AJPH -- eLetters for Yach and Bialous, 91 (11) 1745-1748

QUICK SEARCH:

	Author:		Keyword(s):
Year:		Vol:		Page:

Electronic Letters to:

TOBACCO, LAWYERS, AND PUBLIC HEALTH:
Derek Yach and Stella Aguinaga Bialous
Junking Science to Promote Tobacco
Am J Public Health 2001; 91: 1745-1748 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]

eLetters: Submit a response to this article

Electronic letters published:

Dissent to Yach and Bialous: Martha Perske (1 April 2002)

Junk Science?: Pat Hagen (3 December 2001)

Dissent to Yach and Bialous 1 April 2002

Martha Perske,
Professional illustrator
Dues paying member of FORCES
Send letter to journal:
Re: Dissent to Yach and Bialous

mperske{at}attglobal.net Martha Perske

In their anti-smoking article of November 2001, "Junking Science to Promote Tobacco," Yach and Bialous attempt to discredit my work based, in part, on the mere fact that I – a private citizen working independently at my own time and expense - communicated with some people at Philip Morris in the early and mid 1990s.
What Yach and Bialous fail to disclose is that in researching this issue I communicated more with tobacco control professionals than with anyone in the tobacco industry.
For Yach and Bialous to reference my earlier communications with Philip Morris without also mentioning my more extensive communications with tobacco control professionals – which I will gladly provide upon request - gives a distorted and inaccurate view of my involvement in this issue.
I must also point out an error made by Yach and Bialous in their footnote 40, which supposedly links to a February 2001 article of mine published on JunkScience.com. They allege that in this article I “grossly misstate” the WHO’s work. On the contrary, footnote 40 has nothing to do with my February 2001 article. Instead, Yach and Bialous have mistakenly given a link to my open letter to the Globe and Mail, “On Misreported ETS studies.” Nowhere in this letter is the WHO even mentioned.
The correct link to the February 2001 article in which Yach and Bialous claim I “grossly misstate” the WHO’s work is: http://www.junkscience.com/feb01/perske.htm
In this article I provide overall results from the WHO/IARC study and I quote directly from the WHO’s own press release, including the WHO’s statement that a small increased risk was found for nonsmokers living or working with smokers, but “neither increased risk was statistically significant.” It is not clear how, by quoting the WHO’s own statement, I have “grossly misstated” things as claimed by Yach and Bialous.
Surely, anyone concerned with legitimate scientific debate must find it troubling that instead of addressing the science, Yach and Bialous resort to what appears to be character assassination on those who do not agree with them. The fact that the American Journal of Public Health saw fit to publish such an article is even more troubling.

Junk Science? 3 December 2001

Pat Hagen,
Retired
Forces Canada- funded neither by government nor industry
Send letter to journal:
Re: Junk Science?

Forcescan2{at}aol.com Pat Hagen

A more appropriate title would be 'Junking Science to Promote Pharmaceuticals and Service an Agenda'. When the World Health Organization partnered with drug companies to push the smokefree agenda, they lost what little credibility they had with ordinary citizens who think. Everything they have to say on the subject now needs to be held up to the light of a pharmaceutical bottom line.
Concerning the personal attack on Martha Perske, it's noticeable that the substance of her critiques are not addressed; the tired old anti- smoking gambit of an ad hominem attack is resorted to instead. Scientific backgrounds aside, it would be very interesting to see an effort made to provide an evaluation of her work; that at least would have some merit. Also, the item mentioned in footnote 40 does not refer to any 'gross' misstatement regarding the WHO; the Organization is not even mentioned. What is contained in that document are some pertinent questions regarding media reporting of a Health Canada study and the alleged 'proof' of ETS dangers.
This Abstract leaves the reader with one conclusion. The authors are determined to inculcate the thought: "anti-smoking, good guys, honest scientists, selfless motivation; tobacco, bad guys, dishonest scientists, for profit." Nothing is that black and white, and any organization preying on public credulity in this manner deserves to placed under a microscope itself.