Post: #1

PASSIVE SMOKING DOESN'T EXIST!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd...-big-lies/

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/...04077.html

Quote:There is "no clear link" between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, a study led by researchers at Stanford University has found.

After a decade-long study of more than 76,000 women, the researchers concluded that while there is still a strong association between smoking and lung cancer, there is no significant relationship between the cancer and exposure to passive smoke.

Published in the latest Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the study found that among current smokers, lung cancer was 13 times more common than in non-smokers, and four times more common among former smokers. But for women who had never smoked, it found that exposure to secondhand smoke did not significantly increase the risk of lung cancer.

Further evidence that 'science' is being corrupted to fulfill the whims of government who want more and more control over peoples' lives.

The same is true of the needless ban on e-cigarettes in public buildings and workplaces as well.

I think Climate Change is bullshit also. And stories like the above should be a warning of how the 'experts', scientists and politicians won't let pesky evidence get in the way of trying to take away our freedoms.

People should be fucking pissed off that Passive Smoking was a giant fucking lie. If we can't trust doctors and politicians on this - then where else are they lying to us?

Post: #2

We know you're big on posting controversial threads and articles, but posting an article challenging the rhetoric of second-hand smoke and concluding that "Modern science is bullshit" is a bit of a stretch.

Post: #3

GLOBAL WARMING

PASSIVE SMOKING

MILLENIUM BUG

MAD COW DISEASE

BIRD FLU

USE OF ANTI-DEPRESSANTS

AIDS CONTRACTED BY HETROSEXUAL MEN

DRINKING 8 GLASSES OF WATER A DAY

THE CHOLESTEROL MYTH

RECOMMENDED WEEKLY DRINKING LIMITS

RECOMMENDED EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER

THE ASBESTOS REMOVAL SCAM

SALT CAUSES HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE

Yep - most of the major panics/health advice of the past two decades has been complete bullshit.

Post: #4

I agree with the OP 100%.

Post: #5

It's not all bullshit.

It's just man trying to explain things that are beyond his understanding.

When you do that, you usually end up sounding like someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.

It's hard to explain the world, most people fail miserably when doing so, including scientists.

That said, science still does some amazing things. It just depends which scientist and which study we are talking about.

I prefer to study nature instead of science. Science is man made, nature is not.

Post: #6

As a non-smoker who owns stock in Altria (makers of Marlboro) I agree completely regarding passive smoking. Keep smoking. Keep smoking

The problem with modern science is that is not necessarily objective anymore.It is entirely dependent on who funded the study/science.

If Altria commissions a study about the health benefits of smoking they will remarkably find that smoking decreases your risk of dementia.

If the alcohol board of America pays for a study--guess what drinking alcohol is good for you.

If gum manufacturers pay for a study about the benefits of chewing gum--you guessed it gum is good for you (stimulates brain function).

Post: #7

I write the above as somebody who hates smoking and actually enjoys not smelling of cigarettes when I come out of a pub.

But even more than that - I hate being lied to.

Post: #8

I agree with the 8th one as sports drinks and milk re hydrate better than water. Though, ironically, this was discovered through science

(12-19-2013 03:58 PM)cardguy Wrote:  GLOBAL WARMING

PASSIVE SMOKING

MILLENIUM BUG

MAD COW DISEASE

BIRD FLU

USE OF ANTI-DEPRESSANTS

AIDS CONTRACTED BY HETROSEXUAL MEN

DRINKING 8 GLASSES OF WATER A DAY

THE CHOLESTEROL MYTH

RECOMMENDED WEEKLY DRINKING LIMITS

RECOMMENDED EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER

THE ASBESTOS REMOVAL SCAM

Yep - most of the major panics/health advice of the past two decades has been bullshit.

Post: #9

It still stinks awfully, though.

Post: #10

I added the SALT/HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE link to my list.

I am happy to offer the relevent evidence for each of my claims. But a simple GOOGLE search will provide alot of the evidence.

Plus a few of those mentioned are thing I have posted on before.

Post: #11

As for the 8 GLASSES OF WATER myth. It is even simpler than you think.

If you are not thirsty - you are not dehydrated.

Simple.

For more details just do a GOOGLE search. There is alot of myths surrounding how much liquid you need to drink each day.

Post: #12

I wanna' chuck SWINE FLU in there as well. Along with the volcanic ash cloud which grounded all the planes in and out of the UK for a week.

There was a big panic about that here in the UK a few years ago.

Post: #13

With new information science is supposed to change, at least that's what I learned as a STEM major.

Post: #14

Who here believes we did not land on the moon?

Post: #15

Quote:Similar conclusions were reached by the World Health Organisation which concluded in 1998 after a seven-year study that the correlation between "passive smoking" and lung cancer was not "statistically significant."

Yet - smoking in public places here in the UK was banned in 2006.

I think most of science is no longer an intellectually neutral search for the truth. In fact - I had a thread awhile ago discussing this. That thread discusses the best article I have read this year. It was from 'The New Yorker' magazine:

/thread-30524.html

Post: #16

So modern science is BS and your proof is using a study conducted by modern science?

Post: #17

It's true, we often "don't know what we don't know."

Also Cardguy, many forget we get water from food as well.

(12-19-2013 04:06 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  It's just man trying to explain things that are beyond his understanding.

Post: #18

(12-19-2013 04:45 PM)J.J. Wrote:  So modern science is BS and your proof is using a study conducted by modern science?

Post: #19

Moms everywhere, rejoice! Strap the baby in the car seat, make sure the windows are shut tight, and light on up! You don't even need to open the garage door!

Post: #20

Well now that second-hand smoke is taken care of.

How are we going to combat the terrors of THIRD-hand smoke?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-time.html

Quote:New research has claimed for the first time ever that third-hand smoke from cigarettes causes significant genetic damage to human cells.

Third-hand smoke is 'noxious residue' produced by cigarette smoke that clings to virtually all surfaces after second-hand smoke has disappeared.

The study from the Laurence Berkeley National Laboratory at the University of California also found that this toxic residue becomes more harmful over time.

Post: #21

Hasn't there been a bunch of law suits won by people who worked around second hand smoke in bars, bingo halls, etc?

Post: #22

I think you need to rephrase it as modern MEDICAL science and Allopathy is very sketchy. Stuff done in the field of Physics is very much not bullshit.

Post: #23

Physicists don't know what 72% of the universe is made of. Shall we start with that?

Post: #24

Modern science as reported on by the corporate media...and modern science used to justify legislation to further Government control of our lives is bullshit.

Science, done according to the scientific method, is fine. Producing testable hypothesis with double blind studies and control groups and all that.

But there are a whole lot of things that hide behind the legitimacy of "SCIENCE" that are in no way scientific at all.

For instance...the entire red meat and saturated fats are bad for you we're all constantly being reminded of.

I've looked into the actual studies that such claims in the media cited.

Here's the deal - in EVERY single instance some study was conducted to "prove" the badness of red meat and saturated fat, the study is based on epidemiological analysis of food questionnaire results.

There not sequestering people in a lab and feeding them steaks and butter, and at the same time feeding a control group nothing but veggies and fruits, then comparing the results on their health.

No, they send out food questionnaire surveys to a bunch of senior citizens, asking them questions like these:

Quote:Over the last 12 months, how often did you eat the following foods? (Ignore any recent changes.)

Whole milk (4%), NOT in coffee, NOT on cereal: Never | 1-6 per year | 7-11 per year | 1 per month | 2-3 per month | 1-2 per week | 3-4 per week | 5-6 per week | 1 per day | 2-3 per day | 4-5 per day | 6+ per day. Portion size: less than ½ cup | ½ to 1 cup | more than 1 cup.

Breads or dinner rolls, NOT INCLUDING ON SANDWICHES: Never | 1-6 per year | 7-11 per year | 1 per month | 2-3 per month | 1-2 per week | 3-4 per week | 5-6 per week | 1 per day | 2-3 per day | 4-5 per day | 6+ per day. Portion size: less than 1 slice or roll | 1 or 2 slices or rolls | more than 2 slices or rolls.

Mayonnaise or mayonnaise-like salad dressing on bread: Never | 1-6 per year | 7-11 per year | 1 per month | 2-3 per month | 1-2 per week | 3-4 per week | 5-6 per week | 1 per day | 2-3 per day | 4-5 per day | 6+ per day. Portion size: less than 1 teaspoon | 1 to 3 teaspoons | more than 3 teaspoons.

Ground beef in mixtures such as tacos, burritos, meatballs, casseroles, chili, meatloaf: Never | 1-6 per year | 7-11 per year | 1 per month | 2-3 per month | 1-2 per week | 3-4 per week | 5-6 per week | 1 per day | 2-3 per day | 4-5 per day | 6+ per day. Portion size: less than 3 ounces | 3 to 7 ounces | more than 7 ounces.

Then the "study" takes all these results from these surveys (remember how many times you eat tacos and burritos in the past 12 months?), compiles the answers, then compares it to the number of seniors who kick the bucket from cancer/heart disease, etc., then draw a statistical correlation between red meat/saturated fat consumption and death by whatever disease the "study" is trying to link the supposed substance they want to demonize.

Then the media gets a hold of the study results and make reports like this:

"The latest study has lead researchers to conclude that red meat consumption may cause cancer and heart disease!" Or "...may be associated with higher risks of cancer"

These reports then 'go viral' (and get reprinted in mainstream media and reported on the tellavision news broadcasts) and soon "Everybody knows red meat/saturated fat is bad for you!"

What never gets reported? Whether or not the "study" was an actual scientific experiment using the scientific method, or an epidemiological study using statistical analysis to determine correlation, but turn around and claim it's causation.

That's not science. That's marketing and propaganda. It's deliberately conflating correlation and causation. I haven't looked into the "studies" regarding second hand smoke, but I guarantee you it is an epidemiological study and statistical analysis that indicates correlation between second hand smoke and cancer. But the first thing any Statistical Analysis class will tell you over and over again is that Correlation does not equal Causation! Correlation merely means the topic warrants further investigation to see if in fact there is causation.

This practice is regularly done and touted as "Modern Science." This type of "science" is most certainly bullshit.

Post: #25

Even if you could arrange to have people in labs - with some eating meat and others not - for long periods of time. It would still be impossibe to do a 'double blind' experiment. And that is under ideal conditions.