AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

AJPH First Look, published online ahead of print Mar 29, 2006
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
AJPH.2005.084749v1
96/5/767    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Viscusi, W. K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Viscusi, W. K.
Related Collections
Right arrow Other Tobacco
Right arrow Tobacco Control
May 2006, Vol 96, No. 5 | American Journal of Public Health 767
© 2006 American Public Health Association
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.084749

LETTER

FALSE CLAIMS IN TOBACCO LITIGATION JUNK SCIENCE ARTICLE

W. Kip Viscusi, PhD

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to W. Kip Viscusi, PhD, Program on Empirical Legal Studies, Harvard Law School, Hauser 302, Cambridge, MA 02138 (e-mail: kip@law.harvard.edu).

Because this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

In "How Tobacco-Friendly Science Escapes Scrutiny in the Courtroom,"1 Friedman et al. falsely characterize my research and my role in the tobacco litigation. The general theme of the article is that experts testifying on behalf of the tobacco industry were purveyors of junk science. The authors claim that I was "excluded" from testifying in the Minnesota tobacco trial and that this exclusion was because of some defect in my testimony or research.

The word "excluded" has a legal and evidentiary meaning, which is well known to the article’s authors. I was not "excluded" from testifying in that case or in . . . [Full Text]






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Public Health Association