[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 50.16.125.253. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
May 25, 1994

Smoke and Letters-Reply

Author Affiliations

Deputy Editor (West), JAMA

JAMA. 1994;271(20):1575. doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03510440035021
Abstract

In Reply.  —It is understandable that Mr Parrish, as a representative of the tobacco industry, is upset when an editor draws attention to the possibility of an industry letter-writing tactic that has already been shown to distort the evidence on ETS, a tactic that might work better were our readers uninformed and his assertions unable to be verified.Parrish will find that nowhere in my Editorial do I question the veracity of those whose letters were critical of the article by Trichopoulos et al1 on preneoplasia of the bronchial epithelium in active and passive smokers.As for Australian Justice Morling's critical evaluation of the evidence that ETS causes lung cancer, his findings on this point were not overruled on appeal, so Parrish's statement is simply untrue. The Full Federal Court elected not to revisit the issue of precisely what the available evidence did and did not say on the

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×