The CTR link claims that "many of the CTR's research decisions were made by tobacco industry lawyers." This is misrepresentation of the circumstances, specifically, that the lawyers had complained that none of the CTR's research was of any conceivable use to themselves, so they resorted to doing some. Which confirms what I said about CTR members using it to fund their cronies and pet projects, and contradicts the lying media narrative that its sole purpose was to manufacture junk science that contradicts the anti-smoker claims. In fact, had they done so, there would have been nothing wrong about it. In science, there is always a right to present new or contrary evidence. But the anti-smoking ideologues and their lying media accomplices pretended otherwise.
I’d attempt to cut quote this but it’s just to big of a mess. I can’t even figure out how this even applies to my statement completely ignoring any other problems. There’s a definite aura of impacted confusion.
In general, Whenever someone prefixes an otherwise unrelated descriptor with an object I get suspicious. In this case repeated use of the phrase “lying media”. When? How? Where? You’re not even making an actual accusation, you’re attempting to either create or exploit a subconscious bias.
Also your concept of the way science works is, according to my understanding, desperately flawed. The entire concept of junk science being an inalienable right to attempt to deceive is particularly notable.
There also some basic logical fallacies here. It seems more like you’re defending the CTR rather than attacking it.
Or perhaps it’s a case of “even if you ignore this whole set of awful things there’s still these other awful things”
Perhaps it is an argument not actually meant for me and I am merely a convienient soap box to stand on.
Hard to know.
