good goal). But those of us who care about the truth, don't think that way.

People like FORCES and the tobacco companies impugn rational minded people by spouting off rhetorical nonsense, and they make genuine skeptics like me look bad. I don't see anyone here who is a zealot, just people who don't automatically take what the US government or the WHO say for granted.

And, as far as Marijuana goes, you guys must not have looked it up like I recommended. 100 years ago nobody cared about what it would do to your lungs. In those days marijuana grew wild all across the nation, but most Americans didn't know it was a drug, or weren't interested in it. Then a lot of Mexican immigrants started coming up here in the teens and twenty's, and they liked to smoke pot. When the jobs started to dry up, Americans wanted the Mexicans to leave, so they created stiff anti-marijuana laws. They got the public to support them with phony "scientific" studies showing that pot turned people into raving lunatics. The "studies" claimed that pot could turn a choir boy into a serial rapist and killer. They claimed that thousands of white women were being raped or lured into prostitution by Mexicans with the help of marijuana. Most Americans had no experience with pot, so they believed it. It had nothing to do with lung damage. Scientific studies at the time made marijuana out to be more dangerous to your mind than we now know methamphetamine to be. Funny how in the 40s-60s doctors were prescribing meth like it was going out of style, while telling people that pot would drive them insane. I don't know if any of you have any experience with those kind of people, but pot-heads can be a little annoying (or funny) because they are so stupid, but totally spun individuals make you wish you had a gun. I am not kidding, they are so unpredictable that if you have a conversation with one, you will spend the entire time thinking about your escape route, or how you will kill them if they make a move on you.

Anyway, I won't mess with the NPOV tag anymore, although I think the page really needs to be rewritten or cleaned up. ta-ta The myoclonic jerk (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by The myoclonic jerk (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

100 years ago, lung cancer was a very rare disease (most people don't know that) because, while people smoked, they didn't smoke very much. That changed with the invention of machine-rolled cigarettes, and the distribution of them free in the Great War, after which time lung cancer rates skyrocketed (but only in men). So, while doctors have known for centuries that smoking was unhealthy, they didn't consider it a big problem compared to smallpox, tuberculosis, typhoid, malaria, plague, etc. which were killing millions. But that's a different article.

Another difference 100 years ago was that the tobacco itself was different. Of course, that did not make it safe, only a shade less dangerous. The Native Americans have been doing it spiritually for centuries (but again, only occasionally) and were usually able to control their use and not smoke daily like nicotine fiends. They would have regarded that as tobacco abuse, and rightly so. Thus lung cancer was rare, because the dose makes the poison. Not that it wasn't an addictive substance; it had quite a bit of nicotine so of course it was if done enough. And Americans in general would occasionally indulge in it as a recreational drug throughout the 1800's. But selective breeding over the years produced relatively high nicotine strains that were smoother tasting and also much easier to inhale copious quantities of smoke without gagging or coughing profusely. The cigarette is born. Cowboys rolled them by hand. Then came machine rolling. And America was hooked. During Prohibiton, 14 states banned cigarettes. But their popularity only increased, and smoking (even heavily) became a national pastime (as did drunkenness). First for men, but later for women as well. From WWI until the present, tobacco companies engineered their product to be more and more addictive, including addition of numerous additives. In the late 1930's Big Tobacco found that restricting nitrogen and increasing phosphorus in the soil made tobacco "more flavorful"--usually code speak for higher nicotine delivery. So they began using radioactive phosphate fertilizers from the mineral apatite (which often contains uranium and radium) because it was the cheapest source of inorganic phosphate there was (and still is). This caused cigarette smoke to contain the radioactive carcinogens polonium-210, lead-210, and radon, due to the affinity of the plant for heavy metals. Although lung cancer death rates were steadily rising prior to that (with a 20-year lag between smoking rates and cancer rates), they went up even faster after this innovation.Ajax151 (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is off topic, but I have always thought it was totally reckless and irresponsible of the gov't not to have the FDA or the USDA regulate the production of tobacco, like they do every other crop raised for human consumption.The myoclonic jerk (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the point you're missing on this issue is that the scientific consensus, and that of the air-conditioning engineers, is that the level of toxic chemicals (particularly PAHs) in a well-ventilated smoking room are typically much higher than would normally be considered safe levels in a chemical plant. Building a separate smoking room with its own independent air supply 1) is expensive, and 2) has been shown to be inadequate because whenever someone opens a door, smoke leaks into non-smoking areas. The only effective engineering remedies are to install air locks and/or chemical filtration systems, which are unaffordable for the average restaurant or tavern. As economists have pointed out, the net financial cost of banning smoking is zero to restaurants and taverns, as long they all do it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What is considered "safe" really depends on the purpose of the environment. Like I pointed out in the ventilation section of the talk page, "acceptable" standards vary widely. As for the financial cost, many of the studies done exclude bars/restaurants that closed immediately after the smoking ban, and lump take-out restaurants (which would likely increase in patronage) with sit-down restaurants (which would likely decrase).[4] Closures reduce competition, and the remaining establishments prosper. Voila! No apparent effect, but that hides the reality. There is plenty of evidence of negative effects, including the job losses for workers that are supposedly being "protected" by the blanket bans. See the above link. "Smokeasies" will always exist as well. Again, this is starting to become a forum.Ajax151 (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually going to stick up for Rocky here, because there is an apparent scientific consensus. Therefore, suggestions of a precautionary principle are not valid. He also correctly observes that the standard of absolute zero is highly questionable at best; it is in fact pure and utter nonsense.Chido6d (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Key phrase: "apparent scientific consensus."The myoclonic jerk (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

My two cents (actually, zero): Any POV in ANY long article should be posted above the specific part of article that is in dispute. Posting a POV tag on top of a very long article that is not a blatant monologue (which no articles are) is naughty and should be removed per se. Anyone who thinks an article is in dispute should have the brain cells to specify the core of the dispute. If not, delete. This is an eternally valid general discussion concept.

Secondly, I think the section about public health authorities is anglo-centered. It should include more non anglo-centric PHA's to avoid any impression of bias.

I have no contentual comment. Crusty007 (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Language: regardless of the scientific merits of the "no-harm" research (actually the only thing I know about the subject came from Penn & Teller's "Bullshit"), this sentence is severely POV and even somewhat conspiracy-theorizing:

Despite an early awareness of the likely harms of secondhand smoke, the tobacco industry coordinated to engineer a scientific controversy with the aim of forestalling regulation of their products.

I don't think one can equate the controversy on second-hand smoke with an "engineered controversy" such as intelligent design, where an already established scientific consensus was bullied into controversy. The list of symptoms that follow is also based on worst-case scenario research, and a survey of the meta-analysis studies should come before that.

Nope, I don't smoke. Ex-post note: this article @ http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/PUS2005.pdf is an interesting read when evaluating my NPOV claim. Dnavarro (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence in question is neutral, and it's hardly a "conspiracy theory" - unless you consider the U.S. District Courts, the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society, and the major medical journals to be in the business of promoting conspiracy theories. Take a look through the actual sourcing in the article, or through the various databases of formerly confidential tobacco-industry documents - our article actually soft-sells it a bit compared to reality as evidenced by reliable sources.

The "Scientific Integrity Institute" should probably be evaluated in context. The Institute is essentially a project of James Enstrom, a researcher who offered to generate data which could "effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS", in return for a "substantial commitment" of money from the tobacco industry. Enstrom's methodology has been widely criticized, and his 2003 study was cited as "a prime example of how nine tobacco companies engaged in criminal racketeering and fraud to hide the dangers of tobacco smoke." (Dalton, Nature 2007). MastCell ^Talk 21:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there was an "engineered controversy" - even of unprecedented scope - and there is ample documentation about it. This article provides several good sources on which the statement can be based, but there is much more available. What distinguishes the controversy engineered by the tobacco industry to deny the harm caused by secondhand smoke from other engineered controversies is that the tobacco industry controversy has even been recognized and condemned by various courts, notably in the US, but also in other countries. The industry has been found guilty of "racketeering" (i.e. organized crime) by a US federal court for having staged a large denial campaign, spread over decades, and involving the corruption of scientists. Another source which could be referenced is a report produced on an inquiry by the University of Geneva in the so called "Rylander Affair" (named after the Swedish professor who had been a secret agent of Philip Morris for 30 years, while officially publishing studies that declared secondhand smoke harmless) - see [5]. The UG report makes the following conclusion: "Prof. Rylander’s infringements of scientific integrity take on their full significance only when viewed within the framework of a strategy devised and conducted by the tobacco industry to cast doubt on the toxicity of tobacco smoke, particularly for non-smokers. The case of one person should not make us forget that the most unforgivable fault lies with an institutional and commercial force, the tobacco industry, whose objectives and interests run counter to both public health and medical science. The huge mass of tobacco industry documents released as a result of rulings against it by United States courts shows that these companies have attempted to manipulate public opinion for decades and that the targeted involvement of numerous scientists has been a preferred tool in that disinformation campaign." A pretty damning finding!

Concerning the article by Bray and Ungar, it is pure point of view, with a sugar coating of pseudo-science. Their analysis of the "rapid responses" to the publication of Enstrom & Kabat article in the BMJ is fatally flawed. It's based on a single case and has no control. Nothing allows the authors to conclude that the pattern of answers that appeared in these "rapid responses" was characteristic of a deliberate attempt to "silence science". My guess was that these reponses followed a pattern which is very common and typical of any web forum where a controversial subject is debated (and the E&K article was indeed controversial!) The same type of pattern is found in the comments made on blog posts which raise sensitive issues. There is nothing in the article to support the opinion of the authors that these rapid responses differed from rapid responses on other controversial topics where no one would say that there was any attempt of "silencing science". Bray and Ungar started with the a priori opinion that there had been an attempt to "silence science" and it's not surprising, therefore, that their "analysis" and their interpretation of it confirmed that opinion.

--Dessources (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In context, MastCell continues his pattern of selectivity and deception by stating, as a fact, the Opinion of one left-wing judge (Gladys Kessler) whose Opinion has been stayed on appeal and (at least initially) appears likely to be overturned. Furthermore, he fails to point out that the President's Office at U-Cal made a simple request of the ACS: to provide specific information in support of an allegation of scientific misconduct against Dr. James Enstrom. After receiving, in reply, a hodge-podge of non-specifics (instead of what was requested), the matter was referred for more follow up and review. No misconduct has been established.

I'm not even certain that Judge Kessler's Opinion is a reliable source worthy of this article until the matter is fully settled. But then again, I'm not an extremist trying to make a point with the whole thing.

Regarding the point of view allegation, Dessources gives other examples of authors who start with an a priori opinion, such as Martin Dockrell -- and he lauds them. I guess sometimes that's OK. When they agree with him, I mean. Chido6d (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The District Court ruling is a reasonable source for now. Decisions are appealed all the time, sometimes with merit and sometimes without. If it's overturned on appeal, then we will of course update the article to reflect that. Until then, I don't think that your perception of a judge's political alignment is really grounds for removing the source. As to Enstrom, scientific misconduct is a serious charge, which is one reason that I am careful for our purposes only to refer to published, reliable sources when describing his actions. My point was that it would be wrong to treat the Scientific Integrity Institute as a disinterested party here. A secondary point is that where the tobacco industry is concerned, it's always worth a few extra mouse clicks before accepting an impressively-titled organization as a neutral party. MastCell ^Talk 19:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

True in part, but of course you would have to set the straw man up again. The point is that you are misusing the source, stating as factual that which is being challenged according to the law and has not been proven. A single judge (left or right) rarely has the final word in the United States of America. It is not in question that the tobacco companies downplayed the risks of smoking. Why that is so unusual or sinister escapes me; billions of units are in circulation at all times for testing, etc. and - yes - honestly, they want to make money. I've never seen any proof that they even "knew" of any real merit to the alleged harms of passive smoking (other than the mere perception of an alleged harm in their customers' minds), or further that they conspired to cover up any harms that allegedly existed. Kessler's political alignment (which you seem to adore) is not the real issue, nor would it be grounds for suppression, but you have suppressed many sources on even more trivial grounds. To my knowledge, the Scientific Integrity Institute is not tobacco industry funded. Even if it were, that would not be grounds for outright dismissal. And again, scientific misconduct has never been proven against Dr. Enstrom (after several years of trying). Perhaps that's why you and your ilk continue to focus on the seriousness of the charge rather than the evidence for the charge. Do you consider Stanton Glantz a neutral party? You like him a lot. Chido6d (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I am impressed with how well you believe you know me, but I don't see anything in your post that requires a further response. MastCell ^Talk 04:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Epilogue: Cigarette makers lose appeal in landmark case. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Lest any activist/extremist editor or reader (not MastCell, of course) be sitting at his PC wearing a boyish grin, snickering and most likely picking his nose, I feel the need to point out that this decision is not an epilogue. Rather, it is the next chapter. Per the article, the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. I hate to bust anyone's bubble (sorry).

I continue to assert that citing the Kessler opinion as a fact without more information is misleading and not neutral.Chido6d (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

IPs, COI etc

• Given the arrival of a number of IP editors and newly registered accounts, could I ask recent arrivals to declare if

(i) they are editing both as IPs and under usernames (assuming this is accidental, with a promise to stop immediately) (ii) they have any conflict of interest that should be known to other editors. To get the ball rolling, I'll state that the answer for me is "No" to both.JQ (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know what an IP editor is. I have put comments on the talk page under my username. I have no conflict of interest.SonofFeanor (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have not edited this article using an IP in the past two weeks, but have done so prior to creating a username for the first time. I have used an IP on the talk page once or twice since then (forgot to log in), but not the article. I have no conflict of interest.Ajax151 (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• No COI and no anonymous editing on my part. Yilloslime (t) 05:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've logged in on a regular basis after a few early (unintentional) lapses. No COI of any kind, whether or not it should be known. That's a loophole. Chido6d (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would add that I think people should have to sign in to edit. Chido6d (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I too am guilty of accidentally posting without signing or being signed in. It used to keep me signed in as long I visited the site at least every 10 days or so. Now, for some reason, I have to sign in every time I come here. I need to check my browser settings. I agree you should have to sign in, or at least be warned when you try to post and forgot to sign. The myoclonic jerk (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Cognitive impairment and dementia

The source said:

• Conclusions Exposure to secondhand smoke may be associated with increased odds of cognitive impairment. Prospective nationally representative studies relating biomarkers of exposure to cognitive decline and risk of dementia are needed.

So the article says:

• Exposure to second-hand smoke increases the risk of cognitive impairment and dementia in adults 50 and over.

Does anyone see a problem here?Chido6d (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I read the entire report and condensed it down to one sentence. I think these researchers get paid by the word and take lessens in obfuscation. Translation: "may be associated with increased odds of" -> "increases the risk of"; "Prospective nationally representative studies relating biomarkers of exposure to cognitive decline and risk of dementia are needed." -> "we need money to do more research". The study was limited to adults 50+, which I thought was significant. And you always use the active rather than passive voice unless you're trying to put your audience to sleep.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Your "translation" is interpretation. What the study concluded is that exposure may be associated with an increase in risk (emphasis not in the original), and that additional study is recommended. I assure you that I am not trying to be rude or patronizing, but this is not the place to exaggerate for the excitement of the readers (lest otherwise they be put to sleep). I will leave ample time for you to do your own correction, if you want to include this information.Chido6d (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional study is always warranted. That is immaterial. I do agree that the word "may" is essential here. MastCell ^Talk 05:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Point taken about the qualifier may - I added it to the text.

My comment about passive voice (see the WP article about it) is that, although it is often used in scientific research articles, it is seldom used in business writing because it obscures the meaning of what is being said. If you look under WP:weasel words, it says:

• ..Though the passive voice is syntactically correct, Strunk and White recommend against its overuse in their Elements of Style, calling it "less direct, less bold, and less concise" than the active voice.. and
• ...it fails to identify who stands behind the opinions or actions it describes.

Scientist like to equivocate, but businessmen are expected to stand behind what they say. Now, as for the results of the study, If you read the text under Results, you find:

• Non-smokers with valid cotinine measurements (n=4809) ...
• Those with high levels of salivary cotinine (0.8-13.5 ng/ml) were more likely to be cognitively impaired (odds ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.94) than those exposed to little or no secondhand smoke (0.0-0.1 ng/ml).

That's a pretty definitive result - 4809 people is a large sample size, and an odds ratio of 1.44 is rather high. I'd much prefer they gave the risk ratio, but since they didn't, I'm not going to say exactly what the risk is, other than high (one newspaper article said "44% higher", but that may or may not be accurate). And, in the traditional "more study is required" statement under Conclusions, they actually say

• ...this is a topic of major public health significance. Prospective nationally representative studies of the association between biomarkers of exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive decline and dementia are therefore warranted to assess the relation between secondhand smoke and cognitive health with greater precision.

I would interpret that to mean that they think the study has definitely identified a serious risk, and they think that more studies are justified to determine precisely how serious a risk it is. See the WP article on Risk assessment#Risk assessment in public health for more info.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The risk ratio is the mean of the confidence interval, but many media sources will report 1.44 as '44% higher'. With the way that statistics works, what that confidence interval actually means is, 'There's a 95% chance that the results lie between 1.07 (barely any correlation) and 1.94 (roughly twice the correlation)'. First, that's not exactly a strong correlation - many prominent epidemologists and scientists believe that a risk ratio of 3 or even higher should be established for things like this to be taken seriously, due to things like confounders, statistical error and systematic error.

Second, it also means that there's a 5% chance that the results don't lie within that range. They could be higher than 1.94 - or they could be lower than 1.07. If you do 20 studies on any scientific topic with 95% confidence intervals, there's a very good chance that at least one of them will be completely outside their confidence interval. Crickel (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That section contains a lot of association studies. Perhaps "the User:Eubulides standard" should be applied by saying "statistically associated" (for the non-specialists) and linking to association_(statistics). That trick worked for solving a long discussion at Schizophrenia#Drugs. Xasodfuih (talk) 09:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This study, unlike many others, is rather well controlled and methodically eliminated all the likely third variables, so you're left with either an unlikely third variable or a direct causal relationship. In the case of schizophrenia, it's been observed that 80% of schizophrenics smoke, so you have a choice between "schizophrenia causes smoking", or "smoking causes schizophrenia", with the former being more likely based on other medical data. In this case, it doesn't seem likely that "cognitive impairment causes exposure to second-hand smoke", so you're left with "exposure to second-hand smoke causes cognitive impairment" as the most likely conclusion. Of course, further studies (as always) will clarify the nature of the relationship, but at this point it seems rather unambiguous. Saying "statistically associated" obscures the unambiguous nature of the causal link, and WP policy doesn't require us to give equal time to WP:fringe theories.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding of the study is very reasonable, but it's not up to you (or any of us) to go farther than the researchers concluded. Your comments/analogy above make me inclined to remind you that correlation does not imply causation. Of course, one has to kick that notion to the curb along with the most basic and foundational principle of toxicology in order to get a good seat on the bandwagon.Chido6d (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bias?

The first paragraph mentions an "engineered scientific controversy" by the coordinated efforts of the tabacco industry. It is in itself a strong statement, especially without any kind of citation or evidence. Not to mention the lack of citation proving that there is any kind of "scientific consensus" on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.201.111 (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, bias. Read the talk page and its archives; the article is pretty much "controlled" by a small handful of extremists who eventually run everybody else off who comes in. Good observation, though. Chido6d (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Or read the article itself, which contains dozens of citations and reams of evidence demonstrating that a) passive smoking is harmful and b) the tobacco industry hid its knowledge of this fact and engineered an artificial controversy to forestall regulation and protect their revenue stream. Granted, the article may seem somewhat incomplete if you stop reading it after the first paragraph. MastCell ^Talk 05:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It's worth nothing how much of the evidence of engineered controversy was produced by Chido6d who pointed out various pieces of apparent evidence against the consensus that turned out, on closer examination, to have been generated by the tobacco industry and its various front groups. The article was much improved as a result.JQ (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Since two of the "fab five" have chimed in, I'll soon have to point you to a catalog (or catalogue as they prefer) of Information Under Suppression (which I'll be updating shortly). Sometimes, the very best others can offer is a tearing down of their opponents ad hominem, and attempts to silence them. When arguments are weak and fraudulent, it's expected. After all, what else can they do? Chido6d (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just so no one believes Chido6d is alone in this, let me add my voice to his. There is clear bias in this article, but it is impossible to remove it because of four or five entrenched opponents, some of whom have the power to block. MastCell, for his part, seems somewhat reasonable, but some of the rest are just zealots who will make absurd arguments to prevent any weakening of the article's stance against passive smoking.SonofFeanor (talk) 03:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I think I'm the only commentator here with "the power to block", and I would not block someone for disagreeing with me about the article. Not only would it be lame, but it would be an abuse of the administrative tools to block someone with whom I'm engaged in a content dispute. So we can take that off the table. MastCell ^Talk 05:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue is that anyone who says something that is patently at variance with the scientific data published on the subject is likely to be quickly reverted by people who actually read the scientific papers which were cited. The people who are complaining of bias have the problem that the scientific evidence itself is quite one-sided. There's no actual scientific dispute that second-hand smoke kills people, the disputes revolve around how many people it kills and how it kills them. That's probably not the debate they wanted to have.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not at all the issue. The scientific data published is overwhelmingly not statistically significant. Sadly, we are not allowed to reference these "primary sources," and obviously an association like the EPA or the WHO, charged with the protection of public health, is not going to go out and say "Passive smoking is not really a problem." Anything they can do to prevent smoking - they are going to do it. And that includes publishing VERY questionable meta-studies. Now, there is a ton of info out there about publication bias, but there is not one mention of it here. There is info about confounding variables in these studies. Again - no mention here. And if you do happen to cite a study - well then it is linked to tobacco industry funding. Never mind that the author may be a well established PhD who would not risk his career by publishing a bogus study for 10 or 20 thousand dollars. Just yesterday I pointed out that Gio Batta Gori is more than a "spokesman for the tobacco industry" but is also a PhD and expert on epidemiology. Shouldn't an unbiased article mention this? The article said that the Enstrom and Kabat study was funded and managed by the CIAR, when the CIAR wasn't even in existence at the time of the study. This is in the article's OWN SOURCES, but is not a convenient fact for the anti-smoking forces so it was conveniently left out. Is there mention of the huge sums from anti-smoking lobbies that fund the studies on the other side? Just to keep things balanced? Nope. There is substantial dispute that swecond-hand smoke kills people and this is very much a debate I would like to have.SonofFeanor (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that Dr. Gori's services could be bought for a paltry 10 or 20 thousands of dollars. The amounts I see under his name in the Tobacco Legacy Archives run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, I scanned the recent judgment in the racketeering case against the tobacco companies and found that his name popped up there a few times. In particular, as part of an attempt to critique and undermine scientific studies that identified ETS as a health hazard, the Tobacco Institute paid Dr. Gori in 1993 alone:

• $3,555.00 to write a letter to the editor of the Journal of Cancer Institute captioned: "Environmental Tobacco Smoke: The Price of Scientific Uncertainty."
• $4,137.50 to write an Op-Ed newspaper submission on the Environmental Protection Agency's Risk Assessment for the Wall Street Journal.
• $4,000.00 to write a letter to Lancet, disputing an editorial that had found the Environmental Protection Agency's Risk Assessment provided a firm regulatory basis for increased social action to minimize the public's exposure to ETS.
• Note that none of the letters disclosed that tobacco industry money had funded them.

This is the sort of thing that got the tobacco companies convicted of racketeering. Since the tobacco companies paid Gori (indirectly through the Tobacco Institute), he was acting as an agent for them. If he said that environmental tobacco smoke did not cause health problems, and the tobacco companies knew that was false (and the judgment says that they did know that ETS caused health problems), then they would have committed fraud because he is acting on their behalf. If he sent his fraudulent letters through the mail, then the tobacco companies would have committed mail fraud. If the tobacco companies did this as part of an organized conspiracy (which the judgment said they did), then they would have been engaging in racketeering. That's the joy of the RICO laws, you can nail conspirators no matter how involved the conspiracy is and how many third parties they act through. You should read this judgment, it's 1652 pages of endless exposure of the tobacco companies' illegal and fraudulent practices. No wonder they got nailed under RICO.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the details on the RICO case. Sadly, they are irrelevant. I was not defending the tobacco industry nor making any comments about their integrity. I am no fan of Phillip Morris. But unless I missed it, nothing in there said Dr. Gori was charged with or convicted of any crime. He took money, sure. For working as an expert in his field. What has been said is that his work, and Enstrom and Kabat's work, is somehow not reliable because of where the funding came from. If this is so, then Glantz' work is equally suspect, as he has received still more money from RWJF and others. He has no career whatsoever without this cause, while Gori was well established before he was ever linked to the tobacco industry. But now I am letting you draw me into this same nonsense. If you want to criticize the study, then attack the methodology. This sort of guilt by association approach is unscientific and inappropriate to a scholarly discussion.SonofFeanor (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, the CIAR wasn't in existence at the time of Enstrom/Kabat's study? The journal article itself contains a funding disclosure written in Enstrom/Kabat's own words, stating in part: "...follow up through 1999 and data analysis were conducted at University of California at Los Angeles with support from the Center for Indoor Air Research." The study was partly funded by the CIAR,as our article states. Fact. I have no idea what you're on about, but your arguments are easily falsified with simple recourse to the sources. And what about this vague conspiracism about the "huge sums of money" supposedly biasing "anti-smoking" research? As far as I know, most such research is funded by the NIH and other government agencies which, if anything, have a financial interest in maintaining smoking, since they receive money from tobacco taxes. But I'd be happy to see some reliable sources in place of argumentation. MastCell ^Talk 19:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It takes nothing to see that the CIAR was disbanded in 1998 by the courts. Here is one of a thousand sites that says so - http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/tobc/abstract.00061045-200706000-00007.htm;jsessionid=Kc6fJnsJDT5XXWQYmCWvkXQNnzT3D5N5QQLYlTv2hR2TQKXvcWRF!-701738752!181195629!8091!-1. Enstrom and Kabat published their study in 2003 - presumably I don't need to document this as well? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the CIAR could not have "managed" the study. So that is what I mean and it is hardly an argument that is easily falsified. That they partially funded the study is not under dispute - I left that in the article after all.

On the subject of funding of anti tobacco research, one source of such funding is the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which provided over 1 million dollars just for the Tobacco Scam campaign - http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=36173SonofFeanor - and has provided millions more in various other grants, often to Stanton Glantz. Of course there are many other such groups, but I think this one is sufficient to prove my point. Enstrom and Kabat didn't receive anything like this level of funding and their integrity is impugned.(talk) 23:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has never been found guilty of racketeering and collusion, manufacturing invalid data to protect its commercial interests, or covering up the harmfulness of its products. Therefore, no particular opprobium attaches to its funding. The tobacco industry is a rather different story. MastCell ^Talk 00:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So funding from the tobacco industry can create a conflict of interest, but funding from foundations dedicated to eradicating smoking cannot? I submit that it certainly does, and obviously deserves a mention given the amount of time you spend on tobacco industry funding. You challenged me to show you where the dollars were coming from and I did. You didn't say "Oh I know, I know that our side gets millions of dollars in interest funding, but that is the good type of special interest funding." No. You said "What? We don't get funding from anyone but the government, and they have every reason to prefer smoking [which, by the way, is absurd]." Meanwhile, since you seem to have dropped your objection to my comment on the CIAR and Enstrom and Kabat, I would appreciate a retraction of the stuff about my arguments being easily falsified with recourse to sources. It is insulting and not at all true.SonofFeanor (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

" ... funding from organizations dedicated to eradicating smoking ..."? Do you mean organizations like the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association, and the US Centers for Disease Control? I think that those organizations only have a conflict of interest in that they are dedicated to eliminating disease, and eliminating smoking is an important step in that process. The tobacco companies have a conflict of interest in that they want to continue to make profits selling cigarettes, and causing cancer and lung disease is an unfortunate side effect of making those profits.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The conflict of interest does not lie with the funding organization, but with the scientists conducting the study. They should not allow the source of the funding to impact their results, no matter how noble the motives of that source may be. If there is speculation that Enstrom and Kabat are tainted by tens of thousands donated by the CIAR, when CIAR wasn't even around to see the results of their study and did not earmark the funds, how much greater must the speculation be over millions in funding to Glantz by RWJF in funds specifically targeted to the Tobacco Scam campaign? How can one really do a study under the auspices of such a campaign and claim scientific objectivity?SonofFeanor (talk) 08:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice there is now a section on 3rd hand smoke. Reference 42 is to a paper which informs us only that most people are not aware of this phenomenon. Reference 43 is to an opinion/propaganda article in a newspaper. The people who control this site are fond of their "peer reviewed studies" and I don't think 43 falls into this category. 42 adds nothing useful. The concept of 3rd hand smoke was invented by the authors of 41, which wasn't a best seller, so no surprise that the public haven't heard of it.

• Reference 41 is the original 2004 paper which noted the fact that ETS exposure in children is 5-7 times higher in children whose parents smoked only outdoors than in children whose parents did not smoke at all. It also noted that ETS exposure is 3-8 times higher in children whose parents smoked indoors than children whose parents only smoked outdoors. The conclusion drawn was that parents who only smoke outdoors are exposing their children to dangerous levels of toxic chemicals, but not as much as parents who smoke indoors.
• Reference 42 is a 2009 paper that concluded that most smokers thought they could protect their children from ETS by only smoking outdoors, which reference 41 had determined was false.
• Reference 43 is a 2009 New York Times article which brought the facts in papers 41 and 42 to public attention. I don't think it qualifies as opinion/propaganda piece, more of a public health information article.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

On a more general note, I've been visiting this page for several years. It has always been controlled by no more than 6 anonymous anti-tobacco zealots. Various well-meaning contributors have come and gone, some angry enough to put a POV tag on the page. Chido6d has fought a lonely and futile battle. This is a problem for wiki in general. In the UK, it has become a joke. My nieces' school has forbidden the pupils from using it. Radio presenters and journalists pour scorn on it. I have a couple of suggestions:

contributors should give up their anonymity; it should be accepted that there is not a consensus about the dangers of passive smoking. Part of the problem is that claims are often given the status of "facts", even though they are demonstrably untrue, because they are in peer reviewed journals.

Of course, the solution would be to have two passive smoking entries - one written by us "deniers". The advantage of this is that each side would strive to make its contribution the more objective and it would tease out the areas of disagreement. I think this would be of great service to the public.

That would constitute a WP: POV fork, which would be contrary to Wikipedia policy. POV forks are typically created by people who disagree with the consensus of editors. A typical example would be a disagreement by the Flat Earth Society with the scientific consensus that the world is round, in which case they would create an article called "Arguments against the round Earth theory" to denigrate the "so called facts put forth by round-Earth zealots" and give equal time to arguments like "Anybody can see the world is flat", "Columbus proved nothing", and "My uncle fell off the edge and was never seen again".RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What is "the power to block" and why does Mastcell have it? How is it that an anonymous person appears to exercise control over part of an encyclopedia?Otis66 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otis66 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the "third-hand smoke" section is a bit weak myself, and I could go either way about retaining it. There are a few reasonably good sources, but it's obviously a fairly new/emerging/fringe issue from the perspective of passive smoking as a whole.

As to Wikipedia, I would agree with your niece's school that students shouldn't rely on it exclusively. Wikipedia's utility, and its strength, lie in the sourcing. This article is extensively sourced. If it makes a claim about third-hand smoke, then you can quickly and easily check the sources - as you've done - and decide for yourself whether you believe it. Likewise, the article does not merely claim that secondhand smoke is bad for you, but extensively cites the voluminous body of informed medical and scientific opinion supporting such a claim.

As for journalists "pouring scorn" on Wikipedia, well, I suppose they do so in between plagiarizing it? :P Note that in that case, Wikipedia compared admirably to more "established" media outlets - the false quotes were rapidly removed here, whereas the mass media propagated (and, in some cases, continues to propagate) inaccurate information. Food for thought.

By "the power to block", people are likely referring to administrator status. See Wikipedia:Administrators for more detail. I was entrusted with admin status a few years ago. If anonymity (more accurately, pseudonymity) is that distressing to you, you may find Citizendium more amenable, particularly as you self-identify as an academic. Pseudonymity is deeply ingrained in Wikipedia's DNA, so I don't think that raging against the machine from behind your own pseudonym is likely to go too far here. MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

SIDS

I realize that the authors of this page are committed to "causes" vs. "can cause" terminology, but in the case of the SIDS it doesn't make sense to use "causes". This is because SIDS is by nature an exclusionary disease. Infant deaths are labeled as SIDS when the infant's death is unable to be explained. In other words I feel as though the statements made in this article regarding SIDS are at complete odds with wikipedia's own article dedicated to SIDS. Again this is the problem when trying to sort out the normal word "cause" and the epidemiological term "cause" when rooting through sources that are used to compile this article. Does anyone else see this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.185.22 (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to clarify apparently that the source that I was mentioning from the surgeon general uses the words "more likely". This does not meet the causal definition. As a personal aside, judgeing by the smoking families in my neighborhood I'm sure that there are risk factors involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.185.22 (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

But "cause" is more scary, and more likely to be misunderstood. Hence, it must be used here and in the statements issued by the WHO, etc. SIDS is also caused by failure to run a fan in the infant's room. But the sources (for what they're worth) use the word often times, and where they do so it should remain. Feel free to edit closer to the source when necessary. Beware of the auto-revert feature of the site, though. It's a strange phenomenon. Chido6d (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, to quote the Surgeon General in his speech to launch the report, "...we have determined that secondhand smoke is a cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)." There, he stopped beating around the bush and blurted the "C" word right out.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

He also blurted a lot of something that begins with "s". Nevertheless, are you committed to using the press release (to quote the surgeon general in his speech to launch the report) instead of the report itself?Chido6d (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Help with sources

Moved here from User Talk:MastCell Hey there! I just saw your reversion on the Passive Smoking page edit I did yesterday. Wanted to know if I could ask your help with the cite tags in that article. I wasn't quite sure how to properly cite the 1999 study from the who. When adding that in, I figured that somebody else who knew more would come along and fix the cite, since it was directly from their page, but... :)

Also, I'm a little confused about the WP: WEIGHT comment. There are prominent adherents to the view that relative risk should be larger before something is seriously considered, and I could reference a few, but I thought that going into any exhaustive detail or adding that many references would've invoked WP: WEIGHT in the first place, and that a short one-line comment on the further controversy would be acceptable. How should I have posted it? Crickel (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things (and these are, of course, just my opinion). The section is about the controversy surrounding the publication of a specific WHO/IARC study, so I didn't think that mentioning the additional study tied in. As to expanding the quote from the abstract, I don't feel strongly one way or the other - my default would be that since the controversy surrounded the WHO's positive finding, it makes sense to mention that finding but maybe less sense to mention their negative, less controversial finding. But I could go either way on that.

The sourcing comment had to do with the use of davehitt.com. I don't think that site meets the reliable source criteria (nor the more specific criteria for medical topics). It creates undue weight to give davehitt.com the same sort of weight as the WHO, NCI, NIH, American Cancer Society, and essentially the entire scientific community. If there are current objections to the science on secondhand smoke published in scholarly sources, let's find and discuss those (we mention some such objections, cited to a Nature story, in our article). MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Crickel, in spite of the song and dance, the truth is that the IARC's finding on childhood exposure is Under Suppression. I suggest that you visit the archives of this page and review my chart of Information Under Suppression until I have a good chance to update it and bring it to the front page again. You will see the pattern, and I won't need to coach you.

I would add that MastCell is correct that davehitt.com does not rise to the level of the sources that we are supposed to use here.Chido6d (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Crickel, the statements you cited were part of a misinformation scheme to discredit the WHO/IARC reports, and not what the reports actually said. This was exposed in the racketeering case the government launched against the tobacco companies. A few of the judge's findings in the case (the full judgment is 1652 pages long):

• Internally, Defendants Expressed Concern that the Mounting Evidence on ETS Posed a Grave Threat to Their Industry
• Internally, Defendants Recognized that ETS Is Hazardous to Nonsmokers
• Defendants Undertook Joint Efforts to Undermine and Discredit the Scientific Consensus that ETS Causes Disease
• Defendants Acted Through a Web of Coordinated and Interrelated International and Domestic Organizations
• Defendants Made False and Misleading Public Statements Denying that ETS Is Hazardous to Nonsmokers
• Defendants Continue to Obscure the Fact that ETS is Hazardous to Nonsmokers

In the judge's opinion, this constituted racketeering and fraud, rather than scientific research.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why Rocky is referring to the Kessler case (it's not Under Suppresion here), but I was referring to the conclusion from the abstract of the WHO/IARC report itself -- without further comment or embellishment.Chido6d (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I was quoting Judge Kessler's decision because it made reference to a number of tobacco company misinformation schemes against the WHO, including aforementioned scheme to misinterpret the WHO/IARC report. To quote the WHO as quoted by Judge Kessler, "PASSIVE SMOKING DOES CAUSE LUNG CANCER; DO NOT LET THEM FOOL YOU". (All capitals by the WHO). Not my opinion, that of the WHO. Fascinating stuff, you should read it.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

A bit of an edit war...

appears to be going on here over something quite silly. Please stop it. lifebaka++ 18:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the point is pretty straightforward, the study was funded by CIAR, not much to argue about. Soxwon (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If I may ask, what is the main objection to the current wording? Soxwon (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As has been stated many times, the objection is that CIAR was disbanded in 2000, and could not "manage" a study published in 2003. Nor was the study entirely funded by CIAR. This is a matter of public record. There is no room for debate on it. Enstrom makes this point and has vigorously defended himself. If the study were truly "managed" by an outside agency and this were so clear, Enstrom would have been censored and would no longer be able to publish studies. Additionally, he would be guilty of fraud.SonofFeanor (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion is flawed in that the study was commissioned in 1997-98 and was first pitched in 96. Funding and management decisions were made then that affected the project's course all the way up to its end. Evidence of manipulation can be seen here and here. For funding: [6] (follow up through 1999 and data analysis were conducted at University of California at Los Angeles with support from the Center for Indoor Air Research, a 1988-99 research organisation that received funding primarily from US tobacco companies) and here. If anything, it appears that the circle should be widened to include Phillip Morris and Co. Soxwon (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's nice, guys. Talk about it here, not in edit summaries, eh? And, if you can't convince each other, compromise. I'd like not to be back. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 20:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• facepalm* sorry bout that, came here to help and end up flaring it up again. Sorry Soxwon (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Are these citations offered to rebut me or to support me? It seems to me that they provide evidence that: 1) Enstrom was working on his study and had the design in place long before CIAR was involved, and 2) he received funding from UCLA long before CIAR was involved. I see nothing about any discussions after 2000. Where exactly is the evidence of manipulation? I've been through the citation but I can't find any communication from CIAR at all, nor a shred of evidence suggesting any part of the study was changed or adopted in the first place based on interaction with any member of that body. Could you please quote the material I am missing?SonofFeanor (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the point made above by Soxwon, let me remind SonofFeanor that, on Wikipedia, the ultimate criterion is not what we editors think (or deduce from the facts - this would be original research), but what the source which we use as references say. In the particular case, the referenced source is Judge Kessler's Final Opinion. Referring to the E/K study, Kessler says on page 1380: "This study was CIAR-funded and managed." The phrase "was funded and managed by CIAR" used in the article is very faithful to the source text and simply reads a bit better. Unless there is a more authoritative source on which we could base a different version of the facts (and so far, SonofFeanor has produced none), we will be well advised to stick to the current version.

--Dessources (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As SoF says, it seems Soxwon has provided the sources himself. Just look and it is clear the study was underway and being funded before CIAR's involvement. As to sources, Kessler is a well known judicial activist from the Clinton school. You have Enstrom's own rebuttal cited here, and that is much more accuarate, detailed and authoritative than Kessler's summary. Enstrom's study was peer reviewed by BMJ, which subsequently defended its publication. Are they not greater scientific authorities than Kessler? UCLA's board of academic regents has not censored Enstrom despite tremendous pressure from the pc establishment. Clearly, true authorities are not in doubt about Enstrom's integrity.Pcpoliceman (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it shows a continuing cycle that included CIAR. CIAR was a part of it, I'm saying more should be mentioned. Soxwon (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Really, this is silly. And you've got three days or protection because of it. Figure it out here before that expires, please, as I'd prefer to unlock it quickly. lifebaka++ 02:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The question should be how to most accurately portray the study. Unfortunately, the current read is only partly true, is misleading and is the handiwork of a small number of extremists who really don't seem interested in avoiding bias.

Without question, the goal is to give the impression that the study was entirely a CIAR project. However, it should be fairly easy to balance out this impression within Wiki guidelines.

It's notable that Editor Richard Smith defended the publication of the study after hearing all of these worn-out accusations. The Associate Editor was even more critical of the ad-hominem attacks.

One thing we can all agree on is that an edit war won't solve anything. Discussion is a decent start. If people would be reasonable, so much the better.

There also seems to be a problem with the characterization of Gio Gori. Is it fair to call him a tobacco industry spokesman (present tense) when he apparently hasn't received any funds from the industry for 10 years? Sounds more like activism to me.Chido6d (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a thought: respect the talk page guidelines, don't use Wikipedia as a soapbox, discuss specific and concrete changes to article content. It would also be nice to see that these inappropriate alternate accounts don't edit the article again. I will say that on the issue of "partly funded" vs. "funded and managed", I really don't care and could be happy either way, but I am absolutely not interested in enabling the sort of disruption, nonsense, and abuse of alternate accounts on display at present. MastCell ^Talk 04:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a problem with the process when such a minor and indisputable change takes this much wrangling to get passed. No one is contending that CIAR paid for the whole study, right? As far as I know, no one would say they paid for more than half? If so, speak up, but it is very clearly not the case. So while "funded" may technically be correct, "partly funded" is as well and is much more descriptive. In terms of "managed," that is a very serious charge for an academic paper. If it could be proven, there is no doubt BMJ would not have published Enstrom subsequently (they did) and would have retracted the article (they didn't). Also, Enstrom could not still be employed at UCLA (he has never even been censored by the university). No one has offered any evidence of "management." Soxwon's citations above show a guy asking for money. There is nothing about any specific feature of the study being put in place based on recommendations from CIAR. Given the lack of evidence and the response of UCLA and BMJ, "managed" seems a very strong line for an "objective" source like wikipedia to take.SonofFeanor (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And as to your comment about meatpuppets, at least PcPoliceman took the time to post here on the discussion page. I don't see anything from Yilloslime or Darrenhusted. They just appeared to revert my changes. Oh, I know they are both long time editors. But there is no doubt in my mind that in this case Dessources recruited them to jump on and make reverts.SonofFeanor (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to Enstrom's paper, published in yet another peer reviewed journal, defending his study from Kessler and others. Note the date is 2007 and I don't believe anyone has chosen to rebut this paper since.http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/pdf/1742-5573-4-11.pdfSonofFeanor (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a link to UCLA stating they found no evidence of academic misconduct in Enstrom's study.http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/HumeUCOP101607.pdfSonofFeanor (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The tobacco industry, notably Philip Morris, funded the E/K study via CIAR, which acted as a front organization. The CIAR board of directors approved the project in November 1997, with modifications, and placed it under the Directed Studies Program, controlled by high level industry executives, bypassing review by the CIAR Advisory Board. CIAR voted a project allocation of USD 525'000 from 1 June 1998 to 31 May 2001. (Although CIAR was disbanded in 1999, its commitment were met until they expired).

Over half a million dollars is quite a large amount of money for a study that was purely a re-analysis of existing data (CPS-I data) - which, by the way, Enstrom knew very well already, as this amount came on top of a USD 150'000 grant that Enstrom had received directly from Philip Morris in April 1997 to study the "Relationship of low levels of active smoking to mortality" using the same data. It is interesting to note that Enstrom and Kabat, in their "Funding" section at the end of their paper, indicate that the other sources of funding had been terminated in 1997, i.e. ended before the project actually started! Once the project was placed under the supervision of tobacco executives, no other source of funding has been identified and declared by the authors.

That the project was managed by the CIAR, or rather by the tobacco executives, is also undeniable. Even the choice of Enstrom's co-author was made by the CIAR Board (see Kessler's Final Opinion, p. 1381: "According to the minutes of the May 15, 1997 CIAR Board of Directors meeting, CIAR found a co-author collaborator for Enstrom, Geoffrey Kabat."). Another illustration of such management is provided by a meeting organized by Philip Morris in June 2000 with Enstrom and Peter Lee, a leading consultant to the tobacco industry, to "discuss the results of the CPS I and CPS II studies and develop possible approaches to analysing the data".([7])

To sum up, saying that the E/K study was "funded and managed by the Center for Indoor Air Research" is not only faithful to what Judge Kessler found, but also translates the facts very accurately. But if one needed a more precise, or rather detailed, formulation, I would go along with the following: "The study was placed under the direction of tobacco industry executives and funded through the Center for Indoor Air Research." In any case, we should not hide the fact that the industry had full control over the study, as is amply shown in several references and is evidenced by internal tobacco industry documents, as this is a crucial piece of information about the E/K study. So MastCell may forgive me for disagreeing that the two formulations "funded and managed" and "partially funded" are equivalent. They are not, as is testified by SonofFeanor's insistence to have the former replaced with the latter.

(Note: my references are Judge Kessler's Final Opinion, the United States Proposed Finding of Facts, the paper by Bero, Glantz and Hong (The limits of competing interest disclosures - Tobacco Control 2005;14;118-126) and some of the rapid responses to the E/K paper on the BMJ site.)

--Dessources (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

From the Enstrom citation above - "CIAR assigned the entire award for the study to UCLA in 1999 just before it was dissolved." After that, only UCLA had financial control and there was no need to report to anyone within the tobacco industry. That is, not only did the tobacco industry NOT have "full control over the study," but in fact they had none. Where is this "ample evidence?" A reference to 1997 minutes without even any direct citation of the minutes? A meeting "organized to discuss results?" How does discussion of results translate into control of the study? Is there more? If so, please tell us where. I mean, "ample" has to mean more than that there was a meeting to discuss results. Where is the evidence that "the study was placed under the direction of tobacco industry executives?" That is directly at odds with Enstrom's statement above and I don't see a single quote from any "tobacco industry executive" that corroborates this statement. Why hasn't the BMJ used this "ample evidence" to retract the paper? Why hasn't UCLA fired Enstrom?SonofFeanor (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This issues were duly contemplated by Judge Kessler, and this page is not the proper place to redo the trial and reopen the discussion. The argument according to which UCLA had financial control is fallacious: this was CIAR money earmarked to the E/K study, so there was not great deal of financial control, and what is at stake here is scientific control, which was exercised by the tobacco industry executives. Judge Kessler's findings were unanimously endorsed by the Appeal Court, so they constitute an authoritative reference. The paper by Bero, Glantz and Hong is another authoritative source. There are penty of tobacco industry documents, some of which were referenced in this discussion, which provide the evidence on which Judge Kessler and Bero et al. based their findings. This is sufficient to back up the factual statement that the study was "funded and managed by CIAR". Enstrom's own statement is hardly a neutral source in the matter, and it has nevertheless been given its due share in the closing sentence of the paragraph.

--Dessources (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My understanding always has been that when the activists didn't like how things were panning out, they would have nothing to do with the study. CIAR provided the resources necessary for its completion.

It's pretty clear that "funded and managed" (while partly true) is not an adequate characterization of the report's entire background and history, except perhaps to activists.

I don't believe that adding the word "partially" is the way to address this, but am not prepared for additional input at this time.

I was unaware (though I had planned to find out) that Enstrom was independently cleared of any wrongdoing. Given the amount of mudslinging in the article and elsewhere (and for other reasons as well), the fact should certainly be noted. Remember that the Scientific Integrity Institute is Under Suppression, so another source may need to be found.Chido6d (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Enstrom's defense appears in a peer-reviewed article in an epidemiological journal - it is not some "statement" he made to the press. Surely the journal can be considered neutral. However money was earmarked, it was assigned to UCLA. Yes, it had to be spent on the study, but that is not the issue. There was no requirement to report to industry sources - that is what it means to say it was assigned to UCLA. Nothing in the Bero et. al. article suggests "management" by the tobacco industry. It details funding and that is it. Please supply some of this "ample evidence" that you spoke of. I don't believe you can, and that is why you say again and again "but Judge Kessler said" and leave it at that. BMJ and UCLA obviously do not share Judge Kessler's opinion. I would call them more authoritative sources.SonofFeanor (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure considering how much I dug up in just 10 minutes from the top 5 hits on Yahoo. Imagine if I used Google. Soxwon (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If I understand this properly, no one is contesting that CIAR funded it, or that groups other than CIAR funded it. And it appears that both versions of the text say basically the same thing (unless I'm missing something, in which case most likely everyone else who reads this will as well). I heartily suggest that one side just give it up and be happy with the text the other promotes. Supposing you're willing to do that, I'd like to remove the protection as soon as possible. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The stumbling point, Lifebaka, is "managed." This is a very significant term from an academic perspective. It implies lack of ovjectivity at the least and fraudulence at the worst. It is a pure slander on Enstrom and there are no facts to back it up. None have been offered here. All that has been said is "Kessler said so."SonofFeanor (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, no - Kessler's judicial opinion was based on a huge mountain of evidence, testimony, and argument. I'm sure you're familiar enough with the legal system to realize that a District Court judgment of this magnitude is a bit more solid than "Kessler said so", particularly as it has been upheld as sound by the Appeals Court. The Court's opinion, based on that evidence and upheld on appeal, held in part that Enstrom's paper was "a prime example of how nine tobacco companies engaged in criminal racketeering and fraud to hide the dangers of tobacco smoke." I believe we should note that Enstrom has defended himself against these charges, and that UCLA did not find that he had committed misconduct. I also believe that a U.S. District Court's finding that this paper was the biased product of an effort to subvert science is perhaps worthy of mention - call me crazy. Enstrom's objectivity has been questioned by numerous reliable sources. That does not mean he is unethical or even that he did anything wrong - it's not our job here to decide that. It's our job to note that these sources have questioned his research. That's not "slander". MastCell ^Talk 17:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think people are arguing about semantics here. Rather than managed, I would echo Judge Kessler's decision in the government's RICO case and use words like fraud, conspiracy, and racketeering. As to the CIAR, according to Judge Kessler,

• After the MSA-mandated dissolution of CTR and CIAR, the SRRC continued to approve research projects funded by Philip Morris through its “External Research Program” which was created in 2000 to take over the function of funding third-party research and eventually took the place of the SRRC.
• Even though the MSA required Defendants to shut down and disband CIAR, Philip Morris has reconstituted it at the same address and with the same director, under the name of the Philip Morris External Research Program.

Abbreviations used:

• MSA means the Master Settlement Agreement between the State Attorneys General and the Big Tobacco Companies
• CTR means the Center for Tobacco Research - "a sophisticated public relations vehicle -- based on the premise of conducting independent scientific research -- to deny the harms of smoking and reassure the public".
• SSRC means the Scientific Research Review Committee which oversaw “all scientific studies, related to tobacco, smoke and/or smoking, conducted or funded by Philip Morris Companies”.

Also, I just thought I'd mention the consequences of the decision - Judge Kessler ordered that:

• Defendants will also be ordered not to reconstitute the form or function of CTR, TI, or CIAR.
• Finally, because this is a case involving fraudulent statements about the devastating consequences of smoking, Defendants will be prohibited from making, or causing to be made in any way, any material, false, misleading or deceptive statement or representation concerning cigarettes that is disseminated in the United States.

So, if by any chance that applies to anybody here, it's not too soon to check out vacation property in countries that have no extradition treaty with the US. Cheers, RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, "defendants" does not include Enstrom, and he has been charged with no crime whatsoever. Similarly, Kessler's judicial opinion was not about Enstrom per se but about Phillip Morris and crew. Enstrom is mentioned in the decision, but the appeal is not about him and does not corroborate Kessler's opinion of him or his study. She did not have a "huge mountain of evidence" regarding Enstrom, and I stress again that no one here has offered one jot of evidence suggesting that "managed" is correct. But if you want to mention the court's opinion, that is perfectly appropriate. I have no problem with the article stating "Judge Kessler found that the 'study was funded and managed by CIAR'" as long as it also states, "BMJ editor Richard Smith defended the paper as having satisfied the journal's peer review process" and "The UCLA Academic Board of Regents and Dean have never sanctioned Enstrom, though this issue was brought before them when they considered whether to continue to accept tobacco funding of reasearch (they still do)."SonofFeanor (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, Enstrom, speaking of unindicted co-conspirators. According to Judge Kessler,

• BATCo summarizes the 2003 Enstrom study results, but fails to state that the study was funded and managed by the tobacco industry through CIAR and Philip Morris
• The PMERP utilized a number of former CIAR peer reviewers and grantees, as well as ETSAG project recipients, including James Enstrom, Alan Hedge, Samuel Lehnert, Roger Jenkins, and Antonio Miguel.
• Many researchers funded through CIAR have continued to receive funding through the PMERP. Through the PMERP, Philip Morris continues to manage projects conducted by ETSAG and CIAR researchers Roger Jenkins, James Enstrom, Demetrios Moschandreas and Samuel Lehrer.

PMERP refers to Phillip Morris Extended Research Program and BATCo to British American Tobacco Company. And, while I haven't taken a tape measure to it, the opinion does appear to be a fairly mountainous document.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, we know what Kessler said. She has been quoted ad nauseum. MastCell didn't say "a montainous opinion" but "a mountainous pile of evidence." Where is it? What is the evidence that Phillip Morris or CIAR "managed" anything?SonofFeanor (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the evidence makes a considerably larger pile than the opinion. I think the case ran for 10 years, involving 246 witnesses and 14,000 exhibits. The tobacco companies have said that they will appeal to the Supreme Court, but if they lose there, that's their last stop, and the Supremes don't have to listen to appeals if they don't want to. I mean, how much evidence do you really need to come to a decision?RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That is great! So you should be able to provide some of it, right? Just give me the link to Enstrom saying "We will change [x and y and z] per your instructions [tobacco exec]." Or give me two copies of the study, one of which has been altered based on instructions from a tobacco affiliated person. Anything like this out of the "pile" will be sufficient to support the term "managed."SonofFeanor (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're asking a serious question about the evidence from the case, you can start by searching the Legacy Tobacco Library and the Philip Morris Documents Archive. As to Enstrom, the most damning piece of evidence was probably the letter in which he requested a "substantial" sum of money from Philip Morris in order to "compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist" regarding the harmfulness of secondhand smoke (hmm, apparently I stole that "mountain" metaphor). Before the analysis was begun, its author was already pitching it to Philip Morris as a counterbalance against existing data showing that secondhand smoke was harmful. Philip Morris went in with eyes wide open - they conceived of Enstrom's project as "clearly litigation-oriented", meaning that they intended from the start to use his conclusions as a legal defense in the tobacco lawsuits. I think most people can connect those dots, but then it's not really our job to do that. A number of reliable sources already have, and our job is to accurately represent those sources. I'd rather see a bit more focus on the sources and less grandstanding and argumentation based on personal opinion. MastCell ^Talk 23:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Asking for money for funding is something that every researcher does. It does not imply that the study was "managed." That Phillip Morris thought it was litigation oriented is neither here nor there - I see nothing from Enstrom that says so. As to sources, you have ONE source that concludes the study was "managed," in a note within a much more sweeping ruling. Even Bero et. al. do not use this wording. Put it in quotes, cite the source, and be done. It is clearly not appropriate to do more than that when there is no evidence of this type of manipulation available. Again, two academic investigators at UCLA cleared Enstrom of any wrongdoing, and the BMJ obviously did as well.SonofFeanor (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Mast Cell, there is a large mountain of data and opinions about passive smoking. Dr. Enstrom's letter does not say what you are saying he said. He said that a large mountain exists of data and opinions (note: plural) regarding the "health effects of ETS and passive smoking." This is a pretty neutral statement, juxtaposed against what you may rather him have said - something to the effect of a mountain of evidence confirming that a harm exists. It is not necessary to add your own words based on your understanding and wishful thinking. Chido6d (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Again (and again, and again, and again), it doesn't really matter what I think. I'm not interested in yet another pointless exercise here, and you have yet to convince me that engaging with you is anything else. Reliable sources exist. Let's use them. That would be a start. MastCell ^Talk 03:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter what you think, then quote the sources accurately rather than interjecting your interpretations. That would be a start.Chido6d (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll assume you didn't see the direct quotes in my previous posts. They are outlined in light blue, and if you click on them, you will be taken to the actual sources, where you can verify that I have quoted them accurately. MastCell ^Talk 16:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Enstrom received at least $525,000 from the tobacco companies for his study. The American Cancer Society repeatedly warned Enstrom that using its data in the manner he was using it would lead to unreliable results. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) made the following statement: Enstrom and Kabat's conclusions are not supported by the weak evidence they offer, and although the accompanying editorial alluded to "debate" and "controversy", we judge the issue to be resolved scientifically, even though the "debate" is cynically continued by the tobacco industry. Again, I'm quoting from Judge Kessler's opinion.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

At least you mention Kessler's name. Did you know it (her name) is Under Suppression within the article? To name her may obfuscate the fact that it was a court decision. I'm not kidding...Chido6d (talk) 04:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No one has presented any evidence that Enstrom's study was "managed" by anyone within the tobacco industry, other than the Kessler quote (not really evidence). Once blocking is turned off I will put "funded and managed" in quotes and attribute it to Kessler, so that won't be lost. I will also cite UCLA'S academic review, and Richard Smith's comment on the peer review of the article. Bero et. al.'s article on funding (I have been through it at length and there is nothing about manipulation or "management" in that article), can also be cited. Are there any other reliable sources that need to be included?SonofFeanor (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I believe Enstrom's own words to in writing should be entered.

Enstrom states “level of trust must be developed…commitment [needed] on your part to compete against the epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the health effects of ETS…” (link below) Soxwon (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposals

Alright, let's at least make some headway

Keep CIAR and add Phillip Morris (from CIAR letter: Separate discussions with Dr . James Enstrom, University of California-Los Angeles and Dr. Kabat, Stonybrook, New York about the possibility of their collaboration. That appears to be managing) [8] and add Phillip Morris [9] [10] "In accordance with our discussion on November 18, 1996 I have prepared the £allowing simplified grant application regarding my proposed research on the relationship of low levels of active smoking (a few cigarettes per day) to mortality ." [11] Soxwon (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of to whom Enstrom submitted funding proposals, it was CIAR who actually produced some funds, not Phillip Morris. Enstrom specifically denies any funding directly from Philip Morris. And discussions about the possibility of a collaboration before the study commenced do not amount to management of the study. Manage is defined as "to handle, direct, govern, or control in action or use." None of this happened. Proposal:

"In her opinion on the United States v. Philip Morris RICO case, Judge Gladys Kessler noted that the study was 'CIAR-funded and managed.' The study was subsequently investigated by UCLA's Board of Regents and 'officials independently reached the conclusion that these materials provide no evidence of scientific misconduct.' Additionally, Richard Smith, the editor of the BMJ at the time of the article's publication, defended the decision to publishm, saying 'Two top epidemiologists-- including George Davey-Smith--reviewed the paper. Then the paper went to our hanging committee, which always includes a statistician as well as practising doctors and some of us... Of course the paper has flaws --all papers do-- but it also has considerable strengths-- long follow up, large sample size, and more complete follow up than many such studies.'"SonofFeanor (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm on record as not caring whether we use the word "managed" or not, but this is just nonsense. CIAR was one of many front groups for Philip Morris - that is a matter of record, supported by numerous reliable sources - so it's mind-boggling to insist that these were independent entities. Tobacco companies commonly channel funding through ostensibly independent third parties to hide the trail - the most recent high-profile case being that of Claudia Henschke.

The above proposal significantly misstates actual opinion on the paper. Kessler's opinion was based on a large volume of expert testimony. Additionally, the ACS, whose database Enstrom used, was highly critical and reportedly warned him prior to publication that his methodology was flawed. On top of that, Enstrom's findings are in conflict with what he accurately termed a "mountain of data" indicating that secondhand smoke is harmful, so we should be cautious about giving his findings undue weight. The controversy surrounding his paper is one thing; it would be another to pretend that his findings are accepted by the scientific community. I agree that we should include the findings of the UCLA committee (sources?). MastCell ^Talk 17:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Kessler's opinion was based on a large volume of material, but NOT ABOUT THIS PAPER. It is an opinion on Philip Morris' racketeering. This was a minor sidelight in a much larger case. The use of the term CIAR rather than Philip Morris is because that is what Kessler says, and we are quoting her. The "mountain of data" on secondhand smoke is not at all the issue - it is covered everywhere else in this article and does not need to be touched on again here. It does not bear on the conduct of the study. As to ACS, Enstrom talked to two vice presidents of ACS while preparing his study. They only objected AFTER they found out the results of the study. But this is also beside the point - this does not point to any kind of influence from the tobacco industry. My proposal does not touch on current opinion about the paper other than on questions of its integrity, which is what this section is about.SonofFeanor (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem we face is the following: We have a good and reliable source (the federal Court decision) which says that the study was "funded and managed" by CIAR. I see no compelling reason to substitute ourselves to this source and inject personal opinions, distorting the fact reported by this highly authoritative source by watering down "funded" into "partially funded" and suppressing "managed". Judge Kessler based her finding on tobacco industry documents and testimonies that provided solid evidence for what she said in her final opinion. It would have been very difficult, and quite risky in terms of her credibility, for the Judge to have made unsubstantiated allegations, specially in a context where the tobacco industry was represented by several hundreds of lawyers. So we have every reason to believe that she had sufficient material about the E/K paper (she makes reference to some of it, which is pretty clear) to conclude that this study was "CIAR-funded and managed". I agree that she did not need a "large volume" of material - just the material that offered proper evidence. Furthermore, all the exhibits are very consistent and point in the same direction. The tobacco companies have failed to produce contradictory evidence - and you can trust them that if they had been able to produce such contradictory evidence, they would have done it.

The other side of the problem we face is that whatever formulation we use which deviates from the one coming straight from our reliable source will be the result of original research, i.e. the result of re-opening the case and making our own deductions and interpretation of the facts, as SonofFeanor keeps doing. As far as I know, this is a breach of Wikipedia rules.

--Dessources (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add that the issue of scientific misconduct is an entirely separate question. It could very well be that, for the UCLA Boards of Regents, having one's own study funded and managed by CIAR is not a sufficient criterion to make a case of scientific misconduct (which is, BTW, not a legal offense - while racketeering is). Actually, the target of Judge Kessler's final opinion was the tobacco companies, not Enstrom. The point she makes is that the E/K paper offers "a prime example of how nine tobacco companies engaged in criminal racketeering and fraud to hide the dangers of tobacco smoke." This is also the point made in the article.

--Dessources (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

← We should probably go to the sources. Any honest and policy-compliant representation of this paper should note the rejection of its findings by the scientific community. We should probably not pretend that these findings are considered a methodologically sound part of whatever debate exists about secondhand smoke. Sources:

• USA v. Philip Morris et al., decision of the District Court (or, as some would frame it, the "personal opinion" of Judge Gladys Kessler, the "most liberal justice in [the Court|the country|American history]": "When the Enstrom/Kabat paper was published in the May 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal, it was roundly criticized in the scientific community." (p. 1382).
• The World Health Organization: "Enstrom and Kabat's conclusions are not supported by the weak evidence they offer." (quoted in the Court decision, p. 1382.
• The American Cancer Society: Called the paper's conclusions "neither reliable nor independent"; listed an extensive series of flaws (the selective use of a small subset of the total database, poor surrogate markers of secondhand smoke exposure.
• Philip Morris itself: The internal, confidential tobacco industry review of Enstrom's proposal criticized his proposed method of classifying deaths as tobacco-related or not ("Death certificates are generally considered to be not the best source of information"), and felt that the proposed study lacked scientific significance and meaning ("The amount of money asked for seems rather high when considering the work proposed. The outcome, most probably, will not add much new scientific information.") These documents are now freely available in the tobacco-document archives, but for simplicity's sake and as a secondary source, they are quoted by the American Cancer Society in their criticism of Enstrom's paper ([12]).

That's without really getting into the issues raised by Enstrom's pledge to "compete effectively against the mountain of evidence" on the harms of passive smoking.

I share Dessources' bemusement about the promotion (by editors here) of the UCLA findings as vindication for Enstrom. The university decided that he hadn't done anything that rose to the level of gross misconduct necessary to discipline a tenured professor. That should be noted, perhaps, but not as an absolute indication that Enstrom was "right". Here's a question: let's say Enstrom himself charged Stanton Glantz with misconduct and making "blatantly false statements" about Enstrom. Let's say that a UC panel investigated and exonerated Glantz of any wrongdoing. Does that mean that Stanton Glantz is right about everything he's alleged about Enstrom? (As you may have guessed, this is not entirely a hypothetical). MastCell ^Talk 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is not currently about the accuracy of the findings, MastCell, but whether the study was managed by CIAR. That would indeed be academic misconduct, as CIAR would have had to credited for the parts of the study they designed and their intellectual contributions. But additionally, Kessler says that it is an example of how tobacco companies sought to "hide the dangers of tobacco smoke" and if there was any hiding going on in the study that would also be misconduct. But in the fictional world where Kessler was the only source speaking to Enstrom's integrity, her short quote in a lengthy opinion on another matter would not be enough to say there was some kind of consensus that Enstrom was a pawn of the tobacco industry. And for the record, Dessources, if evidence had been presented in the trial that Enstrom was managed by CIAR it would be a matter of public record and available for you to cite, which you have not. Evidence that one was NOT managed - what exactly would that be but lack of evidence that one was managed? Without any kind of consensus, the proper thing for an encyclopedia to do in this case is to quote the source. At the same time we can quote UCLA, Richard Smith, and Enstrom's own response in Epidemiology, a peer reviewed journal. There is no need at all to "make our own deductions" and I have never done so.

As to the completely separate matter of the scientific community's assessment of this study, I will deal with that once this has been settled.SonofFeanor (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

So there is no way to twist my words, bring up irrelevant subjects, or simply ignore what I say, I will spell it out. For CIAR: [13] this is minutes of a board meeting from CIAR which include them being the ones who partnered Enstrom and Kabat. This appears to be managing. For inclusion of Phillip Morris: [14] "Although acknowledging some financial support from the tobacco industry, the authors did not reveal the full extent of their relationship with this industry and did not mention that the study was actually an industry’s “directed project” under the close supervision of tobacco executives." (citation given: Bero LA, Glantz S, Hong MK.The limits of competing interest disclosures Tob Control 2005; 14: 118–126.) I'm not sure how you can deny it now. Soxwon (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The citation on management is a suggestion of a meeting. That is not evidence of management. Meanwhile for Glantz and crew to say something was under the close supervision of tobacco executives does not make it so. They provide as little evidence as you do. Enstrom rebuts this effectively in Epidemiology.SonofFeanor (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on now. Saying: "Hey, we set up a meeting with a guy who we think should write this paper with you" is managing a study. More to the point, several reliable sources (a major and apparently sound legal decision, a peer-reviewed article from a major medical journal, the American Cancer Society, etc) suggest that Enstrom's relationship to the tobacco industry may have contributed to a biased or invalid result. We have apparently one source disputing this - Enstrom himself, albeit published in a journal.

I don't think you understand the issue of scientific misconduct. It would not be de facto misconduct for CIAR to manage the study, all the more so given the acknowledgement of their role by Enstrom and Kabat in the article. The relationship is questionable; it has led numerous reputable sources to view Enstrom's paper as biased and his results as untrustworthy; but that is not necessarily scientific misconduct, as the UCLA panel agreed. One can produce methodologically unsound research which serves the financial interests of one's paymasters without officially committing scientific misconduct - it happens all the time. MastCell ^Talk 23:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on now. "Manage" means to exert control over. To suggest a meeting with a co-author is hardly to exert control. What you are really saying and what Kessler says explicitly is that the study was managed by CIAR to hide the dangers of tobacco, and soxwon's citation does not show this at all. We have discussed reliable sources at length, but to so again, there is a legal decision that mentions Enstrom as biased, and an academic board that doesn't think so (more on this in a moment). There is a Glantz paper in a peer reviewed journal, but also multiple Enstrom papers in peer-reviewed journals, (as well as a paper by Ungar in a peer-reviewed journal that questions the attacks on Enstrom). The American Cancer Society, meanwhile, is a lot of things, but they are not a reliable source on whether Enstrom was biased in writing this article. They did not do any research on this matter and are not experts in cases of criminal fraud. I completely understand the issue of scientific misconduct, but I think to get into our relative levels of understanding, as satisfying as that might be, would violate several wikipedia policies. One can indeed produce scientifically unsound research without committing misconduct - though that is not what happened here. But one cannot have one's study "managed" by sources that are not credited with participating (beyond funding) in the study.SonofFeanor (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition to what MastCell just said, I would caution against giving too much importance to the "clearance" of Enstrom by the UCLA Boards of Regents. This "clearance" does not carry much weight, as it does not follow proper procedure for investigating charges of scientific misconduct. Such charges should normally be investigated by an independent third body of experts, for obvious reasons. Indeed, institutions in which there is presumption of scientific fraud are overly defensive and usually tend to protect themselves by protecting the person who is suspected of misconduct and by denying or trivializing the alleged facts. This is the most usual reaction (a good explanation of why this happens can be found in the book Mistakes were made (but not by me) - Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson). It is pereferable to have the allegations investigated by people who cannot be judge and parties at the same time. This was clearly not the case at UCLA, as the investigation was assigned to UCLA Acting Chancellor, who in turn asked two senior campus officials to look at it. It's very likely that UCLA Acting Chancellor and his two senior campus official did not find evidence of scientific misconduct simply because they actually did not look for it, looked elsewhere, or lacked motivation in their investigation. Indeed, the explanations given by UCLA Board of Regents to justifiy their conclusion miss the point. They say that "disagreement regarding research methodology and disputes about the soundness of scientific conclusions do not ... constitute scientific misconduct." This is obvious, and we all agree, but this is not the issue here. What should have been investigated is whether there was undeclared conflicts of interest, incomplete or false declarations concerning funding of the projet, and misleading declarations about the independence of the researchers, while their research was actually placed under the direction of tobacco industry executives.

--Dessources (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh are we going to start examining the motivations of these various sources now? I thought that was strictly not allowed as it was a personal deduction, but I would really be happy to. Firstly, throw out anything Glantz says because he is the most personally motivated of all, given that his entire career is to be a paid anti-tobacco expert. Let's also throw out the American Cancer Society, whose stated mission is to eradicate smoking in any way they can. But I can't see how BMJ got anything out of peer-reviewing the Enstrom study and vouching for its soundness. It seems all they got was trouble from the establishment.SonofFeanor (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we fundamentally don't see eye-to-eye on this site's actual policies regarding encyclopedic material as opposed to expressions of our personal opinions. Do you understand the difference between us, as editors, questioning someone's motivation and reputable, respected, reliable sources questioning someone's motivation? Hint: one is appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and one is not. Has Stanton Glantz's work been cited prominently by a U.S. District Court as an example of biased tobacco-industry junk science? Have major, respected medical organizations like the American Cancer Society or the World Health Organization called him out? If so, cite a reliable source and let's put it in the article. If not, take this nonsense to a blog, respect the talk page guidelines, and leave Wikipedia in peace. MastCell ^Talk 04:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

My comment was in response to an attack on the UCLA Board of Regents and its motivation. No reputable source was cited as expressing doubt about the Board - it was simply a deduction by Dessources - so I responded in kind. Glantz, ACS, etc. did not attack UCLA. Try to keep it straight. Glantz, ACS, Kessler attack Enstrom. UCLA, BMJ, Ungar defend Enstrom. All are reputable. Dessources says UCLA is no good based on a borderline ridiculous argument with no support from a source. I say Glantz, Kessler, and ACS are no good with about the same level of support. Are you clear where we stand now?SonofFeanor (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No, because as I've expressed before, the world is not divided in a binary fashion between Enstrom supporters and Enstrom attackers. UCLA found that he did not commit scientific misconduct. They didn't "defend" him, or say that his research was valid, or that it was free of funding-source bias, or that the scientific community's criticisms of his work were misguided. The BMJ defended their decision to publish the paper, which is a bit different from defending Enstrom or his work. MastCell ^Talk 22:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

We face a difficulty in the sense that each time we raise a point related to Wikipedia rules, this seems to hit a blind spot in SonofFeanor, who diverts the discussion to something else that has little, or no relevance to the topic under discussion. SonofFeanor keeps making all kinds of arguments to refute the truth of the statement that the E/K study was "funded and managed by CIAR". But, in the process, he keeps ignoring a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, the WP:VERIFY rule: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." We have provided a highly reliable source where readers can verify the statement that the E/K study was "CIAR-funded and managed". SonofFeanor, on his side, has failed to produce any similarly reliable source for his version. This should put an end to the discussion. Continuing in an endless circle the same argument, staging an edit war, using sock/meat puppets for the purpose, is leading us nowhere, and is wasting everybody's time. Futhermore, SonofFeanor fails to address my observation that the letter from the UCLA Board of Regents is not a proper reliable source, as per WP:RELY rule. This personal letter constitutes raw material that expresses the view of a party in the issue, and as such it can hardly meet the Wiki requirement for "reliable, third-party, published sources". What I am saying is that this letter is not an appropriate source to justifiy the inclusion in the article of a statement declaring that Enstrom has been cleared of any scientific misconduct. Somehow, again, this point hit a blind spot in SonofFeanor's mind, who sidelines the debate to some irrelevant point. This type of unproductive contribution needs to come to an end. We should revert to normal edit mode. The tag at the top of the page that blocks editing is doing damage to an article which is probably backed up virtually for each and every sentence by highly reliable sources, to much higher degree than the majority of articles in Wikipedia. Its sole problem is that it is under constant attack by the denialists. But blocking the page is actually unduly rewarding these attacks. --Dessources (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC) The ruling of the UCLA Board of Regents is not a reliable, third-party, published source? Decisions of the Board of Regents are certainly published and they are not a party at issue. There cannot possibly be a problem witht he reliability of the academic board of a major U.S. university. Additionally, BMJ and Epidemiology are also reliable sources. I have offered plenty of reliable sources and do not fall afoul of this policy. Now you are moving to censor your critics and also verging on ad-hominem attacks. I would be careful.SonofFeanor (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I really, really would hate to see this go to RfC over three words. Can we plz reach some sort of agreement? I agree with Dessources that we have proven our case beyond a doubt and that SonofFeanor has not. Soxwon (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well then, that must be all there is to it. If you, representing one side of the argument, believe you have proven your case beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must have done it. Congrats there on meeting that high standard.SonofFeanor (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Then plz address my points. How is arranging personel not managing and how is a paper commissioned by two esteemed organizations simply "opinion" with no real weight? Soxwon (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Personnel were not arranged. A meeting was suggested before the study began. I have said this at least half a dozen times. You cannot have missed it. You ahve not come back with anything more. You have not offered an alternative version of events or an alternative definition of "managed." This point has thus been answered - in spades. If you are referring to the Bero/Glantz paper, at no point did I say it ahs no weight. But the paper merely discusses sources of funding. It nowhere claims management. And it ought not to have more weight than Enstrom's response in Epidemiology, or the conclusion of UCLA's Board of Regents. This point has been answered as well. Please do not make these points again. Redundancy does not equate to logical strength.SonofFeanor (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not talking about the Glantz paper, I'm referring to the one commissioned by the European Respiratory Society and Institut National du Cancer (INCa, France) and the one conducted by Pascal Diethelm President, OxyRomandie, Geneva, Switzerland and Martin McKee Professor of European Public Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. I posted it earlier. And as for the "meeting" the CIAR picking the two scientists that eventually worked together on a project the CIAR funded is indeed a personel decision. I hope this explanation can finally put this to rest. Soxwon (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't see this citation anywhere and I don't remember us ever discussing it. Could you point out where it is and where I gave it no weight, or just post the link again? As to the other, the CIAR didn't pick two scientists. Enstrom came to them, right? He wasn't picked BY them. And a meeting with Kabat was suggested, but they certainly didn't PICK him. Where does it say more than that they suggested a meeting?SonofFeanor (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[15] for the source you dismissed in the next post and for the exact quote: [16]

Separate discussions with Dr . James Enstrom, University of California-Los Angeles and Dr. Kabat, Stonybrook, New York about the possibility of their collaboration.

So it was CIAR who paired them together (which is supported by: Enstrom and Kabat had no prior record of collaboration. A search of PubMed on 25 July 2003 revealed that their only joint publication was the article in BMJ in 2003. from [17]. Now before you dismiss that, plz find evidence refuting it.) Soxwon (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay didn't see this reference before but I have now checked it out. Sorry, but there are only two references to the tobacco industry's manipulation of Enstrom and Kabat's study . The first is a direct quotation from Bero and Glantz and cites their article, which I HAVE given weight, and the second cites Kessler's decision. Go and check your source and its footnotes. Now I am happy to count those as reliable sources, as I have said many times, but you don't get to count them again every time they are cited. I don't know how many times I can say that a "discussion" with two scientists about "the possibility of their collaboration" does not amount to "management." Please check the definition of that word and explain how it could. In fact, I am not going to answer that argument any more, as it has been addressed and re-addressed.SonofFeanor (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

For what will be the last time: it doesn't matter for our purposes whether you think that Philip Morris' involvement rose to the level of "management" or merely "funding". It matters what reliable sources say. One such source found, verbatim, that Philip Morris had "managed" the study. I was previously willing to compromise, and I suppose I may be again if approached reasonably, but at this point given the absolute refusal to understand how this site works I'm not interested. The sources say what they say. Go ahead and fill up the talk page with your personal interpretation of the word "managed", but leave the article to Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and original research. MastCell ^Talk 22:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Already answered too many times to count. Don't care if you are willing to compromise. I am not.SonofFeanor (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Section on USA vs. Philip Morris et al. RICO lawsuit

From the discussion above, I realize that the article does not treat as it should the findings pertinent to passive smoking that can be found in the USA vs. Philip Morris et al. RICO judgment (and its appeal judgment). Since the article dedicates an entire subsection to the EPA lawsuit, which was vacated, an even greater section should be devoted to the RICO lawsuit and its findings, as these are much more significant to the subject of this article, and were not vacated, but on the contrary unanimously validated by the Appeal Court. I am prepared to write such a section (when the article is unblocked), which will briefly describe the DoJ RICO lawsuit and will summarize the main findings of the final judgment, namely:

• The tobacco companies have publicly denied what they internally acknowledged: that passive smoking is hazardous to nonsmokers
• The consensus of the public health community is that passive smoking causes disease in nonsmokers
• Internally, tobacco companies recognized that passive smoking is hazardous to nonsmokers
• Internally, tobacco companies expressed concern that the mounting evidence on passive smoking posed a grave threat to their industry
• Tobacco companies made public promises to support independent research on the link between passive smoking and disease
• Tobacco companies undertook joint efforts to undermine and discredit the scientific consensus that passive smoking causes disease
• Tobacco companies and their paid consultants controlled research findings on passive smoking (the E/K study is treated under this heading)
• Tobacco companies made false and misleading public statements denying that passive smoking is hazardous to nonsmokers
• Tobacco companies continue to obscure the fact that passive smoking is hazardous to nonsmokers

--Dessources (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Was the appeals court decision unanimous? I don't recall seeing that in any press release. I would not object to more information on the case (though you propose an excessive volume), as long as it is duly noted that the decision is being appealed to the Supreme Court.Chido6d (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to such a section. That would be a fine place to put Kessler's quote on Enstrom and Kabat. Indeed, having read wikipedia's article on Kessler, I would be happy if this section also linked to it. Careful now when you say the EPA lawsuit was vacated. The decision was overturned on appeal because it had no force, but no one disputed Osteen's analysis of EPA's awful study. This is handled fine in the article.SonofFeanor (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The appeal court decision was unanimous, 3-0 against the tobacco companies. And it would be misleading to say that the decision is being appealed to the Supreme Court, since that hasn't happened yet (nor is the Supreme Court under any onus to listen to such an appeal).RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the view that we need more on RICO. Regarding the dialectical process by which Wikipedia advances, each attempt to insert tobacco industry talking points into this article, encourages more attention to the way in which Big Tobacco corrupted this debate for so many years. JQ (talk) 09:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)