Christine,
Before you again commit the near-impardonable sin of ascribing words, thoughts, and motivations to me that are not mine, would you please be so kind as to click on my profile and read what I have had to say on this subject. While you are there, please again read my post in which I asked specific questions with reference to the 53,000 deaths which have been attributed to second-hand smoke. I do so hate to repeat myself.
What you have presented is called evidence-based medicine--not hard, scientific, qualitative/quantitative-based fact which has been borne out by commonly accepted double-blind or other standard study methods.
These "studies" are comprised of anectdotal miscellany and are thus inherently flawed, as any scientifically knowledgeable person will be quick to tell you, and correctly so.
Ironically, in presenting these "studies," you have unwittingly bolstered one of my main viewpoints in this discussion, that being that data can be and is manipulated to arrive at the conclusion du Jour.
As for the tobacco companies using scientific means to boost the nicotine content in cigarettes, I see nothing sinister in a business working to improve its product. The more nicotine in a cigarette, the less cigarettes most smokers will smoke. What's so sinister about that?
A personal request would be that in the future, whenever possible, you post links rather than great volumes of data. I suggest this for many reasons, perhaps the most relevant being that once in the posted link one has the option of clicking around and exploring the subject further.
Holly |
