- #1
SpeedOfDark
- 52
- 0
I'll give you all something to be skeptical about, because secondhand smoke is bogus.
Where did the assumption of secondhand smoke start?
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html
The EPA went to court for this "study" because they downright lied and wrongfully claimed that secondhand smoke was a known human carcinogen.
This guy here who might be slightly radical about debunking, but some of the ideas he uses against it might be thought about and apparently he understands number so he deserves some credit.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
The Case of them Losing
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982407.P.pdf
The reason they lied is because they adjusted the confidence interval to trick people and absolutely cherry picked data they wanted.
Heartland.org speaks out against this
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22150/Wheres_the_Consensus_on_Secondhand_Smoke.html
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23399/Scientific_Evidence_Shows_Secondhand_Smoke_Is_No_Danger.html
A prominent and very well done study that goes against Secondhand smoke, please read it very carefully and note the extensiveness of the study
40 years and over 100,000 people took part in this study and it's conclusion is that second hand smoke has no long term effects and is not carcinogenic
http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057.full
Anyone who would like to combat this information with Secondhand Smoke being carcinogenic please show me a study or something that cites studies.While you may use a "conclusion" by the National Cancer Society or one of those institutions to have me explain to you how there lying it should be pretty obvious by the fact that they cite the EPA study on secondhand smoke. Why would you use a study that was proven to be lying if you yourself weren't planning on lying?
Any takers, any REAL Skeptics?
Where did the assumption of secondhand smoke start?
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html
The EPA went to court for this "study" because they downright lied and wrongfully claimed that secondhand smoke was a known human carcinogen.
This guy here who might be slightly radical about debunking, but some of the ideas he uses against it might be thought about and apparently he understands number so he deserves some credit.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/epa.html
The Case of them Losing
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982407.P.pdf
The reason they lied is because they adjusted the confidence interval to trick people and absolutely cherry picked data they wanted.
Heartland.org speaks out against this
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/22150/Wheres_the_Consensus_on_Secondhand_Smoke.html
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23399/Scientific_Evidence_Shows_Secondhand_Smoke_Is_No_Danger.html
A prominent and very well done study that goes against Secondhand smoke, please read it very carefully and note the extensiveness of the study
40 years and over 100,000 people took part in this study and it's conclusion is that second hand smoke has no long term effects and is not carcinogenic
http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7398/1057.full
Anyone who would like to combat this information with Secondhand Smoke being carcinogenic please show me a study or something that cites studies.While you may use a "conclusion" by the National Cancer Society or one of those institutions to have me explain to you how there lying it should be pretty obvious by the fact that they cite the EPA study on secondhand smoke. Why would you use a study that was proven to be lying if you yourself weren't planning on lying?
Any takers, any REAL Skeptics?