... oh, and soothing my taste buds with some Jefferson Reserve Very Old Very Small Batch.
Posted on 11/26/2010 3:12:48 PM PST by JohnBrowdie
“Amazing all these deaths are ending in 000 , seems if they were actually counting it would be more like 601,42...”
Any reputable scientist knows that numerical data are useless without error bars, and in a study as chockfull of variables and unknowns as “the number of deaths due to second-hand smoke”, those error bars have to be substantial, and probably enormous.
I’m guessing the meaningful number, with error bars, is something more like 600,000 (+/- 600,000).
In other words, the number is essentially worthless (as substantiated by the data referred to in reply #50).
Oh yeah, I know dat......:)
This is the social engineering group that estimated that more than 1,000,000 "civilian" Iraqis were killed while we were dismantling the other Hussein's murdering regime and wrote 10,000 words "proving" it?
Turns out the numbers were assembled by (very) young activists with more enthusiasm that knowledge, expertise and even common sense?
Yeah.
That Lancet.
Pulled numbers right out of where TSA is focusing on these days.
Remember the climate change fraud? Those crazy suckers were estimating all over the place, and extrapolating hair-raising predictions and even massaged computer programs to "prove it?"
Uh huh.
Another one of those.
Truly ignorant, well-meaning idiots kill more children worldwide from malaria in a month than all smokers worldwide in ten years.
Documented.
Proven
Settled.
These idiots sorta forgot that that is the same number of "victims (mostly women and children)" cruelly murdered by smokers each year as when there were four times as many smokers worldwide.
Strange "science," that.
Geeeeez! I wonder if that super detailed study with the even numbered deaths (600,000) identified the brand of cigarette that caused each person’s death?
How many Winstons, Camels, Lucky Strikes, and every kind of brand was identified as the KILLER?
I wonder if any second hand marijuana smoke was involved.
It just is amazing that these geniuses were able to open the lungs of 600,000 people and identify the exact smoke that killed them.
I must say, technology has come a long way......(/S)
Beautiful!
But, but, it's for the childrennnnn...
a year and a half ago my 79 year old mother passed away. She had never smoked a day in her life (although my dad did) and when she died it wasn’t smoke related...yet when the death cirtificate came...the box was marked that said it was! made me so mad! I made them change it. they tried to tell me it didn’t matter now...it was just going to take up time, etc....but there was no way i was going to let them add one more person to their trumped up numbers.
I wonder how many people this happens to, and how many let it pass...giving the illusion that more people die of smoking related diseases.
nanny state ping
How many were killed by second-hand Socialism?
Hard to read this through my own second-hand smoke. If I exhaled it in the first place, does that make it first-hand?...cough!
Ha ha. Same outfit that claimed 650000 (er,...654,965!) “excess civilian deaths in Iraq” just before the 2006 elections. What do you suppose they’re up to now?
... oh, and soothing my taste buds with some Jefferson Reserve Very Old Very Small Batch.
They were used as a basis for getting the socialized medicine movement mobilized.
Now that Obamacare is falling apart, the authority of the smoke studies is going to be tested. Along with the trial lawyers (tort reform is coming) who brought millions of dollars to the states with their anti-tobacco lawsuits.
by this logic, I wonder what the death rates are for second-hand chocolate eating, and second-hand driving. or second-hand dying, for that matter.
What is amazing is that the WHO report on the effects of second-hand smoke wasn't "downplayed." It was so thoroughly buried, that it has been impossible for me to ever find a complete copy of it including tables and appendices.
Isn't it astounding that Assange has managed to get national defense secrets, hundreds of thousands of items, perhaps up to a million, and no one has been able to sneak a single complete copy of the UN WHO study of 1999?
There never was as thorough a study of second hand smoke before the WHO study, and it's not likely there will ever be a truly politically and PC-free study any time soon.
The WHO study, as I recall, covered 15-20 years of constant follow up of tens of thousands of individuals of all ages.
Howerver, here's a tantalizing glimpse :
The money spent to fund WHO could have been used to buy food to keep people from starving to death around the globe.
See—the WHO kills people!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.