Anti-THR Lies: Ecig proponents need to learn lessons from other activists
- Thread starter BuGlen
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I prefer the accurate term of: association.
Perhaps it would help to have a discussion on causal relationships. I do not accept the epidemiology view on this and feel prepared to debate that. I would willingly violate their principles on this matter.
Example of hyperbole = "small relative risks can, and do, represent serious threats to public health."
I disagree. It does negate those statistics and epidemiology deserves to be smeared.
I'm afraid you are gravely mistaken.
That means you deny that anything can be causal, which is utterly ridiculous.
Every time you "violate their principles" it's perfectly obvious that your sole reason is because you don't like their results.
And denying that "small relative risks can, and do, represent serious threats to public health" is like denying that taking $1 from 1 million people = $1 million.
You're the one who's doing all the self-justifying, as if you think you're a dictator who can simply have anybody who disagrees with you taken out and shot to settle any issue.
Anybody can see that the anti-smokers look more rational and reasonable compared to you.
This means you do not understand the discussion we were just having, which is how we got into ridiculous territory.
The sole reason is because I think it is embarrassing as a philosophy and am prepared to defeat it with people who are not prone to ridiculous claims.
Got anymore ridiculous analogies?
No, those were his own words to me. And I'm not surprised, because he's a pro and had to learn those things.
Last edited:
You mean that just because it's a small risk, it couldn't be causal? That isn't true. And tossing out every small risk would deprive L&M's side of evidence against the anti-smokers' claims. If L&M can toss the SAMMEC's out, L&W can toss L&M's counter-examples out. Did you ever think of that?
Jman8 said:
It's not a "philosophy." It's a mathematical analysis. And your mere disagreement, rational or otherwise, does not negate those statistical tests.
Nothing could possibly be more ridiculous than your ignominious display of pure childish obstinacy.Jman8 said:
Didn't mean to say or imply that small risks can't be causal. Did mean to question your notion of causal.
I'm pretty sure I believe no risk is causal. I'm not 100% on that and you are welcome to test me on this.
Epidemiology is clearly a philosophy. While any philosophy may use mathematical analysis, the analysis portion is going to general philosophical assertions that are either consistently logical and/or adding data that isn't present but believed to be correct (or even factual) interpretations.
I actually had previously pegged you as an anti-anti-smoker type of person. My apologies if that was off base. I feel I'm being updated in this thread that you are quite plausibly firmly in the anti-smoking camp and supportive of most of the traditional statistics and assertions made by that camp.
No, I'm just trying to school you, because you aren't going to get anywhere by simply stamping your foot and shouting "NO!" like a two-year-old. You're a grownup, I presume, so you should learn to fight like a grownup.
And, while philosophy is crucial, you don't quite get how it ties in. They want to tyrannize over peoples' lifestyles. Therefore, they have adopted methods that will supposedly justify this, namely studies based primarily on lifestyle questionnaires that ignore the role of infections. Studies like that can never do anything other than implicate peoples' lifestyles, because there are no other choices! And those studies will always be biased in favor of the preferences of the privileged classes, because they are nearly always less likely to be exposed to the infections that cause cancer and heart disease and other illnesses blamed on lifestyle.
Here's the best explanation of how to determine causation that I've found. It's the one actually used in practice.
"How can we test hypotheses on the etiologic relation of particular viruses to particular tumors? There is no simple answer to this, but perhaps an important part of the answer is a negative statement: we do not test such hypotheses by being bound to Koch's postulates. Scientific proof of an hypothesis consists of elimination of all conceivable and reasonable alternative explanations, not in filling in the blanks in a prescribed set of rules. Koch's postulates are a precise formulation of experimental requirements for eliminating alternative hypotheses in the testing of one particular pathogenetic model, that is, that an infectious agent produces disease reaction during its period of active multiplication. When pathogenesis involves delayed onset of symptomatology, Koch's model just does not apply. Instead, we must formulate or predict the host-parasite relationship we think may obtain, examine this model for what inferences can be made, and then devise means of testing for the expected outcome of those inferences which are unique for that model." (A Survey of the Tumor Virus Problem from an Epidemiologic Standpoint. Wallace P. Rowe, Laboratory of Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, USPHS, Bethesda, Md. Cancer Research 1965 Sep;25(8):1277-1282, pdf page 5.)
A Survey of the Tumor Virus Problem from an Epidemiologic Standpoint
But this is not the sort of definition that the Surgeon General et al. have employed for decades. They use a fill-in-the-blanks definition of causality, with an extremely serious omission. They do NOT eliminate other possible explanations, and the explanation they systematically ignore is that of infection. They use studies based on lifestyle questionnaires which cynically exploit the fact that smokers (and passive smokers) and more likely to have been exposed the pathogens that cause cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses, such as Helicobacter pylori, cytomegalovirus, Epstein-Barr virus, and hepatitis viruses B and C.
The Surgeon General Lies About Cancer
The Surgeon General Lies That Smoking Causes Heart Disease
And the media help them get away with this scam by jeering down anybody who questions them. As a result, the Surgeon General et al. have gotten away with systematically deceiving the public about the health risks of smoking for decades - and the tobacco companies let them, too.
It has always puzzled me why "BT" was (and still is) complacent about it.
IMO, and I feel this thread shows this, you are at times not arguing like an adult.
I'm very certain I do.
I would like to see you explain the infections thing more. I don't wish to ignore it, but do wish to understand the factor that both you place upon it, and what strikes me as reasonable, and feel I will be able to do this when you explain it further. As stated earlier, I'm all too glad to attack the data from multiple angles, and don't see why you would downplay all others as childish while yours is the only "true" one to consider.
I do not observe this as determining causation. The part where it speaks with regards to what I think you believe is the explanation for causation is a variation of the scientific method: hypothesize (host-parasite relationship), observe (model), analyze (what inferences can be made) and test (to confirm expected inferences). I see this as determining the association of data, and not causation. If you disagree, please explain the causal relationship.
For me, all of this "how" explanation is assertion of philosophical claims. When applied to actual practice, I would not see it as "mere philosophy," but would be wanting to scrutinize the inferences made portion of the process, as that is essentially what will guide the outcome.
And I cheer anybody that questions the alleged causal relationship between smoking and death. Again, I'd like to hear more from you about the role of infection, and how that can be another angle to attack the "smoking kills" meme. But don't appreciate that you would jeer anyone that would raise another angle from which to attack, as if infection is the only proper way to frame the debate.
My outlook (or philosophy) on this tends to be far less reliant on materialistic associations and based more on principles of logic and reason. But I sure like that those with an affinity to physicalism have found ways to attack the meme in their own way.
Collecting the biggest myths about tobacco/nicotine/smoking | Tobacco Harm Reduction: News & Opinions
Iro reply to Carl's requests for 'myths':
"In my opinion the biggest myth out there is the ”no safe level” mantra...
The other myth is the no. of deaths caused by tobacco. In Canada they now adjusted this down to 37,000, in the states it’s around 440,000 but they only come up with these statistical figures by lumping smokers and former smokers under the same category as outlined in the SAMMEC methodology. Worse yet, is considered a former smoker anyone who has smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime and no longer smokes. No distinction of how long they have quit and how old they were when they died. And is considered a smoker anyone who has smoked at least 100 cigarettes and still smokes everyday or on some days. No distinction of how long ago they started and what ”some days” represents.
"So in essence, anyone who has ever smoked 5 (20’s) packs of cigarettes in their lifetime and passed away from pancreatic cancer for instance, no matter at what age, is computed as a smoking related death in their estimates. This is totally insane. If the definition changes even further to include anyone who has breathed in 10 whiffs of SHS in their lifetime, every one who passes away from any of the 20 attributed to smoking illnesses will be considered a victim of tobacco! It’s absurd. "
This is basically the position of Levy/Marimont's "Lies, Damned Lies and 400,000 deaths" article
Carl's reply:
"Iro and Johathan 2, Sigh. That is the really tough one that requires a lot of work. I have never made a careful complete study of the basis for claiming that the current number of deaths is X and related statistics. I have seen plenty of important flaws in the calculations, of course, and the fact that the core data and calculations are kept more secret than Afghanistan War intelligence reports means we should definitely assume they are grossly flawed even beyond what we can see. I might finesse this one a bit and make the myth (which is definitely one of the biggest) something like “the widely reported figures are good estimates of the toll from smoking”. I might roll it in with the even more absurd future projections point from my original post."
Sounds like with the 'definitely one of the biggest' myths tends to agree with Levy's conclusions. Although that may have been just that week or month or year. I know that Carl, like many of the THR faction now, have been all over the place - he's criticized Greg Conley, Bill G and others on many occasions. Has been 'for the war, before being against it' type of stuff. Understandable to some extent as they've evolved their original TC positions into THR - you're going to get some conflicts and in some cases, outright contradictions of earlier positions. So he may have had some conflict with the Levy data at the time, but it looks like he, here, is parroting some of the same views.
In the above myths that he lists in the main part of the article, he cites 'second hand smoke' as one of the top ones - exactly what Levy/Marimont and others - Brad Rodu, Chris Snowdon and others who have been saying that for years, although again, not 'forever' as their views have changed as well.
That said, I can see reasons why he might agree with you that would have nothing to do with whether he believes Levy or not. I'm about at that point. :- )
They took a compromise deal in the face of overwhelming fake evidence.
Whether that evidence be bogus SHS "science" or ignoring "virus" effects really doesn't matter.
The cat left the bag a long time ago.
And cats are very hard to stuff into bags when they don't want to be.
I believe the deal was, you don't fight this and we'll make sure no one can sue you over this or any other health issue.
A statement like "I disagree. It does negate those statistics and epidemiology deserves to be smeared" is just childish foot stamping. Like it or not, there are formal tests of significance, whose purpose is the determine how solid the results should be considered. They take into account the size of the study, so that a small study with a given RR is less likely to be statistically significant than a large study that has the same RR. That's the main point of statistical significance. It's not about the size of the RR. A study with a RR of 10 could still be non-significant, if it was a small study.
As an example, if 100% of smokers had a particular causal infection and 0% of non-smokers had it, a study that only asked lifestyle questions would blame smoking for 100% of a disease. And if 60% of smokers had it versus 20% of non-smokers, it would still blame smoking, but to a lesser degree. As it happens in real life, smokers are more likely to have been exposed to those causal infections, because the people around them are more likely to carry the infection, and they are more likely to live in crowded conditions that increase the rates of transmission. Also, infection is likely to occur at younger ages among smokers (i.e., virtually all H. pylori infection occurs during early childhood). So the anti-smokers' pretense that smoking impairs immunity doesn't hold up because they weren't even smokers at that age.
It boils down to the difference in the quality of evidence between stating, for example, that "all types of NPC, regardless of histological type or differentiation contain clonal episomal EBV genomes, express specific EBV genes and are a clonal expansion of EBV-infected cells," versus blaming smoking simply because smokers are more likely to get NPC based on lifestyle questionnaires.
Infection is the only one that actually works. The RRs are often humongous, such 170 for EBV and NPC. That makes it obligatory to raise the issue of confounding (which the anti-smokers never do so you have to do it for them).
As a great philosopher once said, "we are living in a material world."
Here's a direct quote for you by Carl V. Phillips regarding Levy & Marimont:
Sunday Science Lesson: “X people die from smoking” – what does that even mean? | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
In the Minnesota tobacco lawsuit that the MSA is based on, they settled despite the fact that it looked like they were winning. (Jurors stubbornly clung to the principles that 'smokers knew the risks,' and 'it's a legal product.') And they settled for money than the anti-smokers were demanding. So it's like they didn't want to win. And I believe that they've been secretly controlled by anti-smokers all along, namely in their boards of directors.
The "Power Elite" Controls Both Sides
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked