No, there was some clown there who for many years assailed the link between tobacco and cancer. His great target was the lab rat studies. It got so bad that the head of Cato actually took the rather rare step of stating in public that the rascal was out of line. I think he left Cato in the last year or so.
"Regrettable, yes; premature, no."
What a crock. Those clowns should learn a little about distributions. They are insinuating that because some smokers die of smoking related issues at an age greater than the normal life expectancy, that this means they didn't die prematurely from smoking. LOL! That sort of argument that would fly with lawyers, which is Cato's primary target.
Example, anti-tobacco activists claimed that "smoking cigarettes caused 400,000 smoking related deaths", when, in fact, deaths from all causes from infancy to extreme old age averaged 427,000 per year.
What? Those were annual smoking related deaths form 1990-1994. In fact, deaths from all causes from infancy to extreme old age for those years in the USA are much higher (some millions/year!). Don't understand your comment above.
Just because you don't like the way they analyze your favorite militant activist's statistics doesn't make them wrong.
Unfortunately, they are wrong entirely on their own, they don't need any help from me. |
