Sunday, August 5, 2007

Trust WHO?

(Yes it's a pun).

In this 1998 press release the World Health Organization stated:

The results of this study, which have been completely misrepresented in recent news reports, are very much in line with the results of similar studies both in Europe and elsewhere: passive smoking causes lung cancer in non-smokers (emphasis original)

That's interesting. Considering this quote from the actual study [PDF]:
Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant.

Translation: "Sure we found an increase, except that the increase was not greater than that which could attributed to statistical error. Okay, we didn't really find anything, but hopefully people will only read the press release."

Apparently, the WHO will not let a silly little thing like scientific and academic integrity get in the way of its mission to use the force of government to protect us from ourselves. In bars. While we drink poison.

(H/t: Penn Jillette)

5 comments:

Tim in Italy said...

Don't you hate it when you have to explain your puns?

It always bothers me when government tells me what I can an cannot due with my own body. Has the War on Drugs made us any safer? Is anything unavailable? Passive smoke I can understand. I don't want to inhale something someone has just exhaled... Okay, maybe if it was Zac Efron... As far as drinking goes, I think we're still in the thrall of Prohibition and the crime and violence it caused. I guess it comes down to personal responsibility and that seems to be in very short supply in the US these days. I guess we can get into the ethics of trial lawyers on another day. Why do laboratories sometimes use lawyers instead of rats in their experiments?

Marcus said...

Damon's newsletter sent out Sunday night has tons of people talking about what he says concerning the big gay video murder case.

www.kruezeratnight.com

Here's what he says and OMG! I think he's right on target. Apparently he and Bryan were fairly close, and he's certainly talked a lot with Grant and Sean.

"BOUND BY LIES: SECRETS OF THE FLESH by Damon Kruezer

There are numerous reports of Sean Lockhart and murder victim Bryan Kocis meeting, coming to terms, and being happy with one another once again, including reports of them hanging around with each other at clubs and other places at the Vegas show. According to some, even dancing together.

Bryan told me and several other people that he was really happy to be friends with Sean again, and looked forward to working with him.

This HAD to be Grant Roy's worst nightmare. Bryan had everything Grant did not... money, success, education, and Grant (probably correctly) perceived Bryan as the one person who could take Sean away from him.

It is likely that Grant, who had been in favor of settling the lawsuit, never dreamed that Bryan could turn on the charm and once again get close to Sean.

So if we look at the whole picture in all its complexity, Grant's known temper and apparently uncontrolled hatred for Bryan, combined with the other factors paint one of the most common motives for murder: jealousy.

That, to me, is a much more likely scenario than the "murder Bryan so we can shoot videos with Sean" plan promoted by the police.

This is Damon Kruezer, and that's the KRUEZER VIEW." - DK Newsletter 8/05/07

Pink Elephant said...

Tim, we seem to agree more and more. Is it because I am getting more reasonable, or are you :)

PS: as a budding TRANSACTIONAL lawyer, I completely share your disdain for my LITIGATIVE colleagues.

PPS: It's a pun because WHO can be the acronym for the World Health Organization or an emphasized "who."

Tim in Italy said...

It's well after midnight and Tim is tired. Come stick pins tomorrow. I'll be more responsive then.

Icon said...

Now just hold on a minute, Pinky. (With five medical journals on my desk needing read, I'm not about to read this paper just for the fun of it.) Just examining the two portions that you cited, they are totally unrelated statements. The latter compares the combination of two types of neoplasms (both sarcomas, I believe) with another (adenocarcinoma.) The incidence of sarcomas [read: death] is not statistically different that adenocarcinomas [read: death]. Lung cancer, whether sarcoma or adenocarcinoma, kills you. Period. Please, hire an expert witness to iterpret your medical literature.