Tobacco, Alcohol, Drugs Kill 7 Million a Year

I feel sorry for people who believe numbers like this.
"Perhaps you can point out how they are in error, then."

If you have to use statistics, you're dealing with snake oil, it's as simple as that.
Another "expert" who offers no cure.

Cancer is the number one killer of men under 65. We have poured money by the ton into cancer research. We have gotten absolutely nothing in return.

Diabetics are still having their limbs amputated. Again, no cure even though we have spent money by the ton on this disease also.

The list goes on and on. We have "experts" all over the planet raking in the loot for perpetual study, but none of them can offer a cure for even one of the diseases that have plagued mankind for centuries.

If they are so damn smart, show me a cure!

If you have to use statistics, you're dealing with snake oil, it's as simple as that.

Cancer is the number one killer of men under 65. We have poured money by the ton into cancer research. We have gotten absolutely nothing in return. Diabetics are still having their limbs amputated. Again, no cure even though we have spent money by the ton on this disease also. The list goes on and on. We have "experts" all over the planet raking in the loot for perpetual study, but none of them can offer a cure for even one of the diseases that have plagued mankind for centuries. If they are so damn smart, show me a cure!

Please explain to me how ANY of what you said has ANY bearing on the mortality rates from tobacco, alcohol and illegal drug use.

Actually, it isn't as simple as that. Statistics are like any other tool - they can be used well or abused. However, if someone is going to refute a statistic, they should offer either numbers of their own or an explanation of why the methods used to derive the statistics are bogus.

Please explain to me how ANY of what you said has ANY bearing on the mortality rates from tobacco, alcohol and illegal drug use.

Mortality rates, like all statistics are used to suck you in to the circle jerk of endless debate. They can be manipulated to give the desired result.

I'll use cancer for an example. What happened to spontaneous remission? In 1950 it was common. Now, the "statistics" lead us to believe that certain treatments are successful, when they are really nothing more than spontaneous remission.
If you had prostate cancer in 1950 your odds of survival were the same as today...Not good. The "statistics" would lead us to believe otherwise.

What I am saying, is that when science offers a statistic in place of a cure, we are dealing with snake oil.

Non smokers die of lung cancer. If you want me to believe your statistic about smoking causes lung cancer, show me that you can cure lung cancer in the non smoker before you try to convince me of your expertise.

Non smokers die of lung cancer. If you want me to believe your statistic about smoking causes lung cancer, show me that you can cure lung cancer in the non smoker before you try to convince me of your expertise.

Nice strawman. One does not need to be able to cure cirhossis of the liver to demonstrate that excessive alcohol caused the condition. Likewise, the fact that some cases of lung cancer occur without smoking does not negate statistics correlating smoking to lung cancer deaths, as smoking is the overwhelming causation of lung cancer.

I'll go somewhere else, as you simply aren't making a lick of sense.

Are you a character assassin? Post your resume, please, otherwise, why is your post germane to the discussion at hand? This guy's credentials seem perfectly fine

1) I was just pointing out what a hypocrite he and many of the antismoking Nazis are. Who the @%#! are they to lecture us and try to take away and/or make it more difficult to enjoy our unhealthy choices we like when they themselves can't seem to control their unhealthly choices they enjoy.

2) The point still stands he is a psychologist not a scientist or an economist. Would you like a psychologist to do your taxes? How about giving grant money to a psychologist to do cancer research? So why on earth would you trust this psychologist to produce meaningful research on both? If he went to school for psychology (and LOL! methodology which is equivelent to a degree in Philosophy) why didn't he become a psychologist and if he wanted to be a scientist or an economist why didn't he go to school for it? So yeah this guy has no creditials to be considered a serious scientific researcher which means of course he fits in well with the anti-smoking Nazis.

3) As for my resume, I would go against this guy anytime because unlike him I am actually a real scientist. I actually went to school for it and got a degree in Biology and I actually work in my field employed as a scientist doing real research. I do not have my PHD yet because I didn't and won't take the easy route like this guy and pick a quick and easy major like Methodolgy.

And yes as a scientist the one thing that really ticks me off is so called Doctors (be they psycholgist and even medical doctors) like this guy who like to play scientist and put out junk such as this and are taken seriously.

2) The point still stands he is a psychologist not a scientist or an economist. Would you like a psychologist to do your taxes? [snip]

Take a deep breath. The guy was doing research on the occurrance of death surrounding the use of addictive substances. One doesn't need to be hard-core test tube guy or some white-coat-wearing guy with a clipboard standing outside a wind tunnel to perform that kind of research.

Sounds to me like you've got a severe case of sour grapes.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.