Re: Misleading the public about secondhand smoke ... Again
I'd like to know from one of the experts here (preferably one who
chose to list his or her "competing interests" since all others are
immediately suspect) how many of the hundreds/thousands of studies on
secondhand smoke have NOT been funded by either Big Tobacco OR Big Anti-
Tobacco? Any of them?
I'm one of the public Mr. Glantz, in his elitist arrogance, fears has
been misled by the publication of this study in the esteemed BMJ I beg to
differ. I'm quite capable of reading and understanding what this study
means, as well as others he'd like to sweep under the rug of Big Tobacco
funding.
How long will we, the public, put up with this kind of manipulation
and social engineering?
Rapid Response:
Re: Misleading the public about secondhand smoke ... Again
I'd like to know from one of the experts here (preferably one who
chose to list his or her "competing interests" since all others are
immediately suspect) how many of the hundreds/thousands of studies on
secondhand smoke have NOT been funded by either Big Tobacco OR Big Anti-
Tobacco? Any of them?
I'm one of the public Mr. Glantz, in his elitist arrogance, fears has
been misled by the publication of this study in the esteemed BMJ I beg to
differ. I'm quite capable of reading and understanding what this study
means, as well as others he'd like to sweep under the rug of Big Tobacco
funding.
How long will we, the public, put up with this kind of manipulation
and social engineering?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests