Abstract:The tobacco industry attempted to redirect the focus and dialogue related to the epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking. This approach, used by industry experts in trial testimony and depositions, placed bias as a certain alternative to causation of diseases related to passive smoking and proposed an unachievable standard for establishing the mechanism of disease.
“…Finally, they question the suitability of TSNA–DNA adducts as biomarkers of exposure to tobacco smoke. Known arguments used by other tobacco industry expert witnesses can be identified89: for example, to claim the effects of secondhand smoke are weak or to claim that earlier studies are limited by confounding factors or misclassification of active smoking status and exposure to secondhand smoke and/or by the limitations of animal studies. Earlier published results, which did not reflect the interests of the industry, were at each time put ‘into perspective’ by repetitive publications supporting the pro-industry positions.…”
Economic interests of the tobacco industry have strongly influenced the research activity of Richter and his group. The publications of his working group about carcinogenic effects of TSNAs published between 1992 and 2009 should therefore not be regarded as independent. Scientists and policy makers should consider the long-standing and intensive inter-relation between certain toxicologists and the tobacco industry when assessing the research results and consider ignoring them.
“…Finally, they question the suitability of TSNA–DNA adducts as biomarkers of exposure to tobacco smoke. Known arguments used by other tobacco industry expert witnesses can be identified89: for example, to claim the effects of secondhand smoke are weak or to claim that earlier studies are limited by confounding factors or misclassification of active smoking status and exposure to secondhand smoke and/or by the limitations of animal studies. Earlier published results, which did not reflect the interests of the industry, were at each time put ‘into perspective’ by repetitive publications supporting the pro-industry positions.…”
Economic interests of the tobacco industry have strongly influenced the research activity of Richter and his group. The publications of his working group about carcinogenic effects of TSNAs published between 1992 and 2009 should therefore not be regarded as independent. Scientists and policy makers should consider the long-standing and intensive inter-relation between certain toxicologists and the tobacco industry when assessing the research results and consider ignoring them.
“…23 In this instance, the tobacco industry has defended itself by claiming that smoking only harms the smoker and that smoking should be a choice made by each individual. 13,24 The industry maintained there were no causative associations between SHS and lung cancer or cardiovascular disease; 19,20,25 "Some epidemiological studies report that there is an association between ETS [environmental tobacco smoke] and certain diseases. However, statistical associations do not prove causation.…”
Section: Tobacco Industry Response To Shsmentioning
“…As recounted by Francis et al, 14 for example, the industry's muted public statements on secondhand smoke give way in the courtroom to frontal assaults on epidemiology itself. In the public arena, manufacturers no longer find it tenable to dispute the addictiveness of nicotine, but in the courtroom, as Henningfield et al 15 show, the old denials continue unchanged, with defendants likening cigarettes to the ''addictions'' of chocolate or even carrots.…”
Section: Deposition and Trial Testimony Archivementioning
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.