5 ms·

This is not where I was heading at. We have no simple way to assert that smoking causes lung cancer: no RCT is available for that. So we are left with the same

This is not where I was heading at. We have no simple way to assert that smoking causes lung cancer: no RCT is available for that. So we are left with the same level of evidence that we have for alcohol, which is observational studies. That knee jerk reaction that observational studies can't give us a relatively high level of confidence is why I mentioned the case of tobacco: if you really believe that, you should also disdain the case against smoking.

DoreenMichele 5y ago
I really believe that we don't fully understand what cancer is. I really believe that after taking care of a loved one post mastectomy. I really believe that after listening to a relative who worked at the CDC and had cancer multiple times bitch about how most studies are bullshit and there's very little new in cancer research. I really believe that after another relative of mine caused two cancer clinics to change their practices. I really believe that after listening to the tales of a relative be patient zero in a cancer study. And on and on. Cancer runs rampant in my family. I've had multiple relatives who have had it, some multiple times. Your opinions about my opinions not withstanding, I will continue to believe what makes sense to me.
- 14u2c 5y ago
  > I will continue to believe what makes sense to me. And I will continue to believe experts that have specialized in a area of study that I have not, regardless of my personal comprehension of the topic.
  - jodrellblank 5y ago
    Maybe that's sensible, maybe it isn't (how close are 'what an oncologist thinks' and 'what a layperson believes an oncologist thinks'?). Commenting on the internet "I'm more virtuous than you because I dismiss your experience without caring what it is" isn't particularly sensible, it's tribal signalling "I'm in the science tribe not the conspiracy-alternative-health-woo tribe". Isn't it?
- cush 5y ago
  That's not how science works. We don't fully understand most things, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
billfruit 5y ago
Empirical evidence may not be there, what about theoretical formulation of the mechanism by which smoking affects the lung? Shouldn't we able to explain it only on the basis of theory?
- kongolongo 5y ago
  Not really because smoking produces hundreds of not thousands of compounds that make it practically impossible to trace the metabolic path of all of these compounds in the human body from just theory alone

DoreenMichele 5y ago

I really believe that we don't fully understand what cancer is. I really believe that after taking care of a loved one post mastectomy. I really believe that after listening to a relative who worked at the CDC and had cancer multiple times bitch about how most studies are bullshit and there's very little new in cancer research. I really believe that after another relative of mine caused two cancer clinics to change their practices. I really believe that after listening to the tales of a relative be patient zero in a cancer study. And on and on. Cancer runs rampant in my family. I've had multiple relatives who have had it, some multiple times. Your opinions about my opinions not withstanding, I will continue to believe what makes sense to me.

14u2c 5y ago
> I will continue to believe what makes sense to me. And I will continue to believe experts that have specialized in a area of study that I have not, regardless of my personal comprehension of the topic.
- jodrellblank 5y ago
  Maybe that's sensible, maybe it isn't (how close are 'what an oncologist thinks' and 'what a layperson believes an oncologist thinks'?). Commenting on the internet "I'm more virtuous than you because I dismiss your experience without caring what it is" isn't particularly sensible, it's tribal signalling "I'm in the science tribe not the conspiracy-alternative-health-woo tribe". Isn't it?
cush 5y ago
That's not how science works. We don't fully understand most things, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

billfruit 5y ago

Empirical evidence may not be there, what about theoretical formulation of the mechanism by which smoking affects the lung? Shouldn't we able to explain it only on the basis of theory?

kongolongo 5y ago
Not really because smoking produces hundreds of not thousands of compounds that make it practically impossible to trace the metabolic path of all of these compounds in the human body from just theory alone