Quote:
|
There is one potential fatal flaw here though: I can't concede to a research study that uses the 1992-1993 EPA study as a reference.
|
Well if you're excluding all papers that cite studies that are flawed in some way, then I doubt that either one of us will be left with enough studies to count on one hand.
Plus you are using the term "methodology" in a manner that I do not use it and no scientist would use it, since that term by definition does not include any filtering of the identity of references cited, unless the references themselves are a subject of the research.
So let me propose an alternative (since I no longer know what you mean when you use the word "methodology").
Why don't you just specify, in as much detail as you can, exactly what the
minimum scientific requirements would be for you to conclude that some risk factor caused harm. For example, we could specify harm as "death" or "contract cancer" or something else.
After you tell us what your minimum requirement is, then I will show you either (1) neither active nor passive smoking studies meet your requirement; or (2) both active and passive smoking studies meet your requirement.