What's the point of smoking?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kizzume Man, I was hoping that it wasn't going to be 7 pages of someone speaking against over 50 years of scientific study of the effects of cigarettes--when I see someone that represents the guy from "Thank You For Smoking", it just really baffles my mind. Anyway--to me, the main reason why people CONTINUE to smoke is to take care of their nicotine fits. They just HAVE to have their cigarettes. As to why people start--I really don't understand it. Peer pressure maybe?

That's me in a nut shell, Mr Baffles.

[Technosoul]

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.

[RealRockingham]

The same reason as the reason you posted this thread. Curiosity. At least at first, then it becomes addiction.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Technosoul I never claimed not to be personally bias about this topic.

You just might be in denial, I used to be that way, too, till I quit. My life would have been so much better without that all consuming habit. Ever panic when you are down to your last couple of cigs? Then the rushing to the store for that stinkin' pack of weeds.

I found this site on the history of tobacco. Since the 1600's it has been thought to be harmful without scientific research. Makes sense that anyone could figure that out. Breath is life. Sticking smoke in those precious lungs can't be a good thing.

Tobacco has always been under fire, not just in recent history, but it brought in a lot of money, so it got overlooked a good bit of the time.

http://www.tobacco.org/resources/his...History17.html

Excerpt:

1600: BRAZIL: AGRICULTURE: European cultivation of tobacco begins
1600: ENGLAND: Sir Walter Raleigh persuades Queen Elizabeth to try smoking
1601: TURKEY: Smoking is introduced, and rapidly takes hold while clerics denounce it. "Puffing in each other's faces, they made the streets and markets stink," writes historian Ibrahim Pecevi.
1601 (approx): Samuel Rowlands writes,
But this same poyson, steeped India weede
In head, hart, lunges, do the soote and cobwebs breede
With that he gasp'd, and breath'd out such a smoke
That all the standers by were like to choke.
1602: ENGLAND: Publication of Worke of Chimney Sweepers (also referenced as Chimny-Sweepers or A Warning for Tabacconists [sic]), by an anonymous doctor identified as 'Philaretes' states that illness of chimney sweepers is caused by soot and that tobacco may have similar effects. "Tobacco works by evaporating man's 'unctuous and radical moistures'- as was demonstrated in the fact that it was employed to cure gonorrhea by drying up the discharge. But this process, if too long continued, could only end by drying up 'spermatical humidity,' too, rendering him incapable of propagation. Experience also showed that tobacco left men in a state of depression, 'mopishness and sottishness,' which in the long run must damage memory, imagination and understanding." Based on 'the humours', Philaretes discussed many of the health risks which were later proven to be true. (Brian Inglis, The Forbidden Game: A Social History of Drugs, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1975.)
1602: ENGLAND: Roger Markecke writes A Defense of Tobacco, in response to Chimneysweeps (LB)
1603: ENGLAND: Physicians, upset that tobacco is being used by people without a physician's prescription; complain to King James I.(TSW)
1604: ENGLAND: King James I writes "A Counterblaste to Tobacco"
1604: ENGLAND: TAXES: King James I increases import tax on tobacco 4,000% [from 2 pence/lb to 6 shillings 10 pence/lb.
His majesty seems, however, to have advanced very substantial reasons for this virtual prohibition of tobacco; for if any circumstance can justify what are termed "strong measures" on the part of a government, certainly the wanton luxury and debauchery of its people must be amongst the best apologies for a stretch of power, which might, in other respects, have been deeed arbitrary, and unbecoming a British monarch.-- Tatham, "An Historical and Practical Essay on the Culture and Commerce of Tobacco" (1800)

1605: ENGLAND: Debate between King James I and Dr. Cheynell.(TSW)
1606: SPAIN: King Philip Ill decrees that tobacco may only be grown in specific locations--including Cuba, Santo Domingo, Venezuela and Puerto Rico. Sale of tobacco to foreigners is punishable by death.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe You just might be in denial, I used to be that way, too, till I quit. My life would have been so much better without that all consuming habit. Ever panic when you are down to your last couple of cigs? Then the rushing to the store for that stinkin' pack of weeds. I found this site on the history of tobacco. Since the 1600's it has been thought to be harmful without scientific research. Makes sense that anyone could figure that out. Breath is life. Sticking smoke in those precious lungs can't be a good thing. Tobacco has always been under fire, not just in recent history, but it brought in a lot of money, so it got overlooked a good bit of the time. Tobacco Timeline: The Seventeenth Century--The Great Age of the Pipe Excerpt: 1600: BRAZIL: AGRICULTURE: European cultivation of tobacco begins 1600: ENGLAND: Sir Walter Raleigh persuades Queen Elizabeth to try smoking 1601: TURKEY: Smoking is introduced, and rapidly takes hold while clerics denounce it. "Puffing in each other's faces, they made the streets and markets stink," writes historian Ibrahim Pecevi. 1601 (approx): Samuel Rowlands writes, But this same poyson, steeped India weede In head, hart, lunges, do the soote and cobwebs breede With that he gasp'd, and breath'd out such a smoke That all the standers by were like to choke. 1602: ENGLAND: Publication of Worke of Chimney Sweepers (also referenced as Chimny-Sweepers or A Warning for Tabacconists [sic]), by an anonymous doctor identified as 'Philaretes' states that illness of chimney sweepers is caused by soot and that tobacco may have similar effects. "Tobacco works by evaporating man's 'unctuous and radical moistures'- as was demonstrated in the fact that it was employed to cure gonorrhea by drying up the discharge. But this process, if too long continued, could only end by drying up 'spermatical humidity,' too, rendering him incapable of propagation. Experience also showed that tobacco left men in a state of depression, 'mopishness and sottishness,' which in the long run must damage memory, imagination and understanding." Based on 'the humours', Philaretes discussed many of the health risks which were later proven to be true. (Brian Inglis, The Forbidden Game: A Social History of Drugs, New York, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1975.) 1602: ENGLAND: Roger Markecke writes A Defense of Tobacco, in response to Chimneysweeps (LB) 1603: ENGLAND: Physicians, upset that tobacco is being used by people without a physician's prescription; complain to King James I.(TSW) 1604: ENGLAND: King James I writes "A Counterblaste to Tobacco" 1604: ENGLAND: TAXES: King James I increases import tax on tobacco 4,000% [from 2 pence/lb to 6 shillings 10 pence/lb. His majesty seems, however, to have advanced very substantial reasons for this virtual prohibition of tobacco; for if any circumstance can justify what are termed "strong measures" on the part of a government, certainly the wanton luxury and debauchery of its people must be amongst the best apologies for a stretch of power, which might, in other respects, have been deeed arbitrary, and unbecoming a British monarch.-- Tatham, "An Historical and Practical Essay on the Culture and Commerce of Tobacco" (1800) 1605: ENGLAND: Debate between King James I and Dr. Cheynell.(TSW) 1606: SPAIN: King Philip Ill decrees that tobacco may only be grown in specific locations--including Cuba, Santo Domingo, Venezuela and Puerto Rico. Sale of tobacco to foreigners is punishable by death.

At least you are posting something that fits this forum (society and rights) instead of posting something that belongs in the science forum.

Historically people were paranoid about tobacco, a substance which was historically used by Native Americans for religious purposes.

And no doubt much debate about it was conducted. When it was first introduced overseas it was pretty strong stuff, people would inhale it, get dizzy, and even fall down. They thought that was a fun thing to do for some reason. Later milder brands were made, and a switch from the pipe to the cigarette.

People always are suspect of new things of course. They debated about the first inventions of the airplane also, and so forth. They feared sailing to far out into the ocean because you might fall off the edge of the flat earth. ( a few generations before tobacco was discovered in America ).
They were paranoid about Witches and smoking was a pagan activity.

Of course it would seem logical that breathing fresh air is better then breathing smokey air. Back then old age was around 40, now humans live much longer in spite of smoking and smog. And we are now busy debating global warming, some are paranoid and some are not. Some say it is good science and some say we need more study on the subject, or that other causes for global warming are possible. But you are right. Debating is a historical pastime. For which reason Volconvo was created.

I have already agreed that addiction is the biggest problem with smoking tobacco. But remember, people are addicted to lots of things. Some people might panic if their TV set starts to go on the blink, because they gotta have their next "fix" of Oprah (whatever). Lucky for them a TV lasts longer then just one day.

I have addressed denial already in one of the early postings I made in this thread. I hate to repeat things over and over. If everyone in your peer group tells you that smoking pot and doing drugs is really great would you be going into denial for not believing your friends? Yes. But you see, denial can be a good thing. If a scary Witchdoctor told you that he put some voodoo on you and that you would get sick, if you do not believe it then the brainwashing cannot work on you, but if you do believe that the Witchdoctor has majical powers, then you can become sick, due to the power of suggestion.

The power of suggestion is very powerful. But you can use denial to void that power. People who study phychology and advertising know all about that, scientifically.

A lot of poor people are getting sick because they believe that 2nd hand smoke will make them sick. The advertising is doing more harm then good. They believe that smelling tobacco will trigger some breathing problem they have. Because they believe it. If they would deny that suggestion , they would be much better off.

Denial is a method of prevention relative to health. In many situations.

[Tycoon]

Denial is a method of prevention relative to health. In many situations.

You'd certainly know a lot about it.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Technosoul A lot of poor people are getting sick because they believe that 2nd hand smoke will make them sick. The advertising is doing more harm then good. They believe that smelling tobacco will trigger some breathing problem they have. Because they believe it. If they would deny that suggestion , they would be much better off.

What about the ones that don't read, or fall for the ads and still get sick? I'd say psychology would be a very small percentage of the reasons for some poeple getting ill. If they aren't really ill then they can get medication to mend their mental health before it actually harms their bodies.

What I was trying to show is that even before science really got involved people were suspicious of it, obviously not a lot of people, just a minority of people. People may have been superstitious, but it didn't stop them from smoking, so their superstition wasn't very strong.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe What about the ones that don't read, or fall for the ads and still get sick? I'd say psychology would be a very small percentage of the reasons for some poeple getting ill. If they aren't really ill then they can get medication to mend their mental health before it actually harms their bodies. What I was trying to show is that even before science really got involved people were suspicious of it, obviously not a lot of people, just a minority of people. People may have been superstitious, but it didn't stop them from smoking, so their superstition wasn't very strong.

They simply would not get sick due to 2nd hand smoke or because of the the smell from smoking.

Do not get me wrong, I did not mean to indicate that advertising is the reason everyone is getting sick or having heart attacks.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela 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 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 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.

Now I can return to the links you said would provide me with some proof.

The Queensland news article.

Again - lots of claims without any evidence presented to back up the claims.

If I went to our science forum and did that they would demand I show them my evidence, what experiments I conducted, what methods did I employ. Etc. Your link did not reveal any of those detials or answers.

The Asian study (link).

If you read carefully you will note the this study has not gone through the processes of a peer review as yet, and not yet published due to that peer review.

The person spearheading the study has a PhD in "Applied Statistics". And no background or education about diseases (was mentioned). In other words he conducted a poll. Much like our poltical polls are conducted. And for some reason has a urge to get laws passed to ban smoking in Asian countries which would suggest a bias. His study conflicts with a study done here in the USA. He is promoting his own company and his lecturing tours, which is his source of living.

I am not at all impressed by poll takers.

The last link showing proof - that is "claims without the evidence" is about banning smoking inside of a public place.

I do not think that a non-smoking bar maid should be subjected to a lot of smoke in a closed in, compacted area. That makes sense. But I also do not think that the blame falls on the smokers. The problem is that the building does not have a good air-circulating system. Which is the fault of the owner of the establishment. If you create smoke by cooking hamburgers inside, or if you have a fireplace - you provide a way to remove that smoke up the chimmey, or you open a lot of windows. You would not just let the smoke from hamburger cooking fill up the kitchen with smoke, that makes sense. But they took the cheap way of doing things - make the smoker go outside instead of installing the proper air-circulation system that is needed for that building. What a bunch of cheap skates!

[Kizzume]

I think a ventilation standard is a good idea, but it would have to be a pretty hefty standard. There was only one place I've been to that met that standard, it was a bar in Canada that I went to when I was 19 called "the shaggy horse"--it's not there anymore. People with long hair who didn't have a lot of hairspray in their hair often found their hair gravitating towards the ceiling. The place was packed and yet when I left, I didn't smell like an ashtray.

[gela]

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.

How nice for you.

My point remains. They are not hiding anything - all scientists only publish their results.
Again, the completely unfounded 'they are all trying to brainwash us' card. They are all hiding something from us. It is an international conspiracy.
You have still failed to explain why exactly all these countries want us to believe smoking is bad.
By the way, I'm not forcing anything on you. We're having a debate in case you haven't noticed.

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.

Lets have some proof of this research. Did you get to see their whole method of finding things out?
Odd how you blindly accept their research - that has long been regarded biased by everyone; and yet you reject research done by governments and universities that has no connection whatsoever to anything that could be remotely biased.
Btw. Any science can contain random errors and systematic errors. That is science for you.
How do we lower the impact of these errors? Repitition.
I'm doing chemistry at university right now. We repeat all of our experiments several times, and take the average result.
Anti-smoking experiments have been done over 50 years, in all corners of the globe - and they all got very similar results.

In order for them to all be wrong, then they must all have the same random and systematic errors; and they all have to be biased equally - even though there is no logical reason for bias.

But no, I am suppose to blindly accept that all this research is biased.

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.

This is the same for any science. Not surprised. Scientists need money to undertake experiments. Where do they get money? grants.
The same goes for any form of medical research - not just your little 'anti-smoking' men.

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

You really do surprise me with your blinding hypocrisy.
Universities, and Government organisations are biased. But. "Friends of Tobacco" can present a completely objective argument?
Its laughable.

2nd. You ask what are the anti-smokers hiding?
Then you post a link which refers to a study like this:

One of the world's leading health organizations has secretly published a study that shows not only that there might be no links between passive smoking and lung cancer, but that it could even have a protective effect. But the World Health Organization, which commissioned the 12-center, seven-country European study, has failed to make the findings public, and has instead, published only a summary of the results in an internal report. Nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings, despite repeated calls.

(Btw, I'm not going to argue against passive smoking anyway - as far as I know, its still up for debate)

I went through both links, and that is the only reference to a study I could find.
A 'secret' study on passive smoking. When the debate is about direct smoking anyway.
Awesome effort.

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

I never even heard that smoking could cause breast cancer. What do you know, you learn something new every day.

Btw.. I just want to draw your attention to the heading:

Study questions smoke-breast cancer link Big British survey finds no evidence

Survey?
Oh, no. Surveys are biased, and have systematic and random errors. I suppose that makes this irrevelent.
Again.. the study is on passive smoking, not direct smoking.

Is that enough links, or shoud I provide more?

Since not one of them was about direct smoking; please - post more.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: TRIGGER If you don't have a butt after sex how are you going to get her to leave???

I hope you were talking about a cigarette butt and not your own.

[gela]

If I went to our science forum and did that they would demand I show them my evidence, what experiments I conducted, what methods did I employ. Etc. Your link did not reveal any of those detials or answers.

Then go out and buy the medical journal.
Sorry, you don't get that kind of info for free.

The person spearheading the study has a PhD in "Applied Statistics". And no background or education about diseases (was mentioned). In other words he conducted a poll. Much like our poltical polls are conducted. And for some reason has a urge to get laws passed to ban smoking in Asian countries which would suggest a bias. His study conflicts with a study done here in the USA. He is promoting his own company and his lecturing tours, which is his source of living.

Of course he doesn't study diseases. He studies populations.
He studies patterns in populations.
He studies patterns between smoking and lung cancer.

It is a very simple concept. One I have been trying to explain to you this whole debate.
Epidemiology - looking at the numbers.

Comparing it to a political poll is ignorant. They just ask yes or no questions.
These surveys ask pages of questions on your life style, and your medical problems.

Obviously he promotes his own company. Its based on sponsorship. If he doesn't have faith in his own company, then how would other people have enough faith in it to sponsor his research?

'And for some reason he has an urge to pass laws in Asia'?
Why on earth would he care about laws in Asia, besides for the health of the country?
The study set out to find if the laws are necessary - the study found that the laws are necessary.
Its a very simple stream of events. Because he was convinced by the results, does not mean he was biased while getting results.
There is no reason for him to be biased for getting a law passed in Asia.

I do not think that a non-smoking bar maid should be subjected to a lot of smoke in a closed in, compacted area. That makes sense. But I also do not think that the blame falls on the smokers. The problem is that the building does not have a good air-circulating system. Which is the fault of the owner of the establishment. If you create smoke by cooking hamburgers inside, or if you have a fireplace - you provide a way to remove that smoke up the chimmey, or you open a lot of windows. You would not just let the smoke from hamburger cooking fill up the kitchen with smoke, that makes sense. But they took the cheap way of doing things - make the smoker go outside instead of installing the proper air-circulation system that is needed for that building. What a bunch of cheap skates!

Wait.. I go to bars all the time, It doesn't smell of smoke at all... But its suppose to smell like smoke without smokers there..
Now I'm confused.
I have never heard of any establishment having a fire place without a chimney..

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Kizzume I think a ventilation standard is a good idea, but it would have to be a pretty hefty standard. There was only one place I've been to that met that standard, it was a bar in Canada that I went to when I was 19 called "the shaggy horse"--it's not there anymore. People with long hair who didn't have a lot of hairspray in their hair often found their hair gravitating towards the ceiling. The place was packed and yet when I left, I didn't smell like an ashtray.

I think a system can be installed short of blasting everyone with a wind storm. The idea is to remove the smoke. Blasting air would cause ashes to fly everywhere and even lite cigarettes, a potential fire hazard.

They even market ashtrays that filter the smoke.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela Then go out and buy the medical journal. Sorry, you don't get that kind of info for free. Of course he doesn't study diseases. He studies populations. He studies patterns in populations. He studies patterns between smoking and lung cancer. It is a very simple concept. One I have been trying to explain to you this whole debate. Epidemiology - looking at the numbers. Comparing it to a political poll is ignorant. They just ask yes or no questions. These surveys ask pages of questions on your life style, and your medical problems. Obviously he promotes his own company. Its based on sponsorship. If he doesn't have faith in his own company, then how would other people have enough faith in it to sponsor his research? 'And for some reason he has an urge to pass laws in Asia'? Why on earth would he care about laws in Asia, besides for the health of the country? The study set out to find if the laws are necessary - the study found that the laws are necessary. Its a very simple stream of events. Because he was convinced by the results, does not mean he was biased while getting results. There is no reason for him to be biased for getting a law passed in Asia. Wait.. I go to bars all the time, It doesn't smell of smoke at all... But its suppose to smell like smoke without smokers there.. Now I'm confused. I have never heard of any establishment having a fire place without a chimney..

I have the feeling you are not comprehending what I wrote.

So, show us a list of the questions they asked. How are we to know they asked questions that included everything that might link something else to a disease or not?

And please do not make a claim and then tell me I must pay for the information that supports that claim. If you want us to buy something go sell it on e-bay, not here.

[gela]

So, show us a list of the questions they asked. How are we to know they asked questions that included everything that might link something else to a disease or not? And please do not make a claim and then tell me I must pay for the information that supports that claim. If you want us to buy something go sell it on e-bay, not here.

If you want to claim that these studies are untrustworthy; then you have no proof to back that up.
These institutions have no reason to be biased; and they are all qualified.

If you want to prove that they are untrustworthy - then you have to have something to back it up. You only get that from the journal- where they publish the experiments. Everyone else just describes what they found.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela If you want to claim that these studies are untrustworthy; then you have no proof to back that up. These institutions have no reason to be biased; and they are all qualified. If you want to prove that they are untrustworthy - then you have to have something to back it up. You only get that from the journal- where they publish the experiments. Everyone else just describes what they found.

The Asian study you had a link to was never in such a journal. At least not at the time when they announced their findings.

For a study to be Science it must be repeated by other scientists so that one study can be compared to other studies, to reach the same conclusion.

So if a study done in New York using a population of x amount of people, and a set of questions. Then that must be tested by a peer group of scientists, who would use the same questions, in the same location, with the same results.

They cannot confirm it by a study in another location using different questions, and a different number of people. Because they are not doing the same exact study.

They might have 600 different studies but none of them are really testing another study, or repeating another study per-say - as required in Science.

For example: The link you provided said that the Aisan study reversed the findings of a simular study done in Chicago. The newspapers might have reported both studies and their conclusions. A science journal might publish both studies. So the public would believe what ever newstory they happened to come across - even if the findings did not conform to yet another study done in another country.

Now let me propose a new study.

What percentage of people in America get their information about health from a scientific journal as compared to the percentage of people who get their information about health form TV news or a newspaper?

I would speculate that 90 percent of the population get it from a news source and not a scientific journal.

If that speculation is correct then we have a problem because we cannot trust the news media to report studies that the station's programer might not like. The media depends on advertising from drug companies and from all those anti-smoking advertisments, do they not? Would they bite the hand that feeds them by a news story that would upset those who advertise and who spend millions for that air-space? Would bias reporting creep in concerning what we are informed about?

Why do you think they outlawed tobacco advertising on TV? Because it would remove any bias towards favoring the millions that the tobacco industry would otherwise spend on TV advertising. Shifting favor to the millions spent on TV by anti-smoking organizations and the government's "prevention by education" programs (tax funded).

Result - a onesided bombardment of health information over the TV media.

That was a "reality check" for u-all.