If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   UCLA fires a 36-year veteran professor for daring to posit that second-hand smoke effects are bunk. Teaching communism and income redistribution still A-OK   (foxnews.com) divider line 219
    More: Stupid, secondhand smoke, UCLA, income redistribution, philosophy of science, A-OK, British Medical Journal, academic disciplines, UC Davis  
•       •       •

8901 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Sep 2010 at 1:34 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



219 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-09-02 02:35:07 PM
So is that what people do? Not read articles and make stupid topics?

Get a brain, they help you read.
 
2010-09-02 02:36:00 PM
Also don't use the word bunk, makes you seem even more retarded.
 
2010-09-02 02:36:33 PM
AshHousewares18: jagec: DogNamedBox:
So the Phillip Morris funded study is bad but buying a online PHD & making law is ok???

If you're NOT a partisan hack who thinks that your side can do no wrong and the other side can do no right, it turns out that you find all kinds of questionable things on both sides of an issue.

This.

I never said buying an online PHD was okay. I'm sure this man wasn't 100% pure corrupt evil and probably had some good accomplishments during his career, calling out someone with phony credentials being one of them.

When people try to reduce debates into "my side" vs "your side" arguments, my derp meter goes haywire and I stop taking whatever they say seriously.


Wow, how generous of you to admit that this guy is not 100% evil, even though his story is reported in Fox News and he had a study funded by Phillip Morris. I stop taking people seriously when they say "derp" to describe any view they don't agree with.

I'm amazed at how quickly everyone can take sides and find a storyline they use to describe what happened in a situation they have almost no information on.

Those of you bashing Fox news, could you please find a specific problem with this instance of reporting? Because your attacks on it just for being from Fox news show your own bias, not the articles. The article itself seemed rather un-biased to me. It included a claim from the offended party, it gave the background of the offended party. It gave the university an opportunity to respond. It included speculation from independent sources as to other possibilities as to why the guy may have been let go. Honestly, it seemed like rather solid reporting to me.

BTW, Those of you sure this is an example of political correctness gone amuck, the article doesn't exactly back that up.
 
2010-09-02 02:39:42 PM
Director_Mr: Those of you bashing Fox news, could you please find a specific problem with this instance of reporting? Because your attacks on it just for being from Fox news show your own bias, not the articles. The article itself seemed rather un-biased to me

The problem is with another misleading troll headline, that has almost nothing to do with the article.
 
2010-09-02 02:41:33 PM
vrax: Jimmy's getting angry: ubett: His theories are the WORST kind of popular tripe, his methods are sloppy, and his conclusions are highly questionable. He is a POOR scientist, and has no place in the department, or in the University.

Evidence?

The Twinkie?


What about the Twinkie?
 
2010-09-02 02:42:29 PM
some things we can claim:

scientific data is scientific data. that is, numbers are numbers and facts are facts.

all research is funded by some source. there is bias all around.

one strong value of science lies in peer review process, wherein qualified and credentialed personnel can review the empirical evidence, and parse out the data from the bias imposed by the funding source.

in short, stick with the data.
 
2010-09-02 02:47:25 PM
Philip Francis Queeg: RareChimer: Light second-hand smoke can be annoying. Sucking the exhalations of a heavy smoker can be dangerous.

If you can't stand the smokers smoking in places where smoking is legal, you are invited to request the person put the cigarette out. If they refuse, then YOU are the one with the issue and YOU are the one that needs to move.

/non-smoker

How about if I just spray them with water if they don't put it out? If they don't like getting wet, it's just their problem, right?


If they're in an area where it's legal to spray other people in the face (and not seen as a public nuisance) then there is no problem.
 
2010-09-02 02:48:05 PM
Jackson Herring: mrgromit: Why is taking money from PM to do research bad, but taking money from the American Lung Assoc. to do such a study all fine and dandy, when the AMA is at *least* as biased as PM is?

Because the American Lung Association is a non-profit, you twat. Are you conflating being biased towards increasing stock value with being biased against farking HEALTHY LUNGS?


"Profit" as an objective does not make a bias any more of a bias. Do you think Bob Barker wants to ban whaling any less than BP wants to keep deep water drilling legal?
 
2010-09-02 02:48:36 PM
Ajanu: Witchyman: I'm a trucker. We have some fancy dancy new Volvo rigs that collect any particulates and holds them until the reservoir is full, when the engine heats them until they go bye bye.

They also destroy my miles per gallon. And since I get a small bonus each month for improving my mpg by small amounts, I haven't gotten said bonus since we got the trucks.

They were also VERY expensive.

And the reservoir that heats up? Melted three of the brand new trucks wiring harnesses to the trailer.

/win
//not

They should give you bonuses related to the truck your driving, that's not the fault of the particle technology.

That said, the technology is so new, it's bound to cause problems. My dad was telling me some of their test rigs were stuck at the side of the road beacuse the filters did not regenerate and the engine refused to start.

If CARB want's to mandate this stuff, and they are sure it will save more than it costs, they should fund it. The up side is that it might increase work for CA truckers if they are serious about all trucks entering the state needing better controls. There could be business in taking loads from the boarder to their destination in a legal truck.


We've been having that problem with the trucks not regening also. And since they are 'special' tractors that they WANT us to take into NYC it's really irking management.

Management also says they are going to get off their duffs and get a mpg average for each and every tractor and our bonuses will be based on what we drive and our mpg while driving.

/holds breath
 
2010-09-02 02:51:26 PM
RareChimer: Philip Francis Queeg: RareChimer: Light second-hand smoke can be annoying. Sucking the exhalations of a heavy smoker can be dangerous.

If you can't stand the smokers smoking in places where smoking is legal, you are invited to request the person put the cigarette out. If they refuse, then YOU are the one with the issue and YOU are the one that needs to move.

/non-smoker

How about if I just spray them with water if they don't put it out? If they don't like getting wet, it's just their problem, right?

If they're in an area where it's legal to spray other people in the face (and not seen as a public nuisance) then there is no problem.


Why should I be stopped from spraying people with water any more than smokers should be stopped from smoking? Why do you you want to repress my rights like that? Being sprayed with water has never been shown to be a health hazard. If they don't like getting wet, that's their problem.
 
2010-09-02 02:52:19 PM
Cataholic: "Profit" as an objective does not make a bias any more of a bias

Yeah, bias is bias, there is nothing but black and white. Increasing profit is just as good as reducing lung cancer.
 
2010-09-02 02:52:49 PM
mrgromit: American Lung Assoc. to do such a study all fine and dandy, when the AMA is at *least* as biased as PM is?

If it's about money, wouldn't the ALA want MORE people smoking? They aren't making their bucks on healthy lungs, after all.

If it's about something else, what? What is it?
 
2010-09-02 02:53:41 PM
mrlewish: He wasn't fired for his views but for being a whore to any industry that paid for a "study"

If you think that's a reason to get fired, you are sadly ignorant of the state of academia. Anything that brings in the grant money is encouraged.
 
2010-09-02 02:57:20 PM
Philip Francis Queeg: mrgromit: I didn't bother reading most of the comments above, but I have a question:

Why is taking money from PM to do research bad, but taking money from the American Lung Assoc. to do such a study all fine and dandy, when the AMA is at *least* as biased as PM is?

/not trolling

There is a difference between the two situations:

If Phillip Morris, pressures scientists to skew their research to show that smoking is safe when it is really a health hazard, there is a direct benefit to them: More people will likely smoke and buy their products.

The same is NOT true of the American Lung Association or the AMA. If they pressure scientists to show that smoking is a health hazard when it is not, there will be no direct benefit to them. Lung cancer rates would be unaffected.


I meant ALA above there, sorry about that.

But I disagree. The ALA needs scary scenarios to secure more donations. Now they're chasing "third-hand smoke" left on clothes, carpets, drapes and such.

They're little more than a lobbying group trying to ban smoking. They changed their focus away from finding cures a long time ago because the return (donations-costs) is better for trying to make policy than researching.

And yes, I understand the concept of trying to get rid of the cause, but if smoking and cars were both outlawed, they'd simply find another scary industry to shut down.
 
2010-09-02 02:59:16 PM
Quick! Everyone panic!
 
2010-09-02 02:59:18 PM
2010-09-02 02:56:48 PM

From the UCLA Article:

Enstrom suspects his nonreappointment is in part a response to his investigation into the backgrounds of Hien Tran and John Froines, both of whom disputed his research findings. Enstrom discovered that Hien Tran, one of the lead CARB staffers who compiled a review on diesel mortality studies, had faked his doctorate degree from UC Davis.

Enstrom was also involved in removing Froines from the Scientific Review Panel, which advises CARB. Froines, another environmental health sciences professor, served on the panel for 26 years, Enstrom said. However, appointments were supposed to be limited to three years so a lawsuit was filed to enforce this rule. Froines thus had to leave the panel this year, Enstrom said.

+

"Science isn't based on how many people vote on something, it's based on the truth, and the truth can be determined by just one scientist," Enstrom said.

How this dude is even still alive in someplace like California is beyond me.
 
2010-09-02 03:01:13 PM
radioman_: Second hand smoke is annoying. That's enough for me not to have to be around it - by law in many places and by my screaming at you in other places until spittle flies off my lip.

If that's actually you in your profile pic, I really wouldn't recommend it. If you think second hand smoke is a health hazard, imagine how hazardous it's going to be when you get your head jammed up your ass.

Or do you only "flip out" if you think you can take the guy? Just the pathetic ones with the horrible wheezing, or what?
 
2010-09-02 03:01:13 PM
1. Take an extreme viewpoint
2. Get lots of attention
3. PROFIT

If you agree with established facts, then you are just like almost everyone else, and it's hard to get attention or fame.
 
2010-09-02 03:01:49 PM
PeppaJack: Troll your way to a green subby. Glenn Beck nods in approval.

Education is for weak minded liberal pussies.


FIX OLD NO NEW!
 
2010-09-02 03:01:58 PM
Esn: As many commenters above me have said, science cannot prove beyond a doubt whether something causes death. What they call the "margin of error"? That's because of divine will, which is the only absolute truth there is. God will choose whether you live or die based on the sins in your life, and science can never prove otherwise. God also gave us free will, which lefties are always trying to undermine, supported by Big Science. No-smoking campaigns are just more of the same. Smoke or don't - the Bible says nothing about it being a sin, therefore it won't affect the date of your death. Only God decides that. Everything else is just malarky by smart people who think they're smart enough to control you and get your money. And the feebly sensitive who "don't like it"? They're just looking for attention.

I supposed you never go to the doctor for anything then right?
 
2010-09-02 03:04:02 PM
mrgromit: Philip Francis Queeg: mrgromit: I didn't bother reading most of the comments above, but I have a question:

Why is taking money from PM to do research bad, but taking money from the American Lung Assoc. to do such a study all fine and dandy, when the AMA is at *least* as biased as PM is?

/not trolling

There is a difference between the two situations:

If Phillip Morris, pressures scientists to skew their research to show that smoking is safe when it is really a health hazard, there is a direct benefit to them: More people will likely smoke and buy their products.

The same is NOT true of the American Lung Association or the AMA. If they pressure scientists to show that smoking is a health hazard when it is not, there will be no direct benefit to them. Lung cancer rates would be unaffected.

I meant ALA above there, sorry about that.

But I disagree. The ALA needs scary scenarios to secure more donations. Now they're chasing "third-hand smoke" left on clothes, carpets, drapes and such.

They're little more than a lobbying group trying to ban smoking. They changed their focus away from finding cures a long time ago because the return (donations-costs) is better for trying to make policy than researching.

And yes, I understand the concept of trying to get rid of the cause, but if smoking and cars were both outlawed, they'd simply find another scary industry to shut down.


No they need people suffering from Lung Cancer. Think how much they could raise if the causes of Lung Cancer were completely mysterious.

Lung cancer is the scary story. Identifying the cause is not.
 
2010-09-02 03:05:41 PM
What is "teaching communism"?
 
2010-09-02 03:08:17 PM
Philip Francis Queeg: RareChimer: Philip Francis Queeg: RareChimer: Light second-hand smoke can be annoying. Sucking the exhalations of a heavy smoker can be dangerous.

If you can't stand the smokers smoking in places where smoking is legal, you are invited to request the person put the cigarette out. If they refuse, then YOU are the one with the issue and YOU are the one that needs to move.

/non-smoker

How about if I just spray them with water if they don't put it out? If they don't like getting wet, it's just their problem, right?

If they're in an area where it's legal to spray other people in the face (and not seen as a public nuisance) then there is no problem.

Why should I be stopped from spraying people with water any more than smokers should be stopped from smoking? Why do you you want to repress my rights like that? Being sprayed with water has never been shown to be a health hazard. If they don't like getting wet, that's their problem.


Not a lawyer, but wouldn't spraying someone with water constitute assault?

Do a little research. Ask your doctor. Once you start listening to more than just the hysterical screaming of anti-smoking activists, you might discover that second hand smoke is potentially harmful only with intense and long-term exposure. Walking past someone on the sidewalk when they are smoking is a different story.

/You can likely tell from my id where my bias lies.
//Was in an elevator in a casino(smoking allowed) a few years ago, holding my lit cigar and some couple followed me in and started complaining that I couldn't smoke there. I look around, see no sign prohibiting it and say so. The woman promptly gets off to get a security guard while her husband stands there, holding the elevator doors and I smoke my cigar. Guard comes and says, "There's no sign, he can smoke in there." I thanked him and made sure to wave to the couple and tell them to "Have a nice day." as the elevator doors closed.
///CSB.
 
2010-09-02 03:08:31 PM
Burn_Atlanta: DogNamedBox:

Tran was demoted, but his report was still used to "set the context for the health benefits of reducing diesel emissions" when the board voted on the trucking regulations, CARB spokesman Stanley Young told FoxNews.com.

So the Phillip Morris funded study is bad but buying a online PHD & making law is ok???

Of course it is, because he agrees with the liberal dogma.



You two can point out where anyone who doesn't exist in your heads pointed out that this was OK, yes?
 
2010-09-02 03:09:13 PM
wademh: What is "teaching communism"?

Synonymous, amirite?
 
2010-09-02 03:10:37 PM
Anyone that does any research on Enstrom can quickly learn that he's been under fire for bad research, selling out to business (or trying to.) and bad science for almost two decades. Guy's a fraud, and like most frauds, when he's called on it, he whines whines whines, "its all a CONSPIRACY AGAINST ME."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Enstrom

What a dunce.
 
2010-09-02 03:11:33 PM
DogNamedBox:

So the Phillip Morris funded study is bad but buying a online PHD & making law is ok???


You so realize that because one thing is bad, something else does not have to be good, right?

If I point out that arsenic is a poison, that doesn't mean that it's safe to chug Drano.
 
2010-09-02 03:14:01 PM
VendorXeno: Anyone that does any research on Enstrom can quickly learn that he's been under fire for bad research, selling out to business (or trying to.) and bad science for almost two decades. Guy's a fraud, and like most frauds, when he's called on it, he whines whines whines, "its all a CONSPIRACY AGAINST ME."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Enstrom

What a dunce.


There we go. Thanks for the link. That's much better than ranting on what a tool the guy is....
 
2010-09-02 03:14:08 PM
CigarPete: Philip Francis Queeg: RareChimer: Philip Francis Queeg: RareChimer: Light second-hand smoke can be annoying. Sucking the exhalations of a heavy smoker can be dangerous.

If you can't stand the smokers smoking in places where smoking is legal, you are invited to request the person put the cigarette out. If they refuse, then YOU are the one with the issue and YOU are the one that needs to move.

/non-smoker

How about if I just spray them with water if they don't put it out? If they don't like getting wet, it's just their problem, right?

If they're in an area where it's legal to spray other people in the face (and not seen as a public nuisance) then there is no problem.

Why should I be stopped from spraying people with water any more than smokers should be stopped from smoking? Why do you you want to repress my rights like that? Being sprayed with water has never been shown to be a health hazard. If they don't like getting wet, that's their problem.

Not a lawyer, but wouldn't spraying someone with water constitute assault?

Do a little research. Ask your doctor. Once you start listening to more than just the hysterical screaming of anti-smoking activists, you might discover that second hand smoke is potentially harmful only with intense and long-term exposure. Walking past someone on the sidewalk when they are smoking is a different story.

/You can likely tell from my id where my bias lies.
//Was in an elevator in a casino(smoking allowed) a few years ago, holding my lit cigar and some couple followed me in and started complaining that I couldn't smoke there. I look around, see no sign prohibiting it and say so. The woman promptly gets off to get a security guard while her husband stands there, holding the elevator doors and I smoke my cigar. Guard comes and says, "There's no sign, he can smoke in there." I thanked him and made sure to wave to the couple and tell them to "Have a nice day." as the elevator doors closed.
///CSB.


Was getting your dirty filthy smoke all over those people in the elevator assault? No? the why should them spraying a little fresh clean water on you be assault? I'm sure that as long as there was no sign in the elevator telling them they couldn't spray water on you, you wouldn't have minded at all if they did, right?
 
2010-09-02 03:14:40 PM
House of Tards: So the Phillip Morris funded study is bad but buying a online PHD & making law is ok???

You so realize that because one thing is bad, something else does not have to be good, right?

If I point out that arsenic is a poison, that doesn't mean that it's safe to chug Drano.


HoT is absolutely right. Its rather like the retard subby's "teaching communism," comment. In the subby's mind, teaching communism is apparently "bad" for some unnamed reason, and so we should also care whether or not a sell out scientist who whines all the time lost his job. It doesn't add up!
 
2010-09-02 03:18:20 PM
Jackson Herring: mrgromit: Why is taking money from PM to do research bad, but taking money from the American Lung Assoc. to do such a study all fine and dandy, when the AMA is at *least* as biased as PM is?

Because the American Lung Association is a non-profit, you twat. Are you conflating being biased towards increasing stock value with being biased against farking HEALTHY LUNGS?


The American Lung Association is a for profit organization for those who are working there. Read their 990s, if you know how. Check out how much they spend with ad agencies and marketing research; check out how much they spend on grants and where those grants go. Look at the nature of their programs. I won't denigrate the ALA but calling it a non-profit is a legal, tax description. Plenty of individuals taking plenty of profits. They are just as ideologically motivated as PM.
 
2010-09-02 03:21:13 PM
Philip Francis Queeg: CigarPete: Philip Francis Queeg: RareChimer: Philip Francis Queeg: RareChimer: Light second-hand smoke can be annoying. Sucking the exhalations of a heavy smoker can be dangerous.

If you can't stand the smokers smoking in places where smoking is legal, you are invited to request the person put the cigarette out. If they refuse, then YOU are the one with the issue and YOU are the one that needs to move.

/non-smoker

How about if I just spray them with water if they don't put it out? If they don't like getting wet, it's just their problem, right?

If they're in an area where it's legal to spray other people in the face (and not seen as a public nuisance) then there is no problem.

Why should I be stopped from spraying people with water any more than smokers should be stopped from smoking? Why do you you want to repress my rights like that? Being sprayed with water has never been shown to be a health hazard. If they don't like getting wet, that's their problem.

Not a lawyer, but wouldn't spraying someone with water constitute assault?

Do a little research. Ask your doctor. Once you start listening to more than just the hysterical screaming of anti-smoking activists, you might discover that second hand smoke is potentially harmful only with intense and long-term exposure. Walking past someone on the sidewalk when they are smoking is a different story.

/You can likely tell from my id where my bias lies.
//Was in an elevator in a casino(smoking allowed) a few years ago, holding my lit cigar and some couple followed me in and started complaining that I couldn't smoke there. I look around, see no sign prohibiting it and say so. The woman promptly gets off to get a security guard while her husband stands there, holding the elevator doors and I smoke my cigar. Guard comes and says, "There's no sign, he can smoke in there." I thanked him and made sure to wave to the couple and tell them to "Have a nice day." as the elevator doors closed.
///CSB.

Was getting your dirty filthy smoke all over those people in the elevator assault? No? the why should them spraying a little fresh clean water on you be assault? I'm sure that as long as there was no sign in the elevator telling them they couldn't spray water on you, you wouldn't have minded at all if they did, right?


If I was in a water park, then I would have no cause to complain about being sprayed with water. Being in a smoking casino, they had no cause to complain about my cigar. In any case, make sure you have a lovely day.
 
2010-09-02 03:22:31 PM
CigarPete: P
Do a little research. Ask your doctor. Once you start listening to more than just the hysterical screaming of anti-smoking activists, you might discover that second hand smoke is potentially harmful only with intense and long-term exposure. Walking past someone on the sidewalk when they are smoking is a different story.


Firstly, it is clearly demonstrated that 2nd hand smoke is dangerous under long term exposure. This has been demonstrated in families of smokers via cancer and emphysema rates.

There is also evidence for bar tenders suffering increased risk.

As for more casual exposure, any link would necessarily be much much harder to find as the rate would be less, further, documenting the exposure and determining a good control group is hopelessly problematic. Deception on the issue is possible by doing a study and failing to find a significant association. Such a failure does not mean there isn't one though, just that it isn't proved by what is almost necessarily an underpowered study. Yet people will publish such findings in defiance of a proper understanding of statistical analysis.

However, we do have good models for the biochemical basis of the effects of 2nd hand smoke. Using these models, it is fully reasonable to project that risks of 2nd hand smoke are cumulative, with caveats for a body's ability to deal with chemical insults resulting in non-linear effects in risk --- half-the expoure being less than half the risk.

Yet, through all this, there is risk associated with 2nd hand smoke and people ought to have a right to avoid that risk by their own choice.

\dedicated cigar smoker myself, cause I live in the now.
 
2010-09-02 03:24:26 PM
Mr. Right: Jackson Herring: mrgromit: Why is taking money from PM to do research bad, but taking money from the American Lung Assoc. to do such a study all fine and dandy, when the AMA is at *least* as biased as PM is?

Because the American Lung Association is a non-profit, you twat. Are you conflating being biased towards increasing stock value with being biased against farking HEALTHY LUNGS?

The American Lung Association is a for profit organization for those who are working there. Read their 990s, if you know how. Check out how much they spend with ad agencies and marketing research; check out how much they spend on grants and where those grants go. Look at the nature of their programs. I won't denigrate the ALA but calling it a non-profit is a legal, tax description. Plenty of individuals taking plenty of profits. They are just as ideologically motivated as PM.


Again, if the ALA pressures a scientist to change their research to make smoking look more deadly, the number of people who get lung cancer will change by exactly zero. If smoking were proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be 100% safe tomorrow, the number of people who worked at the ALA wouldn't be reduced at all. If anything, it might go up as the search for the real causes gets ramped up.
 
2010-09-02 03:24:51 PM
autopsybeverage: Airportmatt: "says he's being fired after 36 years at the prestigious school because his scientific beliefs are 'politically incorrect.'"

Fixed that for ya.

I thought the whole purpose of science was to test the "beliefs," leaving only "facts" as the observable results. Maybe different Universities can be set up as different religions, with Cardinals of different schools and each uni can have a "Pope" rather than a "Dean."


I see what they're doing there
 
2010-09-02 03:26:44 PM
VendorXeno: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Enstrom

What a dunce.


who had the scientific support of the BMJ.

what a dunce indeed!
 
2010-09-02 03:27:45 PM
Mr. Right: The American Lung Association is a for profit organization for those who are working there.

Yeah, all those guys rolling in the $30-65k (after 20 years experience) salaries at the American Lung Association...

ALA salaries by experience

ALA has a fairly good donation usage efficiency

I think it's legit to call them a non-profit. There aren't any million dollar bonuses going to anyone in that group. Now the American Cancer Society splashes out some cash to it's CEOs.
 
2010-09-02 03:30:45 PM
CigarPete: P

If I was in a water park, then I would have no cause to complain about being sprayed with water. Being in a smoking casino, they had no cause to complain about my cigar. In any case, make sure you have a lovely day.


Maybe we should limit smoking to smoking parks.

Have a great day yourself. I just hope that smoking your cigars doesn't mean that most of the rest of your days will be filled with pain and suffering as you die a lingering death from a disease which your lovely cigars gave you.
 
2010-09-02 03:32:22 PM
4th hand smoke is even worse. I hear about people coming in contact with areas where someone else smoked and I get sick. I in turn, sicken others, and that is 5th hand smoke.

Sucks.
 
2010-09-02 03:34:34 PM
"The nature of research results, political views or popularity are not appropriate factors and are not considered when evaluating individuals for reappointment," Hilary Godwin, associate dean for suppressing conflicting viewpoints through accusations of fascism at UCLA's School of Public Health, said in a statement.
 
2010-09-02 03:36:35 PM
You know, subby, not all of us majored in General Studies when we went to college. Maybe you should have majored in an actual discipline. In the meantime, you can stuff your "teaching income redistribution" garbage right up your bottom.

/ Organic chemistry of enzyme kinetics FTW
 
2010-09-02 03:40:11 PM
Bartleby the Scrivener: VendorXeno: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Enstrom

What a dunce.

who had the scientific support of the BMJ.

what a dunce indeed!


Nice, so "publishing" someone just magically transformed into "scientific support." Of course, even if the BMJ came rushing out to bow at his feet, that doesn't change his history with Phillip Morris or whining about a conspiracy of academics all allied against him. So your "argument" is not only wrong, but irrelevant.

You're an idiot.
 
2010-09-02 03:43:13 PM
Jackson Herring: mrgromit: Why is taking money from PM to do research bad, but taking money from the American Lung Assoc. to do such a study all fine and dandy, when the AMA is at *least* as biased as PM is?

Because the American Lung Association is a non-profit, you twat. Are you conflating being biased towards increasing stock value with being biased against farking HEALTHY LUNGS?


MADD is non-profit, do you trust their "studies"?

Not saying I trust Philip morris, and I would look at their studies much more closely than I would one funded by the ALA, but it doesn't mean the ALA has no institutional bias.
 
2010-09-02 03:47:18 PM
Walter?
 
2010-09-02 03:53:51 PM
VendorXeno: Bartleby the Scrivener: VendorXeno: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Enstrom

What a dunce.

who had the scientific support of the BMJ.

what a dunce indeed!

Nice, so "publishing" someone just magically transformed into "scientific support." Of course, even if the BMJ came rushing out to bow at his feet, that doesn't change his history with Phillip Morris or whining about a conspiracy of academics all allied against him. So your "argument" is not only wrong, but irrelevant.

You're an idiot.


did your read the editor's letter from the BMJ or are you just being all knee-jerky and "whaa-whaa-whaa he was funded by philip morris"

if you're representing the scientific side of things, you're doing more harm than good.
 
2010-09-02 03:59:21 PM
Here's the important part which is missing: Where has the university shown that his research is faulty?

If he is so terribly off-base, and the research is so tainted by being funded by an unpopular company, then other researchers at his own university should have had no problem AT ALL disproving it.

But I notice the distinct LACK of any claims from ANYONE that his research was in any way deficient. That tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the nature of the firing.
 
2010-09-02 04:04:05 PM
It's OK everybody! He is not BLACK. Whew, for a minute there I thought we might have a problem.
 
2010-09-02 04:09:24 PM
Bartleby the Scrivner
if you're representing the scientific side of things, you're doing more harm than good.


You sound so.... concerned.
 
2010-09-02 04:10:32 PM
jim_paul: Here's the important part which is missing: Where has the university shown that his research is faulty?

If he is so terribly off-base, and the research is so tainted by being funded by an unpopular company, then other researchers at his own university should have had no problem AT ALL disproving it.

But I notice the distinct LACK of any claims from ANYONE that his research was in any way deficient. That tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the nature of the firing.


He wasn't fired.

Now you just sound stupid. :-(
 
2010-09-02 04:10:43 PM
Splinshints: You sound so.... concerned.

do you have a scientific point to make, or just killing time before the pudding?
 
Displayed 50 of 219 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report