Changes

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''':  We have the data that we have.  We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects.  We never will.  Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here.  Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer?  Of course not.  Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it.  Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]].  Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed.  If determined enough, one can often claim that.  The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available.  Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY TO THE ABOVE''':  We have the data that we have.  We don't have a double-blind controlled study of millions of subjects.  We never will.  Smokers went 100 years without the kind of study the naysayers demand here.  Does that mean no one could conclude that smoking causes lung cancer?  Of course not.  Watch your relatives who smoke drop dead and then don't ignore it.  Ditto here for breast cancer and [[Hollywood]].  Tobacco companies to this day claim the studies are inclusive and more studies are needed.  If determined enough, one can often claim that.  The more interesting -- and more important -- challenge is to draw the conclusions that can be drawn from the data that are available.  Look at the very small population of pop female singers and breast cancer incidence, open your minds, and don't deny something that has deadly consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not.  But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it.  I doubt you'd disagree with that?  For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women?  I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths.    [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Mr.Schalfly, you keep suggesting that people are somehow disagreeing about the deadly risks of tobacco, but no-one is - they are incontestable, and the CEO's of tobacco companies, and their lawyers, just look utterly foolish as they make their arguments that they are not deadly.  But this thesis of yours, to be similarly incontestable, needs to be have solid reasoning behind it.  I doubt you'd disagree with that?  For example, if you are suggesting that approximately 1 in 7 is the risk factor for women between 18-45 in the 'Hollywood' industry, and you have listed 20 individuals, are you suggesting that the total population of 'Hollywood' types is really just 140 women?  I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of the maths.    [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 20:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)