3 ms·

>Conspiracy or a lagging indicator of reduced cigarette consumption? The graph I linked has a lagging indicator factor to be sure. Tobacco consumption from 19

>Conspiracy or a lagging indicator of reduced cigarette consumption? The graph I linked has a lagging indicator factor to be sure. Tobacco consumption from 1970s to today has dropped for obvious reasons. Lung cancer dropped from 1990s to 2006 or so in a highly correlative rate to tobacco consumption. Which is great news! But suddenly since 2006 lung cancer rates have dramatically increased. It's now above the lung cancer peak in the 1990s. The conspiracy mainly being they dont show you the huge increase since 2006 and keep their graphs clean. The allegation that tobacco toxicity kept lung cancer in balance is possible but certainly unproven. Instead what my other link tried to show is that perhaps tobacco use isn't the boogeyman and hell you probably noticed governments have given up on the anti-tobacco game. We now know what's causing it but what's the consequences to society if we published? Oh man I could see the collapse of society so quick.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yakak 4y ago
VW was caught faking Diesel safety starting somewhere around 2006-2008 (it would be interesting to see the roll out.) So rise in small particulates causing any and all respiratory problems does not have to correlate to smoking.
manwe150 4y ago
I don't quite follow your logic in the various threads here. It seems that you are attempting to make the claim that since some cases don't follow the trend (smoking can lead to a reduction in cancer for some people), therefore the statistics overall must have been wrong (smoking leads to increased rates of cancer). But that does not follow logically or mathematically. In this study, they were looking at the conditional probabilities of what is unique about people who were non-cancerous. Since in this study they excluded people with cancer, we cannot make any claim about expected lung cancer rates, since they excluded that data up-front. As for the other claims, I haven't done any research, but it sounds vaguely like Simpson's paradox could be starting to dominate the graphs, so they stopped publishing them. (i.e. there are other confounding variables that now dominate, so it is not worth the research time and money to continue collecting that data specifically for smoking rather than looking for new causes)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

yakak 4y ago

VW was caught faking Diesel safety starting somewhere around 2006-2008 (it would be interesting to see the roll out.) So rise in small particulates causing any and all respiratory problems does not have to correlate to smoking.

manwe150 4y ago

I don't quite follow your logic in the various threads here. It seems that you are attempting to make the claim that since some cases don't follow the trend (smoking can lead to a reduction in cancer for some people), therefore the statistics overall must have been wrong (smoking leads to increased rates of cancer). But that does not follow logically or mathematically. In this study, they were looking at the conditional probabilities of what is unique about people who were non-cancerous. Since in this study they excluded people with cancer, we cannot make any claim about expected lung cancer rates, since they excluded that data up-front. As for the other claims, I haven't done any research, but it sounds vaguely like Simpson's paradox could be starting to dominate the graphs, so they stopped publishing them. (i.e. there are other confounding variables that now dominate, so it is not worth the research time and money to continue collecting that data specifically for smoking rather than looking for new causes)