Re: OT:Thanksgiving

On 2 Dec, 02:23, "Rick Smith" <ricksm...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"Pete Dashwood" <dashw...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:5refb0F142e70U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx







"Rick Smith" <ricksm...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13l3fsdh7v9t361@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Judson McClendon" <ju...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:B0i4j.6679$k27.1089@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Alistair" <alist...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip]
And smoking tobacco doesn't cause cancer either, does it Judson?

Unlike global warming, tobacco was proven to cause cancer from actual
trials, not from vastly complex and disputed hypothesis.

Well, no! It has never be proven that smoking tobacco
causes cancer. In particular, it has never been shown
how the cancer develops, only that it does. Without
showing how the cancer develops, the claim that
"smoking causes lung cancer" is but another example
of the logical fallacy, "post hoc, ergo propter hoc".

The similarity between "smoking causes lung cancer"
and "global warming" seems to be that those who
believe there is overwhelming evidence that "X causes
Y" want X stopped without having to show how "X
causes Y".

In order to help me balance your argument, I have to ask: Do you smoke,
Rick?

I am not certain how that question relates to the obligation,
of those making scientific claims, to establish credible scientific
evidence; but yes, I do smoke and, when I first saw the U.S.
mandated warning on cigarette packages in 1969, I found the
claims to be not credible. Having since examined some of the
scientific evidence, I have found no reason for me to change
my mind. ["Experimental Production of Carcinoma With
Cigarette Tar", Ernest L. Wynder, Evarts A. Graham, and
Adele B. Croniger, June 8, 1953, is presented often as proof
that "smoking causes lung cancer". While the experiment did
find the presence of "carcinogenic factors in cigarette smoke",
it never determined how the cancer developed.]- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps a modern repeat of that experiment with cell lines showing
before and after DNA profiles (highlighting DNA damage caused by the
carinogen) would help you? Or pehaps you would need a detailed
analysis of the chemical pathways permitting the carcinogen to enter
the cell and cause said damage?

Don't you place any emphasis on the association of a carcinogenic
chemical with a damaged cell? I am tempted to ask whether you would
remove all three forms of asbestos from a building without protective
equipment because the exact mechanism by which asbestos causes lung
cancer has not been proven?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... mandated warning on cigarette packages in 1969, ... ["Experimental Production of Carcinoma With ... that "smoking causes lung cancer". ... carcinogenic factors in chemicals and damage to cells. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: medical terms
    ... of his cancer is in cover or gland tissue or not. ... automatically tied to the carcinoma or non-carcinoma character. ... very bleak future as opposed to skin cancer from other tissues ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Why was Coretta King in Mexican clinic?
    ... Actinic keratoses which are precancerous lesions are removed by ... Carcinoma is not a precursor to cancer. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma (A type of lung cancer)
    ... My wife is 29 years old and suffering from Bronchiolo-alveolar ... of carcinoma? ... but my husband was diagnosed with this type of cancer 6 years ago. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)
  • Re: Bronchiolo-alveolar carcinoma (A type of lung cancer)
    ... My wife is 29 years old and suffering from Bronchiolo-alveolar ... of carcinoma? ... It's a rare, non-smoking related lung cancer. ... The only curative treatment is surgery if the cancer is localised to one ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)