Yeah. This is linked up all over the web now, and you know it is going to be cited over and over again. I found the original link on the Drudge
Report, but it is everywhere.
I do not want to be in the position of arguing for smoking, or drinking alchohol, or using drugs of any kind. However, I took a very close look at
this study, and I think it lacks substance. It seems very bias.
These people clearly do not like smoking, period. That would tend to bias their study, I would imagine.
You can find the abstract for the actual study here:
In particular, note that "in longitudinal analysis, the evidence for an association between smoking history and cognitive decline was inconsistent."
My understanding of "longitudinal analysis" is that it is just a way of saying "repeatability" of the study.
Finally, the study makes a big deal that some of the participants died during the test, quoting an HR (that is "hazard ratio") of around 1.5 -- that
is very small -- kind of insignificant. Probably not enough to impact the study, but it is mentioned up front, as if this is significant.
I invite anyone else to comment. I just hate it when these types of articles come out, heavy in implication but pretty light in substance. Am I
wrong? Is this just fear mongering?
Anyone who has had a friend or relative die, attributed to tobacco use, will probably want to argue with me. Believe me though, I am only arguing
against over-exaggerations and lies, and not the point itself.
You can't over-exaggerate and propagate lies just to influence behavior. That is very wrong.
(visit the link for the full news article)
[edit on 9-6-2008 by Buck Division]