Talk:Geoffrey Kabat

Comments on article

The article “Geoffrey Kabat” is libelous and presents a one-sided and badly-distorted account of the controversy over the 2003 Enstrom and Kabat BMJ paper on passive smoking. Assuming that the editors of this article are open-minded and fair, the problem is that they are repeating the line taken by the American Cancer Society, whose Vice President for Epidemiology at the time, Michael J. Thun, came out and denounced our paper even before the paper was published online. He then orchestrated a campaign to smear the paper and its authors. The campaign had more to do with politics than with science or public health. The political nature of the attack is clear from the numerous references in the article to the District Court ruling by Judge Gladys Kessler citing our paper as an instance of tobacco industry influence — in fact, there was no tobacco industry influence. The American Cancer Society is a charity and an advocacy organization and has its own motivations and conflicts-of-interest. The charge that the paper came from the tobacco industry and was funded by the tobacco industry is false. This charge and other misrepresentations of the paper are addressed below. First, only the last 7 years of Enstrom’s 38-year follow-up of the California portion of the American Cancer Society cohort was funded with monies that originated from the tobacco industry. Funding was in the form of a grant from the Center for Indoor Air Quality (CIAR). This entity was a center for funding research on indoor air pollution (including passive smoking) using monies contributed by the tobacco industry. However, funding decisions were insulated from industry influence. Applications were reviewed by academic scientists and were judged on their scientific merit. The previous 31 years of follow-up had been funded by the State of California. Second, in analyzing and publishing their results, Enstrom and Kabat had no contact with the tobacco industry, which was not informed of the study and did not see the results until they were published. Third, the paper underwent the most stringent review by editors and statisticians at the British Medical Journal who determined that the study presented valuable data that had been carefully analyzed. (The entire publication history of the paper is posted on the BMJ website.) Fourth, in spite of the uproar caused by the American Cancer Society’s attack on the authors and the alleged “errors” in the paper, no one has identified any error that invalidates the results. In a letter to the editor, Enstrom and Kabat explained that some of the criticisms were factually wrong (such as the claim that in the 1950s and 1960s “everyone was exposed to tobacco smoke” and, therefore, there was no non-exposed group, while other criticisms did not invalidate the results (see page 504 below). Five, in spite of calls for the BMJ to retract the paper, the editor-in-chief, Richard Smith, defended publication of the paper, saying that when good work has been done, failure to publish it because the results are unpopular will distort the scientific record. Another editor at the BMJ, Alison Tonks, in a commentary on the letters to the editor pointed out that only 3% of the letters to the editor made any reference to actual data from the paper (see pdf below). Six, in the uproar, few critics took the time to read the 3,000-word paper with 10 tables. The fact that the authors showed that active smokers, even at low smoking levels (1-9 cigarettes per day), had increased risks of lung cancer and coronary heart disease got no attention.

In conclusion, the response to the paper was not about the science. It was about portraying two well-established scientists as shills for the tobacco industry in order to strengthen restrictions on smoking in public and advance the cause of discouraging smoking — something both authors are in favor of.

The controversy over the Enstrom and Kabat paper was more about politics than about science or public health.

Treatment of this controversy on Wikipedia demonstrates how well-intentioned people, who are not conversant with the discipline involved (i.e., epidemiology) can be badly misled by one-sided, bad-faith narratives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkabat (talk • contribs) 13:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

First, thanks for coming to the talk page. I've been meaning to take a second look at this page for awhile, so I'll see if I can look through this at a later date.

The key thing between your comments here and proposed edits below is that biography articles should mostly be focused independent third-party discussion about the subject. I see you're including a lot of your papers below, but the most helpful sources are going to be independent ones not from any advocacy website, but scientific sources or sometimes newspapers (see WP:MEDPOP since that would apply to a lot of your work). Just for general background, your commentary above couldn't be used as a source, but journal editor comments you reference could be potential sources.

In the Scientific Work section of the current article, it does looks like it needs some general cleanup or restructuring. That said, we follow what's called due weight in sources. If The American Cancer Society criticized how one of your papers used their database (though the sourcing on that statement is currently incomplete and to an advocacy website that would need to be fixed), that does appear to be something that would be normally included in an article. However, that inclusion would also be in the context of trying to summarize how WP:MEDRS sources discuss (negatively or positively) that study. That's just to give you a general idea of how things work at Wikipedia without getting into specific edits yet. KoA (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this initial response. As I tried to convey in my opening block paragraph, and in a different way in my "revision" of the Geoffrey Kabat bio, it is actually tricky to determine what are valid sources to rely on. My main point is that the Wikipedia article selected 1 out of 155 peer-reviewed scientific papers from a 45-year career because it got some adverse publicity. The reason I included the details in both the intro para and the rewrite of the bio is because it is very easy to portray our paper as corrupt and influenced by the tobacco industry if one ignores all the information that is available and that I have packed into my write-up. I will be happy to lay out these points more clearly. But the fact that the journal didn't retract the paper under such tremendous public pressure and defended it in their comments (editor Alison Tonks) and editor-in-chief Richard Smith should be taken into account, no?

Let me point out something that became clear to me. If it weren't for the BMJ affair I believe there would be no Geoffrey Kabat Wikipedia page. This is because the driving reason behind the page is notoriety and the fact the ACS published their condemnation of the paper. It is just not fair or intellectually honest to leave things there and to only give credit to the ACS spokesman and disregard all of the positive evaluations of our work.

The point that became clear to me, as I started to say, is that my colleague epidemiologists -- even one who have published more than me and have made solid contributions to the field -- do NOT have Wikipedia pages. No one is interested in the day-to-day, year-to-year, work that constitutes normal science. So, I believe the only reason that this page was written about me is because of the BMJ brouhaha.

This page has been there since, as best I can tell, 2015, and it is utter slander and a hit-job, whether the person who wrote knows it or not. So, either this should be corrected and the full story laid out, of the page should be taken down.

Again, I really appreciate your looking into this and I will be happy to supply you with any information I can.

Geoffrey Kabat Gkabat (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I posted two statements on the “Talk” page for the “Geoffrey Kabat” bio on July 11 and July 12.  I received a preliminary response on July 12.  

Let me recap the situation.

I want to register a complaint regarding the “Geoffrey Kabat” Wikipedia page that appears to date from 24 March 2015. The bio presents a one-sided, distorted, and defamatory account of my 45-year career, and of our British Medical Journal (BMJ) paper in particular. The article relies on a couple of press releases by the American Cancer Society and political attacks by anti-smoking activists. Just because a functionary at a charity/advocacy organization issues a press release alleging certain claims concerning a subtle scientific question, this does not mean that it is a fair and accurate account of incident. By citing this politically-motived press release and ignoring all of the other relevant documented evidence, you present an egregiously distorted picture — one that amounts to defamation.

To date, I have not received any further acknowledgement or follow-up questions about my posts on the “Talk” page from July 11 and July 12.

This defamatory article has been online now for over 9 years. Wikipedia says that it takes seriously harm to the reputation of living people. But, in the present case, because of the involved technical issues (relating to the epidemiology of what is a weak risk factor) and because people assume that motives of functionaries at an organization like the American Cancer Society are decent, this travesty of the truth has been able to stand uncorrected for all these years.

As I wrote ten days ago, this bio would never have been written if it had not been for the controversy and headlines generated by our paper. I my 45-year career, my work has never been challenged on scientific grounds. I have a very good reputation as an epidemiologist, and my publication record puts me in the top 2 percent of scientists.

As I wrote ten days ago, Wikipedia should either take a look at the information and documentation I have provided and REVISE the current Geoffrey Kabat bio, or it should decide to take down any Geoffrey Kabat bio.  

However, I understand that, because there was a controversy, you will want to keep my bio. Therefore, under Wikipedia’s guidelines regarding damage to reputations caused by citing defamatory and distorted allegations, you have an obligation to do a better job of presenting the other side of the story, which is completely lacking.

I’ve tried to present some of the main points that are ignored in the current account. But this is a complicated story, and there is additional information that is relevant to a even-handed and accurate account. 2601:41:4300:F4E0:64F8:A414:1458:E3F7 (talk) 13:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}}

In July, I posted three posts on the Geoffrey Kabat “talk” page, on July 12 and July 23, 2024. Except for a preliminary response on July 12, I have heard nothing more.

Wikipedia says that it takes seriously defamatory content that damages the reputation of living people.

The second of the five pillars of Wikipedia states:

“We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy with citations based on reliable sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia.”

Since 2015 this Geoffrey Kabat page has been up on the Web with no corrections.

The opening paragraph reads, “Geoffrey C. Kabat is an American epidemiologist, cancer researcher, and author. He has been on the faculty of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and State University of New York, Stony Brook. He was co-author of a discredited BMJ study funded by the tobacco industry, that erroneously said there was no association between secondhand smoke and health problems.”

The next paragraph goes on at length to discuss our BMJ paper.” The bolded sentence above and the entire discussion of this issue present a badly distorted picture based on lies and misstatements of the facts. The “sources” cited in the article are the result of smear campaign by the Michael Thun, the vice president for epidemiology at the American Cancer Society at the time our article was published in 2003.

Just because something is reported as news doesn’t mean that it is true. Ease of reference is not the arbiter of truth.

The exculpatory evidence may not have been published in a mainstream periodical, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

You have an obligation to tell the other, extensive, side of the story that has been left out. Taking into account the references given below would require a total reversal of the claim that our paper was “discredited” and that it was funded by or, in other ways, influenced by the tobacco industry.

If what Thun had said was true, the BMJ would have retracted the paper. But after careful scrutiny, the editors at BMJ refused to retract the paper. In fact, in the 21 years since the paper was published, no one has found serious errors or improprieties in the paper.

Below are several key documents to cite:  

Richard Smith, editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) at the time

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC188406/?ref=quillette.com

Alison Tonks, editor at the BMJ at the time

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC188405/

Geoffrey Kabat

https://quillette.com/2023/09/15/dogmatism-data-and-public-health/ 2601:41:4300:F4E0:B5BA:EA69:992E:5E52 (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Corrective to current "Geoffrey Kabat" bio

Collapse WP:MWOT

{{adminhelp}} Geoffrey C. Kabat is an American epidemiologist, cancer researcher, and author. Over a forty-five-year career, Kabat has studied a wide range of lifestyle, clinical, and environmental exposures in relation to cancer and other diseases, and mortality. He is most noted for his work characterizing the role of smoking, alcohol consumption, passive smoking, diet, obesity, the metabolic syndrome, and attained height, as well as environmental exposures, including pesticides and electromagnetic fields, in relation to the risk of cancer at different sites. Education After obtaining a doctorate in Slavic Languages and Comparative Literature from Columbia University, he published a book on Dostoevsky’s world view as expressed in his journalism and his fiction. He then switched fields to epidemiology, doing a postdoctoral fellowship and obtaining an M.S. in epidemiology and biostatistics from Columbia University. He has been a researcher at the American Health Foundation, a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center, as well as being on the faculty of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the State University of New York, Stony Brook. Scientific Work Kabat’s research spans a broad range of topics, and his publications put him in the top 2 percent of scientists (h-Index 68). He has published over 155 peer-reviewed scientific papers.[1] His work with colleagues has investigated a number of novel risk factors and has refined the role of established risk factors for different cancers, as well as the physiologic mechanisms by which they may affect risk. Major focuses include: cigarette smoking (including tar level and mentholated cigarettes) and cancer at different sites[2,3,4,5]; the interaction of smoking and alcohol consumption on oropharyngeal cancer[6]; the role of obesity and the metabolic syndrome in colorectal, breast, and endometrial cancer[7,8,9]; hormones and brain cancer[10,11]; estrogen metabolism and breast cancer [12,13,14]; electromagnetic fields and breast cancer[15,16]; height and cancer at different sites[17,18,19]; meta-analysis of glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.[20]   Throughout Kabat’s career, the only work that has sparked controversy is a paper on passive smoking published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) in 2003.[21] This controversy requires clarification. Starting in 1981, Kabat took an early interest in lung cancer occurring in people who never smoked and, specifically, in the question of passive smoking, emphasizing the need to collect accurate information on lifetime exposure to passive smoking in different settings and at different periods of life in order to accurately characterize exposure.[22,23, 24]Having done extensive work on the effects of cigarette smoking, Kabat emphasized the importance of putting passive smoke exposure in perspective by comparing it to the risk associated with active smoking, rather than focusing on passive smoking in isolation.[25] In the early 1990s, he served on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Science Advisory Board panel to evaluate the health effects of passive smoking.[26] The 2003 BMJ paper[21], which sparked a controversy, represented a collaboration between Kabat, who was at Stony Brook, and James Enstrom of UCLA. It was an outgrowth of both researchers’ interest in lung cancer occurring in never smokers. Enstrom had done extensive work using data from the American Cancer Society’s (ACS) large prospective study of 1 million Americans.[27] Kabat’s work had involved case-control studies, which are subject to several biases, which prospective studies are not subject to. Therefore, when Enstrom contacted him in the late 1990s to ask if he would be interested in using the ACS dataset to examine the health effects of passive smoking, Kabat was enthusiastic. The resulting paper is one of the most detailed studies of passive smoking and mortality. The authors failed to find an association of spousal smoking with lung cancer or coronary heart disease mortality. Although the paper was attacked by Michael Thun of the American Cancer Society, who attempted to discredit it based on its funding source[28], the attack had more to do with politics than with a serious scientific critique.[29,30,25] The critics ignored the fact that the tobacco industry had no involvement with the research and that the last 7 years of funding for the 38-year follow-up, which came from the tobacco industry, were awarded by an independent clearing-house overseen by respected scientists. The tobacco industry had no involvement in the paper and was unaware of it until it was published. Furthermore, critics also ignored the fact that the paper had undergone rigorous review by editors and statisticians and that, in their paper, Enstrom and Kabat had demonstrated robust associations of active smoking with mortality, even in light smokers. The editor-in-chief of the BMJ defended publication of the paper, stating that, when high-quality work has been done, failure to publish it because the results are not popular is to distort the historical record.[31,32] Another BMJ editor pointed out that only 3 percent of the irate letters to the editor referred to data from the paper.[32] To date, no one has been able to show any error in the paper, and its results are well within the range of results of prospective studies published in the U.S.[28,29,25] Books Kabat is the author of two books that examine a variety of health risks that have received widespread publicity, as well as other risks that, while important, have received less attention. Hyping Health Risks, published in 2008 by Columbia University Press, examines the cancer risk to the public posed by environmental exposures, such as environmental pollution, electromagnetic fields, residential radon, and passive smoking and shows how these risks have been distorted or overstated.[33]  David A. Savitz reviewed the book writing, “This book forcefully examines that question—What goes wrong when the good intentions of scientists and activists are based on weak epidemiologic findings.”[34]In the New England Journal of Medicine, Barbara Gastel wrote “Despite its minor limitations, Hyping Health Risks can interest and aid a variety of readers… for educated general readers, the book can engage and enlighten regarding the complex context in which known and suspected health risks are identified, explored and acted on.”[35] Neil Pearce wrote in the International Journal of Epidemiology that he "became more frustrated and less impressed as [he] worked [his] way through the book" and criticized the book for its "lack of balance".[36] Reviewing Getting Risk Right (2016) in the Skeptical Inquirer, Terence Hines wrote that Kabat "more than accomplishes" his goals of discovering how it is that extraordinary progress is made solving some problems but little is made solving others and why instances of progress get little attention, while scientifically questionable issues get more attention. Hines said of the chapter reviewing the question of whether cell phones cause cancer, it "alone is worth the price of the book."[37] In a review in the Washington Post, Susan Okie wrote, “His vivid description of the political advocacy, dueling media campaigns and rival faction in these areas make it easy to see why so many people remain worried and uncertain. …After considering issues where science hasn’t put controversies to rest, it’s a relief to read about two cases in which persistent investigators and elegant studies unequivocally nailed down an environmental cause of disease.”[38] Writing in the American Journal of Epidemiology, Patricia Hartge stated, “The problems Kabat describes are enormous and not ‘just academic.’ Bad policy is enacted and valuable research energy is wasted because some epidemiologic topics stay active long after they have been settled.”[39](https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/186/3/385/3979721 ) Journalistic writings In addition to peer-reviewed scientific papers, Kabat has written articles for the general public explaining what is known about potential health risks that have received a lot of publicity but which are subject to misunderstanding https://www.geoffreykabat.com . These include: electromagnetic fields (EMF) from electric power lines; the chemical bis-phenol A (BPA); cell phones and brain cancer; pesticides and, particularly, the herbicide glyphosate; the use of Chinese herbs as alternative medicine; the health effects of coffee; and the decline in sperm count. The articles have appeared on Forbes, Slate, Quillette, Issues in Science and Technology, and the Genetic Literacy Project websites. References Extended content 1.     Search Results for author Kabat G. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=kabat+g ) on PubMed. 2.     Wynder, Ernst L; Kabat, Geoffrey C. (March 1984). “The effect of low-yield cigarette smoking on lung cancer risk” Cancer. 62 (6):1223-30.  (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2842035/ ) = 3.     Wynder, Ernst L; Augustine A.; Kabat G.C.; Hebert J.R. (February 1988).        “Effect of type of cigarette smoked on bladder cancer risk.” Cancer. 61 (3): 622-7.  (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3338029/ ) 4.     Augustine, Annamma; Hebert J.R.; Kabat G.C.; Wynder E.L. (August 1988). “Bladder cancer in relation to cigarette smoking.” Cancer Research. 48 (15:4405-8) (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3390836/ ) 5.     Kabat, Geoffrey C. (September 2003). “Fifty years' experience of reduced-tar cigarettes: what do we know about their health effects?” Inhalation Toxicology.  15 (11):1059-102. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12955615/ ) 6.     Kabat, Geoffrey C., Chang CJ, Wynder E.L. (December 1994). “The role of tobacco, alcohol use, and body mass index in oral and pharyngeal cancer.” International Journal of Epidemiology. 23 (6):1137-44.  (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7721514/ ) 7.     Kabat, Geoffrey C., Kim MY, Stefanick, et al. (August 2018). “Metabolic obesity phenotypes and risk of colorectal cancer among postmenopausal women.” International Journal of Cancer. 143 (3):543-551. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29488210/) 8.     Kabat, Geoffrey C.; Kim M.Y.; Lee, J.S.; et al. (September 2017). “Metabolic obesity phenotypes and risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women.” Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention. 26 (12):1730-35. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28939589/) 9.     Arthur RS; Kabat GC; Kim MY; et al. (April 2019). “Metabolic syndrome and risk of endometrial cancer in postmenopausal women.” Cancer Causes and Control. 30 (4):355-363. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30788634/) 10.  Kabat GC, Park Y.; Hollenbeck, A.R.; et al. (February 2011). “Reproductive factors and exogenous hormone use and risk of adult glioma in women in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study.” International Journal of Cancer. 128 (4):944-50. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20473903/) 11.  Kabat, Geoffrey C; Etgen; A.M.; Rohan, T.E. (October 2010). “Do steroid hormones play a role in the etiology of glioma?” Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention 19 (10):2421-7.(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20841389/) 12.  Kabat, Geoffrey C; Chang CJ; Sparano J.A.; et al. (July 1997). “Urinary estrogen metabolites and breast cancer: a case-control study.” Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers Prevention; 6 (7):505-9.(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9232337/) 13.  Greenlee H. ; Chen Y ; Kabat GC; et al. (March 2007). «Variants in estrogen metabolism and biosynthesis genes and urinary estrogen metabolism in women with a family history of breast cancer.” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 102 (1):111-7. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16850246/)   14.  Kabat, Geoffrey C.; O’Leary, Erin S.; Gammon, M.D.; et al. (January 2006). “Estrogen metabolism and breast cancer.” Epidemiology. 17 (1):80-8. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16357599/) 15.  Kabat, Geoffrey C.; O’Leary, E; Schoenfeld, E.R.; et al. (September 2003). “Electric blanket use and breast cancer on Long Island.” Epidemiology. 14 (5):514-20. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14501265/) 16.  Schoenfeld, E.R.; O'Leary, E.S., Henderson, K.; Grimson, R.; Kabat, G.C.; Ahnn, S.; Kaune, W.T.; Gammon, M.D.; Leske MC; EBCLIS Group. (July 2003).  “Electromagnetic fields and breast cancer on Long Island: a case-control study.” American Journal of Epidemiology. 158 (1):47-58. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12835286/) 17.  Kabat, Geoffrey C.; Anderson M.L.; Heo, M.; et al. (August 2013). “Adult stature and risk of cancer at different anatomic sites in a cohort of postmenopausal women.” Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention. 22 (8):1353-63.  (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23887996/) 18.  Kabat, Geoffrey C.; Heo, M.; Kamensky V.; et al. (March 2013). “Adult height in relation to risk of cancer in a cohort of Canadian women.” International Journal of Cancer. 132 (5):1125-32. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22753236/) 19.  Kabat, Geoffrey C.; Kim, M.Y.; Hollenbeck, A.R.; Rohan, T.E. (December 2014). “Attained height, sex, and risk of cancer in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study.” Cancer Causes and Control. 25 (12):1697-706. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25307804/) 20.  Kabat, Geoffrey C.; Price William J.; Tarone, Robert E. (April 2021). “On recent meta-analyses of exposure to glyphosate and risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.” Cancer Causes and Control. 32 (4):409-414. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33447891/) 21.  Enstrom, James E.; Kabat, Geoffrey C. (May 2003). “Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98.” BMJ. 326.1057. (https://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057)  Doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7398.1057 22.  Kabat, Geoffrey C.; Wynder, Ernst L. (March 1984). “Lung cancer in nonsmokers.” Cancer 53:1214-1221.(https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/1097-0142%2819840301%2953%3A5%3C1214%3A%3AAID-CNCR2820530532%3E3.0.CO%3B2-8) 23.  Wynder, Ernst L.; Kabat, Geoffrey C. (1990). “Indoor air quality and lung cancer: A critical assessment.” Indoor Air Quality, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, pp. 5-15,1990, Springer. (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-83904-7_2 ) 24.  Kabat, Geoffrey C.; Stellman, Steven D.; Wynder, Ernst L. (July 1995). “Relation between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in lifetime nonsmokers.” American Journal of Epidemiology. 142 (2): 141–148. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7598113/) 25.  Kabat, Geoffrey C. (September 2023). “Dogmatism, data, and public health: A look back on the 2003 BMJ controversy over passive smoking and mortality.” Quillette (https://quillette.com/2023/09/15/dogmatism-data-and-public-health/ 26.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking.” EPA/600/6-90/006F, December 1992      (https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-09/documents/passive_smoke.pdf) 27.  Enstrom, J.E.; Heath, C.W., Jr. (September 1999). “Smoking cessation and mortality trends among 118,000 Californians, 1960-1997.” Epidemiology 10 (5):500-12. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10468422/) 28.  Thun, Michael J. “More misleading science from the tobacco industry.” (July 2003) BMJ. 327 (7418) E237-E238. doi: 10.1136/bmjusa.03070002 :352  https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7418/E237) 29.  Enstrom, James E.; Kabat, Geoffrey C. (August 2003). “Authors’ reply” BMJ 327:504 ( https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7413/504) 30.  Enstrom, James E.; Kabat, Geoffrey C. (March 2006). “Environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease mortality in the United States — a meta-analysis and critique.” Inhalation Toxicology. 18 (3):199-210. doi: 10.1080/08958370500434255. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16399662/) 31.  Smith, Richard. “Comment from the editor.” (December 2003).  BMJ. 327:505 (Published 18 December 2003) (https://www.bmj.com/content/327/7413/505 ) 32.  Tonks, Alison. “Summary of Rapid Responses.” (December 2003). BMJ. 327:505 (Published 18 December 2003) (10.1136/bmj.327.7413.505)  (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15222325/)   33.  Kabat, Geoffrey C. Getting Risk Right: Understanding the Science of Elusive Health Risks, Columbia University Press, 2016. 34.  Savitz, David A. (3 March 2009). “Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of Epidemiology: By Geoffrey C. Kabat” (https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwp013). American Journal of Epidemiology. 169 (8): 1039-1041. 35.  Gastel, Barbara (29 January 2009). “Book Review: Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of Epidemiology by Geoffrey C. Kabat.” 250 pp. New York: Columbia University Press 2008. $27.95. 978-0-231-141-48-2”. New England Journal of Medicine. 36 (5): 548-549. (https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMbkrev0807040) (https://doi.org/10.1056%2FNEJMbrev0807040 36.  Pearce, N. (18 September 2008). “Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of Epidemiology. Kabat GC. International Journal of Epidemiology. 38 (6) (https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/38/6/1746/666619) 37.  Hines, Terence (2017). “Why We Often Get Risks Wrong” (https://web.archive.org/web/20180923194141/https://csicop.org/si/show/why_we_often_get_risks_wrong).Skeptical Inquirer. 41 (4):58-60. Archived from the original (https://www.csicop.org/si/show/why_we_often_get_risks_wrong) on 2018-09-23. Retrieved 23 September 2018. 38.  Okie, Susan (December 2016). “Scientist argues vaccines, GMOs and cell phones are not threats to our well-being.” Washington Post. ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/scientist-argues-vaccines-gmos-and-cell-phones-are-not-threats-to-our-well-being/2016/12/16/56a764f2-9af5-11e6-b3c9-f662adaa0048_story.html ) 39.  Hartge, Patricia. (2017). “Getting Risk Right: Understanding the Science of Elusive Health Risks” (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Faje%2Fkwx148 ) American Journal of Epidemiology. 186(3): 385-386. Doi:10.1093/aje/kwx148 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Faje%2Fkwx148) Gkabat (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. Seems to be a proposed re-write of the article, whitewashing out the tobacco shenanigans. Bon courage (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Any suggestions for how to proceed to correct this egregious distortion of the "BMJ affair" and the defamatory attacks on myself and my co-author? 2601:41:4300:F4E0:B5BA:EA69:992E:5E52 (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The terms we use are important. I would not use the word "whitewashing." I would term this a "corrective" - one for which I have given a lot of substantive documentation. Gkabat (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI. From a quick look, the paper in question has a great deal of coverage in sources as a major example of problematic industry/academic activity, so its inclusion is inevitable for encyclopedic completeness. I shall raise a query at WP:BLPN. Bon courage (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have looked at the COI page, but do not see how it is relevant to the facts of the matter. I have tried to lay out some of the background of the paper and the evidence that contradicts the statements that the paper was "discredited" and that it was "supported by the tobacco industry." I have adduced facts, not opinions, not magazine articles. What about giving weight to these facts -- i.e., the statements from ed-in-chief Richard Smith and editor Alison Tonks? Also, our letter published in the BMJ rebutting many of the charges leveled against us? (I can supply this). To me, this is the crux of the matter. You have to give both sides of the story. The way in which the discussion of the article is presented is simply wrong and libelous when you look at all of the facts. I really don't see what is complicated about this. I'm not sure that any of the Wikipedians want to wade into these documents, but if you don't, you are presenting a badly distorted picture. There is no justification for this defamatory treatment to stay up on the Web harming my reputation. Gkabat (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia prizes independent secondary sources, so the view of those involved do not have that much weight except as interpreted by those. Bon courage (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. But the two statements from the Editor-in-Chief Richard Smith and the Editor Alison Tonks at the Brit Med Journal ARE NOT PEOPLE WHO ARE "INVOLVED." They are independent arbiters. I really am having trouble seeing why citing them would not carry weight. We are talking about whether our publication has been "discredited" and whether the tobacco industry had any role in our paper, which it did not. I would think the opinion of the Editor-in-Chief of this prestigious journal and the Editor would be relevant. To me, this is not about conflict-of-interest. It is about two sides of the story. The side that got cited by Wikipedia is the work of militant advocates of anti-smoking policies -- which I am in favor of -- but they distort the science on passive smoking. This is what needs to be understood. I have now written about this in a number of different ways, trying to present this issue objectively and from different angles. I have cited accessible sources, which you could link to. It would be gratifying if someone would try to read the posts I have taken a lot of time to write since July 12 and take a second look at this. Thanks again for your efforts. Gkabat (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Later sources on the incident such as this[1] write of the major flaws and undeclared interests of the paper. Bon courage (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sending this article. This helps me to clarify the point I have been trying to make in the handful of posts I’ve written on the “Talk” page.

Diethelm and McKee start off by citing examples of the denial of well-established scientific findings: HIV and AIDS, smoking and lung cancer, greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, etc.

They are lumping our paper in with the denial of firmly-established scientific findings. But, in order to do this, they have to ignore much of the results presented in our paper, which contained ten tables and was 3,000 words long. Specifically, Table 10 of our paper showed that active smoking is associated with mortality from lung cancer, coronary heart disease, and chronic obstructive lung disease. The relationship is a graded one – the more a person smoked, the higher the risk. We even showed an effect in the lightest smokers (smoking 1-9 cigarettes per day).

For Diethelm and McKee to single out our passive smoking result and not pay attention to the overall argument, including the detailed results demonstrating the effects of smoking shows that what is at issue for them is not the quality of work — but, rather, whether we obtained the desired result.

Why did we show the detailed results for active smoking? Because it is important to have a firm picture of the effects of active smoking, about which we have firm data. It is also crucial to compare the effect of passive smoking to effect of active smoking. This is fundamental to a scientific approach.

In contrast to smoking, where the smoker is inhaling the smoke directly into his/her lungs, secondhand smoke is much more diffuse because it is dispersed in a much larger space. Two studies (one at Oak Ridge National Laboratory; the other at Covance Labs in UK) have shown that the exposure of a non-smoker living with a smoker is on the order of one-thousandth that of the average smoker of a pack of cigarettes per day. These two studies yielded very similar results. (By the way, these carefully-done studies do not get a lot of attention in discussions of passive smoking, for the same reason that our paper was attacked. Publishing results that are seen as weakening the anti-smoking movement is dealt with harshly).

In epidemiologic studies it is difficult estimate a person’s secondhand smoke exposure, and most studies use as a “proxy variable” whether the spouse smoked and how many cigarettes the spouse smoked. This is very crude exposure data – not at all like that we obtain in studies of smoking, where people can actually give quite a detailed smoking history (because smoking is an additive behavior and a habitual behavior).

So, researchers obtain results for passive smoking that are “soft” and variable. The relative risks are small – in the range of 1.0 (no association) to 2.0. (The relative risk for a smoker is about 10.0 or higher, and for a heavy smoker, it can be as high as 50.0). In this situation, it is only normal for a researcher to select the higher number to report, because every researcher wants positive findings and because journals are less likely to publish “null results.” (We have demonstrated this tendency in the passive smoking/heart disease literature).

All we were doing was reporting the results of our study — one of the most detailed studies on the question and one that had more fine-grained data than most studies. In science, you have to publish the results you obtained in your study, and try to learn from them. We concluded that the effects of passive smoking on mortality may be weaker than has been posited by weak studies in which, often, the highest of the various risk estimates was selected for publication.

In view of the much greater dilution of secondhand smoke, and in view of the two exposure studies referred to above, it is not surprising that a careful epidemiologic study did not detect an association. It is not quite the outrage that Diethelm and McKee want to portray it as.

Diethelm and McKee are on a crusade. They are not interested in these subtle (i.e., scientific) issues. They, and others who attacked our paper, show no evidence of having read the details of our results and the case we make. They are only interested in the headline, not in the considerable work that went into collecting and analyzing the data.

You have to know that much of what gets published is of very poor quality. But if you get the result that people want to hear, the poor quality is often ignored.

In science you have an obligation to publish your findings, whether they are popular or not. This is the only way one makes progress.

For Diethelm and McKee, we have to be shills of the tobacco industry in order to “neutralize” our inconvenient result. But if they had paid closer attention to all of our results, they would have seen the very powerful indictment of the effects of smoking, even at a very low level. Gkabat (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)