Another joke that I enjoyed:

"I took an aptitude test to see how I could best contribute to humanity.
The results came back "organ donor".

Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

billo, your answer satisfies my suspicion that your quest is meaningless
since your first reply clearly shows that it excludes meaningful real world
groups.

I then asked you in another way (" If a group of licensed and periodically
recertified people does not meet your criteria, then I cannot visual any
meaningful real world group that
your criteria would apply to. Please give some examples") so as to cover
the logic of both exclude and include and you reply " My criteria for using
things as directed is using things as directed". Which of course is no
answer, and can be interpreted that you cannot think of one real word group
yourself. (If you feel that that is an answer, please look up the definition
of what was requested "example"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=example .

Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/
"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
Billo said: No, Henry. I am answering the question of why I bother
with
you.

In fact, my challenge still stands. None of the articles you
have posted deal with use as directed. In fact, that is one of
the stated limitations in the large population studies.

H. Kuska reply: ??????? the Minnesota paper states: "Population and
population access. In Minnesota, licensing for application of pesticides
commercially or for application to one's own farmland requires periodic
recertification by completion of a program of education and examination.
Applicators are licensed to apply specific classes of pesticides
(herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and/or fumigants)".

If a group of licensed and periodically recertified people does not meet
your criteria, then I cannot visual any meaningful real world group that
your criteria would apply to. Please give some examples
.


Hmmm. Let's see, can we think of any certified people who don't
act exactly as directed. Boy, you must be right. A person who
goes through a quick training program and certification must
never act in a way contrary to those guidelines.

All those reports of malpractice and practice errors by physicians,
nurses, and medical technologists in hospitals must be lies, eh,
Henry? After all, if going through an orientation session immunizes
people from this kind of thing, then years of training and multiple
rigorous exams must make it impossible!

And lawyers, they never cut corners either, do they? Or plumbers.
Or carpenters. Or welders. Or funeral homes. Or restauranteurs. At
least not licensed ones.

And god knows that there are no licensed drivers that ever break
the law.

Henry, a good part of my living is investigating the messes caused
by trained and licensed people who ignore the rules. There's nobody
better than a trained and licensed Ordnance Disposal Expert to be
found blowing up himself and his kids welding on a full propane
tank.

Familiarity breeds contempt, and "experts" are some of the worst
at cutting corners -- because they are good enough that they
*can* often cut corners and get away with it.


My criteria for using things as directed is using things as directed.



Also, please provide the exact quote in this paper that you feel makes
the
statement that the glyphosate was not used as directed.


It was not a subject of the paper. Since it was not addressed, a
scientist would not make unwarranted assumptions one way or the
other. Once again, you pretend that something was tested in a
paper that was not tested.

This is another paper who's purpose was to generate hypotheses,
not test them, and you tout this as a paper that tests the
hypotheses.


billo

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
billo, your answer satisfies my suspicion that your quest is meaningless
since your first reply clearly shows that it excludes meaningful real world
groups.

I then asked you in another way (" If a group of licensed and periodically
recertified people does not meet your criteria, then I cannot visual any
meaningful real world group that
your criteria would apply to. Please give some examples") so as to cover
the logic of both exclude and include and you reply " My criteria for using
things as directed is using things as directed". Which of course is no
answer, and can be interpreted that you cannot think of one real word group
yourself. (If you feel that that is an answer, please look up the definition
of what was requested "example"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=example .




No, Henry. If you want to make a statement about whether or not
something is being used as directed, you study whether or not
something is being used as directed. This is not meaningless.
And it is not hard. What is meaningless is to use the Psychic
Science Network to pretend that something is being tested when
it is not.

It would not be hard to test whether or not something is being
used as directed. One might start with asking the quesition and
finding out whether or not the respondents even claim that
it is being used as directed. The second thing one might do
is find out whether or not the respondents even actually
*know* what the criteria are. The third is to physically
look and see if the criteria are being met -- in the case
of professional applicators, one can look in the barn and
see if things are actually being stored correctly, look at
the equipment and see if it is calibrated, look at residual
levels in the workplace and see if spillages are correctly
handled.

As an example of the second, consider the use of Daubert
criteria in the courts. A few years ago, the Supreme Court
changed the way scientific evidence was admitted into
court. They set up some specific criteria and stated
that the judges were to be the gatekeepers of what was
and was not legally considered "science."

Now, using the Henry Psychic Method of assuming results,
one would believe that federal and state judges, who have
passed the boards, have massive experience, and have
specific training would understand and correctly apply
these criteria. However, when people actually set down
and asked that question, the results were not what you
would expect. In a questionnaire of judges, it turned
out, for instance, while 88% agreed that "falsifiability"
was an important criteria and that they used it regularly,
only 6% knew what it meant; 91% felt that a known
error rate was important, but only 4% knew what it meant;
only 71% understood the concept of peer review.

If you want to know if someone is actually following
a protocol or instructions, you test for it. You don't
just assume it. It's not hard, Henry. It's done in
medicine *all the time,* and the results of such studies
show that it is important to test for it. And it's
not a meaningless question to ask. Ipse dixit died
years ago, perhaps not before you retired, but in
today's world of inquiry it is by no means meaningless
to actually ask if people are doing things as directed.


billo

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
Another joke that I enjoyed:

"I took an aptitude test to see how I could best contribute to humanity.
The results came back "organ donor".



Heh. That's a lot like an old Medical Examiner joke:

Q) What do Medical Examiners call motorcyclists?
A) Organ donors.


billo

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
billo, your answer satisfies my suspicion that your quest is meaningless
since your first reply clearly shows that it excludes meaningful real world
groups.



Here are two examples of how it should be done.



The first study was a large randomized study of the Atkin's Diet,
which found that the Atkins Diet resulted in good weight loss
for those who stayed on it, but had a very high level of attrition.
In other words, if one stayed with the original group it didn't
work -- because few people stayed on the diet. It is important
to actually test whether people "on the diet" actually are
doing what they are supposed to do:

Foster, et al. A Randomized Trial of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet for
Obesity NEJM 348:2082-2090, 2003.

(begin excerpt)

A total of 49 subjects completed 3 months of the study (28 on the
low-carbohydrate diet and 21 on the conventional diet), 42 subjects
completed 6 months (24 on the low-carbohydrate diet and 18 on the
conventional diet), and 37 subjects completed 12 months (20 on the
low-carbohydrate diet and 17 on the conventional diet). The percentage
of subjects who had dropped out of the study at 3, 6, and 12 months was
higher in the group following the conventional diet (30, 40, and 43
percent, respectively) than in the group following the low-carbohydrate
diet (15, 27, and 39 percent, respectively), but these differences were
not statistically significant. Overall, 59 percent of subjects
completed the study, and 88 percent of those who completed the
six-month assessment completed the full study. When the analysis
included data on subjects who completed the study and data obtained at
the time of the last follow-up visit for those who did not complete the
study, the pattern of weight loss was similar to that obtained when the
base-line values were carried forward in the case of missing data.
Subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet lost significantly more weight
than the subjects on the conventional diet at 3 months (P=0.002) and 6
months (P=0.03), but the difference in weight loss was not
statistically significant at 12 months (P=0.27)

(end excerpt)

See, Henry, you don't just assume that because someone has
received instructions that they follow them. You ask the question,
and compare those who do and do not follow directions.


In this study, compliance
was measured for studying the efficacy of a birth control pill:

F. D. Anderson, H Hait. A multicenter, randomized study of an extended
cycle oral contraceptive. Contraception Volume 68, Issue 2 , August
2003, Pages 89-96

(begin excerpt)

3.2. Compliance

There were two measurements of compliance, which were evaluated by
assessing patient diary data as to whether or not a patient took her OC
pill every day. Pill compliance within each extended or conventional
cycle was determined by observing if the patient missed 2 consecutive
days of pill-taking and, if so, the patient was considered to be
noncompliant for that cycle. Overall, study compliance was determined
by counting the percentage of total days in the 1-year study when the
patient took the designated pill for a given day. Overall compliance of
80% would exclude a patient altogether from the Pearl Index
calculation. Otherwise, noncompliance within a particular cycle would
exclude that cycle only from the Pearl Index. For the life-table
calculation, only the overall compliance criterion was used to exclude
"noncompliant" patients from the cumulative pregnancy rate calculation,
since exclusion of individual cycles from the patient's total would
lead to a noncontinuous, intermittently truncated time frame.

The overall treatment compliance rate in each of the study groups was
very high with 95.4% of extended cycle regimen patients and 93.4% of
conventional regimen patients assessed as compliant. A total of 22
(4.8%) extended cycle regimen patients and nine (4.0%) conventional
regimen patients were discontinued from the study due to noncompliance.
The number of clinically significant protocol deviations was minimal
and no protocol deviations were used to exclude any patients from the
analysis of efficacy or safety. Most protocol deviations were related
to inclusion/exclusion criteria at study enrollment and were not
observed during the active study interval.


(end excerpt)



Now, I know, Henry, that you do consider comparing compliant
vs noncompliant groups "meaningless," but when studying the
effects of therapy -- or the toxicity in adverse effects --
recognizing that one can both measure and separate compliant
from noncompliant groups is important. In the case of looking
at pesticide/herbicide toxicity when used as directed, that
means actually looking at whether or not it is used as
directed.


billo

H. Kuska reply: billo, thank you for your specific examples. Your examples
definitely should clarify to the thread readers how restricted your criteria
is.

billo's statement: "or the toxicity in adverse effects -- recognizing that
one can both measure and separate compliant from noncompliant groups is
important. In the case of looking at pesticide/herbicide toxicity when used
as directed, that means actually looking at whether or not it is used as
directed." and " See, Henry, you don't just assume that because someone has
received instructions that they follow them. You ask the question, and
compare those who do and do not follow directions."

H. Kuska's comment: First I would like to point out that "periodic
recertification by completion of a program of education and examination."
Note the "and examination". Your suggested additional checks are impractical
in the "real world". Even observing and / or asking is not going to give 100
% assurance that a product is going to be used "as directed" when the
inspector is not present. Remember there would be a risk of losing a license
I again submit that this group is as close as one can come to "real world"
assurance that the product is being used as directed. We live in an
imperfect world. You would need closely controlled human subjects (100 %
utilization observation). This is impractical so animal studies are
substituted:

------------------------------------------------------------------

Title: Effect of the herbicide glyphosate on enzymatic activity in pregnant
rats and their fetuses.

Authors: Daruich, Jorgelina; Zirulnik, Fanny; Sofia Gimenez, Maria.

Authors affiliation: Catedra de Bioquimica Molecular, Area Quimica
Biologica, Facultad de Quimica, Bioquimica y Farmacia, Universidad Nacional
de San Luis, San Luis, Argent.

Published in: Environmental Research (2001), 85(3), 226-231.

Abstract: To prevent health risk from environmental chems., particularly for
progeny, the authors studied the effects of the herbicide glyphosate on
several enzymes of pregnant rats. The authors studied 3 cytosolic enzymes;
isocitrate dehydrogenase-NADP dependent, glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase,
and malic dehydrogenase in liver, heart, and brain of pregnant Wistar rats.
The treatment was administered during the 21 days of pregnancy, with 1 wk as
an acclimation period. The results suggest that maternal exposure to
agrochems. during pregnancy induces a variety of functional abnormalities in
the specific activity of the enzymes in the studied organs of the pregnant
rats and their fetuses.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------

But this does not meet your very restricted "criteria" since we are now not
looking at "humans". I still submit that your stated criteria as you have
restricted it is worthless. I am interested in how safe the product is in
real world usage (the intended use, not considering suicide, chemical
warfare, or other utilizations that the manufacture obviously cannot be held
accountable for). An example would be Teddy Bears with removable glass eyes.
A strict interpretation would be that they are safe when used as intended,
but practically they are unsafe in real world use.

The Minnesota paper gives me the type of information I am interested in; and
the reading that I have done suggests, to me, that obstetricians would base
their "real world" advice to pregnant mothers on studies of how dangerous
the product is in the "real world".

I have already presented the March of Dimes information. Here is another:
"Avoid working with chemicals, solvents, fumes and radiation." from
http://www.sogc.org/healthybeginnings/tips.htm home page is
http://sogc.medical.org/index.html These two recommendations are "real
world" recommendations.

Henry Kuska, retired



http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

Second hand smoke - this is another topic which would be more appropriate
for another discussion group; but for those interested, here is the MedLine
search for the keywords "second hand smoke" (to find all articles related to
this subject, a number of different sets of keywords would have to be used
in separate searches):

http://www.scirus.com/search_simple/...on&rankin g=1


Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
Second hand smoke - this is another topic which would be more appropriate
for another discussion group; but for those interested, here is the MedLine
search for the keywords "second hand smoke" (to find all articles related to
this subject, a number of different sets of keywords would have to be used
in separate searches):

http://www.scirus.com/search_simple/...on&rankin g=1


Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/




A more profitable search would be to use the term "passive" rather
than "second hand" and to use MEDLINE.

billo

(Bill Oliver) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Siberian Husky wrote:

And let me also tell you "my strategy". In general, if a message is
longer than 48 lines (two pages in my terminal), I in general lose
interest in reading further.

Then don't read.

I didn't, or actually I seldom. If others' messages cannot express
their keypoint in the first 48 lines at least, I would not be able to
grasp their points. For scientifc journal papers, this is why
abstracts exist.

Now my question for you after listening to three stories from you is,
do you think the current scientific studies on the safety/toxicity of
Roundup is conclusive? For instance, when Roundup is used as directed
on grapes, N days before the harvest, no danger is found. When
Roundup is used on roses, M days before going to the florist shop, no
danger is found.....

Is it possible that one day the scientists realize Roundup combines
with a certain ingredient in pumpkins (or change it to some other
agricultural product if you like) and it forms a highly poisonous
compound, or a dangerous carcinogen?

To sum up, how can we determine something to be "conclusive"? Please
forgive me if I sound naive, because I am no chemist, no biochemist,
no medicine major, and no environmental science background. I am an
average gardener.

There is nothing that says that some day it will be found
that growing one crop next to another will cause both
crops to be poisonous. It has never happened, to my knowledge,
but one cannot rule out everything. Does that mean that
you should never plant crops?

No, but again, people made mistakes in invented chemicals before.
DDT, Thalidomide, ozone-depleting carbon fluorides, you name them.
Compared to mistakes of growing some plant beside another and created
a monster or a poisonous fruit, the latter is few and far between --
not what I can think of.

The only think you know is that after all this looking,
the kind of thing you are talking about has not happened.
That suggests that unless you are doing something novel,
it will not happen. If you believe that one should live
one's life believing that things for which there is no
evidence are about to happen, go ahead. However, most
people look for evidence before drawing conclusions.

We are human beings, not computer programs. Therefore there are
situations where people do not look for evidence before drawing
conclusions, and therefore there are religions in the world.

Okay. But so far I do not think my question is answered, about how
you Bill Oliver decide something is safe or something is not in your
garden. Please note that I myself do not support legislation against
Roundup (so far), and I do not remember anyone in this newsgroup
proposing it. Sure, you have said my memory is flawed, and I told you
I lose interest in reading some certain posts.

I decide that something is safe by looking at the available evidence.
The evidence is that Roundup is safe for humans when used as directed.
Even if the untested hypotheses that certain groups with high exposure
to multiple pesticides and herbicides may be at a slightly higher risk
for rare problems were nor found to be a false lead from noisy
statistics, I would ask if I fall in that group.

Is it safe for non-humans? Of course, Roundup is toxic and should be
toxic for the weeds it is supposed to suppress, but how about the
other plants, pets, honey bees, and your children playing in the yard?

In the very beginning DDT was also safe for humans when used as
directed. Its effect on human beings was not realized until we humans
completed the food chain.

Please be aware I am not refuting your criterion in judging the safety
of Roundup or any other xxxx-cide. You do what you believe. You
benefit from the ease of using Roundup to kill weeds, and you suffer
(if there is such an effect) from Roundup if your criterion is later
found wrong.

But by similar arguments, others can also use their own criteria.

If you swear you would not participate in a class action lawsuit
against Monsanto about Roundup 15 or 20 years later (God forbids),
your being evil, bad, and outrageous will all be forgiven.

What does this have to do with my statement?

If you choose to eat a Big Mac in every meal, I do not think you
should sue McDonald afterwards for your obesity. If you smoke 6 packs
of cigars every day, I do not think you should sue tobacco companies
15 years later. If you believe in Roundup, support it rigorously and
refute others' opposite views, I do not think you should sue Monsanto
later for Roundup -- if later there is a class-action lawsuit.

So the issue boils down to whether you want to err on the safe side or
the dangerous side. Using Roundup or other insecticide is fine for
you if you believe they are safe. Not using Roundup is fine for John
Smith if he believes it is dangerous. Advocating the safety of
Roundup is your freedom of speech, and arguing how bad Roundup can do
to the earth is John's.

That's fine. You can advocate whatever you like on the basis of
taste, aesthetics, religion, or whim. I won't argue with you,
and I won't criticize you.

Just don't pretend you are doing it on the basis of science.

Did I pretend I did it on the basis of science?

Just one reminder. Science is not the solution of everything. There
are tons of mysteries in gardening, botany and zoology which are not
yet solved. One such example is (you can point out I am wrong as I am
not too sure) according to aerodynamics, the hummingbirds should not
be able to fly at all; at least the aerodynamics engineers cannot
explain how they fly.

It seems to me that the article referred by Mr. Kuska noted an increased
risk of birth defects when glycophospate was used in combination with other
pesticides and there has been some debate about how common this is in the
real world, (whatever the real world is). However, most pesticides are
persistent in the environment and end up being stored in the fat of animals
higher up on the food chain, including humans. Most, if not all, of us are
still carrying residues of DDT used long ago in North America, (and still
being used in South America) - as well as residues of pesticides currently
approved. So none of us on the planet are "pesticide free" - although it
would be hard to say whether the amounts present in our blood stream
(released whenever fat is burned for energy) would be at a level sufficient
to activate the increased risk from glycophospate found in this study of
agricultural workers. I guess my point is that "safe when used as directed"
is not quite as straightforward a statement as it might appear, because we
are living in a complex world now of chemical interactions not conceived of
even 100 years ago, when plants were either poisonous or not, or water was
either potable or not........ One need only look at the literature on
prescription drug interactions, as well as drug/food, drug/herb
interactions, to realize that life is seldom as simple as those statements
that appear on labels. On balance, I'd say that many of the chemicals and
drugs discoverd in the past century have vastly improved our lives, but
that's not the same as saying that they are risk-free - and some which were
miracles in their time have created nightmares later, as in the
supermicrobes now resisitant to practically everything in the medical
arsenal.
I think many here are reacting not so much to Round Up as being the
baddest chemical on the block, but rather to the notion that it is wise to
place all of one's faith in a miracle chemical - because the history of the
past century has not borne out that trust.

"gregpresley" wrote in
:

I think many here are reacting not so much to Round Up as being the
baddest chemical on the block, but rather to the notion that it is
wise to place all of one's faith in a miracle chemical - because the
history of the past century has not borne out that trust.

Exactly right, and distrusting anyone who _is_ that faithfull.

Ursa..


--
==================================
Ursa (Major)/ \ *-*-* *
___________/====================================\_______*-*______

X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.50
Lines: 36
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.239.58.11
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net 1063201931 12.239.58.11 (Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:52:11 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:52:11 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:52:11 GMT
Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!small1.nntp.aus 1.giganews.com!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp .giganews.com!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.19 8.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att. net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Xref: kermit rec.gardens:248982

In article 4cf8dc14.0309092251.75c94d86
@posting.google.com,
says...
In the very beginning DDT was also safe for humans when used as
directed. Its effect on human beings was not realized until we humans
completed the food chain.
You've been "drawin" DDT out lately as if it was a six
shooter It's sort of comparing apples to oranges.
The pesticide industry is the second most
regulated/tested industry there is, pharmaceuticals is
number one. The days of pre market testing was nothing
when it came out as compared to todays products. One of
DDT's sister pesticides that was also pulled for
environmental issues (chlordane) actually has gone
through the testing after it was pulled and could
technically be put back into the market as a restricted
use product (don't worry, I doubt that would ever
happen).

Just one reminder. Science is not the solution of everything. There
are tons of mysteries in gardening, botany and zoology which are not
yet solved. One such example is (you can point out I am wrong as I am
not too sure) according to aerodynamics, the hummingbirds should not
be able to fly at all; at least the aerodynamics engineers cannot
explain how they fly.

Think that was the bumblebee.

--

http://home.comcast.net/~larflu/bludf2.jpg


Lar. (to e-mail, get rid of the BUGS!!

Regarding the articles concerning second hand smoke that billo refered to:
I have started a new thread (with links) on an environmental forum for those
who are interested:

http://nature.gardenweb.com/forums/l...0012079.html?1

Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/
"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article , Betsy -0
wrote:
Kindly cite that study about second hand smoke.

No problem.

Enstron, JE, Kabat, GC. Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related
mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98. BMJ. 2003
May 17;326(7398):1057.

It is a study of 35,561 never-smokers with a smoking spouse.

The full text can be found online through pubmed, or directly from
BMJ:

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057




And, please cite all the studies that contradict it.


Read the many comments that the BMJ put online. I will
quote from two.

Perhaps the best was an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association
Journal, which addresses the general habit of obsessing about extremely
small risk factors:


_______ Polemic and public health, CMAJ 169 (3): 181 (2003)


(begin excerpt)

[snip]

The problem with the data on passive smoking (and many other potential
environmental hazards) is that the estimated risks are so close to
zero. The study published in BMJ showed that the risks of heart
disease, lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among
never-smokers living with a smoker compared to never-smokers living
with a nonsmoker were 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85?1.05),
0.75 (95% CI 0.42?1.35) and 1.27 (95% CI 0.78?2.08) respectively, all
statistically insignificant and none very large.

Fifty-three years ago BMJ published research by Doll and Hill on 649
men who had lung cancer and compared their smoking habits with a group
of 649 comparable men who did not have lung cancer.3 The risk (odds
ratio) of lung cancer among smokers compared to nonsmokers was 14.0,
meaning that smokers were 14 times more likely to develop lung cancer
than nonsmokers.

This result is interesting for 3 reasons. First, it is instructive that
this huge increase in risk was not apparent from casual observation:
because most men smoked, the effects of this behaviour were inapparent.
Second, although even these astonishingly high risks were disputed,
this study (and others that followed) marked the start of a long but
steady decline in smoking among men, followed decades later by a
decline in deaths from lung cancer. Third, from the perspective of
almost all current research on environmental hazards, in which odds
ratios of 1.2 (or an increase of risk of 20%) are considered sufficient
to prompt action by public health advocates (or social hygienists?),
perhaps we should ask if we are sometimes overzealous in our attempts
to publicize and regulate small hazards.

It is impossible to control completely for confounding variables in
observational studies. The smaller the risk estimate, the greater the
chance that confounding factors will distort it and invalidate it. This
is not to say that observational studies should be abandoned. Faced
with the results of the recent study we can, as individuals, elect to
change our behaviours and possibly our risk exposures. But, when
interpreting the results and then championing public policy and
legislation to regulate exposure, we must be doubly wary of tailoring
statistics to fit the current fashion. We must be open with our doubts,
honest in our interpretations and cautious in our recommendations.
Exaggerated claims of risk will only erode the credibility and
effectiveness of public health.


(end excerpt)



The second provides an off-the-cuff metanalysis:

Gian L. Turci "What killer? Let's call things with their name."
BMJ Rapid Responses, 19 May 2003

http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32320


The situation on passive smoke is quite simple. The heterogeneity of
the studies militates against a formal meta-analysis, and the general
and admitted weakness of results rather favors a simple eyeball
appraisal. Out of a total of 123 studies (excluding this last one) 16
have shown a risk elevation for cancer, 30 have shown a benefit from
exposure, all the rest failed to demonstrate either way. Out of the 16
studies mentioned above, NONE showed an elevation of risk greater than
20 percent. We all know that in this kind of epidemiology, it takes an
odds ratio elevation of 200% or more just to demonstrate that a
correlation EXISTS.

The US National Cancer Institute affirms that "Relative risks of less
than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret.
Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of
confounding factors [other causes] that are sometimes not evident"- and
this is just an example.

Thus, the 16 studies could not even demonstrate unequivocally the
existence of a correlation. The evidence for other diseases attributed
to passive smoking is even weaker. What killer? Propaganda and
instigation of hysteria (whether done by public institutions or
otherwise) do not constitute proof or evidence -- unless, of course, we
want to tell the truth and use the real names: intolerance and
prohibitionism; but please do not call it scientific demonstration, for
that insults science and intelligence!


billo

In article ,
Siberian Husky wrote:

Just don't pretend you are doing it on the basis of science.

Did I pretend I did it on the basis of science?

Just one reminder. Science is not the solution of everything.


No, science is not the solution of everything. I did not
challenge the anti-Roundup hystterics because they didn't
like it on religious principles, matters of faith, aesthetics,
whatever. I called them on their pretense that their statements
of faith were based on science -- and that they lied about
what the science said in order to do it. That is what
I object to.


billo

In article ,
Lar wrote:
In article 4cf8dc14.0309092251.75c94d86
,
says...
Just one reminder. Science is not the solution of everything. There
are tons of mysteries in gardening, botany and zoology which are not
yet solved. One such example is (you can point out I am wrong as I am
not too sure) according to aerodynamics, the hummingbirds should not
be able to fly at all; at least the aerodynamics engineers cannot
explain how they fly.

Think that was the bumblebee.


.... and a documented urban legend. It is untrue both in the
more common claim that scientists "proved" that bumblebees
can't fly and in the second claim that aerodynamics engineers
cannot explain how they fly.

See:

http://tinyurl.com/mvnb


billo