Quote:
Quote by: Isherwood  Some scientific conclusions are only indisputable at this time and based on the testing done with the current evidence. It's not absolute because further evidence or testing may lead to different conclusions that could supplant the current ones. That's why scientists are careful to say that these conclusions are the best answers, not absolutely correct truths.
The science behind the effects of smoking will always be contended. Studies which indicate that smoking has no detrimental effects on our health are usually conducted by either tobacco companies or front companies hired by them. I don't think there's any doubt about the bias in those results. Studies conducted by "independent" agencies may indeed still betray a bias, but it's harder to support that contention. If their tests indicate hazards to our health caused by smoking then their public stance in opposition to the practice isn't as much a bias (it doesn't impact on their methodology) as it is the honest result of their conclusions. If I've discovered sticking my finger in fire causes burns, my position that you shouldn't stick your finger in fire isn't a bias against fire but the logical conclusion I reached as a result of my own testing.
I've smoked for around 40 years now, and while I've avoided the major effects of that practice, it's certainly not an activity I would say is totally harmless. |
Those are some of the points the other poster refused to accept when I pointed them out before (in another thread).
Their claim is that they have absolute proof, no "might be" about it.
I bebated that claim.
Their claim was that no study was every conducted to proove that there is no link between smoking and cancer. I said there were lots of them before Reagan was president that found no links. And I pointed out the the anti-smoking movement set an agenda to discredit those studies by saying they were funded only by the tobacco industry. When some of them were funded by governmental grants.
I do not know of anyplace to find a list showing who funded what study relative to those done after the Reagan era. For example: Those who make gasoline might fund a study for the purpose of shifting the blame for cancer from fosil fuels to cigarette smoke. That "independant study" could still be conducted in a bias manner. The oil industry could conduct lots of studies all over the world to prove that smoking is to blame as a distraction from the evidence blaming their product. We have no way of knowing who or what is behind the massive evidence collecting going on to blame smokers, while all other potential causes of cancer is being mostly ignored or not widely advertised about to the gerneral population.
For example they did a study that showed a link between electric blankets and cancer, then another study found no links and said that the first study was in error. They have conducted studies stating that a new drug is safe then many years later they recall the drugs due to yet another study. Both were peer reviewed.
And we can see that happening elsewhere, because science can change thier minds faster then some women. In time we might see a good study that disproves most of the millions of studies that the anti-smoking people claim as their proof.
But the bottom line is no one will study something without funding.
Funding from the government, funding from the anti-smoking organizations, funding from the oil industry, funding from the tobacco industry, etc. Who can trust any of those sources to do a non-bias study relative to the now over-emotionalized topic of tobacco? Money talks.
Next time put your fingers in some ice until they are very num and then into the fire. Guess what? No burning marks and the fire does not feel hot. (at least for a while).
It all depends on how you conduct your research.