Editing Science
From TobaccoControl Tactics
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | ==The long list of methodological errors in the junk science of passive smoke ( | + | ==The long list of methodological errors in the junk science of passive smoke (ETS)== |
#The claims of exposure are not authentic. Exposure is often not even measured. Many studies actually measure nothing, but rely on the vague and grossly imprecise recall of queried subjects who attempt to evoke in a few minutes their individual lifetime memories of passive smoking exposure. | #The claims of exposure are not authentic. Exposure is often not even measured. Many studies actually measure nothing, but rely on the vague and grossly imprecise recall of queried subjects who attempt to evoke in a few minutes their individual lifetime memories of passive smoking exposure. | ||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
===Dissenting views=== | ===Dissenting views=== | ||
− | Tobacco Control | + | Tobacco Control industry scientists are not allowed to have dissenting views. When Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University dared to argue with his mentors over a correction he felt was needed for scientific accuracy, he was told bluntly that the political credibility of the antismoking organization was more important. |
===Policy-led research=== | ===Policy-led research=== |