The American Spectator

Reader Mail

p> USEFUL CANADIAN INITIATIVE br> Re: Joel Miller's Smoking With Al : /p>

Q: What do you get when you compare the health of passive smokers with the health of a control group of other passive smokers, with no confirmation of the home life circumstances of either group for the latter 2/3s of the study, which was designed and funded by an industry with a long history of mendacity and billions of dollars in profits at stake, and the conclusions of which contradict the consistent findings of well-organized studies by credible, independent sources with nothing to gain or lose?

A: Results that The American Spectator thinks we should all take seriously. They can prove it, too -- anyone who disagrees will be called names, so it must be true, although in circles where participants are over the age of ten this is admittedly a proof with little validity .

All this study proves is that secondhand smoke exposure in the home is probably no worse than secondhand smoke exposure anywhere else. Someone who actually spent a bit of time reading the report and its criticisms, including the comments of the editorial board that approved it for publication, would know that. But perhaps your journalists are above stooping to such tawdry tactics as actually doing research to make sure they know what they are writing about.

p>Perhaps you could next assign Joel Miller to covering the one about the scientist who removed the legs of a flea trained to jump on command. He concluded that the creature had thus been rendered deaf because it no longer responded. br> -- Sera Kirk br> Vancouver, British Columbia /p> p>

topics:
Taxes, Bill Clinton, Mainstream Media, Business, Law, Unions