An expose in today’s NY Times. Dr. Henschke is a staunch supporter of CT scan screening for lung cancer, despite inconclusive evidence. This pretty much destroys her credibility.
Why would cigarette companies support such research? Here’s one theory:
They want to show that lung cancer is not so bad as everybody thinks because screening can save people; and that’s outrageous.
Merrill Goozner comments.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Physicians have been in bed with the cigarette companies on tort reform for years - why is this surprising? Lie down with the dogs. . . .
I don’t know the particulars of this situation, but I’ve always hated the assumption that if x person takes money from y company, then that person is bought and paid for, and their opinions don’t count. While it’s possible that the money shaped the opinion, it’s far, far more likely (on either side of the political aisle) that the funding was sent to someone who already agreed with the position of the funder independently. One should always start with that assumption, and only if it’s shown that the money actually caused the formulation of an opinion should we consider the source’s credibility damaged.
That may be exactly what happened here, I don’t care enough to check, but this sort of assumption of a causal relationship is a tired and fallacious counterargument.
Anon 11:02, it’s a physician article of faith that everyone’s opinion can be purchased. Except their own, of course.
Talk about lying down with dogs, look at the tobacco settlement.
As reported on the Health Care Renewal blog 3/10/08 (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com) she holds the patent rights for the CT protocol for the lung screening scans. So, one could understand why she might be highly supportive of encouraging the use of said scans.