Tobacco.org

• James E. Enstrom in his own words 

James E. Enstrom originally added this to the main article page on October 31 2006. It was originally written in the third person but has been changed to the first person with only minor editing and formatting changes.

"The impression given on SourceWatch's James E. Enstrom page is that my research has been inappropriately influenced by the organizations that have provided me with funding is entirely without merit. Ever since receiving my Ph.D. in 1970 I have followed a scientific philosophy based on the pursuit of truth [1]. This philosophy has been applied to all of my research, including the studies discussed above. . . .

I examined mortality risks associated with both active and passive smoking over a 39-year follow-up period. I published a paper with his findings in the May 17, 2003 British Medical Journal [3] (Pdf). This is the largest, most detailed, and most transparent epidemiologic paper on passive smoking and mortality ever published in a major medical journal. I found no relationship with passive smoking, but found a strong, long-term relationship with active smoking. In the years since its publication, no errors have been identified in the study, not even by the ACS, which possesses the underlying data. The BMJ editor has strongly defended my paper. Although there is nothing wrong with my BMJ paper, since May 2003 I have been subjected to a massive and continuous campaign of ad hominem attack and character assassination, as typified by the "Enstrom & Tobacco" comments on the SourceWatch article about me. . . .

The exaggeration of the health effects of passive smoking, particularly within in the US, is being driven by powerful US epidemiologists and organizations. In particular, the ACS possesses two massive Cancer Prevention Study cohort data bases that contain most of the available US epidemiologic evidence on passive smoking. I used the California portion of one of these data bases to conduct my research. However, the ACS overstates the strength of its own limited findings on passive smoking, refuses to fully and fairly analyze all the data that it possesses, and puts out false statements about myself and my BMJ research. In addition, the Surgeon General's Report overstated the strength of the relationship of passive smoking to mortality within the US because it omitted the BMJ results without comment. This incessant exaggeration of the dangers of passive smoking has taken the focus off the large and real dangers of active smoking.

Jump to full article »