[Gabz]

Plus, the nature of statistical analysis is such that we may never know which individuals died from the cause stated, only that there were excess deaths in a particular group.

This is true - but none of the statistical analysis you have used to defend your position is statistically significant.

To show statistical significance of increased risk there must be an RR of at least 2.00, and most reliable epidemiologists prefer one of 3.00.

An example of junk science being used in the area of SHS exposure is the EPA's declaration of it being a class a carcinogen for lung cancer because their studies show an increased risk of 19% (rr=1.19), however the EPA considers the increased risk of 65% (rr=1.65) for lung cancer from drinking whole milk to be statistically insignificant.

And BTW, the EPA did no studies, they did a meta-analysis of already done studies and still needed to shift the confidence level from the scientific standard of 95% to 90% in order to even show the insignificant level of 19%.

In the end it all boils down to the fact that correlation does NOT equal causation.

[CSM]

"This is true - but none of the statistical analysis you have used to defend your position is statistically significant."

How dare you question the elitist data! You know that smoking has damaged your brain to the point that you can never get to an appropriate intellectual level to understand mathematical data.