have you seen the new blu commercial??

[zoiDman]

I suspect that the point you are getting at is that something can be unsafe just because it exacerbates a disease, rather than "causes" the disease. In that case, it increases risk and that is what people need to know. (It would be highly unlikely that one ingredient could increase the risks for "most" cancers.)

...

Once Again Kristin, an Astute Observation.

That was my Point. That "Cause", of say something like Cancer, shouldn't be the Only Benchmark as to which we Measure a Very Intangible concept like "Safety" or "Risk"

... Either way, chances are the publicity of the increased risk would probably kill demand for the product anyhow. There are plenty of skin lotions available without that risk, right? Now, if that "active ingredient" was capable of making most people look decades younger and there was a potential to make billions of dollars, I suspect those increased risks wouldn't seem so bad to a lot of people. Like I said - risk is relative.

Isn't this the Crux of It.

If there is an Alternative to the Original Skin Lotion, then we would brand the Original Lotion as Unsafe for the General Public. And Very Unsafe to Smokers, Xsmokers or Anyone who is Predisposed to Cancer.

But if the Original Lotion has some Redeeming Qualities like making Someone look 10 Years Younger or the Potential to Make a Company Billions, than Some People views on "Safety" might be Relaxed Somewhat.

It is Strange how our Perception of Safety can be Changed with the Insertion of certain Outside Factors. Or Money.

And how these Outside Factors Differ from Person to Person. And Company to Company.

 

[NGAHaze]

Once Again Kristin, an Astute Observation.

That was my Point. That "Cause", of say something like Cancer, should be the Only Benchmark as to which we Measure a Very Intangible concept like "Safety" or "Risk"

Hmm, did you you mean 'shouldn't be' ?

 

[zoiDman]

just like statistics, you could constantly change that scenario around to give you the response youre looking for. what it comes down to is no one knows whether something they use or used could possibly cause problems with something in their family history.

...

The role of Statistics is Rarely to make an Determination about an Individual. It is make and Inference about a Population.

And from that Inference, a Probability can be assigned, hopefully correctly, to the Likelihood that something will occur to an Individual who is a Member of the Population.

 

[zoiDman]

Hmm, did you you mean 'shouldn't be' ?

Thank you.

I have got to Read what I type Better. This is the Second Time I have made a Bad Type-O in the Last Two Days.

 

[NGAHaze]

Thank you.

I have got to Read what I type Better. This is the Second Time I have made a Bad Type-O in the Last Two Days.

No worries; I was pretty sure that's what you meant ... I've done that very same thing myself ... mind gets ahead of the fingers!

 

[zoiDman]

No worries; I was pretty sure that's what you meant ... I've done that very same thing myself ... mind gets ahead of the fingers!

I hear you... I can think Much Faster than I can Type.

But then, a Black Lab or a Rottweiler can probably think Faster than I can Type so it Really is say'n All that Much.

 

[kristin]

That was my Point. That "Cause", of say something like Cancer, shouldn't be the Only Benchmark as to which we Measure a Very Intangible concept like "Safety" or "Risk"

That is true. Of course, my point wasn't that just because it didn't "cause" cancer that it was safe. The whole point of my making that distinction was to get people to stop and think about manipulation using statistics. There is a big difference between "cause" and "correlation." And there is also a huge problem with how they have calculated the "smoking-related" numbers and those numbers are then used to calculate "deaths from second-hand smoke" so they can treat smokers like pariahs, tax them excessively and charge them higher premiums.

Consider oral cancer again. They discovered that from 1988 to 2004, the incidence of HPV-positive cancers had increased 225%. HPV-negative cancers (usually attributed to tobacco use and smoking,) declined by 50 percent during that same time. But did it really? Or did they really not start looking for HPV until recently? The ANTZ have been reporting on how alarming it is that smokeless use has been on the RISE as people quit smoking, yet "tobacco-related" oral cancer is going down. Not to mention that they also say now that high alcohol use is a big factor for oral cancer, with a three-fold risk increase in non-tobacco users. So, what has really been "causing" all of those cancer cases - tobacco use, alcohol or HPV?

A study published in 2011 estimated that around 70% of oral and pharyngeal cancers in men and around 55% in women in the UK were "caused" by SMOKING. (Ironically, ANTZ got snus banned in the UK and the rest of the EU, except Sweden, where the "tobacco-related" types of cancers in men are much lower.)

Of course, the whole point of my comment was to get people to not take what they think they know about tobacco risks on faith of what the ANTZ have been telling us.

 

[drsocal]

They are showing the blu commercials a lot here in southern california.

 

[zoiDman]

They are showing the blu commercials a lot here in southern california.

Yes... Yes they are.

 

[gthompson]

They show them a lot here, not Southern California, too.

 

[caligirlINky]

The role of Statistics is Rarely to make an Determination about an Individual. It is make and Inference about a Population.

And from that Inference, a Probability can be assigned, hopefully correctly, to the Likelihood that something will occur to an Individual who is a Member of the Population.

sorry. i wasnt individualizing the results of statistics. i was comparing changing the question to manipulating the process of obtaining statistics, not the results.

 

[DC2]

Yes... Yes they are.

Are you in Southern California?

 

[zoiDman]

sorry. i wasnt individualizing the results of statistics. i was comparing changing the question to manipulating the process of obtaining statistics, not the results.

Gotcha.

I know an Undergraduate Professor who likes to say that…

“Statistics is a Mathematical Construct for Deceiving the Ignorant which is Effective 85% of the Time.”

We have had Many Long talks about the Ethical Role of Statistics. His views is Much Aligned with mine. And that is that Statistics is an Extremely Powerful Tool for gaining Insight into Phenomena which may be Difficult or even Impossible to Directly Observation. But the Potential for Misusing Statistics is Possible just as Great.

I can’t ask Every person in America how they Feel about a certain Issue. Or test Every 18650 Battery until it Fails to determine the Mean Time Between Failure.

The Problem with the Statistics is not in the Math. Math is one of the (perhaps the Only) True Fundamental Truth which is Devoid of Emotions. No, the problem lies in the Individuals who Apply the Math.

And the Classic way that People Subvert Statistics is by Not Telling you how a Statistical Result was Derived.

I’m Lazy so I won’t retype this short exchange in Another thread…

Nicadex? Hello!! Gimme some

I wouldn't think that only 9 out of 40 users quitting was indicative of the masses of attempted vapers...and then you also have to factor in things like whether or not they smoked cigalikes for a couple days and became unsatisfied quickly and didnt know there were more satisfying alternatives, or if they had a real desire to even quit in the first place.

I think you are Starting to Understand that how a Sample is chosen plays the Greatest Role in what a Statistical Result Looks Like.

BTW - If you Don't Know how the Sample was chosen, the Statistical Result of a Survey or Study/Trial Should Be Meaningless To You.

Exactly. Its like when Fox news calls 100 people in Alabama and Texas or New Mexico and asks them how they feel about a new government policy and then report that 90% of Americans dislike Obama's administration.

But this is Nothing New. And it has been going on since Day One.

None of this Upsets me. But there is one thing that I do find Very Disturbing and I want to be VERY CLEAR that I am Not Singling Out ANY Member here or Directing this Towards Any Individual. And that is the Omission of Statistical Results that may Discredit or Cast a Bad Light on a Reported Statistics result.

I read so much on the Internet about some Study that says Bla Bla Bla has been Shown to be Effective or Safe. What they didn’t tell you was that this was Only One result. And that there are Hundreds of Other Studies that show that it is Not Effective or Safe.

A Research/Reporter who will Scan over a Mountain of Study Results to Find the Result they want is in My Opinion Abusing the use of Statistics at the Highest Level.

Because if a person reports that something is “Safe” or “Effective” when you have the knowledge that there is Substantial Evidence to the Contrary, they are Actively engaging in Deceit.

Once again, this Is Not Directed at Anyone here. Just me Take/Rant on how Statistics can/is Sometimes Misused.

 

[zoiDman]

Are you in Southern California?

Yep... Orange County

 

[NGAHaze]

Yep... Orange County

For some reason the song 'Ventura Highway' popped into my head after reading this ...

 

[zoiDman]

For some reason the song 'Ventura Highway' popped into my head after reading this ...

Don't know Why that is?

But it May be the same thing that causes me to think of Ray Charles when I read where you are from.

LOL

 

[NGAHaze]

LOL, it's funny how our minds make associations/connections sometimes!

 

[tj99959]

That set of horns would last 0.05 seconds on my Labs head!

 

[caligirlINky]

zoiDMAN...
without replying to the whole post... exactly.

i get tired of reading about or ppl quoting percentages of population do this or that. unless every person was poled and no one lied those results are inherently flawed. they are all quess-timates. if the information was derived from a non-human subject, at least that part of it should be accurate. but even if all that were accurate, there is still the question of whether or not the ppl responsible for obtaining the information have been truthful in reporting all the information that was received.

 

[caligirlINky]

Yep... Orange County

oh i miss socal so much sometimes... with the exception of traffic. lived in manhattan beach and worked in sherman oaks. only 35 miles via the freeway but took me 1.5 hrs in the morning and 2.5 hrs in the afternoon to get from home to work and back again.