This was written by Dr. Michael Siegel (a former member of tobacco control) response to those legitimate scientists who don’t believe that. He believes in his work and is willing to have an open and honest debate on the subject.

Here is the best quote from Ricard Doll who helped find the link between smoking and lung cancer.

He quoted only from his figures and was no absolutist. When questioned recently on second-hand smoke, he exasperated the anti-smoking lobby by replying: “The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn’t worry me.”

Diethelm and McKee have endangered the integrity of public health by comparing those who challenge the conclusion that secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer with those who deny the Holocaust.

As a primarily science-based movement, public health is supposed to have room for those who dissent from consensus opinions based on reasonable scientific grounds. To argue that those who fail to conclude that the small relative risk for lung cancer of 1.3 among persons exposed to secondhand smoke is indicative of a causal connection are comparable to Holocaust deniers is to turn public health into a religion, where the doctrines must be accepted on blind faith to avoid being branded as a heretic.

While I personally believe the evidence is sufficient to conclude that secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer, there are a considerable number of reputable scientists who have come to different conclusions. While I believe those scientists are wrong, I would never argue that they are denialists, nor would I ever compare their dissent with Holocaust denial.

Diethelm and McKee appear to be basing their assessment that secondhand smoke “dissenters” are “denialists” not on the reasonableness of the scientific arguments, but on the position of these arguments. This is a dangerous proposition which threatens the integrity of public health by turning it into a purely ideological movement, rather than a scientific one.

Clearly, no dissent is allowable from the doctrines of tobacco control in Diethelm’s and McKee’s perspective. This perspective brands hundreds of reputable scientists throughout the world as denialists, no different from Holocaust deniers. While I disagree wholeheartedly with these scientists, I will stand up for their right to express their dissenting opinions without having their characters assassinated because of the direction, rather than the scientific reasonableness, of their positions.

In Dr Siegel’s blog he gave examples.

Sir Richard Peto, in testimony before the House of Commons, argued that the risks of secondhand smoke are small and difficult to quantify. Because of this, he refused in his testimony to support the policy of banning smoking in public places. . . .

To read the rest check out his blog entry.

Here is another one.

On of the best ones come from Richard Doll. (one of the first to prove the link between smoking and lung cancer.

He quoted only from his figures and was no absolutist. When questioned recently on second-hand smoke, he exasperated the anti-smoking lobby by replying: “The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn’t worry me.”

He quoted only from his figures and was no absolutist. When questioned recently on second-hand smoke, he exasperated the anti-smoking lobby by replying: “The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn’t worry me.”
Many scientist do not come to the same conclusion that those in the anti-smoking collective. Again should this collective of anti-smokers have more rights then the owner of the property.

Advertisements