I have just come across the well-considered article by Professor
George Davey Smith, whose most cogent statement (followed by firm
evidence)is, "The review of the evidence linking passive smoking to lung
cancer risk produced by the tobacco industry sponsored working group is of
limited use as a scientific document." (1) Professor Davey Smith's review
of the Enstrom-Kabat article is now all the more puzzling.
(1) Davey Smith G, Phillips AN. Passive smoking and health: should we
believe Philip Morris's "experts"? BMJ 1996;313:929-933.
Competing interests:
I am a paid consultant to the World Health Organization on tobacco industry documents
Rapid Response:
Response to myself, Re: George Davey Smith
I have just come across the well-considered article by Professor
George Davey Smith, whose most cogent statement (followed by firm
evidence)is, "The review of the evidence linking passive smoking to lung
cancer risk produced by the tobacco industry sponsored working group is of
limited use as a scientific document." (1) Professor Davey Smith's review
of the Enstrom-Kabat article is now all the more puzzling.
(1) Davey Smith G, Phillips AN. Passive smoking and health: should we
believe Philip Morris's "experts"? BMJ 1996;313:929-933.
Competing interests:
I am a paid consultant to the World Health Organization on tobacco industry documents
Competing interests: No competing interests