Quote:
Quote by: gela  It isnt peer pressure. Someone did a study that linked smoking to lung cancer. It was up for debate. More studies were done - the large majority of them found that there is indeed a link between smoking and lung cancer.
Because the ones that disagreed were largely outnumbered - it was assumed that they were faulty.
This is scientific practice. I do it in chemistry all the time. You re do an experiment several times. All your results are similar, but if 1 or 2 are grossly different to everything else, then they are written off as contaminated, or faulty.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Okay. allow me to re-explain this once more.
There is a hugh difference between testing the effects of a chemical on a metal surface and finding a link using stats only. A hugh difference in th science of bilology and the science of epidemilogy. That is what you refuse to grasp.
I totally agree that using epidemiology methods, that they can find a link between smoking and difference diseases or medical conditions.
The stats presented do demonstrate a link as you said. I do not disagree with that claim. But here is what you do not wish to comprehend. I (or rather, anyone who has the rescources to do such a study) can use that method of gathering stats to prove that day dreaming is linked to cancer as a potential canidate cause. And repeated studies would continue to support that claim. Simply because the stats would show that most of the people who have cancer also day dream a lot. Thus, a "link" between those two activities could be established relative to stats and percentages.
I cannot see why someone cannot grasp that elaberation. Anyone with only a limited amount of logic can comprehend that, you do not have to be smarter then a scientist to know that. Plus, I provided web links to show that scientists also are critical of epidemiology for that reason.
And so it is not (just) my feeble minded conclusion. I do not stand alone in making that observation other then here in this particular debate which has in-put from only a teenie number of people. The scientists involved also know that which is why they report a " possible link " instead of using a the term "absolute link". But those who grab hold of those studies with an agenda often overlook the word "possible" and present it as a "actural link". By dropping the word "possible" and then then reporting that science found a link, instead of a possible link.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Basicly, what this comes down to is you thinking that you know more then scientists do.
There is no way for me to debate against that, except for me to say: No you don't. You do not know as much as the scientists do.
You think that you will find holes in the studies that they could not. You think that they are mindless sheep who can't think up their own theories - they all have to lean back on smoking.
You think your ideas about air pollution and car fumes are new, and they haven't been taken into account.
You think that they can't carry out a study.
You think that scientists are stupid, and that you are smart.
There isn't realy much for me to say about that, except that Im sorry, but they are the experts. Not you.
Stick to the conspiracy theories.
btw. What does marijuana have to do with anything? marijuana is still up for debate - some experts say it is harmful, while others say it isn't. It isn't a proven fact like smoking is. |
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Non tobacco polution was not taken into account. It was a study designed to show links between smoking and a disease, not a study to show the link between non-tobacco polution and a disease. A simular study would in fact show a possbile link between cancer and fossil fuel exposure if that was the objective. Or if the study was done to show all the possible links to a disease. The satistics would then show a wide assortment of potential canidates that "might" cause cancer.
And not just physical links to outside factors, but also genetic links and phychological links.
The study involving smoking only proved that people who have cancer, for the most part, also smoked or were around someone who smoked.
The same as they were around low-level stress, car polution, and a lot of other things, in the majority of cases. Focused studies have produced a multitude of potential links, which were peer reviewed and published, and reported on the news. How can you claim that such is not the case?
Somehow when you read my postings you seem to skip over the factural and common sense explanations that I elaborated on. And of course, you then claim that I am doing the same thing. This has resulted in a stalemate relative to this debate and not a checkmate. (chess anology).
Again, smoking as a cause is not a proven fact relative to science, and is in fact debatable just like it is possible to debate about pot being harmful. The difference is that not a lot of people smoke pot and so a large study (using stats) would not show a strong link relative to the over-all population. Just like working in a coal mine is not something that most people do, but if you did a study just on people who mine coal then you would find that many of them have health problems. However if you did a large study of everyone then breathing coal dust would not be concidered as a major link, via statistics.
However the reason I compared pot smoking to cigarette smoking is to demonstate and to make a point that the anti-tobacco movement has a lot in common with the anti- pot movement. To prove that historical evidence supports my theory about brainwashing the poblic, meaning that the the conspiracy I spoke about is not a theory, but a fact. One worth sticking too.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
end of two part repley.