My experience has been that one should immediately dispute any fact declared to be "indisputable". Double your skepticism when the "for the children" component is used as leverage.

It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults.

Although children are pretty much screwed, apparently all an adult needs to do to protect himself is to indulge in firsthand smoke.

Besides, if the effects of secondhand smoke really were indisputable, why not just claim that it does cause disease and death? Using "can" sure sounds like the claim is disputable to me...

"What is almost indisputable is that the average doctor is typically anti-smoking, anti-gun, anti-fried food, anti-fun, yadda yadda yadda."

I recently read a book by a wingnut who made a little sense (although I had to skim through pages and pages of garbage to find the good tidbits), and one point he did make is that a doctor's goal is no longer to cure but to draw out treatment as long as possible. Amazingly enough, it made some sense to me in that nowadays doctors are ready to write a prescription for any complaint; also, considering the side effects of most meds, doctors have a constant supply of additional complaints they can then medicate.

Kevin Trudeau believes that the FDA, Congress, the food industry, the pharmaceutical companies, and various medical associations are conspiring to keep Americans unhealthy so that they can continue to make money hand-over-fist.

Some of his points make sense, but for the most part the guy's over the top.

It is also indisputable that most cancer patients die while in hospital and under the care of physicians.

Ban Medicine! Think of the voctims.....