In statistics there is such a thing as being statistically strong. Its pretty obvious that the larger the sample, the more statistically powerful something becomes and the more trends can be spotted.
There is also the risk of skewed results, if the sample of the statistic isn't random, as in the case of studying Swedish construction workers exclusively, who may or may not happen to be a random sample of the population at large.
Again with statistics it is VERY important to understand the parties interested in the study.
What matters far more is the soundness of the methodology, not necessarily who is paying for it.
Swedish Match is not going to take part or fund a study that will hurt them. Just a little common sense there.
If Swedish Match does a study based on sound methodology and the same results are demonstrated in other studies based on sound methodology, then we most certainly have no reason to question the results of a study that Swedish Match paid for. If the science is sound, the same results are easily reproducible and can be repeatedly demonstrated, regardless of who paid for what.
"It was done using snus users who were Swedish construction workers. Are you a Swedish construction worker? Are you exposed to the same chemicals in your work that Swedish construction workers are?"
They studied the same group of people all of which were subjected to similar variables. That is the point. It makes a study stronger when you are comparing apples to apples, and not oranges to bannannas.
Unless the apples are Swedish construction workers who may be exposed to chemicals that the oranges of the rest of the population are not. In such a case, the end results could well be skewed, or non-random.
lol. I dont even know what to say to that. we are not comparing advances in technology that are centuries apart.
The point is, we do in fact deny earlier scientific claims if they are later disproven through REPEATED demonstrations to have been false.
And I am sure the connection still exists to degrees I am not sure of.
Your personally chosen beliefs are contradicted by later studies.
What I am saying is that they DID see a connection, and I believe anyone who has a little common sense will at the very least take that into some consideration.
Whereas I prefer to see ALL available evidence, rather than rely on older studies which were later contradicted by NUMEROUS studies, only one of which was paid for by Swedish Match.