Mothering Forum banner

1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,036 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
<p>I saw this linked a couple days ago and wanted to know what your thoughts on it are. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>It was written by an epidemiologist, who makes some interesting points (I think). </p>
<p> </p>
<p>"<span style="color:rgb(38,38,38);">Then, the scientists decided to compare smokers to non-smokers. As it turns out, smokers had a higher likelihood of developing lung cancer. Then they flipped it and reversed it. They compared lung cancer patients with people without lung cancer. As it turns out, people with lung cancer were more likely to be smokers. </span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(38,38,38);">That is, there were epidemiological studies done on smoking and on lung cancer, and they were both linked." </span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(38,38,38);">He goes on to explain that this same method (done by the same kind of scientists that linked smoking to cancer) was used to determine that vaccines reduced the number of cases and deaths due to VPDs. </span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(38,38,38);">"(Some) will tell you that the epidemiology that my colleagues and I do is “tobacco science.” They are referring to a dark time in the history of science when bona fide scientists actually stood against the epidemiologists and said that the epidemiological studies linking smoking tobacco and lung cancer were invalid. They did their worst to try and discredit clear epidemiology and even clearer biostatistics. <span style="text-decoration:underline;">In fact, the “tobacco scientists” were the ones trying to discredit the epidemiological evidence.</span></span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><span style="color:rgb(38,38,38);">Now, you tell me, who are the “tobacco scientists”? Is it us who use the tools of science to come up with incontrovertible evidence of the benefits of vaccines and their excellent safety record?" </span></p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/i-dont-think-you-know-what-tobacco-science-means/" target="_blank">http://thepoxesblog.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/i-dont-think-you-know-what-tobacco-science-means/</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>I think he makes a pretty important point that, historically, the doctors/scientists that tried to go against the clear epidemiological evidence of tobacco harm are the ones called the "tobacco scientists", not the doctors and scientists that agreed with the epidemiologists/overwhelming evidence.   </p>
 
  • Like
Reactions: ss834

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,724 Posts
I agree it's a strange analogy to make. Because tobacco is an area in which mainstream science and medicine have fought against large companies to point out the health problems with products they sell.<br><br>
It wasn't easy, or pretty at times. But the scientific method gave the answer and no doctor would ever say smoking was good for you now.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top