2) When they say there is a 20% risk factor for SHS relate coronary disease they really mean that there is a 20% risk factor for SHS related coronary deaths.
Thus they are concluding that SHS kills.
OK, so they only used mortality rates. Doesn't that mean the death rate?
And then YOU decide that when they say a 20% risk factor for coronary heart disease they actually MEAN a 20% risk factor for coronary heart disease DEATH rates.
I believe it said there MAY BE a link between SHS and 20% risk factor in coronary heart disease.
Nothing about a 20% risk factor in coronary heart disease DEATH rates.
You lie and try to make everyone believe it.
There is a PROVEN risk factor involved when a person smokes
I have seen very few studies PROVING a risk factor from SHS and most of those were cherry picked metastudies that lacked firm scientific doctrine.
JaJ........this is just what I was saying earlier.
This study looks at disease - not death.
it's pretty hard to do a study regarding the DEATH of anyone, when the study is contacting LIVE people.
Even if the study had confirmed the previously thought 30% increased risk of coronary heart disease, it would remain statistically insignificant for either contracting the disease or death caused by the disease. Statistical significance doesn't not occur until there is at least a 100% increase in the relative risk (RR 2.00) but preferably 200% (RR 3.00) without any finding falling below parity (RR 1.00).
Nearly every finding of this study falls below parity and few if any reach the 2.00RR to make it mildly significant.
Anyone believing the Cancer Society and the rest of the alphabet cartel stopped funding this study for any reason other than the numbers were not meeting their pre-determined expectations is fooling no one but themselves.
A 40 year study that get's defunded at 38 years because the funders disagree with the appearing outcome, should not be discounted just because of the funding source of the final 2 years that show results consistency with the rest of the finding.