Forums

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I called a pulmonolgist. He laughed at you. I'll be more than happy to expand the survey to the rest of the Texas Medical Center, if you'd like, including the oncologists over at MD Anderson and the Environmental Health and Safety people over at UT's School of Public Health, if you'd like. I'm afraid, though, if you want me to get a huge sample, I'll have to seek IRB approval, so that might take some time.

BTW, Medline is free to the whole wide world, you know.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...arch&DB=pubmed

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

ETA: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum (relationship between SIDS and second hand smoke)

And that's just a handful of the second hand smoke studies.

Bullshit. I can find studies out the ass to support anything, and tons supporting the non-linkage between second hand smoke and cancer.

A family member onc's position on all this shit is "people with certain genetics can get cancer triggered by certain stimuli, but the studies fail to say YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT GENETIC QUIRK."

Cross ref the people in these studies for certain mutations and you'll find they probably all had them. Yet these "studies" tell us "everybody who's around second hand smoke" is in danger of getting cancer. That's bullshit.

If second hand smoke were a legitimate cancer risk, as opposed to an infintessimally small one for a select group of people, think of how many people would have it.

These studies are almost always poorly written, but if you put it in the form of a paper, and claim you used the scientific method, somebody - shit, everbody - will believe you.