Re: OT:Thanksgiving

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 20:48:20 -0500, "Rick Smith" <ricksmith@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5rfjv4F14eiukU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13l45rqdb179nd4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5refb0F142e70U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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

"Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:B0i4j.6679$k27.1089@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Alistair" <alistair@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;

Sometimes, particularly when the evidence may not be definitive, or
certain
bodies of evidence may seem contradictory, the viewpoint of the person
presenting a case needs to be factored in before it is possible to make a
proper assessment as to the value of the presented case.

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.]


Thanks.

I should state that for around 15 years of my life, I also smoked. When I
quit (nearly 30 years ago, although I still enjoy the odd cigar with a
decent brandy, but never in the house :-)) I was smoking over 40 a day. I
enjoy good food and good wine far too much to go back to it (it diminished
my sense of taste by at least 50%), never mind being able to breathe and
enjoy water sports like snorkelling

I do believe cigarette smoking causes cancer so I read your very logical
piece with interest.

The fact that there may be no scientific explanation as to how cancer
develops, does not lead me to believe it is OK to smoke. There is enough
statistical correlation with smokers and lung cancer to persuade me that
the
chances of getting lung cancer are greatly increased by perpetual smoking.
(However that isn't why I quit; I was just feeling ill...)

(I don't need to know exactly how being hit by a truck will kill me; the
statistics show that when a person is impacted by a truck moving at pace,
the odds are greatly in favour of the truck. I therefore try and avoid
contact with moving trucks...)

Finally, I would stress that I don't make judgements about other people
smoking (unless their smoke is irritating me) and feel that what they do
is
none of my business. I only asked you because it has a bearing on the
weight
I would give to your argument. Had you said you don't smoke I would have
been more sure that your selective facts were fairly selected without
bias.
As you do smoke, I have to conclude that your facts have been selected to
support your case, rather than from a position of neutrality.

I am not certain what you intend by "your facts ... selected to
support your case, rather than from a position of neutrality."
I responded to "tobacco was proven to cause cancer from
actual trials" by disputing "proven" then later identified a
report often cited as "proof". These are not, as far as I can
tell, my facts and my dispute is in opposition to their case.
What do you think my case is?

As for neutrality, I began my study January 1, 1992, with
the single notion that "smoking causes lung cancer" was
something my research had to confirm. I ended my study
February 24, 2003, in utter shock and disbelief at how
weak the case was. If I seem to lack neutrality now, it is
because of what I found and didn't find during those
eleven years and not because I smoke.

Other studies that found the same weakness have been censored.

1. The World Health Organization sponsored a very large (n=2,000) case-control study on
second-hand smoke, known as Boffetta. When results came out wrong i.e. it did not cause
increased risk to innocents, WHO dropped its sponsorship, tried to stop publication, and
issued a statement saying the opposite of its own study's finding.

Even the report's abstract contradicts its own finding when it says "ETS exposure during
childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for
ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64- 0.96)." The correct
interpretation of that statistic, if one were neutral, is that childhood exposure has a
protective effect.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/90/19/1440)

2. The American Cancer Society sponsored a large (n=35,000) 40 year cohort study on
second-hand smoke, known as Enstrom & Kabat. When it appeared the results were coming out
wrong, ACS dropped its sponsorship. When Enstrom & Kabat sought to publish, no journal
would touch it. It took four years to get the report published in BMJ. That sparked a
firestorm of ad homina against the authors. Enstrom, one of the foremost epidemiologists
in the US and a brave man, wrote this in reply to his critics.

"Owing to the charged atmosphere surrounding the issue of passive smoking, our paper
provoked strong reactions on bmj.com. The most disturbing reactions have come from the
enforcers of political correctness who pose as disinterested scientists but are willing to
use base means to trash a study whose results they dislike. They have no qualms about
engaging in personal attacks and unfounded insinuations of dishonesty rather than judging
research on its merits.1 The resulting confusion has misled many readers and diverted
attention from the facts of the study."

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/327/7413/504

"In recent months the campaign against me has escalated because of the actions of
activists who dislike my research and want me silenced. First, the Regents of the
University of California are now considering a University-wide ban on tobacco industry
funding, as summarized in a January 26, 2007 Science news article [5]. Hopefully, this ban
will never be implemented because it would have a chilling effect on academic freedom and
would make virtually impossible the type of research that I published in my BMJ paper.
Second, the University had to conduct an investigation of ?scientific misconduct?
allegations against me contained in October 12, 2006 and January 24, 2007 letters from the
ACS. Fortunately, a March 22, 2007 letter from the University about this investigation
completely exonerated me and concluded that the ACS allegations ?provide no evidence of
scientific misconduct.? This investigation was discussed in a March 30, 2007 commentary
entitled ?Enstrom Cleared of Scientific Misconduct Charges; American Cancer Society Owes
Him An Apology? [6].

This campaign is not going to silence me and is not going to stop me from doing honest,
high quality epidemiologic research. On the contrary, this campaign is going to help me
get out the message that my BMJ results are entirely consistent with other US
epidemiologic evidence relating ETS to mortality. One major piece of this evidence is the
199-page 1995 Emory University dissertation, ?Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer
Mortality in the American Cancer Society?s Cancer Prevention Study II? [7]. This
dissertation was approved by Michael Thun, the top ACS epidemiologist. The dissertation
abstract concluded: ?This study found no evidence of an association between self-reported
ETS and lung cancer risk among nonsmokers. However, using spousal smoking habits to assess
exposure, we found ETS is only weakly, and not statistically significantly, related to
lung cancer risk among nonsmoking women in seven years of follow-up of the CPS II cohort.?
A second major piece of evidence is the new Western New York State study, published in the
October 9, 2006 Archives of Internal Medicine [8]. This study found ?After adjustment for
covariates, exposure to secondhand smoke was not significantly associated with an
increased risk of myocardial infarction.? Indeed, if all peer-reviewed epidemiologic
evidence is fairly and fully evaluated, the relationship between ETS and lung cancer and
coronary heart disease mortality in the US is very weak and is consistent with my
findings."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_E._Enstrom_in_his_own_words



.

Relevant Pages

  • Cancer alert for smoking parents
    ... "Cancer alert for smoking parents", BBC News, January 28, 2005, ... Children regularly exposed to smoking are three times more likely to ... They told the British Medical Journal that the link between lung cancer ... and passive smoking was "significant". ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)
  • *Links: Latest News & Bloggings From Ciggyfree (8/16/06)
    ... Smokers don't have to choose between "low riders or lung cancer," "bikinis or bronchitis," or a "size 8 or heart disease," according to TV and Web ads for Commit nicotine lozenges. ... Smoking Pill The Newest Way To Quit ...
    (alt.support.stop-smoking)
  • Re: A letter to a statistician. Emailed and airmailed and no reply
    ... that smoking indeed is the cause of many cancers came from ... The "proof" that smoking causes cancer and other diseases comes ... from trials of the kind Fisher had condemned - uncontrolled, ... On "Smoking and Lung Cancer" ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: A letter to a statistician. Emailed and airmailed and no reply
    ... See this article on Fisher by Sir Walter Bodmer who was a student of his and ... On "Smoking and Lung Cancer" ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Re: Are there any non-smokers here in favor of allowing smoking in bars and restaurants?
    ... the overwhelming evidence indicates that smoking increases your risk of cancer. ... Just as the overwhelming evidence at this point is that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is correct doesn't "prove" it - and just as a couple hundred years of Newton's Laws of Motion appearing correct didn't "prove" them either. ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)