Let is be knownst that on Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:54:47 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
writted:
>
> wrote in message
>news:bearclaw-5F109B.15282311022007@news.supernews.com...
>> 1. Whose political agenda, specifically?
>>
>> 1a. What political concerns, exactly, propel that agenda?
>>
>> 1b. Who financed and supported the research allegedly
>> supporting that agenda?
>>
>> 2. Which preponderance of evidence exculpates second-hand smoke from
>> the evidence that it does cause harm (for convenience sake, let's make
>> the evidentiary starting point the inaugural 1964 U.S. Surgeon
>> General's report on the deleterious health effects of tobacco smoke)?
>>
>> 2a. Who financed and supported that research?
>>
>> 2b. What, if any, agenda motivated _that_ research?
>>
>> BTW, all the Surgeon General's reports on smoking published between 1964
>> and 2001 can be found here:
>>
>> http://govpubs.lib.umn.edu/guides/surgeongeneral.phtml
>
>You ask some good questions. I would suggest that you do some independent
>research to find the answers, since it's a foregone conclusion that you
>would discount anything that I, or others, offered in this forum. But why
>you would suggest starting with the 1964 Surgeon General's report is beyond
>me. If all you want to do is reinforce a preconceived notion, that may be a
>good place to start -- but then, what would be the point?
You and those others in whatever smoking group you are posting from
aint exactly doing a great deal to dispel that notion.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
-- |
