I have recently had a discourse with Martin Pion from MoGASP. This is not a slam on Martin as he is one of few that will engage the opposition and attempt to be fair.
Marshall, Why should you discount studies done by tobacco control scientists? That’s purely based on your own prejudices, since they are peer reviewed and the author’s credibility is at risk. Your own bias is blatant, calling your opponents on this issue “anti-smoking zealots.” I can’t take you seriously when you fail to argue objectively.
It is based on the fact that the meta-analysis is done on cherry picked studies discounting those funded by big tobacco, (who also can’t be trusted) Those studies were also peer reviewed. Ever heard of publication bias.
Well all of the meta’s the publication bias was deliberate.
The way they drown out dissenting views using what Enstrom,Kabat and Siegel call scientific McCarthyism.
Can a real peer review process take place when these type of tactics are used?
When tobacco control uses tactics like this.
If you take part in secondhand smoke policy training in the tobacco control movement, chances are that you will be taught that all opposition to smoking bans is orchestrated by the tobacco industry, that anyone who challenges the science connecting secondhand smoke exposure and severe health effects is a paid lackey of Big Tobacco, and that any group which disseminates information challenging these health effects is a tobacco industry front group. Consequently, the a chief strategy of tobacco control is to smear the opposition by accusing them of being tobacco industry moles. And in no situation should one say anything positive about an opponent, even if true.
How do I know this?
Because for many years, I was one of the main trainers of tobacco control advocates in the United States. And this is what I taught, because this was what I was led to believe. I attended many conferences and trainings and this is precisely what I was taught. I accepted it for the truth, and passed it along to others.
When they use tactics like using time averaged outdoor standards, and applying them as instantaneous standards indoors. . . the list goes on forever.