Why the Father of Modern Statistics Didn’t Believe Smoking Caused Cancer
37 comments | Share | Flag
While Ron Fisher was incorrect about smoking and lung-cancer, he was right about the fact that a controlled study was near impossible and thus there is no correlation/causation proof. The article also makes points about many other topics where there is no proven correlation/causation relationship, one of those topics being climate change.
Decades ago, the second hand smoke study results were somewhat shaky due to two studies showing benefits to secondhand smoke and the evidence not being clear at the standard significance level so the level was reduced to make the studies look significant.
My grandfather was a heavy smoker an died, from cancer, in his 80's.
My grandmother never smoked, yet, died from cancer some years later.
My mother smoked, for years, but quit. She died, from "lung cancer", some 20 years, later.
Direct cause, or environmental conditions? Why did my mother die, 20 years after quitting, yet 7 of her children (raised in a smoke filled environment) continue to thrive into their 70's?
Finally, while the states damn tobacco, they fall over one another to legalize pot. The lack of simple logic astounds me.
I've never smoked in my life, as I observed as a youth its effects on my parents and other relatives.
But that was my personal choice.
In terms of real science, there is no evidence of direct causality, or not nearly enough, to hold tobacco companies legally responsible.
I also highly doubt the "evidence" of second hand smoke and the legal restrictions mandated.
To me, that is the same as the much more serious power grab over AGW.
Personally I find this site amusing - and handy when you need some random correlation to demonstrate to someone that correlation is not causation.
Good one. I shall "borrow" that in the future.
--However, whatever evidence exists in favor of some foods/drinks versus others, the fact is that
smoke is neither food nor drink; it does not natu-
rally belong in the body, and its initial introduction is likely to cause coughing, or other
physical discomfort. It is really unwise to get
into such a habit. (Not to mention the stench,
extremely offensive to a non-practicioner). I can
see why an addict would have a motivation to
convince people (or primarily, himself) that it is
not harmful, but I have to disagree (with all due
respect to anyone, whatever that person's a-
chievements, who tried to glamorize it).
So far, Gregory Benford's boatload of iron filings appears a much better answer to (2) than the Al Gore program of cutting back on energy use. But even that may very well be unnecessary, because no one on either side of the debate has even tried to answer (1) yet.
The causes of cancer now are being re-thought finally...accounting for high levels of heavy toxic metals, pesticides etc, candida yeast overrun and a poor immune system, Which anyone on prescription drugs and have been vaccinated to death would fit into that category.
Cancer is such a money maker for the lamestream allopathic sickness system...it's amazing anyone has been able to see thru the bull crap.