werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (07/04/86)
> > One very valid criticism of PSI research is the reliance of raw > statistics on raw data with little attempt to isolate the factors. > A similar parallel might be the research on the effects of smoking > on humans. > The trick was simple. In general, smokers tended to abuse their > bodies more than non-smokers. They ate more fats, sugars, cholestoral. [Misinformation and falsehoods follow] - signed by Rex Ballard In response: Before I go around insulting your intelligence, let me just ask one question, "You were joking weren't you?" Smoking and health ( or the lack of) is one of the best studied epidemiological phenomenon known. It is very robust. The study you alluded to: MR-FIT, wasn't designed to test smoking effects on health - it was designed to test intervention. It was inconclusive because men in both groups quit smoking at relatively equal rate -- but within each group those that quit did better than those that didn't. The above misreading of it was taken out in an ad by Phillip-Morris, and the FDA recently sued them for deceptive advertising (read 'fraud') for even suggesting such a thing (it really was a misrepresentation.) I hope this is all a misunderstanding and your posting was meant as satire, but if it wasn't, it really is scraping the bottom of the barrel of supporting arguments for pseudoscience (psi). -- Craig Werner (MD/PhD '91) !philabs!aecom!werner (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day."
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (07/12/86)
In article <353@aecom.UUCP> werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) writes: >> >> One very valid criticism of PSI research is the reliance of raw >> statistics on raw data with little attempt to isolate the factors. >> A similar parallel might be the research on the effects of smoking >> on humans. >> The trick was simple. In general, smokers tended to abuse their >> bodies more than non-smokers. They ate more fats, sugars, cholestoral. >[Misinformation and falsehoods follow] > - signed by Rex Ballard >In response: > Before I go around insulting your intelligence, let me just ask >one question, "You were joking weren't you?" > > Smoking and health ( or the lack of) is one of the best studied >epidemiological phenomenon known. It is very robust. The study you >alluded to: MR-FIT, wasn't designed to test smoking effects on health - >it was designed to test intervention. It was inconclusive because men >in both groups quit smoking at relatively equal rate -- but within each >group those that quit did better than those that didn't. The above >misreading of it was taken out in an ad by Phillip-Morris, and the FDA >recently sued them for deceptive advertising (read 'fraud') for >even suggesting such a thing (it really was a misrepresentation.) > I hope this is all a misunderstanding and your posting was meant >as satire, but if it wasn't, it really is scraping the bottom of the >barrel of supporting arguments for pseudoscience (psi). I was trying to point out that the same tactics PM used to refute the FDA study are being used to refute PSI studies. Furthermore I was trying to point out that by getting all the factors clearly separated and classified, PSI researchers could get better results. I assume those who quit smoking didn't use the common technique of "taking a walk instead of a puff"? :-). I hope you can see the parallels of the PSI debate here.