Very interesting. Thanks for posting. I have never smoked and can't stand being around smoke. But I wonder if smoking tobacco grown organically inside a greenhouse without any additives is not very harmful?
I'm very skeptical of statistics (example: 50,000 Americans die every year from secondhand smoke). If you think about it, there is absolutely no way to prove that. I also think we should be skeptical of most studies since they are often faked or find the result that the person that funded them is looking for.
Good point about questioning statistics and studies. The way I see it - if the study is implicating a corporation in some kind of wrongdoing and the corporation is spending millions of dollars to cover it up or fund studies that show the opposite conclusion, that’s a pretty good indication that the study is valid.
It’s also worth reading studies and the methodology used, some are much better than others.
I could only read the intro since I'm not a subscriber to that magazine. But I agree that studies critical of the "established narrative" are more likely to be true. But even so, you have to look carefully at their conclusions and recommendations. I'm reminded of the deceitful doctors who spun the "bioweapon" narrative and hawked "special supplements" during the scamdemic to "cure covid" without first examining whether the "covid virus" had been proven to exist (it hadn't). People who fell for that narrative still think that "viruses are contagious diseases" and thus are primed to fall for the next scamdemic.
Side note: The meaning of the word "virus" in Latin means "poison" and I think that is its original English meaning also. So we CAN say that "viruses are poison" but they're not alive and they don't replicate. Just confirmed that virus = poison in the Lewis & Short Latin dictionary:
Very interesting. Thanks for posting. I have never smoked and can't stand being around smoke. But I wonder if smoking tobacco grown organically inside a greenhouse without any additives is not very harmful?
I'm very skeptical of statistics (example: 50,000 Americans die every year from secondhand smoke). If you think about it, there is absolutely no way to prove that. I also think we should be skeptical of most studies since they are often faked or find the result that the person that funded them is looking for.
Good point about questioning statistics and studies. The way I see it - if the study is implicating a corporation in some kind of wrongdoing and the corporation is spending millions of dollars to cover it up or fund studies that show the opposite conclusion, that’s a pretty good indication that the study is valid.
It’s also worth reading studies and the methodology used, some are much better than others.
I’m reminded of this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/
I could only read the intro since I'm not a subscriber to that magazine. But I agree that studies critical of the "established narrative" are more likely to be true. But even so, you have to look carefully at their conclusions and recommendations. I'm reminded of the deceitful doctors who spun the "bioweapon" narrative and hawked "special supplements" during the scamdemic to "cure covid" without first examining whether the "covid virus" had been proven to exist (it hadn't). People who fell for that narrative still think that "viruses are contagious diseases" and thus are primed to fall for the next scamdemic.
Side note: The meaning of the word "virus" in Latin means "poison" and I think that is its original English meaning also. So we CAN say that "viruses are poison" but they're not alive and they don't replicate. Just confirmed that virus = poison in the Lewis & Short Latin dictionary:
https://philolog.us/ls/virus