View Single Post
Old 12-26-2007, 09:54 PM   #4
Advanced Member's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 161
Rep Power: 212 is a name known to all is a name known to all is a name known to all is a name known to all is a name known to all is a name known to all
Glad you asked and I’ll have to dig something up or see if my memory is correct or my assumptions are incorrect. Basing it off a talk given about medical studies and reporting by the popular press by a UNC professor a while back. The gist of it was that actual controlled studies did not find a link between exposure and disease caused by the exposure (these were not funded by the tobacco lobby). On the other hand the statements issued by the SG and CDC, etc. use wording to the effect “evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke [and disease]” without the hard data provided by valid studies* to prove something beyond causal inference.

That is why I worded it as “propagating "fact" when it ain't proven”. Not saying it cannot be proven as fact.

I think my lead-in sentence using, loosely “debunking a myth”, was poorly worded and mislead from my rambling point.

*valid studies = significant population size, valid sampling, bias exclusion, etc.
Why must I feel like that. Why must I chase the cat. Must be the dog in me. Atomic Dog. is offline   Reply With Quote