tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2206739907723081582.post8541270912114129728..comments2023-10-25T10:22:52.127+01:00Comments on Home-The last bastion: Incredibly biased authoritarian twat honouredAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10072165710888952465noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2206739907723081582.post-1785709454478027082009-10-15T21:10:55.353+01:002009-10-15T21:10:55.353+01:00You may not of seen that I had written a reply in ...You may not of seen that I had written a reply in Medical News, I'll give you the benefit now, I called it "It's A Shame His Results Are Not Based On Science."<br /><br />posted by Dave Atherton on 14 Oct 2009 at 6:16 am <br /><br />While I accept much of the evidence on active smoking I most certainly beg to differ with Professor Konrad Jamrozik on second hand smoke (SHS). If I can quote Dr. Gio Gori on the fraud of SHS I am not an "imbecile that needs to be deceived for my own good." The fatal flaw in his 2005 paper below, is that Professor Jamrozik included active smokers in his figures and with 86% of lung cancer occurring in smokers, I think publication bias is the least I can say. <br /><br />On his Estimate of deaths attributable to passive smoking among UK adults: database analysis BMJ 2005 (paid for by ASH) the Rapid Responses in the British Medical Journal were mostly critical and much of it was at a basic research level too. <br /><br />E.g. Dr. Peter Lee Consultant a Consultant Statistician "Overall, the paper must be regarded as speculative and unscientific, adding nothing to the debate on passive smoking." <br /><br />Or Dr. Gio Gori again "We are facing the ugly prospect that the entire epidemiologic literature on ETS is in fact a gross delusion. Should the flagrant inconsistency of the various results surprise?" <br /><br />Alastair G Browne MSc BEng(Hons) "To summarise, this paper is biased and scientifically invalid. It draws upon material produced from other sources and rather than analysing them, accepts them as hard fact---even though it may not have been the case that the authors of the sources in question intended for their papers to be taken as fact. The act of taking potentially false information, then applying statistical analysis to it, results in a completely meaningless set of figures" <br /><br />http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/330/7495/812#99014<br /><br />http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/youropinions.php?opinionid=42655Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com