Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kadath
I'm sure you'll argue with this because it's based off of scientific reviews (six) and not a blind study, but
/snip
That was about 3 minutes of just Google searching. I can talk to my buddy at Merck with access to actual study databases and see if he can turn anything up if you want, but I have a feeling you'd argue regardless, and I feel silly pulling in outside resources for TFP Politics argument about smoking bans.
|
You do know what a blind study is right?
It means that they didn't have the intended result going into the study.
That being said, you are right, I will argue this one, very, very easily.
Look at the references.
Look at reference #1
Do you see anything wrong with that one?
Hint: read my links above.
In other words, this paper proves exactly what they wanted it to prove before they did any research.
Also, look at what they want: all smoking to be banned that could be anywhere near another person, inside or out. I thought "nobody would want to ban smoking outdoors"--these people have an agenda, and they won't let facts get in their way.
I am more than willing to admit that second-hand smoke is bad.
I am not willing, unless I see proof A LOT BETTER than this, to admit second-hand smoke is as dangerous as some people would like us to believe.
Once again: Remember when all of the studies came out about how dangerous egg yolks were? What happened there? But....but...but...those were studies done by smart people that know things! Well, we knew better before them and we know better know.