Did you honestly just link to a SMOKING LOBBY GROUP for a scientific analysis of a smoking study?The link to which he refers is a comprehensive debunking of the 'science' behind the recent third hand smoke nonsense, hosted at The Free Society.
Not commenting on the rest of your article, but that seems to be some pretty horrendous sourcing.
I could have quite as easily pointed to the author's blog instead, but by his own admission, the Free Society article was more detailed, and the casual reader might not be as informed as those who subject themselves to this place on a daily basis (you know who you are).
The real problem here is that, in an ideal world, such shambolic science would be attacked from all angles. But, as far as I am aware, there are only two articles forensically critical of such nonsense, and they are both written by the same person.
Felix falls into the trap, cleverly laid by those who don't like their shonky 'research' being challenged, of dismissing the source without reading the article, which can't be faulted.
Better to shoot the messenger than defend the glaring paucity of the paper itself is the usual reaction when their junk science is exposed. The accusation of being paid by big tobacco, so therefore not being allowed an opinion, is anti-tobacco rebuttal 101. I've even been accused of it myself on occasion. Which was nice, although untrue.
What is very much amusing about the whole exercise is that the lifestyle righteous routinely point to a lack of voluntary regulation from those with whom they disagree.
Maureen Moore, Chief Executive of ASH Scotland , said:And do you remember this little doozy?
"Scotland 's smoking ban is delivering effective protection, something that both ventilation and voluntary approaches failed to do."
There should be a ban on all alcohol advertising, including sports and music sponsorship, doctors say.Yet, on the subject of a quite appalling piece of junk science from their own side, they are silent in the extreme.
Dr Vivienne Nathanson: "Voluntary marketing codes are just not working"
They are working under their own 'voluntary' code of scientific integrity but are quite happy to just let the third hand smoke idiocy slide.
Of course, the same isn't true when faced with anything funded by their opponents. No way. In that scenario, they get very loud, shrill even, and will pick through every tiny detail. And when it all gets too difficult, they will cry foul and call for government to shut the opposition up.
In a very real sense, the biggest failure of a voluntary code is that of ASH, Alcohol Concern, and other bansturbatory entities who quite stubbornly refuse to exhibit any scientific integrity whatsoever.
Rather than dismissing the Free Society article, which is perfectly argued and open to challenge if such a challenge exists, Felix should surely be asking why no serious scrutiny is being directed at the third hand smoke report by the massed ranks of tobacco control. The answer is that they are quite happy to pervert British laws on the back of quite astoundingly weak studies.
The voluntary approach of the anti-smoking and anti-alcohol lobby to adhere to proper science has been comprehensively shown to be a disgraceful failure, and it is time that the state intervened to legislate against their organised fraud.
The moment ASH, or any one of the many other state funded anti-smoking organisations, bother to pour scorn on a quite laughable study like the one referenced, I will be very pleased to link to it.
Unfortunately, it will never happen, and the public will continue to be mis-informed.
The voluntary approach has failed. Time for ASH and Alcohol Concern to be strictly regulated. I'm sure they would agree. It's what they always advise for others, after all.
Or perhaps they are just disgusting hypocrites.