Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb
From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: net.sci
Subject: Re: Statistics, Smoking, and PSI
Message-ID: <216@cci632.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Jul-86 23:23:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: cci632.216
Posted: Fri Jul 11 23:23:54 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jul-86 05:36:13 EDT
References: <148@cci632.UUCP> <353@aecom.UUCP>
Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Distribution: net
Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY
Lines: 36

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.