Quote:
Quote by: gela  No.. I don't care that much about the smell..
I don't care much about laws surrounding smoking.. I just believe that it is unhealthy.
Eating certian things is unhealthy.. but you need to eat to survive.
No matter how much crap is in that food, it still gives you energy. Same goes for liquids.
Smoking is targeted because it is a habbit that no one needs to survive.
Im not saying that eating unhealthy is any worse or better then smoking, Im just saying that they are very different and so people are going to react to them differently.
Why would I go to Macca's and/or have a coke? Because Im hungry/thirsty. Its a normal body function. Why would I have a cigarette? Because Im addicted to a drug in them.
I have said several times. Every science can contain errors and biased. Epidemiology is no exception.
Im sorry, but the Abundance, coupled with the diversity of studies that have been done do prove it to be true.
Every study can not have the same errors. Theres such a thing as controling the variables, having 'placebos', and having control subjects.
I have said it about 5 times. For them to all get the same faulty results, then they all have to have the same error. This can only happen if the error was deliberate and there was a mass conspiracy.
There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of scientists out there are perfectly capable of conducting a study. No one is out to 'get' smokers.
No it can't.
person 1 did a,d,e and f. No lung cancer.
person 2 did a,b,c and k. He got lung cancer.
person 3 did a,c and k. He did not get lung cancer.
person 4 did b,c, and a. He got lung cancer
Multiply this result by a sample size of about 1000 and there is no room for interpretation.
b contributes to lung cancer. They might be asking the wrong set of questions.. mabe theres action z that is also done by all the lung cancer victims - but it isn't asked. However, the abundancy of studies done ensures that z would have been covered and investigated.
When a study like that is coupled with a study like the following, then it is futher proven to be true:
Let x be a certain number of cigarettes.
person 1 smokes x amout per day. He dies of lung cancer at 79.
person 2 smokes 1.5 x amout per day. He dies of lung cancer at 76
person 3 smokes 5x amount per day.
He dies at 68.
Its simple maths, you have a table of results, you graph it, and you will get a pattern.
The only way to 'interpret in wrongly' is to consiously lie about it. That is a conspiracy. That is why a mass conspiracy is the only possible explanation for consistant results like this across a variety of studies. |
I agree with your remarks at the top of your response. But not the 2nd half.
First off most studies use subjects who already have cancer. That saves time because to monitor people for 30 or 40 years to see what will happen would take a great deal of time and money to complete such a study.
Using subjects that do not have cancer would be missleading because they might get cancer later in life.
Cancer is funny, it can come, then vanish, and then come back.
Here would be the questions I might ask of subjects who have cancer.
Were you subject to any of the following on a daily bases.
1 - tobacco smoke.
2 - fumes from cars and trucks.
3 - low levels of stress at home or on the job, or in traffic.
4 - exposure to sunlight with temperatures higher then 80 degrees.
5 - sprays used in farming.
6 - emotional problems.
7 - power lines near your house or workplace
8 - dust.
9 - perfumes.
10 - plant or industrial polution.
11 - TV or Computer monitors.
12 - air conditioners.
13 - x machines ( work as a nurse?)
14 - old books
15 - damp air or fog.
16 - clean air.
17 - the following chemicals (list would be added)
18 - shower water
19 - dogs or cats
20 - pot smoke
21 - TV advertisments.
22 - the following prescription drugs ( list would be added )
Then questions about what tasks they preform at work.
What kind of personality they each have, and attitudes.
And if they have a genetic history of cancer in thier family.
Now I would be surprised in at least 80% might say "yes" to half of those questions.
So imagine that 80% said yes to smoking, dust, TV monitors, stress, emotional problems, shower water, and auto fumes. As it is most likely that they would.
And 20% also said yes to more options. and 5% only said yes to a few of those options.
Or let us assume that we had a percentage of people who were unaware that they had emotonal problems and marked no, when they did acturally have such problems.
You then I repeated that with other groups of people who had cancer and got the same results or close to the same stats.
Okay then you have 7 possible links to cancer from 7 sources. Why then would the headline read "link to cigarette smoke" instead of one of the other potential canidates?
Now let us say that you asked more questions and found out that people smoke to relax (because they got upset by stress or a emotional problem) - that would put stress and smoking at the top of the list.
Who done it?
Sorry, I just cannot grasp how they can narrow it down to just cigarette smoke when most people are subjected to many of the things on my list? What kind of questions are they asking anyway?
Now if my list included only
tobacco smoke - atomic fallout - grapes - redwood trees - and unicorns, then of course smoking would be what they all had in common.
This is why I always ask - show me the study and not just the claims.
You must admit that you at least get my point - right?