Quote:
Quote by: gela  How odd.. You have continued to ignor half my sources..
Can't say Im suprised really.. I expected it as soon as I read your post.
You also seem to be contradicting your earlier statement that epidemiology is sound science.
If you doubt the scientists who study epidemiology, then you must equaly doubt any other scientist - because they all do the same thing. Release their results.
You haven't personaly seen fossils of past life forms, slowly progressing. Therefore, evolution is not to be taken seriously.
You haven't personaly done or seen the proof for pythagoras therom - therefore it also can't be trusted.
You haven't personaly done or seen the maths behind E = MC squared. therefore, also a sham.
DNA? You haven't seen it yourself. You haven't seen the detailed science behind finding the structure of DNA. Therefore, Unproven.
trigonometry? How do we know that is true? Mabe our calculators are all programmed to give us a false answeres.
Forget the fact that scientists, and the public in general accept these things as fact. You haven't seen the method behind them, or the proof yourself.
Therefore, they are all one big international attempt at brainwashing the public into thinking things that arn't true.
Theres no logic behind the fact that all the scientists of the world want us to think that adjacent squared, plus opposite squared equals hypotenuse squared. No reason for them to want us to think it. But you havent seen the proof.
The comparison to Church is irrevelent. All the Churchs come from the same source - the bible. That is obviously why they all preach roughly the same thing.
Scientists do seperate studies, in seperate contexts, in seperate countries - all over the world they get the same results.
That is so obvious.. that argument was worthless.
You are also ignoring my plea for you to find any study that claims to find no link between smoking and lung cancer or heart disease or any other disease in the huge list.
How convienient for you to just ignore all of my points, and yell conspiracy.
Do you realise how stupid that sounds?
Finland, America, Australia, Canada, Scottland, and an International, non legally binding, non profit organisation are all equaly corrupt, and they are all trying to brain wash you into thinking that smoking is bad for you.
Again, it all comes back to you hating everyones attitude to smoking. Why? because you smoke.
The funny thing is, your the one complaining about bias and lack of 'real' science; while your the most biased and unscientific debator here. |
I have not ignored the links in your post I just have not gotten around to checking the rest of them out and making a comment. Have patience.
I used to work in connection with the L.A. Natural History Musem on digs and have seen rooms full of fosils. And. as for the other areas of science that you mentioned, I can find all the data they used to to come to their conclusions. But not so relative to this topic. If the anti-smoking evidence is sound then why keep it hid so that the public cannot see it? You are resorting to the methods used by religion, who make the same claims about God, that seeing is not important, only faith. Which is fine, have your anti-smoking religion, but don't force it on me.
I said that I believe that women who are with child should not smoke. I did not agree with all the other studies.
Some religions use the book of TAO, the mormon book, the Koran, the Watchtower, etc. And they also have different kinds of Bibles that are worded differently.
I did present evidence that the anti-smoking studies can contain random errors, systimatic errors, and could be bias. And provided a link. That was not my opinon. But real scientists being honest about just how trustworthy their craft is relative to the anti-smoking studies. Some research found no links between smoking and cancer but the anti-smoking group claims the research was bias. Bias or not, the research did exsist.
Does Tobacco Money Taint Research? :: Inside Higher Ed :: Higher Education's Source for News, and Views and Jobs
Those involved the mission to proove that smoking is bad for you even advertise to get study groups involved, offering grant money.
International Tobacco and Health Research and Capacity Building Program - Fogarty International Center
Here is what you requested. A study that found no links.
Friends of Tobacco Summer 1998 Friends of Tobacco Summer 1998
Here is a link where one study ( showing link ) was overturned by another study (showing no link).
Study questions smoke-breast cancer link - The Boston Globe
another one:
Long Island Study Finds No Link Between Pollutants and Breast Cancer -- Twombly 94 (18): 1348 -- JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Is that enough links, or shoud I provide more?
I never claimed not to be personally bias about this topic.