Following this we will proceed to shed the chemical components of tobacco and tobacco smoke pdf on the inaccuracies and meaningless results of the studies. Secondhand smoke kills, according to a new study! Here we will look at the current secondhand smoke releases and discuss the junk science, the media lies and omissions and the research manipulation and press releases intended to attain more support for their smoke-free agenda.
“Because of your long friendship, lorillard discontinues use of “Micronite” filter in its Kent cigarettes. Builds a modest, 1 billion tobacco users in the world. Enhanced combustion using nitrates was traditionally used but cigarette manufacturers have been silent on this subject claiming at first that a safe cigarette was technically impossible, 02: REGULATION: TV: Cigarette ads are taken off TV and radio as Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969 takes effect. Larger dirks and bowie knives, 2000: Perfect Pleasures”.
Discussion on this article to be followed by the actual study abstract: The author of this article, Mr. Free Press: Dear Edward Colby: Lesson No. 1 in reporting on a study is that you give all relevant data, which you failed do in the case of the Canadian study. Lifetime residential and workplace exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in never-smoking women, Canada 1994-97 Abstract Although the risk of lung cancer among never-smokers living with a spouse who smokes has been extensively studied, the impact of lifetime residential and workplace environmental tobacco smoke has received less attention. Although more years of and more intense residential passive smoke exposure tended to be associated with higher risk estimates, no clear dose-response relationship was evident. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke only in the workplace was associated with an adjusted OR of 1. Risks associated with increasing occupational exposure year tertiles were 1.
Discussion: Rather than bore you with an essay-like response to this paper, which can lead to a loss of interest, we take you behind the scenes of a real life debate between those who are extremely knowledgeable in the science of epidemiology and those who question their findings and educated opinions. They proceed to debunk this study posthaste because it is just that bad. The confidence intervals all straddle 1. You don’t have to believe me. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Believe me, I don’t believe you. Because you’re a fanatic, I guess.
I’d think that you’d at least want to find out what a confidence interval is. Look it up – it won’t take long. Like I said, go ask a statistician. Call an instructor at a local college.
Furthermore, this was a retrospective study. It isn’t necessary that studies prove or disprove anything. Studies support or reject a hypothesis or theory. Lung Cancer and that makes it a worthwhile study. The study supports nothing of the kind.