Dr. Philippe Even, retired Dean, Necker Hospital for Sick Children, Professor Emeritus at the University Paris Descartes
"They have created a fear that is based on nothing"
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the restigious Research Institute Necker for the past decade, Professor Philipe Even, now retired, tells that he's convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. In a
shocking interview, he's asked and answers several questions, of which we've included a few below:
Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?
The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette price having failed, they had to find a way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works; social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work; since the netry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.
Why not speak up earlier?
As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.
Dr. Carl Phillips
Dr. Phillips writes of 3 scientists, himself included, who have been attackd by tobacco control
Excerpts:
This commentary accompanies two articles submitted to Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations in response to a call for papers about threats to epidemiology or epidemiologists from organized political interests. Contrary to our expectations, we received no submissions that described threats from industry or government; all were about threats from anti-tobacco activists. The two we published, by James E. Enstrom and Michael Siegel, both dealt wit the issue of environmental tobacco smoke. This commentary adds a third story of attacks on legitimate science by activists, including academics, to hurt legitimate scientists and turn epidemiology into junk science in order to further their agendas. The willingness of epidemiologists to embrace such anti-scientific influences bodes ill for the fields reputation as a legitimate science.
Researchers with political agendas often seem willing to bias how they interpret their data to better support their worldly goals. Researchers who work as part of the anti-tobacco orthodoxy appear particularly willing to do so. Selective citation and cherry-picking favored results is woefully common, but it is difficult to think of a case as bad as the one Enstrom reports, in which the chief epidemiologist for the American Cancer Society vehemently accuses someone else of bias on a topic while conveniently ignoring his own organization's data and a dissertation he advised. (I found this less surprising than others might, given that the ACS also continues to claim in its publication pronouncements that smokeless tobacco poses a major risk for oal cancer, despite the fact that their own research studies are part of the overwhelming evidence that it does not.)
Figuring out how epidemioloy can police itself against manipulation in support of ahtoris' advocacy goals is acritical challenge for he field; it is not just an ethical necessity, but also a critical tactic in attempting to gain credibility and influence. A few years from now, when it is obvious to the public and policy makers that a substantial portion of the epidemiologic claims they heard for years (and that passed witout challenge) were garbage, it will be an easy victory for those who wish to tar all of epidemiology with label junk science.