Silas - something REALLY important that you are not considering with your 'history lesson'....Are you aware of the industrialization of the United States (Generally referred to 1865-1920)? That kinda seems to be another (more plausible) answer to the increase in lung cancer cases. We can all admit that pollution causes lung cancer, and makes more sense than smoking being the culprit. Maybe we should begin ot ban industry!
Cigarettes - do you buy into all the hype?
- Thread starter getts
- Start date
You can consider that, yes, if you prefer to hang to your own shallow beliefs instead of listening to experts.
No, they are not my own shallow beliefs....See, that is what I find so interesting about you monkey boy......you try to act like you think for yourself, and then you say stuff like that....ROTFLMAO!!!
I also find it interesting that you say that after you have also said
Now that is blind faith in science.....
Thank you very much, I will continue to think for myself instead of limiting myself to what data manipulators make up and shove down my throat.
I also find it interesting that you say that after you have also said
How can those same 2 thoughts come out of the same head????? You are funny....hahaha.....You make me laugh....hahaha.....on one hand you say that 99% of scientists manipulate their data, and then you say that you refuse to consider something other than wha tscienteists tell you....
Now that is blind faith in science.....
Thank you very much, I will continue to think for myself instead of limiting myself to what data manipulators make up and shove down my throat.
It's amazing how subjective statistics can be. Just put the numbers together the way they seem relevant.
I worked as a respiratory therapist and can tell you of the preponderance of evidence that I personally witnessed indicating that smoking is bad for your health.
Glad your not having problems yet from your smoking, hope your not smoking around your family.
I see you in ten years putting a cigarette up to your trachea tube as you strain for breath and another hit.
Meanwhile live in your imaginary world where it's fine to suck ash.
I worked as a respiratory therapist and can tell you of the preponderance of evidence that I personally witnessed indicating that smoking is bad for your health.
Glad your not having problems yet from your smoking, hope your not smoking around your family.
I see you in ten years putting a cigarette up to your trachea tube as you strain for breath and another hit.
Meanwhile live in your imaginary world where it's fine to suck ash.
getts said:
You don't understand the nature of the manipulation in science. You think manipulation of data means automatically lying out right. I think your main problem in life is that you can only see black and white.
@spurious, is that not a virtue?
Only if you are religious.
But about the manipulation for instance of scientists:
About everybody puts their best picture of their result in a publication. That is not the 'right' way to do it. What is scientific is to put the average picture.
This doesn't mean of course the result itself is false.
It is however, manipulation.
But about the manipulation for instance of scientists:
About everybody puts their best picture of their result in a publication. That is not the 'right' way to do it. What is scientific is to put the average picture.
This doesn't mean of course the result itself is false.
It is however, manipulation.
That might be, but it is obvious that you don't understand the nature of science or scientific result. Instead you put your own 'common' sense first.
I have to side with Getts and The Baron on this one. I would suggest that in the early 20's and 30's, "scientists" did not even really know what lung cancer was. Hell, penicillin wasn't even discovered until 1941. How could there be stats about it if it wasn't even understood? Think about how difficult it is even today to diagnose it, let alone determine the cause of it. WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM (EFFECT), SO HOW CAN ANYONE KNOW THE CAUSE????? Don't assume you know anything, either way. This is all conjecture (in the sense that all of you are making inferences based on defective or presumptive evidence - Webster's.) 
I agree Getts, though I do wonder what you do for a living. If I knew, I might be more, or less, on your side. To me, that could be an important piece of info.
That'll work. I'm glad you started this thread.
If non-smokers get lung cancer, what caused it?
And then, if that same individual were to have been a smoker, would we still say that smoking caused his lung cancer?
See, that's the problem I have with this issue ....if a smoker gets lung cancer, it's automatically attributed to smoking. But at the same time, if a non-smoker gets lung cancer, we shit-n'-get to try to explain it with all kinds of silly excuses and causes! Why don't we give the same consideration to the smokers? Hmmm?
Baron Max
And then, if that same individual were to have been a smoker, would we still say that smoking caused his lung cancer?
See, that's the problem I have with this issue ....if a smoker gets lung cancer, it's automatically attributed to smoking. But at the same time, if a non-smoker gets lung cancer, we shit-n'-get to try to explain it with all kinds of silly excuses and causes! Why don't we give the same consideration to the smokers? Hmmm?
Baron Max
No, you are wrong actually. If a smoker has lung cancer there is the probability that this cancer was caused by smoking.
Baron Max said:
Notice that spurious said Smoker