FORCES Tavern: We welcome you to The Tavern, you are welcome to browse and read, but please register to post.

Topix is trying to 'trash' forces.org...

It doesn't matter if it is anything from trans fat, second hand smoke, home schooling or gun control - there are those who are using a numbers game and calling it science to pass legislation.

Topix is trying to 'trash' forces.org...

Postby admin » Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:52 pm

While we discourage taking part in "free for alls" of the verbal type on The Tavern - this thread is on Topix.

If you have the time or inclination to let them know Your opinion, below is the link.

Maryetta


Forces.org - bit of a joke? - Topix
http://www.topix.com/forum/health/smoki ... UOJOVQB970

I've just clicked on the 'researchers' link on Forces.org. ... Forces.org - where else can you find a stamp designer passing 'opinion' on epidemiological ...
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 256
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:08 am
Location: West Virginia, USA

Re: Topix is trying to 'trash' forces.org...

Postby azmac » Sun May 30, 2010 7:53 pm

I have been fighting them for a couple of years on Topix. But most smokers and the people who see our country going downhill do nothing. Smokers club has over 10,000 members and you can not get more than 10 to do any thing. Why we are losing. I am now involved in a local battle. My wife got sick and can do nothing t help me. I have over 40 animals to take care of, I help out a animal rescue, I help several elderly people. I take care of the house and yard. I can still find time to argue for my rights.
http://mohavecountyconstitution.com/
azmac
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:46 am

Less deadly cigarettes

Postby gary k » Sat Jun 05, 2010 1:16 pm

There is a very quick and very easy way to make cigarettes 90% less deadly.

All that you have to do is leave the anti-smoker's hysteria laden, propaganda filled, world of make believe and made-up science and enter the real world of real people and real facts.

CDC says here:
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sammec/Help/glossary_hp.asp

Relative Risk for Smoking-Related Deaths =
The mortality rate for current or former smokers divided by the mortality rate for never smokers.

Thus the mortality rate for current or former smokers for a disease is the number of never smoker deaths multiplied by the RR.


Anti-smokers such as The American Cancer Society and the CDC claim that the male smoker lung cancer death RR is 23.3!!!


According to The Lung Cancer Alliance's count of real people;
http://www.lungcanceralliance.org/docum ... t_2008.pdf

15% of the 157,000 lung cancer deaths(LCD's) occur to never smokers, that is 23,550, and 35% occur to current smokers,that is 55,000.

About 1/2th of those deaths would be males and that gives us 11,775 male never-smoker deaths and 27,475 male current smokers lung cancer deaths.

Since there are 11,775 never-smoker male LCD's, the number of current smoker LCD's claimed by the anti-smokers is 11,775 X 23.3 and that is 274,358.

The 'real world' number of male smoker LCD's is 27,475 and that is only 10% of the antis claimed number of LCD's, 274,358.

That gives us cigarettes that are 90% less deadly in the 'real world' than in the antis world!!!!
:shock: :lol:
gary k
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:52 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: Topix is trying to 'trash' forces.org...

Postby gary k » Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:17 pm

Anti-smokers such as The American Cancer Society and the CDC claim that the male smoker lung cancer death RR is 23.3!!!


Relative Risk for Smoking-Related Deaths =
The mortality rate for current or former smokers divided by the mortality rate for never smokers.

Since there are 11,775 never-smoker male LCD's, and the 'real world' number of male smoker LCD's is 27,475 , it is easy to figure the RR for male smokers.

27,475 divided by 11,775 = RR 2.33

That is RATHER smaller than 23.3 claimed by the anti-smokers !!!!!
:shock: :P
gary k
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:52 pm
Location: Illinois


Return to Why are we refusing to talk about the fraudulant use epidemiology, calling it "science" to promote a political agenda?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron