Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (20179)	4/12/1998 12:36:00 AM
From: Intrepid1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

X, you missed my point. WHO has suppressed the study. You wohnt find it cause its been CENSORED. read it again okay tanx purething

To: epicure who wrote (20179)	4/12/1998 12:50:00 AM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 108807

X, one of the most striking studies I found on second hand smoking is a very recent one which concluded that the collateral arterial damage was permanent. I did a brief web search, and could not find it again, although I am pretty sure it was done right here at UCSF. I will look again tomorrow, but should you happen on it, please post it. I think IBD is an excellent publication except for its editorial policy. I must say I think Michael Cummings is a lot more talented than he is sometimes given credit for, because I believe he is the person who really writes them!!! ;^)

To: epicure who wrote (20179)	4/12/1998 1:06:00 AM
From: Lady Lurksalot	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

X, All, If you are referring to the article in the links CGB provided to PSL, please be advised that this is a paid PR organization, much like The Emerald Group and PRN Newswire. PSL publishes what they are paid to publish. Period. I have not yet visited the other provided links. Holly

To: epicure who wrote (20179)	4/12/1998 1:26:00 AM
From: Lady Lurksalot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

X, All, Further expounding on my previous post on paid PR companies, such are rampant on the web. Many paid pieces appear under the auspices of universities and hospitals, tending to give them a credence they do not warrant. Before accepting such reports as valid and objective, it is imperative that one determine the actual source of information and whether it represents a bonafide scientifically conducted study or whether it is the product of paid PR. This holds true even with the studies and reports of tax-supported government organizations and other respected institutions. Often, it is nearly impossible to make such determination, and that's just how it is supposed to look. That's what they pay the PR folks big bucks for. Holly