The Death of Science

Like several other blogs today, I’ve picked up on the interview with Professor Philippe Even, world-renowned pulmonologist, and past president of the Research Institute Necker.

What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?

PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.

It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France …

I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.

Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?

They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor … but not greater than pollen!

The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?

Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor’s note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It’s everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.

Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?

The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new 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 entry 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.

Le Parisien

Philippe Even isn’t the first French academic to blow the whistle on passive smoking. Robert Molimard, professor emeritus of physiology, and tabacologiste, was warning about it a year or two back.

…we are dealing with a fascistic intrusion. Everyone knows it, we see it. The same applies to noise. It’s the same thing. We could demand that patrons maintain a monastic silence in restaurants! The American state of mind is truly Manichaean, truly dualistic. It’s good versus bad, be it tobacco smoke or be it alcohol.

None of this is news to anyone who has looked into passive smoking. Most of the studies show little or no danger. Some even show benefits. But despite this, antismoking campaigners claim that thousands of people are being killed by it. What is new is to see another prominent member of the French medical establishment calling the lie. And explaining the reason for the lie: it was in the good cause of making smokers give up smoking. And he admits that the lie doesn’t work: people smoke even more.

But it’s perhaps the reason he gives for speaking up that is the most revealing. He has retired, and no longer feels under pressure to lie. And where have we heard this before? Well, in the case of a number of prominent global warming sceptics, that’s where.

There’s clearly a systematic problem here, which lies deep in the fabric of institutional science. Researchers are prepared to lie in a good cause, whether it is about smoking or climate change. And once that starts happening, the only way it can end is with the collapse of public belief in the honesty and integrity of scientists. It is the death of science.

It won’t just end with antismoking and climate change. There almost certainly plenty of other examples of institutional dishonesty waiting to be discovered. It will be the good name of science as a whole which will be tarnished.

Recently I raised the example of a friend of mine who has begun to doubt that anyone ever landed on the Moon. When she finds out (as she has not yet found out) that many scientists have been duping her for years, is she going to be more likely or less likely to trust any of them, and to regain her waning belief in the Moon landings? Well, of course, she’ll be less likely. There’s no reason why she should automatically trust scientists any more than she trusts priests or politicians. There’s no reason why scientists should expect to be trusted or believed. And once trust has gone, it’s very hard to get back.

Science will only have itself to blame when public trust in science collapses. And increasingly I believe that it’s ‘when’ rather than ‘if’.

At present, in the wake of the Climategate scandal, the response of the scientific establishment in Britain seems to have been to circle their wagons around the beleaguered Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and produce a series of whitewashing reports. In doing so, all they are ensuring is that, when the collapse comes, it will engulf the whole of science, and not just a few egregious bad apples. For in trying to brush it all under the carpet with a series of official whitewashes, they also are lying in a good cause. In this respect, the British scientific establishment would do well to follow the lead of a number of their French colleagues, who seem to have a rather better idea of scientific probity.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to The Death of Science

  1. Anonymous says:

    Sorry Frank but I want to kill him, now. I don’t care that since he’s under no obligation i.e. he’s got his pension, he’s come out with the truth.
    He and others like him have hidden the true agenda in deference of their paycheck. Scurvy dogs the lot of them. They are not worth another breath of oxygen. It’s like a gestapo guard saying, “Yer, well I knew it wasn’t right but what can you do.”
    He is scum. They are scum. They are all scum. Scientists are full of shit. All of them, at all times. Show me a scientist in need of a grant and I’ll show you a shit bucket.
    I hope they all, including this piece of lying, sanctimonious crap, die a death of extreme pain and suffering.
    After the destruction of the social life of millions of people this pile of stinking, festering vomit says, “Well I did it for the money, dontcha know.”
    Fuck off and die, you inhuman, waste of space.
    Apologies Frank, maybe I should not drink and read.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Researchers are prepared to lie in a good cause
    No, it looks as if some researchers have been willing to distort facts and juggle data to pursue populist and lucrative causes – and in so doing to keep themselves in a job and because they’re desperate to keep their departments afloat.
    When, eventually, those with a conscience come clean (or those without a conscience get found out) it discredits science, discredits the professionalism of many honest and honourable scientists who have been either called liars, unbelievers or simply not good scientists because they disagree with the populist conclusions.
    We rarely, if ever, learn the ‘brief’ and funding source of research projects, so we don’t know who/what/why involvement and what is/was the desired outcome. And there’s big money involved, from powerful people/companies, who want things to go their way for one reason or another.
    Too many reporters simply regurgitate press releases without having a clue what they mean, and some don’t even seem to understand the numbers they quote.
    Science is not, and has never been, “settled” – not for anything, but too many people don’t even understand the meaning of the word theory, as in Theory of Evolution, of Relativity etc.. They don’t understand things are still (or at least should be) up for debate, otherwise science would have stood still when ‘they’ realised the Earth was probably round rather than flat. Thank goodness that the Royal Society is having a rethink about the science of climate change and, it seems, opening the debate.
    There have far too many ‘panics’ recently – little ones about drinking/not drinking coffee etc and bigger ones about climate, smoking, alcohol, obesity. The latter have been labelled ‘epidemics’ by journalists, which displays an appalling lack of linguistic skill, let alone scientific or medical knowledge – but people lap it up because it’s either on the internet or in the newspapers, so it must be true, and because they want to believe it, because it suits them. Trouble is, with all the crying wolf, if there were to be a genuine danger of a killer epidemic/plague/food/chemical – who will listen?
    Changing the subject, a bit, but in a way linked to the same sort of thing – did you read this (was on BBC but can’t find it now) http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2010/05/15/new-welsh-secretary-sparks-war-of-words-91466-26449968/
    Ms Gillan said Labour had not laid the foundations for a referendum.
    She said: “I was shocked that my predecessor had not done any work on the question at all.

    and
    Mr Hain said: “This is pure rubbish on stilts. All the necessary preparatory work was carried out immediately under my express instructions.
    “The consultation by the Electoral Commission on the question will take 10 weeks …

    Ten weeks to work out a question? – Why? We could do it in less than ten minutes, and for free too!
    It is linked though, because research projects are always carefully worded – asking the ‘right’ question of researchers, to make sure they came up with the right answers and so on and so on. Get the answer right, and get more funding, get it wrong and you’re out of a job. And that’s when people get defensive, when their livelihoods are at stake.
    And that’s what Professor Philippe Even has said, far more concisely than me!
    (Yes, I’ve gone on a bit)

  3. Anonymous says:

    Goddamit, I wish I’d written what Mrs Rigsby wrote instead of what I did write.
    That’ll teach me to drink vast quantities of vin rouge and read blogs.
    Or maybe not…

  4. Frank Davis says:

    No need to apologise. I quite understand your response. I’m just a bit surprised that it wasn’t mine too. I guess I was just thankful that he’d come out and denounced it all.
    Yes, of course he’s a filthy, self-serving, Nazi-guard shit. And he’s complicit in destroying the social lives of millions of people, mine included. But I’m glad that he at least came out and said it was all based on a lie. Because that will help to bring the truth to light.
    Frank

  5. Frank Davis says:

    Do go on some more!
    Thank goodness that the Royal Society is having a rethink about the science of climate change
    Are they? Certainly some of their members are rethinking things. But the impression I get is that the core institution – the ‘establishment’ of the Royal Society – remain fully-paid-up global warming alarmists, and are fighting back quite hard.
    Trouble is, with all the crying wolf, if there were to be a genuine danger of a killer epidemic/plague/food/chemical – who will listen?
    Well, exactly. I reckon that Sir Liam Never-Miss-a-Scare Donaldson probably single-handedly destroyed the credibility of the medical establishment. Who will believe them now, after all these empty scares?
    I don’t quite follow your subsequent point, but I’d like to re-iterate that there’s something profoundly and deeply wrong with science if so many scientists feel unable to stand up and say “That’s not true!” for fear of losing their jobs/funding/status.
    It’s all wrong. Scientists should be able to say what they think without fear. If they can’t, then we don’t have any science any more. But in climate science and in tobacco science and God-only-knows-how-many-other-sciences they’re being told to shut up and toe the official line. And that’s why it seems to me inevitable that there will be a collapse of trust in science, all science, when people realise (as they eventually will) that the whole truth hasn’t been told.
    Frank

  6. cantiloper says:

    MrsRigbysays wrote, “We rarely, if ever, learn the ‘brief’ and funding source of research projects, so we don’t know who/what/why involvement and what is/was the desired outcome. And there’s big money involved, from powerful people/companies, who want things to go their way for one reason or another.”
    Very truly stated MRS! Sometimes though we’re able to track things down. Check out the story behind the big headlines over here in the US a few months back saying “Bar And Restaurant Employment Not Hurt By Smoking Bans.”
    Read Jacob Grier’s column and then my several Aftercomments to it as I uncovered the layers of deception and the details of the funding proposal at:
    http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/2210.html
    and then think about all the studies out there where the raw data is NOT as easily available and where the grant proposals are kept hidden.
    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

  7. Anonymous says:

    ‘Asking the right question’
    Most polls on smoking are commissioned by antis, that is – paid for by antis and all too often aimed at carefully selected groups of people. The questions are designed to produce the desired outcome (otherwise they’d be wasting money). I’ve done a few on YouGov. All either pander to the prejudices or imagined fear of uninformed people. The results are subsequently used to increase anti smoking public opinion… so on and so on….

  8. Anonymous says:

    And that’s why it seems to me inevitable that there will be a collapse of trust in science, all science, when people realise (as they eventually will) that the whole truth hasn’t been told.
    As usual, I totally I agree with you :) The problem with lies is that they corrupt the truth. If the majority of a story is truthful but small lies are inserted into it, then the whole story is tainted, even the truthful parts.
    You have mentioned your friend’s doubts regarding the moon landings and as far as I can see it, the problem with the moon landings is the photographs. There are, without a shadow of a doubt, certain moon landing photos that are faked. There are some photos that show a secondary light source and any photographer with half a brain can see that.
    NASA obviously ran into problems and instead of fessing up and admitting that they either couldn’t take photos in such an extreme environment (possibly due to problems with the film being irradiated) or that half of the photos didn’t come out at all, they instead got their PR machine to pump out professionally taken shots (clearly in a studio) that no NASA astronaut was capable of producing with the equipment they had and under the conditions they were working. This has subsequently led to the veracity of the whole story being brought into question due to the obvious lies of the photos.
    Personally, I have no doubt in my mind that the US landed on the moon. What I do take issue with (as a photographer) is that they took photos while they were there. There are too many anomalies, such as no dust at the bottom of the lander, no burn marks from the lander on the ground, shifting landmarks, impossible lighting, manual SLRs etc.
    The moon landings and NASA’s attempts to cover up their failures has led to the label of “conspiracy theorist” if you question the lies that they have told. Sift fact from fiction (as in all science) and you get to the truth (or a least an approximation of it) – they probably landed on the moon but the majority of photos appear to have been faked.
    Snakey

  9. Frank Davis says:

    Very revealing, Michael. An antismoking outfit pays a university professor to study the impact of smoking bans with the express written intention of preventing their repeal. The study blends the figures for restaurants with those for bars, so that the decimation of employees in the latter gets drowned in the former. $500,000 is paid for the study. That’s quite a lot of money to produce misinformation. It’s a great example of the prostitution of universities.
    Where does the $500,000 come from though? Pharma companies? I suppose that when smoking bans come in, quite a few people try to give up smoking, and buy patches, and that boosts pharma company sales.
    But as a marketing strategy, it’s not really any different from starting fires so that you can sell people fire engines and fire extinguishers.
    Frank

  10. Frank Davis says:

    Re: ‘Asking the right question’
    Yes, that’s another one. Before the smoking ban, opinion polls showed that, when asked, 70% of Britons wanted there to be some provision for smokers. But when asked whether they preferred smoking or non-smoking, 70% of them said they preferred non-smoking. And their wish for there to be some provision for smokers got lost.
    So naturally they don’t get asked any more whether they’d like there to be any provision for smokers.
    And I once read one pollster describe polling organisations as being all about getting their customers the results they wanted.
    Frank

  11. Anonymous says:

    Let us be totally honest about who to blame for the total ban in pubs and clubs.
    The smokers,the publicans and club secretaries.
    The Righteous fanatics knew they were only
    dealing with the low cowardly sector of the
    population,nothing to fear,and so it has proved to be.Spineless whimpering Judases and white
    feathered turn coats as well as web bound
    natterjack toadies.
    Start kicking ass or shut it.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Give a little – gain a lot?
    While it is nice to see people like Prof Even come clean, I have a very suspicious mind! Why would he feel the need to do this? Why not fade away into obscurity to his holiday home in Some far off land where he could live out his retirement on what will be a generous pension? One statement stood out for me ;
    “… although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven… ”
    My thoughts went immediately to a quote by Prof R Peto about Prof Richard Doll and his research, commissioned by Turner and Newall (asbestos company), into asbestos harm which was carried out around the same time as his famous smoking study in the 1950’s;
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/dec/08/cancer.uk
    ** In the 1950s, says Peto, … “Initially the asbestos industry called them [Doll & Hill] to try to prove there was no hazard,” he said. The regulations on asbestos had been tightened up. “He and Bradford Hill got the data and found there was still a significant hazard.”
    The company representatives invited the scientists for dinner and tried to persuade them it was not in the national interest to be attacking a major industry, said Peto. Doll and Bradford Hill politely said they would think it over and 24 hours later told the industry they intended to publish. They were threatened with a writ, but went ahead regardless.**
    They were never served with a writ and Doll enjoyed a personal financial relationship with Turner and Newall which lasted more than thirty years!
    http://www.injurywatch.co.uk/news-and-groups/news/workplace-illness/exposed-workplace-cancer-naysayer-was-secretly-being-paid-by-drug-companies-231161138
    The point being that Doll, by appearing to be acting ethically against pressure from his sponsor, and telling the ‘truth’ (that in reality was already widely known) added greater credence to his smoking study and we know how that study has been utilised!
    So, could Prof Even be giving a little, to gain a lot by revealing something (ie SHS harm is a fraud) that is already widely known? This revelation gives more weight to the claim that ‘the harm caused by active smoking is undeniable’ and his ethical stance may prove to be beneficial for him in the future, if those who perpetuate the SHS fraud are ever called to account!
    Or maybe I’m just too suspicious and he just wanted to clear his conscience?
    Kin_Free

  13. cantiloper says:

    Of Money & Studies…
    I believe the money came from ClearWayMinnesota (which is the successor the MPAAT – Minnesota Partnership Acting Against Tobacco) and that both are primarily funded from the billions that the states get every year from the MSA unlegislated tax on smokers. MPAAT was evidently soooo bad (corrupt? incompetent? both?) that it got closed down, but it looks like ClearWay is the same can of worms.
    The US Antismokers have a pot of gold far beyond what you’re dealing with over there, although I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that tens or hundreds of millions were funneled in various ways to bring about the Irish and UK bans.
    And yep: it’s like starting fires, but only AFTER you’ve produced studies proving that it’s worthless to fire-proof your homes:
    ===
    “STUDY SHOWS MORE PEOPLE DIED IN PEEBLE’S FIREPROOF HOMES THAN REGULAR HOMES LAST YEAR!”
    [and we won’t mention even in small print that it was because Peeble’s fireproof homes were all Seniors’ Complexes and that they all died of heart attacks…]
    ===
    :>
    Michael

  14. Frank Davis says:

    And have you been kicking ass? And whose?
    Frank

  15. Anonymous says:

    In Pr. Even’s defense
    In Pr. Even’s defense, it is NOT the first time that this distinguished professional spoke out against the despicable legislation in his country. He did so very passionnately in a TV interview in 2008 http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2008/02/passive-smoking-swindle.html . What happened to him after this interview is left up to the imagination, but let it be on record that Pr. Even did NOT wait to be retired before speaking out. Why he said he did, is anyone’s guess but I suspect that it is probably in an effort to strongly drive in the message that anti-tobacco cannot and should not be trusted.
    Iro Cyr

  16. Anonymous says:

    The Guardian might be slipping its shackles
    with a report quoting the ban as a reason for
    pub closures.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010 … -pubs-bust
    If they are not carefull they could get a big
    reduction in ads revenue for Astra Zeneca and
    Pfizer reps not to mention their luvvies in the
    NHS.
    FreeCorps

  17. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Of Money & Studies…
    Actually Michael, in the comments over there, somebody (sheila) wrote:
    Ms. Klein told me that her funding, for the “STUDY,” was from Clear Way Minnesota. I then asked her if she was aware that this money originated at Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, who DIRECTLY benefit from the sells of their partner’s, Johnson and Johnson, sales of Nicoderm, Nicorette, and Chantix. She seems curiously unaware that she, her school, Clear Way, and MANY other foundations, are funneling this nicotine replacement money into the smoking ban lobbying effort.
    Frank

  18. Anonymous says:

    Anon 04.43 is right. I admit I’m one of the cowards. Everyone who has investigated this subject now knows that the smoking ban had nothing to do with passive smoking and it will never be amended unless large number of people rent buildings, smoke in them and in the short term, be prepared to club together and pay a few fines. That is all it would take.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Term Papers
    Such a nice write up, it is really interesting..
    Term papers

  20. Anonymous says:

    Proofs of a conspiracy
    The American Cancer Society has been plotting to turn the world into a totalitarian dictatorship ruled by frauds and charlatans, ever since their international conference at Lake Mohonk in 1926 – which was attended by Mussolini’s private physician; Dr. Henri Hartmann.
    http://www.smokershistory.com/ASCC.htm#Lake_Mohonk
    They used their political pull to create the National Cancer Institute, to deliberately commit scientific fraud at taxpayer expense. Original members of the National Advisory Cancer Council of the National Cancer Institute, appointed by Surgeon General Thomas Parran in 1937: James Ewing, Director of Memorial Hospital; Dr. Francis C. Wood, Director of the Crocker Institute of Cancer Research at Columbia University; Harvard University President James B. Conant; Dr. Arthur H. Compton of the University of Chicago; C.C. Little, Managing Director of the American Society for the Control of Cancer; and Dr. Ludvig Hektoen of Chicago. In 1938, Dr. James B. Murphy of the Rockefeller Institute and Dr. Mont R. Reid replaced Ewing and Wood. (Named to Cancer Council. New York Times, Dec. 11, 1938, p. 30.) Ewing, Hektoen, Little, Murphy, Parran, and Wood were all affiliated with the ASCC.
    Mary Woodard Lasker was the head of the American Cancer Society, and the nost powerful health lobbyist in history. “For the past twenty years, Mrs. Lasker has been, in the words of one federal health official, ‘the most important single factor in the rise of support for biomedical research.’ In the process, she has helped the NIH budget to explode from $2.5 million in 1945 to $1.4 billion this year, influenced Presidents, immobilized Secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare, selected health policy makers, and pushed health policy in controversial directions.”
    “Mrs. Lasker’s network is probably unparalleled in the influence that a small group of private citizens has had over such a major area of national policy. One federal official refers to it as a ‘noble conspiracy.’ Gorman calls it a ‘high class kind of subversion, very high class. We’re not second story burglars. We go right in the front door.'” (The Health Syndicate / Washington’s Noble Conspiracy. By Elizabeth Brenner Drew. The Atlantic Monthly 1967, Vol. 200, pp. 75-82)
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/12917276.html#images
    Public Interest, Thursday, Sep. 27, 2001 interview with Judith Robinson, author of “Noble Conspirator,” on Florence S. Mahoney and the rise of the National Institutes of Health (The Francis Press, 2001).
    http://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2001-09-27/judith-robinson-noble-conspirator-francis-press
    And, Mary Woodard Lasker’s stepson was on the board of directors of Philip Morris for 20 years!!!!! Now, that tells you who is in control of Philip Morris.
    http://www.smokershistory.com/power.htm

  21. Anonymous says:

    Proofs of a conspiracy
    The American Cancer Society has been plotting to turn the world into a totalitarian dictatorship ruled by frauds and charlatans, ever since their international conference at Lake Mohonk in 1926 – which was attended by Mussolini’s private physician; Dr. Henri Hartmann.
    http://www.smokershistory.com/ASCC.htm#Lake_Mohonk
    They used their political pull to create the National Cancer Institute, to deliberately commit scientific fraud at taxpayer expense. Original members of the National Advisory Cancer Council of the National Cancer Institute, appointed by Surgeon General Thomas Parran in 1937: James Ewing, Director of Memorial Hospital; Dr. Francis C. Wood, Director of the Crocker Institute of Cancer Research at Columbia University; Harvard University President James B. Conant; Dr. Arthur H. Compton of the University of Chicago; C.C. Little, Managing Director of the American Society for the Control of Cancer; and Dr. Ludvig Hektoen of Chicago. In 1938, Dr. James B. Murphy of the Rockefeller Institute and Dr. Mont R. Reid replaced Ewing and Wood. (Named to Cancer Council. New York Times, Dec. 11, 1938, p. 30.) Ewing, Hektoen, Little, Murphy, Parran, and Wood were all affiliated with the ASCC.
    Mary Woodard Lasker was the head of the American Cancer Society, and the nost powerful health lobbyist in history. “For the past twenty years, Mrs. Lasker has been, in the words of one federal health official, ‘the most important single factor in the rise of support for biomedical research.’ In the process, she has helped the NIH budget to explode from $2.5 million in 1945 to $1.4 billion this year, influenced Presidents, immobilized Secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare, selected health policy makers, and pushed health policy in controversial directions.”
    “Mrs. Lasker’s network is probably unparalleled in the influence that a small group of private citizens has had over such a major area of national policy. One federal official refers to it as a ‘noble conspiracy.’ Gorman calls it a ‘high class kind of subversion, very high class. We’re not second story burglars. We go right in the front door.'” (The Health Syndicate / Washington’s Noble Conspiracy. By Elizabeth Brenner Drew. The Atlantic Monthly 1967, Vol. 200, pp. 75-82)
    http://tobaccodocuments.org/atc/12917276.html#images
    Public Interest, Thursday, Sep. 27, 2001 interview with Judith Robinson, author of “Noble Conspirator,” on Florence S. Mahoney and the rise of the National Institutes of Health (The Francis Press, 2001).
    http://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2001-09-27/judith-robinson-noble-conspirator-francis-press
    And, Mary Woodard Lasker’s stepson was on the board of directors of Philip Morris for 20 years!!!!! Now, that tells you who is in control of Philip Morris.
    http://www.smokershistory.com/power.htm

  22. Pingback: The Utter Debasement of Science | Frank Davis

  23. Pingback: Deadly Addictions | Frank Davis

  24. Pingback: Просто бизнес, ничего личного. — Анналы.ру

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s