Sure, spin... getting too complicated for your partisan mind, right?
Let's move on to your next 'bright' example, DDT causes new born kids of DDT carrying women to be smaller, right?
Bet they again picked a 'pre DDT' group of newly borns and compared them to an exposed 'DDT' group of newly borns, OK?
That means a strata of woman born aro 1935 vs a strata of woman born aro 1950, agreed?
So the infants of the latter were found to be smaller than the infants of the former if I got your example right. Because of the DDT exposure, agreed?
Well, nowhere in that exposé did I read, that both groups of women had been limited to non smokers.
Smoking women are well known to get smaller kids than non smoking women.
The percentage of women being smokers born 1950 vs being born 1935 is know to be a lot higher, unless I'm seriously mistaken.
Your IQ should be high enough to follow this.
Same story about what you call spinning above:
The percentage of breast cancer incidents to be expected from women born aro 1950 ('pre DDT' group) as compared to same within women born aro 1935 is a lot higher, period.
You might want to add your DDT to that or not, but if for a moment you could switch off your partisan brain and use the one you were born with, you may understand that DDT very little if anything to do with it.
Considering all the funds and efforts spent since the early 50s to prove, what the 'believers' wanted to prove, that DDT is harmful to human beings, the results so far are no more than a BIG JOKE.
Even your beloved Wiki is extremely cautious to draw any kind of firm conclusions here.
Taro |
