They are fudging the numbers.
- Thread starter llamainmypocket
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
My brain hurts....
I love doing that to you Robin. If I cause enough brain damage, I may get you into that cheerleader outfit, yet!
Seriously, the statistics are possible only because the anti-smokers are determined to make any cause of death at any age attributable to smoking. If you smoked 100 cigarettes at any time of your life (the CDC's official definition of a smoker) and then die at any age or any cause, you are in the database as a former smoker. So, if at age 16, I experimented with smoking and smoked 5 packs that year and never smoked again, I am classified as a former smoker. At age 84, I die of a heart attack or another "smoking related condition" my COD can be counted as smoking related in the database even though I smoked those 100 cigarettes 68 years ago. These people are zealots in their quest for prohibition, and until they are called on it, junk science and statistics will continue to thrive.
To further illustrate this, my mother passed away in October at age 88. She was a lifetime anti-smoker who had never touched a cigarette, nor did she approve of smoking in others. In her last couple of years, she had several bouts of pneumonia, a series of strokes, and internal bleeding. In the hospital a few months before her death, she was very very ill. The doctors asked the smoking question at least five times, slightly different each time. Does she smoke? Did she ever smoke? Did she possibly smoke when young? Ad nauseum. At one time a doctor said, "there is no smoking in the hospital," referring I suppose to her non-existent smoking habit. I became angry. SHE DOES NOT AND NEVER DID SMOKE. Why do you keep asking this? Never got an answer, but my guess is they would have loved adding her pneumonia and strokes to the database for smokers/former smokers. It is absolutely ridiculous.
To further illustrate this, my mother passed away in October at age 88. She was a lifetime anti-smoker who had never touched a cigarette, nor did she approve of smoking in others. In her last couple of years, she had several bouts of pneumonia, a series of strokes, and internal bleeding. In the hospital a few months before her death, she was very very ill. The doctors asked the smoking question at least five times, slightly different each time. Does she smoke? Did she ever smoke? Did she possibly smoke when young? Ad nauseum. At one time a doctor said, "there is no smoking in the hospital," referring I suppose to her non-existent smoking habit. I became angry. SHE DOES NOT AND NEVER DID SMOKE. Why do you keep asking this? Never got an answer, but my guess is they would have loved adding her pneumonia and strokes to the database for smokers/former smokers. It is absolutely ridiculous.
Last edited:
Many times Statistical Results are used as a Basis for Funding something.
How much funding should Cancer Research get? If nobody is dying of Cancer, no need for Funding.
So if More death certificates listed cause of death to be Cancer, more funding for Cancer Prevention, Treatment and Cures may be allocated.
I’m just making all this up. But I think you can see how sometimes “Fudging” the numbers can accomplish a Viable Goal. Everyone wants to see a Cure for Cancer. Right?
Of course, it can also be used to Promote Agendas and as Ammunition in the War of Words that surrounds most issues.
Ill tell you something that I have told Many People as an Iron Clad way to Slice thru the Propaganda and Rhetorical BS that surrounds Many Statistical Results.
If you dont know how the Sampling was done to obtain an Inference about the True Population, you Dont Know Anything.
Exm:
A National Study was done and the results were shown that 73% of all American Adults do not favor any form of Gun Control.
---
Wow Sounds like most people in America dont want gun control. That's Good to Know.
What they failed to tell you was that the Study was conducted in Texas. At a NRA meeting. In Texas at an NRA meeting and the percipients were given Free Tickets to a Gun Show for participating in the Study.
Clearly this Sampling is Not 100% reflective of the True Population.
The Statistics are not flawed. The Results are Flawed when implied to the True Population. In this case, American Adults who have an opinion on Gun Control.
There is a LONG LIST of other Factors that can Skew results about a True Population. But to me, the Easiest way to get the results Im looking for is to choose who I Sample for Any Desired Result.
It is probably the only intellectual post you've seen here. I did not mean it to be perfect and I am not a statistician but let's not pretend that an argument on the internet requires such a degree of perfection as to deny it ever being expressed. That is not only absurd but also is an ugly kind of perfectionism in it.
You seem to assume that my use of statistics is being used to support a conclusion like I'm presenting a theory yet I am not. They are logical notions in criticism of statistics that are widespread on the internet. A major point in my argument is that 100% of smokers seem to die from smoking yet are dying from exactly the same diseases that kills everyone else, and at practically the same rate as everyone else.
Would it be reasonable to suggest they are fudging the numbers?
You seem to be the only one who struggles with who they are in this discussion. I suggest you Google it.
I'll give you a perfect example of fudging the numbers in my next post - with links for verification. I had actually just posted it in another thread.
I'm kind of with you on that. Most tobacco use doesn't even NEED harm reduction because the health risks are so low, most people would call them "safe." But I am hesitant to throw smokers under the bus. They had a lot of evidence showing their case, too, as the OP pointed out.
See the quote below by Ravensfan. It's true that "cause of death" is determined by what funeral directors, doctors and medical examiners put on death certificates. As Robin stated, it is common practice to list "smoking" as a cause if the disease is thought of as a smoking-related disease OR if the person was listed as having ever smoked. The problem is, there is no way of knowing if that cancer or heart disease was also genetic or there were other contributing factors. Someone who smoked and died of lung cancer could also have worked in an asbestos factory or around heavy deisel fumes, but if the person signing the death certificate doesn't know that (and there is no box to check to even ask the question like there is for smoking), then the death gets attributed to smoking. Even worse, researchers would count the death in the number of smoking related deaths if "smoker" was indicated on the death certificate, regardless if the smoker was killed in a car accident or something. (This is documented, but I don't have time to find links right now.) Millions of people die from "smoking-related diseases" that have never smoked or been exposed to significant second-hand smoke. They only call certain cancers and heart disease "smoking-related" because smokers get them more often, not because they are only related to smoking.
(Sorry, I can't help but comment on this because I just researched it the other day.)
On the flip side of that, Obama and gun control supporters like to claim that the majority of NRA members support universal background checks. After the bill recently failed to pass, Obama accused the legislators of ignoring the will of the people, because even "a wide majority of NRA households support this legislation."
This is classic smoke and mirrors. This claim is based mostly on 2 surveys, one by CBS/New York times and the other by PEW. It is true that 85% of the people living in NRA households (CBS) and gun owners (PEW) supported increased background checks. But that is meaningless without knowing how many people were involved in this survey, considering there are over 3 million NRA members and even more gun owners. Additionally, those two surveys were asked before the actual legislation was proposed. So those people may have supported some kind of universal background checks, but they couldn't have supported "this legislation" because they hadn't seen it yet.
Only 5% of the CBS/NYT respondents surveyed were NRA members. A total of 13% said an NRA member was in the household. So, 143 of the 1,100 surveyed were somehow associated with the NRA and about 122 of them agreed with universal background checks. That's around one third of 0.01% of the 3 million or so NRA members. Hardly a majority.
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/557118/the-new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-on-guns.pdf
For the PEW survey of 1,502 people, it came down to just 213 "gun owners" (NRA members were not identified) supported universal background checks.
http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/01-14-13 Gun Policy Release.pdf
To put it in perspective, there are around 8 million LGBT folks in the US. If Obama claimed the majority of LGBT citizens opposed gay marriage, based on 2 surveys that showed 335 LGBT people opposed gay marriage, would anyone take it seriously?? (I support gay rights, BTW. So this isn't meant to be disrespectful to the LGBT community, just making a point.)
Put simply, it's a lie to even claim that we know that the "majority" of NRA members support universal background checks based on these surveys! (And no, I'm not an NRA member.)
Last edited:
OK, as promised, a perfect example of ANTZ fudging the numbers (with links.) I had actually just posted this in another thread, so I'm just pasting it here:
Some interesting numbers regarding the smoking rates that people should know...
The ANTZ like to claim that their methods work. Higher taxes, banning flavors, smoking bans, insurance rates, not hiring smokers and billions spent on cessation programs and pharmaceutical products has reduced the smoking rate from 25.7% in 1991 to just 19% in 2011 (20 years.) Wow! A 25% reduction. Still needs improvement, but not bad considering the smoking rate in 1981 was between 32% and 33%, right?
But if you actually look at the numbers the CDC reported for those years, the clear picture of success gets quite fuzzy.
In 1991, there were 46.3 million smokers (and the number was nearly the same ten years later in 2001 at 46.2 million.)
In 2011, there were 43.8 million smokers. Just a measly 5.4% (2.5 million) reduction in the number of smokers after 20 years. Would anyone reasonably call that a success?
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults -- United States, 1991
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults --- United States, 2001
Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults — United States, 2011
(PS. The number of smokers in 1981 was around 51 million. So today's numbers are just a 14% reduction in over 30 years!)
Some interesting numbers regarding the smoking rates that people should know...
The ANTZ like to claim that their methods work. Higher taxes, banning flavors, smoking bans, insurance rates, not hiring smokers and billions spent on cessation programs and pharmaceutical products has reduced the smoking rate from 25.7% in 1991 to just 19% in 2011 (20 years.) Wow! A 25% reduction. Still needs improvement, but not bad considering the smoking rate in 1981 was between 32% and 33%, right?
But if you actually look at the numbers the CDC reported for those years, the clear picture of success gets quite fuzzy.
In 1991, there were 46.3 million smokers (and the number was nearly the same ten years later in 2001 at 46.2 million.)
In 2011, there were 43.8 million smokers. Just a measly 5.4% (2.5 million) reduction in the number of smokers after 20 years. Would anyone reasonably call that a success?
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults -- United States, 1991
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults --- United States, 2001
Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults — United States, 2011
(PS. The number of smokers in 1981 was around 51 million. So today's numbers are just a 14% reduction in over 30 years!)
Last edited:
I think the entire OPs statement rings with truth when you look at the brief history of thing. Smoking is so vilified by the public that anything negative about it is considered gospel by the many. It does not matter who, or how thin the evidence is to support it. Combine that with all the things that give you cancer on Monday then by Friday will be sure to save your life, you end up with a pretty jaded public.
If you're a smoker you get vilified by all these reports, and you feel guilty then you hear something totally off the wall like "third hand smoke": If you go outside and smoke then comeback in and sit on the sofa the smoke residue will get on the sofa and give the next sitterby cancer. The next day orange juice, red wine and thinking about elephants will give you cancer. You eventually begin to question it all and it makes you not even trust the truths that are out there. It's a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. So yes tongue and cheek as it may be it rings true.
If you're a smoker you get vilified by all these reports, and you feel guilty then you hear something totally off the wall like "third hand smoke": If you go outside and smoke then comeback in and sit on the sofa the smoke residue will get on the sofa and give the next sitterby cancer. The next day orange juice, red wine and thinking about elephants will give you cancer. You eventually begin to question it all and it makes you not even trust the truths that are out there. It's a "boy who cried wolf" scenario. So yes tongue and cheek as it may be it rings true.
Well. My personal favorite outcome of all the hype is the total stranger trying to dodge the exhale of my vapor like I'm some sort of Sentinel firing off cancer bullets in the Matrix. It's just good entertainment.
Sorry Scott, - read your post and can't resist. LOL
Admittedly, there is probably someone out there somewhere who believes it wholeheartedly and put it in a gvt report as "Proof".
Admittedly, there is probably someone out there somewhere who believes it wholeheartedly and put it in a gvt report as "Proof".
And do what any responsible government would do....
TAX THE BUGGERS!!!!! MONEY!!! MORE MONEY!!!! WAHOO!! MORE MONEY FOR MEEEEEE!!!
Grrr
TAX THE BUGGERS!!!!! MONEY!!! MORE MONEY!!!! WAHOO!! MORE MONEY FOR MEEEEEE!!!
Grrr
So help me, if I wasn't happily married for 44 years, I'd 'stalk' ya!!!
LOL!
Honestly, I can't help myself anymore. I see a claim using numbers or percentages and I simply can no longer take them at face value. ANTZ lies have taught me that because everything I thought I knew was a lie. Never again. I have to research EVERYTHING myself now before I will believe (or repeat) it.
Unfortunately, there aren't many of us that go da lil' extra steps!
Bonjour...!
Please keep on keepin' on!
.
.
.
This is the honest truth: I was visiting a friend of my sister's once (a woman in her 70's and no, she was not senile), and during one of the conversational topics the subject of dinosaurs came up. She commented how dangerous it must have been for man to live among dinosaurs. Her comment took me by surprise as I thought she was joking. I quickly realized she was dead serious. I tried to educate her on the fact that homo-sapiens came waaay after the dinosaurs were extinct and she continued to defend her point. I finally asked her where she read it, and she said she had watched a movie once.
Wow...!
- Status
Similar threads
