It’s entirely possible that the research cited in this New York Times story has been corrupted by the fact that it seems to have been sponsored, in part or at “arm’s length” , by a tobacco company. That’s fine. But I would have thought a more useful article would have spent its time demonstrating that this researcher’s conclusions were, on the evidence, bunk rather than seeking to dismiss them on the grounds of where their funding came from.

Comments
Don't miss out
Join the conversation with other Spectator readers. Subscribe to leave a comment.
UNLOCK ACCESSAlready a subscriber? Log in