3 ms·

Well they have correlation that remains correlated after you adjust the model for other risk factors. So is that direct evidence? No. But when you add in the o

• mistermann 8y ago
  > But when you add in the other lines of evidence, you start building a case. It's sorta like a murder trial (not withstanding a separate discussion of our criminal justice system...) where the case is built over lines of evidence. When you're dealing with a murder trial, whether harm has occurred is clear. In this case, not only is there a lack of evidence for causation, there's not even any evidence for harm.
  • skwb 8y ago
    People have died of cardiac events and lung cancer. Some people have used e-cigarettes. Some have not. Is there evidence that connects the use of e-cigarettes to these deaths? That's for science to decide.
    • mistermann 8y ago
      Similarly: People have died of cardiac events and lung cancer. Some people have chewed gum while walking. Some have not. Is there evidence that connects chewing gum while walking? That's for science to decide. As it is, we have none. But until then, I'd rather not have it outlawed or be forced to pay for research without some reasonable reasoning that there may be some significant risk involved.