This is my way of smudging my blog in my attempt to repel the do-gooder, rhetoric-regurgitating, health nazis: https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/catch-2/
Richard White, author of Smoke Screens, replies point by point to Chris Snowdon (CATCH-1).
The Case for the Defence.
The points raised by Hill are all valid, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the smoking studies are valid.
1. Strength: Hill gave the example of chimney sweeps and scrotal cancer which found a relative risk (RR) of 200 (ie. they were 200 times more likely to get this rare disease). Such a relative risk was so large that it required no epidemiological study. It was observable to the naked eye, as it were?as obvious as finding the association between mining and coughing, or being a woman and enjoying Sex in the City. The lung cancer-smoking link (from hereafter “the smoking theory” just to wind up any ASH supporters) is not quite as large as that?hardly any are?but it is generally in the region of 5 to 20, always greater…
View original post 1,676 more words