posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:36 PM
Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
You are simply extraordinary in clinging to your beliefs.
You believe that studies for exposure to second hand smoke with low relative risk increases are real - even though there are no control
There are control groups. Why would you say there are not?
But you don't think Enstroms study is real because there was no control group.
I never said that. I said Enstrom's study is not real because a person who is inhaling second hand smoke for 10 hours a day is listed as having no
second hand smoke exposure.
You can't tell the difference between 5 % of a population and a 5 % increase in relative risk (and yet you still think you are qualified to
The only one who doesn't understand is you. Please show me where I confused 5% of the population with a 5% increase in risk. I didn't. You are
clueless. You think you need a 400% increase in incidences before there is anything significant. Clueless.
You believe that a 10 % increase in relative risk is PROOF that smoking or passive smoking CAUSES disease but you fail to recognise that the
opposite would then also be true (that a 10 % decrease in relative risk proves that smoking or passive smoking PROTECTS people from
I do not fail to recognize that. It is simply untrue that smoking is a protective factor. The only study that has it listed as one is Enstrom's, and
in his study passive smoke can be either very protective, or very harmful, as his confidence intervals are so crazy large. He is 95% sure passive
smokers have an incidence of 80% to 159% of the general public. Wow. Really. So very helpful. You can not tell ANYTHING from an interval that
In short - you absolutely refuse to think for yourself and only believe what you are told to believe. Have fun with that!
Look in the mirror my friend. I think that comment was directed inwards.
You go on with your bad self. I will leave you with this simple thought - only 1 out of 10 smokers ever get a smoking related disease of any
Completely false. Only looking at ONE disease, Lung cancer, 16% of smokers get it. 25% of heavy smokers get it. There are numerous diseases associated
with smoking, just that one has proven your statement false.
Now if 100 people were to fall off a ten story building - it is quite likely that all 100 would die. There might be a stray person who manages
to survive but in general, it is proved that falling 10 stores CAUSES death.
But if only 10 out of 100 people died after they fell out of ten story building, would you say that falling off a 10 story building CAUSES death or
would you simply say that sometimes people die from falling 10 stories (must be bad luck)
I would say that falling 10 stories causes death. What else would be the cause? If sometimes people die from it, then it caused those deaths. You just
completely invalidated your entire argument. Furthermore, I would say if you CHOOSE to fall 10 stories, make sure I am not around you. I do not wish
to be impacted by your choice to do something harmful. Feel free to do it when no one is around you. Or do you think it's ok to fall 10 stories and
land on someone else?
Tired of Control Freaks
Tired of morons that think they can do whatever they want regardless of whether or not their choice is harmful to those around them.