[Kite]

Quote by: Technosoul I admit that I do not know a lot about the Middle Ages or about any proof that the Bible was right concerning those curses that Moses (or whoever) put on Eqypt. Shifiting the debate to that topic puts this duck of it's water. so to speak. The actural topic I was debating is why people smoke in spite of the fact that the so-called science of epidemiology claimed that smoking is unhealthy. I do not see how events happening in the Middle Ages can prove that epidemiology studies are correct about their claims, when they will not even show us the cold hard facts that they say they base their claim on. How can I be in denial of a study if I cannot even review how it was done? Why do other souces say that epidemilogy is not sound science because it can be corupted with bias, or by systematic and random errors, why is everyone in denial of those hard cold facts?

Perhaps if one were to make certain inquiries into the funding of these sources one would realize that money talks. Wake up from dreamland where big tobacco is your friend and the evil scientists want to make it bad for you.

They estimate that the risk of disease is 2.2 greater among persons exposed then persons unexposed (with a 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 3.7, ) or for each unit change in exposure, meaning the risk of disease rises by 5 cases per 1000 people per year (with 95% confidence interval of 1.2 to 8.8). Quanitative terms that are not qualitative. Simplification into a dichotomous result. A study based on ether statistical tests or some arbitrary subjective judgment about the magnitude of association ( real or important ) hinders the goal of quanitative, objective evaluation. A standard for sound science. What is the null hypothesis being used as a benchmark (in each study)? Did the study focus on acutually proving the disproving the null hypothesis?

Didn't you just say that you were unable to review these tests? Yet here you are making judgments about things that you yourself said you were unable to review because you don't have the data. How about you come up with something that isn't pure conjecture on your part.

You can fling all the tobacco backed sources and bullshit facts you want at people, it doesn't make the lungs of a smoker any less black. Of course I'm sure you think thats some sort of conspiracy too.