Talk:Critical Scientists

Title choice

When it comes to scientists, I don't think that Free-Choice Scientists (or pro-choice scientists) is the right title for this page. I believe that these scientists (at least those I am more aware of) are denouncing some (or all) of the lies and manipulations of the tobacco control industry without necessarily being all free-choice. I believe that a title more along these lines would be more appropriate. How about Scientists challenging the anti-tobacco tactics ?

It is correct that these scientists are not necessarily "free choice"; their critique and denunciation of the lies and manipulations used by the tobacco control advocates has is likely to have it's roots in what used to be of great worth: scientific integrity. Perhaps this: "scientists questioning anti-tobacco tactics and methods" may more to the point.

Perhaps "scientists critical of anti-tobacco tactics and methods"? "Questioning" implies "challenging" - these scientists see the that scientific integrity has been compromised and voice their critique rather than challenging anyone directly. Well most of the scientists do, although Prof Ropohl and Prof Grieshaber do challenge them.

Agreed. I will take anything over Free-Choice Scientists which doesn't necessarily do them justice.

Also, I took the liberty of editing the English translation link for Philippe Even to point to the CAGE Canada original translation, since I am the one who translated it and I have an important translator's note at the bottom that I feel must be clarified to the readers. (Iro)

Ken Denson

There is a good quote from Ken Denson that states : ­"I simply do not know where they conjure up their statistics. The statistics for passive smoking, in particular, would not be published or even considered in any other scientific discipline." that is repeated in various anti-ban blogs but I can't find the original source. Does anyone have it? (Iro)

I think this is the original source: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/smoke-screen-6157976.html

But how about this quote?

“The scientific evidence for any deleterious effect of ETS is wholly false. It is so tenuous and equivocal that similar evidence would not seriously considered. The mean exposure alone of the passive smoker is only 1/500th of that of the active smoker. The decision as to whether ETS is harmful to others should be made in a Court of Law.” publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmhealth/485/485iii.pdf p. Ev121 (Xila)

Thanks, I had to remove the http www from your link as when linking it to the actual page it refers to this talk instead of the PDF.