[Osx-nutters] Denial

[Chris Gehlker]

On Aug 15, 2007, at 5:38 AM, Stefano Mori wrote:

> The key word is forecast. As I said earlier, saying that 25% of
> smokers so far have gotten lung cancer is different to saying that in
> future, 25% of smokers will get lung cancer. This is a more complex
> issue than the sun rising, but you'll be interested to hear that the
> point still holds; once you start making forecasts it's a different
> game. We already know from experience that if a smoker starts later
> in life, or if they stop earlier in life, then this considerably
> alters the outcome, ie. they may not get it at all. Changing social
> trends may mean that in future only 10% of smokers get lung cancer,
> and changing work conditions may mean that the 20% of lung cancers in
> women who are non-smoking, may rise to 80% for all we know. For a
> good forecast we need to empirically examine the possibility that one
> day, other causes of lung cancer may be so great that reducing
> smoking doesn't actually reduce the incidence of lung cancer.
> Consider Chernobyl; you say to people, "look guys, just stop smoking
> and you'll be fine". To make your forecast scientific you need to
> first empirically quantify why these other factors are negligible,
> and why your method of quantifying these factors is empirically
> sound. In short, once we start making forecasts the facts are not so
> easy because the facts haven't happened yet.

Stefano,

I'm not sure you have fully  grasped  the subtile beauty of the  
Philip-Morris scientists position. If they were right  about the  
existence of some Q factor that predisposed people to both smoking  
and cancer then any policy that reduced smoking would increase cancer  
rates in both the smoking and  non-smoking populations. I was a great  
example of the PR art.
--
In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks you take.
-Adlai Stevenson, statesman (1900-1965)