If there is an accepted standard that is routinely enforced in an area of study (i.e. statistics) then relaxing that standard just because the subject is politically sensitive ((i.e.: second hand smoke) is an act of political activism not scientific objectivity. To decide whether or not it is proper to do so, just reverse the characters. Imagine the uproar if RJ Reynolds used a relaxed standard of evidence to prove smoking was less dangerous than publicly thought. Far too often the ends justify the means if the ends are politically correct. The anti-smoking crowd would not have problems with their credibility if they used commonly accepted methodology. The same with certain other popular causes. I don't think anyone has declared second hand smoke safe, but they have said that according to commonly accepted statistical methods the claims that it is dangerous have not yet been proven to the extent some activists have claimed. I think the various claims about helmet use need to be subjected to the same rigorous standards required in other fields. (See, I got helmets back in there )

We all like to think of ourselves as rugged individualists. But when push comes to shove most of us are sheep who do what we are told. Worst of all, a lot of us become unpaid agents of whoever is controlling the agenda by enforcing the current dogma on the few rugged individualists who actually exist.