[Publius6961]

Smoking is bad for you; I don't know anyone who has ever argued otherwise, including myself. Let's get that out of the way for the logic deprived.

Junk Science is real and does no one a service, except perhaps the public funding advocates and the neurotic.
I notice that, as usual, the report is long on conclusions and totally devoid of fact. No methodology. No mention of a control group.

No discussion about the validity of rat physiology as it relates to humans.
No discussion of the mixing of rats and monkeys.
No clue as to what data was encluded from the conclusions or the summary for public consumption.
No mention of the obvious question: How does this study corelate the improvement in newborn lung development with decreased incidence of smoking in the last 40 years.
Do they track?

One would think this would be a validating corelation. For instance, if they track in reverse, it would point to a fatal flaw in the study.

My suspicion is they don't track; thereby the obvious was ignored.

[Quix]

I notice that, as usual, the report is long on conclusions and totally devoid of fact. No methodology. No mention of a control group.
= = = =

Then check out the original SCIENTIFICALLY PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN THE SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS

instead of a popularized summary.

Sheesh.