Comments on: Tue: Mr. Eisenberg’s Defense http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2004/11/10/tue-mr-eisenbergs-defense/ Blogging U.S. vs. Philip Morris, Inc. Fri, 18 May 2012 03:59:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: krueger http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2004/11/10/tue-mr-eisenbergs-defense/#comment-74 krueger Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:59:01 +0000 http://www.tobacco-on-trial.com/2004/11/10/tue-mr-eisenbergs-defense/#comment-74 Actually, I would think the larger issue of disclosure/coverup is: how many CIAR "research results" favorable to industry interests were trumpeted to the public without disclosing CIAR's tobacco connection and funding? How may times did the public hear that every source other than secondhand smoke was the indoor air problem, without being informed it was the tobacco industry saying that? How many times did the public read or view a "new research results" story that framed ventilation as the solution for clean indoor air, without hearing that tobacco money had made that story happen? And how many times did Jenkins or Enstrom get cited as "proof" that secondhand smoke wasn't that bad for you, without disclosing R. J. Reynolds and Philip Morris money? Perhaps DoJ's point is, if CIAR went to such lengths to camouflage its tobacco purposes and interests from its grantees, how much less did the public know. Actually, I would think the larger issue of disclosure/coverup is: how many CIAR “research results” favorable to industry interests were trumpeted to the public without disclosing CIAR’s tobacco connection and funding?

How may times did the public hear that every source other than secondhand smoke was the indoor air problem, without being informed it was the tobacco industry saying that?

How many times did the public read or view a “new research results” story that framed ventilation as the solution for clean indoor air, without hearing that tobacco money had made that story happen?

And how many times did Jenkins or Enstrom get cited as “proof” that secondhand smoke wasn’t that bad for you, without disclosing R. J. Reynolds and Philip Morris money?

Perhaps DoJ’s point is, if CIAR went to such lengths to camouflage its tobacco purposes and interests from its grantees, how much less did the public know.

]]>