All Hank, all the time.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
2.

seeing Iran drop a few nukes and take Israel out.

DISCLAIMER:

This was rhetorical and not meant to indicate, imply, assert or otherwise express, implicitly or otherwise, that I endorse, support, desire, or otherwise want the destruction of Israel. Further, none of the previous post was meant to indicate, imply, assert or otherwise express, implicitly or otherwise, that I hate America and/or Israel.

Carry on.

[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.

[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.

BTW, I smoke cigars in the presence of my child, and I sleep very fucking well.

BTW2, I had a cancer scare a few years back. I asked about studies. To a doc, each of them said "stop reading epidemiological shit," it's at best a crude guide, and fails to explain so much.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
BTW, I smoke cigars in the presence of my child,

Um, congratulations? How long ago did this happen?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
BTW, I smoke cigars in the presence of my child, and I sleep very fucking well.

Note: I am doing this only to be obnoxious.

I don't remember any reports of guilty sleeplessness afflicting the parents of the kids who were kept in cages.

[Sidd Finch]

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.

Please don't go away again.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...not_israe.html

August 10, 2006
Worry About the West -- Not Israel
By Victor Davis Hanson

The reactions and media coverage coming out of the West regarding this latest war in the Middle East are as bewildering as they are instructive.

Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., for example, recently said, "I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel."

As it happens, Dingell was quoted out of context by PowerLine, Rush Limbaugh and others in a way that made him sound more pro-Hezbollah than he is. Amazingly enough, Victor Davis Hanson has managed to quote selectively from a lengthier statement Dingell made to address the earlier smear to again smear Dingell as being more pro-Hezbollah than he is. Bewildering? Hardly. Instructive? Yes, but not in the way he meant. What a hack.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.

That's why the articles are peer reviewed and that's why they're constantly rehashing the same thing over and over and over again. That's why the EPA, the National Academy of Sciences, and most recently, the Surgeon General issued separate studies on the subject. It's not a hypothesis that one group of physicians came up with and was never tested again.

I'd be more than happy to play "who has more doctors in the family that we can bullshit with at cocktail parties" with you, and I'm pretty sure that I'd win. But I've also gone to a School Public Health and actually done healthcare research, and a vast majority of what I do every day involves healthcare research, and your disdain for epidemeology and evidence based, outcomes oriented medicine show an obvious bias against any rigorous study which has results that you do not agree with.

I could give a shit about what you do with your kids. My doctor father used to get ready every weekend for 100 mile road trips by making a 16 ounce gin and tonic for the road. The single car seat was reserved for the infant, and the other three kids at various weights under fifty pounds were strapped in to whatever lap belts were around. We all lived. Doesn't mean it was safe then or now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
As it happens, Dingell was quoted out of context by PowerLine, Rush Limbaugh and others in a way that made him sound more pro-Hezbollah than he is. Amazingly enough, Victor Davis Hanson has managed to quote selectively from a lengthier statement to against smear Dingell as being more pro-Hezbollah than he is. Bewildering? Hardly. Instructive? Yes, but not in the way he meant. What a hack.

your point being that blog cites aren't particularly valuable as proof of things?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
That's why the articles are peer reviewed and that's why they're constantly rehashing the same thing over and over and over again. That's why the EPA, the National Academy of Sciences, and most recently, the Surgeon General issued separate studies on the subject. It's not a hypothesis that one group of physicians came up with and was never tested again.

I'd be more than happy to play "who has more doctors in the family that we can bullshit with at cocktail parties" with you, and I'm pretty sure that I'd win. But I've also gone to a School Public Health and actually done healthcare research, and a vast majority of what I do every day involves healthcare research, and your disdain for epidemeology and evidence based, outcomes oriented medicine show an obvious bias against any rigorous study which has results that you do not agree with.

I could give a shit about what you do with your kids. My doctor father used to get ready every weekend for 100 mile road trips by making a 16 ounce gin and tonic for the road. The single car seat was reserved for the infant, and the other three kids at various weights under fifty pounds were strapped in to whatever lap belts were around. We all lived. Doesn't mean it was safe then or now.

Sebby's kid had a cold. Sebby applied leaches, and now em is better. So don't come around here waving your "modern medicine" stuff and think you can impress him.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sebby's kid had a cold. Sebby applied leaches, and now em is better. So don't come around here waving your "modern medicine" stuff and think you can impress him.

Leeches.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Leeches.

Those too.

I actually noticed the error and was about to correct, but you moved too quickly for me. Insert fat joke here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
your point being that blog cites aren't particularly valuable as proof of things?

When you last stepped in dog shit did you resolve never to walk anywhere again?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
That's why the articles are peer reviewed and that's why they're constantly rehashing the same thing over and over and over again. That's why the EPA, the National Academy of Sciences, and most recently, the Surgeon General issued separate studies on the subject. It's not a hypothesis that one group of physicians came up with and was never tested again.

I'd be more than happy to play "who has more doctors in the family that we can bullshit with at cocktail parties" with you, and I'm pretty sure that I'd win. But I've also gone to a School Public Health and actually done healthcare research, and a vast majority of what I do every day involves healthcare research, and your disdain for epidemeology and evidence based, outcomes oriented medicine show an obvious bias against any rigorous study which has results that you do not agree with.

I could give a shit about what you do with your kids. My doctor father used to get ready every weekend for 100 mile road trips by making a 16 ounce gin and tonic for the road. The single car seat was reserved for the infant, and the other three kids at various weights under fifty pounds were strapped in to whatever lap belts were around. We all lived. Doesn't mean it was safe then or now.

You can tout studies till you're blue in the face. If what those "studies" say about second hand smoke were accurate (in the sense that they conveyed to the average person his actual chance of getting cancer from a nearby cigar now and again), we'd all have cancer.

According to "govt studies," most of us should be dead. Second hand smoke is not a huge risk, and taht is exactly why, no matter how many studies you might offer me, or how much Sidd will "2" you on the issue, it will always sound absurd for people to say "second hand smoke causes cancer."

It sounds absurd.

Does it happen? Sure, to a degree remarkably infrequent.

Ask an onc how many patients he/she has seen over the years who got lung cancer ascribable to ssecond hand smoke (not industrial second hand smoke).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sebby's kid had a cold. Sebby applied leaches, and now em is better. So don't come around here waving your "modern medicine" stuff and think you can impress him.

Oh, bullshit. Lies, damned lies and statistics. If I gave Steven Leavitt the data in those studies, he'd find fifty explanations other than second hand smoke for the cancers. Ever "tune" an expert report? You can bend data till it stands for exactly the opposite of twhat the numbers suggest on first blush.