This is a bit out of sequence as it was rejected for being too long. Still I'd like to try again. In the June 3 Mpls Digest, Vol 6, Issue 5, Mark Snyder replied to mplsgordon with a disdainful critique of the research he had cited and an even more disdainful reference to the Cato Institute. It's always possible to discredit a source: we all do it, sometimes unconsciously. The scorn Mark feels for the Cato Institute is no more than that felt by others for the Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal - both of which his preferred source, the American Council for Science and Health, quotes on its web site, as proof of its bona fides. In my own haphazard and unscientific way, I googled and found this at www.mindfully.org : "ACSH is heavily financed by corporations with specific and direct interest in ACSH's chosen battles. Since it was created in 1978, it has come to the enthusiastic defense of virtually every chemical or additive backed by a major corporate interest. In many of these cases, investigative journalists already have exposed direct connections between ACSH and its funders. But in almost every instance, it takes little effort to discover which funder in the list below has a vested interest in supporting ACSH's message." A few of this site's examples of ASCH being too much inflenced by corporations include its claim that synthetic chemicals in the environment do not disrupt the human endocrine system, that cholesterol is not linked to heart disease, and that fossil fuel restriction to combat global warming would destroy global economies and lead to increased poverty-related illness. Sixty-six funders are named in the list they cite, including about every chemical and oil company I've ever heard of, followed closely by pharmaceuticals, breweries, wineries, companies widely known for animal-testing, 3rd world exploiters, and so on. ACSH receives 76 percent of its funding from corporations and corporate funders, and 17 percent of its funding from private foundations, according to Congressional Quarterly's Public Interest Profiles.
Now, I don't mean to say that everyone at ASCH is a scumball or that everyone working for the 66 companies is either. We have to be careful of broad-brushing so contemptuously. Most of the people at those companies( like those at Enron) bear no personal culpability. I'm wondering if we should start some other forum for struggling with the truth of research and trustworthiness of sources. Since our government has been proven to push or suppress information as it chooses (see Grist Muckraker June 3), I trust no one. One more point, nicotine's possible advantages for treatment of Alzheimer's is real, whether used in cigarettes or patches. A patch wouldn't eliminate the heart effects of nicotine. Obviously one must balance the benefits and risks, just as in the use of medicinal marijuana. But watching my mother die with Alzheimer's, that bright witty woman turned into a large infant, I wish she had never stopped smoking. I don't want to prolong my life by those last 7 years (cited in the life expectancy of non-smokers) if they are anything like her misery. OK, this is really my last point. Of particular interest to me as an addict is the research on the benefit of nicotine to patients with depression and schizophrenia. Maybe there's good reason some of us can't quit. Peace. Gail O'Hare St. Paul REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
