Re: OT:Thanksgiving

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 12:49:17 -0600, "Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Alistair" <alistair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Judson McClendon" <ju...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"SkippyPB" <swieg...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Oh yeah Judson. Pull that bag over your face and ignore the evidence.
You must be related to Seantor Inhofe.

I'm not ignoring the evidence, I'm just saying that, based on current
knowledge, it is not unequivocal,

And smoking tobacco doesn't cause cancer either, does it Judson?

Unlike global warming, tobacco was proven to cause cancer from actual
trials, ...

Hundreds of attempts to induce cancer in animals by exposing them to tobacco or smoke have
ALL FAILED. Such trials on humans are not permitted on ethical grounds. What we have is
statistical correlation provided by epidemiology, which reports smokers got lung cancer
more often than nonsmokers.

That experiments do not work on animals suggests a confounder unique to humans, such as
diet. Animals don't eat Big Macs or deep fried Twinkies. If epidemiologists were inclined,
they'd find exposure to professional wrestling and supermarket tabloids also correlates
with lung cancer. The confounder is poverty, thus the high fat diet of poor people.

What most reports don't tell you is that dose/response forms an inverted V. One pack a day
smokers get the most lung cancer; three pack a day smokers are back to the nonsmoking
baseline. If smoking caused lung cancer, dose/response would at least be linear, more
likely exponential. The explanation is that one pack a day smokers are (statistically)
poorer than average; three pack a day smokers are high earners.

There is a mathematical techinque for discounting confounders, assuming you know what they
are. You do a linear regression between the confounding variable and the dependent
variable, then apply the correlation coefficient to the independent variable. Careful
reading of smoking studies shows they do just that for irrelevant confounders such as
occupation and geography, but carefully 'accidentally overlook' the one that matters.

Why would scientists do that? Because of financial incentives. Lay people see antismoking
as a religious cause. Scientists, being objective and unemotional, see it as a mortgage
payment. Big Pharma either turned them into or exploited their inclination to be whores.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... And smoking tobacco doesn't cause cancer either, ... which reports smokers got lung cancer ... The confounder is poverty, thus the high fat diet of poor people. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... That experiments do not work on animals suggests a confounder unique to ... with lung cancer. ... One pack a day ... smokers get the most lung cancer; three pack a day smokers are back to the ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • *Article: Smokers sue tobacco firm for cancer scans
    ... A GROUP of long-term American smokers are suing tobacco giant Philip Morris - demanding not money but hi-tech screenings to catch lung cancer early. ... "Philip Morris is obligated morally, not just legally, to make a health investment to help prevent death and suffering caused by the Marlboro smoke," the smokers' attorney Jerome Block said. ...
    (alt.support.stop-smoking)
  • Re: OT - Before I Die ( Part 1)
    ... I finally found therapeutic relief in 1987 when I stopped ... from the Tobacco Settlement Agreement. ... regarding the belief about smoking and lung cancer. ... regarding the recurring emotional stress. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Dom is a cock
    ... simply sticking up for the rights of smokers! ... Also, people can obviously die of lung cancer without having smoked, so any ... Aside from smoking, there are other ways to contract ... provable link but I've perused the BMJ a few times ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)