Quote:
I agree with you (for a change) that epidemology might actually come to the right conclusion.
None the less, when I ask for proof that the study was done the right way to avoid such random errors, or bias, you cannot provide me personally with the data needed to confirm that. Only the claims made by the study group.
Now if Gallo or someone wanted to debate me about evolution or the theory of the Big Bang they could also provide me a link to the evidence and why the conclusions were made. Fosil evidence or the actural physics used _ etc. The anti-smoking people that you represent here never do that. They just make claims and then say "believe it or not". They expect us to take thier word for it on faith.
They only use science so they can sound like they got expert knowledge backing them up..... to scare people. But where is that knowledge so I can look at how they conducted the study and so I can look at the data used or collected. Why keep it a secret from the public?
The fact still remains that the epidemiology used to show that smoking is a health hazard can contain errors or bias. The general public has no way via a internet link to know if the studies you refer too did or did not.
You got no proof to present.
|
Here you go, proof that the studies arn't biased:
Smoke and Mirrors: The Canadian ... - Google Book Search
You don't have to read the whole thing, I sure as hell didn't.
But If you read the first two pages, you will find that the person who discovered the link between lung cancer and smoking, was a smoker himself.
Making it impossible for him to have a biased against smoking.
Just note that this is a canadian publication aswell.
Secondly:
Antismoking Laws Curb Smoking and Lung Cancer - News Quote:
|
when smoking decreased, so did the rate of lung cancer and respiratory diseases.
|
This was a study done in Finland. I want you to find a reason for them to be biased about this.
Queensland Health Tobacco Laws - Passive smoking Quote:
|
Passive smoking is a proven health hazard. Over 600 medical reports have been published linking passive smoking to diseases.
|
600 medical reports.. all agreeing with eachother.. yep, a pretty conclusive result. Oh, and this is Australian.
Largest Ever Asian Smoking Study Reveals Cardiovascular Health Risks
Heres a study done on Asians, by an international health Institute.
About The George Institute Home
Heres a little page about them. Seems that they are legally independent, and non-profit. Again, no reason for bias.
Scotland smoking ban bolstered by new research - International Herald Tribune
Heres some reseach done in Scotland, by a University.
Ok, Now please, tell me how all this reseach is biased. You've admitted that Epidemiology is a valid form of science. Now prove that all these studies are equaly biased against smoking, despite the fact that they are all from different institutions, and from different countries.