Post by marchesarosa on Jul 24, 2011 18:33:58 GMT 1
I just came across the following statement while reading about something completely unrelated (the CERN Cloud experiment, actually) and wondered if anyone had any views on it.
In 1998 the World Health Organization released the results of the largest international case-control study on ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) exposure and the development of lung cancer. It was forecast to be the definitive study that would prove a link and justify smoking bans.
The only problem is that in virtually every category examined the WHO study completely failed to find a link that would pass even the basic statistical significance association.
With one exception.
The subset of the study that examined exposure in children *DID* come up with the one highly significant result found in their research. Children of smokers got later-life lung cancers 22% **LESS** often than matched children of nonsmokers. This was the **ONLY** significant result found.
So how did they deal with this embarrassment? Simple: In the study abstract, although the simple numbers were right there to read, the authors declared they showed “no association.” This wasn’t simply a NON-interpretation … It was a complete and total MIS-interpretation.
See the bottom of www.nycclash.com/Philly.html#ETSTable for a reproduction of the actual abstract and reference to the journal citation where it can be found if you wish to check.
This sort of distortion of science in the name of advancing a political or idealistic goal is nothing new in the global warming sphere: It’s been going on for decades in the “War On Smokers” and largely accepted and ignored. The pathway has been well-laid and tended — GW is just the spread of the same policy.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
In 1998 the World Health Organization released the results of the largest international case-control study on ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) exposure and the development of lung cancer. It was forecast to be the definitive study that would prove a link and justify smoking bans.
The only problem is that in virtually every category examined the WHO study completely failed to find a link that would pass even the basic statistical significance association.
With one exception.
The subset of the study that examined exposure in children *DID* come up with the one highly significant result found in their research. Children of smokers got later-life lung cancers 22% **LESS** often than matched children of nonsmokers. This was the **ONLY** significant result found.
So how did they deal with this embarrassment? Simple: In the study abstract, although the simple numbers were right there to read, the authors declared they showed “no association.” This wasn’t simply a NON-interpretation … It was a complete and total MIS-interpretation.
See the bottom of www.nycclash.com/Philly.html#ETSTable for a reproduction of the actual abstract and reference to the journal citation where it can be found if you wish to check.
This sort of distortion of science in the name of advancing a political or idealistic goal is nothing new in the global warming sphere: It’s been going on for decades in the “War On Smokers” and largely accepted and ignored. The pathway has been well-laid and tended — GW is just the spread of the same policy.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
