Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: Beyond East Anglia
Posted:
Dec 8, 2011 2:38 AM
|
|
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Wayne Bishop <wbishop@calstatela.edu> wrote:
> http://educationviews.org/2011/12/06/why-ucla%E2%80%99s-firing-of-a-lone-dissenting-voice-should-worry-us-geoffrey-c-kabat/
>
> Feel free to extrapolate to the "scientific data" about secondhand smoke in
> any context except a cheap bar.
>
> Wayne
>
Yes, it is true: Cranks (crackpots) can also be scientists who promote
their crankery even within their own field. See the two articles
further below.
(To wit: In the 1980s I met a person with a PhD in physics who, even
though he had a positive reputation via holding some patents in
physics [having to do with lasers], actually believed in perpetual
motion machines. When he saw my facial expression, he became
defensive, saying "Isn't the universe itself a perpetual motion
machine?")
And yes, it's true: They sometimes get their money from the big
corporations who give not a damn about the public health or the public
safety. See the two articles below.
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Responding to the Enstrom and Kabat Study on Secondhand Smoke"
http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=333
[Selected quotes:]
A severe error in the study was the failure to establish a control
group of nonsmokers who were unexposed to secondhand smoke. Other
critical methodological flaws include not measuring for secondhand
smoke exposure from any source other than the spouse, including
workplace (where smoking was extremely prevalent at the time); not
taking into account either spouse's smoking status after 1972, though
the study continued for 26 more years; and classifying the nonsmoking
spouse as still exposed to secondhand smoke in that 26 year period,
during which time the "smoking spouse" could have quit smoking or
died, not to mention that they could have divorced or separated."
"A substantial research commitment on your part is necessary in order
for me to effectively compete against the large mountain of
epidemiologic data and opinions that already exist regarding the
health effects of ETS and active smoking."
- -- Dr. James E. Enstrom to Philip Morris Research Center[5]
The Enstrom and Kabat secondhand smoke study was initially funded by a
grant from the Tobacco Related Disease Research Program, an
organization that manages funds generated by the Proposition 99
California state cigarette tax. After the program's scientific,
peer-review panel, denied continued funding for the project, Enstrom
sought out financial support from other sources. In 1997, he submitted
an application for,[6] and ultimately received, $210,000 from Philip
Morris and the Council on Tobacco Research (CTR)[7],[8],[9], a front
group created in 1954 by the tobacco companies to fund research on
smoking and health.[10] It became well known over the years for
sponsoring flimsy scientific research that promoted tobacco industry
positions.
"For the past three years, I have done consulting and research on
passive smoking for Jeffery L. Furr of Womble Carlyle on behalf of RJ
Reynolds and Philip Morris."
- -- Dr. James Enstrom to the Center of Indoor Air Research
Dr. James E. Enstrom: Enstrom has played down the support that he has
received from the tobacco industry, but his involvement with the
industry can be traced back for many years. As early as 1975, Enstrom
solicited the CTR for $50,000 to "assess the possible role which other
factors besides smoking play in the etiology of cancer."
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"American Cancer Society Condemns Tobacco Industry Study for
Inaccurate Use of Data"
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/BMJrelease.pdf
[Selected quotes:]
Scientific Flaws of the Study
The new study uses data from the American Cancer Society's Cancer
Prevention Study I
(CPS-I). During the course of the analysis, Society researchers
repeatedly advised Dr. Enstrom that using CPS-I data to study the
effects of secondhand smoke would lead to unreliable results.
. The analysis is based on a small subset (10%) of the CPS-I data.
. The study suffers from a critical design flaw: the inability to
distinguish people who were exposed to secondhand smoke from those who
were not:
* Participants were enrolled in 1959, when exposure to secondhand
smoke was so pervasive that virtually everyone was exposed to ETS,
whether or not they were married to a smoker.
* o No information was collected on other sources of ETS exposure
besides spousal smoking.
o No information on smoking habits after 1972 was included in the
analysis, even though the observation period continued for another 26
years.
o Study participants were, on average, 52 years old at enrollment.
Many spouses who reported smoking in 1959 would have died, quit
smoking, or ended the marriage during the 38-year follow-up, yet their
surviving partners are still classified as "exposed" to ETS in this
analysis.
o Much of the follow-up of CPS-I through 1998 pertains to older age
groups where the effects of many environmental risk factors become
less apparent.
Study Problems Lead to Tobacco Money
The study was initially funded by the Tobacco-Related Disease Research
Program, the group that oversees research funds earmarked from
proceeds raised by California's state cigarette tax. When Dr. Enstrom
was denied additional funding from the program's scientific,
peer-review panel, he sought and received substantial funds from the
Center for Indoor Air Research (CIAR), a tobacco company 'research
group' funded by Philip Morris, among others.
A confidential 1988 industry memo points to CIAR as part of a strategy
to "set up a team of scientists organized by one national coordinating
scientist and American lawyers, to... carry out work on ETS to keep
the controversy alive." News of that memo was reported in the British
Medical Journal, the journal publishing the current study (BMJ, May
31, 1997).
In a January 15, 1997 letter, Dr. Enstrom tells Richard Carchman, PhD,
Philip Morris' director of scientific affairs, that "[a] substantial
research commitment on your part is necessary in order for me to
effectively compete against the large mountain of epidemiologic data
and opinion that already exists regarding the health effects of ETS
and active smoking."
Philip Morris apparently shared doubts about his methods. An internal
document dated February 6, 1997 ("Short Comments to the Proposed
Research... Submitted by J.E. Enstrom") reads: "Death certificates are
generally considered to be not the best source of information," and
"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." The reviewer did see at least one use for Dr.
Enstrom: "The applicant seems to have good connections/resources which
might be useful in the future for other issues." Dr. Enstrom received
the funds.
What Is the Relationship Between Secondhand Smoke and Lung Cancer?
Far more reliable data exist which clearly show an effect of
secondhand smoke. One of those is a much more comprehensive study,
also done by the American Cancer Society, called the Cancer Prevention
Study II (CPS-II). CPS-II:
. Enrolled patients in the 1980s, when there was much less exposures
to tobacco smoke
outside the home, and therefore far less 'background noise'
. Is about 10 times as large as Dr. Enstrom's study
. Has much better follow up, with more than 99% of those originally
entered into the
study having been successfully contacted and followed up
. Clearly shows an increased risk of lung cancer and heart disease
"CPS-II is one of more than 50 studies now published that have shown
non-smokers married to smokers have an increased risk of lung cancer,"
said Harmon J. Eyre, MD, the Society's national chief medical officer.
"These studies have been scrutinized by multiple independent
scientific consensus committees, as well as the U.S. Surgeon General,
all of which
certify their credibility. Most recently, the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC) reviewed the evidence and concluded
secondhand or environmental tobacco smoke is carcinogenic to humans.
"Bad science can haunt us for generations," added Dr. Eyre. "And
regrettably, if questionable studies make it to publication, the
damage is done."
[My comments:
Only a crank or crackpot would think that all those above reported
flaws are not severe and critical flaws.
And the above articles show that Enstrom was not and still is not an
objective scientist - it shows that he made up his mind ahead of time
long ago because of his conservative political views.
Yes, the paper, which was published in 2003, was highly cited - more
than 170 citations, but that is because it was cited for negative
reasons, where subsequent published papers refuted it. The very high
number of negative citations in the very high number of subsequent
research that refuted it is definitive.
What should we learn from all this? When we find out that a scientist
is or is the moral equivalent of a tobacco company "scientist"
promoting the safety of that which causes suffering and premature
death, then simply think "Morally Degenerate Scientific Crank."]
|
|
|
|
